What a great channel and great performance as usual by Hythem Sidky.

@Professor Gabriel, Thank you for these sessions! And special thanks for explaining the jargon even if it meant interrupting the speakers time and again. You genuinely want your listeners to understand what your guests want to express. Much gratitude and appreciation! 🙏🏻

Wonderful channel! Please keep going.

Great Channel

It is more interesting .thank you for lecture

One request for Professor Reynolds please: When introducing any of your guests in the beginning of an interview/discussion, please also include a couple of lines about their own 'faiths' (Christian/Muslim/etc, if any) versus their relatively much more neutrality toward such issues (for instance, if they happen to be atheistic or very secular). Thanks a lot and all these videos are highly informative.

@jacobortega3424

29 күн бұрын

I think it’s best to avoid introducing or allowing for the inference of possible implicit biases in their scholarship.

Excellent lecture - it would be nice to write the authors and texts mentioned in the description

So excited for this channel. Thank you for your sober and thoughtful analysis!

@inquisitivemind007

2 жыл бұрын

Great interview with Hythem Sidky

@nomejest5919

2 жыл бұрын

U got destroyed on twitter

@Logia1978

2 жыл бұрын

@@nomejest5919 both of them were destroyed...

@waxpriuem17

8 ай бұрын

@@Logia1978 Yeesh. 😬 About what, though?

Very fascinating. Thanks. Reading Marmaduke Pickthall's "translation" now along with Arabic text itself. Helpful as I gain understanding of the Qur'anic Arabic. Excellent channel.

Great video great beard

Professor Reynolds, thank you for your work.

@miked6652

9 ай бұрын

Thy didn't he invite Youcef Estes and other great Muslim scholar. The reason they want to host Hythem Sadik because he is fake scholar .

Radiocarbon dating can examine either the ink an / or the material (parchment / vellum) used. In the case of the earliest Quranic manuscripts the only thing dateable is the parchment - not the ink, as it was not carbon-based but metal-based, the latter cannot be dated!

@Diamondraw4Real

2 жыл бұрын

I haven't heard that the dating of the parchment is debatable, where did you hear that?

@Diamondraw4Real

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/a4d3p6WLmLSuh5M.html mabye this interview with Pau helps ppl trust in the dating of the manuscripts :)

@semmy155

2 жыл бұрын

That's correct, however, that is not the only and/or sole method in trying to trace when a particular text (or more specifically, the ink on the parchment/material) was written - for example, paleography and ortography are other methods. Also, when speaking of the historicity of a particular text, it is based upon probability or plausibility. Now, let's assume that the material on which the text is written dates from a certain range within the (late) 7th century AD/(early) 8th century AD or the 1st century AH (prior to 719 AD) - which paleography and/or otography affirm with regards to the text, then what would make one think that the ink/the text on it would be writen much later (I'm not saying you do - but it's just a question in general)? Based on Occam's razor, it would be [much more] probable or plausible that the document (not just the material on which a particular text is written but also the text itself) dates sometime within the late 7th century AD/early 8th century AD or the 1st century AH (622-719 AD). Carbon dating combined with other things such as paleography and/or ortography do give us a good indication of when a particular text was [probably/plausibly] written.

@MsStormdust

Жыл бұрын

@@semmy155 spot on

@bobbycalifornia7077

Жыл бұрын

@@semmy155 Gabe’s discussion with Shoemaker is interesting regarding carbon dating - Shoemaker is quite punchy about its unreliability.

How can you calculate how this machines work without those machines receiving instructions i.e. information from another source

20:55 I would use that... "some ppl say xyz..." Because I want to recognize that some other people might have come to the same conclusion independently that I am not aware of... Not just the person I have in mind

Organic compounds are ones who's structure involves hydrocarbon. Life is not yet definable but rather it's features have been enumerated and not all life have all the features but at least some. Currently, it is best described by poetry than science: Life is an autonomous, purposeful, orchestrated symphony of interactions between organic and inorganic molecules which must have at least one of the features of life.

Scholars, huh? Interesting stuff ;)

Some of the 10 qiraat Were narrated from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra)

Check out Hythem Sidky's interview with Derek Lambert from Mythvision Podcast.

