Today, we examine two worldviews—Islam and Christianity—and their respective capacities to foster cohesive, just, and thriving societies. I will be pleading the case for Islam. It is my position that Islam presents a viable Weltanschauung that unites law, ethics, and culture under the principle of tawhid, promoting societal harmony. To evaluate this, we’ll use a consistent framework:
Unity of vision, human nature and responsibility, reason and revelation, social ethics, and blueprint for civilization.
This comparison is not about individual believers or flawed political regimes. We’re examining each religion’s ideal teachings—Sharia versus Biblical law—as comprehensive systems, not isolated moral sayings. Historical focus will center on formative periods: Islam’s Golden Age and medieval Christendom, since later developments in the West reflect secular, not scriptural, values.
With that in mind, let’s begin.
Islam’s concept of tawhid ensures a consistent worldview where spiritual beliefs seamlessly inform legal systems, ethical norms, and cultural expressions. This unity is also evident in Islamic art and architecture, which reflect cosmic harmony. Conversely, Christianity’s delineation between religious and secular spheres has resulted in diverse national traditions and, at times, conflicting moral standards, leading to societal discord.
Islam teaches that humans are born in a state of purity—fitrah—and are accountable for their actions. Christianity, with its doctrine of original sin, posits that humans inherit guilt, necessitating redemption through external means. This can lead to a dependency on institutional absolution rather than encouraging individual moral agency.
Islamic civilization has long harmonized revelation with reason. The Islamic Golden Age saw scholars like Ibn Sina (Avicenna), whose Canon of Medicine became a foundational text in both the Islamic world and Europe, and Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), whose work in optics laid the groundwork for the scientific method. In contrast, Christianity’s historical relationship with scientific inquiry has been complex, exemplified by the condemnation of Galileo for advocating heliocentrism, a theory now universally accepted.
Islam mandates social justice through structured obligations such as zakat (obligatory tithe) and waqf (endowments), ensuring wealth redistribution and support for the needy. Christianity emphasizes voluntary charity and often defers ultimate justice to the afterlife, which can result in less systemic approaches to addressing social inequities.
Islam offers a complete civilizational model—legal, economic, and cultural—rooted in divine guidance. Its prohibition of usury and promotion of ethical finance aim to ensure fairness. Christianity, lacking a unified legal-economic framework, frequently defers to secular institutions, which may contradict religious values. Islamic law, through principles like qisas (equitable retribution), balances justice (‘adl) with mercy, deters crime while allowing for forgiveness. Christian teachings like “turn the other cheek” promote non-violence, but when taken in isolation, it risks overlooking justice and enabling harm.
Empirical data supports Islam’s emphasis on moral clarity and social cohesion. In Muslim-majority countries, such as those in Southeast Asia, large majorities reject social vices like prostitution. In contrast, Christian-majority nations have grown increasingly secular, with diminishing religious influence on public ethics and policy. To conclude, Islam’s integrated approach, rooted in tawhid, fitrah, and structured social obligations, provides a cohesive framework for societal excellence. Christianity’s compartmentalized ideals, while spiritually profound, often rely on secular systems to address societal needs. Historical and contemporary evidence suggests that civilizations flourish under comprehensive, divinely guided frameworks that harmonize spiritual, legal, and social dimensions.
As the Qur’an says:
“Thus We have made you a justly balanced nation, so that you may be witnesses over the people…” (Q2:143)
That is the Islamic vision for society. Thank you.
01:00:18,630 Islam itself has never considered that there is any real contradiction between science and religion.
01:00:24,567 The late Professor Isma’il al Faruqi was a highly respected authority on Islamic studies.
01:00:30,267 To be a Muslim is to be a scientist because you cannot be a Muslim if you do not fulfill the terms of the Khilafah. And the terms of the Khilafah are that you deal with nature and that you transform nature. Nature within you and nature in other human beings and nature outside, the trees, the mountains, the rivers, and everything; the whole of creation.
01:00:57,800 So you’ve got to study nature to know its laws, its secrets as it were, to deal with it and transform it.
01:01:08,177 Also another reason, nature is the creation of God. And Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, has planted in nature His sunan, His patterns. Therefore, to discover the patterns of nature is to discover the sunan of Allah, and therefore to glorify Allah.
01:01:28,000 These are the two reasons why every Muslim must be a scientist. This is why the Muslims have done wonders in science.
