 Hey everybody today. We're debating whether or not Islam requires the violent persecution of Christians and we're starting right now With David Woods opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours David Thank you James and thank you Daniel for suggesting this topic Does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians? I have no idea why Daniel wanted to debate this topic. I assume he's got some brilliant argument up his sleeve And I must be totally deranged for agreeing to debate Daniel when he's got some Brilliant argument that's about to destroy me and end my career, but I really want to know what the argument is So I guess I'll have to debate to find out now I'm obviously not going to argue that Islam Requires the violent persecution of Christians in every situation It doesn't if the Muslim community is too weak to violently subjugate non-Muslims Then it's the wrong time to violently subjugate Christians And if Christians have already been subjugated and have become dimmys and they've agreed to certain terms and they're paying jizya There's no need to violently persecute them There are plenty of teachings in the Muslim sources that seem to call for the ongoing degradation and humiliation of Christians even after they've become dimmys, but there are other teachings which Muslim in which Muslims are told to honor their agreements with Dimmies so I'll I'll grant for the sake of argument that there's no requirement to violently persecute dimmys So what does that leave us with? Well, there are lots of Christians in the world who aren't dimmys There are lots of Christians who don't ever want to become dimmys like me. You can saw my head off I ain't giving you dime one Daniel. Are Muslims supposed to live in a state of perpetual peace and harmony? with non-Muslims not according to Muhammad and This brings us to our first problem Islam's emphasis on jihad and martyrdom Islam programs people to want to fight Non-Muslims in Sahih Muslim 33 Muhammad declares I've been commanded to fight against people till they testify That there is no God but Allah that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and they establish prayer and pay zakat And if they do it their blood and property are guaranteed Protection on my behalf except when justified by law and their affairs rest with Allah Fighting such an essential part of Islam that Muhammad says in Sunan on the side 30 99 Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting. He dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy According to Muhammad, you're a hypocrite if you don't fight or in situations where the Muslim community is weak You don't at least wish you could fight the emphasis on Fighting unbelievers combined with promises of Virgins in paradise led to an obsession with jihad and martyrdom in Islam in Sahih Al-Bukhari 2797 Muhammad says by him in whose hands my soul is I would love to be martyred in Allah's cause and then Come back to life and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again And then get martyred Being martyred while waging jihad gets you lots of stuff in paradise gets you lots of virgins in paradise So if you want to spend eternity Deflowering virgins, you'll want to be martyred as much as possible Why is this relevant here? Well, there are approximately two billion Christians in the world and Muhammad made a religion that calls for the violent subjugation of the entire world and that presents jihad Against unbelievers as your golden ticket to the virgin factory Does Islam require the violent subjugation the violent? Persecution of Christians, of course it does you're not going to subjugate the world and make Christians pay jizya By getting together and eating falafel at an interfaith picnic. You have to fight The second problem for Daniel is that the Quran requires the violent persecution of Christians the Koran does We're all familiar with Surah 9 verse 29 which commands Muslims to fight Christians until Christians pay the jizya That would actually be enough to prove my point But when we read the verse in context it removes all doubt The passage begins at verse 28 of Surah 9 and goes through verse 33 Let's read the entire passage so we can see how Allah requires the violent persecution of Christians verse 28 O you who believe Truly the pagans are unclean So let them not after this year of theirs approach the sacred mosque and if you fear poverty Soon will Allah enrich you if he wills out of his bounty for Allah is all-knowing all wise So Allah tells Muslims not to let the pagans anywhere near the mosque in Mecca Some of the Muslims were worried that this would hurt their trade deals with the pagans. So it would hurt them financially But Allah says he can enrich them to make up for any losses. How is Allah going to enrich them next verse? Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day nor hold that forbidden Which had been forbidden by Allah and his messenger nor acknowledged the religion of truth From among the people of the book Jews and Christians until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued So Allah is going to enrich Muslims by having Muslims fight Jews and Christians Until Jews and Christians pay the jizya tribute money to acknowledge their inferiority But why fight Jews and Christians aren't we the people of the book aren't we believers too? Next verse and the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah and the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah These are the words of their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before Allah's curse be upon them How they are turned away So contrary to what Allah says about Jews and Christians in other parts of the Quran It turns out that we aren't real monotheists when Muhammad needed to fight us to make money We became mushriks Jews call Ezra the son of God They don't by the way and Christians call Jesus the son of God Allah got that right at least This is the justification for fighting us Notice that already if Allah commands Muslims to fight Christians because of our beliefs Does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians sure sounds like it? But have we done anything else next verse 931? They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah and Christ the son of Mary Yet they were commanded to worship but one God there is no God But he prays and glory to him far as he from having the partners they associate with him So now Allah says that Jews and Christians take rabbis and monks as lords besides God We don't by the way, and he goes on to say that he's far from having the partners We associate with him so we associate partners with Allah that makes us mushriks Any other reason to fight us next verse? They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths notice It says with their mouths by the sword. This is referring to what we say But Allah will not allow but that his light should be perfected even though the unbelievers may detest it Allah won't allow Jews and Christians to spread our false beliefs through preaching But how is Allah going to stop us next verse? 33 it is he who had sent his messenger Muhammad with guidance and the religion of truth Islam to prevail it over all Religion even though the idolaters may detest it How is Islam going to prevail? We already read it sir a 9 verse 29 fight those who believe not in Allah until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued Now that's the entire passage Every criterion for fighting Christians in this passage has to do with our religious beliefs and practices So if Allah commands Muslims to fight Christians because of our beliefs and practices Does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians? Sure sounds like it Perhaps Daniel will say that Christians can avoid the violence by becoming dimmies, but that won't work Allah demands our silence on a specific issue. We're not allowed to say that Jesus is the son of God But the identity of Jesus is part of the gospel and we know from the book of Acts That even though Christians were happy generally to follow the local laws laid down by various authorities If the authorities ordered them not to preach the gospel they responded we must obey God not man So the Quran commands Muslims to fight Christians until we stop saying that Jesus is the son of God But we can't stop saying that Jesus is the son of God if Allah orders Muslims to fight Christians until we stop doing something that we're not allowed to stop doing Then the Quran requires the violent persecution of Christians third problem for Daniel Muhammad ordered his followers to execute apostates and we're at the beginning of an avalanche of Apostasy Muslim apologists like Zacher Naik and Ahmed D dot spent decades lying to their followers now now Muslims are Realizing that their apologists lied to them about Muhammad and the Quran and they're leaving Islam like it's a sport When Muslims leave Islam they usually become either Christians or atheists Muhammad ordered his followers to kill them So when Muslims today realize that Muhammad is the most obvious false prophet in history When they realize that they can't take the ramblings of an illiterate 7th century Arabian caravan robber seriously Many of them become Christians and many of them become atheists Muhammad said to kill them If a Muslim leaves Islam and becomes a Christian, what does Islam require? Islam requires that he be executed if he refuses to return to Islam is Killing people because they've converted to Christianity violent persecution Absolutely, so does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians indisputably Putting all of this together Islam calls for the violent subjugation of the world and produces an Obsession with martyrdom this leads to the violent persecution of Christians The Quran commands Muslims to fight Christians until we pay the jizya and stop saying that Jesus is the son of God This obviously requires the violent persecution of Christians and Islam says that when Muslims convert to Christianity They have to be killed for converting. That's violent persecution But as I acknowledged at the beginning of my opening statement If the Muslim community is too weak to subjugate non-Muslims, then it's just not the right time to violently persecute Christians So the most obvious path to peace available to us is for the Muslim community to never outnumber or be stronger than the non-Muslim community This means that we can establish peace by making more ex-Muslims We can establish peace through the avalanche of apostasy if the avalanche of apostasy is the path to peace If the avalanche of apostasy is the way to avoid the violent persecution of Christians Sign me up. I'd be happy to help you with that one Daniel Thank you very much for that opening Thank you very much for that opening statement from David and want to let you know folks If it's your first time here at modern day debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from and don't forget to hit that subscribe button As we have many more juicy debates coming up in the future with that We're gonna kick it over to Daniel for his 12-minute opening as well. Thanks for being with us Daniel The floor is all yours So now, thank you James and David Let's get to the heart of the matter here David says that Islam endorses continuous violent jihad against Christians until they convert or pay jizya And once Christians are living under an Islamic state, they're constantly discriminated against and according to David That is persecution Let me make this easy for you David Guilty is charged Islam is expansionist. It does require expansionist She had and when Islam is in power it does discriminate against non-Muslims guilty as charged But guess what David every political system requires war and discrimination There never has been and there never will be a political system that says we should not use violence to gain power and resources There never has been and there never will be a political system that says all beliefs and ways of life should be respected equally There is no such political system. So why are you judging Islam according to these impossible standards? Let me explain. Imagine a world in which there is no violence, no war and you can have a political system where every religion and ideology is equal And there's no discrimination against any group Sounds good, right? Well, it doesn't matter because this is an impossible world. No such world has ever existed If such a world could exist, David's criticism of Islam might make sense In the real world however, David's criticism of Islam makes absolutely no sense because offensive wars and inequality necessarily exist This is for the simple reason that groups are always engaged in violent struggle for power and resources That has literally been the history of the world since the beginning of the human race So Christian apologists focus on these two issues, expansionist war and then the whole inequality-slash-dimi issue First, let's talk about expansionist war. David wants to blame Islam for having expansionist war But guess what? Every group, once it has power, engages in expansionist war Literally every single group, past, present and future, we have to have a realistic view of the world In reality, relationships between nations are based on power and nations are constantly competing for power and resources The Muslim stance toward any other nation will depend on power So where Muslims don't have power, they can pursue a political strategy of qualified peace and reconciliation with other groups Or even a situation where non-Muslims are privileged over Muslims This was actually the case with the early Muslim community, not only in Mecca but also with the Treaty of Judea When the Muslim nation does have more power, then it will pursue a strategy of spreading Islam through military conquest and privileging the interests of Muslims Sounds terrible to the liberalized ear. How could you spread religion by force? But this is not just what Muslims do. All groups pursue this kind of two-tiered strategy The difference is Muslims are honest about this strategy, whereas other groups are not For example, America spins this beautiful picture about how it believes all countries in the world have equal rights and sovereignty But the reality is American foreign policy is always aiming to create a world order that is under the control of American power and serving American interests And this is pursued through all manner of coercion, war, violence. What would make America stop doing this? Nothing. Only if America loses power and is forced to stop by another more powerful nation The same exact thing is the case with Russia, China, India, Israel, literally every nation If you don't have power, try to forge peace and reconciliation. If you are in power, violently expand Historically, Christian nations have literally followed this same exact policy. Jews have followed this exact policy Hindus have literally always followed this same policy Hindus are this nice little peaceful group when they live as minorities But once they get a little taste of political power, like in modern India, they start bulldozing mosques and lynching beef eaters So Islam has the same view that literally all other nations have, including Christian nations in the past Now some Christians might say, no, we don't believe in a Christian state that seeks to violently subjugate the world to Christian norms and advanced Christian interests Now is it convenient that Christians take this line of peace and reconciliation in modern times now that they aren't in power? This is the pattern with Christians. When Christians were a weak minority under Roman rule in the first three centuries, they talked a lot about minority rights and how there should be limits on Roman control But as soon as Christians come into power with Constantine, they're all about crusading and subjugating the pagans and the heretics And then when they're disempowered again in the modern world vis-a-vis secularism, then once again they take this pacifist stance That's fine. I'm not faulting Christians for their pragmatism But the difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims are honest about this reality while Christians keep reinterpreting the Bible to pretend like their religion is all about peace and religious freedom Okay, so that's the answer to expansionist jihad. Now let's talk about themies One of the main assumptions that Christian apologists like David embed in their arguments against Islam is that there is potentially a system of government where every belief and way of life is treated equally And everyone lives in peace and it's just these intolerant Muslims who are trying to spoil the party This depiction of Muslims is only effective because it's premised on this theoretical system of government But the reality is such a system of government is an impossible fantasy Now Christian might respond Well, what about modern secular states where everyone enjoys religious freedom and all beliefs are treated equally The response to that is, first of all, traditional Christianity in the Bible do not endorse secularism And second of all, in these secular states which claim to treat all people equally, what they really do is privilege secular beliefs and a secular way of life while Christians, Muslims and all other religious groups are marginalized When Christians, for example, try to preach their values in these secular societies, it's called hate speech When Christians try to implement their values through the legal system, it's called a violation of separation of church and state When Christians try to teach their values to their children, the state only allows a secular scientific worldview to be taught in public schools This is not an equal system. This is a system that privileges secular liberal atheism In this secular system, Christians, Muslims and other religious groups are just marginalized dummies When David attacks Islam by supporting this fake idea of political equality for all religions, what he's really doing is