Brother Yusuf

Islamic Wisdom | Psychology | Human Connection. 30 years of study. Debunking myths and sharing the authentic truth about Islam. Simple, clear, with proof.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

First of all, blindly relying on AI to argue about religion is a huge mistake. AI isn’t perfect, and everything I post is what I actually believe, studied, and know inside out.

Just so you know who you’re talking to: I’ve been studying Islam and comparative religion for over 20 years. I hold a doctorate in Islamic studies along with advanced scholarly licenses (Ijazah).
Long before AI existed, I was writing articles, producing educational videos, and debating apologists face-to-face, on stage, and on live TV. My study of the Bible wasn’t just a hobby it was personal and serious, sharpened through deep discussions with my own grandfather, who was a prominent, well-known Christian priest.

Yes, I use AI today,everyone does but I built my own digital system loaded with the classical books, original Hebrew and Greek texts, and verified history that I’ve spent decades studying. I know exactly what to look for and what to check. When you just copy-paste from AI without actually understanding the text yourself, you end up posting arguments that contradict your own position.

Now, back to the points you pasted:

Jeremiah 31 and the LawYour AI brought up Jeremiah 31:31–33 to claim the old Law was meant to end. But did you read verse 33? God says: "I will put my Law in their minds and write it on their hearts." God said He would write the Torah on their hearts not throw away circumcision, start eating pork, and cancel the commandments like Paul did.

Even Jesus said in Matthew 5:19 that anyone who cancels the smallest command and teaches others to do the same will be called the lowest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Daniel 7 "Worship" ArgumentYour AI claimed the phrase pelach in Daniel 7:14 proves the Son of Man is God because it means "worship".

Keep reading to Daniel 7:27. That same verse says the kingdom will be given to the holy people of the Most High, and all rulers will serve and obey (pelach) them. By that logic, are the holy people God too? The text literally shows the Son of Man being led up to God to receive authority.
The Almighty doesn't need to be given power by someone else.

Running Away from the Main Question , You pasted a wall of text about the Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul because you can’t answer the verses I gave you:
How can you defend God commanding soldiers to "slay both man and woman, infant and nursing babe" in 1 Samuel 15:3?

How do you defend Moses ordering the killing of young boys and taking 32,000 virgin girls as spoils of war in Numbers 31:17–18?
Stop hiding behind AI answers. Face your own Bible and answer the question.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You opened by admitting the text literally says: "Ordering the slaughter of both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep" (1 Samuel 15:3).

Then, instead of explaining how your God commanding the butchering of nursing babies is morally defensible, you spent three posts deflecting:

You blamed "Islamic mistranslation" for verses printed verbatim in Christian bibles (KJV, ESV, NIV).

You claimed other Christians simply "gloss over it because it makes them feel uncomfortable"—an admission that the verse is morally indefensible on its face.

You completely ignored Numbers 31:17–18 commanding soldiers to execute young boys and seize virgin girls as spoils of war.

Now, cornered without an argument, you hide behind a generic cliché: "The ignorant do not know they’re ignorant."

Calling someone "ignorant" while refusing to answer for the plain text of your own scripture isn't an observation it is a surrender disguised as condescension.

Step up and educate everyone, or admit you have no answer: how does an all-just God order an army to slaughter nursing infants? We are still waiting.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the female children that have not known a man... keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17–18)

You quote Matthew 18:6 claiming Jesus said to hang a millstone around the neck of anyone who harms a child, while worshiping a scripture where the army of God is commanded to execute little boys and keep thousands of virgin girls as spoils of war.

Explain that verse before you sit in judgment of history.

[Kero @kerojitsu]

A 6 year old is a child in ANY time period. Enough is enough. Do better. We should be protecting children. ☦️ #jesus #christianity #christian #muslim #viral

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You make an emotional video claiming you want to protect children and quote Matthew 18:6 about millstones, yet you completely ignore what is written directly inside your own Old Testament scriptures:

In Numbers 31:17-18, Moses commands the slaughter of male children and non-virgin women, ordering soldiers to keep 32,000 young female virgins for themselves as spoils of war.
In 1 Samuel 15:3, the text explicitly commands: "slay both man and woman, infant and nursing babe."
In Leviticus and rabbinic tradition, the age of legal accountability and betrothal was tied strictly to puberty and physical maturity, exactly as practiced in ancient antiquity across the entire Roman and Near Eastern world.

