Jake Brancatella
@MMetaphysician • 52,523 subscribers
Muslim Since 2012 Alhamdulillah | Athari | Maliki | MA Theology and Philosophy | BA Philosophy YouTube Channel: https://t.co/5k4sqmWwKx
Shorts
Videos
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 Brancatella42,668 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce
Fr. Stephen De Young admits that Eusebius of Caesarea was an Arian. Bruce Lee
Jake Brancatella10,755 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce
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 Brancatella476,992 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce
Leaving aside the typical Islamic dilemma garbage, your lies about the dead sea scrolls aren't fooling anyone.
Jake Brancatella20,701 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce
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 Brancatella75,008 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce
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 Brancatella71,195 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce
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 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce
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 Brancatella16,823 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
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 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce
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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce
David Dr. David Wood, I told you that I'm not a Prophet, but I predicted exactly what you would do. David Wood, Avery, and company now after losing our debates badly, openly admit that some verses of the Qur'an contradict their authority claims in the Islamic Dilemma! Why? Because I buried them on this point and collected a lot of jizyah in their church. Notice that David is acknowledging that I AM representing their position on authority in the Islamic dilemma correctly. Have they ever admitted that there are verses in the Qur'an that say that the Torah and/or Injeel are NOT PRESERVED/ARE CORRUPTED OR NOT INSPIRED? No! Never! That's exactly why my argument has them conceding new territory that they've never done before. Now that they've admitted this, all I need to continue doing is demonstrating the hermeneutical implications by their admission because this point carries directly over into the inspiration and preservation parts of the Islamic Dilemma. Thanks Dave. You cheered me up on a difficult day for me. See the videos of David's admission below that are in agreement with his responses to my posts here:
Jake Brancatella21,065 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce
Daniel Daniel Haqiqatjou Gives "Shirk Apologist" Unique Significance DH finally answers the question he's been asked about for months regarding his beloved shaykh Salek. According to DH, it's possible that Salek's statements and beliefs expressed in the video below are NOT shirk akbar. DH says, "When I read scholars influenced by Taqi al-Din al-Subki, and they talk about the Prophet ﷺ controlling the universe, I consider the possibility that this might mean control through their dua, even if they don't mention it explicitly. Rather, I only rule this interpretation out if they themselves say that the control exercised by the prophets and saints is not through their dua. This is how I interpret statements made by Taj al-Din al-Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Suyuti, Sh Salek, and others. I know all of them have read the works of Taqi al-Din and other similar thinkers, and likely share their views." According to DH, it's possible that Salek merely means that the Prophet can make dua to Allah for certain things to happen and for our duas to be answered by Allah. This is the limit of the Prophet’s "control of the universe." DH says that he only rules out this interpretation if someone like Salek himself explicitly says that the "control of the universe" by the Prophet is NOT exercised through du'a to Allah. Guess what? Salek himself explicitly does just that! The video below starts by Salek addressing the topic of making istighatha and asking the Prophet DIRECTLY for things. Salek contrasts this with asking THROUGH the Prophet or asking the Prophet to make du'a for us. Salek explicitly says that we can ask the Prophet DIRECTLY for whatever we want without restrictions. This is because Salek believes that Allah gave all of His dominion to the Prophet for him to do with it whatever he pleases. The entire universe is under the direct authority and control of the Prophet. Salek explicitly says that the Prophet gives us whatever he wants FROM HIMSELF, not by making du'a to Allah or by Allah providing it because Allah already gave it to the Prophet to do with it whatever he pleases. Some examples of what Salek explicity says that we can ask the Prophet for DIRECTLY and that he can provide DIRECTLY FROM HIMSELF: Religious guidance of the heart, ANYTHING from the dunya or akhirah, knowledge, wealth, etc. Salek says that everything in the entire universe is his slave, including space and time and that the Prophet went BEYOND space (La Makaan) and time. Salek says that anyone who accuses him of committing shirk or kufr by making these statements becomes a kafir himself according to Imam al-Shafi'i. QUESTION: According to DH, how could anyone possibly express the shirki understanding of istighatha or al-wilayat at-takwiniyyah in clearer terms than his beloved shaykh Salek in the videos below? QUESTION: Why would DH desperately attempt to make ta'wil of his shaykh's statements when his shaykh explicitly denies DH's interpretation in the videos below? I'll let you all be the judge. Dan, you've cemented yourself as a shirk apologist. Enjoy.
Jake Brancatella42,691 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce
Since you Sam Shamoun mentioned my name on your call today with Patrick Bet-David, I accept your debate challenge. Debate me 1 on 1 on PBD Podcast. Let's get this set up. No more excuses. Muslim Metaphysician (Jake Brancatella) vs. Sam Shamoun. Mohammed Hijab already acknowledged that I'm the top guy in this field: Let's settle this once and for all.
Jake Brancatella28,921 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce