G3 Debate Report, Being Fair in Dealing with the Qur’an

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. I'm looking for a... I already have that one up. Something I wanted to look at, and I'm not able to find it, so I'm just going to have to sort of summarize it.

Lots of stuff to get to. Well, we always have lots of stuff to get to, I suppose. First day back after G3 and all the events there. First of all, tremendous thanks to everyone that made that possible.

To Michael Fallon, who was not feeling well. To Ryan and Kathy and Stuart Adams. If you've already watched the debate with Adnan Rashid, not only is it nice that Sovereign has really, really good cameras, because, I mean, it's just really professional looking, but you'll notice that the presentations, both mine and Adnan's, have been dropped in.

And you've got to understand how much time that takes to do something like that. That's a long process. And to have that up in 72 hours, I don't think Stuart left his room. I think that he must have done room service or something to get all of that done in time.

So, tremendous thanks to them. Obviously, Josh Bice, all the folks at G3, everybody who came out. I landed on Tuesday about 3. It does seem like I've picked a little something up from the flight back, but it hasn't slowed me down yet.

Still working hard. I think it's one of those things where you sort of get that going for a little while, but I'm going to fight through it and not going to slow me down. Anyway, I landed about 3 and about 5 .30 it started snowing.

I was born in Minneapolis, for crying out loud, so I've seen snow. It was a long time ago, over half a century now. It wasn't much snow, but when you don't have any equipment to deal with it, like they don't evidently in Atlanta, when flights started being canceled, Tom Buck tried to fly in for the debate.

And if he had flown in in the afternoon, he would have made it, but since he had planned to fly in the morning, it wasn't that the airport runways weren't usable.

They were.

They didn't have enough TSA agents to man the flights because they couldn't get to the airport. So they started throttling stuff back. And so we didn't have as many people as we would like to have had.

I think we had a good thousand people at the debate. This was Adnan's first time in the United States. And look, if I was doing a debate in Pakistan, I'd be a little on the nervous side. And he was a little on the nervous side coming to the United States.

And he did get pulled out of the line coming in, as you would expect if you look like Adnan and you're coming from Pakistan. And so they're asking him very specific questions. They're asking him what he's doing there.

And so he's straight up front, says, I'm doing a debate. Well, what's the debate about? Well, is the cross necessary for salvation? Well, what's your thesis? And he says, well, I'm a Muslim. And so I don't believe that.

And the guy goes, well, you know, I've got another guy here that is more into religion than I am. Let me bring him in. So he brings this other guy in and starts asking him about his position, too, which I found really interesting.

Maybe it was, you know, how truly religious is this person? Is he really a teacher? Ustad means a teacher, a professor, an instructor in the faith, so on and so forth.

I don't know.

But make a long story short, after asking lots of these questions, they're both like, well, that sounds really interesting. That's going to be right here next to the airport at the convention center.

Yeah.

When is it? Tomorrow night, 7 o 'clock. We'll have to see if we can't come. I don't know if they showed up or not. So that was the only problems that he had in getting in. Are these things on the cameras for the new thing?

Oh, cool. Well, I saw them, but I just didn't know if they had been folded down before and you were doing something. Those could be really bright. Yeah, those could be red. We're getting tally lights for our cameras.

Thank you very much to our friends in London.

Yes?

You brought up the microphone.

I was just going to say that we're working on the tally lights, and what came in the delivery was a little bit more than we expected. And it's an entire high-definition video switching system.

Right.

And I've got not only some learning to do to figure out how to integrate that into our way of doing things, which brings these cameras directly in through HDMI cables into the computer, but there's a new connection that I've never worked with before called SDI.

And apparently that will allow us not only to have direct connections, high-definition connections, into the video board from the two cameras, but then also to bring an HDMI connection directly from your laptop, where we can simply, you know, this herky-jerky stuff that we've been getting where we go through our network, or whether it's not entirely synced up, all of that should go away.

And at the same time, the other side of that is we now have a fully portable video recording system.

How do you define portable?

I mean, shove it in a bag and fly off somewhere and then go connect it up and plug it in and record stuff.

Yeah, well, says the traveler. I have a little different definition of truly portable than most people do these days. Anyway, I obviously lost track of what I was talking about there. Anyway, we had a really good turnout for the debate.

And, you know, people say, are you going to do like a debate review or something? If there is a reason to, you know, I really try to sort of go teachability. Is there something we can learn? And the debate was straightforward.

