Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🔥🚨DEVELOPING: Florida Governor candidate James Fishback is facing backlash and being accused of turning on his base after he claimed: “It does NOT matter what your background is, what gender you are, what you look like, or how you pray America works best when we put meritocracy front and...

100,958 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

36,857 views • 8 days ago

I want to correct the narrative and misinformation that people are spreading from this live about “manly” comment. Lot of people are spreading a completely misinterpreted context of this situation. Jimin has NOT argued against being called manly. He “scolded” a fan who called him manly & then immediately laughed afterwards. He said you are not supposed to laugh after calling someone manly because that makes it seem like a joke. He didn’t say to not call him that and it is a completely made up narrative spread by huge number of people. It is shocking how many people never actually watched the full clip and just decided to go with the false “jimin told fan not to call him manly” narrative. His “issue” was fan laughing after saying it to him, not the word itself. Please don’t put words into Jimin’s mouth just so you can project the image you have on him. So many of you love putting him in the box and it is genuinely disrespectful. The both instances many people are using of jimin “arguing” against being called mainly were a joke w a fan/interviewer that people misinterpreted so they can project their own idea on him. Jimin has embraced being both masculine and feminine many times before and doesn’t have issues w either so stop lying on his name. He had always said he likes exploring different versions & sides of himself and owns both so don’t close him up in a box just because you are more comfortable with one side.

leona 𓇢𓆸

53,702 views • 2 months ago