The Quran is Critical of Jewish Christian Theology Convert Bookclub Guest Speaker Dr Ali Ataie

the Quran definitely has position regarding Christianity, right? So this idea that the Quran this is more of modern idea that the Quran is not really criticizing orthodox Christianity but rather deviant sort of strands of Christianity. this is this is an idea that is not very well supported. In other words, there are people who push this kind of new philosophy that all of these major religions are all basically just sort of teaching the same thing, right? Kind of like two sides of the same coin, something like that. And it's just not true. because the Quran definitely has an anti-Christian PMIC. When say anti-Christian, I'm not I'm not talking about necessarily hateful towards Christians. but it's critical of Christianity. It's critical of Christian theology. and also critical of of Jewish theology and Jewish practices and beliefs as well. So that's the dominant opinion. don't think that opinion is ever going to change because that's the clear reading of the text. and so one of the things that the Quran presents itself as is restoration of the teaching of Ibraim. So this is very very common theme in the Quran is that the Quran is anchoring itself in the past, right? it's not bringing something new necessarily. So we can call it restoration reformation if you will of the of Ibraim. So there's many many ayat in the Quran that deal with this issue. say God speaks the truth follow the way of Abraham the means like the quintessential monotheist right Ibraimisam worshiped God Allah subhana wa ta'ala we could talk about the name Allah kind of it's ethmology derivation and things like that he was not polytheist he did not associate with god Right. The Quran says Abraham was not Jew or Christian. Okay. So the word Jew wasn't even around at the time of Abraham Ibraim. The word Jew, Yehuda comes from one of the sons of Jacob, right? So, Jacob is the son of Isaac, who was son of Abraham, right? So, if you go online or something and you type in who is who is Abraham, it'll it might say something like an ancient Jewish patriarch. Well, that's that's called an anacronism. Historians refer to that as an anacronism. That means something that's not possible chronologically. it's like saying for example you know Abraham Lincoln drove Hyundai. Well that didn't exist at the time. but if someone doesn't know any better you might trick them into believing that's true. The car wasn't invented during his life. and so Abraham can't be Jew. so the Quran is reasoning with people of the book. You can even translate that people of the Bible because the word Bible means kab means book. Biblon in Greek means book. So it depends on the context but when the Quran is criticizing Jews and Christians and refers to themat we can probably translate that as people of the Bible. and then Christian comes obviously from Christ, right? the term Christian Christ from the Greek Christos which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, right? And so Abraham was not Christian either. The Christians did not exist until the first century of the common era and Ibraim was you know 1800 B.CE something like that. so the Quran is making an argument what did exist were was Islam submission unto God right this concept this is this is the name of the religion of of Ibrahim I've been on many interfaith panels and I've asked rabbis asked one of one of these rabbis said they said what was Moses Jew and he said no mean he he could not have been Jew because although he was from from the children of Israel. He's descendant of Jacob. the word Jew at his time meant from the tribe of Judah. And Moses is not from the tribe of Judah. Moses is from the tribe of Levi. So if Moses were to walk into this mosque right now and were to ask him, are you Jew? He would say, no, I'm Levite. He would not know what mean by Jew as like the name of religion. He would think was referring to tribe, right? and so, and so the the word Jew as we know it today is very different. So, so asked the rabbi, said, "What was the name of his religion?" And he said, don't know. We don't know that." And then he said, "Maybe something like Islam or something like that, conceivable submission unto God." and so the Quran posits itself as restoration of the teaching of of Ibraimisam and that Ibraimam was Muslim in the sense that he submitted unto God. Not Muslim in the of the prophetam obviously that's an anacronism but all of the prophets were Muslim. This is the argument of the Quran. All of the prophets practiced al-Islam right and it was perfected with the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam who's the final messenger. Right? So that even Jesus was Muslim. David, Solomon, these are all Muslim prophets. In terms of the Quran's christologology or his position about Jesus, there are certain things that the Christians get right and certain things they get wrong. Right? So they so this area is called christologology which means the study of Christ, the study of the Messiah. Right? And so there's what's known as positive christologology. What is the Messiah and who is the Messiah? It's called positive christologology. And so in terms of what is the Messiah, Jews and Muslims agree that the Messiah is human being, right? He's 100% human being and nothing more than human being, right? So we have that in common with Jews. Christians they also believe by the way that he's 100% human being but he's also 100% divine right so he has two natures so it's not 50/50 he's not like demigod that's not at least not the orthodox Christian position it's 100 100 we that makes 200% that doesn't make any sense well it's it's mystery of the incarnation right but this what they believe so ultimately it's mystery right So it's 100% human and 100% God. Right? So for example in the New Testament when when Jesus says in Matthew that of that day knoweth no man the day of judgment not the angels not even the son referring to himself but only the father. The Christian response here is well he's speaking as man here as man he doesn't know. This is reflection of his human nature. But in the gospel of John, he says, "The father and are one." you see, he's speaking as God now. Right? So, this is how they reconcile these apparent contradictions in the scriptures where in John he apparently is claiming to be divine and in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke he seems to be less than divine or lesser divinity. so they'd reconcile these things and say well he has two natures right this type of thing. don't think it's very convincing but this is this is how they approach their texts. and so and then terms of who is the Messiah. So what what is what is the essence of the Messiah? We have that in common with Jews. Human being 100% not defined whatsoever. Right? The Quran says Very interesting way to phrase it that the Messiah was no more than messenger. Many were the messengers before him and his mother was woman of truth, right? Defending his mother because in the Talmud it says very very horrible things about Miam and and then it says they both ate food. Mary and Jesus used to eat food. So the argument here is that God is independent. God is he has what's known as oity. He doesn't require anything. He doesn't need anything. Doesn't need nourishment. and so how can Mary and Jesus be divine beings when they used to eat food? Because that requires that makes them needy of something in order to be they need to be sustained. And so God does not is not fed but he feeds as the Quran says he feeds but is never fed. Doesn't require anything. He has sad total independence. and then in terms of who is the messiah right here we have Muslims are in common with Christians against the Jews right so the Jews do not accept Jesus of Nazareth peace be upon him as being the Messiah right for them he didn't fulfill certain criteria that they believe the Messiah would fulfill but Christians and Muslims both believe that Isaam is the Messiah Okay. And part of his role was to bring to to confirm certain