To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Well done Dr. Jay .. In fact, the Muslim’s mind has been programmed to see the parts of Islam, but he is not permitted at all to link things together, for example we read hadiths that talk about Muhammad dealing in "dirhams and dinars", (which is a Greek Christian mony "coins" bearing Christian symbols, including the cross) ... Other hadiths say that Muhammad did not allow anything that bears a cross shape in his wives homes, where sometimes it has some shapes which could looks like a crosses 🤣😜
dumb how muslims believe bukhari - he threw out 99% of mohammad's saying based on how people treated their animals. it was 200 years too late, and he said if someone beat their animal he would throw out what they said about mohammad.
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
I was told the other day by a Muslim that one of Muhammad's miracles was his birth. According to him when Muhammad was born the sun was so bright that the day was longer.. so I asked him what day was Muhammad born? Haha he never replied..
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Dr.. Jay, Abd al-Malik did not introduce a new religion. Rather, he presented himself as a Christian doctrine contrary to the main Christian doctrines at the time, and we are talking about a geographical area in which almost countless Christian heresies appeared, influenced mostly by the general political climate and the Byzantine-Persian conflict. Example: Abd al-Malik’s coin shows what is a vertical cross or a simple cross. Here we are talking about a Christian heresy that wanted to distinguish from the rest of the Christian sects. Also, Muhammad, as you know, is not a name but an honorary title, and I think that the idea has become clear, so here we are not talking about a new religion but about a doctrine of a religion
@Jason El Bourno My religion? I'm a Christian bro, but unfortunately, even in Christianity there were & are sects and there are also heresies until this day.
@Jason El Bourno Your statement exposes your lack of learning. Go study using an English Dictionary as a guide for understanding. Add in two more things, a book of historical timelines - religious and one on church history usually divided into volumes of early, medieval and modern with the modern split between Reformation and Counter Reformation. We in the west usually like to use Occam's Razor as a guide. But then we do like to have conversations that contain understanding and knowledge.
Great great efforts Seven years I have been researching in Islam Seen some of these coins heard some comments about them But man !! You brought it all together God bless you all
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
As I've mentioned before, it appears that the first "muhammad rasool allah" dates from 685, not 692. It's from a coin issued on behalf of Ibn Zubair, by the governor abd alMalik of Bishapur (not to be confused with abd alMalik the Umayyad Caliph) in 685. It features the effigy of the ruler, who seems to be a copy of Khosroe, with bismillah and muhammad rasool allah around the figure. So it looks quite clear from the context that it's not referring here to a prophet, but to the ruler, who is given legitimacy in the name of God (bismillah) and is honoured "praised be the sent one of allah". On the obverse (other face) we still have the Zoroastrian fire altar. So it seems to me reasonable that it was Ibn Zubair's faction that started the "muhammad rasool allah" thing, and after his defeat and death at the hands of abd alMalik, to help consolidate the Eastern part of the empire, abd alMalik took the slogan over and developed it. Or do you believe the dating of this coin is wrong? I've seen it displayed on several sites now, so it appears to be legitimate. A quote from one of the sites mentioning this: "The first appearance of the slogan “allāhu akbar“ (Allah is Great) on a coin - one minted in Central Asia c. 684 CE (65 AH) in the name of the Umayyad governor, Salm b. Ziyād, and bearing inscriptions in three languages: Pahlavi, Arabic, and Bactrian (using Greek script)! The first appearance of the name of the Prophet Muhammad in any dated Islamic text (except the Qur'anic manuscripts), and the first instance of the declaration “muḥammad rasūlallāh” (Muhammad [is] the messenger of Allah). This occurred on coins issued by ‘Abd al-Malik b. ‘Abdullāh, Ibn Zubayr's governor of Bishapur c. 685 CE (66 AH) (see Figure7). Once started, this trend caught on quickly, and the phrase became standard on Umayyad coinage within a few years. The first appearance of the full “shahāda“, or expression of the Muslim creed on a coin issued by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Abdullah, Ibn Zubayr's governor of Sistan (Eastern Iran) c. 691 CE (72 AH) (Johns, 2003). Remarkably, this too was written in Pahlavi, reading “One God, except He / no other god exists / Muhammad [is] the messenger of God” (Mochiri, 1981). Thus, the first surviving instance of the Islamic shahāda is not in Arabic but in Pahlavi! An Arabic version would not appear until a few years later." www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2016/06/viewing-the-early-islamic-state-through-its-coinage.html See section IV: The Second Fitnah: 680 CE - 692 CE Also interesting is the assertion that the first "Islamic" shahada found is written in Pahlavi, not Arabic, in 691. That tends to point in the direction of where Mel want us to go.
