 Discover the exquisite beauty of Islam with our exclusive poster collection showcasing the 99 names of Allah. Each poster meticulously presents the Arabic name, pronunciation and English translation, embodying the essence of our Creator. Elevate your surroundings with these high quality designs that not only serve as art, but also offer a glimpse into the profound beauty of Islamic culture. Immerse yourself in the collection and unveil the magnificence of the 99 names. Links in the description box. Alright guys, welcome back to the channel if you're new Moms Bobby guys. We're reacting to Kyle again. Yes, Kyle, J-Dyrus Minimi. Well if Allah is the best of deceivers. Muslims, Christians, anyone watching breathtaking. I shall call him mini potential. This is the Orthodox Christian convert that I responded to last year. He made a video about me, so I responded. In turn then he made a hundred more videos about me to which I did not respond any longer because they were not worth responding in the first place. He was simply repeating himself over and over again. Bobby's perspective is a deceiver. Inhuman reactions. However, now Kyle is back with a beard. Perfect. So at least in that aspect Islam had a positive impact on him. However, now he sets out to again debunk Islam. So of course, Kyle, now I have to respond to you guys before we start the video. As always, if you enjoy the content, leave me a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already. Check out the links in the description box below. And now with no further ado, let's have a look. Before time began, there was the cube. We know not where it comes from, only that it holds the power to create worlds. Yeah, I strive but somehow the joke is missing, of course. It is true, the word Kaaba in Arabic means cube. However, it is the clear teaching of Islam that the Kaaba was originally built by the prophet Ibrahim. Abraham, may peace be upon him, and his son Ismail. This story is narrated in the Quran. Therefore, the origin of the cube, the origin of the Kaaba are crystal clear in Islam. For a while since I made a video on Islam in Muslim YouTube is really popular right now with Andrew Tate and Sneakoo converting and a lot of their followers and other people is looking into Islam. But a lot of them are relying on really bad polemical arguments. They don't understand what Islam actually teaches and how it's just historical revisionism. It has no continuity. And I keep seeing literally the worst arguments I have ever heard. Yeah, I'm sure he's going to go into the continuity argument later in this video. So therefore I'm going to save this as well and keep it as short as possible. The question is simply, which continuity does Christianity truly have? We're, for example, Abraham or Noah. Those prophets surely were not Christian. They were not praying to Jesus Christ. They were not believing in a trinity. Those prophets clearly were pure monotheists, i.e. Muslim. I keep seeing literally the worst arguments I have ever heard. Literal, horrible, level arguments. As you mentioned already, Islam is exploding on social media. And this is why we see atheists Christian using Islamic linguistics. They use terminology like haram. Even if those people never accept Islam, it just goes to show how Islam is spreading. And that, of course, reminds us of a hadith of the prophet, Salah alaihi wa sallam, that Islam will enter every household. And this is what we see at the moment. This is why Christians are afraid, of course, because Islam is the fastest growing religion. The more Bibles never mentioned in the Bible, the more Christians never mentioned in the Bible, the more trinities never mentioned in the Bible. I work the editing. Okay, so he shows Ibrahim here as some sort of example for haram level argumentation. It is true after all, the word Bible is not mentioned in the Bible. The word trinity is not mentioned in the Bible either. So his hang up here must be that the word Christian actually is mentioned in the Bible. Haven't you seen? Yeah, well, within the Old Testament, of course, it is not mentioned. And if you look into the New Testament, you can only find it within acts. Only in three places within acts, you can find the word Christian. But now to make sense out of this, we, of course, have to understand who wrote acts. Allegedly, it was written by Luke, but it is not Luke, a companion of Jesus. No, it is Luke, the companion of Paul. Oh, you see this guy? See this guy? Number one bullshit guy. Yes, exactly. Paul that came up with a fantastic vision of overthrowing the law, eating pork and stopping circumcision, even though Jesus never mentioned anything like that whilst being on earth. Hence, how is this an argument? Luke, the Apostle of Paul, came up with the word Christian and put it into the Bible. Congratulations. So this