aspects of the law of Moses but also to bring spiritual teaching called the injid and then they tried to kill him. God saved him according to our position and delayed his sort of earthly rule or his political kingship until towards the end of time. Will he ascend again and fulfill that part of his mission? and Christians believe that as well, second coming of Jesus, something we have in common. The Jews don't believe that. The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. and so, for them, the Messiah is definitely political leader, who's going to rebuild the temple, who's going to fight wars and things like that. So, for them, Jesus didn't fit the bill, as it were. and so, we have that in common with the Christians. the identity of the Messiah. and then the Quran also tells us that Isaam never preached his own divinity. He never claimed to be God. He never claimed to be the literal son of God. He never claimed that he's the second person of trinity. these things were much later adaptions or additions to to the Christian tradition. So very early on there was two streams of Christianity. And this is something that most people don't know, even most Christians don't know, is that Jesus had brother named James. What does brother mean? There's difference of opinion. Some say, "Yeah, it's half brother." that Mary got married after she gave birth to Jesus and had child. Others say no, James is sort of his foster brother or cousin or something like that. but James was the head of the early Christian movement for 30 years after the departure of Jesus. So there's Jamesian Christianity and then there's Pauline Christianity. And scholars of history tell us that these two early traditions of Christianity were very much at odds against each other. They had fundamental difference of opinion about Jesus and things like that. so the New Testament is primarily almost would say all of it is written by Pauline Christians. That's sort of just one of these early traditions. So James Christianity is not really represented in the New Testament. What how do we know what James believed about Jesus? Well, there's different sources that we can look at. There's historical sources and things like that. I'm not going to bore you with those things, but there is something in the New Testament called the Epistle of James. Although Christians, sorry, most historians don't believe that James actually wrote that. however they do contend that James's positions are probably represented well by that epistle. In that epistle there's no mention of the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the vicarious atonement of Jesus, none of that. Okay? So it appears that for the Jamesian Christians, the apparent death of Jesus did not figure into their theology whatsoever. Right? and so and then we notice certain contradictions in the New Testament itself. like Paul, Paul would say that in order for you to go to heaven, you have to believe that Jesus is Lord and that he rose from the dead. And think if you ask any Christian you see today, how do get to heaven? That that's going to be their answer. You can you can test this out. You go up to Christian and say, how do go to heaven? They're going to say, you have to believe that Jesus is Lord. he's your savior and that he died for your sins and that he was resurrected. Right? guarantee you 99.9999% of the time that's the response they'll give you and they're essentially paraphrased to Paul. But Jesus himself in the gospels was asked this very question right in three gospels. You know Luke 188 Luke 18:18, Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18. How do get to heaven? And he says, "Follow the commandments. Follow God's commandments and you shall enter the life." That's very different than what Paul says, right? And there's really no way to reconcile these two positions. Of course, Christians have tried and you can you can make anything. You can reconcile any contradiction if you try hard enough. You can convince someone that black is white. If you try hard enough and if you're gifted in your sophistry, you can convince anyone of anything. But just looking at the plain meaning of the text, these are two different ways of salvation. I'll give you another example in the Lord's prayer in Matthew and Luke. you know Jesus prays he says pray like this our father who are in heaven etc. Right? And then he says forgive us our sins as we forgive those who are indebted to us. That's from the Lord's prayer. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who are indebted to us. Now if you ask Christian at random again how does how how can be forgiven by God? You'll say the only way to be forgiven is if blood is shed. He's paraphrasing Paul again in Hebrews. Although Hebrews is anonymous, Christians believe Paul wrote it. There's no forgiveness of sin unless blood is shed. This is what it says in Hebrews 9:22. There has to be some blood that has to be shed or else God can't forgive you. Right? That's from Paul. But here in the Lord's prayer, what does he say? Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who are indebted to us. Okay. So what does that mean? So someone who's indebted to you owes you money. He's your debtor. Okay. So if someone owes you money, you can just forgive them and say, "Okay, you don't owe me anything. You can just and that's it." You can just say, "No, don't worry about it." And you're not going to say, now you have to pay his debt." No, you just forgive. So Jesus is saying in the Lord's prayer, this is how God forgives sins. He just lets it go. He just forgives it. This is very different than what Paul is saying, than what most Christians around the world are saying as to how God forgives sins. in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there's story of paralyzed man who's lowered through the roof and Jesus heals him and he says to the man, you know, because of your faith, your sins are forgiven. You know, he didn't at that point Jesus didn't say, "Okay, go kill chicken or go kill goat or he didn't start bloodletting and say, "Hold on, no, before forgive you, have to shed some blood." No, nothing like this. He told the man that because of your faith, God has forgiven your sins. That's how God forgives. This is very different than what Christianity teaches. Okay? Because Christianity by and large is Pauline Christianity. It's based on the teachings of Paul and the letters of Paul dominate the New Testament. More than half of the New Testament is written by Paul. Okay? And so there's different ways of Christians how Christians try to reconcile these differences. lot of them don't even know there's contradiction to be honest with you. They just don't know. Even scholars, you point out these things Christians who have PhDs and they're just dung. yeah, that that is different. You know, it's like the man, the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and said, "How do go to heaven?" And Jesus tells him, "Follow the commandments and you'll go to heaven." Right? Now imagine that rich young ruler let's say he just he okay he went with that started following the commandments and and then 20 years later he sees man coming to city preaching the gospel and it's Paul so he walks up to Paul and he says what are you saying and Paul is saying in order for you to go to heaven you have to believe that Jesus died for your sins and then he says to Paul who who told you that and he Paul says had revelation of Christ this rich young ruler would say, met Jesus in person who told me to follow the commandments." So there there's big difference there. What do you do with that? So is Jesus like was he like lying to me or are you lying? What's going on here? Right? So there's incoherence in the New Testament. Major incoherence. and so Islam really is trying to restore the religion of Jesus, not the religion about Jesus. So that's good distinction to make. Islam is religion of Jesus, not the religion about Jesus. and so and then in terms of the Trinity, the Quran is very clear. The Quran says, and I'll just I'll wrap this up. don't want to