Thread: A refutation of @el_soco 's videos featuring Jay Smith

It seems Christian apologists love to quote Jay Smith. Unfortunately, they place too much trust in him and his "works".

In this thread, some of his claims that can be found in missionary videos will be addressed.

1. In this video, he asks @MansurXAhmed , if he has compared Brubaker's examples with earlier manuscripts. Here is his example from Arabe 327.

The verse with the word "السبع" is found in at least 4 earlier 1st c. AH MS:

Ma VI 165 (649-675)
Marcel 19
Marcel 18/1
Or. 2165

2. He asks "have you done it (ie. compared with earlier manuscripts) with Surah 4:149"?

Unfortunately, Jay Smith fails to mention that this was likely corrected at the time of writing even according to Brubaker. The original omission also causes the verse to be ungrammatical.

3. He then repeats the same question for Surah 5:93 in MS.67.2007, which needless to say is found perfectly fine in earlier Qur'anic manuscripts.

In additon to that, the majority of the insertion also clearly took place at the time of the writing.

4. He asks "Have you done it with Surah 4:33?".

1. This omission of the word kāna occurs in the Husseini, there are MANY earlier manuscripts with the standard verse

2. The verse becomes ungrammatical without the word, which is why we don't need to "do it" you idiot.

I could go on and address all the other examples he gives. He assumes that the examples Brubaker gives in his book are the earliest manuscripts to contain the verse, which is clearly false.

Video 2: Jay Smith's "refutation" of @MrAdnanRashid

In this video, Jay Smith calls AR an idiot, which is ironic, considering the amount of nonsense he says in the same video.

The thing AR said incorrectly is that the Husseini is from the 1st c. AH, which he accepted was wrong:

1. In this same video where he mocks Adnan, he claims "the Birmingham folios is only 2 pages, ... has nothing to do with Islam.."

He seems to be unaware that the folios are actually part of a bigger copy.

Codex Arabe 328c = Arabe 328c (16 folios) + Birmingham Folios (2 folios)

2. He mocks @MrAdnanRashid for supposedly saying something wrong about Carbon Dating and acts as if he is an expert on these matters.

Ironic since he used to claim the Birmingham Manuscript could / does pre - date Islam.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_title&v=sgV99XSu2Iw

3. Jay Smith has claimed numerous times "there is NO manuscript from the 1st Century AH".

Since he's appealed to the opinions of experts such as Alba Fedeli & Déroche, let's see what they have to say about the dating of the manuscript:

4. There are numerous other major errors in the statements of Jay Smith.

Here's two hilariously misleading examples given by Jay Smith to "prove" the Qur'ān has been changed.

Honestly, if Jay Smith is the guy missionaries have to rely on, then they're failing miserably to attack Islam.

@el_soco would probably ignore these and just say "debate me". Unfortunately, for them, the truth doesn't matter.