01:01:37,300 Therefore, the Muslim goes to nature not because nature is an enemy, like for instance, the Greeks did.
01:01:44,567 The Muslim goes to study nature not because there is a genie in nature which he is trying to master or to subdue. Not at all.
38 01:01:55,567 –> 01:02:00,032 The Muslim goes to nature because nature is a gift from Allah which Allah has made “musakkhar”, that is to say, subservient to man, in order that man may live and may fulfill the Commandments of Allah.
Today, we delve into the profound question: “Is Islam True?” To comprehensively address this query, we must examine the multifaceted dimensions that Islam encompasses. This involves exploring its philosophical coherence, its historical contributions, and the ethical frameworks it presents. Each of these elements provides crucial insights that allow us to evaluate Islam not just as a religion but as a comprehensive worldview—a Weltanschauung—that individuals and societies might consider adopting.
Philosophical Coherence of Monotheism
At the heart of Islamic philosophy is the concept of Tawhid, the Oneness of God. This principle is not only central to Islamic theology but is also philosophically compelling because of its logical simplicity. Tawhid provides a clear, singular explanation for the complexities of the universe’s existence, positing a singular, uncaused origin. This effectively avoids the problem of infinite regress that can plague polytheistic or multiple-causal explanations.
The principle of Tawhid aligns well with Occam’s Razor, a philosophical principle that suggests simpler explanations are more likely to be correct. By proposing an uncaused cause at the heart of existence, Islamic theology offers a streamlined, coherent framework that resonates with principles of rational inquiry and logical simplicity, avoiding unnecessary complexities that can accompany other theological systems involving multiple gods or creators.
Furthermore, Tawhid is consistent with modern cosmological theories, such as the Big Bang, which posits a singular origin of the universe. This congruence between Islamic theology and contemporary scientific understanding reinforces the philosophical rationality of monotheism, suggesting that the concept of a singular divine origin is not only theologically significant but also scientifically plausible.
Contrasting this with atheistic perspectives, which often reject divine causation in favour of random chance or spontaneous natural processes, Tawhid offers a purposeful and intentional explanation for the universe. Atheism, relying on scientific explanations devoid of intentional causality, might view the universe’s origins and existential queries as outcomes of random occurrences or inherent properties of matter and energy.
In contrast, Islam addresses these existential questions by proposing a purposeful creation, which infuses existence with meaning and intention, offering answers to foundational questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This approach provides not only a scientifically compatible explanation but also a spiritually and philosophically satisfying answer that embeds human existence within a greater cosmic purpose.
While atheism focuses on empirical evidence and often remains neutral or sceptical about existential meanings, Islamic monotheism integrates empirical understanding with philosophical coherence and spiritual significance, offering a comprehensive view that spans both the metaphysical and the empirical, grounding human existence in a clear and purposeful narrative.
Contributions of Islamic Civilization to Global Knowledge
The contributions of Islamic civilization to global knowledge, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age, are markedly profound, highlighting a significant transition from philosophical underpinnings to empirical advancements that were deeply influenced by Islamic teachings. This period was characterized by major advances in fields such as mathematics, with the invention of algebra; astronomy, through enhanced astronomical models; and medicine, evidenced by comprehensive medical encyclopedias. These contributions not only propelled scientific inquiry but also laid the groundwork for numerous modern scientific disciplines.
In contrast to atheistic contributions that may lack a unified spiritual or religious framework, the achievements of the Islamic Golden Age were deeply intertwined with the philosophical and religious context of Islam, which encouraged the pursuit of knowledge as a form of worship. The practice of Ijtihad, or independent reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence, exemplifies this blend of faith-driven inquiry with intellectual freedom, a principle that fostered an environment conducive to critical thinking and innovation.
Moreover, the Islamic emphasis on the preservation and translation of ancient texts was instrumental in facilitating a vast exchange of knowledge across cultures. This scholarly activity not only preserved essential philosophical and scientific works from antiquity but also expanded upon them, contributing significantly to the Renaissance and the eventual rise of modern science. In atheistic or secular contexts, while there is also a strong tradition of scientific inquiry and philosophical thought, the motivation and preservation of knowledge often follow more secular motivations without the binding moral and philosophical framework provided by a religious context like Islam.