seems like the perfect time to debunk Islam again. And I've made lots of videos on Islam. And no Muslim has been able to offer a good reputation of any of the arguments that I bring up. They just hand wave them. That's what I'm here for, Kyle. I'm not going to just hand wave them. I'm actually going to respond to you. They don't have any responses to these. First of all, the Quran gets history completely wrong. It tries to revise history. It says that Moses, Solomon, Abraham, they're all actually Muslims. Even though if you read the Old Testament in Torah, which were written way before the Quran, they show that the theology and worship is literally nothing like Islam. All right. At this point, I really don't know if Christians are just disingenuous or if they really do not get it. They really seem not to grasp the meaning of Muslim. The literal translation of Muslim is someone that submits. A person that submits their will to God. To God alone without attaching any partners. This is Islam. And therefore, if we look at Moses or Abraham yet again, those people, those prophets submitted their will to God alone. This is the meaning of a Muslim. This is what we mean when we say those people were Muslim. No, we're not saying that those people all spoke Arabic or all of those people actually read the Quran. Obviously not because the Quran was not revealed just then. What we are talking about is the red threat, the true religion of men. If we look at Adam in the Garden of Eden, he submitted his will to God until he did not submit any longer. He started listening to the devil. So there are just two modes of existence, so to speak. Submission to God and rebellion against God. So therefore, dear Christians, nobody here is claiming that Abraham, Noah, Moses or even Jesus recited Surah Al-Fatiha, for example. We're not saying that they are doing exactly everything that a Muslim does nowadays. Of course not because laws have changed. And this is why within Islam we have a distinction between prophets. Some prophets like Moses or Muhammad, may peace be upon them, came with a specific law. Islam specifies prophets and divides them in categories. Rasul and Nebi. A Rasul is a prophet that comes with the message of monotheism, as they all do, end with a law set. So Noah, for example, was a Nebi, a prophet with no specific revision in law. However, they had all one thing in common, tradition and cultural context aside, the one message of pure monotheism. The submission to God alone, i.e. Islam. So this is what Christians do not understand. A Rasul comes with a law set. If the law was exactly identical way back during the time of Jesus or Abraham, may peace be upon them, then there would have been no need for Prophet Muhammad, s.a., to come in the first place. Do you understand? There would have been absolutely no reason for Moses to come into existence and bring forth the mosaic law. And you can rationally deconstruct this argument. If you ask Jews, for example, was Abraham a Jew? They will clearly say no. Abraham came from Iraq. Two sons with two different wives. Sounds a lot like Islam, don't you think? And those two sons created two separate nations that later then became the Arabs and the Jews. But the point of the story is that Jews would agree that Abraham was not a Jew. And Christians would agree as well that Abraham was not a Christian. So therefore, what was he? He was a believer. He was someone that submitted his will to God alone. He went so far in his submission to God that he would have sacrificed his firstborn son. This is a man that truly submits his will to God. Nothing is higher than God. He obeys him and his laws. This is, dear Kyle, a Muslim. Even though if you read the Old Testament in Torah, which were written way before the Qur'an, they show that the theology and worship is literally nothing like Islam. The theology that we see the burning bush and theophanies. All of these things, the angel, the Lord in the Old Testament. Yeah, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement, of course, because he wants to talk about continuity. However, he's talking about the Torah. He's talking about the burning bush within the Torah. And those are stories that have been appropriated by the Christians, of course, and then reinterpreted. Christians truly believe that it was Jesus in the burning bush. However, if you want to talk about continuity, you would have to ask the Jews, of course, because you want to continue what they started. And you would have to ask the Jews what the real interpretation of the burning bush is. And if you talk to Jews, nobody will ever tell you that it was Jesus popping out of that burning bush. No, it was God's way of communication with the prophets. What you're doing now is taking that Jewish document yet again and trying to bend it into your Trinitarian