Jake Brancatella
@MMetaphysician • 52,636 subscribers
Muslim (2012) Athari | Maliki | MA Theology and Philosophy GET MY BOOK HERE: https://t.co/TVqjwxKHmN https://t.co/0vXV2SEcCE YOUTUBE: https://t.co/8dKrgqUbhW
Shorts
Videos
The child who calls himself "seerahdawah" is both dishonest and slow. He's incapable of following a conversation correctly. I've stated several times that Sinai explains in the interview that his discussion of "muhaymin" in his book was purposely vague to leave himself an "escape hatch." He says that he did not want to commit himself to a clear view on the topic because he hadn't research it enough to definitively settle on an opinion. On the other hand, Sinai made clear in his recent interview on the subject that he does not understand the Qur'an as a muhaymin or "arbiter" in the sense that it determines what is textually corrupted in the previous scriptures and what isn't. So, although Sinai accepts "arbiter" as a faithful translation of "muhaymin," he understands it merely as an arbiter when it comes to the correct meaning of the previous scriptures. You shouldn't be worried about whether my book contradicts itself as you commented that you are worried about that. Sorry "seerahdawah," I'm not contradicting myself and my book doesn't dishonestly engage with scholarship in the manner that you do. Now, here's what Sinai says in this clip: "I don't think that the Quran supports this later post-Qur'anic/Islamic idea of textual corruption in the deep past. I think there are some verses in the Quran, surah al-Baqarah, I think 75-79, where the ahl al-Kitab, probably the local Israelites or Jews, are accused of writing things with their own hands and then claiming that to be God's word. So that could be read as a form of, I guess, textual falsification. But clearly the Quran doesn't assume that the original authoritative version of these scriptures is irretrievable. That the damage was done centuries ago and is basically unrecoverable now. I think there's a lot in the Quran that contradicts that. So in Surah 5, when the ahl al-Injil are asked to judge by what's in the Injil, I mean, it wouldn't make sense if the Injil were incorrigibly corrupted." Let me help you focus on the most important part: "But clearly the Quran doesn't assume that the original authoritative version of these scriptures is irretrievable. That the damage was done centuries ago and is basically unrecoverable now. I think there's a lot in the Quran that contradicts that." Anyone who claims that Sinai believes that the Qur'an is claiming that the previous scriptures are textually corrupted and that the original, authoritative, uncorrupted texts cannot be accessed is either ignorant or dishonest. As Muslims, we need to do better. We shouldn't lower ourselves to level of dishonest and ignorant Christian apologists. Regardless, as I said before, what Sinai believes about the Qur'an is irrelevant to Muslims. Muslims should aim to raise the bar with our research and honesty.
Jake Brancatella19,247 views • 16 days ago
If this happens, let's see if DUS Dawah will ask Andrew Tate about his public worship of Jesus at church on Easter Sunday a few months ago. Andrew Tate should publicly repent, retake his shahada, remove the video from his accounts, and refrain from such shirk in the future. Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss.
Jake Brancatella477,106 views • 2 years ago
I agree with Jay Dyer. Most people simply don't ready anymore. David Wood Dr. David Wood recently admitted that if a book is more than like 200 pages he wouldn't read it. Jay actually asked me for book recommendations prior to our debate and delayed the debate so that he could read a particular book before our debate. Here are some of the books I read in preparation for my debate with Jay. Admittedly, I haven't read every single page of these books. However, I've read many of them cover to cover and key parts in others that were related to our debate.
Jake Brancatella36,582 views • 1 month ago
Michael InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones likes to claim that any example of a Muslim misinterpreting or misusing a "scholar's" words is dawah deception that is promoted by Islam. However, he conveniently forgets how he misuses scholars' words and if it is claimed that it is due to deceptive evangelism promoted by Paul and the Bible, he would claim that this is completely unfair. Don't think that I forgot about you misrepresenting Michael F. Bird's view of Justin Martyr on your own channel and his interpretation of Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 5 ( I'm so confident in this as an example of your deliberate misrepresentation of Bird that I offered to discuss this with him on your channel. We all know why you'd never want that to happen. Now, as for Sinai, his position on this issue is quite clear in the recent interview (see my compilation from the interview below). If Sinai contradicts his recent statements in his written works, then that's a different story. In the interview, Sinai admits that he purposely left his explanation of muhaymin in the text you guys were discussing vague and open to multiple interpretations. However, he makes clear that he does take it as an arbiter, but not in the way that SeerahPro would agree with. It's an arbiter over the correct interpretation and meaning of previous scripture. Sinai explicitly says that he believes the idea that the previous scriptures are textually corrupted and are unable to be accessed is a post-Qur'anic idea. He uses 5:47 as an example of why he thinks that reading isn't correct. On the other hand, Sinai is against the overall Islamic Dilemma gotcha, as if it cannot be responded to. He also admits that a case can be made from Qur'an 2:79 and other texts that the Qur'an could be read as affirming textual corruption in the Bible. Although Sinai admits that this is a plausible/possible reading of the Qur'an, it is clearly not the position that he favors. With all due respect to Sinai, as a Muslim, I couldn't care less how he interprets the Qur'an. For example, in another part of the interview, Sinai reads the Qur'an in a Taymiyyian fashion, which I would largely agree with, but that doesnt mean that I'm going to use this as a proof against the Ash'aris. As Muslims, we must do better at handling these sources and interpret people accurately, regardless of our own views. Let's do better.
