Somebody wrote a comment, asking for a reference to the coins from Merv which have crosses instead of crescent moons. I wanted to pin the comment but unfortunately removed it by accident. So here's the reference: It's described in a standard work on Arabo-Sasanian coins: Gaube, Heinz. Arabosasanidische Numismatik. Braunschweig, 1973., p.12: Quote: “We see a similar and quite curious alteration of a crescent moon (F) into a cross on a series of coins minted by Salm b. Ziyad of Merv and bearing the year 63. H. This is an important detail, because it can hardly be accepted that a cross was inscribed onto coins minted in the time of the Islamic conquests and in a city with a population that was in large proportion Christian simply ‘by accident.’”
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any pictures. Pre-digital numismatic catalogues typically only have very few pictures. But these coins have been catalogued by numismaticians which is more verification than an image which can always be doctored.
@@TAlexander okay do you maybe have a list of catalogues where these specific coins are referenced? Because one book by only one man without any pictures, while there are plenty of pictures of coins without the cross… is kinda not enough…
There are thousands of Islamic dated coins issued by named caliphs pictured on the internet and annotated and described by coin experts, but you prefer to believe this guy who says Islam did not exist at this time? 🤣.
@@davidzack8735 Could you kindly cite references or links for what you are implying.I read your previous post and appreciate the link you gave me but am perplexed about your views and faith.
You have raised an extremely important point - in Arab culture, people were not referred to in the way we are now in the West, namely, by our proper names. The use of the name "muhammad" could not have been in reference to a proper name as referring to a person like that is considered inappropriate and rude in Arab culture. People are always referred to as "son of" or "father of" or through a title - never by just their proper name alone. If Muhammad was a reference proper name, than it must be followed by "ibn Abdullah". According to the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), Muhammad was never called by his proper name, but as Ibn Abdullah, Abul Qasim or Rasulullah. Also, his first Amir/Caliph, best friend and father-in-law, Abdullah, he called Abu Bakr (a nickname), and his second Amir/Caliph, Umar, he called Ibn al-Khattab - that is according to Ibn Hisham. To refer to a person simply as "Muhammad" would not only be inconsistent with the way he was called in the SIN but would also be considered totally rude and inappropriate according to the culture of the time. Therefore, a reference to "Muhammad' on its own MUST be a title and not a proper name.
In India, after Muhammad Ghori's conquest, he used the same coins with a hindu goddess and a bull. He just changed the name of ruler from "Prithvi Deva" to "Muhammad bin Sam". Rest everything was identical including the hindu images.
@Saisri Hc Exactly. Rulers could still do that and be Muslim. The fact that there were "Jesus" coins does not mean that Arab rulers in the late 7th century were not "real Muslims".
@@paulthomas281 If the historians are able to find the use of "Muhammad" among the non-trinitarian christians before the 7th century, then the evidence would be bullet proof that the Islamic "Muhammad" was just a fabrication.
@@saisrihc7139 Yes, if there were religious sects already using the term "Muhammad", then this would be a huge blow to the prophet of Islam as far as who he really was. However... we cannot exclude the possibility that a warlord preacher stole this name for himself. Muhammad (the preacher) was all about the apocalypse, the apocalypse and the apocalypse. I agree with Tom Holland's idea, that the religious prophet is a combination possibly of two individual figures, two "historical Muhammads".
@@saisrihc7139 However, proving that the 7th-century Arab rulers were non-trinitarian Christians is very difficult. These coins do not show the contemporaneity of that thesis: that late 7th-century rulers were non-trinitarian Christians or something else non-Islamic.
@JL not Muslim, but it could just be a title. We use title names a lot in Arabic. Abu Samir isn’t a name, it just means father of Samir. Abu Jeem would be my father, and my son would be Ibn Jeem. But neither of those are their real names
Too many info compacted in 3~4 minutes, you are a treasure Thomas Alexander , the last coin with muhamed on it from the west was spot on!! no doubt left !! Amazing job, thanks for sharing your wisdom with others sir!
excellent indeed Thomas!!!! Please keep us inform about your appearances in other channels, not only in Jays channel, but others (lectures, dialogs, interviews, etc) a big hug from Spain Jan Pahl Paparoni
I have spent many hours searching for any kind of reference to the MHMT coin with a cross on it found in 1947 in Palestine, mentioned at 3:00. Please Thomas or anyone else who has a reference to this coin, I would be very grateful
This can explain why at least some some narrations of an authentic hadith eerily resembles the miracle attributed to Jesus. "...Then [Muhammad] said, "Call another woman to help bake bread and let her take out from the cooking pot, but do not take it off the fire." There were about a thousand guests. All of them ate till they left the food and went off. Our pot still bubbled as before and the dough was being baked as before." (Riyad Al-Salihin 519)
From recent lexical analysis of the quranic text it appears that what is referred to as "muhammad" in the quran (which means "the praised one") is not a name but a title which refers to Jesus, as the prophet and messiah. So early muslims in the quran (not yet called muslims but "mumineen" ie. " believers") were in fact anti-trinitarian christians who accepted Jesus as revered prophet and messiah but rejected his divine nature (this is why in the quran Jesus is always called "Issa ibn Meryam" ie "Jesus son of Mary", but never "son of God")
And that doesnt make sense, because Muhammad and Isa bn mrym were 2 seperate entities in the Quran. And the man Muhammad has been called the "seal" of the prophets, i.e the last prophet.
@@alibrahym If you read the quran carefully you will notice that every time Muhammad or the prophet appears it can refer to Jesus, and this is quite obvious when you know that the origin of the texts come from the nazarenes (nasara in the quran) who were christian jews, like the apostles of Jesus. Of course this observation contradicts the standard islamic narrative (hadeeths etc) which was developped later during the 8th to 10th centuries, mainly during the abbassid period (starting 750 AD)
@@alibrahym Yes I know it can be difficult to accept because ... “It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain.
Mecca did not exist in the 7th century. This fact is: 1. Historically proven (no documents, no maps) 2. Logically proven (no water in mecca) 3. Factually proven (no remains, no ruins)
Most of the info in this video comes from Volker Popp. As for ibn al-Zubayr's coins, I did show one in the video itself. His his coins are fairly well known. In fact, if you look at his Wikipedia entry, you'll also see it.
@@gk-qf9hv The provincial coins of Abd Allah ibn Zubayr from outside Darabjird, state that he descended from the tribe of the Zupirãn (or more exact: “Znpylan”).
The quran is originally a christian lectionary used by the anti-trinitarian christians called nazarenes, they are called "nasara" (نَصَرَ) in the quran, while the trinitarian christians they hated are called "mushrikuns" (مشركون) ie "associators" or "polytheists" because they associate Jesus to God (which is "shirk" that opposes to Allah's unicity called "tawheed")
There is no prove that the Quran is from anti-trinitarian christian origin. Allah is saying that what the christians say is wrong, because what they do is disbelief. Even the christians who dont believe in the trinity are disbelievers, because they reject Muhammad.
That is due to the ambiguity of the defective Arabic script which was used for the earliest manuscripts, allowing for many different readings. Check out the first couple of videos in my "3 Minute Quran Study" series where I go into this. (I have created a playlist).
I typically don't watch random videos, but I did watch this one and I fail to see how it debunks anything...well, actually it does debunk something, but more on that later... It's not a debunking of my argument, it's a rationalisation of the evidence which requires one to accept the later traditions as true, which is precisely where my argument sets in. The later traditions written in the 9th century and onwards cannot be trusted. They are at odds with archaeological evidence, they are contradictory, they contain many biblical tropes and are generally very much legendary in nature. The video tells a plausible story of what could have happened if we assume the Islamic traditions of the 9th century to be true. Because I don't find those stories to be credible, I present an alternative story which makes sense of the same data, but which doesn't rely on later legendary accounts. So that's where you'd have to try and debunk me, you have to show how the Islamic traditions are true despite all the historic inconsistencies. Presupposing them to be true in order to come up with a rationalisation doesn't do anything. Oh, and by the way, even the rationalisation in the video you linked to debunks some of the Quranic claims of the text being unchanged and protected by God himself. The video shows that even based on the very few existing fragments of Quranic versions other than the Uthmanic codex, it can be shown that the Uthmanic text is different from the assumed original source in several places. In other words, it is corrupted, even if only a little bit. So well done for trying to debunk me by showing how the Uthmanic text is corrupted. Couldn't have done it better myself. I may reuse that bit of info for one of my future videos.
@@TAlexander Let me save you from wasting your time on the path of desperation which many people have taken , so it's better to be smart and spend time wisely looking at how to find faults with islam . I would advice you ,first learn Arabic and Arabic grammer and then indulge in any kind of researching about islam ,else you will just waste your time getting humilaited which is the case for most .. rational take you say ? Let me share you text by text refutation of the claims which would enlighten you to better understand islam and save you from embarassememt . ruclips.net/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/видео.html
@@TAlexander another one of brekeckers masterpiece debunking . Again learn Arabic and fundamentals of grammer . ruclips.net/video/MHm1LBBbhHg/видео.html
More and more people starting to talk about how "messenger of God" actually referred to Jesus rather than Muhammad. We are so early into demolishing islam in academia and they already have to do a lot of mental acrobatics to explain certain thories. Can't wait what they world will bring in next 10-20 years.
Muhammad was the name of an Arabian prophet whose followers conquered Persia. They used the design of existing Persian coinage with the image of Khusrow II on the face, and a Zoroastrian fire temple with attendants on the reverse, but from 651CE added Islamic script such as 'bismillah' and later the name of the caliph in Arabic, such as 'Muwayiha, Commander of the Believers'. Yazid's rival Abdullah b al-Zubayr also issued Persian coinage, a silver dirham c682CE with the inscription in Arabic, 'Abdullah b. Zubayr Commander of the Believers.' In the same way, the Muslims continued the use of Byzantine coinage with the image of the emperor, but with Arabic script 'tayyib' (pure), etc, gradually adapting the images to remove any signs of the cross until in 694 Abd al-Malik produced his famous gold and copper coins known as The Standing Caliph series, in which he is depicted in Arab dress, with full beard and sword in scabbard, with the inscription La ilah illa Allah on the right, and Muhammad Rasulallah on the left. On the reverse, the Christian cross has been truncated to a mere pole with rounded top, representing the final victory of Islam over Christianity. 😁
Fun Fact : The search for historicity of Muhammad is desperately scoured through by Muslims in the only available 7th century account of Sebeos, and coins found nowhere in Arabian peninsula but in Iraq and Persia that literally debunk their standard islamic narrative about the mythical legends associated to this particular person named muhammad, as the Muhammad Sebeos describes is from Tachekestan just a little down south of Armenia as per him, Sebeos's home country while Muhammad Muslims today simultaneously worship as a God and revere as a Prophet while denying the former act is supposed to be from Arabian Peninsula. Numismatic evidence gathered from Syria traced back to Muaviyya has cross carved in it, but that's just the start, the Dome Of Rock's Shahada as well as the drastic similarity of legends found in Heretical Christian sects, Judaism, Persian Cults such as Manichaeism and Qur'an strongly hints at the possibility of Qur'an being derived from these above mentioned sources, doctored and edited as per their convenience throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, while Muhammad was merely a title given to Jesus himself by the Aramaic speaking Nazarene Christians, which leaves Muslims with no option other than resorting to lie about the evidence since it's out and can't be hidden and to go through mental gymnastics in order to somehow pretend that they have made sense of all of it and that they can explain it all, this is where they confuse the questioner when he brings up the topic by bringing Unga Bunga Islamic Laws and So on that have nothing to do whatsoever with the original Syrian Islam that started out in 7th Century described by Sebeos
Thank you Thomas, your clear and well researched work is an inspiration and will, I sincerely hope, help to bring about the downfall of Islam, this totally false and shamefully evil cult.
The copper coins don’t have dates but there are estimates by experts. The one with the cross was in use no earlier than 686, the one with the fish is also dated to around the time of Abd al-Malik.
Thanks bro ! Incredible stuff ! Human faces on the coins is undeniable proof that Islam did not exist in the 7th century and most of all the CROSS , that muslims hate, which The Islam Jesus will destroy when he comes back ! This is so damaging and debunks Islam history snd theology !!!!
Thomas, I am not sure you are aware or not but recently (see book titled Arab-Byzantine coins, 2010) the Arab Byzantine coin with long cross and Muhammad on the obverse has been dated to 647-58 by Clive Foss. So the claim that name Muhammad first appeared in the east is questionable.