Additionally, Islamic contributions were not solely about knowledge preservation but also about innovation within the confines of ethical and moral boundaries defined by religious principles. This contrasts with some modern atheistic approaches, where the pursuit of knowledge can sometimes conflict with or disregard ethical considerations, driven by a purely utilitarian or progress-oriented philosophy.
While both Islamic and atheistic contributions have significantly advanced human knowledge, the former did so within a context that seamlessly integrated ethical, moral, and spiritual dimensions, enriching not only the scientific but also the cultural and ethical landscape of the era. This holistic approach provided a comprehensive framework for understanding and advancing human civilization, which has had a lasting impact on the world.
Ethical and Moral Framework of Islam
The ethical teachings of Islam, deeply rooted in divine guidance, offer a comprehensive and pragmatic enhancement to societal well-being, grounded in universal moral principles. The mandatory practice of Zakat exemplifies Islam’s structured approach to social welfare, as it requires Muslims to contribute financially to those in need, effectively reducing economic disparities and promoting resource distribution. This is in stark contrast to atheistic frameworks, which often rely on individual or societal discretion without a divinely mandated system of charity.
The concept of Ummah in Islam strengthens community cohesion by fostering a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility among Muslims. This communal emphasis helps stabilize and unify society, which contrasts with atheistic views that might not prioritize community bonding in moral and ethical discourse, often focusing more on individual autonomy.
Islamic jurisprudence’s focus on fairness and justice aligns with principles found in many modern human rights discourses, but it uniquely integrates these into daily religious practice and governance, ensuring a societal fabric that is consistently monitored and adjusted according to ethical laws. Atheism, lacking a centralized ethical doctrine, leaves interpretations of justice and fairness up to secular law and personal morality, which widely vary and lack the uniformity provided by a religious legal framework.
Islam also explicitly addresses the preservation of the family unit and societal cohesiveness, viewing these as foundations for a moral society. It prescribes specific roles and responsibilities to family members, which supports societal order and ethical continuity. In contrast, atheistic approaches might not universally emphasize family structure or societal cohesiveness, often placing a higher value on personal choice and the fluidity of societal roles.
Regarding the problem of evil, Islam offers a theological explanation where trials are seen as tests of faith or divine justice, encouraging believers to maintain their integrity and resilience. This contrasts with atheistic interpretations, which might view suffering and evil as byproducts of natural or social phenomena, without any overarching cosmic or moral purpose.
Regarding economic practices, Islamic economics (mu’amalat) promotes a model of fairness through prohibitions on usury and encouragement of risk-sharing. This aims to create a financial system that is not only economically viable but also morally oriented, avoiding practices deemed exploitative. Atheistic perspectives, which do not operate under divine economic laws, might not inherently object to usury or prioritize ethical considerations in economic practices unless adopted through secular ethical reasoning.
To summarize, the ethical framework of Islam provides structured, universally applicable guidelines that not only address moral and social issues but also offer a stark contrast to the more varied and individually determined ethical constructs often seen in atheistic ideologies. The ethical teachings of Islam represent the sine qua non of societal health and integrity, essential for sustained civilizational success.
In conclusion, through its philosophical coherence, its undeniable contributions to global knowledge, and its robust ethical framework, Islam presents itself not just as a belief system but as a profound and enduring truth, resonant across different eras and cultures. It offers both a meaningful explanation of the universe and practical solutions for human flourishing. These elements invite not just believers but everyone, including atheists, to reflect on the rational and ethical merits of Islam.
The topic today is “Was Muhammad’s Marriage To Aisha Moral?”. This marriage has been used and abused by Christian polemicists, murtadds, Islamophobes and every group imaginable that has an axe to grind against Islam. This is hardly surprising, because Islam is currently the fastest-growing religion in the world and according to Pew Research, by 2050 Islam will surpass Christianity as the largest religion globally.
On the character and morals of the Prophet PBUH, the well-known Orientalist W. Montgomery Watt said:
“In his day and generation, Muhammad was a social reformer, indeed a reformer even in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. In this way, he adapted for settled communities all that was best in the morality of the nomad and established a religious and a social framework for the life of a sixth of the human race today. That is not the work of a traitor or a lecher.”
The historian Thomas Carlye said:
“Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Imposter, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to anyone. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only.”
The evidence for Aisha being betrothed at six years old and her marriage consummated at nine years old can be found in authentic hadith collections by Bukhari and I do not feel that there is any need to cite these hadiths or object to their historicity. Going back to the issue at hand, we must, first of all, understand that this marriage took place roughly 1400 years ago. As such, this marriage must be evaluated based on the standards of that time period, while keeping in mind that we should not commit the logical fallacy of presentism.
