 The video we're about to review today is crucial in understanding the philosophical and theological errors that Christians sometimes make when trying to appear honest and truthful. I have put considerable effort into identifying contradictions in the Bible, where also offering my perspective on the decentralization of Christianity, which has led to the proliferation of denominations and opposing doctrines of faith. When I saw the video of a white young man attempting to understand Islam from a position of Christian argumentative superiority, I was inspired to challenge his ideas with the help of Dr. Zakir Naik. In criticizing Islam, I'm criticizing a creed and not people. I know that when certain people, especially of my particular pigmentation, make commentaries like this or describe things in this way, they're often accused of things like racism. Well, a creed isn't a race, in the same way that people can criticize Christianity. In fact, I welcome criticism of Christianity because it invites the opportunity to explore and to discuss the things that I believe to be true. I'm so confident in my beliefs that I think that they will actually stand up to that kind of scrutiny, which is why I welcome it. However, we should be prepared to entertain his 40 arguments on Jesus and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as well as his incoherent interpretation of the Arabic word al-wadud, which is a loose English translation of Allah, is all loving and is sometimes used to justify the pagan concept of the trinity. Well, before we begin, let me introduce a person in the video. I prefer to call him Brother Brian Hodesworth. He's a Tridentine Catholic Christian who arguably regained the reform of 1962 when the Catholic Church was opened up to liberals and modernization. He describes himself as this struggling Catholic thinker, apologist, writer, speaker and communication professional who makes video commentaries on topics related to culture, morality and religion informed by his experience as a practicing Catholic. Assalamualaikum brothers and sisters, welcome to another episode of the Open Minded Thinker Show. We appreciate your support. I'll encourage you to like, share and subscribe to help us reach more people. Based on Brian's statement so far, it appears that he's very confident in Christianity. It's a great thing. I'm not against it. However, the question is whether he's willing to accept the truth about Christianity when it is presented to him. Will he be willing to acknowledge that Christianity has about 200,000 contradictions in the Bible, where Brian has said that the Church never allowed anyone to read the Bible without the express permission of a Quranic clergy, some due to the fear of confusion from the Bible's numerous contradictions. Will he accept? Well, let's have an open minded discussion here. And there are three areas I would want to focus that attention on. They're on the founder of each tradition, so that would be Jesus and Muhammad. On the rival conceptions of God, they're both monotheistic religions, but Christianity describes God as a trinity. And on the Quran versus the Bible, the two competing scriptures. So let's start with the central founding figures of each faith tradition in Islam. Muhammad is described as a prophet, and in fact, they go far as to say that he's the last prophet after which no more revelation is to take place. And in an attempt to evaluate that, I think it's probably worth trying to define what a prophet is and what we should expect from a prophet. Please take note of where he's driving that here. My definition would be particularly unique. I would say that a prophet is a messenger from God who reveals something important about God and points us beyond this life to our fulfillment in another. And the reason that I say that they point us to something beyond is because the mere fact that we have prophets and apparently need prophets tells us that we are estranged from God. And if we weren't, he wouldn't need to send messengers in our midst as a kind of espionage towards our rebellious condition. If we weren't estranged from God, he would just communicate with us directly. So because of that definition and what we think of as the rule of prophet in evaluating someone who claims to be a prophet, we should expect to encounter someone who directs our attention towards a different kind of life, one that is markedly distinct from the kind of life that we try to make for ourselves here and now without prophetic guidance. I think that this should be readily apparent in both their teachings and the witness of their lives. There should be something about them that forsakes the trappings of this life and instead invests in the one beyond. And by the trappings of this life, I mean that a prophet should be indifferent towards things like money, power, pleasure and sensuality. As you can see, he has taken a position on this issue where I agree with him that the examples of the prophets can be used to determine the truthfulness of his message. I cannot extend same approach to Jesus. The reason being that Jesus' life was not fully documented. There are no record of his activities in the first three decades of his life. The documentation of his life only begot during his ministry as a teacher and messenger of God. In contrast, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, had his entire life documented without any biases towards praise. He lived alive and reflected the qualities of a true man and prophet, much like David, Moses and Adam. His deeds were recorded without any pretense. For me, he is the perfect human being. If someone calls Muhammad a warlord, that is no different from calling