Patricia and Robert had views based on the information available at the time. New research and new information now show their views to be out of alignment with current research.
I'd argue that if there was a real person at the root of the "Prophet Muhammad", he'd be virtually unrecognisable from the descriptions we have, including the name. Maybe the Prophet Muhammad is an amalgamation of multiple historical people, maybe he's based upon one individual preacher who was later spun into a prophet, maybe he didn't exist at all. Either way, the Prophet as we think about him likely didn't exist. There had to have been at least one preacher, possibly more, who proselytised the Arabs. I believe that a lot of the later stories about Muhammad were mapped upon this(these) preacher(s), who could have been active as early as 550 AD, probably no later than 600 AD. But that wouldn't necessarily make a preacher "Muhammad", as nothing written in the biographies would apply to this preacher. He'd only be a canvas onto which Muhammad could be projected.
@@alonzoharris6730 Then Mr Hoyland can update his views. And so can you! That's what academics do, Alonzo. Only dogmatic individuals cling to outdated concepts. Your views on Islam are equivalent to believing that the Earth is flat!
@@angusmcfarlane1225 Hoyland doesn't make these non academic foolish claims you make. You are dogmatic. You claim that Mohamed on coins is Jesus which is ridiculous. You like historical evidence right? Can you show me any contemporary Aramaic 7th century Christian that says Mohamed on the coins is Jesus? These foolish claim only started in the 19th century by Christian deceptive missionaries.
Also there is a generation of "Doctor" this and that who work at Universities out and about on the lecture circiuits - at least one Phd was awarded with a committee made up by the great King. Dr. Monica Ruis from Spain is wrote a paper for Quibla directions for Spanish sites. An example of endogamy in supposedly academic circles? She could have done the fieldwork herself just on 3-5 sites in Spain. There is a plethora of deeply uncurious researchers at universities. That is why the debate must carry through to "Academic" circles. Early Islam is a hot topic too important for the majority of "Islamic Studies" departments at what pass for 'Universities' today. Financed with petrodollars...
Thomas, have you ever addressed the references to “Mhmt” and such in the 7th century that Hoyland cites (he thinks it was a historical person Muhammad)?
Weren't these coins just Byzantine/sassanian coins at the beginning with some Arabic writing. I'm talking about the coin with the cross and Muhammad. Maybe they just still didn't have their own coin designs so they just wrote Muhammad on an older Byzantine design
I'd like to know who and how they dated these coins. If we can find coins with the title on them reliably dated before the mythical Muhammad was supposed to have been born even, then the myth is dead.
This is not evidence that the prophet did not exist at the time. But the coins were not made in his time and is as well-known, there were Christians and Jews living in the Arabian Peninsula.
Not proof but it is very odd that almost nothing is mentioned about Muhammed for seventy years but they’re still discovering his words and deeds 200-300 years later……… in Uzbekistan. Meanwhile someone else entirely is referred to as Muhammed on official coinage.
Thomas, you should show a picture of the coin-type (the last you mention in this video) where the moons and stars have been replaced with crosses! Or else we just have to take your word for it. Pictures are simply better evidence than words!
Why weren't there any crosses on those coins with the supposed title of Jesus on them? And why wasn't Jesus's name used instead of a title? As you said a name was usually put on a coin, not the title of the king.
He did not. Muhammad was used as a title for Jesus and a group of anti-Trinitarian Christian Arabs that created Arabian Empire used the title for Jesus for a fictional religious leader who lived in the Arabian Peninsula
Sure "Muhammad" can be used as a title, maybe a title for Jesus, so for "Abd allah", but then we can also use these titles for Moses, Lot, Abraham, ishmael, isaac, Adam and whatnot. The Quran also seperates Jesus and Muhammad as being 2 different entities. In the Quran there is not a single mention of Jesus being Muhammad. I think its not sense making to say that because Jesus had a title like "Muhammad" or similar to Muhammad, doesnt mean it falsifies the existence of the Muhammad who was there in the 7th century. The Muhammad we are referring to is محمد بن عبد الله (سبحانه وتعالى), "Muhammad son of the slave of God", so this cannot be applied to Jesus, because according to christianity, Jesus' father was God and according to islamic theology, Jesus was born without a father. Also i want to say that "Muhammad" isnt necessarely a title, because before Muhammad, there were times when parents heard that there would arrive someone whose name will be "Muhammad" and be the prophet of God, so these parents gave their child that name. So then there were other Muhammads, who never claimed to be prophets or whatnot.
Hi Thomas, as usual, a few "challenges": *Theory* محمد is _only_ a title/gerundial and is used to describe Jesus. *Objection 1* : This implies that when it stands alone it is meaningless. It's just saying "praise be to ..." (whom?). It would make more sense if it were المحمد (the praised one, using the "al" definite article). Otherwise the Arabic is very awkward. Why don't we see this? We only see it being used without a definite article, which hints at it being used as a name. Moreover if it were a title, why don't we see it *clearly* being used in any other document, especially early Christians in the east region and up to today? No one ever kept that tradition? All simply diverged or brainwashed into using it as a name suddenly during the Umayyads' rule? *Objection 2* : Even if we see the (presumably) name Muhammad next to crosses or fishes, one can argue that it was just a transitional period as clearly documented in the countless other coins. Christian or *not* (Zoroastrian). The early Caliphs (main narrative) were reluctant to do radical changes and disrupt the state of the newly conquered nations. So they even kept using Greek (Persian for the east) for their state communication until Abd al Malik, and kept the coins because people wouldn't accept anything else. So they simply added minor modifications first, imposing the name of Muhammad or any Arabic inscription to just show that they're in power and they might be staying for long. Once that was clear, they eventually removed all previous symbols and we can see this being experimented with actually: when Abd al Malik first minted his coin, Muslims did not feel it is acceptable because it had him, the Caliph, in image, that's why this only went for three years and then a reform to only textual coins was made. Isn't this a plausible narrative? More plausible than the one proposed here: Muhammad was a title, people understood it but somehow it did not survive to us in any form, and all sources, Islamic or not state that it was a man, eventually the "caliph" succeeded in brainwashing multiple nation states to believe that no, Muhammad was actually a man and not a title to Jesus, and he forged a whole religion out of this. In my humble opinion, as far as I can see, I believe that when we put all these new mini-theories together, it'd fail to form a coherent narrative. We only have a few very narrow-looking theories that are wildly divergent, and I hope that changes with time, otherwise we'll just end up with chaos. Nonetheless, it's a good academic exercise and we might learn a few things along the way. *Side note* , I'd really like to get some references about the coins being discussed here. Would be nice to look at some high resolution pictures or general commentary. Could you please provide this? At least for the first coin. Moreover how it was determined to be minted at ~650 AD?
1) I simplified things a little for the video. The word "Muhammad" never appears without context. The coin with the Fish for example also has "rasul Allah", the square coin has "bismillah", so one would read it "praised be the messenger of God" or "let him be praised in the name of Allah" 2) The "transitional phase" theory certainly is plausible, but there are also arguments against it. For one, I'm not aware of anything comparable. Coins are the premier method of propaganda at the time. It's hard to believe that a new ruling power which controls a major empire no less would continue to use the propaganda of its enemies. Certainly by the time of Mu'awiya, we're looking at a major empire which had the Byzantines as its main rival. If Islam existed by then, it would be virtually inconceivable for the coins to continue using Christian symbols. Also, it's one thing to continue using existing moulds as in Persia, it's quite a different thing to design new moulds from scratch and adding the symbols of the enemy. Lastly, even if Mu'awiya wasn't too concerned about these things (which I doubt), then we know that Abd al-Malik was very much concerned with religion and cultural unity. He clearly showed with his policies that he wanted to unite his empire under his religion. Why would he have coins designed that counteract this? 3) The so called standing caliph is in my opinion in actual fact an eschatological image. Many variants are even depicted with a flaming sword. As such it's supposed to be Jesus as the judge at the end of days which would align with the general apocalyptic mood in the late 7th century and the belief of the end times being imminent. The building of the Dome of the Rock (as the new temple of Solomon) also fits into this picture. But Jesus didn't return which then caused the religion to evolve.
@@TAlexander Thanks for answering. 1) In the square one the phrase would be "bismillah muhammad(un)" or "muhammad(un) bismillah". In both instances, the Arabic makes no sense and is lacking in grammatical structure. Could you please elaborate how this is a valid Arabic structure? Moreover "muhammad(un) rassul allah" makes perfect sense as "Muhammad is the Messenger of God" the verb "be/is" in Arabic is not needed. But if we entertain that it's a gerundial, "muhammad(un) rassul allah" becomes awkward Arabic where the gerundial comes first in the sentence. In English, this is fine, but in Arabic, I haven't heard of such a structure and is certainly triggering my meter as a native Arabic speaker. Could you try to provide counter-examples of such a structure, I would stand corrected. 2) But we see the same in India centuries later, the Muslim conquests still left Hindu symbols (literally a Goddess image). The main narrative at least for the early conquests is that the Arabs were really out of touch with civilization, they didn't know how to rule and it took them some time to get a grasp of it. So they kept everything intact, including the language of the states as Greek and Persian along with the original scribes. I think it's still plausible. We lack full historical context here and we're just constructing narratives. 3) Why was the coinage reformed to remove all images and icons then? The main narrative makes perfect sense. Arabs were fine living among the Christians and Jews and using stable Byzantine style coins, with time they got more powerful and at a point it was clear they're staying for long so they changed the coins, but the "believers" did not approve of the images. But again, no hard proofs, just constructed narratives. Wouldn't dwell much on it. Could you please provide references for the ~650 AD coins? I'm intrigued.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 Re 1&2, as I said, your story is plausible, but while MHMT certainly CAN be read as a name, I think it makes more sense to read it as "praised be" for the reasons given and due to the larger context. As for 3, there certainly was a theological shift going on. The fact that Jesus didn't return may have played a role. Volker Popp thinks that by putting Jesus, the servant of God, on the coins, Abd al-Malik removed himself one step too far from the divine power for the sensitivities of his Persian subjects, who were used to a more direct relationship. Sort of claiming legitimacy by bering the servant to the servant of God. What seems implausible is the fact that putting himself on the coin would be a problem. We see Arab rulers on coins from day one. So he wouldn't have stepped over any lines by putting himself on a coin as well. Regarding references, here are a few: - In his Table of Arab-Sassanian coinage, Heinz Gaube mentions six attestations of dirhems of the year 20 from different mints. See: Heinz Gaube, Arabosasanidische Münzprägung, Fold-out with table. - See also: J. Walker, Catalogue L, p. 3-4 and xxxv.-xxxvi. There a discussion concerning the dating according to the traditional Islamological view. - For coinage of the year 20 of the mint Sakastan see also: Stephen Album, Tony Goodwin, The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period, Oxford 2002, PI.25, Nos.353-357.
