Пікірлер

• 
  @MohamedIbrahim-ed2pt9 сағат бұрын

  Bible is not a revelation. It is a collection of books written by unknown authors. The Gospel of Jesus (Injeel) is lost and so is original Torah.

• 
  @fay129810 сағат бұрын

  A very daring and brave statement.

• 
  @Fm-pm4sh10 сағат бұрын

  Abraham was king of Yemen not Saudi Arabia

• 
  @musharafhussain231611 сағат бұрын

  What contradictions is he on about ( 😂😂😂

• 
  @meina061416 сағат бұрын

  This dude had to flee Egypt because they deemed him to be a murtad

• 
  @angel.apollo17 сағат бұрын

  All religions are STORIES created by HUMANS.

• 
  @hhakawati17 сағат бұрын

  Anything is a contradiction if you have a biased view of the world. However within the Quranic paradigm there are zero contradictions.

• 
  @CamouflageMaster12 сағат бұрын

  What about Allah being all merciful and yet sending disbelievers to eternal hellfire? And also Allah needs to allow people to believe or not apparently? But still it's the individual's responsibility to pass this 'test'?

• 
  @debbydetermined17 сағат бұрын

  Thank you all so much for this work, this is so amazing. We need to learn more! I appreciate all you intellectuals and academics completing the story of history for everyone in the present and future :)

• 
  @kinanradaideh547918 сағат бұрын

  What contradictions?

• 
  @justaman5417 сағат бұрын

  An easy one is that the Quran says that there is no compulsion in religion but then orders to fight any disbelievers.

• 
  @naayou9919 сағат бұрын

  Thank you very much for sharing. As an Arab, native, I couldn't find an impartial and concise assessment of what had transpired in the case of Abu Zayd. Interesting and sad--as Abu Zayd noticed--that Arab academia is intellectually intolerant now compared to a century ago (during Taha Hussein's time). This fact is worthy of research.

• 
  @AshokGupta-oq6hs21 сағат бұрын

  Sirs,please note that persia had zorastrian monotheistic religion independent of abrahmic religions with Ahur Mazda as its God and worship of Fire(in Agiyari temples).

• 
  @Hamid8472Күн бұрын

  First of all: What an interesting discussion! I myself came across the late Ahmad Deedat online 20 years ago during my college years. Someone had uploaded his videos (this was before KZread) on Google Video (I believe). I was totally floored by his debate style. I would say that what made him so effective in his debate style was that Deedat was raised in an English context. He could talk to a western audience in a way that Zakir Naik can't, which is logical since Zakir Naik is the product of an Indian context. I personally have a hard time understanding alot of Naiks speeches because of his very "thick" accent. Deedat on the other hand had a very eloquent English. Out of the "new school" of Dawah on social media there are so many. There's a whole range of guys uploading videos from speakers corner in London. Then you have Sheikh Uthman Bin Farooq from San Diego. My main problem with the new school of dawah is that it's so agressive, like it's made for the sake of creating click baits and "cool" content for social media. I much rather prefer the Deedat style of debates where they would gather a large audience, have an opponent and each given a limited (but lenghty) time to put forward each persons arguments and then cross examine the points being made and then let the audience walk home with their own reflections of the debate.

• 
  @venonparniКүн бұрын

  The story as told here is a baseless story that is rejected by all Muslims! Dr. Powers has missed the whole point! Verse 37 of the Al-Ahzab chapter instructs the Prophet to break the stigma of the Arab practice of "marrying one's adopted son's divorced wife". The point that the good Dr. has missed is that in Verse 4 of the same chapter, the Prophet is told that no such thing as an "adopted Child" is recognized by God and that such a tradition should be disregarded, and automatically when there is no such thing as an adopted son, as the case is with Zaid, there should not be any stigma attached to the prophet marrying the divorced wife of a so-called "adopted son". To write a whole book to try to undermine the intentions of God and the prophet in this matter only underpins the ulterior motives of the author!

• 
  @adamsulaiman639Күн бұрын

  can the Quran be translared into Syriac? idts. Salaam

• 
  @j.mtherandomguy8701Күн бұрын

  The final section of the video is in my opinion a huge cause of concern. David sounds like a literal apologist….