legitimating a secular system where Christians are second class citizens that are being wiped out In other words, David has no problem with Christians being dummies. He just wants them to be dummies under liberal atheists, not Muslims In this debate, David would should just concede that there is no such thing as political neutrality where all beliefs and ways of life are respected equally He should just admit that. Then his whole argument falls apart because if Islam is bad because it doesn't give every minority group equal status, then all other religions and ideologies are bad too David's criticism against Islam only makes sense if we were to assume that it's possible to have this neutral political system that privileges everyone equally But such a system is impossible. The thing about Islam is that it is honest. Islam acknowledges that all systems are discriminatory and Islam is the best and most objectively just system of government, given that reality Meanwhile, Christians and liberals are living in this fantasy world Look, Christians only have two options. Do you prefer a world where Christians are dominant? Or do you prefer a world where Christians are being dominated? Those are the only two options. So if David's whole criticism is that the Islamic system is discriminatory against Christians. Yeah, of course I can see that But so is every other system. Every system that is not a Christian dominated system is going to discriminate against Christians So what is really the criticism here? Is David blaming Islam because it does not establish a Christian dominated political theocracy? No, that would be silly His actual argument is that Islam persecutes Christians because Islam is not secular liberalism But guess what? Muslims don't want a secular liberal system because Muslims don't want to be second class citizens dominated by secular atheists Obviously Islam is going to have a political system that privileges Muslims and Islam Again, when Christians like David demand Islam to be more like secularism, they're basically saying we don't want to be second class citizens to Muslims We want to be second class citizens to secular atheists In other words, David is perfectly okay with discrimination against Christians. He just wants to make sure it's liberal secularism doing it as opposed to Muslims To summarize, yes Islam does discriminate against Christians, but so does every other non-Christian political system But honestly, this discrimination in Islam is not really that bad because unlike every other non-Christian political system, Muslims genuinely respect Christians and genuinely share key Christian values Christians are much more likely to persist and preserve their religion under Islamic law than under any other system precisely because of these shared values Christians, for example, want a life that's organized around God and serving him Islamic law fully allows Christians to establish this for their communities, but secular liberalism has been in constant war against God Christians want to get married and raise their families according to the Bible Islamic law allows Christians to do this, but secular liberalism has all but destroyed Christian marriage and family Christians want to transmit biblical values to their children through education Islamic law fully allows Christians to do this, but secular liberalism says to keep God and the Bible out of the classroom Christians want to create Christian businesses Islamic law fully allows Christians to do this, but secular liberalism says, no, you have to bake the rainbow cakes whether you like it or not So that's really the crux of the debate Islamic law says to Christians, your lives are safe, your families are safe, your property is safe, your churches are safe You can live by your own religious laws in your homes, your schools, your workplaces, but just don't try to convert Muslims Don't openly blaspheme against Islam and pay an annual tax Is this really the humiliation and subjugation of Christians that David is talking about? In reality, the most humiliated and subjugated Christians have ever been is under secularism So Christians should ask David, what is it really that you're trying to promote here? Is it Christianity or is it secular liberal atheism? Thank you very much for that opening as well With that, we're going to jump into the rebuttals And I want to let you know, folks, if you enjoy debates like these and you have friends who enjoy debates like these, hit that share button And share this debate with them, that share button is just below And with that, thanks so much, David The floor is all yours for your seven minute rebuttal Thank you, Daniel And this has officially been the easiest debate in history Because it looks like we agree The topic is, does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians? It seems like Daniel is saying, yes, absolutely, but everyone's doing it Well, great, that's kind of irrelevant if everyone's doing it The question is whether Islam does it, that's the topic of our debate So let's go and see where we're at In my opening statement, I pointed out three ways that Islam requires the violent persecution of Christians One, Islam places so much emphasis on jihad and martyrdom that the violent persecution of Christians is inevitable Two, Allah claims in Surah 9 verses 28 to 33 that he sent Muhammad to fight Christians and force Christians to pay jizyah In order to silence Christians and keep us from saying that Jesus is Lord You're obviously not going to silence billions of Christians without some serious violent persecution Three, Muhammad clearly commanded his followers to kill apostates When Muslims leave Islam because they see through the lies and they become Christians, what happens? Islam says kill them, that by definition is violent persecution So I laid out multiple ways that Islam does indeed require the violent persecution of Christians How did Daniel respond? He didn't say anything that would address any of these points Except maybe thinking that demotude isn't as bad as we might think But we can always go into that a little further Instead he argued first that he says that he grants that Islam is expansionistic and that it discriminates against non-Muslims No disagreement between us there, but as soon as he said that the debate was over This debate was over, we could have another debate on another topic, but on the actual topic of this debate We agree, the answer is yes, Islam does require this He says that other political systems do the same thing It would be interesting to look at debates, and I know Daniel has had debates on that before, but it's irrelevant Every political system in the universe could call for the violent persecution against Christians That wouldn't change the fact that Islam does So the question before us is whether Islam calls for the violent persecution of Christians And we agree on that Second, he admits that Islam eventually wants offensive jihad And Islam is eventually going to go around As Sheikh Asim al-Hakim says that Muslims will eventually go door to door and offer the options You either convert to Islam or you pay the jizya Or those are the options that are going to be given to Christians When Muslims are powerful enough to go around doing that So obviously that's not a situation we want to be in What's Daniel's response, he says other ideologies do it too That's great, but not relevant to our topic Whether every other ideology in the world is more peaceful than Islam Or whether every other ideology in the world is even worse against Christians Then Islam is not relevant, the question is does Islam require violent persecution of Christians Third, he says well Christians follow the same pattern This would also be irrelevant to the topic But this is, one thing I'll grant is this is a thing that humans do When any group of people get into a position of power They try to maintain that power, that's a human thing The difference is that's not built into our religion That's not what the apostles commanded Christians to do That's not what Jesus commanded us to do To go out and violently subjugate the world or to strive after political power Wherever we can find it Later Christians did that, that's not built into our religion It is built into Islam It's built into Islam to subjugate everyone else And everyone else has to be under the authority of Islam But with that said, completely irrelevant Completely irrelevant, we could grant for the sake of argument That Christianity somehow calls for the violent subjugation of the entire world What does that have to do with the topic, does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians? We agree on that Fifth, he says that Christians are much more likely to preserve their religion And their values under Islam Well that's just ridiculous There's no requirement, there's no requirement right here And let's say the United States, there's no requirement that I'm not allowed to say That Jesus is Lord, that I'm not allowed to go preaching the gospel There's no law here that says I can't go preach the gospel and that someone can't believe the gospel And leave their religion and become a Christian There's nothing stopping us here Daniel, we're sitting here having a debate on this topic We couldn't have, this couldn't be conducted in the same way In a Muslim country that is officially following the teachings of Islam Because of some of the things I've said already That would be a death sentence So the idea that Islam will somehow preserve Christian values better than secular liberalism Secular liberalism sort of leaves it to us to preserve it if we want to And so that task falls to Christians to go ahead and do that In Islam, it's hey, you're a dimmy now, pay us money And whatever you do, you don't get to go around preaching the gospel You don't get to go around criticizing Islam You don't get to go around doing any of these things And so you can just look at the impact that's had In the Middle East there used to be Christian majorities Christian majority nations Now you look at the number of Christians in that population And you end up with four or five percent population of Christians in certain places And so what happened there? How did Islam preserve that religion for them? How did Islam help that? Well, you didn't You treated them as second-class citizens and treated them horribly And persecuted them And over a period of centuries this sort of thing has an impact Daniel may say, well, secularism is going to do the same thing That may be the case Absolutely irrelevant I'm not obsessed with controlling the world I'm not told in my religion we're going to go out and subjugate the world We're told we're going to be persecuted, that everyone's going to hate us And that we're going to be on the receiving end of persecution Not that we're going to go out and become the persecutors You have Christians who say, no, well, in order to avoid that We have to go and become the persecutors But in Christianity we're told we're going to be the persecuted So finding out that one day we may no longer be the world's top religion or something like that It's not upsetting to us In Islam, if you find out that you're not going to be able to subjugate the entire world We've got a problem because that's what Muhammad said you're going to do Sorry, David So just to respond to your points This is one thing that I wanted to ask you When have Christians in history ever not sought to dominate Muslims As soon as they have the opportunity to do so When? Name one time in history where Christians had power And they did not seek to dominate Muslims You won't be able to find one example of that And that's very significant because Muslim rules With engaging or Islamic rules for engaging Christians Are going to depend on Christian actions And if Christians, as long as Islam has existed From the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, sorry, Sam Christians have been trying to dominate Muslims Then that is going to shape what Islamic policies are So wherever you see this kind of domination Or you see this kind of reaction from Muslims It's not like Christians are these little lambs That have been sitting peacefully in Europe Or in the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire And they haven't had any kind of belligerence No, they're actively crusading They're actively attacking Muslims They're actively expanding Now you may say that this has nothing to do with Christianity But Muslims can't bank on what David Wood's Peaceful pacifist interpretation of Christianity Muslims have to deal with the real world And in the real world throughout history Christians have been extremely belligerent Extremely expansionist So that's what Islam is actually addressing So another thing that you mentioned Avalanche of apostasy that supposedly Muslims are going through Where's the evidence for that? I recently just posted stats Official objective stats from Pew On who is actually experiencing an apostasy An avalanche of apostasy It's Christians And why do you think that is, David? I mean, this is something that we should address The reason is liberal secularism This is what is causing the avalanche of apostasy For Christians Muslims are actually gaining numbers In terms of religious switching So you can put out all of these, you know Stupid videos with quoting, you know What you call Daoagandists Saying things about, oh, we have to worry about Apostasy of our youth That's all you have Our sound bites and clips taken out of context Context Let's look at the actual statistics About who is experiencing an avalanche of apostasy You say Daniel concedes the debate And that's false I have not conceded the debate Okay, the debate topic is that Islam endorses violent persecution And implicit in this claim Or tacit to this claim is that Islam supports measures Which are not inevitable But I just explained to you In a very clear way That this kind of violence that you're criticizing Islam for is actually inevitable And you acknowledge that You said this is human nature And so again, I'll ask you Do you concede that That any existing system Counts as violent persecution If you concede that Then it does take the whole wind out of your argument Against Islam You're singling out Islam As a system of violent persecution Because the implication of that Is that this is not the same for all systems You should make that explicit You should concede that Yes, there's violent persecution In all systems All political systems Including the secular liberal one The term violent persecution Implies injustice It implies something that is Contrary to human decency So that's the definition Or the connotation of the word That I'm operating under With this debate topic So I do not concede That there's violent persecution I concede that there's discrimination But discrimination is inevitable Okay, you claim again That violent expansion Is not built into our religion Yes it is Violent expansion is not built Into Christianity In the sense that You want it to mean In the sense of Oh, well, right now Today, me, David Wood I'm not going to go And start hacking people As you put it Rather, when I say that Violent expansion Is built into your religion What I mean is that It is something that is Morally acceptable According to Christianity And in our last debate You conceded this You actually conceded it And said that Well, if God commands You to go and murder Or kill men, women, children, Infants, and bash their heads On stones If God commands it Then it's fine There's no moral problem With that So it means that According to your God That is something morally Acceptable to do So you should really concede that It is built into your religion Even though right now God might not be telling you To go and violently expand But it's still a part of What God has commanded others To say Other believers to say In history According to the Bible You say that Middle East Used to be Christian Majority Christian Okay, fine Yes, I agree That the policies of Islam Have led to Christians Converting to Islam Over the course of 1400 years But look at what secularism Has done to Christians Europe also used to be A majority Christian Hardcore Christian Look at it now Europe is the graveyard of Christianity What has caused that, David? What has caused that Is violent persecution Is real violent persecution And death and genocide That's what you need to recognize And it's most Christians Who have done it Christians who have secularized Liberal atheists Who have done it But you have no criticism For those kinds of people You also mentioned Like a contradiction Or a supposed contradiction In the Quran That the Quran is saying Mentioning Jews and Christians On the one hand And then the Mushriqin On the other hand This is just an ignorance Of Islamic theology Mushriqin Kuffar is the Non-believers Kuffar is the larger category And under that larger category There are different kinds Of non-believers There are Mushriqin That's another big umbrella It's like a sub-category And then Mushriqin Have sub-categories So some are people of the book Ahlu Kitab Are also considered Mushriqin Are also considered Those who associate partners With God And they're also Non-believers Because they reject The final messenger Peace be upon them So that's The definition of Mushriqin There's no contradiction there Thank you very much For that rebuttal as well And we're going to jump into Open conversation folks If you happen to have a question Feel free to fire it Into the old live chat If you tag me With at modern day debate That's one way to submit a question Or super chat Those get pushed To the top of the list With that Thanks so much gentlemen The floor is all yours And one last reminder Our guests are linked In the description folks If you haven't checked out those links You certainly can Right now Thanks Daniel and David The floor is all yours I only detected I only detected one thing You said in your entire rebuttal Or really in your entire Opening statement Combined with your rebuttal That would actually