*A for Allah, ( अ से अल्लाह) what ever is your language with the first alphabet you get Allah, First word every child( just born) utters is Allah. check your self, more healthy child more clear it sounds Every child sleeps in mother's womb depicting the Arabic word Muhammad, (محمد as shown in profile photo) this is how word becomes flesh as mentioned in Bible. (Hundreds of year before the birth of prophet Muhammad Vedas, Bible, Buddha predicted about the truth of Muhammad/Ahmed by name). _No one can go against nature, things supported by nature has natural growth_ *Common teachings of all religions* 1.Don't worship idols /created things 2.God is one, not variable, unique by all means, our mind can't encompass his greatness. 3. God is above all pure and clean, free from basic instincts, Free from the process of birth, death and reappearance. 4.Belief in one creator and the real message of all prophets(Adam, people who taught Vedas,ram,krishna Gautam Buddha, Moses,Jesus, and Muhammad) and their books, is islam. All the prophets fallowed fundamental Islam. Plz check Vedas every hindu should read Vedas and in Bible christian brother read those statements which Jesus said not the views of others like Paul, mattews...... *complete Islam is the fruit of the tree, religion.*(fruit comes last and has all essence of tree). *Unifying factor* Quran says oh people of book(Vedas,puranas,Torah,Bible and Qur'an)come to common terms, that God is one and we worship one God. Prophet Muhammad said: Those who believe in one God will enter heaven. Islam came to rebuild desorted image of all prophets. Jews are enemies of Jesus, Christians have n number of theories about jesus,. Similarly ramji is hero and God for some and for others ravan is hero. -------------------------------------- *Unique property of Islam:* more you compress islam more Islam will spread. When Mongols destroyed Muslims completely, the same Mongols spread Islam. During imperialism only 1or 2 countries were under Muslim control but Islam spread at a rate of 200%, Before imperialism no mosque were there in USA,UK,France, Germany and Australia now you can't count. Now Belgium, Netherlands ,Russia(30% + muslims) and Spain is getting influenced by islam A dog and pig gives birth to 10 twice a year, A goat gives birth to only 2 once in a year and are sacrificed(halal) in millions daily, But the population of goat is more because of halal. It has become fashion for Hindu scholars(idiots like pushpendras, aryas, dummy ex Muslims and dummy athiest) to fool andhbakths by copying failed and defeated Christian scholars, to gain cheap popularity. (Conduct dummy debates). Christians of gulf and Pakistan(having Arabic names) who are fluent in Urdu and Arabic knows that they can't criticise Islam as Christians (a rejected and defeated group), so they disguise as atheist or ex Muslims but again they will fail. In olden days girls use to develop fast they use to get married at early age, for example take the case of Asha bhosle world famous Indian singer she became mother at the age of 13 there are many such cases, just 50 years back it was legal in America to marry a girl of 11. In the case of prophet Muhammad marriage to Aisa, she was married at 9/6 and started living with prophet Muhammad after three years at the age of 12/9(this was mentioned by Aisa and her close relatives) But most people who saw here gives her age as above 18, In the year when she started leaving with prophet Muhammad there was war, in which people say a grown up women nursing wounded soldiers and carrying water leather bags ( even grown up boys finds it difficult to carry) it was aisa. Muhammad had appearance of young man till his last days, he felt sick to be an example for fallowers. Whoever were in proximity of Muhammad were elevated, His fallowers were ordinary farmers,labourers, slaves (who don't know how to hold swords) became great soldiers to defeat 2 super powers Romans and Byzantines(well trained army, well protected). Muhammad had power of 40 persons as per one source and 70 from other source, when ever in war Muslims were on back foot he single handedly changed the complexion of war. So who ever were in proximity of prophet Muhammad were elevated physically/Mentally, Mother aisa was elevated both physically and mentally, everything he did was miracle and is part of history. Except one all his wives were widows with many having children's and grand childrens, every marriage had selfless positive reason. Let me mention you some cases of the marriage. It was decided that after war is won, if any one guarantees about the prisoner ( he should be relative )of war, prisoners will be released, It so happened clans(group of prisoners of Kabilas) who were relatives of Muslims were released, One clan had no relatives, in that clan they were many young unmarried ladies also, but prophet Muhammad sent a message to marry a woman who was above 50 even she had problem she was unable to stand properly, after marriage the clan became relatives of prophet Muhammad ( conditions fulfilled) they were released. In other case one of his wife was soo short people use to make fun of her, In another case he married daughter of dacoit(who was untraceable) as a result he stopped troubling people, In another case he married hafsa she was short tempered and angry women, his father Omer was also very angry man no one was willling to marry her, so prophet married *_Answer to alligator_* He (alligator)is liar the words (beta hae ya beti) is not in Qur'an, Quran says what is in the womb no one knows, (Means what he will be,) Even if medical science by imaging say it is boy. In many cases the report was male but Having Pennis is not guarantee of male, later it was found that it was enuch. *_Answer to alligator_* Qur'an never says earth is static, It is says mountains are use to keep the mass of earth intact, When you speak about something reference (normal) is essential, without normal you can't define abnormal, Then why we have theory of relativity. It depends how you are describe earth 1. With reference to it's content(human beings and other things) 2. With reference to other planets and sun 3. With reference to galaxy even sun is moving. 4.quran never says earth is flat, it says we have spread the earth for the convenience of living beings. 5.Islam implemented things phase wise(phase I,phase II,phase III_ _ _) For example alchohol first it was declared bad in phase I then in phase II it was made haram. Similarly in phase 1 temporary marriages and keeps were allowed then in phase II they were made haram. 6.marriage in Islam is contract, contract to live together, to become parents . _What is halala_ A women is eligible(halal) to marry the person (first husband, who has divorced her), if she marries other person with an intention of living together, with an intention of becoming parents but due to some unavoidable circumstances they are divorced or her second husband dies then she can Marry her first husband. It is like restriction, women is not pendulum to marry then divorce, marry then divorce At will. 6.One should keep in mind to understand islam, it is a religion for all times and conditions a) when things are normal you have to consume halal(legal) things. b) when things are not normal to survive you can consume any thing. 7.In early stages in madina criminals were punished as per thier religion it was an agreement. 8.When it comes to slavery, Unlike other religion in Islam it is 24 hours job, master has to provide same food, clothing which he prefers should share the burden of slave, if he becomes self sufficient and intellectual free him, If he is able person make him king( example slave dynasty of India & Egypt) Or make him son in law/ brother in law, 9.Unlike other religion where the leader is unreachable, fancy object. Muhammad is prophet with all the ingredients of human being. Muhammad is abd(human being) and rasool(prophet). He gets angry,he jokes,he plays,he talks to fallowers on any topic. So hadith are just data book, a collection of events,sayings,things his fallowers saw during the days of prophet Muhammad so on. There are many things in hadith which were for time being. There are millions of hadith out of millions of Hadith enemies take few out of context (very less then 100) to give negative comments. When prophet Muhammad says something, we have to see how sahaba reacted for this we have fiqa. We should know the background of every hadith a)why it was said. b)to whom c)was he joking d)was it time being e)was he angry with particular person to whom he said d) was it for the particular person/general there are many such things for that we have fiqah. 10. Quran never says 72hoors will be given at a time and thier life span will not be long where as the lifespan for muslim in other world is almost infinite. But the reality is 72 hoors are only stimulation, Qur'an says you will get 72 hoors , refined drinks and gardens then continues to say actually you will get something which is out of your imagination. Quran even says elevated people will prefer proximity to allah then other gifts. For scoundrels women means only sex object so they can't digest the concept of hoor 11.some fools say thier is nothing for woman in jannat. Womens will also go to jannat. They should know Allah is Al Hakam(dispenser of full justice to one and all) Every one knows that a woman loves to get a secret gifts, if it is much better then what she imagined then thier is no bond to her happiness. 12.When quran says allah is unique it means Allah is unique in all terms, Allah can't be compared. Terms like Allah's hand, soul,noor(light) are only symbolic. There is no example of Allah so humans can't imagine his pattern. Allah is above all, Above any thing you see or imagine
May you find peace on your path. I did read your article and see that you are well programmed. You are rooted in your religion but even you can flower spiritually with more dialog, study and an open mind.
Lieber Thomas Bitte schaust du dich an, wie Jesus auf Syrisch geschrieben ist. Auf diesen Münzen ist Syrisch geschrieben. Gehts du zu Wikipedia und suchet du "Syriac language" aud Englisch, oder kontaktierst du mich bitte und ich werde dir helfen. Das wird das Rätsel lösen. Machs guest!
msg for muslims " this guy is making fales claims because even cristians scholars adimts that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was indeed a great person and quran has many scientific facts miracle of quran is that no other book can be memorized word by word like quran and recition of quran is most beautiful sound on earth"
Of course archeologists will find some of those coins in the near future. THE STONES AND COINS WILL PROVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS MOHAMMAD, THE PRAISED ONE. Jesus Christ said in Luke 19:40, (YLT). 40 `I say to you, that, if these shall be silent, the stones will cry out!' . JESUS CHRIST IS THE BLESSED ONE (MHMD = MOHAMAD, Psalms 118:26 (YLT). "Blessed [is] HE who is coming In the name of Jehovah, We blessed you from the house of Jehovah,"
So if Mohamed an Abdullah were names for Jesus, wouldn't they have been so before the 7th century (659 AD)? Why would they have waited until then to be introduced, as the languages were old and Jesus died in 33 AD?
"Abdallah" literally means "servant of God" which is a very common and very old title for Jesus, particularly in Eastern Christianity, going back to the first century AD, even appearing in the NT. Muhammad is a translation of "Benedictus" which has also been applied to Jesus in the Bible itself. But it never became a common title in Western Christianity. It seems to emerge with the Christian sect of which Abd al-Malik was a member. But maybe it wasn't even that important. It could literally have been used the way "Benedictus" has been used in the Latin Church as "blessed be" without an automatic connection to Jesus, though I would lean towards it being understood in connection to Jesus.
@@TAlexander excuse me Thomas, I think your conclusion is too premature, I do not defend Islam, from an academic perspective, there is no evidence in the early pre-Islamic centuries, in the Arabian Peninsula Jesus had the title Muhammad or the praiseworthy one or abdallah..
@@thecure7880 Well, there are pretty much no written Arab records of anything pre Islam. But we do know that “servant of God” was a popular title for Jesus in Eastern Christianity and we do know that Aramaic speaking Christians are attested to in the Arabian peninsula, going as far as Oman where we know of a Monastery, but we also know of Christians in the Hejaz, which all but proves that the title was known in Arabia. But since I argue that the religion originated in Eastern Persia, all of that doesn’t matter anyway. In Persia we had a strong Nestorian church. In fact, the country was on the verge of being Christianised by the 7th century. Only the support of the ruling Sassanians prevented Zoroastrianism from collapsing. As soon as they were gone, so was Zoroastrianism (more or less).
@@meusisto Well, there are of course the coins. But apart from that, the Dome of the Rock is the first instance of the phrase "muhammad(un) 'abd(u) llah(i) wa-rasuluh(u)", but certainly not the last. It is attested to countless times in many different places, in texts, inscriptions and on coins. The Dome of the Rock inscription makes it particularly clear that it is Jesus who is being talked about, but all the other (early) instances of this phrase also support it. This only changes some time around the middle of the 8th century.
As I am not from the religion of modern islam - I have no interest in whether Jesus was or was not titled "Mohammed" or whether this is a name or a title. But a little research brings your entire effort & theory to nill/zilch/naught/ridiculous when you try to prove that the Koran is a christian text or that "mohammed" is a title for Jesus - this is because the koran itself in its chapter 42, verse 13, 42:13, mentions Noah, Moses, Jesus in the same verse alongside obviously and implicitly referring to mohammed i.e. "and what we revealed to you" - a revelation only comes to a prophet or messenger in the biblical tradition so an argument saying "well it could just be referring to believers at large" also does not hold any water or reasonable merit. The koran may well be written in syriac / syro aramaic or a mixture of it and arabic but that does not mean it is a christian text or that mohammed is a title for Jesus. Moreover - there is also no evidence that mohammed is a syriac name or title - it is still recognized as an arabic origin name meaning the "praised one" not "praised be". There is no direct name or phrase "mohammed" in Syriac / syro aramaic that translates to "praised be". In Syriac / Syro Aramaic - "praised be" would be "ḥamda bī" Furthermore in Koran's chapter 33:40, it clearly says that mohammed is not the father of any of your men but he is the messenger of God - this clearly and without question identifies mohammed as a distinct messenger entity of God. The Koran may well have several aramaic phrases and expressions as the arabic language was in its infancy - i.e. a mix of syro aramaic and arabic was spoken, but it does not satisfy any of your theories about mohammed being a title for Jesus or that the koran is a non trinitarian christian sect text. It is a scripture written down by mohammed who identifies as a prophet and the scripture claims to confirm the gospels and the torah.
It is my belief that Prophet Mohammed, the man from Medina, was Christian. I think he thought of himself as a Christian probably all his life, in a similar way that Jesus though of himself as a Jew all his life. I believe Mohammed from Medina accepted an existing form of Christianity, the one that focuses on Jesus as a human being (no virgin births etc), as a young man. Then he, or his followers, went on to compile a brief (in comparison to the much longer New Testament and Torah) summary of what he (Mohammed) saw as the most important messages to get across to the Arabic speaking people when conquering and converting them to this (then new in the Arabic peninsula) Judeo-Christian monotheistic faith, and named it the Qur'an. Hence the "Ash hadou, I confirm, that there is only One God...and that Mohammed (=Christ, according to your video?) is his prophet." Mohammed from Medina, or the persons who created this rather disorderly compilation, translated the original texts from Aramaic and Jewish. That is why there are a lot of Aramaic and Jewish words in the Qur'an, the words that are never used anywhere else in the Arabic speaking world. He named the people who refuse to believe that Jesus is their Savior - Disbelievers. There is no single mention of "Islam" or "Muslim, Muslims" in the Qur'an. These terms were created at least one or two centuries later. These coins are another proof of what I said. Muhammad from Medina was a maverick, agressive, (pseudo-) Christian leader. His later followers definitely branched off of the rest of the Christian world and continued calling their conquered territories the territories of the "subdued", i.e. the Muslims. The reason why the existing neighboring Christian countries in the Middle East did not intervene to stop the spread of Mohammed's army and its beliefs for at least one or two entire centuries was - because they thought that these guys (Mohammedans) were spreading - Christianity.