@@pfanderfilms Thanks, I took another look. I somehow missed number 11 at 38 minutes. There does appear to be a difference of opinion here, possibly a confusion of two different people, both called abd alMalik: 1. The coin was minted under the authority of Caliph abd alMalik bin Marwan. 2. The coin was minted by abd alMalik bin Abdallah, who was not a caliph but governor of Bishapur and was under the authority of Ibn Zubair, the rival of abd alMalik (bin Marwan). I don't think it's extremely important, but nice to find out which of the 2 fits the history.
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Your first point is horseshit. Muhammad rasulallah means "Praised be the servant/Messenger of God", referring to the Muhammad of the early seventh century. We know this because this corresponds with other inscriptions that explicitly call him a Prophet by name and even make references to things known in hadith which come 2 centuries later. This also corresponds with the earliest Non Islamic Christian writings we have about Muhammad as a preacher, a warlord and a ruler such as Sebeos, Doctrina Iacobi, Thomas of Presbyter, John of Damascus debating Ishmaelites etc. As for the fire altars, the Arabs were just going on with the Sassanian coin tradition for some time after their independence. In the 690's it's removed and replaced with Qur'anic verses and phrases.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Adnan Rashid the coin collector man but missed these coins and denying the history just a afford to protect his fake prophet. Great video, thank you Dr Jay Smith 🙏❤️
Dr. Jay, great work by the Team to search out the truth behind the ' narrative'. It appears that the Narrative incubated over a period of 300 years. From 632. + 22 years for the first Uthman Quran From 632 + 200 years to get Ibn Isham first biography From 632 + 238 years to get the first hadit. From 632 + 283 years to get the last Al Nisai Hadith From 632 + 291 years to get the commentary by Al Tahiti So it took 291 years to create the masterpiece that is Islam with Muhammad as it's main character, and the various Caliphs dictating the script. Also something is adrift with the Uthman narrative. He recalled the copy made by Abu Baker and given to Hafsa , Uthman's daughter. Why did Baker gave it to Hafsa and not his own daughter Isha , the mother of the believers ? And why did Uthman compile a new version when he already has the Hafsa 's version . Unless there was none and he was using Abu Bakr to get legitimacy for an early Quran. I have more faith in Revelation chapter 9 to tell about Islam than the ' standard narrative ' . 9:1 And I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth and to him was given the key to the bottomed pit. bottomless pit = desolate , uncultivated , wasteland like the South western Arabian desert. 9 : 2 -- 3 And he opened the bottomless pit and there arose the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened. And there came out of the smoke , locusts upon the earth .And unto them was given power ,as the scorpions of the earth have power. The Arab raiders were like locusts in number and destruction. 9:5. And to them was given that they should not kill them but to torment them for 150 years. This is when the Ottomans besieged Constantinople, the eastern third of the Roman Empire. It was not to kill them but to torment them for 150 years. This took place from 1299 to 1444. On 27 th July, 1444 Constantinople peacefully submitted to Sultan Amurath. 9 : 12 -- 15. Loose the 4 angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates for an hour , a day a month and a year, to slay the third part of men. This time of 391 years and 15 days was given to the Ottomans to conquer Constantinople the eastern third of the Roman Empire ,so to kill the third part of men. The next third of the Roman Empire centred in Egypt was already taken by the Arabs. There yet remained the third part of the Roman Empire centred in Europe which was not to be given over to the Arabs. After the peace with Sultan Amurath on 27th July, 1444 ,he died and His son Mahomet broke the truce and went on to take Constantinople and to rule from there. As they still do today. The 391 years and 15 days prophecy started in 17th July , 1444 to 11th August , 1840 with Turkey peacefully transferring power to the 3rd part of the Roman Empire centred in Europe. It's history and fact proving the God of the Bible is in charge of the affairs of this world and He would do to His pleasure. Sadly 9:20 says. And the rest of the men which were not killed by the plagues repented not of their sins. This is apostate Christianity in the third part -- Europe. Will the resurgence complete the work for which it was ordained to do in the East by persecuting the Western third of the Roman Empire ? I hope not but God has a way to punish apostasy. With the fall of Turkey the Eastern provinces got their independence ,including Israel. Instead of these independent countries thanks the West , they are being on the West's destruction. How ungrateful. But then they are not students on Bilical prophecies which establish the God of Israel as Father of all and Lord of all. Feel free to have a look at the commentary -- Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith , disprove his interpretation of the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation in the Bible. Keep up the good work that the TE A M was destined to do.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
@Vishal Ashtrey the reason for that has been clarified in the book islam as others saw it. The local people refused to use the coins without their religious symbols so the muslims put them there. It was just a political decision nothing else.