worldview, your twisting scripture. For the Qur'an, they show that the theology and worship is literally nothing like Islam. The theology that we see the burning bush and theophanies. All of these things the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament show the trinity. It does not show Tahid. It actually contradicts Islamic metaphysics of how they view God. He obviously hasn't read the Qur'an in the first place, otherwise he wouldn't come up with such an argument to begin with. Because the burning bush story, as I said, is within the Jewish scriptures, Christians appropriated those stories. Therefore, you would have to pre-assume, of course, that the Torah, the Bible are correct and that the Muslims actually believe what is written within the Bible and within the Torah that we find nowadays. But we do not. The Qur'an is our authority. Therefore, your whole argumentation here is, well, your description of Tahid does not match the Bible. Go figure. If we look at the Bible, I concede, of course, because we find descriptions of pure monotheism and then we find polytheism within your Bible. We do not have to adhere to your Bible in order to justify our worldview. That is absolutely ridiculous. That is like saying, well, I'm a Buddhist and if you look at my scripture, that doesn't really describe the Christian God. Of course it does not. The Bible is full of confusion. As I said, you find polytheism and you find monotheism within it. In your Bible, we find descriptions about Yahweh being the highest God amongst the gods. Clear polytheism within the Bible. Obviously, the Qur'an does not agree with that. And therefore, Tahid, pure monotheism, might not match the Bible every single time. I absolutely concede because your Bible is full of confusion. Your Bible talks about prophets that get drunk and then have sex with their daughters. I'm very happy that the Qur'an does not match that description. Islamic metaphysics of how they view God and how Solomon and Abraham and all these people were worshiping with a priesthood and a temple with a sacrifice. Islam does not have any of that. Orthodox Christianity has all of that. Yeah, that's absolutely amazing because he just debunked himself by mentioning Abraham. Obviously, during the time of Abraham, there was no priesthood nor was there a temple. As I stated already, he is the perfect example of somebody that submitted his will to God. Nothing was more important to him. However, he had no liturgical service. He had no baptism whatsoever. The concept of Jesus even. He surely did not pray to the Trinity. Congratulations, you debunk yourself. Orthodox Christianity is a continuity. Why is there this huge departure in Islamic worship? There's no response to that. Again, that's not an argument here. This is so amazing. The Christians assume that the sacrifice is essential to religion itself. If you look at their sacrifice, we're just talking about eating bread, basically, and that is supposedly the flesh of Christ. So now this quote-unquote sacrifice has to be performed by a priest, of course, in Christianity. And they base that on a Jewish priest, so-called Juanim. And they used to offer certain sacrifices in their Jewish temples. So now you would assume, well, Kyle has a point after all. He won the argument, right? No, absolutely not. Because all of this started after Moses. This is when the Jewish priests started sacrificing certain grains, etc. within their temples. However, this, of course, implies that other prophets, such as Abraham and Noah, did not have a temple, nor did they have priesthood. And how Solomon and Abraham and all these people were worshiping with a priesthood and the temple with a sacrifice? Islam does not have any of that. None of it. Orthodox Christianity has all of that. Orthodox Christianity is a continuity. Why is there this huge departure in Islamic worship? There's no response to that. It's literally nothing like Islam. Yeah, I already gave you the answer to this, of course. You want to cherry-pick a certain era within the Jewish history and then go with that. Go in continuity with a certain era after Moses. There is a priesthood, etc. Where is the continuity of singular monotheism in Christianity? There's no response to that. Where is the continuity with circumcision? There's no response to that. Where is the continuity with a dietary law? There's no response to that. Where is the continuity with prostration? There's no response to that. Exactly. All of those things are for the Jews. We are in full continuity. You can find everything in Orthodox Christianity. Yeah, sure. The Quran plagiarizes people and stories from the Torah but it ends up making no sense because it doesn't understand the meaning in what those are leading up to. It is leading up to the Messiah. That's who the Jews in the Old Testament