• 
  @jaybatoven179Күн бұрын

  Intelligence without wisdom!

• 
  @clearpupilКүн бұрын

  Thank you for this excellent talk with a fascinating topic. The idea of a gloss in 33:40 is exciting but I was disappointed to find many too many other instances where “kaana” is rendered as present tense to fully support Prof Powers in his idea. His life story brings a lot to the table: stolen from his parents, manumission from slavery by a prophet, adoption, marital failure, divorce, possible preference over Ali, station above Abu Bakr, conquest of Byzantium, martyrdom alongside Jaafar. What an amazing life!

• 
  @TingTong2568Күн бұрын

  That 2 little scammers had been exposed long time ago

• 
  @peterjackson28012 күн бұрын

  Another fairy tale.

• 
  @joelthorne74342 күн бұрын

  Islam adopted the biblical Abraham to provide a pedigree and legitimacy that Islam otherwise lacks.

• 
  @awet84532 күн бұрын

  I am eritrean and this true we call the apostles Hawariyat in my native language and in ge'ez

• 
  @wandering_dervaish2 күн бұрын

  Obviously God is reminding those people of something they have seen in the past. So it's likely they have seen it. Hence question "have you not seen?"

• 
  @samimas43432 күн бұрын

  I like how haters of Islam cannot produce anything new. Those same silly points that have been propagated and have been refuted again and again for ages. All that while other religions have clear-cut contradictions and illogical errors.

• 
  @pheeel172 күн бұрын

  I do love your channel Dr. Reynolds. I do wonder though if it's really a good idea to present simple loanwords as something that makes the Quran not Arabic?

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33782 күн бұрын

  He is talking about an unidentified companion codex .....a UCC.thas amazing.

• 
  @yout8722 күн бұрын

  Again, the author of the Quran doesn’t know what he’s talking about

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33782 күн бұрын

  May the grace, blessings ,mercy, guidence and wisdom be upon all of creation, and the special grace,blessings,mercy,guidence and wisdom upon these two men, if God is real.

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33782 күн бұрын

  Was that on the day of ressurection ?

• 
  @Stardust4752 күн бұрын

  Makka wasn't in Arabia but in Tackhastan.

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33782 күн бұрын

  And the Gospels did not come from Palestine.

• 
  @wimsweden2 күн бұрын

  Muslim apologetics is so bad. It makes me feel embarrassed for them.

• 
  @user-gc6wd7dm4w3 күн бұрын

  He has a modern definition of believer and he imposes that definition on the Quran. He is not to be taken seriously.