make this too long. You can have some back and forth if if you like. The Quran says don't say three. Sometimes that's translated as trinity. It could mean trinity, but literally the Quran says don't say three in the context is about Christianity. So this opens up the meaning wider. So don't say three persons. This is like you know Catholic trinitarianism, Orthodox Trinitarianism. There's three persons, one essence. Don't say that. Don't say three gods or three essences. That's monarchian called monarch, sorry, monarchical trinitarianism where they actually say there's three gods, but one of them is the god because he's the father and the source of the other two gods. Don't say three, father, son, spirit. Don't say three, father, son, mother because there were conceptions of the trinity which included Mary. These were called the kaleridians. Okay. So, just don't say three. This is not the teaching of Jesus, peace be upon him. Teaching of Jesus was that God is one. He very likely did not claim to be divine in any way. so all of these sort of institutions that are in Christianity. I'll give you one last example like the the Eucharist, right? The last supper on Sunday, Christians go to church and they drink wine. They eat bread, right? And in the Catholic tradition, this is supposed to represent the the body and blood of Jesus. And Catholics believe that the bread literally turns into the flesh of Jesus. It's literal transformation. It's called transubstantiation. Now, if you're there, you you'll look at the bread and you'll see it still looks like bread. Yes. So, the accidents remain bread. It looks like bread. It smells like bread. Tastes like bread. But they'll say the essence has changed into the literal flesh of Jesus, into the flesh of God. So you're eating God. And this this idea has nothing to do with Judaism. There's no parallel to this in Judaism. But in the ancient Mediterranean, in these what are known as these mystery pagan religions, this very common practice is called theophagi. Fafopagi like fyos means god and then fago in Greek means to eat like esophagus right it's how you it's the food goes down your esophagus which means like going down when you eat so eating your god this was believed by the ancient pagans when you did this something of the power of this god would actually empower you that's the point of theophagy so the Christians the pauline Christians adopted this pagan practice. So, it doesn't make sense historically that first century rabbi in the Galilee who's celebrating Passover seder who's claiming to be the Messiah is passing around wine and saying, "Drink this. This is my blood." That doesn't make lot of sense historically because blood is considered to be it's haram. You know, Leviticus 3:17, you shall not drink blood. An everlasting statute, do not drink blood. But Christians around the world, they celebrate their faith through this major sacrament of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of of God. Right? So, so this idea has nothing to do with Judaism. It's pagan practice that was adopted into Christianity. And there's many examples like this. and so you know this idea that God has son, literal son. The Quran says this is what the pagans of old used to say, right? so if you go back in time, this idea of dying and rising savior, man, God who dies for your sins. You go back as far as ancient Sumeriia, right? Inana, right? Or sometimes called Ishtar, who was actually woman god, the daughter of god who was crucified in the underworld and resurrected. You have many other examples like Horus and Mithras and Dianisces and so this is not new idea. This idea of divine son of God who dies for your sins vicariously. This is not the teaching of Jesus most likely historically. just to give you one last example then I'll stop talking. if you're in conversation with Christian you can ask them you can say you know what in in in the gospel of Luke Jesus gives parable called the parable of the prodigal son. Ever heard this before my my prodigal son returns right? so he says that man has two sons. One of them stays with him, the other one goes out and he lives this really horrible lifestyle where he, you know, he kind of just blows all of his inheritance and or his money and know he engages, you know, illicit activities and he loses all his money, ends up sleeping pig pen. so he just destroys his life, right? He's prodical musurif, you know, he's he's very extravagant and etc. anyway, and so after some time he comes back to his father and his father sees him in distance and they hug each other and his father says to him, "My this son of mine was lost and is now found, was dead and is now alive." So what is the point of this parable? What's what's the point? What's what's the lesson that Jesus is trying to teach here in the Gospel of Luke? Is he trying to teach, you know, blood magic through substitutionary atonement? Is that is that the point of the parable? No. Nobody died. He didn't kill his son. There's no blood being shed. The whole point of the parable is Toba, his repentance. That's the whole point. This is the teaching of Jesus is that in order to be reconciled to God, one simply needs to ask for forgiveness and God forgives the person. No one needs to die for your sins. God does not need to kill his own son who is essentially himself according to trinitarian belief right because the son is fully God 100% God right so according to trinitarianism the father is god right the father is that is is called is of identity meaning they're one and the same the father is god for example if say Clark Kent is superman they're one and the They also say the son is God and that's also the is of identity. The son is the same one and the same as God. Right? but then they'll say but the father is not the son. You see that's there's problem here. There's logical problem. So for example, if say Clark Kent is Superman, my next statement, Khalel is Superman, but Clark Kent is not Khal. So there's only one Superman. That doesn't make any sense. That's logical problem. And they admit there's logical problem here. But the issue is why embrace such things. They say, "Well, it's in the New Testament." It's nowhere in the New Testament. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Yeah. It's based loosely upon the New Testament, but there's nothing explicit in the New Testament that says there are three in heaven and these three are one. There's no verse, authentic verse like this, right? so maybe we'll stop at that point if you have any questions or comments. don't want to ramble for too long. Alhamdulillah. Wow. Mashallah, that's just amazing, Dr. Tai. And the more you sit with him, if you're blessed and privileged to be in his company, you just you never stop learning. And that the type of information we get from him is is is is hardressed to find authentically elsewhere. So we're so grateful and blessed to be in his company. So yeah, we'll open it up in we'll open it the floor up for dialogue and questions with Dr. Ali. will start with the live stream to see if there's any questions. don't think this is question. Yeah, that's not question. So we'll open to the floor here inshallah and then if anything comes into the live stream I'll I'll I'll I'll read that out and we can have some dialogue. But yeah for those in person in hope we yeah we can start we can bring the mic in. Don't be shy. you had talked about the two different branches of Christianity that kind of came about. So at that time was there any kind of hostility between them like we see or like we've seen historically with so many other different types of religions how they kind of had hostility? Good question. Was there hostility between the two early branches? Yeah. mean, unfortunately, the the earliest Christian writings were written by Paul and we don't have writings from any other apostle. Even though Paul is actually not disciple of Jesus, Christians consider him an apostle. We really have nothing from his period from anyone other than Paul. so it's kind of like having it's kind of like hearing one