Presentism: thinking about history from an exclusively “presentist” point of view (i.e., from the perspective of our present-day understanding of events) fails to take into account that, at the time in which historical events occurred, those involved did not enjoy the benefit of hindsight that has informed our present perspective. Presentism invites us to dismiss the poor decisions made by previous generations as having been based on their failure to anticipate the long-term consequences of their deeds. Yet to fully understand a historical event, we must view it not only with the benefit of hindsight but also in the more limited context of its own times.
This can be easily determined by asking a series of questions which are as follows.
First question: Was Aisha’s marriage objected to by the Prophet’s contemporaries or by even her own parents?
The answer is no, it was not. Nobody objected to this marriage. None of the contemporary enemies of the Prophet ever used this issue as a slight against the Prophet, simply because it was a non-issue. This “problem” only came about in the 20th century and the first person to raise this issue as an objection to the character of the Prophet was Sir William Muir, a British Orientalist with Christian evangelical tendencies.
Second question: Did Aisha demonstrate any signs of abuse while she was in the household of the Prophet till the day he passed away?
Again, the answer is no. According to the hadith and sirah (biographical) material that we have, Aisha was a happy and outgoing woman. In fact, the records suggest that she spoke her mind and was unafraid to voice out her dissatisfaction even to the Prophet himself if she were unhappy about a certain issue which affects her. In the years after the passing of the Prophet pbuh, she became renowned as a teacher of Islam and decades later, she even led an army against the Caliph Ali RA. This certainly does not sound like an abused, manipulated person who was forcibly married off against her will when she was younger.
Third question: Was it a common practice at the time to marry at such a young age?
The answer is yes, it was a common practice of the era. This is determined by when the woman has attained puberty. And how do we know that a woman has reached puberty? By experiencing her first menstruation. Under Islamic law, a woman can only legally be married after she has attained puberty.
Neil Postman, a former professor at New York University, wrote the book The Disappearance of Childhood. In it, he argues that childhood was one of the great inventions of the Renaissance, just like any other social structure. Its development was closely correlated with the written tradition and the development of primary schools as opposed to the oral tradition in the Middle Ages.
He states:
“In an oral world there is not much of a concept of an adult and, therefore, even less of a child. And that is why, in all the sources, one finds that in the Middle Ages childhood ended at age seven. Why seven? Because that is the age at which children have command over speech. They can say and understand what adults can say and understand. They are able to know all the secrets of the tongue, which are the only secrets they need to know. And this helps us to explain why the Catholic Church designated age seven as the age at which one was assumed to know the difference between right and wrong, the age of reason. It also helps us to explain why, until the seventeenth century, the words used to denote young males could refer to men of thirty, forty, or fifty, for there was no word—in French, German, or English—for a young male between the ages of seven and sixteen. The word child expressed kinship, not age. But most of all, the oralism of the Middle Ages helps us to explain why there were no primary schools. For where biology determines communication competence, there is no need for such schools.”
In 1930, thousands of boys and girls married before the age of fourteen. It was reported that 1,311 girls in the East South Central area of the United States married below the age of fourteen.
This, therefore, brings us to our….
Fourth question: Are there examples of young marriages throughout history? What was the age of consent?
Let us look at the history of how marriage was practised in earlier times before the 20th century. We have a long list of ancient kings and queens and individuals from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East being married off at an age as young as seven years old!
Here are a few examples:
According to the Bible, Rebekah was married off to Isaac the father of the Jews when she was three years old.
Mary, the mother of Jesus in the New Testament was 12 when she got married to Joseph who was 90.
Ankhesenamun (aged about 16) was married to her half-brother Tutankhamun (aged about 10) in about 1332 BCE.
Judith of Flanders (aged about 12/13) was married to Æthelwulf, King of Wessex (aged about 61), in October 856.
Eadgifu of Wessex (aged 16/17) was married to Charles the Simple, King of West Francia (aged about 40), in 919.
Isabella of Jerusalem (aged 10/11) married Humphrey IV of Toron (aged about 17) in 1183. They had been betrothed when Isabella was 8 years old.