were looking for. And we see that in the Masonic prophecies. There's hundreds of them. Yeah, absolutely fantastic, Kyle. I'm not exposing yourself yet again. If you would have read the Quran yourself you would know, of course, that Jesus is the Messiah within the Quran as well as the Messiah in Islam too. However, yet again, Kyle, you are mentioning Jewish scripture, a Jewish wording here. The Messiah. The Messiah. And yes, it is true. The Jews were looking for the Messiah. But you do not care what the Jews actually believed about the Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to be the anointed one. This Messiah was supposed to be of King David's lineage and he was supposed to be a political and military leader of the Jews, basically a king. Nowhere did they think of the Messiah being God or part of the Trinity. In Islam, on the other hand, as I mentioned, Jesus is seen as the Messiah, the messenger that was sent to the Jewish nation. Jesus himself says in the Bible, Matthew 1524, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. This is exactly the Islamic narrative. Jesus was sent to the Israelites to deliver pure monotheism. He was the Messiah, not God. Now you tell me which religion has more continuity with the original Jewish scriptures. Kyle? Messiah in Islam literally makes no sense versus Christianity. That is the fulfillment. The person of Jesus does not make any sense in Islam. He was clearly not a Muslim. Jesus drank wine. Alcohol is Iran. Jesus talked about God the Father about the Trinity. Again, it's hopeless. Christians really don't get it because they do not study Islam. Alcohol within Islam became haram. In the early days of Islam, in the early days of the revelation of the Quran, which took 23 years, alcohol was still permissible. It was taken away slowly from the people. The reason given for that in the Quran is that if the law would have been revealed in one day, nobody would have been able to follow it. Therefore, there is a sort of progressive revelation within the Quran as well. First, alcohol was permissible even during the time of the Prophet in the early years, which then implies, of course, that alcohol was permissible prior to the full revelation of the Quran. One plus one equals two. You go back. Jesus was prior to Prophet Muhammad. May peace be upon them both. And therefore, during his time, alcohol was still permissible. Even if we assume that he truly drank wine, I doubt it, to be totally honest. But even if he did, it would have been permissible. As I said already, and I have to repeat this, there is a difference between the message, which is always the same, worship God alone, and the law set. The law changed once Moses came with the mosaic law. And this was after Abraham, after Lot, after Noah. The message did not change. The law did. And therefore, by that standard, yes, Jesus was a Muslim. Why? Because he was sent by God and he submitted his will to God. You can read it within the Bible. Matthew 26.39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face on the ground and prayed, my father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. So what did he do? He prostrated and submitted his will to God's will, i.e. a Muslim. Why? Al-Ghal is wrong. Jesus talked about God the Father, about the Trinity, all these things which disprove Islam because Jesus was clearly not a Muslim. Alright, so now he's just clearly lying because we already established that the word Trinity is not mentioned within their own Bible. It is nowhere to be found. Therefore, to make a statement that Jesus spoke about the Trinity is falsehood, is a lie. Jesus never spoke about the Trinity. He spoke about the Father that sent him. One of the amazing prophecies is talking about how the second temple would be destroyed. And it was destroyed. So the Messiah had to come and it was destroyed after the time of Jesus. Now you f***ed up! The second temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 CE. This event occurred during the first Jewish-Roman war. So what is this now, Carl? You're making things up as you go. The second temple has to be destroyed for the Messiah to come. The second temple was destroyed after Jesus. No, he is not. Because according to Jewish scripture this was never mentioned. Nobody was waiting for the Son of God to come. Nobody was waiting for a literal God to incarnate. I already gave you the description of the Messiah. And it was destroyed. So the Messiah had to come. And the Messiah is God incarnate. It doesn't make any sense that Jesus the Messiah was a Muslim because he worshipped like Muslims. Where did the Muslims get prostrating and prayers from? Again, Islam came in the 600s. They were just copying from Christians that were doing prostrations. All Islam did was take from Christianity and rabbinical Judaism in the