be The negative position on The actual topic So I only detected one thing That is actually relevant to our topic And that is your claim That you didn't concede That Islam requires The violent persecution of Christians Because you said violent persecution Would require injustice And you don't view it as injustice And therefore It's not violent persecution So killing apostates Violently subjugating people Because of their religious beliefs And practices Saying that I have to subjugate This group Because they say that Jesus is Lord And force them to pay me money That I have to go Eventually if I get into a position Where I'm strong enough That I would go door to door And knock on the door And say hey You either have to convert to Islam Or you pay the jizya Or And the idea that That's not violent persecution Because you're just going to say It's not injustice Well notice Any group that oppresses Any group could say Well we don't view it as injustice So China right now with the Uighurs Could say that there's genocide Against the Uighurs It's not persecution It's not violent persecution Because we view it as perfectly fine And just We view it as preserving our society And so just changing the name Of a term doesn't actually Change what it is Following this reasoning You could go and drink alcohol And say well I'm not drinking alcohol And drinking beer I'm not drinking alcohol I'm drinking champagne See I'm calling it by a different name Therefore it changes what it is So it looks to me like if we're If we were to agree on what it means To violently persecute people And say well it's not your personal preferences About what happens to be injustice Then it looks like everything else we agree on That Islam does call for the violent Persecution of Christians So even in the example of Like a Muslim nation An Islamic nation Or Khilafah The caliphate There's not necessarily this requirement To constantly be at war With Christians There can be peace agreements that are formed And this is clear in the example Of the Prophet Peace be upon him This is clear in the caliphs The righteous caliphs In their example And throughout Muslim history Muslims have formed Pacts And treaties, agreements With Christian nations And other nations That is always on the table For the caliph Or the amir to decide That look we're going to Have this kind of agreement But it's a qualified agreement It's not We'll never have any conflict With Christians ever Or we'll never We'll promise never in the future In a thousand years Not to invade Christian lands There's no agreement like that Allowed in Islam But for periods of time For a generation, two generations You can have that kind of Peace agreement And this is demonstrated by The Prophet peace be upon him Now let me just ask for a clarification Because I don't actually know your position This has been my understanding Of that whole process And this is based on Trying to make sense of The progression we see In the Quran And the hadith And the tafsir As well as What various Muslim scholars have said But my understanding has been That everything is based on The pattern of Muhammad When Muhammad is the Persecuted prophet And Mecca He preaches a message of You know Let's not kill each other Let's not persecute each other here And then later on He formed alliances And had a larger number Of followers around him Then the message changed To one of defensive jihad You can fight now Or actually required Eventually required to fight In self-defense of the community So someone is attacking the community In various ways Then you would fight back And Muslims should unite And fight back And then eventually you have Offensive jihad Once Muslims were powerful enough To subjugate Arabia Then they subjugated Arabia So I've always regarded what you were just saying About forming peace agreements And you said that they're temporary I have viewed peace agreements as temporary In the same way that Sheikh Asim al-Hakim Views them He says yes right now When we're not powerful enough to go out And wage offensive jihad And fight and subjugate And force people into those three options Right now we should focus on You know increasing our faith And building up our community Until we get to the point Where we're strong enough So I'm not disagreeing with you That Islam allows Treaties and peace agreements In various situations and so on But as you pointed out That seems to be temporary And the goal doesn't seem to be peace The goal seems to be Hey we're not strong enough To fight right now So it's in the best interest Of the Muslim community If we agree to peace With these people who as of right now Are too powerful for us to subjugate But eventually we get strong enough Once we get strong enough Then we're going to have to go And fight them That's the pattern that I see In the Muslim sources And I know they're Muslims Who would agree with me But yeah that's your view I mentioned the two tier strategy In my opening And I mentioned how this is What every group has done Including Christians When they didn't have power They were about reconciliation And peace In the first three centuries Of Christendom And then as soon as they get power They are expanding Their persecuting heretics Are killing non-believers Left and right This is also the history of Christendom And it's only because Christians Do not have power now That they are That they promote this kind of Freedom of religion And equality Free speech Look I'll ask you David A question If you somehow Had power over the entire world Or you had become The dominant superpower And your nation had this weapon This futuristic weapon That could subjugate Everyone throughout the world With the click of a button Even more advanced than nuclear warheads You somehow have this technology As a Christian Would you use that technology To actually create supremacy For Christendom To make the word of Jesus Christ All high in the world To institute policies That privileged Christians And that actually privileged The word of Jesus Christ Is this something that you would pursue As king of the world? I would I would I would implement policies That I believe are Fair to everyone I don't believe in making people believe If you convert Because I'm going to persecute you Or I'm going to make you convert I kind of don't regard it as I didn't say make I didn't say make people convert I just say policies That privilege Christians Privilege Christianity You're not forcing anyone to convert You're giving An incentive The policies that I would think of As Being beneficial to Christians Would be beneficial to almost everyone Unless it's someone who wants to go out And subjugate and persecute Other people and so on So you would institute policies That are preferential to Christian Then you just think that Christianity Is the best for everyone No, I'm saying policies Policies that I would regard As the best for Christianity Would also be the best for Everyone else who isn't trying to Subjugate the world Let me just give you an example The time of the apostles When the apostles are going out And preaching and so on There was a time when There was a conspiracy to murder The apostle Paul His enemies in Israel Wanted to get him from the Romans Wanted to get him from the Romans Because they were planning to execute him They were planning to murder him along the way And the apostle Paul tells The Romans Hey, there's a plot To kill me here, don't let them do it And the Romans actually used their army To get him to safety Then he's having a trial And it's clear that That people are coming after him Based on certain claims that he's made And so on, that Jesus is Lord And he says, I appeal to Caesar Who's Caesar? Caesar's a total pagan But the apostle Paul was totally happy Saying Hey, I'm a Roman citizen Here and I have certain rights To benefit to me, namely people can't Just randomly kill me over things The government will protect me So that's a situation Where what was best For the apostle Paul didn't need the Roman emperor To be a Christian And to enforce Christianity on people Paul wanted the freedom to go around preaching the gospel And not to be interfered with And so I'm fine with that, like the apostle Paul I'm fine with that, I'm fine This is irrelevant to the Example that I gave In my example No, it's not, because You're complaining about Islam wanting to Have this kind of Islamic law Implemented across the entire Globe, and I'm giving you the exact I'm giving you the exact same scenario I'm saying, if Somehow Christianity Was dominant, and you could Privilege Christianity Through policies that would You know, basically through force of law Privilege Christian belief Incentivize conversion to Christianity Even punish blasphemy Let's say, but you can strike that If you don't want it There's still law and order, you're not forcing anyone To convert, but you're just Establishing a system where Christianity Is privileged And you said Right now that yes, you would want that Kind of system, because Christianity is the best So you want a system Like you're the king But you would have A Muslim vice president Or vice king, and your Administration would have Hindus And Buddhists, and Muslims Because it's Freedom and equality for all According to your system Yes or no Let me just give you my view Because it might help you understand things Just answer the question You have these very long answers David You can just say yes or no Why can't you say yes or no? There's a huge misunderstanding here You assume that Political power is Good in the sense that if your group Can get into political power, then you can implement Your policies. I view Political power as something that will corrupt People once they have it Almost, almost inevitably So if you take Christians who for three centuries Reminds to get violent, suddenly You give them a bunch of political power And they've been Persecuted for centuries now It's a pretty natural inclination To say alright, now we have to Now we have to stop and never be in that situation Again, so let's go out And strive for to maintain This sort of political power So you think that Christians should never have power? Because power corrupts So Christians should never strive to have power You want to live in a world where Christians Are always being dominated by other groups? Not what I'm saying Not what I'm saying at all There are two choices here David Christians are dominant They have a dominant system That privileges Christianity Or Christians are being dominated Those are the only two options Logically Which one do you prefer? I would not trust a system where Christians Dominate and enforce Christianity So you want atheists to be dominant That's the point I don't trust anyone who's going to be Implementing these kinds of policies That's why if you're going to do Anything, the best case scenario would be Something that is best for the most People where the government actually says Okay, there are certain things that we're not Going to interfere with If you guys get violent, then yes We have to interfere with it If one group is going to subjugate another group Then we have to interfere But apart from that, we're not saying That religion or you're not allowed to say that religion Daniel, you're free to walk down the street And preach your religion No, you're not You're not free to preach your religion This is something else I wanted to respond to You're not free to preach the Bible Go to any European secular country There are hate speech laws In Finland, they just put someone in prison For Sharing verses Then they would be screwed up Then that would be messed up It's hate speech No, no, how is that The secular justification The secular justification is that These verses are hateful You can't teach these verses That's the point I don't want governments to have That kind of authority over people Because inevitably they become corrupt And start crushing people I don't like it from secularists I don't like it from Muslims I don't like it from anyone It's very simple Don't stop me from saying What I want to say unless I'm calling for violence Or something like that I don't like it when they do it I don't like it when Muslims do it If Christians do it, I wouldn't like it when Christians do it And again, nothing to do With the topic right now All of this has to do with the topic Because the topic is religious freedom And religious minorities The topic is not religious freedom Those are the points that you're bringing up You're saying that your argument Was that Islam infringes On the rights of Christians This is a infringement Of your religious rights So that's what the topic is I do want to move maybe into A new zone of anything That's been brought up in the statement so far Once you guys are ready I didn't have any answer From David on this question You want Christians to be dominated So that means you want No, it's not I would like a government that does not That doesn't dominate us So you want a secular liberal government You're asking me what kind of government I would prefer It would not be any sort of government That is oppressing me Or telling me I can't preach the gospel Or anything like that With that said I'd be fine with a king If he's a good king I'd be fine with democracy If it's a pretty Fairly well informed people Aren't sending us into insanity And so on So I'm fine with a variety of What is it? Tell me what this government is I have no concept of Here's the government That I want to impose on the world You're saying David What kind of government would you impose? I don't want to impose anything No, no, no You can't criticize Islam And Islamic governance and Islamic law If you don't have an alternative What is the alternative? What is the alternative? I'm saying that Islam is the best alternative Islam is the best alternative And you're saying no it's not Okay, so give me your alternative Clearly it's not a Christian-dominated alternative I would take almost anything Except for maybe a really die-hard Communist nation Which I would regard as comparable To Islam But the bottom line is Look at the things you're saying Well, they might classify something You say as hate speech Something like that That's not nearly as bad That's not nearly as bad As things would be for Christian We don't have to focus We don't have to focus on hate speech We don't have to focus on the topic No, no, what about Rights of Christians as a minority How about marriage? Look at Christian marriage And how it has been disintegrated How Christian families have been disintegrated Over the course Yeah, how likely it is for you to How likely is it for you to get divorced How likely is it for your children To leave Christianity How likely is it for you to transmit Your values to your children Very unlikely, increasingly unlikely More unlikely by the day Under a secular system That supposedly is giving you All of this freedom and equality Like I said, look at Europe Yes it is, yes it is the topic I do, to be fair I do want to move back to Any of the topics that have been covered so far This is where you guys would have a chance to address Anything that's been brought up in your previous statements too Yeah, I am bringing up I am talking about what is the core of this debate Which is the rights of Christians And persecution and discrimination of Christians That is the topic of the debate And I'm saying that Islam, yes It has discrimination, but it's actually discrimination That is more favorable to Christians And there is literally not a single alternative There is literally not a single alternative To Islamic law That David can propose That is better for Christians And that's why you're floundering David You can't give me an example And you even say that Well, my job is not to give you an alternative example Okay, so you can see that There's literally nothing better That you know of to Islamic law So you can just take these cheap shots at Islam Without having an alternative If someone leaves Islam And converts to Christianity And under Islam You would execute him You don't see why I would think that's actually worse Than, I mean Do you know the history of secularism? Do you know how many Christians were murdered In the French Revolution By the atheist? Yeah, you don't know what I'm talking about Yeah, great, great That's a secular system I don't like that either So what's the alternative? Daniel, listen to what you're saying Does the topic is Does Islam require the violent persecution of Christians? There are all sorts of ways we can look at this Calling for the violent subjugation Making them second class citizens Making them pay tribute money Killing apostates, things like that And your responses But the French Revolution did it too It's like, I mean it's It's not even the two quote me Because you're not saying I did it But I mean it's like a kid when you say Hey, Johnny, why'd you steal that candy? Well mom, everyone was doing it Everyone was doing it If something is inevitable If something is inevitable My argument is that This kind of discrimination That you're whining about And other apologists That's something fundamental No, it's discrimination That's something that's inherent To any government system And the modern The modern secular system Discriminates and persecutes Christians Much more violently Than anything that Islam has done And the history of secularism Has been far more violent And in persecuting Christians Than anything that has been done in Islam And I think that your audience Most Christian conservatives All the threats I get are from The secular government Hey, who's trying to ban your channel? Who's trying to ban your channel, by the way? That's true, I don't like that either That secularism So what if all Christian channels Were being banned? I'd have a problem with it Yeah, of course You're having a problem with it So this is what secularism is Let me make this little point If when they do that When they start banning channels and so on In fact, you could go to my Twitter page When they ban Muslim channels I actually complain And I say, hey, you