These Jesus coins literally prove nothing. The Ghori Empire also used coins with Hindu symbols casted on, some even containing the Arabic phrase لا اله الا الله محمد الرسول الله. Does that mean the Muslims of the Ghori Empire were originally Hindu? No. Also Muhammad being a Christian is, by your own admission, just your own speculation. There were Christians that lived around Mecca at the time of Muhammad, some even in Medina. The idea that they only caught on that Muhammad and his followers weren’t actually preaching/spreading Christianity over 2 centuries later is not realistic. And the words “Islam” and “Muslim” are definitely mentioned in the Quran, in many surahs. Just two examples- إِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمُ _“Certainly, Allah’s only Way is _*_Islam._*_ ”_ (3:19) قُولُوٓا۟ ءَامَنَّا بِٱللَّهِ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَىٰٓ إِبْرَٰهِـۧمَ وَإِسْمَـٰعِيلَ وَإِسْحَـٰقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَٱلْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَآ أُوتِىَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَمَآ أُوتِىَ ٱلنَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍۢ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُۥ مُسْلِمُونَ “Say, [O believers], ‘We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants [al-Asbāṭ] and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are *Muslims* [in submission] to Him.” (Quran 2:136) I suggest you research Islam with an open-mind and instead of only listening to its enemies who only speculate-cooking up the wildest, most far-fetched explanations just to escape the possibility that the standard narrative-which is much simpler and attested to by western secular academics (except the God part)- is actually true. That Muhammad was a messenger of God, and the Quran was revealed to him and he conveyed it to others. The Quran literally could not have been authored by men. Its a divine, unique literary work that has no equal. Have a listen-m.ruclips.net/video/EqAVOHrYUfI/видео.html May your Lord guide you.
@@lightofilm6228 Thank you. You, too, try to approach Islam with an open mind. I know it's hard when you grew up with it all around you, but try looking at it as if you were a scientist who is exploring it for the first time. As for Qur'an, if it was written with ink on pieces of paper, then it was written by a human hand, with a human mind directing the hand. And let us not forget that all human brains are prone to making poor judgement and making mistakes, as well as all human brains are inclined to trying to influence other humans through words. Writing a book was very very expensive at the time. Whoever wrote a book then, had to have a profitable goal in mind. That applies to the Torah, Talmud, Bible, Qur'an, Hindu Vedas, Ancient Greek philosophers, all ancient scriptures.
@@miovicdina7706 your above alternative narrative is pure speculation and contradicts many accounts. I really don't mean this as an offense. You seem quite unfamiliar with the Islamic narrative. I invite you to read about it with an open mind and see if it's coherent or convincing and judge for yourself. The speculation you made above is not much different from the speculations in these videos. They claim to be based on "hard evidence" but it's just to claim to be scientific. In reality it's a noncoherent narrative and contradicting many facts. I don't want to argue or prove anything, I just want you to have an open and unbiased mind while approaching this.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 It isn't incoherent at all. On the contrary. But it is incoherent with the Islamic narrative, which seems to be the only narrative you have ever been exposed to, so you're experiencing difficulty opening your mind to a different possibility. My "pure speculation" is based on the lectures given by Harvard and Yale and Oxford university professors of the Early Islamic History decades ago. They have been posted on RUclips years ago. Try and find them. As for me, I read the Qur'an two times from start to finish, then read the parts from Sahih al-Bukhari, and I have reached my conclusions.
@@miovicdina7706 for example saying that every religious book is written for a materialistic gain/reason is just a bad assumption and a bias to start with while researching such a topic. You're influenced or biased by scientific materialism and that every one just cares about their own physical gains، but clearly there's more to religion that that. So if you start with that in mind, you're only going to get to wrong conclusions, and it's gonna be harder for you to understand the narratives being put forward. Best wishes!
Interesting 🤔 but not all correct ! This does not account for the descendants of “ Muhammad “ , his family lives on ! Muhammad was a person , not Jesus . Maybe Muhammad is a title ( we think so ) but we think there was a person as well .
True Mohammed had children and the chism of islam is in who was the rightful successors of his the shiite and the sunnie one is based upon his genealogy the other is based upon the most holy Follower. Now you have one group awaiting the 12th imman to appear
Easier to change genealogy if when you’re writing the propaganda, you backdate it many decades and move the origin story from Jerusalem to the middle of nowhere 800 miles south. (Surah 80: We pour rain down in abundance and split the earth open for sprouts….. as well as grapes, greens, olives and palm trees). This is not a description of the Hejaz.
@@donquixote3927 Sura 80 It talks about mankind in general and how “ Allah “ sends down rain and plants grow , Nothing mentioned about where , everywhere, You need to read the whole chapter and not just “” 3 verses out of it . Sura 80, عبس آية 25-
If God is 3 in 1 he could also be 4 in 1. Why wouldn't he be able to do this? Since he can divide himself in 3 he could also divide himself in 4 or 5 or 10 or 1million. Then you would believe in the million god. We can start calling you hindus now since they believe in millions of gods but still believe they are monotheists and all those millions are still inferior to the 1 supreme God.
why not see this as who is the conquerer and win they will in charge of information and vital facility. this world is full of fabrication made by the winner who wanted to be seen what they did was correct and accepted.
It is just like Potter praising his own pot this is maketing undertaken at the behest of colonial minded european funny after 1400 years some idle person is speaking nonsense under intoxication
for centuries Christians failed to explain the puzzle of Trinity (1/3+1/3+1/3=1, fractional,fragmented,fractured and fermented God) . Now they will take centuries to solve this puzzle I will give you concept of God of Christianity, in Christianity father is God, Jesus.2 is God both are same, Bible clearly says Jesus.2 is begotten son means biological son(child born after sex), So Jesus as father had sex with mary.2 then enters her womb to become son, he had sex with future mother, This is barbarism at the highest level. According to Bible jesus.2 is mother abuser, Oh he is also mother rapist. ( Mary.2 and jesus.2 are imaginary figures in filthy minds of Christians) Dirtiest god: according to holy bible, Malachi 2:3 and Ezekiel 4:12 Jesus.2 collects fresh human stool and makes ball type cakes of dung of fresh human stools. Speaking on circumcision Paul compares the whole teaching of jesus.2 with dirty skin of pennies. Paul says if you circumcised you have to fallow teachings of jesus.2 Through out bible jesus.2 keeps saying I am son of God when fallowers demand to show god, jesus.2 takes uturn declares himself god it is the filthiest forgery. Jesus.2 is imaginary varying personality in the dirty mind of christians. According to Bible Matthew 7:22 and 7:23, a Christian performing black magic(by calling it miracle and by calling Jesus as god). Is evil doer. God of murderers: Christians have murdered more people . "Who started the first world war? Not Muslims!! Who started the second world war? Not Muslims!! Who killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust ? Not Muslims. Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? Not Muslims!! Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not Muslims!! Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Not Muslims!! Who killed more than 50 million of Indians in south America? Not Muslims!! Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown overboard into Atlantic ocean? Not Muslims!! No, NOT Muslims!! First of all, You will have to define terrorism properly. If a non-Muslim does something bad. It is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same. He is a Terrorist. So first remove this double standards. Then come to the point. I am proud to be a MUSLIm
Ugh, you forget the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Water, ice and steam are one, just in three different states defined by temperature. I'm not a not a Christian, but please don't misrepent anyone's faith. Peace on your path!
Video makes no sense whatsoever! If Mohammad pbuh was Jesus pbuh or if Jesus claimed to be Mohammad pbuh then there would be a separate chapter in the Quran literally for Jesus where it is written how he was saved from being crucified and was raised to the heavens (still alive). Plus Quran says several times that prophet Mohammad specifically the last messenger and the Quran directly ‘talks’ to prophet Mohammad while Jesus (Isa) is referred to Im third person. These coins don’t prove anything. If you knew the history of the crescent symbol you would know it was accepted as an ‘Islamic’ symbol during the Ottoman Empire (post Mohammad pbuh) and actually had pagan origins originally which is identified in the Quran as the sun god moon god even then what about the ppl connected to prophet Mohammad pbuh his wives, companions cousins other caliphs etc his lineage can be traced till this day through his daughter zainab…graves of his dead grave HIS grave graves of his wives…like there’s so many things you don’t consider…Why would Jesus talk about himself in only one chapter? Even if you read the Quranic stories they may be slight differences compared to the biblical stories…why would ‘Jesus’ pbuh reinvent these stories…these coins prove nothing…
@Noor Kuran directly ‘talks’ to prophet Mo? That is the way it has been made to appear by the translators. The Arabic Kuran is very different from the English translations.
Somebody wrote a comment, asking for a reference to the coins from Merv which have crosses instead of crescent moons. I wanted to pin the comment but unfortunately removed it by accident. So here's the reference:
It's described in a standard work on Arabo-Sasanian coins:
Gaube, Heinz. Arabosasanidische Numismatik. Braunschweig, 1973., p.12:
Quote: “We see a similar and quite curious alteration of a crescent moon (F) into a cross on a series of coins minted by Salm b. Ziyad of Merv and bearing the year 63. H. This is an important detail, because it can hardly be accepted that a cross was inscribed onto coins minted in the time of the Islamic conquests and in a city with a population that was in large proportion Christian simply ‘by accident.’”
Okay but are there actual photos of these coins so that we can confirm that these actually existed?
Pictures would be great
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any pictures. Pre-digital numismatic catalogues typically only have very few pictures. But these coins have been catalogued by numismaticians which is more verification than an image which can always be doctored.
@@TAlexander true
@@TAlexander okay do you maybe have a list of catalogues where these specific coins are referenced? Because one book by only one man without any pictures, while there are plenty of pictures of coins without the cross… is kinda not enough…
Numismatic evidence can be quite compelling...the coins tell a story.Your videos are PURE GOLD...keep them coming.Thanks a ton.
There are thousands of Islamic dated coins issued by named caliphs pictured on the internet and annotated and described by coin experts, but you prefer to believe this guy who says Islam did not exist at this time? 🤣.
@@davidzack8735 Could you kindly cite references or links for what you are implying.I read your previous post and appreciate the link you gave me but am perplexed about your views and faith.
Very insightful Thomas, Islam is getting a battering in 2022 for sure. Keep it the great work.
Islam got a complete trashing in 2021 and it continues in 2022. Without lies Islam dies.
@@Kstxrd is it? Oh church is lie, that make people run from christianity to gnostic or become mualaf.
In indonesia more than 100 priest revert to islam and they make a group of study such as Menachem Ali Officialy channel
And Prof. Bart Ehrman hhmmm he is something
@@Kstxrd That explains why Europe was majority christian but now almost majority athiest. With logic the trinity dies.
You have raised an extremely important point - in Arab culture, people were not referred to in the way we are now in the West, namely, by our proper names. The use of the name "muhammad" could not have been in reference to a proper name as referring to a person like that is considered inappropriate and rude in Arab culture. People are always referred to as "son of" or "father of" or through a title - never by just their proper name alone. If Muhammad was a reference proper name, than it must be followed by "ibn Abdullah". According to the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), Muhammad was never called by his proper name, but as Ibn Abdullah, Abul Qasim or Rasulullah. Also, his first Amir/Caliph, best friend and father-in-law, Abdullah, he called Abu Bakr (a nickname), and his second Amir/Caliph, Umar, he called Ibn al-Khattab - that is according to Ibn Hisham. To refer to a person simply as "Muhammad" would not only be inconsistent with the way he was called in the SIN but would also be considered totally rude and inappropriate according to the culture of the time. Therefore, a reference to "Muhammad' on its own MUST be a title and not a proper name.
Where did you get this idea that one couldn't get such nickname and that it'd be rude ?
In India, after Muhammad Ghori's conquest, he used the same coins with a hindu goddess and a bull. He just changed the name of ruler from "Prithvi Deva" to "Muhammad bin Sam". Rest everything was identical including the hindu images.
@Saisri Hc
Exactly. Rulers could still do that and be Muslim. The fact that there were "Jesus" coins does not mean that Arab rulers in the late 7th century were not "real Muslims".