Talmud. Now this more irrational gibberish, of course, the Muslims stole the prostration from the Christians. Why not from the Buddhists or from the Hindus? Christians not prostrate nowadays. Why isn't it common practice? He shows us some priests, some monks that prostrate. It is not common practice within Christianity. Within Islam, on the other hand, it is common practice. It is daily practice. We do it five times per day. No, it is not something that has been stolen from the Christians. Because as I said, you find prostration even in Asia, in Buddhist countries, etc. It is not given, we believe. This is the fitra. This is something that got implanted in us. This is how we pray, because this is how the prophets prayed. This is how Jesus prayed himself. That is not the religion of the prophets of the Second Temple as we are going to talk about in this video. And they took a little bit from Middle Eastern paganism. I am going to demonstrate this all in the video. Even if we read the Quran itself, it has a very high view of Christians in the Gospels. Let them be judged by the Gospels. But remember, all of history, the Bible shows that Jesus came and he died in the 30s. The church was founded, we have hundreds of years of history and theology in the Christian tradition versus Islam in the 600s. That is when it was invented. If you are sitting in a glass house, you shouldn't throw rocks. Of course, he is acting as if 600 years in terms of revelation is a long time. Actually thinking of which for Christians, it probably is a long time but this evidence that we found not only contradicts that but proves that the Bible was correct when the Bible told us that God made man and dinosaurs together. But anyways, as usual, they are not looking into their own doctrine. Of course, your own doctrine subscribes to progressive revelation through the church fathers that are allegedly guided by the Holy Spirit. So no matter what Jesus said, then you have those saints that come after him, such as Saint Paul, and then they tell you, well, Jesus never mentioned eating pork, but well, now I can because I am guided by the Holy Spirit. You have progressive revelation. Those church fathers declare what is canonical and what is not. And the Trinity was of course a huge topic of debate starting with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and they finalized the concept with the Nicene Creed in the Council of Constantinople in 381. So now try looking at this rationally. Almost 400 years after Jesus Christ, you have the final Nicene declaration which declares that God is a Trinity. So 400 years almost after Jesus Christ you come to that conclusion due to the Holy Spirit, due to progressive revelation. Now, 600 years after Christ, but only 200 years roughly after that Council of the Quran comes to correct that falsehood, the falsehood of the Trinity. So last time I checked, 200 is actually half of 400. So you come up with the Trinity 400 years after Christ and the Quran corrects you 200 years half the time later. I wouldn't say that you are in a position to talk about a long period of time, 600 years after Christ. Man, you are changing his doctrines 400 years after him. And moreover, even if you really look when did the New Testament come after the mosaic law. 1300 years later, so it took God 1300 years to come up with you know what, I've been wrong. Circumcision absolutely wrong even though you're God. Jesus Christ comes to earth, circumcises himself even, but hey, let's forget about it. Let's send Paul and let's tell them that circumcision is wrong even though you're God was circumcised. It took 1300 years for the New Testament to come and to revise the mosaic law. Is that okay? Or is that too much of a time frame here? 1300 years. Again, twice as much as 600 years. But yeah, it took so long for the Quran. Why believe the Quran, right? Let's believe Paul 1300 years later. That makes much more sense, of course. Let's throw out the whole law. Let's start eating pork. Let's not get circumcised. Let's do everything that we want. This has continuity. That's when it was invented. Because Muhammad said that an angel came to him and revealed the Quran to him and he's illiterate, but they wrote it down. That's one of the miracles and that's one of the greatest miracles. But this book all it did was revise history. Yeah, so basically he tries to make the arguments that the Quran cannot be trusted because it came 600 years later. I already debunked that because within your Bible you have years and millennia, of course, between different books. That is a non-argument. However, why do we believe in the Quran? Because it has been preserved. Perfectly preserved, at least back to the time of Uthman. And this is even affirmed by independent secular researchers and historians. Not by Muslims. The same cannot be said