side of phone conversation, right? So if you're listening to someone talk on the phone, you can hear what like if I'm talking on the phone, you can hear what I'm saying, but you can't hear the person I'm talking to. So if say, for example, no, did go to the mosque last night, you can sort of guess what this other person is saying that did not go to the mosque last night, right? But you don't know for certain what they're saying, but you can make an educated guess. so in Paul's letters, Paul has enemies, and Paul's enemies are diverse. It's not just like pagans. It's not Jews that don't believe in Jesus. His main enemies are other believers in Christ. They're other Christians, right? And he identifies his enemies as men sent from James. Men sent from James. And then he accuses James and Peter and Barnabas and John of hypocrisy. He calls them so-called pillars. So there's lot of there's what they would say there's lot of beef between Paul and James. We don't know exactly the nature of that conflict, but it's very deep-seated and it's very it's very significant. So, for example, give you an example. Paul goes to city called Galatia and he evangelizes them with what he calls my gospel. He uses that phrase three times, my gospel, which which means that there's another gospel. And he does say that there's another gospel already at his time and another Jesus, he says. Right. so, he goes and he evangelizes Galatia, which is in in Turkey. And then he leaves Galatia. And then he hears that missionaries from James are sent into Galatia after he's he has left after Paul had left. And they start correcting Paul's deviant teachings. So Paul turns around and writes the letter to the Galatians, his one of his letters in the New Testament where he really just kind of unloads on the Galatians, right? So based on what he's saying to the Galatians, based on the subtext of what he's saying, we can sort of back into what the Jamesian apostles were saying to the Galatians. So for example, in James 3, sorry, Galatians 3:1, Paul says, stupid Galatians, who has bewitched you? Didn't clearly portray Jesus before your eyes as crucified?" Very interesting statement. In other words, didn't didn't tell you Jesus was crucified? Didn't portray him? Didn't describe him as crucified? So, it seems like the Galatians were told by the Jamesian missionaries that Jesus was not crucified. Now, we don't have statement like that anywhere because we don't have any authentic letter from James, but you can sort of back into that into that statement plausibly. That's probably what they were saying. and then so that's one way of going about it. is to read Paul's letters which are the earliest Christian writings in the New Testament and then and then sort of back into the beliefs of Paul's opponents, Christian opponents who had fundamental difference of opinion with Paul on many many issues. That's one way of doing it. And then also we're told by you know Josephus who was first century Jewish historian that James was the leader of the of the the Nazarines. they were called the Nuts Nasara for 30 years until his death in 62. and that you know, James was devoted to the Torah. and that, he did not believe that Jesus was divine, you know, that doesn't make any historical sense, or that he even died for our sins, this type of thing. and so few books that recommend few authors recommend Dr. Robert Eisenman he he talks about this early conflict Dr. Jeffrey Buts talks about this conflict Dr. James Taber and Dr. Jeffrey Buts who's an ordained Lutheran minister actually he says in his book James Brother of Jesus he says that it's interesting I'm paraphrasing he says that Islam actually is closer to the original Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus than Pauline Christianity. So Islam sort of restored that original christologology that was that was lost or overtaken by Pauline elements. and so so there's evidence of it in the New Testament. but also we have to sort of look at other historical sources of that time. It's just very weird that James who's leading the early church for 30 years we don't have any of his authentic letters. So you only have one side of the story. That's that's big problem. Thank you, doctor. So we have three questions right now from the live stream. So we'll we'll start with those inshallah and then we'll open it back to the floor. So the first one's little bit technical. So it's question about what are your thoughts of Christians using relative identity as solution to the logical problem of the trinity? So you know relative identity, the three sharing in the same substance but of course being distinct in their personage. Very classical example. So if you could just please you know elaborate on that. Yeah, mean certain there are certain analogies that Christians will certainly use like the analogy of water H2O, right? Water exists in three states but it's always H2O exists as liquid vapor and ice. But what the trinity is saying is that if so in order for that analogy to work, those very same molecules, the same exact molecules would have to be water, vapor and ice. There's different molecules, three different states. so the father is God. When Christians say the father is God, again that's an is of identity. They're one and the same. And Aquinus, he says that there's only virtual distinction of person. In fact, there's there's which means that it's only sort of conceptual, right? That that they're that they're actually one one entity, right? That it's it's divine simplicity doctrine that he believes in. and so that the analogies don't quite work and Christians actually admit they don't quite work. Like the egg analogy, the egg is three, but it's one. There's yolk, there's shell, there's white. so that Christian theologians will say that is useful to get us to certain point but then the analogy breaks down and it has to break down because God is transcendent. So for example if take the egg and break it and put the shell over here the shell by itself is no longer egg. can't call the shell egg but if you take the sun in the trinity and you isolate him the sun is fully god. All right. and so yeah, they'll use these kind of analogies, but ultimately they don't work. By their own admission, they don't work. There's no adequate analogy. Or they'll say, for example, you have like three three species of of shark, right? You have great white shark, hammerhead shark, and whale shark. The great white shark by itself is 100% shark. But the great white shark doesn't have hammerhead. It's missing an accident or quality that the hammerhead has. That doesn't mean the great white shark is any less shark. It's still completely shark. So the son of god, the son of god, even though he lacks certain attributes of the father, for example, he lacks oi. He lacks independence, doesn't mean that he's any less divine than the father. Right? mean, don't know if that's very good argument because aceti seems to be an intrinsic quality of god. Aceti means sadia, like you're you're unerived. You're unoriginated. The fact that the son is derived from the essence of the father to me seems like the son is lesser divine being if he's even divine divine being at all. So yeah, they'll use these different analogies. and ultimately, you know, we sort of recede into mystery. But the point is why use these analogies? don't think don't think they're warranted. don't think the Trinity is taught by the New Testament. don't don't know if the New Testament is monotheistic, but it's certainly not Trinitarian. It's somewhere in between, think. Great. And just to add little bit to that, St. Thomas Aquinus the famous Christian theologian in his suma theologica he brings very similar analogy when he refers to the trees and the different parts of the trees the roots the branches the leaves but ultimately you know because he falls into the same failure to logically demonstrate the trinity as you mentioned doctor he uses the tree analogy in different way saying that the reason why we can't 100% identify the reality of the trinity using the tree is because