Examples, the following arabic words كثير much كبير large, early muslims wrote them as follows كىىر.، كىىر exactly the same. Since muslims depends on memorising by hearts, their was no problems at the beginning. But when non arabs converted to islam in massive numbers. Writing had to be developed.

@TheUnique69able

Жыл бұрын

كلام فاضي. الاختلافات كانت موجودة حتى بين الصحابة

@Mohammed-nn3ts

Жыл бұрын

@@TheUnique69able الفاضي انت. الصحابة أجمعوا على القرآن الذي بين أيدينا. ومايمنع أن يتوهم بعضهم. وحتى القلة الذين توهموا . وافقوا الاجماع، لم ينقل عنهم أنهم أصروا على الاختلاف بعد الإجماع.

@TP-om8of

Жыл бұрын

بلدي الحوامات مليئة الثعابين

@miked6652

9 ай бұрын

Hythem Sidky is a fake Muslim he is falsely tearing up the Quran faith that's why they like to invite him to prove that the Quran has many versions like Torah and the Gospel

@miked6652

9 ай бұрын

Hythem Sidky is a fake Muslim he is falsely tearing up the Quran faith that's why they like to invite him to prove that the Quran has many versions like Torah and the Gospel

Though late, thank you for this great lecture. However, I have the chance to watch more lectures by Dr. Sidky about this issue. It is astonishing why he has never referred to the first compilation of the scripts which was done by Abu Bakr & Omer in years 12-13? And that Othman had completely relied on that copy when he issued the standard codex?

@user-of1xy6tj5f

11 ай бұрын

All the so called scholars attempt to ignore this. I think there is a sinister purpose.

@jsupim1

4 ай бұрын

I think it's because this story is not historically verifiable. It's too early for any good quality historical record, and I don't think modern historians would take the standard hadiths about it at face value.

Very interesting and convincing conversation. Personally I would concede that the Quran is rather well preserved since Mohamed's time. It is however also clear that the dogma of perfect(!) preservation is not tenable.

@Oxygen11115

2 жыл бұрын

Even Classical Islamic commentators never claimed "a perfect preservation".

@blueblubber6607

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oxygen11115 Essentially all apologists insist on the perfect preservation dogma. So either they do not read their commentators or they are bluntly lying.

@IslamOriginal14

2 жыл бұрын

Just because dotting or dagger alifs were not present does not mean it wasn't perfectly preserved. Those symbols aren't needed. Phonetics and Arabic are synonymous to each other, as in Arabic started phonetics.

@blueblubber6607

2 жыл бұрын

@@IslamOriginal14 "Just because dotting or dagger alifs were not present does not mean it wasn't perfectly preserved. " Correct, but it also doesn't prove a perfect preservation.

@IslamOriginal14

2 жыл бұрын

@@blueblubber6607 as hythem said, all codices have the same skeletal structure. When you know your language, you don't need dots or dagger alifs. Like English has symbols to help with pronunciation, but we don't need it because we are proficient enough to determine the sound of words without them

Why dont you invite Dr Ali Atae? To educate you

Jay Smith come get educated

@Diamondraw4Real

2 жыл бұрын

haha, that's not happening though

@jsupim1

4 ай бұрын

How does anything Jay Smith said contradict the historical understanding?

Can't believe that readings came out of the defective script. It should be the other way round, i.e., reading were getting transmitted with fidelity and the script was made to follow the reading.

Hello

27:00 During the reign of Uthman, the number of Masahif circulating in the Islamic Empire is in 100s of thousands, making it impossible for the Caliph to destroy all Qur’anic copies in the empire. Had he tried that, people would not have accepted from him. The fact of the matter seems to be that Uthman produced a copy that does not contain the errors found in some unofficial codices and which, at the same time, is in agreement with what was widely circulating among Muslims at the time. Indeed, the quarrel over reading happened in a particular war zone, not in the entire Islamic Empire. It is totally illogical to say that Muslims gave up the Qur’an they had been using for about 38 years and accepted a new Qur’an from Uthman.