about the Bible of course. You can ask independent researchers if you will, objective sources that are not Christian, not Muslim. And they cannot claim that the Bible has been preserved. However, when it comes down to the Quran, they surely can. By that basis alone the Quran is, of course, superior. But this whole game here can be reversed as well, of course. Why don't you trust the Torah? Why don't you obey the mosaic law? Yet again, why do you trust the New Testament that was written in Greek by anonymous authors 1,300 years after the revelation of the mosaic law? Why? They wrote it down. That's one of the miracles and that's one of the greatest miracles. But this book, all it did was revise history. It says that Allah switched Jesus out. So why did Allah switch Jesus out and make it look like Jesus died? The cornerstone of Christianity, his death and resurrection. But, oh, actually Allah did that on purpose and then he waited 600 years to clarify. This makes no sense. And why would he wait that long when Allah's own confusion? He caused all of this. Yeah, again, I already answered this. First and foremost, no, it's not 600 years after the fact. The Quran corrects the Trinity that has been established roughly 400 years after Jesus Christ. And, of course, we would never say that Allah, God caused confusion. But your church fathers, the so-called priestly class caused confusion over and over again. I mean, look at Jesus. What did he do with the Pharisees? They were preaching falsehood. So your doctrines are man-made. This is being addressed by the Quran. So if you're a Muslim, why would you trust the Quran, which came 600 years after Jesus who tries to revise history versus we could literally look at the history of anyone else in the Bible. The Quran itself praises the Bible. So why would we listen to the Quran? Even if an angel comes running. This is so extremely unsophisticated. This is so tiresome after all. Why don't you study Islam a little bit before you open up your mouth? This is absolutely pathetic, of course. The Quran does not speak about the Bible, Biblios. You cannot find it within the Quran at all. The word that you can find is in Jil. We believe in the revelation that has been sent down to Jesus. This is what we believe in. At the same time and this is what the Quran confirms as well, we believe that the scriptures have been tampered with. And there is a track record of that. If you look back into Jewish times, if you look back to the Pharisees, even into Talmudic Judaism, etc, etc, you see a tampering with scriptures. So the Quran asserts that this is exactly what has happened. That wicked men have manipulated your scriptures. Do we believe in the pure revelation of the Torah and the Injil? Yes, we do. Do we believe that you have the pure Injil and that the Jews have the pure Torah? No, we do not. It increases a different possible, let them be anathema. And that's the exact situation that Muhammad was in. A quote-unquote angel came and revealed this. So why would we do that when everything, even the Quran is saying to listen to the Bible and that's not the only time that it happens. Yeah, it's actually quite sad and pathetic. He's obviously brainwashed by his own religion. He does not understand what is going on nor does he truly trust Jesus. As we said already multiple times through this video, why don't you do what Jesus did? Why don't you get circumcised? Why do you eat pork? Why don't you pray with your head on the ground as Jesus did? You do not follow Jesus. You follow your church fathers. This is why every time you see a debate with an Orthodox Christian it is circular reasoning, of course. We trust the Bible. Why do we trust the Bible? Because the church fathers wrote it. Because they compiled it. Okay, why trust the church fathers? Because of the Bible. And just continues like that in a circle. As I said a billion times already you guys trust Paul and then ultimately the authority of the church fathers. But those are just a bunch of men. They codified the Trinity 400 years after Jesus Christ. Paul got rid of the Mosaic Law. After Jesus departure Jesus never told you to abandon the law. He came to fulfill it. You can read this in the Bible as well. If you love me keep my commands. The real question that Orthodox Christians have to ask themselves is why do you trust Paul and the church fathers over Jesus Christ? Angels delivering false gospels hundreds thousands of years later, why would we trust it? We wouldn't. We would just trust the Bible in the church that Christ established. So on every level Islam is false. It does not... Yeah, this is where it gets really pathetic and more obvious that he has been brainwashed by his church fathers, of course. Because those people truly believe that Jesus Christ established the church. In their eyes this is the Orthodox Christian church. They truly believe that Jesus Christ founded that church itself based upon their scripture where it says and I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. This is Matthew 1618. There is however, of course, zero evidence that Jesus Christ ever established a Christian quote unquote church. If anything we have evidence that he participated in the Jewish tradition and he was even called Rabbi. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of Jesus creating a church with a cross of him being crucified on top of the church or him hanging on the walls, bleeding out and all of that, of course, before he got allegedly crucified. Did Jesus really command you to do this? Before he got crucified he came up with the idea let's build a church and let's put statues of myself in that church in which I am crucified. That would be an absolutely amazing idea. You know what, whilst we're at it, actually we're going to add some depictions, some icons, idols of so called saints that came hundreds and thousands of years after my departure. Yes, I'm sure Jesus did exactly that whilst he was at it, he started chanting the liturgy in Greek, of course. I forgot, of course the Mother Mary statues, right? He said, you know what, I'm going to put statues of my mother here. The Theotokos, he probably called her as well. Don't you see how ridiculous this is? Everything that you see within your churches even if you would grant that Jesus Christ created a church I personally do not believe that, of course I personally believe that he participated within the Jewish tradition. Nevertheless, even if he did do you really believe that he started hanging icons, even though later on you had a dispute about icons, etc., etc., you name it. Of course not. All of this is innovation. All of this is man made. None of this is created by Jesus Christ himself. In the church that Christ established so on every level Islam is false it does not have continuity, it does not have historicity, it does not have the correct theology and even we look at the actions of... Honestly Kyle, are you okay man? What are you talking about? Has no historicity. Islam is literally 1400 years old. No history. No historicity. The false theology. You believe in the Trinity. The Jew will say that you have the wrong theology. This is not an argument, this is just Yeah, well that's just like your opinion man. Prophet Muhammad, again Jesus was perfect even Islam says that Jesus is sinless versus we get Muhammad who had sexual relations with a minor and Muslims will go out and defend this. Alright, let's enlighten Kyle because he clearly didn't do his research in Islam we believe that all the prophets are free from sin, not only Jesus. And this is why lots of people leave Islam because this is one of the greatest prophets, Muhammad but he is lusting, he has multiple wives including a 6 year old Aisha, just does not make any sense at all. Yeah, fantastic Kyle you're exposing yourself here yet again. You're talking about continuity, but what kind of continuity do you have when you are now against multiple wives? You're against polygyny that doesn't add up at all. Abraham allegedly your founding father of your religion as well had two wives. King Solomon on the other hand had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So you are contradicting yourself. Where is the continuity now? Where is the continuity with polygyny? Oh well we don't like this. We like to eat pork, we like to drink wine. Where is the continuity with polygyny? Your prophets were polygynous. Therefore it cannot be inherently wrong. We're talking about objective morals within religion of course. So if your prophets were polygynous it was decreed by God. Therefore it cannot be wrong. Can it? Are your prophets sinful? In Islam they are not. We follow the way of the prophets. On a side tangent polygyny is absolutely natural especially for leading men. This is the case. Leading men throughout the ages had multiple wives. There is nothing wrong with that. From a Christian world we are really wondering of course because Jesus never got married and people take Jesus as the prime example. Okay Kyle, then don't get married. Be celibate after all if you believe that this is the right way. In Islam we do not have that. We can enjoy our Christianity. Yes, wow. Of course a Christian sees this as reprehensive. This is why you see suppressed sexuality within the Christian churches. I don't have to tell you about the Catholics after all and what happened there. Celibacy is not something that has been decreed by God. This is truly what we believe within Islam. We do not believe that we've been burdened to such a lifestyle. Quite the opposite God created male and female and even in your Bible it says there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying sex within a matrimony. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that Kyle. You do not have to flock yourself and punish your flesh. Oh, the flesh is evil. Truly those are doctrines that Christians came up with because they're confused when it comes down to sexuality. Meanwhile, your own Bible preachers, practices, polygyny, multiple wives. And now about the whole age of Aesha topic in the nutshell because it is a very long topic. If you look into certain hadiths, some scholars, some people come to the conclusion you know what, actually she was 16 years old. Actually she was 18 years old. Some people really hold that position. Others do not. Be that as it may what is truly interesting to observe is that we only see attacks on Islam with the age of Aesha in modernity. For thousands of years there was no attack on Islam from the enemies of Islam when it came down to the marriage of Aesha. There was no problem whatsoever. Why wasn't it a problem? It's very obvious because Christians married young as well. Everybody did. And one more time the age of Aesha is not mentioned within the Quran. It is not part of the religion. It is not part of the five pillars as such. However, it is a story within the hadiths and again there is dispute. Some people believe she was way older than that. But if we are talking about such stories, why not look into your own Bible? How about the marriage of Rebekah to Isaac? Certain people assume that she was 14 years old and this already people that believe that she was much, much older. The youngest version of Rebekah was probably 3 years old. Yes, people, scholars, Christian scholars do believe that Rebekah was 3 years old when she married Isaac. Why don't you talk about this? It does not matter at all. Common arguments you will hear from Muslims are actually Gnostic and iconoclastic in nature, which makes sense because in that area those heresies spread there. And so it makes sense that they are going to be against icons, but they are entirely inconsistent. Of course Islam is iconoclastic. We are against icons. Again, you had the dispute within your own church. Some people were pro and some people were against it. Don't act as if everybody in your church just absolutely loved icons from the get go. Of course, you had huge disputes there, but he had again the real question for Christians should be what would Jesus do? Did Jesus hang icons of himself and his mother in his supposed church? If the answer is no, the question becomes why would you? They say you can't picture Allah, but the Quran created or uncreated doesn't make any sense. If the words are depicting Allah as I will show, it just refutes their entire theology. With this statement, he absolutely buries himself. Of course, he shows us all that he has no clue about the Quran because he hasn't read it. Nothing within the Quran depicts Allah. This is absolutely forbidden to depict Allah. Moreover, what you are listing here in the background is predominantly hadiths, of course and the Quranic verse that mentioned allegedly two hands does not do that after all. We are talking about Surah Al Maida. The Jews say the hand of Allah is fettered. It is their own hands which are fettered and they stand cursed for the evil they have uttered. No, his hands are outspread. He spends as he wills. So first and foremost, there is no mention of two right hands here within the Quran at all over the Ashari or the Maturid interpretation of this would be, of course that the Jews say that Allah is not generous. His hands are fettered. However, no, his hands are outspread. This is metaphorical for Allah being generous. Alright, this is it for today's video. I have to cut it off here. Meanwhile, we are just 6 minutes in. This video continues 30 minutes longer than we already reacted to it. As you can see, I had to stop it every few seconds because this guy Kyle simply has no clue what he is talking about. Literally 90% at least of what came out of his mouth was falsehood. Please, Kyle, before you make another video sit down, truly research Islam. Do not spew your nonsense and more over as I said already, if you are sitting in a glass house, you cannot throw with rocks. Every single claim of yours has been debunked. If you are interested in a talk with me I absolutely invite you over to my channel. I wish you all the best genuinely. Of course, we wish Islam for everyone. You are invited, you do not have to spend time in your church kissing icons, making little crosses, lighting candles, praying to Mary. I hereby invite you to Islam. Alright guys, that is it for today's video. If you enjoyed it, leave it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already and check out the links in the description box below to further support. And now, as always may God Allah Kyle Allah bless you all much love and peace.