it would be as if you're showing the tree to someone who's never seen tree before. So they can't conceptualize its different pieces to understand its true entity. And so because none of us have seen God in his triune form, there's no way for the rational human brain to contextualize it and adapt it to their mind frame. We don't have the capability, which think we would agree with is that we can't fully actualize God in our current state, in our intellectual capacities. But certainly just saying that because we have no knowledge of seeing God, we can't we have to understand that he's triune God made up of different relative persons. It doesn't really work. So even Aquinus himself admits that it doesn't work. So even some of their greatest theologians just fall short of of quote unquote proving that they're triune God. It's always leap of faith, but it seems to be rather large leap of faith. So alhamdulillah. Okay. So, the next question we have for Dr. Ali is this is broken up little bit, so I'll try to put it together. So, he says I've been recently seeing Christians propose this idea of of Quran to sorry, have to piece this together of the Quran taking stories from the Torah and mixing them up saying that the Quran steals from Jewish midash. So, how do you debunk this? the Quran Torah dilemma they made up and called it. don't know if you can Yeah, they're always coming up these weird dilemmas. Yeah, come up with some dilemmas too for Christians. like there's one dilemma. If you ask Christian at random, where does Jesus claim to be God in the New Testament, 99% of the time they're going to say something from the Gospel of John, the father and are one. Before Abraham was, am or the quote prologue, in the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God. Okay. Well, where are those statements in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Matthew was supposed to be disciple of Jesus. Luke is student of Paul. This is according to tradition. And Mark is student of Peter. Why did they miss all of these divine claims? so what are they just bad reporters? or did they hear those statements and not record them because they thought they were inauthentic? So there's dilemma there. in terms of this idea, so the Quran is mad dip. The Quran says very clearly in many many places that it performs something called tasik which is confirmation of certain stories in the Bible. You know the Quran has flood narrative. The Quran has an Exodus narrative. The Quran talks about Ysefam and things like that. Talks about Isaam. But the Quran is also corrective. The Quran is mu which means an overseer or supervisor aan criterion. so certainly there's correction happening in the Quran. To give you an example, the Quran denies that Jesus was crucified. No one can no one can deny that. No one can deny. So the in the New Testament, Jesus is crucified. There's no doubt about it. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Paul says it many many times. The Quran says explicitly. They did not they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but was made to appear so unto them. So the Quran is correcting Christian narratives. There's no doubt about this. in terms of you know midrashim and things like that there is debate there's there's debate as to you know an academic debate you know the the genesis genesis ra midrash the famous taps or midrash of the book of genesis you know when was this written fourth century fifth century this this midrash was an open text mean people were adding things to it it was not closed text it is very much open and there's debate that lot of these stories in the midrash they're actually based upon the Quran not the other way around. so this idea, the Quran is taking story of Abraham being thrown into fire. It's taking that from Jewish midrash. There are scholars who say it's the other way around. And there's good argument to be made, good academic argument to be made that no in fact Jewish midrashim are taking this from the Quran. You see and so that's one way of dealing with with the so-called dilemma. Another way of dealing it with this dilemma is the so-called dilemma is that yeah, there are certainly things that survived in oral tradition that might actually go back to the ancient Israelite prophets that simply weren't written down in the Torah but survived in oral tradition that have basis in Revelation. and so that's another way of of dealing with that. It's not it's not real problem though. It's not dilemma whatsoever. so yeah that's great. Dr. Ali always he has very good talks he gives on the Quran as muan and one of my favorite examples that he uses is the story of of Joseph of Ysef Alisam. if you know if the Quran was quote unquote stealing from the the Torah and the Injil in the Torah you have Joseph being around pharaoh where in the Quran you have king and this is historical correction because there was no pharaohs at that time. It was later edition. So if the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam if he was you know making up this Quran as some of these people claim then you know he would have to be really intelligent man which of course he was but he'd also have to be very well read and of course we know he's the unlettered prophet. So the claim from the Jews and Christians lot of the times is that the prophet sallall alaihi wasallam he had people like or others you know I've heard that sa Omar you know he you know was taking manuscripts of Jewish texts and providing him to the prophet. So these claims that you know okay yes he was unletter but he had other people bringing this information to him is unsubstantiated because you know these people that are entrenched in their own traditions why would they want to discredit their own texts right so why would they bring corrective texts to the prophet to put in the Quran to debase their own traditions so we see that historical correction is something that's that's larger than the Quran so it just makes more sense to understand the Quran as corrective great. So, next question we have here is when Paul says in Acts, persecuted the followers of the way to their death," is he admitting being involved in murdering the true apostles of Jesus? mean, Acts is, you know, there's there's new there's new scholarship on Acts. lot of scholars are now leaning towards early 2nd century composition. So, that's, you know, it's quite late. mean Paul lived in the 50s. Isaam lived in the 30s. So Paul so so the book of Acts seems to be sort of this revisionist kind of whitewash history to downplay really you know this these major conflicts between Paul and James that are that are very apparent in the subtext of Paul's letters which were written in the 50s and 60s. and so axes it's it's it's you know it's it's ancient Greek history and the genre of ancient Greek history is that you can make up the dialogue according to what you think is plausible. So and that's that's totally acceptable for the Greek historians. So for example, Thusidities in his famous history of the Pelpeneisian war he admits that he he is the actual author of Pericles's funeral oration the famous speech of Pericles the Athenian general because you know he didn't have transcript of what Pericles said. it was basically written by Thusidities. so that's how ancient historians operated. they would make up the dialogue according to what they believed was sensible. and so Luke is writing the book of Acts and if you read the book of Acts, Peter and Paul sound like the same person. They sound like almost they sound like exactly the same person, same type of terminology, same you know style of speaking. And the reason is because they are the same person. It's it's basically Luke inventing the speeches of both men. So, is this really something that happened to Paul? Paul does not describe his conversion in his own letters. You know, it's mentioned three times in the book of Acts, which was written by Luke, whoever Luke was. Some say companion of Paul, but that seems unlikely because we don't have any manuscript of the the book of Acts or the Gospel