In Islam, marriage requires explicit physical maturity, mental competence (rushd), and consent. A marriage cannot be consummated until puberty and physical capability are met, which is why Islamic jurisprudence universally conditions consummation on the physical readiness and well-being of the bride.

If judging the ancient world by modern Western legal standards is your framework, then by your own logic, every biblical patriarch and prophet from Abraham down to the kings of Israel stands condemned by your video.

Quoting Jesus about protecting little ones while ignoring that the biblical God commands the slaughter of "infants and nursing babes" is total hypocrisy. Face your own canon before lecturing others.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

And another one hits the block button the moment their own Bible is opened.

He claimed Christian scripture prohibits violence while the Quran commands the murder of innocents.

I answered every single one of his claims with direct context, showed how he had to cut Surah 2:191 in half to invent a lie, and then challenged him to explain the explicit commands in his own canon:

1 Samuel 15:3 commanding the slaughter of "infant and nursing babe."

Numbers 31:17-18 ordering the killing of little boys and taking 32,000 young virgin girls as spoils of war.

Instead of addressing a single verse or answering why his own scripture mandates the killing of nursing infants, he threw insults, dodged every question, and blocked me.

Standard procedure: talk big, get exposed by your own book, hit block, and pretend you won.

Whoever wants to see the entire exchange and how quickly the narrative collapsed can read the thread here:
https://t.co/vkwx4ocmDD

[Tanjil Bren @TanjilBren]

@Amiraydam @shirley12136 @Neccccy No one is fleeing anything. You don't clearly don't understand scripture, and you entirely dodged the murder of 15 innocents on Bondi Beach at the hands of your fellow Muslims.

So, I'll give you one: 2:191  Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

Nobody buckled you just got caught bluffing with a citation you never read.

You claimed the Prophet said "I am possessed" in Sahih al-Bukhari 6982.

I called your bluff and gave you the exact Arabic text: "Khasheetu 'ala nafsi" ("I feared for myself").

The word "possessed" literally does not appear in the text. Not in the Arabic, not in the authentic translation, nowhere.

Instead of showing everyone where the word "possessed" is written in Bukhari 6982, you posted a meme to save face.

Quote the sentence from Bukhari 6982 that says "I am possessed," or admit to everyone you fabricated it. We're waiting.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath... You shall not bow down to them or worship them." (Exodus 20:4–5)

If you feel insulted when Abraham rejects carved idols and statues in Quran 26:70–77, take it up with your own Ten Commandments.

The prophet Abraham didn't come to bow to plaster statues, icons, and relics he came to smash them and direct all worship to the Creator alone.

[Raymond Ibrahim @RaymondIbrahim5]

The Muslim muezzin who opened Mass inside St Peter's church at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, intentionally chose to recite a Koran passage that condemns his Christian hosts as idolaters (Koran 26:70-77):

"When he [Abraham] questioned his father and his people, 'What is that you worship [besides Allah]?' They replied, 'We worship idols, to which we are fully devoted.' Abraham asked, 'Can they hear you when you call upon them? Or can they benefit or harm you?' They replied, 'No! But we found our forefathers doing the same.' Abraham responded, 'Have you [really] considered what you have been worshipping— you and your ancestors? They are [all] enemies to me, except the Lord of all worlds [Koran 26:70-77]."

Islam teaches that all Christians are idolaters (mushrikin, people who “associate” another—Jesus—with Allah). That the muezzin chose to recite this particular passage inside a Catholic church—which is full of statues and images which are anathema to Muslims—is no coincidence.

Clearly, Muslims are becoming quite emboldened. It used to be that they would recite Koran verses about how “you have your religion and I have mine” during these sham “interfaith dialogues.” But now they are openly telling the same Christians who invite them into their churches that Christianity is false.

One cannot blame their temerity seeing the degree to which slavish “Christians” are willingly capitulating to Islam.

More here: https://t.co/SBviSRJBO5

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You are outraged because a Muslim recited a Quranic passage honoring the prophet Abraham rejecting idols inside a church.

Did you forget that Abraham rejecting carved statues and images is the foundational story of the entire biblical narrative as well?

Look at your own Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:4-5:
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them."

Look at Psalm 115:4-8:
"Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear... Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them."

Look at Isaiah 44:9-20, where God literally mocks people who carve pieces of wood, fall down before them, and pray: "Save me, for you are my god!"

Islam didn't invent the rejection of physical statues, shrines, and images—Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets preached it thousands of years before the Catholic Church filled sanctuaries with plaster statues, relics, and images of saints.