Isabella of Valois (aged 6) married King Richard II of England (aged 29)
Eleanor of England, daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England, married 15-year-old Alfonso VIII of Castile in 1170 when she was about 9 years old.
Mrinalini Devi (aged between 9 and 11) married Rabindranath Tagore (aged 22) in 1883.
I think the point has been made, that young marriages were not considered to be problematic until very recently in the 20th century.
Fifth question: Could the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha, in any way, shape or form, be considered as “paedophilia”?
Let us first define who is a paedophile and what is pedophilia.
A paedophile is defined as having had repeated, intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviours involving a child or children (usually aged 13 years or under). Pedophilia is also medically defined as a mental disorder. Many paedophiles have or develop a substance use disorder or dependence and depression. They often come from dysfunctional families, and marital conflict is common. Many were sexually abused as children.
Now, the question is, do the historical records suggest that the Prophet meet this definition above? The answer is no, he did not meet the criteria. The only marriage that he had with a virgin was with Aisha RA. His other wives were all widows and divorcees. This does not fit the definition of a paedophile or paedophilia in general.
In conclusion, we can therefore surmise that the marriage of Aisha RA to the Prophet PBUH was part of a practice totally congruent with his time period, and based on what I have already stated previously there is nothing to suggest that this marriage was “immoral” by this standard. Otherwise, if we were to judge him by the current practices of our times, that would be falling into the logical fallacy of presentism.
WITHOUT LIES ISLAM THRIVES
And with that, I end my opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discourse.
The topic today is “Is Islam Dangerous To The World?”. We must first understand what the word “dangerous” entails. The police shooting a criminal who is about to kill women and children is a dangerous act. This, however, does not mean that it is bad or immoral. Violence and dangerous actions can be used to establish the greater good with a wise purpose (hikma).
To also imply that 1.6 billion people around the world are “dangerous” or have the tendency to be “dangerous” is a gross misrepresentation of the faith, redundant, and is clearly Islamophobia.
We must also be clear that the goal of Islam is to lead all of mankind towards Islamic peace, or Pax Islamica. Muslims are also taught to always adhere to the middle path or wasatiyyah. This is characterised neither by liberal nor radical religious thought but through the promotion of tolerance, balance, equality, consensus, reformism, and in short the summum bonum ofall things that take the middle path to materialise as the khairu ummah (the best people).
In order for these things to be achieved, it is recognised that in the Islamic ethos or Weltanschauung, the primary objective of the implementation of Islam, is the realisation of its benefit (maslahah) to mankind, which concerns their affairs both in this world and in the hereafter.
This framework of objectives, which are based on benefit (maslahah) or the Wise Purpose (hikma) known as the maqaasid al-shariah, or the objectives of Islamic law after its implementation.
In French, Finalité
In German, Zweck
In Greek, Telos (τέλος)
The fulfilment of Islamic law covers the protection and preservation of these five fundamental objectives, which are: faith, life, intellect, lineage and wealth.
These values are universally transcendent and are seen as absolute requirements to an individual’s survival and spiritual well-being, to the extent that the destruction or collapse of these objectives would precipitate chaos and the demise of the standard of order in society.
Faith
Islam values the maintenance of faith (way of life, deen) in God and the societal way of life, based on this principle. To achieve this, Islam ensures that any threat to this value is nullified before it causes a danger to the Muslim community as a whole. This would include freedom of religion, a safe and secure environment which would allow Muslims to practice their faith without any threat, getting rid of Islamophobia as it is currently rampant in Western nations, and all these things are done while ensuring that other religions are also allowed to practice their respective faiths in peace and harmony in a Muslim-dominated society.
And as any other self-respecting nation would do, Islam also takes pre-emptive steps as a countermeasure to ensure that this way of life is not undermined. This legislation is no different from how the United States (for example) treated Edward Snowden, Yosef Amit, Jonathan Pollard and Julian Assange when they posed a threat to the integrity of the government. In light of achieving the greater good in this context, how then is Islam a danger to the world?
Life
Islam values the protection and the value of human life. Islam ensures that peace prevails throughout the world via any means that can achieve this aim. Islam is most certainly not a danger to the world if it values human life, because according to the words of the Quran itself, “to kill one human is as though you have killed all of mankind”. The purpose of the justice system in Islam which also includes hadd laws is to ensure that crime is controlled and that the person involved can be reformed, or otherwise be taken out of society so that he or she will no longer a threat to anyone else.