Moses, David, Joshua, Ahab or the Archangel Michael a warlord. Therefore, his arguments is not valid. A man by the name of Michael Hart, he said, and who was Michael Hart? Michael Hart was a contemporary historian and mathematician and he gathered other historians and biographers together and they said, let us compile a list of the hundred most profound human beings in history and to make a long story short, they made a category. They set up 32 different categories by which to compare and produce these hundred most great profound human beings. And let me tell you what Michael Hart said. He said that Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, he placed him at the head of his list and those with him could not dispute it because categorically, he earned that position and Michael Hart said, I would have chosen, I would have liked to choose Jesus Christ because I'm a Christian but there were several categories that honestly I could not choose him because Jesus Christ was not a father, Muhammad, he was. Jesus Christ was not a husband, Muhammad, he was. Jesus Christ was not a statesman, Muhammad, he was. Jesus Christ was not a warrior, Muhammad, he was and Jesus Christ was not a ruler, Muhammad, he was. And so Michael Hart and his other collaborators, they said, the greatest human being that has impacted history in all annals of documented history, it had to be Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. If he is not satisfied with that, if you read Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, when talking about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it says that Muhammad peace be upon him was the most successful religious personality of the world. Imagine Encyclopedia Britannica, they are forced, they have no choice. If they want to be authentic, how much ever they try, they have to mention the truth. As Allah says in the Qur'an in Surah Isra chapter number 17 verse number 81, when truth is held against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish. Allah says in the Qur'an in Surah Qalam chapter number 68 verse number 4, verily in Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, you have the most sublime and excellent character. But a bride took a terrible position of the Trinity. For example, one of the names of God is Al-Wadud in Islam, which means all loving. To say that God is all loving means that this is something that you can always ascribe to him and that it doesn't require us to have been created for him to be described in this way. If it did, then you'd be conceding that God's love is contingent upon us existing and therefore we would be needed for God to be what he is. But how can someone who is all loving, all powerful and utterly self-sufficient require us to exist to be what he is that is all loving? And this raises a big difficulty in the Islamic conception of God. Because before God created us, how could you say that he was all loving? Love after all means to will the good of another. To love means to focus your attention on someone who is not yourself. And if God is the only one who existed from all eternity, then how could he love someone else from all eternity? The Christian understanding of God solves this by telling us that within the divine being are three distinct persons who are a perpetual exchange of love from all eternity while sharing in one divine nature. Thus one divine nature or one God and three persons to fulfill the nature of God which is love. It is sad that these guys making a fabric argument to justify his claims that reference to the Quranic use of the Arabic word al-Wadud was basically describing God's love for humanity. However, he lied to cover up his ignorance. For example, one of the names of God is al-Wadud in Islam which means all loving. To say that God is all loving means that this is something that you can always ascribe to him and that it doesn't require us to have been created for him to be described in this way. He was referencing his current chapter 85 verse 14. For example, I was addressing with the following words and he is forgiving the affectionate. These verses uses the word al-Wadud to describe Allah's affectionate nature towards his creation. I want you to mark that. The word here doesn't talk about a transcendent love that was there from all eternity but the love that's associated with his creatures. For example, one of the names of God is al-Wadud in Islam which means all loving. To say that God is all loving means that this is something that you can always ascribe to him and that it doesn't require us to have been created for him to be described in this way. For more clarity, Brian must understand the love in the realm of divinity in Islam is of two types. One, we have the initial love known as ar-Rahman. In a God in this sense is all loving. He loves all his creatures, sinners or saints unconditionally. This is due to his love that he creates all pistols, his bounty upon all, shares his blessings with all and sends his message and messengers to all. Two, we have the reciprocated love also known as ar-Rahim where God has a special messy and love for those who love him too and follow his commands. He reciprocates the love with feather, banal villains and antennal bliss in paradise. Allah reveals to prophet Muhammad Thaz, say to mankind if you love Allah then follow me. Allah will love you and forgive you all your sin and Allah is all forgiving or messy for current chapter 3 verse 31. So the argument that al-Wadud justifies the concept of the trinity is not valid. Well, ladies and gentlemen, let's draw the curtain here. Remember to like, share and subscribe to help us reach more people. Until next time, assalamualaikum.