of Luke that's dated to the first century. So that's major problem there. and so that's certainly what appears to be according to the book of Acts that they were that he was persecuting the earliest followers of Jesus. But we have to take this with grain of salt because again acts is so late and it's meant to sort of smooth over these differences of the early church in terms of differences between Peter and Paul or James and Paul. Great. Great. the next question here we have we have two more from the online and then we'll we'll open it back to the floor here. So it says when the Jews argue that Jesus failed the messianic checklist of rebuilding the temple etc. How does the Islamic position on al- messia navigate this? And is the second coming valid answer? Yeah. So this idea of third temple don't buy it. don't think there's any prophecy of third temple in the Bible. you know there's there's prophecies during the exilic period of the building of the second temple right and those prophecies came true with Zerubabel. Some people thought he was the Messiah Zerubabel because he was the chief architect of the second temple. This is in the 6th century BCE. But Zerubbabel never became king. He never became anything more than Persian appointed governor. And so the prophecy during the exilic period, there's really two streams of prophecy. So there's the rebuilding of the of the temple which was done. and then there's the coming of the Messiah who will do something to the temple. He might rebuild it or he might cleanse it. He might purify it. He might rededicate it. Something like that like Hezekiah. So the future Messiah is manifestation or you can say Hezekiah is foreshadowing of the future Messiah to come. So Hezekiah he did not rebuild the temple from nothing. He purified and and rededicated the temple the the Jewish king Hezekiah. So when Isaam he comes into Jerusalem according to the gospels the first thing he does is he cleanses the temple and rededicates it right and this mentioned in four gospels twice in John so this seems to pass what's known as multiple attestations so he probably did do something like this this seems historical most historians would say he probably did do something like that because it's mentioned in all four gospels and also because it seems to be out of character. from Christian or Pauline perspective, like in Pauline Christianity, Jesus dies for your sins. He's lamb led to the slaughter. He does not defend himself. He's nonviolent. Turn the other cheek. Resist not evil, etc., etc. But suddenly here, we're told that Jesus goes into the temple precincts. He makes whip. He starts whipping people and kicking people out of the temple precincts, turning over tables, kicking out their animals, telling them, "You've you've turned my father's house into den of thieves." so on and so forth. So think the reason why he did that is because there was an expectation at the time that the Davidic king Messiah would cleanse and rededicate the temple and that's what he did. That's claim to be the Messiah and he did that. Now why did the Jews in that area accept him immediately then as the Messiah? think many did but the Pharisees at the time who were sort of the religious establishment they hesitated and the reason is because Isaam at that time when he did that the first thing he did was he started criticizing the Pharisees right so before we can have type of political revolution Isaam wanted to wanted to reform them internally spiritually right to make them worthy of the kingdom because there was so much hypocrisy and corruption and so on and so forth. So Isa is highlighted for example in Matthew 23 the seven woes woe unto you scribes and Pharisees. So so from our perspective yeah he he could have he could have manifested that political leadership during that time. but first things first, he's there to reform his people internally and spiritually. but the Pharisees lost patience with him, think, because he was criticizing them. He was only there for couple of days. So what the Pharisees did is they said, "Okay, here's what we're going to do. We're going to put him in in conflict with the Romans because they knew that the Romans would have no mercy on anyone who has political aspirations, right? they wouldn't hesitate for second to crucify any would-be zealot insurrectionist Jew claiming to be the king and things like that. So think the Pharisees went to the Romans and said this man here is claiming to be the king of Israel, the king of the Jews, right? so they they backed Isaam into corner. so that now it's either kill or be killed. So they wanted and and there's some scholars who believe that Judas Scariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, if you believe in Judas Scariot, that that was his intention. His intention was to put Jesus into trouble with Roman authorities in order for Jesus to suddenly manifest the sword and start killing the Romans and and and freeing the Holy Land from the Roman pagan colonizers. So they plotted and planned and God planned. So instead of forcing Jesus's hand, right, to pick up the sword and manifest his messianic leadership as political messiah. God removed him from the earth and delayed that aspect of his messianism. so would say no. would say there's no there's no there's nothing clear in the Old Testament about the Messiah building third temple. don't think there's anything about third temple in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Jesus peace be upon him in the New Testament never talks about third temple. so that think that's later development within Orthodox Judaism as way of justifying disbelief in Jesus as the Messiah. he had to build third temple. think when the temple was destroyed in 70 of the common era, that's when lot of the Jews at the time said, the there must be third temple then because we they didn't anticipate." So to to to posit the idea that the Jews before Jesus knew that there was going to be third temple means that they knew that this second temple would some someday be destroyed. don't think anyone knew that. don't think they anticipated that. So that doesn't make sense to me. Let's believe in the third temple. think it's later sort of ad hoc damage control because they saw that the second temple was destroyed and their Messiah had not yet come, but he did come and they rejected him. Excellent. So, there's few more questions on the live stream, but want to open it back up to the floor before go back to the live stream for anybody in house that has any questions. Salam allayikum. mashallah. thank you. always see you on TV, but now see you in person. wanted to ask when you mention about the temple. Where is that temple there in their believe located at? The one in in Jerusalem. the one in that's what they talking about. Okay. And second question when you mention about the you know they don't they don't believe but why they in their mind they have if they don't believe why in their mind they have the third dumble and they expect everyone to believe that they have the term what they wanted you know they don't believe say Isa he was prophet and they they wanted to make everyone believe there is third temple what makes it for them you know where they got the idea there is third temple yeah think the idea of third temple is post70 of the common era think it's later first century idea think the idea of third temple started when the second temple was destroyed. Right? Because the prophecies in the 6th century BCE during the exilic period is of second temple, new temple and the coming of Davidic king Messiah. Okay? and so that this that temple was built and then the Messiah did come who's but they rejected the Messiah. So God punished them by destroying the temple. But their thinking is well Jesus wasn't the Messiah. So those prophecies in the Old Testament that was talking about new temple, it must be about third temple, right? Not second temple. So that's just kind of ad hoc just kind of weak, you know, argumentation. no, those prophecies in the Old Testament are talking about second temple, not