In Aug 2020, 425 gold coins were found in Israel that were dated to 9th century from the period of Abbasid Caliphate and the coins were of Islamic origin. In the hoard they also found coins of Byzantine emperor Theophilos, who ruled from 829 to 842. It seems there were connection between the two rival empires.
We also need to graft in the narrative of the Shi'ahs as they too have a narrative the splits from the Sunni narrative. Being that the Shi'ahs are mostly in Persia me thinks there is another story that dovetails into what Mel is working on.
The basic Sunni books from which the Islamic Sharia was derived precede the basic Shiite books 100 to 150 years, so when Sunni Islam collapses, Shiite Islam will collapse more quickly. This is in addition to the number of Sunni Muslims greatly exceeding the number of Shiite Muslims. So when Sunni Islam collapses, you will not need much effort to break down Shiite Islam
@@ASHORSHEMAYA Thanks, my intent is see how their narrative has been manipulated to suit their ideas. Just as the spread of 'Islam' does not make logistical sense coming from the south and desert while coming from the east to Jerusalem from Stephon/Baghdad does; So to the narrative that the split in the Uma by garrisoned troops held outside the city does not follow a logical strategy. There is more to the story than we have been told.
Colonel Sanders no it’s just “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7:4 KJV
Colonel Sanders aren’t you the one talking about Numbers from the Old Testament and Jesus from the New Testament? 😆 under the video with the topic about coins😆 who is the one diverting?😆 Explain yourself master of diversions 😆
Super interesting! I sure would like to see the correspondence between the western and eastern arab nations! I wonder if it would look like the Talmud arguments between the different jewish yeshivas? Surely with these important decisions there would be communications between the groups to "get their stories/narratives straight"?
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
These recent videos concerning the "Q" lectures were all recorded on Zoom, as I was teaching students in many countries, so it comes across a bit grainy and the audio a bit low. My apologies. When I record in my office with my camera, the audio and video is much more realistic.
Jay, you said Al Bukhari is a long way away. What if he is in the right place for the start of Islam and Muhammed is in the wrong place, wouldn`t that be more correct.
The problem is that al Bukhari places the start of Islam with Muhammad in 632. I don't believe from the evidence we are seeing that Islam began that early, and certainly not the Islam which we read about in the traditions, and which is practiced today. That Islam was created possibly with Abd al Malik, but didn't get placed or become a real entity until after 749 AD, and finally canonized sometime in the 9th and 10th century.
For those who like this coins series... I recommend the work of Anatoly Fomenko: New Chronology.. This compliments this work.. And can explain many of these *errors* in time.. It's a long read.. But absolutely worth it..
Howdy Jay, This video is a keeper, great content presented beautifully. I believe you made a mistake at @22:15, Justinian(482 - 565) was much too early and didn't have children. That coin is much more likely to be Heraclius(575 - 641) with his sons Heraclius Constantine and Heraclonas.
You are correct, I should have made it clear that I meant Justinian II who reigned from 685-695, and again from 705-711, so would be pictured on the coin, and did have children as well.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
@@pfanderfilms Lack of evidences to disprove your work will give you all sort of names. But I know in the end they will appreciate you for the liberation. Keep up the wonderful work Dr❤.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
@@pfanderfilms Better names over being on a ladder. Just a thought, in an over tired brain, you were born an expat like Paul. Are you using it like Paul to be here instead of Londinum?