Criminologist Edwin Sutherland (1883–1950) published the Principles of Criminology in 1939. Sutherland argued that criminal behaviour was learned, not an inherited trait. Exposure to crime, either through relatives or peers, gave a youth frustrated with his or her social status a choice to pursue a crime. These bad influences could be lessened by good relationships with parents, teachers, an employer, or the community, values which Islam promotes.
How then does this prove that Islam is a danger to the world?
Intellect
Islam cherishes and preserves the intellect, which is why throughout Islamic history we see various advancements and achievements in the development of science and technology in the Muslim world right up until the beginnings of Western colonialism and the fall of the Caliphate.
At the same time, Islam also preserves and protects the intellect by forbidding alcoholism. On average, roughly 40% of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offences were under the influence of alcohol during the time of their crime.
True, alcohol may give people happiness but that happiness is temporary. Not only does it lead to criminal activities but it also leads to other vices which ipso facto jeopardise or badly affect the other values as I’ve mentioned earlier.
Tell me again, how is Islam a danger to the world?
Lineage
Marriage is deeply rooted in natural human instincts. We crave romantic affection. We want to give love and receive love with a long-term partner to spend our entire life with and have children with. Sociologists call this “pair-bonding” and studies have proven that couples who are married are happier than non-married couples (Washington Post)
Islam advocates the family unit and ensures that the lineage of mankind continues throughout the centuries. Towards this end, Islam ensures that laws are in place to curb negative values that are a threat to the integrity of a family unit, and I’m not just referring to the rainbow club.
Marriage requires sacrifices from both sides. Liberals are not interested in sacrificing their individual freedom. In the West, the concept of marriage is dying. People are barely getting married and according to Pew Research, 70% of people will not choose to get married.
Contrast this with Islamic law which preserves marriage and the family. Islam limits individual freedom because individual freedom is not a priority or more important than family. A husband can’t just leave his children and wife so he can have fun while they struggle to make a living. Islam does recognize individual freedom and other values but it doesn’t focus on them alone because there are more important values for society and family to function.
So again, how does this make Islam a danger to the world?
Wealth
Islam encourages the preservation and maintenance of wealth. Islam does not frown upon capitalism, at the same time Islam also encourages elements of socialism and welfare in the form of Islamic tithe (zakat) and sadaqah (charity). Islam also implements taxation which are just and fair to run an administration of a state.
Islam also recognises that being poor and needy leads to instability and chaos in society, and tries to remove this by banning gambling and interest. This is consistent with what has been attested to by Western criminologists today, that a general disorder in the neighbourhood leads to increased antisocial behaviour and eventually to serious crime.
Islam does this without the need to rely upon secularist, humanistic values which are contrary to the Islamic economic and financial system and involve riba’ (usury and interest). The implementation of an Islamic economic system has ensured success for Muslim nations even until today, we have Islamic bonds (sukuk) and the Islamic banking system which have existed in Malaysia and in many parts of the Muslim world for over 30 years.
How then does this support the position that Islam is a danger to the world?
To summarise:
Islam is realistic and a religion of pragmatism, it does not see the world purely from a dystopian or utopian lens. Because the real world that we live in now is neither this nor that but could be both in various situations.
In light of this, Islam does use force wherever and whenever is necessary in order to achieve a Wise Purpose (hikma) behind every action and in the context of events. It cannot be stressed enough that context is important in order to evaluate every action of any Islamic ruling or values as recorded in hadiths or in Islamic history.
Muslims are taught to always strive for the middle path and are never taught to be extremists on either the left or right of the political spectrum of things.
Islam is a holistic way of life (deen), which is the end result of the values derived from maqaasid as I’ve mentioned before. This is one of the goals of Islam as well, to build a relationship between man and God, hablul min Allah, and a relationship between man and man, hablul min an-nas, in order to eventually move towards and achieve Pax Islamica.
I cherish these values that Islam clearly promotes. Therefore, in conclusion….and in my opinion, Islam is a danger to the world only if you are a degenerate, a career criminal, a selfish or a lawless person without care for society or a very, very mentally disturbed individual.
And with that, I end my opening statement. Thank you, James, for the opportunity to participate in this discourse.
Today, as you can see, I’m trying out a new format. This will be part of a series called “Evangelize Me”.As the title clearly indicates, I’m challenging every single Christian to try and convert me into a worshipper of a half naked man swinging from a cross.