shouldn't be banning this What am I doing? I'm saying, hey, you shouldn't be taking sides In these kinds of religious issues and so on But notice, suppose I were to complain to them And say, hey, you shouldn't be telling Christians or Muslims and so on What they're going to say Imagine them saying, well, Muslims would do it too Muslims would tell you what you could say to them That would be irrelevant to me That would be irrelevant to me Complaining to them about what they're doing We're debating Do you think holocaust deniers Do you think holocaust deniers should be banned? I want to see what's your level of free speech absolutism Do you think like holocaust denial? No, no, I think you should expose them I think you should expose them as stupid Okay, so Yeah, I'm not an ad I'm not an ad How about a government? How about a government policy That says that if you're a holocaust denier Or let's say you're a member of the KKK You're a neo-Nazi, you're a racist You cannot be in certain levels of government You cannot take public office You're banned from those positions Do you agree with that? I'd have to think about it again Daniel, I'm not Neo-Nazis are okay to take official positions In the government according to you No, I mean, what sort of I just want to see Which beliefs do you want to discriminate against? Because you say that you're open to all beliefs There shouldn't be any policies against any beliefs What about neo-Nazi beliefs? What about KKK? So in your ideal government This is such a simple topic Don't interrupt me, David Do not interrupt me, David Let me finish my thought If you are I'll go and let you continue But the point is Everything you're saying Maybe soon, David, don't speak too soon It's not the end of the debate over We don't know if you're going to be my bimmy or not But answer the question Are you fine or are you not fine With having neo-Nazis KKK members People with these kinds of beliefs Outright racism, they're not violent They just espouse this kind of white supremacy Are you fine with them being In positions of government Public policy and being able to preach Their views about white supremacy I think you have some people Who aren't terribly far off Some of that And especially in Europe, you're getting people That's my answer Who aren't very far off from that You approve of that? No, you're oversimplifying it If you wanted to rule People out, you'd have to describe the policies That would be used And show how they would be implemented In order to ensure that certain people With certain views are excluded And if those policies You think they should be excluded That's the question You're just rambling You're avoiding the question I'd have to see the policy The policy is Neo-Nazis and white supremacists Cannot take public positions in government They cannot be public school teachers The government only says that Just no neo-Nazis No neo-Nazis No KKK I think it would have to be more general If you hold views In the government Calling for The racial superiority Of one group or something like that Then I don't know how you do this It's not something you just decide And say this group is magically banned And again Totally Completely, utterly irrelevant Yes, it is relevant It is relevant So Neo-Nazis require No, no, no, no, no, no, no David, let me give you 5000 hypothetical scenarios About a government and how to rule out Neo-Nut does Islam require The violent persecution of Christian You're the one who talked about blasphemy This is blasphemy, according to secularism It is blasphemy It is blasphemy That's the topic of the day You're interrupting me I'll let you talk Don't interrupt Let me point out the inconsistency So you can understand it And the audience can understand it You started out By saying that you wouldn't want to ban Any kind of people based on their beliefs So presumably you're okay with Muslims With Hindus Satan worshippers even In government Everyone to have a fair equal shot At being in government Then I asked you about KKK And Neo-Nazis and white supremacists And you said, no, we should have limits On those kinds of beliefs So that means you have More of an allegiance to Secular liberal Ideas about blasphemy And what is out of bounds Then you do of Christianity itself And Christian values itself That's the contradiction in your Perspective You keep saying I said things That I didn't say In fact, I mean I said Very clearly earlier That If Every other system in the world Called for violent persecution Against Christians, it would not change the fact That Islam calls for the violent persecution Of Christians But there's no wind to that argument I really thought You had a philosophical background That's like saying Muslims are bad Because they eat Living things It'd be stupid because everyone You're the one who asked for the topic Does Islam Require the violent persecution of Christians It sounds like you're saying yes But saying no if we tweak the definition Of what persecution is The violent persecution of everything else Therefore Islam doesn't Discrimination If you want to say You're not able to give me A single example Of number one Christians who haven't tried to dominate Muslims Give me one example Of that ever in history You're not able to do that I'm not trying to dominate you In history Because now You're not in power When Christians are in power Give me an example Where they haven't tried to dominate Muslims I mean When Christians dominated Europe And America They could have subjugated the entire world And kept it They were trying to do that Just listen to yourself David There are enough Christians When Christians took over South America One second I do want to give David a chance To respond there Right now Christians Christians have enough We make up a third of the world's population And we have Some of the most powerful countries that the world has Ever seen I don't see a lot of Christians saying Christians are not in power today Liberal atheists Liberal atheists are in power They're not Christians Christians are being jailed for citing the Bible Christians are being called domestic terrorists When they go to their local schools And they demand that their children aren't taught Satanism That's the reality of Christians I'm surprised that you're trying to defend Modern liberal secularism It's shocking to me I'm saying I don't know Let me put it this way I know a lot of Christians Let's go out and subjugate The Middle East They're not in power Muslims aren't in power I acknowledge that We're honest That's the honesty of Islam That's actually an important distinction That you may just Even when you're not in power There's still this plot To go around and subjugate the world Christians are doing what you're saying Anyone who gets into a position Of power tries to Maintain that power Especially groups that have been marginalized And discriminated against in the past As soon as they get into a position Where they can take power They try to preserve it So that they're not in that situation anymore I agree with that completely There's nothing about most other ideologies And most other religions Where it's built in there That there's this goal of subjugating the world And persecuting everyone And subjugating everyone That even if their ideology or religion Says that that's bad There's just this natural tendency to do it You say you're honest about it Because it's actually part of your religion So it's not really a choice It's part of your religion, too It's not built into my religion, dude Yes, it is Do you have a moral objection? Sometimes God just wants believers To engage in expansionist war You conceded that in our previous debate There you misrepresent what I said, too Okay, this is the statement Sometimes God Just wants believers to engage in expansionist war Sometimes in human history Maybe not now, but at certain points in history God has wanted believers To engage in expansionist war Jesus wanted that at some point As testified to in the Bible Yes or no Conceded I thought I made this entirely clear Say it, David No, because it's misrepresenting The Bible Sometimes God wants believers To engage in expansionist war That's what the Bible says Not now, I didn't say now Sometimes in the past Let me explain Because I thought this is totally clear Even though it's completely irrelevant to this debate In Christianity We've been commanded to love everyone To honor all people That's what we've been commanded You honor them by subjugating them That's what we're told We're not honoring them by subjugating Now you're doing what you did with the definition of Persecution You love them by killing them You love them by killing them That's what Augustine argued We're not In a position To say that sort of thing If we're told to Live in peace with all people To live in peace is to murder them all Great, thank you for sharing your Islamic views Is the world got to be the most peaceful? Hold on, we have to go into two-minute segments If we can't stop the interrupting I do want to give David just a little bit more time Before we come back to you, Daniel So, when you're talking about The Old Testament, I'm pointing out That is not in a previous debate I pointed out That what you had there Very different from a situation that we're in today You have God actually there Pillar of cloud, pillar of fire Fills the temple There are many ongoing miracles No disease No miscarriages There are ongoing miracles And you have the Visible presence of God Any sin against God In that situation is not just a random sin It's You're flying in the face of God You're saying, hey, I know what you require And I know you're the true God And there's no disputing this And I've agreed to follow these rules I've agreed to follow this And therefore there are harsh Penalties and that's associated And that entire covenant is associated With a land You're asking me, does God have the right to do that? Yes, I would say that God Has the right to do that But you said God just wants believers to Sometimes God will want believers to engage In expansionist war You just said yes Look, God could subjugate the entire world As far as I'm concerned, if God wanted to come down here And take over the world That's morally valid That's not my objection To Islam, first of all Your objection to Islam is that Islam is not true, yeah, we know that But the thing that you do in your videos And in these debates Is that you want to portray Islam As unjust, you want to portray Islam as somehow Violating a moral code And doing something that's morally objectionable And therefore Islam is false Because it commands Something that's morally objectionable My response logically to that argument Is to say that no You do not have a moral objection To expansion Or war or violence Or subjugation or discrimination or persecution You do not have a problem with that Morally because Your own religion has advocated for it And right now, just two minutes ago You conceded that Sometimes God, yes, he will command Believers to engage In those types of behaviors So your argument collapses Your argument has no legs to stand on That is the whole point That I'm trying to get you to recognize That you're just arguing in a circle Yeah, you're going to fall back on the idea That, oh, well, Muhammad wasn't a true prophet That's a separate debate But the debate or the kind of reasoning That you employ is that Islam is false, why? Because Islam commands its Followers to do unjust Things, to do things that are Contrary to human morality But that you can't make that argument Why? Because according to you, Jesus Also commands sometimes People to do exactly this kind of behavior That you're criticizing Islam for And in fact, Jesus is commanding More than what Islam has Required in the past So you don't have a moral objection To the entire point And getting back to the subject of the debate Can I respond to that real quick? Okay, so Massive straw man of my argument I've said in the past repeatedly If I thought that Islam were true I'd have to be on board with Jihad So it's not Islam is false It's not Islam is false Because it calls for the violent Subjugation of the world My position is not Islam is false Because it calls for the violent The vast majority of the time If I'm talking about Jihad And what Islam commands It's a response To politicians and journalists And educators and entertainers And lots of Muslim organizations And lots of Muslims Muslim speakers, Muslim preachers Who say Islam Is religion of peace and tolerance And Islam has nothing to do with any of this That was the mantra From the time of 9-11 on That Islam is this religion of peace I'm trying to show over and over again From the Muslim sources That's not what Islam is So notice that's separate from the issue Of Islam being true or false I'm saying it's false to say That Islam doesn't teach these things Islam does teach these things With the subtext that Look at these crazy barbaric Muslims Are you trying to pretend That that's not the whole subtext Of all of your videos? They're crazy barbaric Muslims Because if you're honest Islam does teach these things Like persecuting The heretic or the blasphemer If you're honest you say In the Bible Jesus has also commanded this In the past That would be the honest thing to do Listen, listen, listen Instead of hiding it from your audience I'm granting what you're saying If someone were to say The Old Testament never taught such And the Old Testament Did teach such and such Then it would be perfectly relevant To point that out Whether you believe in the Old Testament Or not, whether you think it refutes The Old Testament or not Look at the people who are commenting On your videos and saying Yeah, look at these crazy Muslims Look at how barbaric Islam is Why don't you point to all your Thousands and thousands of commenters On your videos and say Pointing out what Islam is about We have these same exact things in the Bible Jesus is cool With all these things too Despite my goofy videos Why don't you say that? There's obviously A problem Notice following what you're saying First alcohol is allowed in Islam Then later on it's not allowed in Islam So notice if you were to say If you were to say Alcohol is wrong But it wasn't always Therefore he's being a hypocrite And you can never say it's wrong If I said that There is something inherently evil About alcohol Well in heaven believers The denizens of The paradise in heaven Drink wine There's nothing inherently evil About drinking, there are evil consequences Of it, it's a consequentialist Point The Quran bans it That's the wisdom behind the banning of alcohol If I had that kind of Response and said Alcohol is inherently evil That would be a contradiction But you're strawman I would agree God has the right If God wanted to wipe us all out And say Human beings are just too bad I'm going to wipe everyone out I would think that God has the right to do that He's the one who created us And sustains us for every moment Of our existence But What you have biblically Is once you progress So you have In the ancient world So you're talking 1400 BC Very, very weird place You have these rules For a particular parcel of land For a certain amount of time Then when you get to the gospel The final marching orders Of Christianity Contextualize all you want The Bible contextualizes itself The final marching orders What am I supposed to do now I'm supposed to love everyone To live in peace with everyone Until Jesus returns Read Revelation Read Revelation God will judge You'll come and rule with Iron God I trust Jesus I do not trust human beings to do a good job Of it The final marching orders of Christianity Live in peace with everyone To the best of our ability Love everyone Final marching orders of Islam Whenever you are in a position To do so Violently subjugate the rest of the world And impose dimmy status On people and so on To act like we're in the same ballpark What you can say Is, hey, I agree that God has the right to do certain things But as far as human beings Having the right to do certain things now I'd say no because we've been commanded To do certain things God told human beings Hold on, we'll just let David finish that thought Hold up one second Daniel, just to let David finish that thought And then we'll come right back to you, Daniel Okay I thought he was done with this point Yeah, he didn't cut me off, I was done Okay, sorry about that I'm just a broken record at this point You can go through all the contextual Points that you want No problem, I have no problem with this contextualization I call it the magic of Reinterpretation, actually You engage a lot of that, David So no problem, do that all day But the point is that there is no moral objection That you have To expansionist war To vimitude To jizya To punishing blasphemers To killing heretics You have no moral objection In and of itself to those things No, you can't because Jesus commanded Those things in the Bible You might think that Okay now there's a period of time Where it's not applicable But you have no moral objection To any of those things You have no moral objection You have no moral objection to alcohol, right? In and of itself, no Okay Because it's something that at certain times Can be made permissible by God Then we have We're using the term moral Very differently here Matter of fact, let me give you an example From the Quran So I thought that you're not supposed to bow down To various things Allah Tells Everyone to bow down To Adam Satan says no Satan gets punished For not obeying what Allah commanded Satan saying it's not just rebellion He's saying wait a minute I'm fire He's just made of clay and earth Why am I going to be bowing down to him? It seems like Satan was actually From an Islamic perspective on the right page Wait a minute We're not supposed to be bowing down to some mere human So this must just be a test And it turns out Allah was saying no You have to go ahead and do it anyway So what I'm commanding you right now Is what you have to do If you have the commands that are directed Towards me or the