• 
  @bhaashatepe52343 күн бұрын

  The premise of the existence of the religion of Islam is based on the narrative that says 'the prophet who lived in the 7th century started and spread the religion of Islam.' However, the problem is that there was no such concept as the religion of Islam in the 7th century. Religion was practiced but not conceptualized. Religion is a modern concept. The word "religion" was introduced into the English language around 1200 AD. Initially, it referred to various ways of worship among Christian denominations. The meaning of the word has evolved over time. Religion is a modern concept. No ancient language had a term or word that corresponded to the meaning of what modern people call 'religion.' Religion is a modern concept. Neither Abraham, Moses, nor Jesus talked about religion. None of them started their own religions because the concept of religion didn't exist. Religion is a modern concept. According to the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, the Arabic word "din" (دين) was never translated into English as 'religion' before the 20th century. Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the Arabic "din" is law, judgment, or way of life, similar to how the Hebrew "din" means law or judgment. Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the word "Islam" is submission. In the 7th century, "Islam" simply meant submission, not the name or the brand of a religion, a modern concept. Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the phrase "DIN (AL-)ISLAM” is not the religion of Islam but rather ‘submission as a way of life’. This is evident from the fact that the Arabic "din" was never translated into English as religion before the 20th century. Thus, the famous Qur'anic phrase (3:19) "the religion (din) in the sight of Allah is Islam" is a modern interpretation and can be rephrased as "the way of life (din) that is acceptable to or that is from Allah is submission (Islam)." Hence, The Qur'an doesn't talk about the religion of Islam. This means the prophet who lived in the 7th century didn't know anything about the religion of Islam because the concept of religion didn't exist. It means that what scholars have been saying for decades-that the Qur'an is a Christian text-is true because there was no concept of religion in the 7th century. What was "din" before it became a religion? What was Islam before it became the name or the brand of a religion? When did Islam (meaning submission) become the name of a religion, a modern concept? If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who were the people called 'Muslims' in the Qur'an? "Muslims" simply means submitters (those who submit to God). The word 'Muslims' in the Qur'an has nothing to do with the religion of Islam. If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who was the prophet who lived in the 7th century? The fact that the Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah suggests that the prophet must have been a non-Trinitarian Christian, and the author of the Qur'an must have been non-Trinitarian Christians (as proposed by scholars like Angelika Neuwirth in "The Qur'an as a Late Antique Text" or Christoph Luxenberg in "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran"). Muslims do not understand what the Qur'an is trying to say because they have been separated from the sources (the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church) that many verses of the Qur'an refer to, such as the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, the Nicene Creed, etc. For those who think that the Qur'an has nothing to do with the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church, such as the majority of Christians and modern Muslims, many esoteric verses in the Qur'an are misunderstood because they cannot grasp that these verses are actually discussing the theological disputes among Christians in the early Church. Is Jesus divine in the Quran? And who or what is MHMD in the Quran? #### Case 1 The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is divine (Jesus had two natures, human and divine) because it confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. The Qur'an renders the name of Jesus as "Isa," the Redeemer, a title used by Christians in Jordan before Islam as a divine title for Jesus. The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the "Rasulullah" (Messenger of God). The concept of "rasul" (messenger) in the Qur'an is similar to the concept of the messenger in the Old Testament. There are two types of messengers in the Old Testament: human messengers (prophets) and divine messengers (Malak Elohim, the Angel of the LORD, malakh = messenger = angel). In the Qur'an, the human messenger is called "rasul" (rasul = messenger = malakh). And what is the Quranic rasulullah? The problem is that Muslims do not understand the difference between "rasul" and "Rasulullah." The only possible answer is that "Rasulullah" = the Malak Elohim = the Angel of the LORD. Thus, the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was the Angel of the LORD who appeared several times in the Old Testament (some Chrisitans also believed that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord). How about the MHMD? Therefore, the Qur'an and the hadith are not talking about the same "Muhammad." The Qur'an is talking about a divine "Muhammad" (MHMD = the Praised One), not the person of Muhammad proposed in the hadith (the word "Muhammad" is mentioned only four times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions, QS 33:40, rejects the Muhammad of the hadith). The two-nature of Jesus in the Quran? Did the author of the Quran believe that Jesus was fully human? #### Case 2 Muslims don't understand what the Qur'an is trying to say in some of its verses because they are esoteric. For example, the crucifixion verses (QS 4:157-158): There are two Jesuses in these verses. The first Jesus was on the cross, while the second one was raised by Allah unto Himself. Muslims misunderstand these verses, and some say that Allah replaced Jesus with someone else, which is incorrect according to the Qur'an. In these verses, the author of the Qur'an was trying to say that: - The DIVINE Jesus was raised by Allah unto Himself. If Jesus were not divine, how could He live for more than 2,000 years with Allah? Does Jesus eat with Allah? - While the divine Jesus was raised by Allah, the HUMAN Jesus was still on the cross. The difference between mainstream Christians, who believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and the author of the Qur'an is that: the author of the Quran believed that the HUMAN Jesus was only an ILLUSION or APPARITION of His divine nature. Thus, according to the author of the Qur'an, Jesus didn't actually suffer on the cross because the one on the cross was just an illusion or apparition of His divine nature (Docetism). These verses were intended to be recited to the Jewish audience of the Qur'an because some Jews couldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah, since the Old Testament says that a person hanging on a tree is cursed by God. Thus, this verse solved that problem. Neither Ahmed Deedat nor Zakir Naik understood their own Quran.