There is massive contradiction in this Uthmanic attempt at standardization given that even the so-called Uthmanic mushaf has up to 5-7 slightly different variations till this day! All this leaves many reports of the FIRST 3 compilations were by: 1) Ali ibn Abi Talib - the cousin and later son-in-law of the Prophet. This was the first compilation and was chronological with the first 5-6 verses of surah 96 of the present Quran as the FIRST SURAH. Nearly all Islamic tradition has these as the very first verse revealed! This Quran was presented to Abu Bakr who together with Umar had grabbed power at the event of Saqeefah. This Quran compilation drew protests from many Sahabah because this Quran was annotated and showed them in a not too flattering light. The 10th century bibliographer & bookseller, Ibn Nadeeem al-Baghdadi mentions seeing it and that it, together with Ibn Mas'uud's compilation, were the Qurans used in Kufah, Basrah and elsewhere. So, until the 10th century CE the Uthmanic mushaf was NOT the universally accepted version used by Muslims. 2) Abdullah ibn Masuud's compilation - the other major Quran compilation that is also discussed by Ibn Nadeeem al-Baghdadi. In fact, he goes into great detail discussing this one and that in Kufah it was the one used and NOT the Uthmanic mushaf! Later exegetes, like Jalaaluddiin as-Suyuuti and still later one like ash-Shaukaani draw on this particular codex, esp.when it comes to the exegsis of verse 67 of Surah al-Maidah. Here is as-Suyuuti's exegesis "ad-Durr al-Manthuur": Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti (a well-known shaafi'i Sunni scholar, died 1505 CE) refers to the original codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud where Ali's (supported by Shias) name was mentioned in many verses. Read the tafaaseer of al-Suyuuti (Sunni tafseer) called "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur" and that of al-Shaukaani (also Sunni), and you find this: اخرج ابن ابي حاتم, وابن مردوية, وابن عساكر, عن ابن ابي سعيد الخدري قال : نزلت هذه الاية : (يا ايها .... ما انزل اليك ) على رسول الله (ص) يوم غدير خم, في علي بن ابي طالب رضي الله عنه. واخرج ابن مردوية, عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرا على عهد رسول الله (ص): يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس ) تفسير القدير للشوكاني ص: ٣٨٤ Ibn Abi Haatim took from Ibn Mardawaiyah. from Ibn 'Asaakir, from Ibn Abi Sa'eed al-Khudri, who said: This verse was revealed on the Prophet (saaw) on the Day of Ghadeer Khumm about Ali Ibn Abi Taalib,radhiallah 'anho, and Ibn Mardawiyah took from Adullah Ibn Mas'uud, who said: We used to read (this) in the time of the Prophet as: يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس Surah al-Maa'idah, 67 سورة المائدة "O'Prophet! *Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that Ali is the mawlaa (master) of the believers and if you do not then you have conveyed God's message* , a God will protect you from the peope (who mean harm)." Tafseer of al-Shaukaani (also a Sunni) says the same. The verse above, as found in the earliest Quran compilations, was later altered, after the Prophet's death, to the present version by removing "ان عليا مولى المؤمنين" (that Ali is the mawlaa (master / leader) of the believers). This was the main point of schism between the Shi'at-ul-Ali (the supporters of Ali), which appeared in the lifetime of the Prophet and the Sunnis - a term not seen till the 2nd century Hijra (2AH). 3) The codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b - the one least discussed. *Yes, I agree that there are questions about the Quranic compilation that need attention, esp. who compiled the earliest ones and there dates as well as the dates of later on* !