There wasn't any bomb throwing. There wasn't any verbal jousting. It was straightforward. One of the things that I wanted to bring up, that I wanted to show to you, was a comment from Ijaz Ahmed's Facebook feed in regards to how a Muslim sees the subject of that debate.

Because it really seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of talking past one another in especially dealing with the centrality of atonement in Christian theology. If you have listened to the debate, then you know that basically Adnan's approach was not to deal with the consistency of the biblical presentation.

You know what I'm having problems with? The warp core is not on. That's why I'm coughing and everything else. Not only was the board cube off, but the warp core wasn't on. Now we're going to be just fine.

Sorry.

I don't know how I noticed it, but I guess I didn't see the reflection. I normally can see the reflection of the warp core in the window, and it was bothering me. Sorry. Easily distracted today.

Squirrel.

That's what happens when you just come back from a trip. Adnan's approach was to, in essence, not deal with the centrality of the cross in Christian theology, but to come from a back door and say, This is not consistent with Old Testament revelation, and Paul made it up.

Let's create a contradiction between Paul and James, and that's really on the subject of justification, and call it good. I think both the thesis, the cross is necessary for salvation, according to the entire revelation of the New Testament, I think I established that in my opening statement.

That really wasn't argued against. The second debate, because the first debate really didn't have any back and forth, the second debate was Paul is in contradiction to James and in contradiction to the other New Testament writers.

So you quote James D .G. Dunn, and you assume the New Testament is all contradictory to itself, and that's sort of how you approach it. And I think we established pretty clearly the problem with that as well.

That requires a misunderstanding of Paul's emphasis upon good works and their role in Christian salvation. I mean, Paul himself teaches, examine yourselves to see whether you're in the faith. What is the fruit of the Spirit in your life?

The fruit of the Spirit is all the things that, the consistency between what the Spirit brings about in the redeemed's life, and the moral and ethical definition of good works in the Old Testament. Not good works in the sense of sacrifices or what are called the boundary markers, circumcision, things like that, that mark off Israel as a people that are non-moral and ethical.

But when you look at what Proverbs says about what a godly man is to be, is that not the result of the Spirit in a person's life? And who teaches us about that?

Paul does.

The central revelation of the New Testament on that subject is found in Paul. Is he completely consistent with James at that point? Completely. And, you know, Adnan had not read my chapter in The God Who Justifies on James chapter 2.

Mike Gaydosh was there. And by the way, Mike Gaydosh has a bunch of my books extra. Because we were hoping for a few more people at the debate. He had a bunch of them there. I just put on Facebook, he's got a fire sale going on all my books.

So if you want to pick up a few extras, Solid Ground Christian Books, go hit them up. We had Mike give us a copy of The God Who Justifies, and we gave it to Adnan after the debate. And I'm trusting that Adnan's actually going to read.

But I'd love if he would read the whole of The God Who Justifies. Because I think it's pretty obvious that most of what he reads is from liberal sources. Not from believing sources. And I would say that to a number of my Muslim friends.

You look for that kind of stuff, and to put the shoe on the other foot, it would be like me spending all of my time reading nothing but Patricia Crone Orientalism, and not listening to Ahmadinejad, or Yasir Qadhi, or, you know, believing Muslims.

Different perspectives of believing Muslims, but believing Muslims. And what kind of a view of Islam would I have if all I read—. Now, I can't draw a direct parallel here, because as Adnan said at dinner the night before, we don't have nearly as many liberal Muslims as you have liberal Christians.

There's a reason for this. Let's think about why that might be. There is a reason for this. There aren't as many liberal Muslims. But if all I read was liberal Muslims, or the Orientalists, what would my view of Islam be?

Well, if all you read is James D .G. Dunn, or someone like that, why not read the believing? Because in the back of your mind, you're saying believing means non-scholarly, or unfairly biased, or whatever else.

Take some time to actually read some Warfield, or Turretin, or modern writers. Read some Douglas Moo, or some John Murray, stuff like that, and you will see a consistent, hermeneutic method of interpretation.

And you might discover that not only is Paul not the bad guy that you think he is, and I still want to challenge you. I don't think you can demonstrate from the first few centuries of Islam a negative view of Paul.

It could be because there was not as yet any meaningful knowledge of the New Testament amongst the vast majority of Muslim writers, including those writing Tafsir literature on the Quran. But there still isn't.