• 
  @discernit62973 күн бұрын

  You seem very knowledgeable. What are your main sources? Further readings?

• 
  @bhaashatepe52343 күн бұрын

  ​@@discernit6297 at least read these sources: - Before Religion, a History of a modern concept. - The Encyclopedia of the Quran, 'religion' - The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion, by Christian Julien Robin - An invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription, by Ahmad al Jallad some of the above sources can be read online or downloaded freely.

• 
  @bhaashatepe52343 күн бұрын

  @@discernit6297 I am not knowledgeable. I am just trying to use my brain to think .. to think about the right questions to ask so that I can get the right questions. sources: - before religion, a history of a modern concept - the encyclopedia of the Quran, 'religion' - The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion, Christian Julien Robin (the term MHMD before ISLAM) - An invocation to Jesus in safaitic inscription, by Ahmad Al Jallad (the meaning of the word ISA)

• 
  @bhaashatepe52342 күн бұрын

  @@discernit6297 KZread keeps deleting my comments. Sources: - the history of the term RELIGION: 'Before RELIGION, a history of a modern concept' - the Arabic word DYN: Encyclopedia of the Quran, in English, search for 'RELIGION' - the Nicean Creeds in the Quran Angelika Neuwirth, The Late Antique Quran, available on KZread (lecture) - the term ISA before ISLAM 'an invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription' by Ahmad Al Jallad, available on KZread (lecture) and academia (paper) - the term MHMD before ISLAM 'The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion, Christian Julien Robin, available online (open book publication)

• 
  @busterbiloxi38333 күн бұрын

  Wahabis hate archaeology.

• 
  @ahmedvanya88403 күн бұрын

  Talking about dawa icons, there is an interesting person from India who calls himself "Quranwala" (Quran-man) who has appeared on the KZread in recent years engaging in anti-dawa. He is apparently a hafiz and a madrassah graduate who has studied the Quran for many years and now become a very rational ex-Muslim. Although he seems to have a vast and deep knowledge of the Quran, unfortunately, his Quranwala channel on KZread is in Urdu and therefore hard to reach by most Westerners. He has made up a number of surahs including one called Surah KZread(available on KZread) in imitation of the Quranic surahs. Definitely worth checking out!

• 
  @BESTINTHEWORLD00073 күн бұрын

  Despite you had a good start not accurate one but later it gets worse as the vudeo goes "Radif" means one who ride behind the rider of a camal or horse, it has no signficance for succession for others also ride with Muhammad from major companion to common people Also the verse says "Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the prophets. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things" The word adia'hm ادعيائهم means called after them, it refers to those in previous status as adopted sons Also " `Abdullah bin `Umar: We used not to call Zaid bin Haritha the freed slave of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) except Zaid bin Muhammad till the Qu'anic Verse was revealed: "Call them (adopted sons) by (the names of) their fathers. That is more than just in the Sight of Allah." (33.5) "Sahih al-Bukhari 4782 It clarifies that people stopped calling him Zaid ibn Muhammad and called by his biological name, if he was still called Zaid ibn Muhammad, his father's name wouldn't be famous today like everybody know Muhammad's grand father as abd al-Mutalib but very few know that his real Name is shaiba شيبة Also the descendants of Zaid ibn Haritha despite they lived through the Fitnas, they were not in any war from these like the Ummayads or Hashemites or Zuburids Also many people were asking Muhammad to appoint themselves as successsor to him like Amir ibn al-Tufayl so if Muhammad had a known successor they wouldn't negotiate with him Also Muqatil ibn Sulayman didn't say if Zaid outlived Muhammad he would have been a prophet, he said if Zaid was the son of Muhammad he would have been a prophet مقاتل بن سليمان: يعني: آخر النبيين، لا نبي بعد محمد ﷺ، ولو أن لمحمد ولدًا لكان نبيًّا رسولًا، ﴿وخاتَمَ النبيينَ وكانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا﴾ يقول: لو كان زيد ابن محمد لكان نبيًّا So he says of Zayd was from prognity of Muhammad biologicaly he would have been a prophet

• 
  @ganteng_ini_menyiksa3 күн бұрын

  Deedat depicts his hatred towards Christianity and Westerns in his Book The Choice. He has no deeper understanding of Bible. How can he say Injil for OT books?