@Colonel Sanders Congratulations on your excellent ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with reality and facts, just your hurt feelings. It's implicitly an admission that Jay is correct. Islam was invented in 749 AD.
Jay Thanks a lot, the early Islamic ruler according to their own history must be merchants and they know very well coins and its symbolic message on it therefore if they capture somewhere they know they shouldn’t keep the old ruler symbol on coins. According to their own history they were full of obsessed and hate from their powerful neighbors therefore they absolutely don’t keep any sign of old ruler, if their written history is correct
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
I think even during this period the word Mohammed was referring to Jesus.As Murad said on your channel, this ward was referring to Jesus with the meaning beloved as he was referred to in the Bible.It seems they oppose the deity of Christ and call him(Jesus) mohammed (beloved) the messenger of Allah.So this word mohammed was referring to Jesus whose deity they deny .
that's why they can yell toward Christianity out loud, but when Christian verbally offending, they become so angry. the history told about them back then
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Isn't it interesting that this idea of paying homage to the Byzantine Christians is nowhere in the Islamic Traditions? According to the Traditions, once Muhammad secured Arabia, the next 4 caliphs secured all of the land between Tripoli and Afghanistan, and there was no competition, and certainly no tribute to any Christian kingdom. History is now showing us a much more different story, and one which is more complicated, yet more politically logical.
@@pfanderfilms First I consider that "Muhammad", like R. Spencer, has never existed (anywhere...nor "Mecca" as both are unbreakable) He is not the author of the Quran. Second, you could say the same of Urwa (d.713) letters about Muhammad to Abd al Malik about Ibn Ishaq. Muslim sources states that Urwa is the first to talk about Muhammad to Abd al Malik in letters sent to him. There is no good reasons to not believe them. Why? Simply because Urwa is the brother of the first who have minted *"Muhammad rasul Allah"* in 685 in Bishapur: Abdallah b. al Zubayr who is revolting against Abd al Malik .Why Urwa is spared when Abdallah b. al Zubayr is defeated and executed in 692 after an hard war vs Abd al Malik? Because Urwa knows the story of "Muhammad" which is a very short synopsis that he has plausibly invented from the Quranic texts (which were not necessarily in a codex form at that time). He placed himself as the nephew of Aisha the "wife" of Muhammad. So yes, it is Urwa who is the first, not Ibn Ishaq.
With the coin of 692, could the name Muhammed actually be referring at this point to "the messiah" ie Jesus, thus refuting the Christian trinity? Instead, perhaps the "historical" figure of Muhammed was essentially created between then and 696 (at first confused with the Christian messiah) and superimposed over the historical accounts of the Iraqi king (of the Tayiye) you have referred to in other videos. Bear in mind many Christians in this whole area may have been Ebionites in the first place ie non-trinitarian. In other words, the human architects behind this growing new religion of Islam effectively created their own prophet whom they wanted to consider greater than Jesus, to replace Christianity completely, and Ebionites would more easily have accepted it than would trinitarian Christians.
@Tim Skinner I would not think so. There are lead times for both; on coinage there would be protocols for commissions, proofing and minting while construction has planning, design, financing, assembly of materials and contractors then building time. Overlapping in timing is extremely possible.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Jay the answer to the puzzle is easy if you take it logically,as the old song goes! The personality of Mohamed( pbuH) and the four Califs contrast drastically with that of Muawiya and of those who followed him. The first were very frugal focusing on spreading the new faith, sprituality and social justice( through Beit el mel). They did not care about minting coins. They used the existing ones. The latest (Banu Umiyah) were more concerned about the symbol of wealth and power of their dinasties hence their imitation of Byzantinian rulers by appearing on coins to show their reign. Try this path!
@@ahowell417 Islam came to focus on essentials not on forms: spreading the message of Almighty Creator, piety, social justice. The coins used at that time in Arabia were gold and silver. When Islam came, Arabs were Bedouins and unsophisticaded so they saw no reason to mint their own coins.