And I would point out that in Ibn Kathir, I've pointed this out before, in Ibn Kathir, there is a positive reference toward Paul. Now this is hundreds of years down the road, as possibly being referred to in the Quran as one who is a righteous man.

So, think about it, and you might sharpen your arguments a little bit, or at the same time discover there is more consistency on our side than you might think. So, at one point, I was really taken aback.

I was going to queue it up, but you can watch the video. Adnan, I think Adnan would probably admit, made a pretty big mistake in his presentation. He put up on the screen 1 Corinthians 6, and the list of all the sins in verses 9 and 10.

And of course, this is a section we all know a lot about because of the fact that this is one of the texts where the Greek term, arsonokoites, plural arsonokoitai, appears in regards to homosexuality.

And I was amazed, even driving in today, that Hugh Hewitt was talking about, can you be homosexual and Christian? No, it wasn't Hugh Hewitt. It was, who's the Jewish guy? No, other Jewish guy in the morning.

Anyway, it's the other, Prager, thank you. Dennis Prager. Dennis Prager. I'm sorry, it wasn't Hugh Hewitt. Dennis Prager. Dennis Prager was doing a section on can you be Christian and homosexual. He's like, of course.

I'm just like, no. That's what happens when you, you know, Prager says so many good things. Prager University puts out so much good stuff. They just put out a real clunker of a video. I mean, most of the time their videos are great.

Here's a clunker of a video. Guy Benson, the alleged gay Christian, conservative gay Christian. You know, let's deal with what 1 Corinthians 6 says. That's talking about homosexuals there. There's no question about what arsonokoites means.

There really isn't. And I'd love to interact with Prager about that because it goes straight back to the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18 and 20, which he's writing an entire translation of.

So evidently he didn't seem to be aware of that. You know, we listen to these conservatives. And when we hear them saying good things where we're like, oh, this is great. And then sometimes they go right off the rail because if they're not Christians and Dennis Prager is not a Christian, Matt Walsh is a Roman Catholic.

Michael Medved is Jewish. You've got these folks, Ben Shapiro, not a Christian. You know, we quote these people. They say true things because they have a part of God's revelation. They don't have the fullness of it.

And it sort of takes you back here, too, because you see, you know, in Islam, you've got Judaism. You've got the revelation of Jesus Christ. And Judaism steps back away from that high revelation and denies the Messiahship of Jesus and who Jesus Christ really is.

Well, the Muslims follow the Jews in this. They will not accept that high revelation. And the result is you're going to sense the revelation of the Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevi 'im and Ketuvim points to Christ.

If you reject that, if you don't accept that, and you make it stand on its own as an unfulfilled revelation, it's going to become deceptive. It's going to lead you astray. It's not going to lead you into truth.

And over time, it's going to move farther and farther away from the truth because it's moving away from its own fulfillment. That's the same thing we get with Islam. This denunciation of the Christian fulfillment of Christ is due to that very fact.

You're rejecting that fulfillment motif. And I included the fulfillment motif in the debate. I walked through Isaiah 53. I went through Psalm 22. I did not get the opportunity. And I just realized that I didn't bring up another thing that I wanted to read.

Lovely.

Too many things here. And I sort of doubt that it's on my in my I thought I had saved it. Oh, good, good, good, good. I do actually have it.

Yay.

Oh, good. I've got the whole thing. Excellent. I will at least be able to do that. So I went through the prophetic stuff. There really wasn't any pushback on that. I'm sure a lot of Muslims would like Adnan to have pushed back on that, but he did not.

And again, we haven't scheduled which day. I need to find out from Michael. But next week, Michael Brown's going to be back on the program. And why? Well, I think I mentioned this, but I will try to link to it.

A video was put out about a month ago called the un-piercing or de-piercing of Jesus or something. And it's a portion from my debate in Birmingham. That wasn't Birmingham, was it? On the what was the date on that?

It was Zakir Hussain. Yeah, Birmingham.

All right.

It was in Birmingham. Just trying to remember what the date was. Anyways, it's a section from the debate where Zakir argues against the text of Psalm 22, they pierced my hands and my feet. And what he's doing is he's borrowing old argumentation from Rabbi Tovia Singer, which, interestingly enough, Michael Brown had responded to years and years ago, volume three of Answers to Jewish Objections to Jesus.

And so if you really want to dig deep, sort of like when Michael and I did Isaiah 53 a couple years ago, we are going to be dealing with the question, how do you properly translate what's the text there in Psalm 22?