• 
  @atmanbrahman18723 күн бұрын

  Heretics

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33783 күн бұрын

  If the Quran asks "did you not see" about an event that happend 1500 years ago , isn't that completely silly ?

• 
  @hafoothalmuflahi97843 күн бұрын

  Your completely misunderstanding the Quran

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33783 күн бұрын

  @@hafoothalmuflahi9784 Then explain why I am wrong

• 
  @mikhan51912 күн бұрын

  @@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 - the Qur’an is referring to the Meccans - the Quraish. And there would have been some old men during that time who witnessed this event. And that is why the Pagan Quraish never denied this event happened! They all knew it was true.

• 
  @ultrasignificantfootnote33782 күн бұрын

  @@mikhan5191 Quran is supposed to explain all details, but now you are explaining it , so this Quranic claim is incorrect.

• 
  @mono78913 күн бұрын

  Both Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik were/are the biggest liars .... In those days, internet was not there, so these two were lying openly. And then came internet. All these two so called Muslims bullshits were defaced openly by many people. Recently, I saw Chrsitian Prince openly challenging Zakir Naik on his live program. His entire chat portal was lit up with Chrsitian prince's name, but Zakir Naik did not have balls to pick up his call. The ONLY person who knows about islam is Christian Prince.

• 
  @chrisazure16243 күн бұрын

  No one can find the hardened clay stones either. They are basically pottery and should be very durable, but no one can find them.

• 
  @nabeelmahmud34533 күн бұрын

  Sheikh Deedat was a legend and led me down the journey of exploring the Bible. What an orator, what a legend.

• 
  @childofgod48623 күн бұрын

  For you he may be legend but when he was teaching his Quran, we did not have any idea what the Quran says in Book. So he can fool lots of people Today, he cannot win the argument because we learn Arabic and know what is written in his Quran. Even Zakir refused to talk with Christian Prince Or Sam Samounian So he makes an excuse, bring me 10 thousand audience. Now did you know when Deedat debated Anis Shorrosh who can speak Arabic and knows the Quran, only once On 2nd debate Deedat did not show up for the debate. And when Anis when to his home town for debate, Deedat encourage some one to stab him. So grow up and know the Truth.

• 
  @Trothoflife3 күн бұрын

  That's the issue with Islam. It's all about that celebrity connotation, and that's what everyone latches onto, not the truth. Those people use bravado to bamboozle their gullible audience and base. When you probe into them, you realise they know little to nothing about even the religion they are defending talkless of anything else?

• 
  @mikhan51913 күн бұрын

  Truth is that Deedat, Naik, Hijab & other defenders of Islam actually EXPOSE the mistakes /errors /contradictions of the Bible as well as expose the LIES of Christian Missionaries and this is what convinces normal Human Beings.

• 
  @newintellectual.3 күн бұрын

  Zakir Naik is a shame, but I used to be a fan of Deedat's confidence. As an Ex-Muslim, I use that drive to spread anti-dawah. The fight to spread the truth still rages on. :)

• 
  @chantjelly67733 күн бұрын

  Zakir naik is a good case study in preacher dynamics because he created a lot of exmuslims in addition to creating muslims. His lies and deception were so expertly crafted that only those who had the curiosity for research were able to detect them. His popularity also made a lot of people recognize the true scale of gullibility of the average Muhammadan.

• 
  @waterishorrendous3 күн бұрын

  to be honest if you are trying to disprove our religion then you're just as bad as those apologists

• 
  @childofgod48623 күн бұрын

  @@waterishorrendous It is not matter of disproving Islam but tell you the Truth about Islam what Allah says in his Quran! For example surah 5:14 >>> so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other,<<< So how a god spread enmity and hatred between the one and the other? It is a job of Satan Correct?

• 
  @waterishorrendous3 күн бұрын

  @@childofgod4862 I don’t see how this is an issue. God can do this either as a punishment or as a test to see if they will forgive.

