‼️✝️🔥Christian TIKTOKER Finds 5 "MISTAKES" In The QURAN! But Muslim Debunks It Instantly!

Debunking the Crucifixion Claim [00:30]

• A claim states that the Pharaoh threatening crucifixion to his magicians in Surah 20:71 is a mistake because crucifixion didn't exist for another 1400-1500 years.
• The speaker clarifies that "crucifixion" in a broader sense includes impalement, a method of execution that did exist during the time of the pharaohs.
• This broader definition is supported by the beliefs of groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe Jesus was executed on a stake, not a cross.
• A check with ChatGPT confirms that methods of execution similar to being placed on a stake, which can be considered a form of crucifixion, existed during the time of the pharaohs.

It's you who made the mistake because you're ignorant. When you're thinking about crucifixion, you're thinking about somebody being put on an actual cross. But crucifixion in the broader tense of the word includes impalement.

This section addresses the first alleged mistake by explaining that the historical understanding of crucifixion is too narrow and that a broader definition encompassing impalement was indeed practiced during the relevant historical period, thus validating the Quranic text.

Clarifying the "Samaritan" Misinterpretation [01:32]

• The second alleged mistake claims Moses spoke to a Samaritan, a people group that emerged centuries after Moses.
• The speaker points out that the verse, in the same chapter and verse (20:95), does not mention a "Samaritan" people.
• It refers to an individual named "Samur," who misled the children of Israel into worshipping idols while Moses was away.

It doesn't say a Samaritan from the Samaritan people. It says Yam is a person, not a people.

This part corrects a misunderstanding of a specific Quranic verse, clarifying that it refers to an individual named Samur rather than the later-emerging Samaritan ethnic group, thus resolving another supposed error.

Addressing the "Fluid to Make a Child" Claim [02:18]

• The third alleged mistake concerns the origin of the fluid used to create a child, which the accuser claims the Quran wrongly places between the backbone and rib cage (86:6).
• The speaker highlights a footnote (number one) within the verse that explains the actual biological process.
• The footnote states that testicles and ovaries form in the fetus's abdomen during the early weeks of pregnancy before descending to their permanent location.
• Crucially, both are sustained by arteries originating between the backbone and rib cage.

It clearly says there that the testicles and the ovaries are formed in abdomen of the fetus during the first weeks of pregnancy before descending to the permanent place in the pelvis. Both are sustained by arteries originating between the backbone and the rib cage.

This segment refutes the third purported error by demonstrating that the Quran, with the aid of a provided footnote, accurately describes the embryonic development, specifically the arterial supply to the reproductive organs, originating from a region between the backbone and rib cage.

Refuting the Sun Setting in Murky Water Claim [03:03]

• The fourth and fifth alleged mistakes are related to a story in Surah 18:86, specifically the description of the sun setting in a "spring of murky water."
• The speaker asserts that the Quran does not state the sun sets in murky water, but rather that someone reached a point where the sun appeared to be setting in the spring of murky water.
• This is presented as a description of the visual perception of the sunset at a particular location, not a literal scientific statement about the sun's physical location.
• An analogy is drawn to seeing the sun set in the ocean, which doesn't mean the sun is entering the water.

This is a place where the sunset hits the horizon appeared to him. It's not saying the sun sets in murky water.

This topic clarifies the interpretation of the sun setting passage, explaining it as a descriptive account of visual perception at a location rather than a factual error about celestial mechanics.

Identifying "Dhul-Qarnayn" and Scriptural Copying Claims [04:29]

• The speaker addresses the fifth mistake, which claims the story in Surah 18 about "Dhul-Qarnayn" copies a 6th-7th century Syriac Christian work about Alexander the Great.
• It is argued that just because Alexander the Great had depictions with horns does not mean "Dhul-Qarnayn" is him.
• The Quran and Hadith do not identify "Dhul-Qarnayn" as Alexander the Great.
• Scholars like Ibn Kathir have explicitly stated that "Dhul-Qarnayn" is not Alexander the Great, refuting the idea of copying Christian misconceptions.
• Muslim tradition describes "Dhul-Qarnayn" as a pious man, a scholar, possibly a prophet, who became Muslim and performed Hajj.

Muslim scholars have made it clear, I'm putting the quotes here, that Alexander the Great according to Muslim tradition is not, in fact, Alexander the Great is only from 323 BC to 336 BC.

This final section tackles the fifth purported error by distinguishing "Dhul-Qarnayn" from Alexander the Great, asserting that the Quran's narrative is not a copy of Christian myths and highlighting the established Islamic understanding of this figure. The speaker then contrasts this with perceived errors and contradictions in the Bible.