@@paulthomas281 If the historians are able to find the use of "Muhammad" among the non-trinitarian christians before the 7th century, then the evidence would be bullet proof that the Islamic "Muhammad" was just a fabrication.
@@saisrihc7139 Yes, if there were religious sects already using the term "Muhammad", then this would be a huge blow to the prophet of Islam as far as who he really was. However... we cannot exclude the possibility that a warlord preacher stole this name for himself. Muhammad (the preacher) was all about the apocalypse, the apocalypse and the apocalypse. I agree with Tom Holland's idea, that the religious prophet is a combination possibly of two individual figures, two "historical Muhammads".
@@saisrihc7139 However, proving that the 7th-century Arab rulers were non-trinitarian Christians is very difficult. These coins do not show the contemporaneity of that thesis: that late 7th-century rulers were non-trinitarian Christians or something else non-Islamic.
@JL not Muslim, but it could just be a title. We use title names a lot in Arabic. Abu Samir isn’t a name, it just means father of Samir. Abu Jeem would be my father, and my son would be Ibn Jeem. But neither of those are their real names
Too many info compacted in 3~4 minutes, you are a treasure Thomas Alexander , the last coin with muhamed on it from the west was spot on!! no doubt left !! Amazing job, thanks for sharing your wisdom with others sir!
Thank you very much, Mr Thomas. We now understand the origin of Mohammad title.
So informative and interesting. Thank you so much for posting this and all the research and work you have put into it.
Nice video and content, Thomas. It's short and crisp easy to chew quickly. Thank you!
Excellent video. Thanks for the knowledge.
excellent indeed Thomas!!!! Please keep us inform about your appearances in other channels, not only in Jays channel, but others (lectures, dialogs, interviews, etc)
a big hug from Spain
Jan Pahl Paparoni
Oye Jan! Saludos de un exiliado.
@@MrDrbld Nun gran saludo Dr Reimbold, ¿también estás en España?
seguro que me reconociste como venezolano por mi segundo apellido jeje. ¿o sería por las orquídeas?
@@janpahl6015 Solo en mente y espiritu. pero con planes para estar de vuelta en el 2021 una vez vendamos la casa en el RU.
@@janpahl6015 Por la vaina y el appellido castizo q tienes (Ja Ja)
Thank you Thomas for the video
The coins 🪙 correspond with history while standard Islamic narrative contradicts everything historical with zero evidence 🤣
First to comment.first one watch today evenig sun setting in a muddy weter
Lolll....😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣
Very interesting, thanks for that.
I have spent many hours searching for any kind of reference to the MHMT coin with a cross on it found in 1947 in Palestine, mentioned at 3:00. Please Thomas or anyone else who has a reference to this coin, I would be very grateful
Did you find it?
This deserves an award very well presented ?
This can explain why at least some some narrations of an authentic hadith eerily resembles the miracle attributed to Jesus.
"...Then [Muhammad] said, "Call another woman to help bake bread and let her take out from the cooking pot, but do not take it off the fire." There were about a thousand guests. All of them ate till they left the food and went off. Our pot still bubbled as before and the dough was being baked as before." (Riyad Al-Salihin 519)
From recent lexical analysis of the quranic text it appears that what is referred to as "muhammad" in the quran (which means "the praised one") is not a name but a title which refers to Jesus, as the prophet and messiah.
So early muslims in the quran (not yet called muslims but "mumineen" ie. " believers") were in fact anti-trinitarian christians who accepted Jesus as revered prophet and messiah but rejected his divine nature (this is why in the quran Jesus is always called "Issa ibn Meryam" ie "Jesus son of Mary", but never "son of God")
And that doesnt make sense, because Muhammad and Isa bn mrym were 2 seperate entities in the Quran. And the man Muhammad has been called the "seal" of the prophets, i.e the last prophet.
@@alibrahym
If you read the quran carefully you will notice that every time Muhammad or the prophet appears it can refer to Jesus, and this is quite obvious when you know that the origin of the texts come from the nazarenes (nasara in the quran) who were christian jews, like the apostles of Jesus.
Of course this observation contradicts the standard islamic narrative (hadeeths etc) which was developped later during the 8th to 10th centuries, mainly during the abbassid period (starting 750 AD)
@@jeangatti9384 💀
@@alibrahym
Yes I know it can be difficult to accept because ...
“It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain.
Mecca did not exist in the 7th century.
This fact is:
1. Historically proven (no documents, no maps)
2. Logically proven (no water in mecca)
3. Factually proven (no remains, no ruins)
Islam can say anything. It's not like it is grounded in The Truth.
Thank you.
This is fascinating. The Islamic Standard Narative(SIN) cannot explain the last coin.
Great work Thomas
Adding the dates to the coins on the map would be helpful.
Also showing the actual coin with the crosses where the crescent moon was would be better.
Coins of Abdallah ibn Zouber???
Where do you have this info from?
Can you provide a picture?
Most of the info in this video comes from Volker Popp. As for ibn al-Zubayr's coins, I did show one in the video itself. His his coins are fairly well known. In fact, if you look at his Wikipedia entry, you'll also see it.
@@TAlexander But the coin says Abdallah Zopilan, not Ibn Zouber!
@@gk-qf9hv It's written in Fars
@@TAlexander i know. And it does not say ibn/son in any language
@@gk-qf9hv The provincial coins of Abd Allah ibn Zubayr from outside Darabjird, state that he descended from the tribe of the Zupirãn (or more exact: “Znpylan”).
The quran is originally a christian lectionary used by the anti-trinitarian christians called nazarenes, they are called "nasara" (نَصَرَ) in the quran, while the trinitarian christians they hated are called "mushrikuns" (مشركون) ie "associators" or "polytheists" because they associate Jesus to God (which is "shirk" that opposes to Allah's unicity called "tawheed")
There is no prove that the Quran is from anti-trinitarian christian origin. Allah is saying that what the christians say is wrong, because what they do is disbelief. Even the christians who dont believe in the trinity are disbelievers, because they reject Muhammad.
Can you please tell me why you have 37 different Arabic Korans if you could please. Thank you . Peace
That is due to the ambiguity of the defective Arabic script which was used for the earliest manuscripts, allowing for many different readings.
Check out the first couple of videos in my "3 Minute Quran Study" series where I go into this. (I have created a playlist).
Again debunked ...atleast you should understand the fundamental of Quran and Arabic ... enlighten yourself ruclips.net/video/HMeXNm88Z-g/видео.html
I typically don't watch random videos, but I did watch this one and I fail to see how it debunks anything...well, actually it does debunk something, but more on that later...
It's not a debunking of my argument, it's a rationalisation of the evidence which requires one to accept the later traditions as true, which is precisely where my argument sets in. The later traditions written in the 9th century and onwards cannot be trusted. They are at odds with archaeological evidence, they are contradictory, they contain many biblical tropes and are generally very much legendary in nature.
The video tells a plausible story of what could have happened if we assume the Islamic traditions of the 9th century to be true. Because I don't find those stories to be credible, I present an alternative story which makes sense of the same data, but which doesn't rely on later legendary accounts. So that's where you'd have to try and debunk me, you have to show how the Islamic traditions are true despite all the historic inconsistencies. Presupposing them to be true in order to come up with a rationalisation doesn't do anything.
Oh, and by the way, even the rationalisation in the video you linked to debunks some of the Quranic claims of the text being unchanged and protected by God himself. The video shows that even based on the very few existing fragments of Quranic versions other than the Uthmanic codex, it can be shown that the Uthmanic text is different from the assumed original source in several places. In other words, it is corrupted, even if only a little bit. So well done for trying to debunk me by showing how the Uthmanic text is corrupted. Couldn't have done it better myself. I may reuse that bit of info for one of my future videos.
@@TAlexander Let me save you from wasting your time on the path of desperation which many people have taken , so it's better to be smart and spend time wisely looking at how to find faults with islam . I would advice you ,first learn Arabic and Arabic grammer and then indulge in any kind of researching about islam ,else you will just waste your time getting humilaited which is the case for most .. rational take you say ? Let me share you text by text refutation of the claims which would enlighten you to better understand islam and save you from embarassememt . ruclips.net/video/qDKq6EZ2JdE/видео.html
@@TAlexander another one of brekeckers masterpiece debunking . Again learn Arabic and fundamentals of grammer . ruclips.net/video/MHm1LBBbhHg/видео.html
Great Thomas. Thank you.
Excellent
Another Lovely Gem from BrotherTommy 🤗
More and more people starting to talk about how "messenger of God" actually referred to Jesus rather than Muhammad. We are so early into demolishing islam in academia and they already have to do a lot of mental acrobatics to explain certain thories. Can't wait what they world will bring in next 10-20 years.
Muhammad was the name of an Arabian prophet whose followers conquered Persia. They used the design of existing Persian coinage with the image of Khusrow II on the face, and a Zoroastrian fire temple with attendants on the reverse, but from 651CE added Islamic script such as 'bismillah' and later the name of the caliph in Arabic, such as 'Muwayiha, Commander of the Believers'. Yazid's rival Abdullah b al-Zubayr also issued Persian coinage, a silver dirham c682CE with the inscription in Arabic, 'Abdullah b. Zubayr Commander of the Believers.'
In the same way, the Muslims continued the use of Byzantine coinage with the image of the emperor, but with Arabic script 'tayyib' (pure), etc, gradually adapting the images to remove any signs of the cross until in 694 Abd al-Malik produced his famous gold and copper coins known as The Standing Caliph series, in which he is depicted in Arab dress, with full beard and sword in scabbard, with the inscription La ilah illa Allah on the right, and Muhammad Rasulallah on the left. On the reverse, the Christian cross has been truncated to a mere pole with rounded top, representing the final victory of Islam over Christianity. 😁
Fun Fact : The search for historicity of Muhammad is desperately scoured through by Muslims in the only available 7th century account of Sebeos, and coins found nowhere in Arabian peninsula but in Iraq and Persia that literally debunk their standard islamic narrative about the mythical legends associated to this particular person named muhammad, as the Muhammad Sebeos describes is from Tachekestan just a little down south of Armenia as per him, Sebeos's home country while Muhammad Muslims today simultaneously worship as a God and revere as a Prophet while denying the former act is supposed to be from Arabian Peninsula. Numismatic evidence gathered from Syria traced back to Muaviyya has cross carved in it, but that's just the start, the Dome Of Rock's Shahada as well as the drastic similarity of legends found in Heretical Christian sects, Judaism, Persian Cults such as Manichaeism and Qur'an strongly hints at the possibility of Qur'an being derived from these above mentioned sources, doctored and edited as per their convenience throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, while Muhammad was merely a title given to Jesus himself by the Aramaic speaking Nazarene Christians, which leaves Muslims with no option other than resorting to lie about the evidence since it's out and can't be hidden and to go through mental gymnastics in order to somehow pretend that they have made sense of all of it and that they can explain it all, this is where they confuse the questioner when he brings up the topic by bringing Unga Bunga Islamic Laws and So on that have nothing to do whatsoever with the original Syrian Islam that started out in 7th Century described by Sebeos
Mo was a pedho non prophet warlord and slave trader
Alexander, you are a soldier of truth.
Can you make a video about King Offa the Mercian and coins with Arabic language? And King Alfonso VIII of Spain about coins with Arabic language?
Thank you Thomas, your clear and well researched work is an inspiration and will, I sincerely hope, help to bring about the downfall of Islam, this totally false and shamefully evil cult.
😁🙏 Amazing, great awakening will arise in Islamic worlds.
Fabulous Thomas, on the two example of the copper coins do they have affirmed dates to go with their production?
The copper coins don’t have dates but there are estimates by experts. The one with the cross was in use no earlier than 686, the one with the fish is also dated to around the time of Abd al-Malik.
@@TAlexander
Many thank Thomas, much appreciated 👍
Thanks bro !
Incredible stuff !
Human faces on the coins is undeniable proof that Islam did not exist in the 7th century and most of all the CROSS , that muslims hate, which The Islam Jesus will destroy when he comes back !
This is so damaging and debunks Islam history snd theology !!!!
All glory be to the Lord. Hallelujah from Pakistan
subscribed👍
Good job thomas 👌👏👏
Fantastic
Excellent! This should be titled episode 11 [NOT 10]
Mecca didn't exist until the 7th century. Yet quran says Abraham was in mecca
you know that part of land existed though, so i dont get your point
There is no reference history of that place until 7-8 century, please man your religion is False man ,@@alibrahym
@@MasibuleleJongamaYeka-hh2sl 💀💀
Thomas, I am not sure you are aware or not but recently (see book titled Arab-Byzantine coins, 2010) the Arab Byzantine coin with long cross and Muhammad on the obverse has been dated to 647-58 by Clive Foss. So the claim that name Muhammad first appeared in the east is questionable.
