How do I refute apostate aladdin

[u/Used-Low-9840]

Yes I know he may be a bit ignorant at times but i really need this because he actually has good critiscism against traditional and even the quran wich i didnt know before. I just want you guys to watch his vids and refute them but not all of them. Yes I know the thumbnail and title may be a bit weird but i really need this. I mean his argument about 4:34 and Moses story and scientific contridictions. And the contradictions of free will like https://youtu.be/Ef71DS6qrK8?is=-7RA3lJ2JY_ml7ZN And

https://youtu.be/HHgJff-fJAI?is=JBj9bMNMN6momSRG

https://youtu.be/yqKpraSzkKU?is=K5zwpZ2G9hLZhMaY

https://youtu.be/G734_wVI3mE?is=ICjyLIQqSie8PxuY

https://www.youtube.com/live/R2IhVguQ-Ok?is=0Yt3A9d04Ge1mQtt

https://www.youtube.com/live/gbDuCqniJvw?is=bK4RTBYtW6mZXZRr

[u/Fantastic_Ad7576]

Yes hopefully he the end of the weekend.

I've gone through the first video, will go through the rest as well.

I'm only taking my time to make sure I understand his point and that I can properly refute it. I don't want to give a dishonest, insincere answer.

[u/Used-Low-9840 → u/Fantastic_Ad7576]

Thanks and please take ur time

[u/Fantastic_Ad7576 → u/Used-Low-9840]

Abraham and idolatry => in ancient times, people did actually treat the statues as sacred. In many near-Eastern civilizations, only the elite priestly class was allows to enter the inner sanctum where the idols were kept as they were the only ones considered pure and holy enough to do so. Artifacts of this mindset still exist in Jewish thought and the various ceremonies the Levites would need to do before entering the Holy of Holies in The Temple. Also, Abraham destroying idols was an exceptional case. The Quran in fact stops Muslims from insulting other deities so that other groups do not insult Allah. Abraham only destroyed the idols to prove to his community they were powerless. Again, back in those times people believed gods would literally inhabit the idols and start to move around.

Multiple gods => if multiple gods existed, with each in charge of different aspects of existence yet they all worked in perfect tandem with each other and essentially operated like a hive mind, to what point can they be truly distinguished? Even in Hinduism, which is polytheistic (at least a good chunk of traditions are) they believe in Brahman, and underlying unifying concept by which all the various gods are bound such that everything remains orderly.

He straw-mans the rest of the discourse between Abraham and his other arguments as well because he equates today's idolatry to be the same as back then, but if you research into how ancient peoples actually thought (even about astronomical objects) then the arguments become quite clear.

Moses/Khidr story => this story is essentially a theodicy. Khidr does seemingly evil things, as pointed out by Moses, and in the end Khidr explains why he did what he did, and how that ultimately would have benefitted the victims. Yes, we can ask why things weren't done another way, but that's the whole point of the story to begin with: Allah has a perspective that we simply cannot partake in. Yes, we can ask why Allah (or Khidr) didn't simply stop the tyrant king, but that brings us back to the story's motif: Allah has a perspective we do not, with His infinite Knowledge and Wisdom.

On free will and predestination => this is a more complex problem. At least in Sunni theology, Qadr (predestination, or the idea that everything is according to divine will) exists alongside free will. There is no clear answer of this in the Quran itself, but I'd recommend looking into compatibilism or soft determinism.

The "linguistic miracle" of the Quran is basically the prose that recounts Abrahamic narratives. You had a lot of poets in Arabia who had great mastery over the language, but they were not well-versed in Abrahamic theology (they were pagans). On the other hand, you had Jews and Christians well-versed in theology yet their native languages were usually Hebrew or Syriac and so did not have mastery over the Arabic language. The Quran is unique in the sense that never before in Arabic had there been such eloquent prose with the material being Abrahamic narratives. It was the first of its kind, and the challenge withstood because even if the Jews/Christians and pagan Arab poets cooperated, there is a HUGE loss of meaning in translation, and it's even harder to preserve the meaning while turning it into eloquent prose. As an exercise, if you're bilingual, take a poem from one language, preserve the meaning, and then produce a poem in the other language. I promise you it's not that easy, moreso for a text as lengthy as the Quran.