Is this a messianic psalm? What's the difference between they pierced my hands and my feet and like a lion at my hands and my feet? And because the Muslim apologists, those who do dawah, are borrowing from Tovia Singer and utilizing his material.

And since it was brought up later in the debate, I didn't have the opportunity to go fully into it. But we'll be able to display the text and walk all the way through it at some point next week with Michael Brown, who, of course, is an expert on this particular subject.

So those of you in the Muslim apologetics community, you might want to check it out, because I'm noticing you all depending upon Jewish apologetics. And I suggest you read Michael Brown's five-volume set.

It's big. It'll be a lot of stuff to work through, and it will ruin a lot of arguments. But you might want to take time to take a look at it. So anyway, we'll be doing that next week. So I had traced the fulfillment stuff in the New Testament.

It laid out a pretty strong case on the centrality of the cross, but the rest of the debate ended up being primarily on the consistency of the New Testament, whether it's contradictory to itself, so on and so forth.

And what I wanted to read was a comment from Ijaz Ahmed's Facebook thing, how the Muslims understood what was being said. And it really does strike me that... You know, I recognize this is a spiritual battle.

And if someone is... Let's use this example. And I need to make a note that we really need to get back to our church history stuff, because we've left it alone far, far too long here on the program. But if we look at church history, as long as people were satisfied with the sacramental system of Rome, as long as you believed that what was being done for you in the sacraments was enough to make you right with God, and so on and so forth, the message of the Reformation really didn't ring in your heart.

The idea of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, is for a person who experiences Holy Spirit-wrought conviction of sin. And if you are satisfied with your religious works, whatever that religion might be, it can be Islam, it can be Buddhism, it can be Hinduism, if there is no Holy Spirit-wrought conviction of your need for a true, proper standing before God, I can talk myself blue in the face, and it's not going to accomplish anything.

This is a spiritual battle, and that doesn't mean that you don't study what the other side says, or that kind of stuff. You want to be the sharpest instrument in the Lord's hands that you can be. But you can know everything there is to know about what someone else believes, and unless the Spirit of God is active in their life, you're not going to get through to them.

It's just not going to happen. And so I fully recognize that in engaging this subject with Adnan Rashid or Zakir Hussain or whoever else it might be, that in the final analysis, I need to show these individuals grace, I need to model Christ to them, I need to be straightforward with them.

There's not a one of them. I feel so sad for some of my critics, especially those that have been on Twitter today. If they would talk to, let's use those two gentlemen, Adnan or Zakir, and say, do you believe that James White wants you to be a Christian?

Well, yeah. Have you heard James White talk about repentance of sin, embracing Jesus Christ as Lord, Master, the centrality of the crucifixion, resurrection? In fact, I remember, I should have cued this up, but the first time I debated Adnan, this was before we knew each other.

And Adnan and I talked about this. All he was used to at this point in time was Speaker's Corner. And Speaker's Corner is just verbal machine gunning of each other. It's not really getting to know anybody.

It's, you know, gotcha.

It's just constant gotcha stuff. So it was a fairly aggressive debate. And after he had given his sort of attack on the doctrine of the Trinity, I got up and I just, I said to the Muslims, you cannot have a Jesus who is merely a prophet.

And I just, that's why every breath of your mouth, every bit of your heart comes from his hand. You cannot have him as a mere prophet. He is either Lord, your creator, or he's no one at all. And all these guys who I have debated well know exactly what I believe and exactly the fact that I'm calling them, that my greatest desire for them is that they would bow the knee in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ.

And the reason that we do what we do is we, you know, I've not actually engaged a liberal Muslim yet. And I'm well aware that from their perspective, I'm definitely a Kufr. I'm involved in unbelief. And for most of them, though, there's differences amongst them.

I'm a Mushrik.

I've committed shirk. If I die in this state, there's no hope for me. And we well know what the other is saying. These are eternal issues. The idea that I'm soft-pedaling this, it's just, it's absurd on its face.

And the Muslims who hear it just roll their eyes like, oh, wow, you've got some real doozies on your side of the fence, don't you? Yeah, you do on yours too. But yeah, we do have some doozies on our side of the fence.

And they just don't seem to have any real connection with reality. They well know what the issues really are. And so those issues were made very, very clear and very, very plain in the course of the debate.

And that's exactly what we wanted.

That's exactly what we wanted.