If reciting Abraham's pure monotheism feels like an insult to your faith, that isn't the fault of the Quran it is an admission that modern church practice violates the second commandment of God.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

Comparing Jesus and Muhammad without understanding the prophetic tradition shows a complete lack of basic biblical literacy.

First, the New Testament records barely three years of public ministry from Jesus's entire life, with massive multi-decade gaps completely missing. In contrast, the life of Muhammad (pbuh) is recorded in exhaustive historical detail: as an orphan, merchant, husband, father, statesman, judge, commander, and head of state.

Second, God sent different prophets with different roles, environments, and societal responsibilities:

Moses was a political leader, legal legislator, and military commander who led an entire nation out of bondage and governed a state under God's law.
Joshua led military campaigns to conquer Canaan and establish territorial sovereignty.
David was an anointed king, military conqueror, and ruler who fought wars and administered state justice.
Solomon sat on a royal throne, managed vast wealth, commanded armies, and governed an empire.

Jesus was sent as a reformer to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24) living under brutal pagan Roman military occupation, without the authority to govern a state or write civil legislation.

If being a statesman, judge, and military defender invalidates Muhammad (pbuh), then by your own logic you have just disqualified Moses, Joshua, David, and Solomon as false prophets.

Furthermore, if Islam was "forced by the sword," explain why the Coptic, Syrian, and Lebanese Christian communities survived under Muslim rule for 1,400 years, while Christian Europe systematically eliminated its religious minorities through inquisitions and forced conversions.

And regarding your equation "Jesus + Holy Spirit + father = GOD": adding three distinct parts together to make one whole isn't monotheism it is mathematical polytheism.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

Notice how you scrambled to explain Hosea as descriptive while completely running away from the actual direct commands in 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31.

You claimed "scripture doesn't allow it," yet you can't touch these explicit biblical commands:

In 1 Samuel 15:3, that is not a descriptive prophecy. It is a direct divine imperative: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have... slay both man and woman, infant and nursing babe..."

In Numbers 31:17-18, that is not a third-party prediction. Moses directly commands the army of God: "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the female children that have not known a man... keep alive for yourselves."

In Psalm 137:9, your canon literally sings: "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

Even regarding Hosea 13:16, who decreed that judgment upon Samaria? In Hosea 13:4-16, God states He Himself is executing this wrath for their rebellion against Him.

You still haven't provided a single chapter or verse from the Quran commanding the slaughter of children, infants, or non-combatants. You can't produce one from the Quran, and you cannot defend the explicit commands to butcher nursing babies in your own text. Total deflection.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You just threw out a Hadith reference without reading what it actually says.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6982 is completely authentic and nowhere in it does the Prophet say "I am possessed."

Open the Arabic text right now. The literal words he spoke to Khadijah were: "Khasheetu 'ala nafsi" (خَشِيتُ عَلَى نَفْسِي) which translates to: "I feared for myself" (meaning physical exhaustion, illness, or death from the sheer magnitude of the angelic revelation).

Scholars of Hadith, including Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari, explicitly address this phrase: it refers to fearing for his life, physical health, or that his heart could not bear the terrifying weight of the divine presence.

As for Ibn Ishaq's Sirah: Ibn Ishaq recorded historical narrations with varying chains of transmission (Isnad). The narration you are vaguely hinting at mentions the Prophet initially worrying whether he might be targeted by poetic spirits (which pagan Arabs believed inspired madness), but Khadijah and her Christian monotheist cousin Waraqa ibn Nawfal immediately recognized the revelation as the Namus (the Archangel Gabriel) who was sent to Moses.

Now, if having fear or anguish during a divine encounter disproves a prophet in your eyes, look at your own Bible:
In Luke 22:44, Jesus is so terrified and distressed in Gethsemane that his sweat becomes "like great drops of blood falling to the ground," begging God to take the cup away from him.

In Mark 3:21, the literal family of Jesus tries to seize him because they openly say: "He is out of his mind" (possessed/insane).

In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cries out on the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

If Christ experiencing anguish, crying out to God, and being accused of madness by his own family does not make him possessed, trying to twist the awe-inspiring weight of Gabriel's revelation into "possession" is complete intellectual dishonesty. Stop parroting references you haven't read.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

I answer any question about Islam openly, and anyone is free to ask whatever they wish. After 20+ years of studying Islamic jurisprudence, engaging in debates, and speaking with people across the globe face-to-face, on stage, and on broadcast platforms, the truth of Tawhid only becomes clearer.