So this series will present several problems regarding Christianity which affects their core doctrines, something that Christians often miss or try to gloss over or try to dismiss as though as they are unimportant. But in reality, these problems are very serious, fundamental issues which could actually make the whole religion or the whole Christian theology collapse.
(01:40) In this episode, I would like to share with you something which I refer to as, “The Immanuel Problem”.
Now, Christians often like to use the Old Testament as a basis for proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah. For us Muslims, Jesus is the Messiah. We don’t need prophecies to prove that he is the Messiah. But for Christians, they need to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the awaited Messiah.
So we read, in Isaiah 7:14 — “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: the maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.” So this verse from Isaiah 7:14 was used by Matthew to prove that the birth of Jesus was prophesied and that he is the coming Messiah.
In the relevant verse in Matthew, specifically in Matthew 1:23, we read: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us”).”
The main issue here now is simply this. Where, in the gospels, was Jesus ever referred to as “God with us” or even the name “Immanuel”? Jesus never even called himself Immanuel. So this is clearly a blatant mistake by Matthew.
(03:26) This is actually a false prophecy if we were to look at it from the perspective of the Christians because this never came to pass…Jesus was never called “Immanuel”.
So Christians, try to wrap your head around that. Clearly, your religion is a false religion because Jesus was never called “Immanuel”. I challenge Christians to show me where Jesus was called “Immanuel”. Where, in the gospels, or even in Acts, was Jesus called “God with us”. Where, in the gospels, did the disciples ever regard him as God dwelling among them?
(04:00) So that is all I have for you today. Thank you very much for watching this. I hope you will continue to follow this series of videos called “Evangelize Me”.
Stay away from Christianity. Christianity is a false religion. Yahweh is the Devil.
(00:00) It is now the month of September. By now you should know that I have already been cleared by the Malaysian police of all charges related to possession of child pornography as alleged by the police video that had been circling around since last year.
But because of this video, there were many Christian polemicists and Islamophobes who took advantage of the situation that I was in, and they try to smear, blaspheme and tarnish my good name in apologetics by editing the said video, putting in ridiculous lies and charges which had nothing to do with the facts at hand.
(00:52) And they uploaded it on their respective channels. But alhamdulillah, after I was cleared of this charge by the police who handed me a letter confirming that I would not be further investigated, I decided to take matters into my own hands. I decided to conduct a COPYRIGHT STRIKE RAID.
So not only was I able to clear my name of these charges, I’ve also managed to destroy Christian polemical YouTube channels, on YouTube. This is how I did it.
(01:52) Boom.
(01:53) So I searched for several polemical YouTube channels which had my name or something related to my name as their keyword on these channels. And once I got the links pointing to these videos, I submitted a copyright claim over these videos to YouTube.
Alhamdulillah, YouTube was kind enough to go through my copyright claim and to rule this claim in my favour. As a result, the said video was taken down and the said Christian polemical YouTube channel got a copyright strike.
So I did this several times and it accumulated to up to 60 videos or more.
(02:48) YouTube has ruled that their said videos have violated my rights. YouTube has deemed that I am the sole, legitimate owner of those same rights. Therefore, YouTube decided to rule in my favour.
Now the question is, do these Christians actually follow their own Bible when they decided to steal my rights away from me and to edit these videos with my content and to publish them, and pretend as though as it is their own?
Don’t they realize that they have violated their sacred Ten Commandments? Which commandment was it?
(03:30) The 8th Commandment itself is really short, to the point, 4 words: you shall not steal. No exceptions, no exclusions, no loopholes. If you take something that belongs to someone else, you’re stealing. That means a lot of different things, though. Obviously, if you smuggle a candy bar out of a grocery store, that’s stealing, you’ve taken something that doesn’t belong to you. But there are other ways to steal, let’s say less tangible things. For example, if you go behind someone’s back, you can steal their idea.
(04:09) If you find out sensitive information, you can steal an identity. If you employ slander and gossip, you can steal a reputation. If you deceive an employer, you can steal their time. You could keep going but the point is, there are a lot of things that can be stolen and the most irreplaceable things are rarely physical.
(04:34) So you see, Christian fuckers and bastards, you guys actually violated your own Eight Commandment. Padan muka, I say to you. You deserve getting a copyright strike. You deserve that your channel has got brought down by me, The Muslim Apologist.