Jake Brancatella14,163 views • 16 days ago
1:12
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
It's pretty ironic coming from The Orthodox Muslim when you have the exact same playbook. You continue to associate with deviants because of the benefit they bring you. You're an ecuminist Muslim similar to Avery. Mohammed Hijab, Ali Dawah, and co. are jahmis. You don't want to refute the deviants in detail because you know exactly what that will do for your brand.
Jake Brancatella43,248 views • 2 months ago
Since Muhammad Yasir Al-Hanafi is requesting a fair, academic assessment of his recent statements, let's do it. Allow me to interview you regarding your position on shirk and the evidences on both sides on my channel as you afforded that to Daniel. Not a debate. What say you?
Jake Brancatella75,148 views • 6 months ago
Hey Dr. David Wood and InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones. Care to retract your false claim that the Protoevangelium of James depicts Mary as 16 when pregnant and not 12? I thought no critical scholars said she was 12 in the Protoevangelium of James? I'll wait...
Jake Brancatella72,417 views • 7 months ago
It's shocking to me that my argument is going over the Christian apologists' heads like a kufi. David, Avery, and others who run the "Islamic Dilemma" argument claim that the Qur'an says that the Torah is an authority for the Jews to follow, even after the Qur'an is fully revealed and preached to them. Supposedly, the Qur'an also says the Injeel is an authority for the Christians to follow, even after the Qur'an is fully revealed and preached to them. Jews and Christians are NOT required to follow the Qur'an or Islamic law for salvation, even when they are invited to do so. The Qur'an is only for Arabs, not for all of mankind. The Qur'an tells Jews to judge by the Torah, not the Qur'an! The Qur'an tells Christians to judge by the Injeel, not the Qur'an! The Torah and Injeel are also meant to be full legal authorities for the Jews and Christians respectively. They typically cite 5:43-48, 5:68, 10:94, 2:85, etc, attempting to justify their claims. These are some of their favorite verses to use in the Islamic Dilemma context. This is exactly what my authority argument is refuting. My arguments regarding the authority aspect of the Islamic Dilemma are meant to demonstrate that the Qur'an views itself as an authority, including a legal authority, over the Torah and Injeel, and over the Jews and Christians. Jews and Christians who are invited to embrace Islam and follow Islamic law must do so in order to attain salvation. If they reject following the Qur'an and Islamic law, then they will be in hellfire. If I demonstrate this is the case, then it debunks the authority aspect of the Islamic Dilemma. However, once that is granted, it demonstrates that the way these Christian apologists interpreted 5:43-48, 5:68, 2:85, 10:94, etc was wrong this entire time. It demonstrates that the verses that tell Jews and Christians to judge by the Torah and Injeel are not meant to be taken in an absolute sense. They should be understood merely in a general or partial sense. Otherwise, the only other option would be to claim that the Qur'an is internally and hopelessly contradicting itself. This means, as I explained in my debate with David, that even if I presented a verse of the Qur'an that said, "The original Torah and Injeel are corrupted and no longer authoritative" verbatim, they would just say, "The Qur'an is just contradicting itself." This is exactly what David and company do when they are being honest and pushed by my arguments. The reason why this is so important is because it demonstrates they are not reading the text of the Qur'an under a principle of charity. They cannot provide a consistent reading of the Qur'an by their own admission. According to them, some verses of the Qur'an agree with the Islamic dilemma and others disagree with it. Also, once my authority arguments are granted, by the same principle,0 we can argue that the verses they use for full inspiration and preservation don't require such readings. They could be read in a nuanced manner that is consistent with the rest of the Qur'an just like the authority verses. Why have I chosen to focus on the authority aspect, instead of inspiration or preservation? Does that mean I believe their texts are fully inspired and/or preserved? Of course not! The reason is because, if I'm being honest, the Qur'an has many more verses with greater clarity stating that the Jews and Christians are required to follow the Qur'an and Islamic law for salvation when invited to do so, then whatever it mentions about their books being textually corrupted. Also, the implications of this are massive for how we read the inspiration and preservation verses, as I've already mentioned. If Christians cannot grant this point about authority, then they certainly won't grant whatever I'd say about textual corruption from 2:79, 5:13, or anything else. I hope it's clear. It may take time for these points to sink in, but I will be beating these points like a drumbeat until there is no more jizyah to collect.