Now, I turn the table. Let honest Christian apologists and scholars answer these straightforward questions directly from their own canon without dodging:

The Pure Monotheism of Jesus vs. The Trinity

In John 17:3, Jesus prays to the Father and says: "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

If the Father is the only true God, how can Jesus also be that same God without either contradicting Christ’s own words or professing polytheism?

The Subordination and Ignorance Paradox

In Mark 13:32, Jesus explicitly states regarding the Last Day: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

If Jesus is co-equal, co-eternal, omniscient God Almighty, how can Almighty God be ignorant of the Hour while another "person" of God knows it? Does God have limited knowledge of Himself?

God Exalting and Anointing God?

In Hebrews 1:9, the text says to Jesus: "Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you."

Who is the "God" of Almighty God? And in Philippians 2:9, why did God have to "highly exalt" Jesus and give him authority if he already possessed intrinsic divine authority from eternity?

The Morality of Biblical Warfare

In 1 Samuel 15:3, God explicitly commands: "slay both man and woman, infant and nursing babe..."

In Numbers 31:17–18, Moses commands the slaughter of male children and non-virgin women, ordering soldiers to keep 32,000 virgin girls for themselves.

How do you morally condemn any historical warfare or conflict while worshiping a scripture that commands the butchering of nursing infants and the distribution of young female virgins as war booty?

Abolishing the Eternal Law

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17–19: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets... not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands... will be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

Why did Paul abolish circumcision and dietary laws (Galatians 5:2) when Christ explicitly commanded that not even a letter of the Mosaic Law would pass away?

The Injustice of Blood Atonement

In Ezekiel 18:20, God commands: "The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

In Hosea 6:6, God says: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

Why does Christian theology require the torture and execution of an innocent man to forgive sins, directly violating God’s eternal principle of individual moral accountability?

Answer these verses directly using your own Bible. No deflections, no insults just scripture.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You claimed: "scripture doesn't allow it. The Koran does. And you know it does."

Yet when challenged to provide a single verse from the Quran commanding the murder of children, non-combatants, or worshipers, you completely fled. Not one chapter. Not one verse.

Instead, you dismiss direct quotations from your own Bible as "utter tosh" and claim I struggle with reading biblical texts. If my comprehension is so flawed, please enlighten everyone and explain these verses directly:

1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have... slay both man and woman, infant and nursing babe..."
Numbers 31:17–18: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the female children that have not known a man... keep alive for yourselves."

Explain to us: what does "slay infant and nursing babe" actually mean in your superior reading comprehension? What does keeping thousands of young virgin girls for soldiers mean?

You couldn't produce a single Quranic verse to back your accusation, and you cannot explain the slaughter of nursing infants written into your own canon. Dodging behind cheap insults isn't an explanation it is an outright concession.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

"Pretends"? Islam doesn't need to pretend anything it is written in plain Hebrew and English directly in your own Bible:

The slaughter order: Moses was angry that women and boys were spared, commanding: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the female children that have not known a man... keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:17–18).

The census of child virgins: The text explicitly counts them: "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him" (Numbers 31:35).

God directly legislating the spoils: In Numbers 31:25–30, God explicitly tells Moses to divide these captives among the soldiers and congregation, even claiming a divine tribute quota of 32 young girls for the sanctuary (Numbers 31:40).

Nobody used the word "marriage" your biblical text ordered the execution of little boys and non-virgin women while soldiers kept 32,000 young virgin girls as spoils of war. Trying to blame Muslims for quoting your own canon word-for-word is pure denial.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

What does socio-economic status or individual financial fraud have to do with Islamic theology in the first place?

When an individual breaks the law, you blame their religion yet you conveniently ignore the millions of hard-working, tax-paying Muslim doctors, NHS consultants, transport workers, engineers, and entrepreneurs who generate billions for the UK and Western economies. Why don't they represent Islam in your eyes?

If you want to play the game of linking social decay and fraud to religious populations, look in the mirror:

The Largest Benefit Fraud in UK History:
The single biggest benefit fraud gang ever prosecuted in Britain stealing over £53.9 million in Universal Credit was run by Eastern European Christian/cultural background gangs operating out of London.

Welfare & Tax Fraud across the West: The vast majority of benefit claimants, tax evaders, and fraudulent welfare cases in the UK, Europe, and the US are from traditionally Christian and secular backgrounds.

Do you blame the Gospel of Matthew for every non-Muslim claiming Universal Credit or defrauding HMRC?

