I love Dr Ali Ataie for the sake of Allah. Looking forward to part 2, thanks to all involved.

Waiting for the second part

You should take off this video from "unlisted". It is a gem!

Very accurate and well spoken critique. Thank you

Look forward to the last part on the theological discussion being added soon InshAllah ❤

Takbeer!

@muwahh1d1

4 ай бұрын

Allahu Akbar

Brilliant- will be using some of the content in my lessons 👌

I never knew this video existed . I can’t wait to watch it.

@fidelcatsro6948

Жыл бұрын

congratulations now you know! 🐱👍🏿

Last part on demand like hot cake ♨️

Part 2 pleasereee

ما شاء الله Professor Ataie is incredible - just a polite rectification- The ‘Ahmediyya’ or Qadiyaniyya are NOT an ‘Islamic’ sect, they are not Muslim, and are out of the folds of Islam- this is something that has reached a huge majority consensus among modern ‘ulema and those from the time of Mirza ad-dajjali.

@aliataie101

Жыл бұрын

Salam. I said pseudo-Islamic sect. Pseudo means bogus.

@sawmaniac12

Жыл бұрын

@@aliataie101 Salam , do you know when part 2 will be uploaded

@r_elyaqub8214

Жыл бұрын

@@aliataie101 incredible! Never knew you had your own channel. Never thought about it. All I know is I enjoy listening to you on this channel as well as on Blogging Theology with Paul! Well, I'm a huge fan of yours 🙂! JazakaAllah khairan for the knowledge you share with us.

Mashaallah you are too good, alhamdulilah.

Is there a part two for this?

Jazakallahu Khayran for the amazing video, I do have a question though. If Isa (AS) survived being crucified then what does that mean for the Qur'an saying that he wasn't crucified? And what happened to him after he was found again that led to him being taken to Jannah for his eventual return?

@maaziy_ghaziyIYI

Жыл бұрын

The Quranic verse on crucifixion categorically states that Jesus was raised on high before he could be crucified, and that the belief of both the Jews and the Christians that Jesus died on the cross is based on a misconception. As a result of a comparative study of the Qur'anic and Biblical versions we are persuaded that, so far as the trial at the court of Pilate is concerned, it was probably Jesus who was tried. Pilate sentenced him to death after the Jews showed their deep hostility to Truth and righteousness by openly declaring that, in their view, the life of a thief was of higher value than that of a man with such a pure soul as Jesus. It was then that God raised Jesus up to heaven. The person the Jews subsequently crucified was someone else who, for one reason or another, was mistaken for the person of Jesus. The fact that the person who had actually been crucified was someone other than Jesus does not in any way detract from the guilt of those Jews, for in their minds it was Jesus whose head they were crowning with thorns, in whose face they were spitting, and whom they were subjecting to crucifixion. We are not in a position now to find out how and why such a confusion arose. As no authentic source of information is available to us, it would be inappropriate to conjecture and speculate about the cause of the misapprehension which led the Jews to believe that they had crucified Jesus, the son of Mary, whereas he had already passed far beyond their grasp.

@naha5595

Жыл бұрын

If he survived crucifixion, it means he wasn't crucified. Not crucified, not killed. Allah knows best.

@faisalwho

Жыл бұрын

He is proposing hypotheses that according to him are more likely or “probable” than the christian narrative. His point is in the end we can never truly know, and our prophet and the Quran are silent on the details. Much of what we have recorded such as substitution hypothesis come from later sahaba who likely interacted with the christians to come up with their own theories. sami’na wa ata’na. All we are required to believe is that he neither died nor was he crucified, but Allah raised him. The exact details are known to Allah and I don’t think there is a problem with us theorizing, as long as it doesn’t contradict the Quran.

Where's part 2?

Theological critique please

Part 2 alaikum alkhair

42:42 he means Matthew 27

This lecture should be in 1080p. Thanks anyways ❤

Where is the theological critique?

@truthinknowledge8312

Жыл бұрын

This is just part 1. I think part 2 will probably drop soon.

When he said, "KATA TA EUANGELLIOU MOU," I couldn't help thinking, "His Greek doesn't seem too good." That's ungrammatical for two reasons: (1) "euangellion" (gospel) is singular, not plural, so the neuter article has to be TO, not TA. And (2), KATA in the sense "according to" governs the accusative case, not the genitive, so it should be EUANGELLION, not EUANGELLIOU. (I did look this up in 2 Timothy 2:8, in Greek, to make sure.) I say this as someone who studies Greek as a past-time, not as a professional scholar like Dr Ataie, so it's surprising that he should make such basic mistakes. This in itself would be enough to shake my confidence in a historical/exegetical scholar's expertise. I might mention that I also say this as someone who grew up as a Muslim, not as a Christian, and so I have nothing really against Dr Ataie from a religious or theological point of view (as it happens, I do not fully subscribe to either of these religions, at least not in their popular or exoteric forms, though I am more sympathetic to Islam). (He also seems to say "ek speramatas Dauid", instead of the correct "ek spermatos Dauid", but I think that's merely on account of his American accent, so not a blatant mistake.)

@vampireducks1622

Жыл бұрын

Actually, maybe I shouldn't be too surprised. I remember being in a class with a distinguished Professor of Islamic History once who was reading from a classical Arabic historiographical text (Ibn Munqidh or Ibn Athir, I forget now) and kept making mistakes every two or three sentences. Academia is full of people whose expertise is not really up to snuff, or so it appears to me anyhow.