third temple. And also there's no indication in New Testament of third temple. So Christians might point to something in 2 Thessalonians where Paul says, well it's not really Paul but someone pretending to be Paul that the man of lawlessness, the the son of predition who they consider to be the antichrist in this passage, he sits in the temple of God and say you see this is the third temple. Well Paul, you know wrote that Paul according to Christian tradition was killed in the 60s like 64 65 of the common era something like that. Okay. So when Paul wrote that the second temple was still standing. So Paul is clearly talking about the second temple not the third temple. Why would we suddenly jump to third temple? Okay. So the third temple think has no basis. it's it's you know sort of these emergency hermeneutics damage control apologetics from Christian from Jews in the first century because they couldn't make sense of the destruction of the second temple. And that's why in the New Testament when Jesus tells them this temple will be destroyed, they're completely taken back. What do you mean it's going to be destroyed? what do you they had no idea. But if they knew, there's going to be third temple, then they would say, yeah, we already know this temple is going to be destroyed. There's going to be third temple. But no one makes that no one has that reaction. because it's because that belief is not there at all until the first century. but yeah so so they believe that the the the third the third temple again which is it's it's it's an innovative belief it comes from nowhere very flimsy basis it's late belief first century they believe that it's going to be built right where is currently the dome of the rock right so somehow that that area has to be cleared for them to do that. And so you have this this rabbi Misrai who's one of these really terrible human beings, you know, he's don't know, he still has YouTube channel, but he was saying, you know, wouldn't it be wouldn't it be convenient that if an Iranian missile wink wink, an Iranian missile should strike the Dome of the Rock and then we can just build our temple, you know, how convenient. Yeah. But that's that's the sight of it according to their relief is is on the and the other thing is like Christians supporting third temple is total kufur according to the New Testament because in the New Testament Jesus is the new temple. Now don't believe that necessarily but this is this is the teaching of the New Testament. The New Testament Jesus says you know destroy this temple and I'll raise it up in three days. And they say to him what are you talking about? It took 46 years to build this temple. Again they have no idea that the second temple is going to be destroyed. No, nobody saw third temple coming. and then Jesus and then Jesus kind of goes away and then John says but he spoke of the temple of his body. So Jesus is the new temple in the New Testament. So, so for Christians to support the Temple Institute in so-called Israel where they're taking money, evangelical dollars and they're using those money th those those monies to to settle the West Bank and to you know to support the building of third temple on the temple mount when Jesus is the third temple is total kufur. It's completely against the teaching of the New Testament. The other thing is the IDF they destroyed the city of Bethlehem. You know if you mean Bethlehem now is in total disarray. Many of the businesses has left 30% of the population have left. The IDF they shelled the church of the nativity where Jesus was supposedly born. It's in dis it's in disrepair. It needs to be repaired. but you know it seems like Christians in in the west they don't they don't care. They don't know about these things. They're giving money to Israeli settlers to go and terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank and and to kill Christians and Muslims in the West Bank. Whereas the Church of the Nativity, which is supposed to be the birthplace of Jesus, their God, is in total disarray right now. It doesn't make any sense. It's so strange. but you know, that's so it's it's very strange world we're living in, guess. Okay. They'll never let me in because was I'm an Iranian citizen. was born in Iran, so won't even get close to Palestine. would be really interested to hear kind of your understanding about the kind of the differences in how the different religions, the Abrahamic religions view the day of judgment. and especially kind of your knowledge on revelations and where it came from in comparison to the other ones. Revelation, the book of revelation. So day of judgment, we have very clear esquetology in the Quran in the hadith. This is something that was given to us through so from Allah subhana wa ta'ala. We have not only do we have knowledge of what's going to happen in the afterlife day of judgment there's there's the garden and there's hellfire we also have these these amarat these port tense or signs of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam gave us many many signs of the day of judgment and signs of the hour and things like that in Judaism it's interesting if you look at the entire old testament which is called the tanakh in Hebrew through. There's really no mention whatsoever about an afterlife anywhere, right? there's few places some could say maybe Ezekiel 37, the valley of dry bones, but others say no, that's talking about the Messiah coming and resurrecting Jews that are on this earth. That's not really talking about an afterlife. So there's really nothing about mad, right, an afterlife in the in the Tanakh. So amongst orthodox rabbis you get lot of different opinions as to what happens when we die. lot of difference of opinions. We have mymonities has his his opinion then you have sadia and then you have judah levi. So we have all these different opinions right and some of them say yes there's day of judgment and and you know people go to paradise forever people go to hell forever. Some people say no there's no such thing as hell. the the the souls of the wicked, they're simply just annihilated by God and only the righteous go to heaven. And is it physical heaven? Is it non-physical? There's all this difference of opinion about an afterlife. and Christianity is more aligned towards us basically is that yeah, there is judgment and there's heaven and hell. Both are eternal or we can say everlasting. and that primarily also comes from kind of church tradition. but the Quran is very robust in its descriptions of the afterlife. would say the book of revelation in the New Testament, the final book of the New Testament is very cryptic. It's very sort of mysterious. There's lot of you know symbols and things like that. but it seems to be talking about what's going to happen on the earth before the end of the world, right? But again, there's different ways, you know, the four horsemen and the lake of fire and someone called the false prophet. Then you have the the beast from the earth and the beast from the sea and it's just is very difficult to make heads or tails of what's being said here. so you have lot of difference of opinion like the number of the beast the number of the antichrist although he's not called the antichrist here but Christians believe this is description of the antichrist. The number of the beast is 666. Like what does that mean? So most historians would say that's the numerical value of the emperor Nero. So whoever wrote this book of revelation was Christian living under Roman persecution at the time of the emperor Nero who think was the fifth or sixth Roman emperor who persecuted the Christians because if you write if you wrote the name Kaisar Non in Hebrew the numerical value of the Hebrew was 666 right other Christians would say no no no no it's about the antichrist in the future and other Christians would say it's actually both that Nero yes it's about Nero but it's also foreshadowing of the future future antichrist who's going to be similar to Nero, something like that. so it's it's and then you have other like you know Christian Zionists who point to things in Revelation and say this is talking about you know Saddam Hussein and this is about the IDF or something and this is about Benjamin Netanyahu. It's just completely it's all speculative. It's very weak argumentation and it's all basically just sort of just war hawking for Israel that they believe is you know that is they still believe that like that the Jewish people are chosen by God irrespective of their rejection of Jesus. So that that's something that they've been tricked into believing that's not traditional Christianity. the sinquan the the prerequisite the non-negotiable prerequisite of being Christian is belief in Jesus you can get that clearly from the New Testament it's all over the New Testament right so for example Christian Zionists will quote Genesis 12:3 like this guy Cruz Ted Cruz Ted Cruz believe Genesis 12 now he says believe the Bible he can't he doesn't even know where it is in the Bible because Tucker pressed him where is this verse in the Bible. think it's somewhere in Genesis. He doesn't know where it is. And it says that, you know, that all those who bless Israel will be blessed by God. So, it doesn't say Israel. It says God is speaking to Abraham when he says that. Doesn't say Israel. So, he misques you, Abraham, will bless. Whoever curses you, will curse. Now that verse is mentioned by Paul in the book of Galatians which is supposed to be Christian scripture and Paul actually has commentary on that verse. And what and what Paul says is interesting. He says that in that verse God was referring to Jesus as Abraham's seed. In other words, you have to believe in Jesus in order to be blessed by God. That's what Paul says in Galatians. It's very clear from the text. Right? So what Christians are saying, Christians are Christian Zionists, they're ignoring that verse from Paul and they're misquing it from Genesis and saying that not only does it say Israel, it's referring to the modern ethnos state of Israel that is right now in the world that's committing genocide. This is like compounded compounded error. But you know they're taught and Ted TR said he said when was in Sunday school when was little boy this is what was taught but it's it's compounded error and it's kufur because he's rejecting he's basically taking the entire New Testament and throwing it in the garbage because the New Testament has something to say about Genesis 12:3 and it's not what Jews are saying. Nowhere close. Jews do not believe in Jesus. met an evangelical Christian and he was surprised. Like said, you know, Jews don't believe in Jesus. And he said, 'What do you mean? Of course they do. said, what? Are you kidding me right now? said, no, they they believe in Jesus. No, they don't. And lot of these people they meet well, but they've just been brainwashed. You know, they're good people, like simple people. And you know, this was in like Memphis, Tennessee, like the Bible belt. And they're just like, no, they they love Jesus. No, they don't. They really don't like Jesus at all. mean, zero. We can, you know. Anyway, so like we as Muslims like what do we tell people who are non-Muslim that we're the ones getting brainwashed? like to that statement. my parents who are non-Muslim, they've told me, you're the one getting brainwashed as Muslim." So, like, what do say? How do think of that without getting overwhelmed and without like almost like pressing the issue to my parents, right? because your parents are you have to respect them. That's very good question. would say with respect to what? Like you're being brainwashed. That's that's kind of just blanket accusation, right? Say can you point to something specific that you think that am missing the picture and then just you then just take these issues one by one and just reason. Right? So for example with this idea of the third temple you know you know sat down with Christian and explained why believe but why Christian believing the third temple has nothing to do with the New Testament and if you and if you believe that you've you've essentially been brainwashed now where does that come from and was able to you know basically convince this interlocutor that was engaging with of this one specific issue but you don't want to say like you're completely brainwashed because that's that's not true number one it's very insulting Right. but would just say with respect to what issue which issue do you think with hijab you're brainwashing you into thinking so you can go through why do wear hijab just concentrate on hijab the benefits of hijab what's the purpose of it etc etc etc take these take them one issue at time you're brainwashed you pray five times day what what are the why am praying what's the benefits of prayer you know how does the prayer benefit me throughout my day how have changed. That's the other thing is like with parents non-Muslim parents you know talk is cheap but if they see you actually improving as person they'll say yeah this is something good and I've seen this many times where child will convert to Islam and at first obviously there's lot of sort of confrontation but as child gets older and more mature and they actually become much better person that's form of da to the parents and then the parents eventually convert and it might take 30 years but slowly you chip away at them Right? But what we don't want to do, you don't want to lose patience. You don't want to use, you know, any type of inappropriate speech and things like that. but would ask them to be specific. What do you mean? Which which issue do you think I'm getting wrong? And then just have conversation about that issue. And then the next week, another issue and then another issue and another issue. Next thing you know, they're out of issues. And like, yeah, okay, this makes sense. Right? But if it's idea of just do it, right? Like, you know, get this response lot from people, even Muslims. You know, ask Muslim youth. get emails from Muslim youth all the time. I'm having problems with my religion and I'm losing my faith and so on and so forth. say to him, why are you Muslim in the first place? And he just, don't know, my my dad is Muslim. Well, that's not good response because your dad is Muslim. You should be able to say something, right? so if it's just like, you know, I'm just kind of going through the motions and that's that's problem or they told me to believe this. Well, that's that's that's form of indoctrination. But if you can give the reasons because Islam is very logical religion. It's reasonable religion. In the Quran, it it appeals to the intellect, right? in order for you to use your intellect many many times. So there must be reconciliation between andal the revelation and reason have to accord because both come from God. In other words, you don't have to believe in anything unreasonable. You don't have to believe in anything unreasonable because reason and revelation both come from God. It is reasonable to believe in day of judgment. It is reasonable to believe to to wear hijab. It is reasonable to pray five times day. It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus was not crucified. think can evidence for these things. That that that's convincing. We should be able to do that. So would would just take it one issue. Long story short, one one issue at time with patience. It's going to take years. That's that's part of the you know what is like we made some of you we made some some of you fitna to others as we made some of you as fitna to others so will you be patient so this part of being in the dunya is kind of struggling with people even people that are close to us but the the solution is to be patient thank you so much yeah Dr. Ali, think, is is out of time. want to pay respect to his schedule, so apologies if we didn't get to all of the questions online. there was lot. but unfortunately, we are out of time for Dr. Al's portion. So, we just want to thank him again for spending some of his Saturday morning with us. Very precious time. How blessed we were to take from him and to increase in our knowledge from him.