Human Trafficking and Prostitution: The overwhelming majority of modern human trafficking networks, brothels, and sex-trade hubs across Europe and the Western world operate straight out of majority-Christian nations (Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Western capitals). Do you claim Jesus commanded the global sex trade?

Islam explicitly criminalizes theft, fraud, taking money unlawfully (Batil), and living off handouts when capable of work.

Blaming Islamic scripture because poor or opportunistic individuals access state welfare, while completely ignoring massive Christian-world fraud syndicates and the sex trade, proves you aren't debating theology you're just running on blind anti-Muslim prejudice.

For further background on the largest welfare fraud case recorded in modern British history, see this report on the £54m Universal Credit fraud conviction.
This coverage documents the £54 million scam orchestrated in London, providing direct context to the double standard in welfare debates

"Britain Is A LAUGHING STOCK!" | Bulgarian Woman Who SCAMMED £54m From Taxpayers Is Now On Benefits - YouTube

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You claim you are "chained by the Torah, still, from start to finish," while simultaneously arguing that applying the Mosaic Law today was a "mistake" because it was "made for 4000+ years ago." That is an immediate self-contradiction.

Here is why your argument falls apart on text, history, and manuscript evidence:

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove textual corruption (Tahrif), not uniformity

Citing Qumran completely backfires on you. The Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that multiple competing text-types existed simultaneously: proto-Masoretic, proto-Samaritan, and Hebrew Vorlage matching the Greek Septuagint. They contain major variants, omitted verses, and different readings (e.g., 4QDeut vs. MT Deuteronomy 32:8, or 4QSam with extra paragraphs missing from your Bible). Even biblical scholars agree there was no single standardized Hebrew manuscript.

2. Quoting the Prophets out of context to abolish the Law

Citing Isaiah 1:11–13, Amos 5, or Hosea 6:6 does not mean God abolished the Law; those prophets were condemning hypocritical ritual without moral justice (doing sacrifices while hands were full of blood). In Deuteronomy 30:6, "circumcision of the heart" never replaced physical circumcision Moses commanded both in the very same Torah (Genesis 17:14 explicitly states an uncircumcised male has "broken My covenant" and must be cut off).

Jesus himself directly refuted your theology in Matthew 5:17–19:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets... not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands... will be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

Paul abolished circumcision and dietary laws to appeal to Roman pagans (Galatians 5:2), directly defying Christ's explicit command in Matthew 5.

3. Isaiah 53 and Daniel 7

In Isaiah 53, the "servant" is repeatedly identified throughout the entire book of Isaiah as national Israel (Isaiah 41:8: "You, Israel, are my servant" ; Isaiah 49:3: "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified").
In Daniel 7:13–14, the "Son of Man" approaching the Ancient of Days is interpreted in the exact same chapter (Daniel 7:27) as the collective community of the holy people: "Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms on earth will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High."

Islam didn't need to invent "trinities" or dismantle the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and dietary purity. Islam preserved the exact monotheistic obedience practiced by Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: pure submission to the One Creator without idols, partners, or blood-atonement myths.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You didn't destroy anything you just called the literal words of Jesus "stupid" because you can't refute them.

If Jesus said "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and called the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3), you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Christ. Either address the verses or concede.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

The scholars didn't "override" him you just butchered the Hadith because you don't understand basic hydrology or the context of the ruling.

The Hadith regarding the Well of Buda'ah (Sunan Abi Dawud 67) was asked about a massive, flowing aquifer basin whose water was constantly naturally replenishing.
The Prophet's reply "Water is pure and nothing makes it impure" was established alongside the universal legal condition: unless it alters its smell, taste, or color (Sunan Ibn Majah 521).

In environmental science, this is literally the principle of massive dilution capacity. If trash blew across an open aquifer, the vast, moving water body wasn't ruined unless the contaminants physically overpowered and altered the water itself.

Meanwhile, check your own Bible for "water hygiene":

Numbers 5:11–31 (The Trial of the Bitter Water): When a husband suspects his wife of adultery without evidence, the priest sweeps dirt and dust off the tabernacle floor, stirs it into holy water, scrapes ink from a written curse into the bowl, and makes the woman drink the dirty, ink-poisoned water to see if her womb rots.

2 Kings 18:27 / Isaiah 36:12: The biblical text literally describes besieged people having to "eat their own dung and drink their own urine."

Ezekiel 4:12–15: God commands Ezekiel to bake his bread over human excrement. When Ezekiel objects, God relents and permits him to bake his daily bread over cow dung instead.