• 
  @childofgod48623 күн бұрын

  @@waterishorrendous My friend, you have to be honest in your life. My question is who is the person who makes enmity and hatred with each other? And my answer was it is Satan's job but in your Quran, it is the job of your Allah So why your Allah is doing the job of Satan?

• 
  @dodgysmum83403 күн бұрын

  Muhammad Hijab is a also not someone an audience as intelligent as you have should pay attention to! Honestly there are so many brilliant Muslims in the world, the ejits u mention r not amongst them. Muslims will also eventually realise its not a good sell.

• 
  @Vibestr3 күн бұрын

  I agree but he's 'fun' to watch

• 
  @TOMOR4503 күн бұрын

  I want that library of yours!

• 
  @dodgysmum83403 күн бұрын

  Naik? Are you serious? Only the ignorant listen to him. Have you ever heard him dismiss evolution? Not to mention women? If this is a combat kit against anyone it is poorly made, full of holes and a terrible product of the worst of western capitalism.

• 
  @nonomnismoriar90513 күн бұрын

  Why dignify those two apologists? They're not worth anyone's time.

• 
  @marwafawzy24653 күн бұрын

  Because they are skillful and hardworking. They memorize significant parts from all the books they refer to. They are multilingual. They don't use notes and yet they demonstrate great oratory skills. You have the right to feel jealous and envious of their impact. I mean how many lifetimes do you need to be a 10th of these highly esteemed apologists?

• 
  @nonomnismoriar90513 күн бұрын

  @@marwafawzy2465 So was a guy in the 1940s called Adolf (maybe not the multilingual bit, but still). How does that make you feel now? Actually probably proud, I suspect. Anyway I could at least have some respect towards people like Shabir Aly or something. But definitely not these two.

• 
  @Trothoflife3 күн бұрын

  ​@marwafawzy2465 Lol, feel jealous for what reason. The like of deedat can not survive today. I mean, look at zakr nikr, the guy, is running away from debate. Back in the days people know little to nothing about quran so deedat was able to use that in bamboozling his gullible base, today the guy would only shine among the Muslims.

• 
  @marwafawzy2465Күн бұрын

  @@Trothoflife his question outlives him: "give me an uniequivocal statement in which Jesus says I am God or worship me". Pastors would desperately cite Revelation 22:13 which is a dream that John saw, or John 10:30 or the comma johanneum which is an interpolated verse. He keeps telling them what games are u guys playing? Do u know the meaning of unequivocal? Until now, no answer.

• 
  @TrothoflifeКүн бұрын

  ​@@marwafawzy2465 You just proved what it takes to be a ☪️. All you guys do is recycle the same old nonsense, transferring your lack of knowledge as everyone faces the same direction five times a day. Jesus came to teach how to be the best of humans in the flesh, not to seek attention, unlike some individuals using the name of God in vain (Sahih Bukhari 14), seeking submission to control the gullible. That’s left for your prophet and his imaginary god. Imagine what you would have found out if you concentrated on your own book. Isn't this shirk? Quran 4.65 places Muhammad and Allah on the same level. Or is there no Allah all along, just one man playing both roles? Do you see Elon Musk running around trying to prove he is a billionaire? You only demand what you don’t have. Jesus knew who he was; what's the use in running around town telling everyone, "I am God, worship me"? When it was needed to prove, he did (John 4.10). The one who demanded it ended as he predicted (Quran 69.44-46, Sahih Bukhari 4428), and 1400 years later, you folks are still playing catch up. Hopefully, when his second prediction comes true, everyone will wake up (Sahih Muslim 147). ChatGPT can make mistak

• 
  @adeebfeeroz34343 күн бұрын

  zakir is computer 😁

• 
  @dodgysmum83403 күн бұрын

  A broken clock is right twice a day. Not sure a broken computer is ever right.

• 
  @nunchakudance3 күн бұрын

  ​@@dodgysmum8340it depends on the broken part.

• 
  @tonymason86063 күн бұрын

  Old Zak could be pretty funny at times kzread.info/dash/bejne/l6llzNqombHHiZM.htmlsi=rGZDyMIGd1omj7YB