And after the debate, I was there till almost midnight talking with people and signing books and answering questions. And the people in line got really good. What they do is automatically give their phones to the people behind them.

So they're just ready to go. Everybody's taking pictures of everybody else's phones. It was really cool. But what was really neat was Adnan was there. And though not as many people talked to Adnan, there was a line to talk to Adnan.

And I kept a close ear on it. Because I remember the debate in 2001 with Peter Stravinskis and the feeding frenzy of people that went after him afterwards. I even stepped over to try to calm people down in that one.

That didn't happen. Everybody was I prayed. And I had asked you all to pray that there would be graciousness and kindness. And there was. And I think Adnan was impacted by that. And that's exactly what we want.

So if there were some of the hothead people who well, a guy on Twitter today said that I was casting pearls before a swine to give Adnan a Bible. Because they just automatically assume. These people know the whole story.

They have full knowledge. And you know what? They may have full knowledge of what they think. But it's being filtered through their Islamic preconceptions. And one of the things that people who live in majority Muslim nations know is that it frequently takes a tremendous amount of time and patience to find the way of expressing Christian truth to a Muslim that will get past their traditions.

If you have the one-shot handout of tract. We have our new Christian message tracts.

There we go.

Just got them from 1milliontracts .com.

Okay.

Christian message tract there. Man, I don't even know when I wrote this. I wrote it years and years and years and years and years ago. We had our own printed for years and years. And now 1milliontracts .com is using it.

Really nicely done. If you have the mentality is just hand somebody this. And if they read it and reject it. Ah, going to hell. You're a reprobate.

Goodbye.

You're not going to lead Muslims to the Lord. Because, for example, this might be useful to a Muslim. But it's not designed for a Muslim. It's not designed specifically to communicate to them. But the point is it takes time.

There is a process that goes on. And if you're one of those one-time type folks. Then what can I say to you? I'm sorry that you have that perspective. So I had given Adnan a Bible. And I also gave him an Atlanta Falcons hoodie.

Partly because I thought I might be able to get it cheaper. Since they had already lost. That didn't happen. It was still ridiculously expensive. But I got it for him anyways. And he gave me this. This is a 1679 Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi.

Interprete Theodoro Beza. So this is a 1679 Latin New Testament. Translated by Theodoro Beza. Who was Calvin's successor at Geneva. So that's a really cool little thing to have there. And I very much appreciate that.

I started a tradition in 2006 at Biola. Giving a gift to my Muslim debaters. Part of it is cultural. For example. I mentioned to you our Turkish bus driver. In Germany. Toward the end of the week. He gave me a little gift.

Because that's how you show respect for someone. In those cultures. And so I've done that as consistently as I possibly could. Some people on Twitter decide that's just a show. And a casting of pearls before swine.

Well.

If you have that attitude. You really don't want to be following this program. Because we're not anywhere on the same page with one another. And we don't do what we do for the same reasons. So I'll just let you know that.

Ahead of time. So again. A great evening. I would highly suggest that you listen to the interaction.

Again.

It's always good to understand. And try to understand where people are coming from. Even if you.

Oh.

I skipped this. At one point. I was talking about Arsene Coetzee. And Adnan said. So who does Christ die for? If none of these people can be saved. And I'm just like. Unfortunately that was at the end of his rebuttal period.

And then there was a break. An audience break. And so. As soon as we got into the Q &A. I immediately jumped on that. Because. Verse 11. But such were some of you. But you were washed.

But you were cleansed.

You were justified. Sanctified. So and so forth. The whole point being. What Paul is saying is. The continuing practice of these things. Demonstrates that you have not been changed. But those. Who are Christians.

Have been changed. Out of that kind of lifestyle. And it was just obvious. That Adnan had not. Either read the rest of it. Or followed what the context was. Wherever it might be. And that got us going.

I think. On a good track. For the cross-examination. Even though we did. Wander off a little bit. Into. Some textual critical stuff. Which I enjoy doing. But it's really hard to. Deal with textual critical issues.

Like he questioned. A reading in Mark. About Jesus giving his life in ransom for many. But it's a variant. He even mentioned. It's codex D.

Yeah.

The living Bible of the early church. It is the single most unreliable. Manuscript of the New Testament. In the early period. There's no question about it. It has the most unique readings. It's hard to address those questions.

In the course of a debate. Especially during. Q &A cross-examination. When I do that here on the program. I bring up graphics. We're looking at stuff. Otherwise you just lose everybody in the process.