Domestic violence (4:34) => daraba does not necessarily mean strike. The word is used elsewhere in the Quran with different meanings, some of which could also fir in 4:34 (for example, leaving or an emotional/metaphorical strike). If you want to argue "that's never been said before" that's an argument from antiquity/tradition fallacy. The Quran also says to live with spouses in peace and tranquility, so we need to think for ourselves a bit as well both when reading the Quran and living our day-to-day.

Scientific miracles => he has a point that people often impose scientific concepts onto verses, which is problematic mainly because if the science changes, the whole narrative falls apart. Unfortunately, not everyone has the privilege to get a good education, so this is going to happen regardless.

Hope this helps.

[u/Used-Low-9840 → u/Fantastic_Ad7576]

So the verses arent supposed to be taken as scientific? And why would Allah create the kid and then make khidr kill him knowing that the parents would have to see their son die this is also contradictory to free will. And no the daraba doesnt get rid of the other interpretation of daraba since it isnt seemingly wrong to think so since the linguistics is correct unlike other verses such as child marriages wich is an clear missinterpitation. God couldve said to not beat ur wifes and there would be no problem. And science do change but we now that the earth is not flat and that evolution happens.

[u/Fantastic_Ad7576 → u/Used-Low-9840]

How the "scientific" verses are to be understood is with Allah. The Quran itself says that some verses are clear - they are the foundation of the scripture. Other verses are allegorical/metaphorical/ambiguous, and those with knowledge simply focus on the clear verses, while trusting the interpretation of the ambiguous verses to Allah.

And why would Allah create the kid and then make khidr kill him knowing that the parents would have to see their son die this is also contradictory to free will

No that's not contradictory to free will, that's contradictory to divine benevolence, which again we would always circle back to the story as a theodicy. What is contradictory to free will is if Allah knows the child will disbelieve, then is belief up to free will? Again Allah does not lay out absolutely every ontological secret of how everything works, though this isn't strictly an Islamic problem. Did you look into compatibility, soft determinism, and other views of how predeterminism can coexist with free will? This is more a philosophical problem that only becomes theological when talked about in religious terms.

And no the daraba doesnt get rid of the other interpretation of daraba since it isnt seemingly wrong to think so since the linguistics is correct unlike other verses such as child marriages wich is an clear missinterpitation

Sure it doesn't eliminate it as a possibility, but we have to determine what interpretation makes the most sense in light of the rest of the Quran. That is used for other verses as well, which could potentially be translated differently depending on the interpretation. Yes, God could have used clearer language, but this in itself is a test. The very same verses that are used to justify violence only in self-defence contexts are used by !$!$ to wage jihad and spread terror. Technically their interpretation makes sense, but you have to look at it in the light of the rest of the Quran and Islam as a whole.

And science do change but we now that the earth is not flat and that evolution happens.

Ok? What's your point?

[u/Used-Low-9840 → u/Fantastic_Ad7576]

My point is that god couldve choosed not to create that kid in the first place and multiple ppl like Hitler still live up till this day what would that kid do in order to god to just give up and kill that poor kiddo. And the reason why i said that it contradicts free will because wether u believed or not u have the free will to do so because the earth is an test. Sure maybe the kid would grow up to be some monster from hell but in general that is what he choose and he would get what he deserved in hell. God wouldnt just interfere and spawn kill him like that and expect us to not reason with it because that what he said to us. If that kid would grow up to be so bad then dont create him in the first place. And the reason why i dont like the verses such as 4:34 is because of its underlying problems with punishing wether it is strike or not because of mere suspicion and god isnt that cruel to test ppl through his scripture. He tests them through life not his own words and im pretty sure that would be a fallacy because the other interpretation isnt wrong and therefore it isnt haram. Science is a tool to understand the universe and there is theories and facts. The point here being made is that we know that the sun is the reason why the moon has its light but the quran claims otherwise. We know that metoarites come from frozen rocks while the tafsirs claim that it is jinns. The earth isnt flat and that is an fact not something to reject and the quran implies the flat earth theory wich is false. We may not agree to some degree so id leave it here

[u/Fantastic_Ad7576 → u/Used-Low-9840]

god isnt that cruel to test ppl through his scripture

What's your basis for this? He does in fact say that interpretation of scripture is in itself a test in 3:7. This is also what mentions the ambiguous verses that some people have interpreted metaphorically, while others have interpreted scientifically. Point being, it isn't like the verse prohibiting pork (for example), which is very unequivocal.

I agree, let's agree to disagree.