Mocking Islamic legal jurisprudence which pioneered mandatory hand-washing, mouth-rinsing, ablution before prayer, and empirical water quality screening (smell, color, taste) while your own scripture prescribes drinking dirt-and-ink mixtures to test female fidelity is beyond ironic.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

If I am lying, show the lie. Quote the verse I miscited.

You can't, because every single text came straight out of your own Bible:

In John 17:3, did Jesus pray to the Father saying: "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" yes or no? If the Father is the only true God, Jesus explicitly excluded himself from being that God.

In Philippians 2:9, did God have to "highly exalt" Jesus and "give him the name that is above every name"? How does Almighty God get exalted or given authority He didn't already possess?

In Hebrews 1:9, does the scripture literally say to Jesus: "Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you"? Who is the God of Almighty God?

In John 20:17, did Jesus say: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"?

Calling direct quotes from the red letters of Jesus "lies" because they completely destroy your 4th-century Roman creed isn't a refutation it’s an admission that your theology cannot survive reading its own scripture.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

Rattling off fragmented translation snippets completely falls apart once you actually read the surrounding context of those verses:

"Every knee will bow" (Philippians 2:9–11): Why does every knee bow? Because "God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name..." Why would Almighty God need to be given a name or exalted by someone else? And what is the ultimate purpose? "To the glory of God the Father." An appointed subordinate honoring the Father isn't the Father.

"Your throne, O God" (Hebrews 1:8–9 / Psalm 45): Read the very next verse (v. 9): "Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." If the Son is Almighty God, who is his God who anoints him?

"Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6): The Hebrew phrase is El Gibbor (mighty hero/divine warrior), not El Shaddai (God Almighty). In the Old Testament, the exact same word el is applied to human rulers, judges, and angelic messengers (e.g., Ezekiel 31:11, Psalm 82:6).

"Emmanuel" (Matthew 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14): In Hebrew, "Emmanuel" simply means "God is with us" through His help and deliverance. Elijah (Eliyahu) literally translates to "My God is Yahweh," and Elihu means "He is my God." Having a theophoric name in Semitic tradition has never made a human being God Himself.

Romans 9:5 ("God over all"): As recognized by standard biblical scholarship and modern critical editions, this is a distinct doxological blessing of praise to the Father ("God, who is over all, be blessed forever"), not an identification of Jesus as Yahweh.

When you isolate half-sentences, you can invent any doctrine you want. When you read the full verses, they consistently reveal a chosen servant subordinated to the One True God.

[Brother Yusuf @Amiraydam]

You couldn't address a single word of the Greek linguistic breakdown (proskuneo vs. latreia), so you immediately ran to unhinged, bottom-tier internet fabrications.

Every single claim in your copy-paste smear is either a fabricated translation, an outright lie, or thoroughly rejected in classical Islamic scholarship:

The "oral sex" lie: Translators deliberately weaponized an innocent Arabic verb (mass/lahas) describing an affectionate grandfather kissing or playing with his toddler grandson's tongue/lip something common in Middle Eastern culture and twisted it into modern vulgarity.

The "thirty men" fabrication: An explicit, grotesque mistranslation of a passage in historical biographical texts discussing physical strength (he had the strength of thirty men in labor/vigor), maliciously translated by anti-Muslim polemicists as sexual submission. It has zero basis in Arabic linguistics or reality.

Adult suckling (Rada' al-Kabir): An isolated, singular ruling (rukhsah) for Salim mawla Abi Hudhayfa that the overwhelming majority of the Prophet’s wives (led by Umm Salama) and all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence explicitly rejected as a general rule, ruling that foster-relationship through nursing applies only during infancy (under age two).

Now look at your own canon:

Incestuous Rape: In Genesis 19:30–36, Lot’s two daughters get their prophet father drunk and commit incest with him to bear children producing the Moabites and Ammonites with zero divine condemnation in the text.

Forced Marriage to Rapists: In Deuteronomy 22:28–29, a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin simply pays 50 shekels of silver and she is forced to marry her rapist for life.

Pimping Wives: In Genesis 12:11–16 and Genesis 20:2, Abraham repeatedly gives his wife Sarah to foreign pagan kings to save his own life, profiting off her with sheep, cattle, and donkeys.

Child Captives: In Numbers 31:17–18, Moses orders the execution of all male children and married women, but tells soldiers to keep 32,000 young virgin girls for themselves.

When you can't defend the Greek text of your own New Testament, resorting to manufactured filth just proves you've completely lost the debate.