@ahmadsafi9692

2 жыл бұрын

The first narration is weak because of Atiyah al Awfi who was classed as weak by Many scholars including: al Nasai, Abu Hatim, al Bayhaqi, al Dhahabi, Sufyan al Thawari, Yahya Ibn Maen, Yahya Ibn Saeed al Qahtani and others. He also had some bias as he was a shia In kufa. Ali Ibn Abbas is also weak. So we have two weak narrators. All the chains go thru atiyah. It is not Abu Hatim from Ibn marduyh from Ibn asakir 🤣🤣🤣🤦🏻. The other narration firstly doesn’t have to mean that Ali (ra) is becoming the Khalifah after. Ofcourse he is the mawla of the mumineen but that doesn’t mean he has to be the Khalifah after. The second narration, al suyuti doesn’t qoute a chain for and tafsir Ibn marduyah isn’t printed. We go by the princible of looking at the chain and not just accepting anything narrated: قَالَ يَحْيَى بنُ سَعِيْدٍ: [ لاَ تَنْظُرُوا إِلَى الحَدِيْثِ، وَلَكِنِ انْظُرُوا إِلَى الإِسْنَادِ، فَإِنْ صَحَّ الإِسْنَادُ، وَإِلاَّ فَلاَ تَغْتَرُّوا بِالحَدِيْثِ إِذَا لَمْ يَصِحَّ الإِسْنَادُ ]. سير أعلام النبلاء (9/ 188) The first claim of Ali (ra) compiling the Quran. Do you even have evidence for this? This is a shia story. As for your claim about imam al Shawkani then this is a simple lie. Show me where he Said it you liar. I read the place where imam al Shawkani was talking about the ayah and he didn’t mention it once that this has been corrupted.

@jamieammar6131

2 жыл бұрын

@@ahmadsafi9692 Your comment is interesting, and makes sense. But you gotta remember, the concept that Ali being one of the most important person for the Mumineen, or the Mawla as you call it.. that notion was not present during the Umayyad period. Slowly made a return during the time of the Abbasids. Also it was the time when the hadiths, the sira and most other theological matters were being compiled. Umayyad leaning people openly used to curse Ali, even during Friday prayers. So discrediting a shia leaning person from that time period, specially Attiyah al Awfi, could be a bias too. According to Tabari, he was punished by governor Hajjaj for his support of Ali.

@frensjose315

Жыл бұрын

😮

Put short and simple, the Quran was in complete book form during the Prophet's last years. And Imam Ali, ie the Prophets Ahlul kisa or ahlul bayt, ensured it's protection

@madgergillard2652

2 жыл бұрын

Nothing like this was mentioned. You're such a liar! Despicable!

@diiriyetv

Жыл бұрын

Allah ensured its protection.

@IslamOriginal14

Жыл бұрын

@@diiriyetv yes. The same way Allah sent down Quran through an angel, He protects Quran through agencies, ie, the Prophet and his house

@haelotny6523

5 ай бұрын

Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (AKA Abi Abdillah) said: The Qur’an that Jibril عليه السلام came with to Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله was seventeen thousand verses. Source: Mu'jam al-Ahadith al-Mu'tabara, Book 5, Chapter 6, Hadith 3. Graded as reliable by Ayatullah Asif al-Muhsini. The current Quran has 6346 verses. Where are the rest of the missing 10,654 verses? This is clear evidence that the Imams and the early Shia (much like the early Sunni) believed the current Quran compiled by Uthman has alterations and ommisions (i.e. tahrif). Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (AKA Abu Ja'far) said: “No one from the people has claimed to have collected the whole of the Quran (in a book form) as it was revealed. If anyone would come up with such a claim, he is liar." Source: Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 35. Graded as ‘Hasan’ (good) by Ayatullah Golpaygan: ar.lib.eshia.ir/15239/2/135 There is more evidence that the Infallible Shi'i Imams taught that tahrif has occurred in the Quran but for now, these two examples should suffice since they are so clear-cut in articulating that the current Quran has undergone tahrif.

Why can't you just listen!??

Thank Keep up the good work The good things about the Quran which is different from the Torah and the gospel is that the most important transfer way to us is by memory وبالتواتر ، so the Quran we have now is ,100% and without an iota of doubt , exactly the Quran which was transferred by prophet Mohammad to his companions verbally and by a chain of narrators to us

To those who don't know much about Islam, briefly, Muslims believe that whether you follow Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Abraham, Noah, David, Jacob or any of the Prophets/Messengers sent to humankind in all times by God/Allah/Hashem is the same. However the Quran stated that after the Torah was corrupted (Change of the original) by deceivers to suit their benefits and then expired, then God/Allah/Hashem sent Jesus with the Gospel, then God/Allah/Hashem sent after all Muhammad with the Quran. Chapter 5 Versus 68: "Say, O people of the Book (Torah and Gospel), you are not on anything until you establish the Torah and the Gospel." And this didn't happen just with the last three Prophets. But since Adem, every time God/Allah/Hashem sent a prophet to a nation he would send another after the previous message was corrupted and falsely changed.