commands that are directed Towards you The command to go out and fight this group Something that's not directed towards me And not directed towards you There are commands that are directed towards you That aren't directed towards me There are commands that are directed towards me I would say I have a moral objection To violating those commands But there was some other time when In a different place thousands of years ago Where there was a different rule It's still required of me To obey the commands that my god commands me As part of the covenant I'm under Keeping the commands of a covenant That I have entered into with god Obviously I have a moral reason to obey those commands If I don't Being a covenant with god It doesn't get more moral than that What you're talking about is Some hypothetical Hypothetical scenario Where I wasn't commanded to do these things Is something wrong just in and of itself In every conceivable situation That's not what I'm saying That's not what I'm saying That's what all of your audience Evidence by your commentators Think At least the ones that I see cheering For their videos They believe that Wow, you're showing how Islam is so barbaric Because it has these practices And the kind of moral reasoning That they're using in that moment When they're watching your videos and commenting on them Is that these are inherently wrong practices And they believe that Christianity Or Jesus is all about peace You should correct your audience They know, no, no, no guys Jesus is not all about peace Only in this current covenant He's been about expansionist war Violent jihad Smiting the unbelievers He's going to actually come back in human form And do that as the book of Revelation says That should be your message, David Wood So you need to be consistent I've talked about that I mean dozens of times And dozens of debates and so on So I've discussed all that repeatedly My objection to Islam Is that Muhammad is the most obvious False prophet in history My objection to Islam But in addition to that It also calls for the violent subjugation Of the entire world People who say it doesn't People who say it doesn't Need to be corrected And refuted So that's my position In case anyone's not clear on it When ever Christians have had power In their history Regardless of what David Is magic of reinterpretation They have violently persecuted And subjugated They have killed the most people In the past 200 years as a religious group By far, by far is Christians So this does have something to do with the debate Because given that reality Yeah, Muslims are going to have certain policies That will try to limit The control of Christians In the Islamic lands Because they don't want to be massacred Like these Christians have been doing For the entirety of their history A lot commanded that from all eternity The Quran is eternal A lot commanded the violent persecution Of Christians from all eternity David, if there is a group That has been wanting to violently Kill you And your religion Doesn't make sense to have policies To kind of limit the control Of those individuals in your society I'll give you a chance to respond David But then we do have to go into the closing statements Well, it's just That Islam expands from Mecca and Medina You're not answering the question Because you just massively misrepresented Islamic history Islam expands across Arabia Expands across Northern Africa Up into Europe, up into Spain And coming from the other side as well Both sides of Europe, all along southern Europe Pirate havens and so on Expands eastward all the way until you get Into India and China And so on Because everyone's attacking us Dude, you didn't Expand like that By defense, defending yourself I never claimed that If Muhammad had stayed in Medina You're the one who's claiming that Christians are these innocent little lambs And they're being persecuted By all these Muslims Okay, yeah, you're complaining about Muslim Policies and I'm saying that those Policies are actually very reasonable That's the topic you suggested Exactly, I'm saying that This discrimination Actually makes a lot of sense Given the violent nature of Christians As demonstrated through history Not the magic of reinterpretation of David We have to kill the apostates Because of the violence of Christianity We have to stone the heretics The heretics I guess we'll end with that Let's see the four minute conclusions We're going to start with We'll start with David for the conclusions And wrap up with the final speech from Daniel Before we go into Q&A David, I've got the clock set for you At four minutes, the floor is all yours Alright So, as far as the The actual parts where we Stuck to the topic In this debate I've shown that Islam Does require the violent persecution Of Christians given any reasonable Rational definition of what violent Persecution would be Daniel's initial response was That somehow it's not violent persecution If he regards it as Just but, you know, killing apostates And things like that That's still violent persecution What you just say is it's just We have to do this But that's an agreement So I've shown that Islam does require the violent Persecution of Christians Islam calls for the violent subjugation Of the entire world and encourages An obsession with martyrdom This leads to the violent persecution of Christians I show that Muslims are commanded To subjugate Christians until Christians No longer say Jesus is Lord This is directly out of the Quran This is Surah 9 verses 28 to 33 Every justification And requirement for fighting Christians In that passage has to do with our basic Religious beliefs and Practices So if there's a command to fight us Until we pay the jizya And feel ourselves subdued We feel ourselves subjugated By the acknowledgement of our inferiority That's violent persecution Especially when it's all based on us Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord That Jesus is the Son of God Because we claim that Jesus is the Son of God We have to be silenced by enforcing Dimitrude on us And the pattern is we can either convert We can relinquish our Rights to at least publicly proclaim The gospel Or we can be killed So that's obviously The violent persecution of Christians If we have to violently subjugate these people To keep them from saying Jesus is Lord And notice even there There are passages of the Quran that talk about self-defense Allah in this crucial passage Does not say, hey Christians are going to be out to get you Christians are going to come after you Therefore you need to defend yourselves What does he say? They're preaching the gospel They're preaching that Jesus is Lord You have to subjugate them and silence them How are you going to do that by sending Allah I mean by sending Muhammad With the religion of truth to prevail it over All religions And I pointed out that Islam requires Muslims to execute apostates who convert to Christianity Killing someone for converting To Christianity is obviously Violent persecution Now Daniel seems to agree With most of what I said That's actually relevant To the debates So it's clear That even if he wants to redefine some terms He believes that Islam requires Quite a bit of violent persecution Against Christians And so what he's arguing is But everyone does this That Christians have done it That every ideology You can come up with would do the same thing Certainly wouldn't do it in the same way And you can just I mean you can ask Christians Where they'd like to live You can ask Christians in various places I get messages all the time David can you help me get out of this country So the proof is The proof is in the pudding here And so what's Daniel's position It's that everyone is doing it And therefore we don't have the right to complain When Islam does it But notice this debate is not Not even about whether it's right or wrong It's not about whether it shows Muhammad to be a false prophet Or not whether it shows Islam To be Or not It simply does Islam Require the violent persecution Of Christians Indisputably it does Any honest reading of the Muslim sources Say that it does So this debate was over From the opening statements This debate was over because We really granted the core of the debate Everything else since then Has been off topic Smoke screen Closing statement David And we are going to kick it over to Daniel For his closing as well How long is the closing? That was four minutes And same for you Daniel four minutes Folks our guests are linked in the description Don't forget to check them out And thanks Daniel the floor is all yours Alright so A couple of points That David brought up Islam does not subjugate Christians For teaching their religion The Ahlul Dimmah The protected people within the Islamic state Are allowed to teach their religion In their churches And their synagogues They are allowed to raise their children as Christians As God fearing Christians Islam does not prevent Christians Within an Islamic nation To teach the trinity Or to teach any of those kinds of beliefs So this is a misrepresentation From David If you go to Muslim societies today You will find Christians that are teaching the Bible They are teaching the trinity And in many of these Muslim societies The Christians are actually Doing very well socially In Egypt the richest Egyptian family Is actually a construction company family Who are Christian, Coptic Christians On the issue of blasphemy That David keeps bringing up All societies punish Defectors And deter Defection Leaving the group All societies do this All religions do this This is something that is acknowledged morally Again within the Bible It is found in mosaic law And we see this within the practice of Christians It's only liberal Christians today Who have no power And who have no influence Who are preaching this kind of passivism And oh yeah it's fine for blasphemy To run wild This is like a really weak And defeated kind of Pathetic attitude from Christians To criticize or liberalize Christians To criticize Islam for this Throughout this debate David has not answered a single question That I had Literally very basic questions That even the Christian audience Are probably ripping their hair out Asking why isn't David able to For example say if he does Or does not want neo-nazis Serving in government positions Or should those kinds of views Be deterred or prevented Like such a simple question He did not answer that He didn't answer a question Name me one system that doesn't discriminate Against religious minorities Name me one The secularism that you are preaching David without actually calling it secularism Does discriminate And persecute Christians Ask any Christian Where you live in Where I live in Christians are acutely aware Of all of the oppression Or the tightening of the noose Around their necks By the secular liberal state America is not even the best example Because America is a little bit delayed In wiping out Christianity Look at European history The very beginning of secularism What that was about And look at Europe Why? Because that is what secularism does It's much worse for Christians Than anything that Islam Has ever done or could conceive of doing David has not answered Explain how secularism Is not about discrimination and persecution And explain like Tell me David do you want Christians to be dominant Or dominated Like such a simple question David could answer He gave some kind of weird answer That human beings are always corrupt Okay well what about all of Christian history What about Jesus himself Who is supposed to come in human form Is he going to be corrupt when he As described in the book of Revelation Is going to come and rule by the rod And rule by the sword So this whole debate Your strategy has been to Side track the discussion By arbitrarily restricting The topic Okay the topic I want to debate Deeper issues about the meaning Of discrimination being a religious minority All you did was say oh that's irrelevant That's irrelevant things that are very Relevant to this debate you sidestep You avoided you weaseled your way out That was your debate strategy David I think everyone is able to see that Was able to see that We are going to jump into the Q&A Thanks so much for your questions folks If you happen to have a question We are going to try to read through these as fast as possible You can still submit in the live chat If you tag me with that modern day debate Or put in a super chat we put those in the first Even folks we've got so many questions I don't know if we're going to get to Any questions that you put in as of right now So heads up on that just a warning Because we do have limited time Stop scamming man thanks for your question Says hello Daniel there are Christians Living in the peninsula do you think They need to be removed There are Christians living in the peninsula Florida No I think it's Saying because Mohammed I think The point is since Mohammed said Expelled Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula Leaving none but Muslims I think That sounds like what it's asking to me If there are Christians who are living in the Arabian Peninsula Should they be removed If that's the question then There is a juristic difference of opinion On whether Ahlul Kitab Are able to be Living in the Arabian Peninsula There is actually a difference A robust difference of opinion On that topic so some scholars said Yes they are allowed The Prophet peace be upon him Made agreements for different groups Jewish and Christian groups To remain within different parts of Arabia Other scholars say no that That was abrogated so There is a difference of opinion on the topic You got it and thank you very much For your question this one coming in from Do appreciate it stop scamming man strikes again Says in your estimation Daniel If Khalif Umar did indeed Forbid the repairing of Churches in Jerusalem Did he have been impeached for it So what you're referring to Is the act or the pact Of Umar that he had With the Christians within Syria Jerusalem and so forth And the exact details Of the pact There is a question amongst the Scholars of Islam Whether all of those points Are required when Dealing with Ahlul Dimmah With Christians And Jews who are under Muslim control And most scholars said that No not every single point Within this act is necessary In fact the Khalifa The caliph can decide Like what exactly what provisions Are required and a caliph Might decide okay fine Christians can repair their churches And Jews can repair their synagogues And expand them or what have you And others said that no There is a hard line So there is a difference of opinion But I mean these details We can, I didn't want the debate To be about these kinds of Juristic details The overall point that you want That these questions are trying To get at is that oh Islam Is discriminating against The Christian minority and that's Evil okay so we can talk About those details all day We can talk about the details Detailed points that a lot of Muslim Apologists or Muslim speakers will Point out but the deeper Topic is this question of discrimination Religious freedom Religious persecution that's What I wanted this debate to focus on And that kind of Discrimination is found In secular modern societies As well to a much greater degree If you have a problem with the Concept of vimmi too And non-Muslims being vimmies Under the Islamic state my question to you Is why don't you have a problem with Christians and Jews and Muslims And everyone being vimmies to Essentially liberal atheists Satanists many pedophiles I wonder how many of Your followers David recognize That there are a lot of pedophiles out there And they some of them Are in power so that's The kind of concern that I Wanted to elicit in Christian listeners to this debate And of course I invite all Christians to Islam And I Want to be very reconciliatory To Christians while accurately And honestly representing Islam and if we can't And if we can't have these Christians become Muslims Then at least let's work together Let's work together against this Liberal beast This atheistic force of secularism That is swallowing us all up Let's work together against Satan Satanism the antichrist That's what we should be working towards And we can't do that when you have someone like David Wood taking cheap shots And this kind of ugly insulting attitude Towards Islam and Muslims So coming in from Do appreciate it stop scamming man says In your estimation Daniel if a man in a caliphate Announces he converted to Christianity When he was still a minor What should be done to him If he's a minor then He's not responsible I mean he wouldn't be In a position of being a caliph And it really depends on what he insists on As an adult After being a minor He reaches the point of puberty And he insists on being A Christian then that Could be a problem but Actually honestly I Haven't read this particular example In Fiqh you have like a Child Who decides to become Muslim or a Christian He's not morally responsible At that point But then he wants to He becomes he hits puberty What happens to him at that point That's a very specific Like specific issue Within Fiqh that I haven't really Read up fully on so But I mean again it's not Probably not going to be something that's In accordance with liberal secularism And liberal secular sensibilities This one coming in from the same speaker But if Islam speaks of talking Rocks and trees if such were to say They converted from Islam to Christianity In a caliphate should they be Destroyed Yes the rocks should be destroyed And you got it T. Rev the game Dev says Daniel you said Believe in the revelations of past Prophets even though they've been corrupted Though would you trust an email From your bank with important financial Instructions if you thought a hacker Had tampered with it This is a weird argument that David made in the previous debate And I'm glad that Now I get opportunity to fully Address this So if you have this kind of Objection to Islam that Islam claims that the previous Books were corrupted but At the same time