Jake Brancatella39,152 views • 5 months ago
Unbelievable. In reaction to my recent discussion with Mohammed Hijab, Daniel Haqiqatjou says that Hijab does not believe that wilayat at-takwiniyyah (a created being having control over the entire universe) is kufr akbar unless the person attributes istiqlal (independence) to that being. However, Hijab argued the exact opposite. Hijab anticipated Daniel's deviant istiqlali belief and stated that wilayat at-takwiniyyah is shirk akbar regardless of istiqlal. On the other hand, Daniel says that he cannot state that wilayat at-takwiniyyah is clear cut shirk akbar unless the condition of istiqlal is met. I tried to explain this to Hijab during the discussion, but he could not fathom that this was Daniel's actual belief. It's now clear for everyone to see in shaa Allah.
Jake Brancatella80,576 views • 1 year ago
How can Daniel Haqiqatjou think he can get away with lying so easily? In the clip he posted, he literally says that the "Muslim" is "praying, making istighatha, and making du'a" to Jesus to be healed. He uses the terms praying, istighatha, and du'a synonymously several times in the clip, but now he's trying to convince us that he's making a distinction between "praying to Jesus and istighatha to Jesus"? What does he think the distinction is supposed to be? Daniel says the only difference is the person not believing Jesus is God. Daniel says he's not 100% sure that a "Muslim praying to, making istighatha to, and making du'a to Jesus for Jesus to heal him" is shirk akbar. This is why even Ash'aris and Maturidis are denouncing you. Even Asrar Rashid responded to you and said that this is shirk.
Jake Brancatella38,818 views • 7 months ago
Fr. Stephen De Young admits that Eusebius of Caesarea was an Arian. Bruce Lee
Jake Brancatella11,889 views • 2 months ago
Here's more evidence that Trinitarians are panicking and learning on the job. This fake guru "Juju aka Johannas Silencio" doesn't even know that the standard version of the LPT only generates an inconsistent set by assuming we are counting gods by classical identity. This fraud thinks that talking about counting is switching from the LPT to the MPT. He's absolutely clueless. Beau Branson, The Logical Problem of the Trinity (pgs 16-17) "So, why does the anti-Trinitarian think that the logical form of P is inconsistent?...On the other hand, suppose we instead take “is God” in S1 through S3 univocally and take “God” to be a predicate and “is” to be the “is” of predication. Suppose we analyze the counting statement expressed by S7 in the standard way, and understand “is God” as it occurs there in the same way we did in our interpretation of S1 through S3. And suppose we otherwise leave our regimentation unchanged. The logical form of the claims expressed by S on this interpretation of it can be represented in PLI as: LPT-2: (1LPT-2) Gf (2LPT-2) Gs (3LPT-2) Gh (4LPT-2) f6=s (5LPT-2) f6=h (6LPT-2) s6=h (7LPT-2) (9x)(8y)(Gx & (Gy ! y=x))" "So, if the orthodox Trinitarian wants to give an analysis of P, that is, an interpretation of S, that is both (a) non-heretical and (b) offers a solution (rather than a non-solution) to the LPT, it must fall into either: (1) the Equivocation Family, which equivocates on “is god” between P7 on the one hand, and P1 through P3 on the other hand, or (2) the NCIC Family, which counts by a relation other than classical identity." (Ibid. pg 64) Branson rightly notes that there are only two families of solutions to the LPT: Equivocate on "is God" between P1-P3 and P7, or count gods by a relation other than classical identity. Hey Juju, if how we count in the Trinity is merely a metaphysical issue and not a logical one, then why does the LPT assuming a particular counting method to generate the inconsistent set and why is one of the two family solutions denying that counting method? Precisely because it's integral to the LPT. Stop cosplaying as the Christian savior responding to the LPT and do some reading.
Jake Brancatella17,680 views • 3 months ago
Hey Sam Bruce Lee. Since you're calling out William Albrecht for his bad arguments now, why don't you call out your boy GodLogic_GL for using a fake quote from Justin Martyr in his discussion with me? Is it because he's your friend and you won't call out his errors? Avery quoted a chapter heading from New Advent and passed it off as Justin's own words. He was called out for it and never publicly admitted he was wrong. Is your loyalty to Christ or Avery, Sam? I bet Sam will go quiet because he doesn't want to admit his friend Avery was wrong. You can find the clip around the 47 min mark of this video:
Jake Brancatella10,973 views • 2 months ago