*2008 is the date of publication of the book.
what about the views of Patricia Crone and Robert Hoyland that there was a prophet named Muhammad in the 7th century AD?
Patricia and Robert had views based on the information available at the time. New research and new information now show their views to be out of alignment with current research.
I'd argue that if there was a real person at the root of the "Prophet Muhammad", he'd be virtually unrecognisable from the descriptions we have, including the name. Maybe the Prophet Muhammad is an amalgamation of multiple historical people, maybe he's based upon one individual preacher who was later spun into a prophet, maybe he didn't exist at all. Either way, the Prophet as we think about him likely didn't exist.
There had to have been at least one preacher, possibly more, who proselytised the Arabs. I believe that a lot of the later stories about Muhammad were mapped upon this(these) preacher(s), who could have been active as early as 550 AD, probably no later than 600 AD. But that wouldn't necessarily make a preacher "Muhammad", as nothing written in the biographies would apply to this preacher. He'd only be a canvas onto which Muhammad could be projected.
@@angusmcfarlane1225
Hoyland still lives. He has all the available information.
@@alonzoharris6730 Then Mr Hoyland can update his views. And so can you! That's what academics do, Alonzo. Only dogmatic individuals cling to outdated concepts. Your views on Islam are equivalent to believing that the Earth is flat!
@@angusmcfarlane1225
Hoyland doesn't make these non academic foolish claims you make.
You are dogmatic. You claim that Mohamed on coins is Jesus which is ridiculous. You like historical evidence right?
Can you show me any contemporary Aramaic 7th century Christian that says Mohamed on the coins is Jesus?
These foolish claim only started in the 19th century by Christian deceptive missionaries.
So the oldest Arabic copies are older than the Persian ones?
Not sure what you mean, but there are Arabic copies of Athenian owls for example.
@@theastronomer5800 are they pre-Islamic?
But no coins pre Mecca ?
There are holes in the narrative
Could you point to the source of Abdallah as a title for Jesus in Aramaic tradition?
Avez vous la traduction français ?
NICE.....👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
😎
powerful
Also there is a generation of "Doctor" this and that who work at Universities out and about on the lecture circiuits - at least one Phd was awarded with a committee made up by the great King. Dr. Monica Ruis from Spain is wrote a paper for Quibla directions for Spanish sites. An example of endogamy in supposedly academic circles? She could have done the fieldwork herself just on 3-5 sites in Spain. There is a plethora of deeply uncurious researchers at universities. That is why the debate must carry through to "Academic" circles. Early Islam is a hot topic too important for the majority of "Islamic Studies" departments at what pass for 'Universities' today. Financed with petrodollars...
Mahshallah Thomas!
Hallo Thomas,
wäre es in Ordnung für dich, wenn ich diese Videos auf einem eigenen Kanal auf Deutsch synchronisiere?
Thomas, have you ever addressed the references to “Mhmt” and such in the 7th century that Hoyland cites (he thinks it was a historical person Muhammad)?
Not yet, but I will eventually.
Muhammad is the modern spelling. The name Mahomet was used right up to Victorian times.
Weren't these coins just Byzantine/sassanian coins at the beginning with some Arabic writing. I'm talking about the coin with the cross and Muhammad. Maybe they just still didn't have their own coin designs so they just wrote Muhammad on an older Byzantine design
Very good video. Dr J Smith does a lot with coins of this period also.
NICE...👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼😎
I'd like to know who and how they dated these coins. If we can find coins with the title on them reliably dated before the mythical Muhammad was supposed to have been born even, then the myth is dead.
This is not evidence that the prophet did not exist at the time.
But the coins were not made in his time and is as well-known, there were
Christians and Jews living in the Arabian Peninsula.
Not proof but it is very odd that almost nothing is mentioned about Muhammed for seventy years but they’re still discovering his words and deeds 200-300 years later……… in Uzbekistan. Meanwhile someone else entirely is referred to as Muhammed on official coinage.
Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free! "
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
Abudul means Noble Wolf and it is Adolf in Germany, and Ethelwolf in Latin, right？
Wooow🤔!!! When it rains it pours. More evidence coming........
Why are there Islamic missionary advertisements placed on these videos? These videos refute the Orthodox Muslim claims!
What about 634 to 643?
Jesus is the Praised One.. 👑👑👑👑👑
ouch. i feel their pain.
Doesnt the word Allah just mean God,but not specific to any religion.
Yes
This should certainly trouble islam and its historicity
Check ,Syrio Aramaic , writings of 660 , " Muhamad" and " jessus "
Thomas, you should show a picture of the coin-type (the last you mention in this video) where the moons and stars have been replaced with crosses! Or else we just have to take your word for it. Pictures are simply better evidence than words!
Why weren't there any crosses on those coins with the supposed title of Jesus on them? And why wasn't Jesus's name used instead of a title?
As you said a name was usually put on a coin, not the title of the king.
Muhammad Abdullah is a title instead of name....???
Are u serious.....???
💐✝️💐🙏❤️👍
Do you think did mohamed exist?
He did not. Muhammad was used as a title for Jesus and a group of anti-Trinitarian Christian Arabs that created Arabian Empire used the title for Jesus for a fictional religious leader who lived in the Arabian Peninsula
Jesus is LORD! Amen.
Jesus is < THE LORD > , Amen
@@ASHORSHEMAYA The Eternal is ADONAI! J is NOT ADONAI!!!
Sure "Muhammad" can be used as a title, maybe a title for Jesus, so for "Abd allah", but then we can also use these titles for Moses, Lot, Abraham, ishmael, isaac, Adam and whatnot. The Quran also seperates Jesus and Muhammad as being 2 different entities. In the Quran there is not a single mention of Jesus being Muhammad. I think its not sense making to say that because Jesus had a title like "Muhammad" or similar to Muhammad, doesnt mean it falsifies the existence of the Muhammad who was there in the 7th century. The Muhammad we are referring to is محمد بن عبد الله (سبحانه وتعالى), "Muhammad son of the slave of God", so this cannot be applied to Jesus, because according to christianity, Jesus' father was God and according to islamic theology, Jesus was born without a father.
Also i want to say that "Muhammad" isnt necessarely a title, because before Muhammad, there were times when parents heard that there would arrive someone whose name will be "Muhammad" and be the prophet of God, so these parents gave their child that name. So then there were other Muhammads, who never claimed to be prophets or whatnot.
The irony of it. Muslim praying to Jesus!
Hi Thomas, as usual, a few "challenges":
*Theory* محمد is _only_ a title/gerundial and is used to describe Jesus.
*Objection 1* : This implies that when it stands alone it is meaningless. It's just saying "praise be to ..." (whom?). It would make more sense if it were المحمد (the praised one, using the "al" definite article). Otherwise the Arabic is very awkward. Why don't we see this? We only see it being used without a definite article, which hints at it being used as a name.
Moreover if it were a title, why don't we see it *clearly* being used in any other document, especially early Christians in the east region and up to today? No one ever kept that tradition? All simply diverged or brainwashed into using it as a name suddenly during the Umayyads' rule?
*Objection 2* : Even if we see the (presumably) name Muhammad next to crosses or fishes, one can argue that it was just a transitional period as clearly documented in the countless other coins. Christian or *not* (Zoroastrian). The early Caliphs (main narrative) were reluctant to do radical changes and disrupt the state of the newly conquered nations. So they even kept using Greek (Persian for the east) for their state communication until Abd al Malik, and kept the coins because people wouldn't accept anything else. So they simply added minor modifications first, imposing the name of Muhammad or any Arabic inscription to just show that they're in power and they might be staying for long. Once that was clear, they eventually removed all previous symbols and we can see this being experimented with actually: when Abd al Malik first minted his coin, Muslims did not feel it is acceptable because it had him, the Caliph, in image, that's why this only went for three years and then a reform to only textual coins was made. Isn't this a plausible narrative? More plausible than the one proposed here: Muhammad was a title, people understood it but somehow it did not survive to us in any form, and all sources, Islamic or not state that it was a man, eventually the "caliph" succeeded in brainwashing multiple nation states to believe that no, Muhammad was actually a man and not a title to Jesus, and he forged a whole religion out of this.
In my humble opinion, as far as I can see, I believe that when we put all these new mini-theories together, it'd fail to form a coherent narrative. We only have a few very narrow-looking theories that are wildly divergent, and I hope that changes with time, otherwise we'll just end up with chaos. Nonetheless, it's a good academic exercise and we might learn a few things along the way.
*Side note* , I'd really like to get some references about the coins being discussed here. Would be nice to look at some high resolution pictures or general commentary. Could you please provide this? At least for the first coin. Moreover how it was determined to be minted at ~650 AD?
1) I simplified things a little for the video. The word "Muhammad" never appears without context. The coin with the Fish for example also has "rasul Allah", the square coin has "bismillah", so one would read it "praised be the messenger of God" or "let him be praised in the name of Allah"
2) The "transitional phase" theory certainly is plausible, but there are also arguments against it. For one, I'm not aware of anything comparable. Coins are the premier method of propaganda at the time. It's hard to believe that a new ruling power which controls a major empire no less would continue to use the propaganda of its enemies. Certainly by the time of Mu'awiya, we're looking at a major empire which had the Byzantines as its main rival. If Islam existed by then, it would be virtually inconceivable for the coins to continue using Christian symbols.
Also, it's one thing to continue using existing moulds as in Persia, it's quite a different thing to design new moulds from scratch and adding the symbols of the enemy.
Lastly, even if Mu'awiya wasn't too concerned about these things (which I doubt), then we know that Abd al-Malik was very much concerned with religion and cultural unity. He clearly showed with his policies that he wanted to unite his empire under his religion. Why would he have coins designed that counteract this?
3) The so called standing caliph is in my opinion in actual fact an eschatological image. Many variants are even depicted with a flaming sword. As such it's supposed to be Jesus as the judge at the end of days which would align with the general apocalyptic mood in the late 7th century and the belief of the end times being imminent. The building of the Dome of the Rock (as the new temple of Solomon) also fits into this picture. But Jesus didn't return which then caused the religion to evolve.
@@TAlexander Thanks for answering.
1) In the square one the phrase would be "bismillah muhammad(un)" or "muhammad(un) bismillah". In both instances, the Arabic makes no sense and is lacking in grammatical structure. Could you please elaborate how this is a valid Arabic structure?
Moreover "muhammad(un) rassul allah" makes perfect sense as "Muhammad is the Messenger of God" the verb "be/is" in Arabic is not needed. But if we entertain that it's a gerundial, "muhammad(un) rassul allah" becomes awkward Arabic where the gerundial comes first in the sentence. In English, this is fine, but in Arabic, I haven't heard of such a structure and is certainly triggering my meter as a native Arabic speaker. Could you try to provide counter-examples of such a structure, I would stand corrected.
2) But we see the same in India centuries later, the Muslim conquests still left Hindu symbols (literally a Goddess image). The main narrative at least for the early conquests is that the Arabs were really out of touch with civilization, they didn't know how to rule and it took them some time to get a grasp of it. So they kept everything intact, including the language of the states as Greek and Persian along with the original scribes. I think it's still plausible. We lack full historical context here and we're just constructing narratives.
3) Why was the coinage reformed to remove all images and icons then? The main narrative makes perfect sense. Arabs were fine living among the Christians and Jews and using stable Byzantine style coins, with time they got more powerful and at a point it was clear they're staying for long so they changed the coins, but the "believers" did not approve of the images. But again, no hard proofs, just constructed narratives. Wouldn't dwell much on it.
Could you please provide references for the ~650 AD coins? I'm intrigued.
@Ronald Anderson Sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate?
@@ee6lpzfzj023 Re 1&2, as I said, your story is plausible, but while MHMT certainly CAN be read as a name, I think it makes more sense to read it as "praised be" for the reasons given and due to the larger context.
As for 3, there certainly was a theological shift going on. The fact that Jesus didn't return may have played a role. Volker Popp thinks that by putting Jesus, the servant of God, on the coins, Abd al-Malik removed himself one step too far from the divine power for the sensitivities of his Persian subjects, who were used to a more direct relationship. Sort of claiming legitimacy by bering the servant to the servant of God.