the Quran will Refer and the Prophet Muhammad Will refer to the Torah And the Injil Like this is the objection that David The questioner just brought up But look the same thing the same exact thing Happens in the Bible with Jesus If you go to Jeremiah 8 8 How can you say we are wise For we have the law of the Lord when Actually the lying pen of the scribes Has handled it falsely This is what Jesus says and then Second Timothy 3 16 through 17 All scripture is God breathed And is useful for teaching rebuking Training and righteousness So that the servant of God may be Thoroughly equipped for every Good work also Matthew 23 1 through 3 Do not think that I Jesus Have come to abolish the law of the Prophets I have not come to abolish them But to fulfill them I tell you the truth Until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest Letter not the least stroke or A pen will by any means disappear From the law until everything is accomplished So isn't this a contradiction At some point Jesus is saying that Not the smallest letter will Disappear but then earlier in Jeremiah he is saying that well Actually the pen of the scribes have Caused some kind of falsehood or corruption So this is also a contradiction If we want to do some Magic of reinterpretation David Is shaking his head he is probably Cooking up a great explanation For how this is not really a contradiction Fine Muslims can do that too And a clear explanation easy explanation Just because you endorse a book doesn't Mean you endorse everything in the book And it doesn't mean that you think every Single letter of the book is Unimpeachable or uncorruptible It's a very simple answer to that question This one from Try reading Jeremiah Daniel That will become perfectly clear This one from you to have haqq For you David says to David would Assuming both were honest in their Faith do you believe that Anne Frank Is in hell and the repentant Christian Nazi who killed her Is in heaven I don't claim to know those Kinds of things I just to be clear And this keep in mind Spent years as a Christian Philosopher exposed to Lots of different ideas And I think In terms of probabilities like This is the main position or this is Traditional Christianity and here's this Thing and I don't actually know how to How to rule that out and so I Just end up saying okay until I Until I Until I really study an Issue I'm not going to take a Stance on that but there are Christians at Christian conferences Who Who say that there may be You know post mortem Opportunities For people who Either didn't hear the gospel or Had a massively distorted View of the gospel so An example would be that would be Given would be like If a Christian slave Trader took a slave From Africa and all that African Slave was exposed to as Christianity was some really weird Person who he hears that he hears Some version of the gospel from him but It's it's in that sort of context where It's not clear that he would even Get an accurate understanding of What the gospel is Do people in these kinds of Various situations Have any sort of post mortem Opportunity to Accept Jesus Or what not and Guys I'm just not as Confident as most other people and Saying no this is the situation I'm not Saying it's not the situation I'm Just saying you know Calvinism And Armenianism you won't Take into position why you haven't Really studied it and I'm not just Going to say well this is you know These people I like and therefore I'm Going to stick with that so I am And I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and Say very quickly this part of this is Based on like the Old Testament You had the scholars of the law the Scribes and the Pharisees and then You have the Messiah who comes Before them and they reject him Because they were confident that they Had the right interpretations of The interpretation of lots of scriptures to The point and it affected them to the Point where even if someone is Performing the miracles of the Messiah in front of them living the Most miraculous life ever they would Still reject him because they were They were convinced they had the right Interpretations of scriptures so my Take away from that has been I Mean unless I'm really sure that This is this is Foundational Christianity and that There's not another reasonable I normally don't take a position on this Issue I just I want to explain that a Little bit of detail because you know This is the sort of thing that would Get me in trouble if you tell Christians Hey you know maybe after death people Haven't been exposed to the gospel or People who've been given a really Messed up version of it and so on Or you know people who've only been Around Christians who persecuted them or Something like that maybe they would Be given other opportunities or Something like that I just don't know If you get to respond I wanted to Respond to everything you said earlier We do have a ton of questions so if you Guys are able to keep the responses to Minimum we do want to jump into this next One from stop scamming man says if a Gin appeared to the world in physical Form as Islam says they can and Converted from Islam to Christianity Under a caliph should it be killed Seems like the same Seems like the same question Slightly different ingredients over And over this would I don't think it's possible to kill Gin I don't think humans can kill Gin This is coming in from Your old buddy apostate prophet says Daniel you talk about social Cohesion and happiness why do you Think executing and depressing apostates And infidels for the happiness of society Is a convincing argument It's cohesion of society This is a Pretty basic fact that People will acknowledge that You need to have a ground Of similarity there has to be certain Rules Certain things that are sacred that cannot Be violated that All agree to buy Threat of punishment In order to maintain a cohesive Society that exists within Secular societies as well There are certain things and this is Acknowledged by Secular society and atheists As well that you have to Have certain rules and this is why I asked David about neo-nazis And the KKK Anti-LGBT Anti-transgender questioning The Holocaust all of these Kinds of boundaries and Red lines that okay you cannot Cross these lines In our secular society because If you do it's going to result In violence it's going to result In disharmony it's going to Result in a lack of cohesion Those red lines exist Within every single secular Society and every society that Has ever existed If you start allowing people to Say and do whatever they want And And also believe anything That they want then Quickly society turns into Anarchy and chaos again This is acknowledged by All secular governments and Now with the internet The internet has facilitated So much spread of bad ideas Ideas that are a threat To secular democracy this is why The United States government has To create a ministry of truth Or a disinformation department Why because the principle Even if you don't agree With everything the Biden Administration does you Many secular atheists agree That you need to have A control on information otherwise You society breaks From the seams So Islam also acknowledges This except it draws the red line Around a different issue it's not about Being anti whatever LGBT Or anti this or that it's About blaspheming against God it's about something that will Matter for your afterlife Whether you recognize it or not This is the wisdom Behind prohibiting blasphemy Within Islamic society and Discouraging apostasy And criminalizing it In order to preserve people's afterlife So it makes perfect sense In terms of consequentialism In terms of even what Liberal governments are doing Everyone agrees With punishing blasphemers And even sometimes executing Blasphemers everyone including You apostate prophet including You and I showed you that in our Debate when I embarrassed you In our debate you can go back and rewind the tape And watch how I answered this question I just wanted the opportunity to reiterate it That you every society Punishes and even Executes Blasphemers so this is Another empty argument against Islam This one coming in from SWGG for you David Says do you condemn The US occupation of Iraq Which led to the killing of millions of Muslims If yes then why didn't You make a video about it Like you do whenever a random Muslim Commits a crime Did they say billions of Muslims I said millions let me Go back To be clear Principles of just war theory Would mean that you should Take every step to avoid Something like that As far as invading The invasion seemed to be based On a lot of false information So I mean I'm not I don't control I don't control the government I don't know what information they had to go on That we didn't have That we didn't have access to But I would not be a fan of that And yes I think they should have taken More steps to make sure that A lot of people who died weren't dying You got it thank you very much for this question Coming in from Kwani Upstate says he just admitted Muslims And Islam spread religion through compulsion However forgot that his faith says There shall be no compulsion In religion I think that's for you Daniel Yeah I mean this is David has debates with these Kinds of Moronic Muslims I don't even know if they're Muslims A lot of them I think are just agents Who are trying to make Muslims look bad And they bring up this verse There will be no compulsion In religion He timers them He mocks them He says okay you're using this verse to say that Islam doesn't have offensive jihad An expansionist war You're a clown He just clowns them basically and mocks them But that is the exact type of Reinterpretation And weaseling out That David uses In my debates with him So it's really funny That I mock those Muslims For using one verse And ignoring all the context Ignoring all the history Ignoring the sunnah The seerah of the prophet Ignoring the interpretation Of thousands of years Or 1400 years of scholars And just saying That's exactly what David Wood does When he says that Christianity is just about Peace And tolerance because He uses Peter To lay down his sword And the garden of Gethsemane And all of the Christian scholars Almost all of them The vast majority agree That Christianity has Violent expansionism And this is what Jesus actually wants This is what God actually wants And we didn't actually get to this Part of the debate but there were Many within the first 300 years Of Christianity Who were part of the Roman army And who were actually involved With the Roman expansion Of the Roman empire against Heretics and other groups That the Romans wanted to wipe out Christians had no problem With being part of expansionist wars From the very beginning of their history But Christians do not want to acknowledge This because it undermines Their entire pacifist Revision Of their religion Thank you very much for this question Coming in from MagicSan Says Christians and liberals Also endorse violence against Muslims This whole debate is pointless Thoughts from either of you What was that? They said Christians and liberals Also endorse violence against Muslims This whole debate is pointless I have a feeling it's more for you David Yeah, it's What do you mean endorse violence Against Muslims? You mean like Surprising people or I don't know what you're saying If someone were to say We're going to kill Muslims for being Muslims Or for converting to Islam Or something like that I would object to that in the same way I would object to Islamic Laws of apostasy There seems to be this Tendency to say Here Islam has Called for the violent subjugation Of the world for 14 centuries And whenever it's been in a position To subjugate the unbelievers In the name of Allah It does so The only times it stops The only times it stops Violently subjugating the world Is when someone actually physically stops it With an army And we point this out And look at what it calls for This is not good for the world Calls for the violent subjugation of the world Calls for killing apostates We don't want to live like that And the response is Look at what Western nations do To Muslims You can obviously have Unjust things That happen If the West wanted to wipe out The Islamic world It could We don't want to If people were trying to do it Or killing people for converting Or something like that I think we'd have too many people Who object to it here So don't put them in the same Ballpark You can't say Islam promotes killing But Western nations have killing as well Very different situations For the killing I have thoughts on this question Oh my goodness We weren't sure if this was for a year So He's saying liberals and Christians Liberals and Christians do want to Expand their influence And America America has imposed Its will on the entire World The liberal world has imposed liberalism On the Muslim world Muslims are dummies in the world today And this is exactly what Islamic Expansionism is It just means Islamic rule Ruling all these territories Not necessarily like putting everyone in chains But having a world order that is based on Islam That is what liberals have Established throughout the world A liberal world order If you do not go by what The liberal world order says You will be sanctioned, you will be invaded There will be belligerence against your country You will be brought to heel This is exactly the way that the world works So if this is inevitable And this is how every nation has been able to operate And it's not possible to even conceive Of an alternative Because you couldn't give an alternative Then how can you fault Muslims Or Islam for that It's a very simple argument T-Rab the game Dev says the debate question was whether or not Islam requires violence against Christians Daniel said quote yes But there's others who do it too By saying yes, Daniel conceded the debate Congrats to David I know you already addressed this But if you want to do it again Or add anything The actual debate topic And David can acknowledge this It was a violent persecution Persecution, that's the key word And I did not concede that Violence, yes Implementing the law is violent Implementing laws are violent In society So it's not about whether Islam imposes violence Islamic law Poses violence because yes Obviously that's what all legal systems Are violent, all legal systems So if you fire people to submit to the law Otherwise you will get caught By the police, by force And if you resist you can be shot and killed That is all legal system So the question is not Is Islam violent against Christians Or against Jews It's their violent persecution Meaning an unjust system That is subjugating unjustly A group That was the question, I did not concede that This one for David says Is your position square with the fact that non-Muslim Minorities Who practice marriage between close Relatives Have been allowed To do this practice under Muslim majority Rule What was that? Maybe he's talking about Zoroastrians Zoroastrians, Persians Zoroastrians have this What's known as mother marriage Like the son could marry His mother in Zoroastrianism So maybe he's referring to that That was actually permitted That kind of practice was permitted under Islamic law And the justification Given when you go to Ibn Qayyim One of the major scholars of Islam He said that this practice Was allowed by the early Caliphs Or Amir's over Persia Because it's such a disgusting practice That there's no one really That's practicing it And it has no possibility Of going to corrupt the land Or lead to widespread vice So even though it's disgusting We don't need to go and police That particular behavior They want to do it in closed doors We don't really need to go And punish That Maybe that's what he's talking about That particular practice of Zoroastrians I don't know exactly What that's referring to I might be talking about what Daniel just pointed out Again the question is Whether Islam calls for The violent persecution Of Christians And Daniel has simply redefined What it means to mean something that is Unjust according to his definition As I pointed out Then the government of China Is not violently persecuting Muslims In fact no one has violently persecuted Muslims Because they would all regard What they're doing as Just and beneficial For their society And really you could redefine anything like this You could go and rape a woman And when you get accused of rape You say oh no I regard as you know Rape as something that you don't deserve But you brought this on yourself girl So you could just redefine anything like this But I mean any reasonable definition Of what violence means And what persecution means Islam is going to fit Those definitions pretty well So the answer to the debate This one coming in from Brandon Oh it says question for how you get Daniel Says if Islam is good for its people Why is it that Islamic run countries Consistently list top 10 worst countries To live as a woman As a woman I'm not familiar with that stat but The realities I can explain I won't comment on it I'll just say there have been studies You probably disagree with the organization So there's like the world economic forum In places like that and they've done studies Where different countries are Assessed based on You know the level of education Of women in a society Or job opportunities available to them Or parental rights Of women over their Children in cases of divorce Do they have rights to divorce Average age At which people get married And so on and they rank the countries And I've seen A couple of different versions of this But it's always like 11 out of 12 Of the worst places in the world Based on these criteria Are Muslim countries and Or it'll be like 17 out of 18 or something like that So I think that's what they're referring to But I know you're gonna probably disagree with the Organizations and the criteria Yeah the criteria I mean you can define The criteria however you want And say that oh well We define women's Status in a country by how many Fortune 500 CEOs they have In their country and then Oh look all these Muslim countries