@jsupim1

4 ай бұрын

Where does the Quran state that Torah was corrupted?

Interesting. Through Christ, God gave us back the divine life mankind lost in its fall. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons, we experience up to this day. To not see God in Christ.... is impossible. "The Father and I are one!" "If you see Me, you see the Father!" "Don't you believe that the Father is IN Me?" "ALL (!) AUTHORITY in heaven and earth has been given to Me!". (Only God has all authority). At healing the paralytic: "Your sins have been forgiven you!" (Only God can forgive sins). "I am THE (not a) light of the world"......: God. "I have come to give you Zoë (=divine life) in abundance".... Only God can give Zoë life. "I am from above, you are from beneath. You are from this world, I am not from this world"..... Etc, etc, etc, When He explained these things, healed the sick, casted out demons, raised the dead, controlled nature for 3 years, they all worshipped Him as God/Messiah.... except for the critical scholars and farisees! He NEVER said: "Don't worship Me, I am just a prophet!". The Jews wanted to stone Him because: "You claim to be God". So Jesus is God manifesting in Human form. Period. Glad He did. So now we finally know the sayings and actions of God. Next step. To not see Jesus bringing the divine life of the ages back to you-manity.... is impossible. "I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, etc, etc" "Follow Me, the miracles I do, you will do too" "God is IN you" "The Kingdom of God is IN you" "He who meets you, meets Me". "You and I are one" "You will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am in you" "See, I have given you power over all the forces of the enemy" "I have come to give you Zoë (=divine life) in abundance!" Etc, etc, etc. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons with His first 12+72 friends. As i understood these things, i experienced healing miracles and the casting out of demons already thousands of times and many other true believers do too. Yay! Conclusion of Paul after having revelation and healing all on Malta: "Jesus, the exact image of the invisible God. The fullness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily" and you have been made complete IN Him (the last Adam), who is the head of every principality and power". John (who had seen, touched, heard Jesus and walked in the same power and love): "the invisible God manifested in human form, in Christ and now in us". Thomas having revelation saying to Jesus: "My Lord and My God!". Jesus being God did NOT correct Him. Etc, etc, etc. His life totally proves He is God in human form. Begotten by the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God, healing all, raising the dead, casting out demons, controlling nature, raised from the dead, pouring out His Spirit for us to be indwelled by to be empowered to heal the sick and cast out demons, etc, etc, etc. Way to much to degrade Him to "just a prophet". So... Jesus is the manifestation of God in a human body.... "the Son" of God. He came to take the alienation away mankind got trapped in after the fall. He came to give us back the divine life Adam/mankind lost in its fall. Because of this fall, a perfect Holy sacrifice had to be made. That is what God did in Christ! It shows His deep, pure, affectionate passion from Him to you/His creation, to restore you back to origin: Christlikeness. Walking in divine power and unselfish divine love. Jesus walked flawless. Muhammed on the other hand.... Muhammed came after Jesus. He unfortunately never understood God's resolve for mankind's fall, wrote another story, called it the only truth, cutting of the real truth, leading millions astray from their godly identity in Christ. Heartbreaking. But for those who take Jesus for who He is and ask to be filled by His godly Holy Spirit.....: divine life. Tangible presence of God, healings, demons running for cover, etc. Just as with His first 12+72 friends. God will make you experience the full (godly) Life made possible through Holy Spirit. So don't be afraid to leave islam. God can only be found in/through Jesus Christ. Ask Him to fill you with His/God's Holy Spirit so He can guide you into truth and transform your life. You and God/Jesus are finally one again. He will open your eyes and give you Zoë (divine life). You will be growing into Him in all things. The life you see in Him and His first 12+72 friends. I experience it since 25 years and so will you.