What seems implausible is the fact that putting himself on the coin would be a problem. We see Arab rulers on coins from day one. So he wouldn't have stepped over any lines by putting himself on a coin as well.
Regarding references, here are a few:
- In his Table of Arab-Sassanian coinage, Heinz Gaube mentions six attestations of dirhems of the year 20 from different mints. See: Heinz Gaube, Arabosasanidische Münzprägung, Fold-out with table.
- See also: J. Walker, Catalogue L, p. 3-4 and xxxv.-xxxvi. There a discussion concerning the dating according to the traditional Islamological view.
- For coinage of the year 20 of the mint Sakastan see also: Stephen Album, Tony Goodwin, The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period, Oxford 2002, PI.25, Nos.353-357.
Jesus is LORD! Amen
😂😂😂 says a Christian who's bible have unknown anonymous authors . And this Sana manuscript has been debuked out of the park lol . Rediculous
Jihadi
So you’re proud of being a jihadi good
*A for Allah, ( अ से अल्लाह) what ever is your language with the first alphabet you get Allah,
First word every child( just born) utters is Allah.
check your self, more healthy child more clear it sounds
Every child sleeps in mother's womb depicting the Arabic word Muhammad, (محمد as shown in profile photo) this is how word becomes flesh as mentioned in Bible.
(Hundreds of year before the birth of prophet Muhammad
Vedas, Bible, Buddha predicted about the truth of Muhammad/Ahmed by name).
_No one can go against nature, things supported by nature has natural growth_
*Common teachings of all religions*
1.Don't worship idols
/created things
2.God is one, not variable, unique by all means, our mind can't encompass his greatness.
3. God is above all pure and clean, free from basic instincts,
Free from the process of birth, death and reappearance.
4.Belief in one creator and the real message of all prophets(Adam, people who taught Vedas,ram,krishna
Gautam Buddha, Moses,Jesus, and Muhammad) and their books, is islam.
All the prophets fallowed fundamental Islam.
Plz check Vedas every hindu should read Vedas and in Bible christian brother read those statements which Jesus said not the views of others like Paul, mattews......
*complete Islam is the fruit of the tree, religion.*(fruit comes last and has all essence of tree).
*Unifying factor*
Quran says oh people of book(Vedas,puranas,Torah,Bible and Qur'an)come to common terms, that God is one and we worship one God.
Prophet Muhammad said:
Those who believe in one God will enter heaven.
Islam came to rebuild desorted image of all prophets.
Jews are enemies of Jesus, Christians have n number of theories about jesus,.
Similarly ramji is hero and God for some and for others ravan is hero.
--------------------------------------
*Unique property of Islam:*
more you compress islam more Islam will spread.
When Mongols destroyed Muslims completely, the same Mongols spread Islam.
During imperialism only 1or 2 countries were under Muslim control but Islam spread at a rate of 200%,
Before imperialism no mosque were there in USA,UK,France, Germany and Australia now you can't count.
Now Belgium, Netherlands ,Russia(30% + muslims) and Spain is getting influenced by islam
A dog and pig gives birth to 10 twice a year,
A goat gives birth to only 2 once in a year and are sacrificed(halal) in millions daily,
But the population of goat is more because of halal.
It has become fashion for Hindu scholars(idiots like pushpendras, aryas, dummy ex Muslims and dummy athiest) to fool andhbakths by copying failed and defeated Christian scholars, to gain cheap popularity.
(Conduct dummy debates).
Christians of gulf and Pakistan(having Arabic names) who are fluent in Urdu and Arabic knows that they can't criticise Islam as Christians (a rejected and defeated group), so they disguise as atheist or ex Muslims but again they will fail.
In olden days girls use to develop fast they use to get married at early age, for example take the case of Asha bhosle world famous Indian singer she became mother at the age of 13 there are many such cases, just 50 years back it was legal in America to marry a girl of 11.
In the case of prophet Muhammad marriage to Aisa, she was married at 9/6 and started living with prophet Muhammad after three years at the age of 12/9(this was mentioned by Aisa and her close relatives)
But most people who saw here gives her age as above 18,
In the year when she started leaving with prophet Muhammad there was war, in which people say a grown up women nursing wounded soldiers and carrying water leather bags ( even grown up boys finds it difficult to carry) it was aisa.
Muhammad had appearance of young man till his last days, he felt sick to be an example for fallowers.
Whoever were in proximity of Muhammad were elevated,
His fallowers were ordinary farmers,labourers, slaves (who don't know how to hold swords) became great soldiers to defeat 2 super powers Romans and Byzantines(well trained army, well protected).
Muhammad had power of 40 persons as per one source and 70 from other source, when ever in war Muslims were on back foot he single handedly changed the complexion of war.
So who ever were in proximity of prophet Muhammad were elevated physically/Mentally,
Mother aisa was elevated both physically and mentally, everything he did was miracle and is part of history.
Except one all his wives were widows with many having children's and grand childrens, every marriage had selfless positive reason.
Let me mention you some cases of the marriage.
It was decided that after war is won, if any one guarantees about the prisoner ( he should be relative )of war, prisoners will be released,
It so happened clans(group of prisoners of Kabilas) who were relatives of Muslims were released,
One clan had no relatives, in that clan they were many young unmarried ladies also, but prophet Muhammad sent a message to marry a woman who was above 50 even she had problem she was unable to stand properly, after marriage the clan became relatives of prophet Muhammad ( conditions fulfilled) they were released.
In other case one of his wife was soo short people use to make fun of her,
In another case he married daughter of dacoit(who was untraceable) as a result he stopped troubling people,
In another case he married hafsa she was short tempered and angry women, his father Omer was also very angry man no one was willling to marry her, so prophet married
*_Answer to alligator_*
He (alligator)is liar the words (beta hae ya beti) is not in Qur'an,
Quran says what is in the womb no one knows,
(Means what he will be,)
Even if medical science by imaging say it is boy.
In many cases the report was male but
Having Pennis is not guarantee of male, later it was found that it was enuch.
*_Answer to alligator_*
Qur'an never says earth is static,
It is says mountains are use to keep the mass of earth intact,
When you speak about something reference (normal) is essential, without normal you can't define abnormal,
Then why we have theory of relativity.
It depends how you are describe earth
1. With reference to it's content(human beings and other things)
2. With reference to other planets and sun
3. With reference to galaxy even sun is moving.
4.quran never says earth is flat, it says we have spread the earth for the convenience of living beings.
5.Islam implemented things phase wise(phase I,phase II,phase III_ _ _)
For example alchohol first it was declared bad in phase I then in phase II it was made haram.
Similarly in phase 1 temporary marriages and keeps were allowed then in phase II they were made haram.
6.marriage in Islam is contract, contract to live together, to become parents .
_What is halala_
A women is eligible(halal) to marry the person (first husband, who has divorced her), if she marries other person with an intention of living together, with an intention of becoming parents but due to some unavoidable circumstances they are divorced or her second husband dies then she can Marry her first husband.
It is like restriction, women is not pendulum to
marry then divorce,
marry then divorce
At will.
6.One should keep in mind to understand islam, it is a religion for all times and conditions
a) when things are normal you have to consume halal(legal) things.
b) when things are not normal to survive you can consume any thing.
7.In early stages in madina criminals were punished as per thier religion it was an agreement.
8.When it comes to slavery,
Unlike other religion in Islam it is 24 hours job, master has to provide same food, clothing which he prefers should share the burden of slave, if he becomes self sufficient and intellectual free him,
If he is able person make him king( example slave dynasty of India & Egypt)
Or make him son in law/ brother in law,
9.Unlike other religion where the leader is unreachable, fancy object.
Muhammad is prophet with all the ingredients of human being. Muhammad is abd(human being) and rasool(prophet).
He gets angry,he jokes,he plays,he talks to fallowers on any topic.
So hadith are just data book, a collection of events,sayings,things his fallowers saw during the days of prophet Muhammad so on.
There are many things in hadith which were for time being.
There are millions of hadith out of millions of Hadith enemies take few out of context (very less then 100) to give negative comments.
When prophet Muhammad says something, we have to see how sahaba reacted for this we have fiqa.
We should know the background of every hadith a)why it was said. b)to whom c)was he joking d)was it time being e)was he angry with particular person to whom he said d) was it for the particular person/general there are many such things for that we have fiqah.
10. Quran never says 72hoors will be given at a time and thier life span will not be long where as the lifespan for muslim in other world is almost infinite. But the reality is 72 hoors are only stimulation, Qur'an says you will get 72 hoors , refined drinks and gardens then continues to say actually you will get something which is out of your imagination.
Quran even says elevated people will prefer proximity to allah then other gifts.
For scoundrels women means only sex object so they can't digest the concept of hoor
11.some fools say thier is nothing for woman in jannat.
Womens will also go to jannat.
They should know Allah is Al Hakam(dispenser of full justice to one and all)
Every one knows that a woman loves to get a secret gifts, if it is much better then what she imagined then thier is no bond to her happiness.
12.When quran says allah is unique it means Allah is unique in all terms, Allah can't be compared. Terms like Allah's hand, soul,noor(light) are only symbolic. There is no example of Allah so humans can't imagine his pattern. Allah is above all,
Above any thing you see or imagine
Quran 5:20 -21, but no I didn't read your jabbering,
May you find peace on your path. I did read your article and see that you are well programmed. You are rooted in your religion but even you can flower spiritually with more dialog, study and an open mind.
Lieber Thomas
Bitte schaust du dich an, wie Jesus auf Syrisch geschrieben ist.
Auf diesen Münzen ist Syrisch geschrieben.
Gehts du zu Wikipedia und suchet du "Syriac language" aud Englisch, oder kontaktierst du mich bitte und ich werde dir helfen.
Das wird das Rätsel lösen.
Machs guest!
msg for muslims " this guy is making fales claims because even cristians scholars adimts that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was indeed a great person and quran has many scientific facts
miracle of quran is that no other book can be memorized word by word like quran and recition of quran is most beautiful sound on earth"
Of course archeologists will find some of those coins in the near future. THE STONES AND COINS WILL PROVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS MOHAMMAD, THE PRAISED ONE. Jesus Christ said in Luke 19:40, (YLT).
40 `I say to you, that, if these shall be silent, the stones will cry out!'
.
JESUS CHRIST IS THE BLESSED ONE (MHMD = MOHAMAD, Psalms 118:26 (YLT).
"Blessed [is] HE who is coming In the name of Jehovah, We blessed you from the house of Jehovah,"
Arab coin? :)
🇿🇦♥️
So if Mohamed an Abdullah were names for Jesus, wouldn't they have been so before the 7th century (659 AD)? Why would they have waited until then to be introduced, as the languages were old and Jesus died in 33 AD?
"Abdallah" literally means "servant of God" which is a very common and very old title for Jesus, particularly in Eastern Christianity, going back to the first century AD, even appearing in the NT.
Muhammad is a translation of "Benedictus" which has also been applied to Jesus in the Bible itself. But it never became a common title in Western Christianity. It seems to emerge with the Christian sect of which Abd al-Malik was a member. But maybe it wasn't even that important. It could literally have been used the way "Benedictus" has been used in the Latin Church as "blessed be" without an automatic connection to Jesus, though I would lean towards it being understood in connection to Jesus.
@@TAlexander excuse me Thomas, I think your conclusion is too premature, I do not defend Islam, from an academic perspective, there is no evidence in the early pre-Islamic centuries, in the Arabian Peninsula Jesus had the title Muhammad or the praiseworthy one or abdallah..
@@TAlexander Do we have evidences from sources other than the Dome of the Rock that Muhammad could be a title specific for Jesus?
@@thecure7880 Well, there are pretty much no written Arab records of anything pre Islam. But we do know that “servant of God” was a popular title for Jesus in Eastern Christianity and we do know that Aramaic speaking Christians are attested to in the Arabian peninsula, going as far as Oman where we know of a Monastery, but we also know of Christians in the Hejaz, which all but proves that the title was known in Arabia.
But since I argue that the religion originated in Eastern Persia, all of that doesn’t matter anyway. In Persia we had a strong Nestorian church. In fact, the country was on the verge of being Christianised by the 7th century. Only the support of the ruling Sassanians prevented Zoroastrianism from collapsing. As soon as they were gone, so was Zoroastrianism (more or less).