Or African countries or South American countries Come out at the bottom I mean this is a kind of a triumphalist Liberal way to justify Why like liberal Modernity with its feminist Project is superior To all other traditional ways of life Including Christian ways Of life and Muslim ways of life So yeah these criteria When you look at how they define it It's all just based on liberal feminism Like oh do women have access to abortions Like how much is their abortion Access like they do these same kind Of surveys Or rankings when it comes to Christians or United States And they say oh look the States that have the Christian majorities Are the lowest ranking in terms Of women's rights and women's Whatever so this is just A liberal secular bias We should look at happiness We should look at I mean this is one criteria as women's happiness It's not the end all be all because Sometimes women's Happiness or men's happiness might be lower In service of a larger Goal like serving God Or living according to God's plan But just on this Basis of women's happiness Happiness in western Countries have been plummeting Over the past 50 and 60 years And this has become a kind of a paradox Because it seems like Women's rights according to feminism Are increasing there's more reproductive Rights more abortion more divorce More whatever but women's happiness Is actually plummeting Why is this it seems like Christian women are Happier with their you know Patriarchal Bible Thumping marriages or Catholics where they don't believe in divorce Their marriages are happier This is a conundrum for liberals And as a Muslim I'll acknowledge That Christian marriages Have much better chance of Surviving and being healthy and being productive Than Atheist liberal marriages And same with Muslim marriages And Muslim women and Muslim ways of life That's the thing about me like I am a supporter of Christian A Christian dominated society I think women will be much happier And society will be much better In a Christian society To live in a truly Christian society If the and acknowledge that I'll be a Muslim then me under Christians as opposed to being a Muslim Then me under these secular Liberal atheists that are crushing Religion crushing all believers So but I'm sorry to say that David does not Recognize that and he doesn't reciprocate This one you're you're sorry that I don't Want to make you my dimmy this one coming Compared to atheists. Yeah, I'd rather be Your than me than an eighth then like Apos This one coming in from Gabriel Garcia they're Committed they said I Gabriel personally Challenged David would to a discussion Through debate on modern day debate With thy topic being quote This is Christianity True or false for I Say false David would can we make this happen I did not understand any of that This is Christianity I wouldn't understand The topic so shoot me an email Gabriel I give you my email stupid Horror energy says why does Allah put enmity And hostility among Christians In all my 514 seems Like an act of war and a violation Of free will And what's the Verse like animosity towards Christians that they said Put enmity And hostility or hatred And hostility among Christians In all my 514 Christians like so Christians Fight with each other sorry I haven't Fully memorized So I don't know I'm new to it as well Stupid word energy let me know if you want to Clarify that but this one coming in from Quani upstate says to Daniel I could just read the verse real quick You bet and so And with those who say we are Christians We made a covenant Rejected they neglected a portion Of what they were reminded of therefore We excited among them enmity And hatred to the day Of resurrection and Allah will inform Them of what they did And so What's the verse number 514 Says so we have caused enmity and hatred Among them till the day of resurrection So it looks like Allah is saying enmity And he's Causing enmity and hatred among Christians Or something like that I mean is there something Relevant to the debate on that I think there has been a lot of Animosity and hatred Among Christians I think it's saying Allah did that I think that's the Objection It's saying why did Allah do it Yeah so this is something That Allah controls And this is something that God controls as specified in the Bible As well God is also Deceiving and Scheming in the Bible God is also putting Hatred in the hearts in the Bible We can go and look up the verses as well But these same things exist This is not like an actual theological distinction As far as I can tell Between Islam and Christianity Or even Judaism So coming in from do appreciate your question As well for David SWGG says David don't you think that the US wouldn't have A nice rate of single motherhood in the world If it was ruled by Islam instead This is that situation That we see repeatedly If Islam Would prevent Some problem In some way therefore What would your objection to Islam be Like if I say Oh you know I sprained my finger It really hurts and someone says Stab you in your face with a rusty screwdriver That'll make you forget all about The problem with the pinky It doesn't mean I want to be stabbed in my face With a screwdriver The idea that hey there are these problems And Islam is the solution I mean it's almost like You could pick anything And start picking out problems with it And therefore present some solution That is not actually a solution You could take the medical field And say look at all the malpractice Of people dying in hospitals And look at the injustice The rich people they get better care And look at all these problems Therefore you know what we need Is a solution to all these problems That we point out You know what we need is a solution Leeches We need to go back to leeches And if we go to leeches We're solving all the problems with leeches Then you know we just won't have this This problem No one wants No one wants to have this Would not improve the situation So the idea that hey in order to Lower divorce rates We should you know adopt Islam You're going to need a better case for Islam Than that This one coming in from do appreciate your question T-Rev the game dev says Daniel you said quote just pay the tax Unquote well what if Christians refuse to pay You used hypotheticals of disobedience To justify 34 in parentheses wife Beating but you're trying to dodge the Topic here Where's the dodge You're talking about jizya yeah Pay the tax pay the jizya That's part of living As a non-muslim In an Islamic government In an Islamic nation Same thing within secularism You can argue whether jizya Is more burdensome As a tax burden or the actual Tax burden that exists in all of these Secular countries we just came out of Tax season in the United States And it's quite a large amount Of your income goes directly To the government and if you don't Pay the government It's taxes and get the IRS On your tail let me tell you It's not a pleasant experience And if you try to dodge The IRS the police are going to come After you actually maybe the federal Agencies will come after you You refuse them Arresting you Putting you in jail Seizing your property Putting a lien on all your property You lose everything that you own They are justified in using Deadly force to take you in That's what the secular state Does for those who do not pay Their taxes is quite bloody It's quite violent it's quite coercive And many people suffer From it and object to it Including many Christians maybe more Conservative and Bible based Than David but this is the Reality of all systems Of government and Christians as well If they didn't kill you in history If they didn't subjugate you through death Because you're a heretic or because You're a pagan they would also Tax you and they would Extract these kinds Of tributes from you and they Are continuing the practice of The Roman emperor and the Roman This is why Jesus says in the Bible Render unto Caesar what is Caesar And render unto God what is God And Paul also praises Leaders and say pay the taxes To them so in the same light If Muslims are the rulers Then Paul himself And Jesus himself would say Render unto the caliph what is the caliphs Render the jizya to the caliph So I don't see Any kind of problem here for Islam This one coming in from do appreciate The question in the nick of time says Daniel my Muslim friend donated His zakat to a church By cooking food in their soup kitchen For 100 people and serving those hungry People is he going to help for helping Christians The question is I did that He said a friend He said a friend did His zakat by Helping Feed people at a Christian I guess soup kitchen or something like that Is he in trouble for that according to Islam People just don't know the rules of zakat So you have to have a certain amount It's only for Muslims but you have to have a certain amount Of wealth a minimum amount Of wealth I think it's like around 5 To 7k depending on the value of Gold it's called the Nisab And only if you have savings Beyond that amount Are you required to pay 2.5% As a Muslim of your Wealth so does working Service count as Zakat no Unless you're getting paid for that You're getting paid for the labor that you're doing And then you can pay those wages But the work Itself I don't think That counts as zakat but maybe someone More knowledgeable in the issue Could correct me if I'm wrong in the comments This one coming in from Frodo Says if we all agree It's Islamically valid to launch Offensive military battles as soon as you're Strong shouldn't you expect powerful nations Of today such as the US And China will work to weaken And undermine you They are working to weaken And undermine that is the history Like this is not a theoretical This is actually what the strategy That was taken by the colonial powers By liberal atheist powers Starting from the 18th century End of 18th century p.m. 19th century That's the colonial project they did Recognize that Muslims are powerful Muslims are dangerous And that they need to be exterminated The original plan was to exterminate Muslims They weren't able to do that Even though they killed millions Genocided millions Supposedly the enlightened race Because they were trying to take over the world It didn't work out for them so they Figured out a better strategy was to Subjugate Muslims and Prevent them from organizing Prevent them from teaching their religion Prevent them from teaching the Quran The strategy that they take with Christians They are trying to De-claw Christians They have been for the past 200 plus years Because they recognize Christians are dangerous Christians will take over Christians will fight for their beliefs Christians have these strong families And these strong Marriages and communities That pose a threat to the Atheist satanic world That they want to establish So Christians are in the same boat Liberal secularism is concerned Since that was kind of Kind of general I'd like to comment on that as well So Daniel and I agree And I don't see how anyone can get around it That Islam does call for Offensive jihad so that When Muslims are in a position To expand and so on That they're supposed to So the question had to do with Other Nations and other ideologies and so on Being aware of that And then taking steps to Prevent being subjugated By Islam I just wanted to add that according to Daniel's Own definitions And what is right And wrong and what is acceptable and so on Based on what he said Because notice earlier he was saying We have to deal with Christians in this way Because if we don't then the Christians Would get us and he's acknowledged To do this and he doesn't seem to be Condemning it some of the time So it looks like according to Daniel's definitions That it would be entirely Justified For All non-Muslim nations to subjugate Muslim nations And it would be justified for China to oppress Uighurs Because they would understand That if given the opportunity In the future these Muslims Would be inclined to Take over and try to subjugate them And therefore preemptively Should subjugate All non-Muslims and should engage In these kinds of things Just to be clear I'm not saying Do that I'm saying according to Daniel's Explanations there It looks like he would Have to regard to be consistent He would have to regard it as completely Moral and consistent and justifiable To subjugate the entire Muslim world To avoid being conquered I don't know so we must I need to respond to this Because this is David Introduced some points here The point that I'm making in this Entire debate is that discrimination As a tool is something that everyone Uses that doesn't mean that All sorts of discrimination are the Same the thing about liberal Atheistic or even Chinese Or communist discrimination Is that it's meant to wipe Out religion, it's meant to Wipe out families and Presses this kind of individualism So that type of discrimination Is more pernicious Than anything Islam Has regarding And also what Christianity has and that's Why I say that I would prefer Being a minority, a discriminated Persecuted minority under Christians than under communists Or under liberal secular atheists Because there are, we can It's not just pure relativism That discrimination is discrimination That's not my point, my point is That there can be differences And some forms of discrimination Are better and they're objectively More conducive to happiness Both in this life and the next life So that's my Point and then also The discrimination as a tool Or even war as a tool The idea is that you are Using it as a tool But the point is you're spreading goodness Islam is here to spread Values of goodness that benefits All of humanity and the war Is just a tool for doing that The discrimination is a tool for doing that Whereas liberals or the Chinese When they're spreading their influence They are trying to spread This atheism, this godlessness, this satanism So it's bad for that reason Not because war in and of itself is bad Not because violence in and of itself is bad Not because discrimination in and of itself is bad So I can Very consistently object To Chinese discrimination Of Muslims, liberal Secular persecution Of Muslims, I can object to that On a very consistent basis because My argument is that they are spreading godlessness They're spreading evil, they're spreading All kinds of satanism And the objection to Christians who Would dominate Muslims I am saying that yeah, that's a better form of discrimination But ultimately I do disagree with the trinity And therefore that's why I disagree with it As the trinity controlling the world Is Christian doctrine controlling the world That's my objection Not with the discrimination itself Many questions left Joel Seraj says Daniel needs to understand The difference between physical dispensation And spiritual dispensation The thing is he knows it Was different back then But he willingly is taking verses out of context We know this It's physical It was physically applied According to the Bible As commanded by God So there can't be a moral objection To the physical implementation Of law and order Against the blasphemer Against the pagan, against the heretic And this is exactly what Augustine Actually argues When Christians took power This was in the 4th century And Augustine is trying to justify When we take power and power We are going to start punishing heretics We're going to start getting involved In these expansionist wars That is justified Why? Because Jesus himself In the New Testament is described In the Gospels as cleansing the temple And he is using a whip to scourge He is overturning the tables He is using force It's not just spiritual It's bodily It's something that he is actually And this is what justifies Christians From using coercion In order to establish God's law This is what Augustine argues And it becomes a very compelling argument This becomes the basis of the just war tradition It wasn't a liberal tradition And I recommend reading about this In just war tradition A book by David Corey I believe is his name And he explains how coercion Is part and parcel of a correct understanding Of the Christian tradition This one coming in from Do appreciate your question Slap, he says, Matthew 1817 Quote And if he will not hear them, tell the church And if he will not hear the church Let him be to thee As the heathen and publican The early church teaches Freedom of religion is heresy So I think that's for you, David That's for David No, I would say that That's the exact opposite there You find the same principle With the apostle Paul When he's talking about people who've committed Various sins, the apostle Paul says Who am I to judge those outside the church So the point is You can You can Violate moral Commands Consistently enough to the point where the church Says, look, there's the door So that would be a kind of like excommunication Like you were no longer part of The fellowship of believers As long as you persist in Could be this heresy or so on But that's not No one's stifling your freedom there You're free to Be as heretical you want Under that, under that, you could say In a later Christian country Or something like that, you didn't have that freedom But saying, hey, there's the door of the church If you don't want to abide The rules and teachings of the church That's not stopping Your freedom of speech Or your freedom of religion or anything else It's just saying you don't actually qualify As a Christian anymore And if you don't want to live as a Christian, there's the door There's the door of the church So that's what that's saying That's not helping anyone's case here This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question as well? Albert Leon says Jesus never commanded war Or demnitude Why isn't David stopping him from saying That lie? Well, because You have to look at what Daniel is saying Daniel is saying that Jesus As You can't actually say Jesus You can say the Divine Son or the Second Person The Trinity or something like this As the Triune God Of the Old Testament Commanded war in Certain situations and so on And therefore I