@bruckbedru8178

Жыл бұрын

Lol a man is not G-d ETERNAL LAW OF THE TORAH! Your following a pauline christianity which is hellenistic metaphysics(PAGANISM) trinity is middle and neo-platonism(PAGANISM) islam and orthodox judiasm are the only monotheistic religion while christianity is anthropomorphism. In a nutshell "christianity is a man futile effort to create god in his image" while orthodox judiasm and islam is G-d successfull endevour in creating man in his image.

@andanandan6061

10 ай бұрын

But YHWH is said to be son of EL. Doesn't it mean you worship Jesus the grandson of EL ?

Gebriel....why you are so much bent on the various readings of the Quran? Whereas to muslims is a resolved well studied issue...!

This must be a big joke. A Muslim interviewing another Muslim on “research” about Islam.

@andanandan6061

10 ай бұрын

Gabriel is not a Muslim and He has critical view against Islamic Origin

@Noorfollower

10 ай бұрын

joke is the supposed 4 gospels inspired by the holy spirit

al lah has no son, but 3 daughters, yahweh has a son but 3 daughters. how can be same god, understand. my friend quran s 53:19 So have you considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza? 20 And Manat, the third - the other one? 21 Is the male for you and for Him the female? 22 That, then, is an unjust division. is not your profit mu ham mad said that al lah's 3 daughter must worship? my friend so you have 1 al lah with 3 daughters and one al lah with no son, my friend you have 2 al lahs? ba al is al lah, hubal is al lah, samud is al lah? who are these pagan gods called al lahs by arab? which is the one called al lah? have u heard that pre islamic al lalh was called samad and samud as a spouse. Samad is an epithet of Allah (Qur'an 112: 2). samad was one of 360 idols in kabha. my friend was not al lah a lord of kabba ? s38;5 "Has he[mu ham mad] made the gods (all) into one Allah? Truly this is a wonderful thing!" this the true meaning of word toweed[unification]. this the true meaning of word ahad[one of many].

@zionisthindurepublican7989

2 жыл бұрын

Your logically so Illogical that there is is no point to even waste one breath on your confusion what is coherent to the scholars

@seeki3315

2 жыл бұрын

@@zionisthindurepublican7989 al lah has no son, but 3 daughters, yahweh has a son but 3 daughters. how can be same god, understand. my friend quran s 53:19 So have you considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza? 20 And Manat, the third - the other one? 21 Is the male for you and for Him the female? 22 That, then, is an unjust division. hay duh, my friend is your profit said that al lah's 3 daughter must worship? my friend have you heard satanic verses by your profit mu ham mad? so you have 1 al lah with 3 daughters and one al lah with no son, my friend you have 2 al lahs? one ba-al is al-lah, hu-bal is one al-lah, one samud is al-lah? who are these pagan gods called al lahs by arab? which is the one you called al lah in quran? Pre Islamic Arabian Gods, how many 360 al lahs, my friend? have you heard that pre islamic al lalh was called samad and samud as a spouse. your profit mu ham mad was satan possessed. Samad is an epithet of Allah (Qur'an 112: 2). This name of Allah appears only once in the Quran, in the second verse of the chapter entitled al-Ikhlas: samad was one of 360 idols in kabha. my friend was not al lah lord of kabba ? s38;5 "Has he[mu ham mad] made the gods (all) into one Allah? Truly this is a wonderful thing!" this the true meaning of word toweed[unification]. this the true meaning of word ahad[one of many].

@Diamondraw4Real

2 жыл бұрын

no, the opposite is true, we are told (from what we read about the beliefs of the meccan pagans and the prophet PBUH reveals the words of Allah to them iin that surah) to not worhsip other than Allah. This is a basic Islamic belief, that Allah (God the Creator) is ONE TRUE GOD WORTHY OF WORHSIP AND DO NOT TAKE PARTNERS IN WORHSIP WITH HIIM, EG. SHAREEK. Man, why are christians/haters so bad at understanding a simple few verses in the proper context? Do you stop right after reading that the pagans said Allah had daughters, what an unjust division, and then go WOW, Allah has daughters, lmho. Please grow up!

@user-el6xm2pk7x

2 жыл бұрын

Read verse 23 of the same Surah lmaooo It destroys your argument

@zionisthindurepublican7989

2 жыл бұрын

seeki dont be cheeki ... read the replies in comments and you will become MEEKI