@@meusisto Well, there are of course the coins. But apart from that, the Dome of the Rock is the first instance of the phrase "muhammad(un) 'abd(u) llah(i) wa-rasuluh(u)", but certainly not the last. It is attested to countless times in many different places, in texts, inscriptions and on coins. The Dome of the Rock inscription makes it particularly clear that it is Jesus who is being talked about, but all the other (early) instances of this phrase also support it. This only changes some time around the middle of the 8th century.
Hmmm
Islam gradually exposed their LIES
Muaviya is Arab Christian Ruler and his son Yazid also,
As I am not from the religion of modern islam - I have no interest in whether Jesus was or was not titled "Mohammed" or whether this is a name or a title. But a little research brings your entire effort & theory to nill/zilch/naught/ridiculous when you try to prove that the Koran is a christian text or that "mohammed" is a title for Jesus - this is because the koran itself in its chapter 42, verse 13, 42:13, mentions Noah, Moses, Jesus in the same verse alongside obviously and implicitly referring to mohammed i.e. "and what we revealed to you" - a revelation only comes to a prophet or messenger in the biblical tradition so an argument saying "well it could just be referring to believers at large" also does not hold any water or reasonable merit.
The koran may well be written in syriac / syro aramaic or a mixture of it and arabic but that does not mean it is a christian text or that mohammed is a title for Jesus.
Moreover - there is also no evidence that mohammed is a syriac name or title - it is still recognized as an arabic origin name meaning the "praised one" not "praised be". There is no direct name or phrase "mohammed" in Syriac / syro aramaic that translates to "praised be".
In Syriac / Syro Aramaic - "praised be" would be "ḥamda bī"
Furthermore in Koran's chapter 33:40, it clearly says that mohammed is not the father of any of your men but he is the messenger of God - this clearly and without question identifies mohammed as a distinct messenger entity of God.
The Koran may well have several aramaic phrases and expressions as the arabic language was in its infancy - i.e. a mix of syro aramaic and arabic was spoken, but it does not satisfy any of your theories about mohammed being a title for Jesus or that the koran is a non trinitarian christian sect text.
It is a scripture written down by mohammed who identifies as a prophet and the scripture claims to confirm the gospels and the torah.
It is my belief that Prophet Mohammed, the man from Medina, was Christian. I think he thought of himself as a Christian probably all his life, in a similar way that Jesus though of himself as a Jew all his life. I believe Mohammed from Medina accepted an existing form of Christianity, the one that focuses on Jesus as a human being (no virgin births etc), as a young man. Then he, or his followers, went on to compile a brief (in comparison to the much longer New Testament and Torah) summary of what he (Mohammed) saw as the most important messages to get across to the Arabic speaking people when conquering and converting them to this (then new in the Arabic peninsula) Judeo-Christian monotheistic faith, and named it the Qur'an. Hence the "Ash hadou, I confirm, that there is only One God...and that Mohammed (=Christ, according to your video?) is his prophet." Mohammed from Medina, or the persons who created this rather disorderly compilation, translated the original texts from Aramaic and Jewish. That is why there are a lot of Aramaic and Jewish words in the Qur'an, the words that are never used anywhere else in the Arabic speaking world.
He named the people who refuse to believe that Jesus is their Savior - Disbelievers. There is no single mention of "Islam" or "Muslim, Muslims" in the Qur'an. These terms were created at least one or two centuries later.
These coins are another proof of what I said. Muhammad from Medina was a maverick, agressive, (pseudo-) Christian leader. His later followers definitely branched off of the rest of the Christian world and continued calling their conquered territories the territories of the "subdued", i.e. the Muslims. The reason why the existing neighboring Christian countries in the Middle East did not intervene to stop the spread of Mohammed's army and its beliefs for at least one or two entire centuries was - because they thought that these guys (Mohammedans) were spreading - Christianity.
These Jesus coins literally prove nothing. The Ghori Empire also used coins with Hindu symbols casted on, some even containing the Arabic phrase لا اله الا الله محمد الرسول الله. Does that mean the Muslims of the Ghori Empire were originally Hindu? No.
Also Muhammad being a Christian is, by your own admission, just your own speculation. There were Christians that lived around Mecca at the time of Muhammad, some even in Medina. The idea that they only caught on that Muhammad and his followers weren’t actually preaching/spreading Christianity over 2 centuries later is not realistic.
And the words “Islam” and “Muslim” are definitely mentioned in the Quran, in many surahs. Just two examples-
إِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمُ
_“Certainly, Allah’s only Way is _*_Islam._*_ ”_ (3:19)
قُولُوٓا۟ ءَامَنَّا بِٱللَّهِ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَىٰٓ إِبْرَٰهِـۧمَ وَإِسْمَـٰعِيلَ وَإِسْحَـٰقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَٱلْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَآ أُوتِىَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَمَآ أُوتِىَ ٱلنَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍۢ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُۥ مُسْلِمُونَ
“Say, [O believers], ‘We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants [al-Asbāṭ] and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are *Muslims* [in submission] to Him.” (Quran 2:136)
I suggest you research Islam with an open-mind and instead of only listening to its enemies who only speculate-cooking up the wildest, most far-fetched explanations just to escape the possibility that the standard narrative-which is much simpler and attested to by western secular academics (except the God part)- is actually true. That Muhammad was a messenger of God, and the Quran was revealed to him and he conveyed it to others. The Quran literally could not have been authored by men. Its a divine, unique literary work that has no equal. Have a listen-m.ruclips.net/video/EqAVOHrYUfI/видео.html
May your Lord guide you.
@@lightofilm6228 Thank you. You, too, try to approach Islam with an open mind. I know it's hard when you grew up with it all around you, but try looking at it as if you were a scientist who is exploring it for the first time.
As for Qur'an, if it was written with ink on pieces of paper, then it was written by a human hand, with a human mind directing the hand. And let us not forget that all human brains are prone to making poor judgement and making mistakes, as well as all human brains are inclined to trying to influence other humans through words. Writing a book was very very expensive at the time. Whoever wrote a book then, had to have a profitable goal in mind. That applies to the Torah, Talmud, Bible, Qur'an, Hindu Vedas, Ancient Greek philosophers, all ancient scriptures.
@@miovicdina7706 your above alternative narrative is pure speculation and contradicts many accounts. I really don't mean this as an offense. You seem quite unfamiliar with the Islamic narrative. I invite you to read about it with an open mind and see if it's coherent or convincing and judge for yourself.
The speculation you made above is not much different from the speculations in these videos. They claim to be based on "hard evidence" but it's just to claim to be scientific. In reality it's a noncoherent narrative and contradicting many facts. I don't want to argue or prove anything, I just want you to have an open and unbiased mind while approaching this.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 It isn't incoherent at all. On the contrary. But it is incoherent with the Islamic narrative, which seems to be the only narrative you have ever been exposed to, so you're experiencing difficulty opening your mind to a different possibility.
My "pure speculation" is based on the lectures given by Harvard and Yale and Oxford university professors of the Early Islamic History decades ago. They have been posted on RUclips years ago. Try and find them.
As for me, I read the Qur'an two times from start to finish, then read the parts from Sahih al-Bukhari, and I have reached my conclusions.
@@miovicdina7706 for example saying that every religious book is written for a materialistic gain/reason is just a bad assumption and a bias to start with while researching such a topic. You're influenced or biased by scientific materialism and that every one just cares about their own physical gains، but clearly there's more to religion that that. So if you start with that in mind, you're only going to get to wrong conclusions, and it's gonna be harder for you to understand the narratives being put forward. Best wishes!
Interesting 🤔
but not all correct !
This does not account for the descendants of “ Muhammad “ , his family lives on !
Muhammad was a person , not Jesus .
Maybe Muhammad is a title ( we think so ) but we think there was a person as well .
True Mohammed had children and the chism of islam is in who was the rightful successors of his the shiite and the sunnie one is based upon his genealogy the other is based upon the most holy Follower. Now you have one group awaiting the 12th imman to appear
Easier to change genealogy if when you’re writing the propaganda, you backdate it many decades and move the origin story from Jerusalem to the middle of nowhere 800 miles south. (Surah 80: We pour rain down in abundance and split the earth open for sprouts….. as well as grapes, greens, olives and palm trees). This is not a description of the Hejaz.
@@donquixote3927
Sura 80
It talks about mankind in general and how “ Allah “ sends down rain and plants grow ,
Nothing mentioned about where , everywhere,
You need to read the whole chapter and not just “” 3 verses out of it .
Sura 80, عبس
آية 25-
Nice "polished coins" from excavations. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If God is 3 in 1 he could also be 4 in 1. Why wouldn't he be able to do this? Since he can divide himself in 3 he could also divide himself in 4 or 5 or 10 or 1million. Then you would believe in the million god. We can start calling you hindus now since they believe in millions of gods but still believe they are monotheists and all those millions are still inferior to the 1 supreme God.
On this i fully agree. But on (all the ) Who's that manipulated the Jesus Mohammed character i think there are more dimensions.
LIAR
LIAR
PANTS ON
why not see this as who is the conquerer and win they will in charge of information and vital facility. this world is full of fabrication made by the winner who wanted to be seen what they did was correct and accepted.
It is just like Potter praising his own pot this is maketing undertaken at the behest of colonial minded european funny after 1400 years some idle person is speaking nonsense under intoxication
for centuries Christians failed to explain the puzzle of Trinity (1/3+1/3+1/3=1, fractional,fragmented,fractured and fermented God) .
Now they will take centuries to solve this puzzle
I will give you concept of God of Christianity, in Christianity father is God, Jesus.2 is God both are same,
Bible clearly says Jesus.2 is begotten son means biological son(child born after sex),
So Jesus as father had sex with mary.2 then enters her womb to become son, he had sex with future mother,
This is barbarism at the highest level.
According to Bible jesus.2 is mother abuser,
Oh he is also mother rapist.
( Mary.2 and jesus.2 are imaginary figures in filthy minds of Christians)
Dirtiest god:
according to holy bible, Malachi 2:3 and Ezekiel 4:12
Jesus.2 collects fresh human stool and makes ball type cakes of dung of fresh human stools.
Speaking on circumcision Paul compares the whole teaching of jesus.2 with dirty skin of pennies.
Paul says if you circumcised you have to fallow teachings of jesus.2
Through out bible jesus.2 keeps saying I am son of God when fallowers demand to show god, jesus.2 takes uturn declares himself god it is the filthiest forgery.
Jesus.2 is imaginary varying personality in the dirty mind of christians.
According to Bible Matthew 7:22 and 7:23, a Christian performing black magic(by calling it miracle and by calling Jesus as god).
Is evil doer.
God of murderers:
Christians have murdered more people .
"Who started the first world war? Not Muslims!! Who started the second world war? Not Muslims!! Who killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust ? Not Muslims. Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? Not Muslims!! Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not Muslims!! Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Not Muslims!! Who killed more than 50 million of Indians in south America? Not Muslims!! Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown overboard into Atlantic ocean? Not Muslims!! No, NOT Muslims!! First of all, You will have to define terrorism properly. If a non-Muslim does something bad. It is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same. He is a Terrorist. So first remove this double standards. Then come to the point. I am proud to be a MUSLIm
Ugh, you forget the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Water, ice and steam are one, just in three different states defined by temperature. I'm not a not a Christian, but please don't misrepent anyone's faith. Peace on your path!
Video makes no sense whatsoever! If Mohammad pbuh was Jesus pbuh or if Jesus claimed to be Mohammad pbuh then there would be a separate chapter in the Quran literally for Jesus where it is written how he was saved from being crucified and was raised to the heavens (still alive). Plus Quran says several times that prophet Mohammad specifically the last messenger and the Quran directly ‘talks’ to prophet Mohammad while Jesus (Isa) is referred to Im third person. These coins don’t prove anything. If you knew the history of the crescent symbol you would know it was accepted as an ‘Islamic’ symbol during the Ottoman Empire (post Mohammad pbuh) and actually had pagan origins originally which is identified in the Quran as the sun god moon god even then what about the ppl connected to prophet Mohammad pbuh his wives, companions cousins other caliphs etc his lineage can be traced till this day through his daughter zainab…graves of his dead grave HIS grave graves of his wives…like there’s so many things you don’t consider…Why would Jesus talk about himself in only one chapter? Even if you read the Quranic stories they may be slight differences compared to the biblical stories…why would ‘Jesus’ pbuh reinvent these stories…these coins prove nothing…
@Noor Kuran directly ‘talks’ to prophet Mo?
That is the way it has been made to appear by the translators.
The Arabic Kuran is very different from the English translations.