can't condemn war in all situations I don't condemn war in all situations But Daniel would also be saying And I'm trying not to straw him in Or anything here That certain things that we object to in Islam Would have parallels in the Old Testament So why do we object to them In Islam If they have parallels So he would say that these were ultimately commanded By Jesus Before his incarnation And so We've already been through this But my point is not that I would reject war In every situation or something like that Or killing in every situation It's you see a progression The idea here is You Same with the Bible or with the Quran So if the Quran starts with something Allah says that he can abrogate it And that he'll bring something better than it Or like it If you start off with a situation That is limited in certain ways It's limited in space It's limited in time It's limited in various ways And then you eventually get to These are the teachings That you bring to the entire world It seems like the final marching orders Are what are most relevant And if the final marching orders Are significantly different from earlier Earlier revelations It seems like okay there was Some important place for those things At one time But it's not the final marching order As far as what God wants for the world You have to go to those final marching orders But if you compare them Then the final marching orders of Christians are again Love Your neighbor, love Your enemies, pray for those who persecute you Live at peace with all people This doesn't mean that people can't be punished And so on We talked about this in a different debate But governments have the authority to do this But in Islam the final marching orders Are It starts off Let's not kill each other over this stuff When Muslims are in the minority And then once they have the most powerful force in Arabia Then it's violently subjugate the entire world Whenever you're able And the idea that Those two things are the same That those two systems are the same Because according to Christianity There was a time And teachings now abrogated If you will, that called For violence in certain situations Whereas in Islam The violence in situations is for the entire world For the entire subjugation of the world To claim that they're in the same ballpark And you can't consistently raise an objection To one I just think it's silly There's one coming in from Do appreciate your question as well Born again Rome says, Daniel Can God command an immoral thing Is God not the authority over what is And isn't moral I mean this is the divine command Theory, like I agree with that It's not an objection, like what is immoral It's contingent On what God defines to be immoral I think me and David Are agreed with that I think we can make appeals to What is intuitively right And wrong And that's what you would do In an argument with an atheist, for example You would argue about Well, what do people historically And humans biologically consider To be moral or immoral That's In a debate with an atheist But with a Christian, I think me and David Don't have any philosophical disagreement Here that what God Does define what is immoral And what is moral And sure, God can change The application or The applicability of certain commands At different points in history But you can't Say that something that God permitted at one point in history But then prohibited At a later point in history, you can't say That, well, that thing is inherently Immoral, and I'll give you an example Of this type of Mistaken reasoning That's brought against Muslims So a lot of Muslims today will say that Slavery, Islam actually prohibits slavery Slavery is no Longer allowed to be practiced And that is the consensus of The scholars And that's what that is Often brought up by apologists Muslim apologists and what David calls Dow agandists But what Christians will bring up What atheists will bring up is that Okay, fine, it's not allowed In this day and age But there was still a point where Islam is okay with slavery Right? And the implication is that slavery is so Inherently immoral and wrong That the very fact that At one point it was allowed in Islam Is disqualifying, is morally disqualifying Of Islam That is the argument that they make And it's a very sensible argument And that's why I don't engage in those Kinds of apologetics I defend Slavery and the practice of slavery As you can watch videos on my channel And explain that this is a historical Universal and there's good reasons To practice it On a rational, reasonable basis But This is the exact same kind of argumentation I'm using against David And the Christian apologetics I'm saying that, look, these practices Of expansionist war At one point, God allowed it Okay, fine, if you want to say that's not applicable In this day and age Or after Jesus There's a new government, fine I'll concede all of that But you can't say inherently there's a moral problem With violent expansionism And so much of David's Videos and his missionary work Basically gets mileage Off of this kind of unstated Assumption that, yeah Violent jihad is inherently Immoral He gets so much mileage out of that Because he's taking advantage of the Inherent liberalism of his audience And this is something dishonest He should be honest with his audience And say, hey guys As he's done in this debate When you push him and you confront him To concede it But, hey guys, look This is something that is acknowledged In the Bible David should recognize that and teach his audience That, yeah, expansionist war God has allowed that at a certain point So it's not inherently immoral It's not inherently evil or unjust And as a matter of fact Every group, once they get power They will want to spread their influence And I asked David, if he were the king Would he influence the world You know, having Christian Christianity be privileged And having Christian values be privileged Like wouldn't that be a sensible thing That every Christian would automatically say Yes, of course, if I had that kind of power I would want the words of God Almighty Jesus Christ to be The highest Wouldn't any Christian acknowledge that But apparently David is not that type of Christian He thinks, no, no, no Neo-Nazis we can prevent from being in government But Christianity That should be equal We can't prefer Christianity Holy smokes, okay Library closes in 19 minutes As you can hear You to have, Hecuba says Would you say that Daniel has no moral objection To alcohol because God allows it sometimes So do you have a moral objection to abortion When God has allowed it before You're talking about a different kind Of allowing here So in Islam it was At one point It was permissible You weren't supposed to show up drunk to prayers And so on And then later it was just generally Forbidden That's very different from saying that Abortion is allowed in the United States Do you still oppose abortion So I would say that Abortion is Wrong You're stopping The actualization Of the image of God Is someone So if Daniel actually wanted to know If I were making rules If I were making rules This will get me in trouble with a lot of people If I were actually making rules And I were king of the world I would outlaw abortion So we can say that This one coming in from Slappy says Romans 13 1-14 Proves the Catholic truth Against religious liberty of false religions I support you David And I reject Christian tradition Um That I don't know how you're reading this differently As a Catholic but This is actually This is not talking about Christian rulers It could be referring to a Christian ruler But Romans 13 is about Submission to authorities And it's saying authorities Are established by God In other words governments have authority To do what's right It doesn't mean you don't call on them to do what's right But they have authority To punish wrongdoers So that's not talking about I don't know how that's I mean the authorities when the apostle Paul is talking right there would have been Roman authorities So he's saying don't disobey The Roman authorities Unless it's something that clearly is just a violation Of your Christian belief Because Christians did that when they were told Hey you need to burn these incense to Caesar As Lord that's when they said no Hey if you want to come up with rules about not doing this And not doing that we're fine until It actually is something Essential to our faith But so in Romans 13 The apostle Paul Talks about submitting to authorities Authorities having power from God So that's exactly what I believe In fact I brought that up I think Quite a bit in our last debate But also here in Romans 13 To tie into what I've Been saying this debate starting in verse 8 Oh no one anything except To love each other for the one Who loves another has fulfilled the law For the commandments you shall not commit adultery You should not murder you should not steal You should not covet and any other Commandment are summed up in this word You shall love your neighbor as yourself Love does no wrong to a neighbor Therefore love is the fulfilling Of the law and it's just Interesting because Daniel would regard me saying Hey that's what I'm commanded I'm commanded to Love people as the fulfillment of the law And Daniel would say well this is the miracle Of reinterpretation I'm just reinterpreting It's not miracle of reinterpretation To say these are the final marching orders These are the commands that are directed Towards me yes God can God can have different covenants with people And God can judge the world If he wanted and God could have made Different rules and different commands If he wanted to But what I'm actually called To obey are these commands And I'm going to obey them and whenever I say that whenever I say hey these are the commands That are actually directed towards me Commands that are part of a different covenant Not directed towards me I'm going with the commands That are directed towards me the response is It's the miracle of reinterpretation Well we are going to read just The questions that we absolutely can Folks so sorry if I don't get to your question Email me at moderndatabateatgmail.com If we didn't get to your question I am sorry about that because I am going to get Oh five minutes I've got to run This one coming in from T-Rub the game dev Says Daniel you're clinging on to violence From the old obsolete covenant To fit your narrative If you worked for a company and they changed their policy Would you still abide by the previous policy And ignore the new one Completely misses the point that I just Have repeated and what David said himself Right now like yeah I can see Okay fine according to Christianity The old covenant is Obsolete Okay fine let's just concede that But still you have no moral objection To violent expansionism Or subjugation or Expanding the influence of Christianity You have no objection to that And by the way Quoting these verses about loving Your enemies and loving your neighbors You can love people And also force them To follow something that will be beneficial For them Parents do this all the time Parents will force their children Coerce their children to abide By things that are going to be Ultimately beneficial for those children In the same way Christian scholars Believe that loving That is part of Love This Was Humanity in this life and the afterlife It is also about love There's no contradiction between violence War, subjugation, discrimination And love and mercy There's no contradiction Looks like Daniel once again Is making a case for why people should Subjugate the Muslim world Very interesting This last one Thanks to your question it says Apostasy law isn't as black and white As imam handball categorized Public and private apostasy in which The latter isn't punished David USA has death penalty for treason It depends on What the treason I'm not for The death penalty In general nowadays I don't condemn it for all times because It can be you can kind of go the way I'm just saying if you left it to me and said should this person Be put to death I probably wouldn't put people to death Anymore I'd probably Lock them up but I don't make the rules As far as the governments Are concerned you punish Treason certain kinds of treason That are a danger To your nation you can You can impose the death penalty For those kinds of things you can impose death penalty For murder and all sorts of things But to draw a parallel To draw a parallel With Islam on this point really shows the problem It's hey if someone Leaves Islam If someone leaves Islam we're going to regard that As treason Against the nation and just killed them I mean treason In a place like the United States or western nations Is like you're giving secrets To someone who's going to come and attack your nation And get everyone killed That's Prior to the problem with Islam that they're regarding You know leaving Islam And converting to another religion As a kind of Like parallel to that like it's Actually in the same ballpark And therefore you kill someone For leaving your religion And so it's once again it's a problem If you see any problem in Islam Well Don't they have this somewhere else Yeah they do have You know killing people for treason And so on has nothing to do I'd say with persecuting Christians And killing apostates and so on You got it thank you very much And then this last one appreciate your question Muslim bogeyman Says David you mentioned something about virgin factories What do you think about the Christian alternative Of the toddler cherub Factories No idea what a toddler cherub factory Is I get maybe in certain paintings In certain like In certain renaissance painting they paint Little cherubs or something I have no idea what this is referring to Cherubs are not like babies According to Christianity They were like that in Paintings but that is not actually Christianity virgin factories You wouldn't call it a virgin factory But that is actually Part of Islam you do get your Virgins in paradise you get to Spend eternity deflowering them So not a good parallel This one coming in from Muj Khan Says George Bush called the war in Iraq a crusade Read American sniper It was seen as a Christian war Don't deny this David I didn't see it as any kind of Christian war And I couldn't conceivably care less What George Bush said about it But you don't need to go to George Bush Because there are tons of people down through history Thinking we are waging war In the name of Jesus I'm not talking about that I'm not talking about that In fact that's part of the issue Between me and Daniel David why wouldn't you want to control I'm basically looking for Thousands of years of human history And saying human beings always Screw up so you need to come up with The principles and policies Or at least likely to keep people from Screwing up and horribly oppressing Each other that's hard to do Because as Daniel's right Daniel's right in a lot of what he says About human just naturally Here's my ideology as soon as I got power I have to go on over and conquer everyone else But I just I'm very suspicious Of when people get that Kind of power and so it's irrelevant to me To say well George Bush thought this And American snipers said this They could say anything they want It doesn't mean that is actually a Christian Teaching to go to Iraq And fight You could say Was it a just war Certainly some elements I would regard Is definitely not just I'm not an expert in the topic But the discussion is whether it's A just war or not It's not a Christian war I don't know what you're talking about David is perpetually wondering oh life Is so terrible if only we had a system Christians are like it's Christianity Christianity is the system Sent by God and David's like I wonder What system could there be This one from debate don't oppress Thanks so much for your question Says Daniel you seem to mix faith and politics Should laws not be based On reason rather than a Faith or religious belief Laws are based on morality What is morally good What is morally bad That's what laws and politics are based on And that is defined by Revelation and what God sent So you cannot separate politics And law on the one hand And morality on the other Hand this is why the whole concept Of separation of church and state Is incoherent on its basis Laws in secular countries Are preferring the morality Of atheists and sometimes even Satanists increasingly so That's what the secular system does It prefers that morality Those definitions of good and evil Where it's good for women to Rip out their children in abortions And evil to prevent women From murdering their children That's the definition that's the morality That the laws within these secular countries Are based on you're not going to Ever be able to separate Morality from legality And politics and Islam Is honest because it recognizes that And it advocates for law That is based on true morality True goodness and true evil And that is what the sharia is That's what Islamic law is The fact that Christians don't recognize this Is part of the reason why they're being dominated Intellectually, spiritually And morally and bodily By the secular juggernaut That is wiping them off of the face of the earth A very controversial debate Roe vs. Wade on trial Richard Spencer and K-Fellows will be debating You don't want to miss that one As well as many other juicy ones coming up So hit subscribe Richard Spencer to debate me Will do it Robert Spencer Richard Spencer is a white nationalist I'll debate him too Bring it on I'll ask him, want to say thank you very much David and Daniel it's been a true pleasure Thank you so much James, thank you David And folks I won't be able to stick around for an after show Because I'm at the public library, they're closing in a minute And so I will be moderating tonight's debate though I found a stream spot So go there tonight And I will be hanging out in the after show for that one I'm excited to get to catch up with you all And thanks for your support folks So we'll see you tonight for that big debate You don't want to miss it