You have to do that a few times. Today I think. There you go. There was one thing. I didn't get to go into. I do want to do that now. Then we're going to move on. We're going to be staying in the Muslim area.

And related areas today. One thing. I mentioned it. Adnan didn't bite. He didn't respond to it. One of the things. I want everybody to notice. In the debate.

Is.

The perspective. That Adnan took. Is not the only view. Amongst Muslims. The perspective that he took. It's very common. He took the perspective. That every person. Who gives a true. Shahada. Every person.

Who says. Does it. With the seven. Proper conditions. Publicly in Arabic. Makes a proper profession. A true and proper profession of faith. Will go to heaven. I wonder how many of you. Who were listening.

Or have listened. Recognize. What he actually said. Because. He said. These will be removed. Every one of them. Eventually. Will be removed from hellfire. Now think about that a second. What that means.

Is.

From his perspective. And again. There is great naivety. Amongst people. And they say. What is the Muslim perspective. There is disagreement. Even in the Hadith sources. On these subjects. There really are.

It's not difficult. To see the differences that exist. The idea that is expressed. By Adnan's perspective. If you take the time. To go read. The Muslim Hadith. You will read about the Sirat. The bridge.

And part of the judgment. Is that you. Have to go across this bridge. Which is over hellfire. And people who have great Iman. Faith. It flows from them like light. And so they just go. Right across the bridge.

Straight into the presence of God. It's not really a test for them. But there are people who have. A very small amount of faith. Like a small amount of light. Coming from their big toe. And so they have to.

Crawl along the bridge. And the idea is.

Some fall in.

And so there is this idea. Of the people of the fire. And these are Muslims. Who end up. In hellfire. They end up in hellfire.

And.

How long they are there. It involves.

Well.

There is a number of different. Ways of looking at it. But they eventually. Sometimes it is connected with the intercession. Of Muhammad. And he is taught. At the last day. A special kind of worship. That he presents before.

Allah.

And a certain portion of his ummah. Of his people. Are brought into. Paradise each time he does this. But it is a process. That takes place more than once. And the last group. Are these people of the fire.

They come out charred. They have been in the fire so long. But they still enter into paradise. Because they said the shahada. There is one hadith for example. One Muslim comes.

And.

The scrolls are rolled out. Of his sins. And they are huge. And he just. His head is down and he just figures. But Allah says. Is there not another scroll? And there is. It is a teeny tiny little scrap of paper.

And Allah says because of this. You go into paradise. And what was on the scroll?

The shahada.

He said the shahada. So he goes into paradise. So you've got all these different versions. But then you have this. And I didn't find out from. Adnan didn't respond to this. So I didn't find out what he thinks about this.

I had these quotes. I wanted to bring them up in conversation. But the subject sort of changed. It would be very relevant. If we were discussing substitution. And whether there is a substitution concept.

Even within Islam. Because there is. And here it is. Now let me explain something. The hadith twice. At least twice in the debate. Adnan mentioned. Hadith collections. Sahih al-Bukhari. And Sahih Muslim.

As the two most authoritative. Collections of hadith. For Sunni Muslims. But there is another kind. Of hadith.

Called.

Hadith Qudsi. Hadith Qudsi. Hadith Qudsi. Contains. The words of Allah. It's not inspired in the way the Quran is.

But.

It's Muhammad. Providing. The words of Allah. And therefore. In many people's minds. Whether in Adnan's or not.

I don't know.

Like I said. We didn't get to discuss it. And I almost asked him over dinner. But I got distracted. Hadith Qudsi. Have a special authority. Because. It's not the Quran. It's the closest thing to it. It's Muhammad.

Giving you the words of Allah. Here is hadith Qudsi. Number 8. On the day of resurrection. My Ummah. My nation. Will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise. Without rendering an account of their deeds.

Another sort will be reckoned an easy account. And admitted into Paradise. This is similar. By the way. This is my commentary. This is similar to the Surat. The bridge thing. There are going to be some people.

They have great Iman. They have great faith. Right across. And then there are others that struggle. Yet another sort will come. Bearing on their backs. Heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels.

Though he knows best about them. Who are these people? That's why it's the hadith Qudsi. Because it's Allah speaking in the hadith. Who are these people? They will reply. They are humble slaves of yours.

He will say. Unload the sins from them. And put the same. Over the Jews. And the Christians. Then let the humble slaves get into Paradise. By virtue of my mercy.

Now.

There are three.