@Be Skeptical Of Everything let's be fair! Has man ever got rid of the sword, even in present time? The use of the sword should be considered in a relative way. The issue is not the sword but coins!
Tracing the materialistic history of early Islam is a rational endeavor from your part. However i think you sank into irrationality when you said that Abulmalik was against Jesus when he ordered to write the scriptions inside the the Dome of the Rock. He just removed the deity from Jesus and considered him a prophet. The scriptions are venering Jesus and revealed that he is the praised one: Mohamed. I think he was trying to create a new religion based on Mohamed "Jesus" as a prophet, an extention of Christianity but without deity in him because logically it is incredible to intelligent human thinking. The shahada on his coins is a palpable proof. The question is why the Abbasids destroyed this new christian religion???
@Qui Creva Sp I have read the scriptions many times in Arabic which is my mother tongue. The Mohamed described in the Dome is definetly not the one in islamic literature. It is Jesus indeed. Abdulmalik did not know the Islamic Mohamed as a prophet because there was no Islam. Abdulmalik was steeped in a christian byzantine world. He did not see Jesus as a God because it was not only a question of religion it was a new political history which had began when the jews were expelled from Jerusalem early in the beginning of 7th century and their religious influence on their Arab allies against the byzantine empire in the desert of Jordan and Syria. That is how Abdulmalik finally when he was no longer in peace with the empire took out the deity from Jesus but still believed as per the scriptions in the Dome that Jesus is the praised the Mohammed of Allah. The question is not religious in as much as it is political. How Mohamed after the Oumayads became arab although there had been no Mohamed before except an Arab warrior who helped the jews in their endeavors to keep back Jerusalem. This warrior governed only 10 years somewhere in Jordan according to some early christian chronicles. I am not speculating. I am asking a huge question.
@Erkin Alp Guney What do you mean by Christian state? There have been many, Armenia or Franks, Anglo-Saxon or Norway; Spain has had several pre-Islamic and later. The Balkans and German Principality States. Irish and Polish; Hungarian, Philippines or Rus and Ethiopia. You need to define the term and time.
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of. Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule . So this statement is just false. And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan) Who was a zubayrite governor in persia. Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later. It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin. When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin. See the map here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication. Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form. Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense. The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication. You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur. I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed. To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement. We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Hello, Mr. Smith. let me disagree with you regarding Abd al-Malik, as he is, in my opinion, a Christian personality and never a Muslim. The absence of pictures on the last coin does not mean the existence of Islam. The word Islam does not exist in these coins. And if he is a Muslim, then at least he will preach Islam. Rather, he is a Christian Jew, and he relied on the Torah verse that says, “You shall not make for yourself a statue or an image of what is in the heavens or on the earth.” So the currency that you rely on that he became a Muslim is not correct, so please review yourself. Thank you.
John of Damascus made indeed references on Mohammad but he does not call him Muhammad but Mamed. The first to talk about Islam was actually Saint Maximus the Confessor. He died in 662!! So he experienced some of this madness. John of Damascus called Mo a fake prophet and that this religion of Ishmaelites was deceiving and paved the way for the Antichrist. John of Damascus was an educated man back in the byzantine years so he knew what he was speaking about. In Medina at that time were Jews mostly. Arab tribes came around the 4th century. There must be records of the Jews too. Must be. What are they hiding I wonder. But..nothing hidden under the sun. Behold! We shall laugh a lot from what is unfolding.
I assume the nowadays Medina where Jewish tribes Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Qurayza inhabited. They were later attacked by Muhammad as we know the history. One of them tribes "broke" the Medina treaty. One of the tribes was entirely put to death, the men only. And of the other men were beheaded. A Greek text written during the Arab invasion in Syria between 632-634 mentions that a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens and Muhammad is being dismissed on the spot as a prophet because prophets do not come with swords and chariots. The dude was actually leading the invasions. There is definitely something fishy here. It is said that Mo died in 632! So who was leading the invasions then? Either an impostor or Mo died later in years then.
@Comment Freely @Audrey O'Callaghan Your missing on the word War. You can not get access to coinage across a battle field and collecting diminishing supply is not a trading mentality.
@Qui Creva Sp how did you like my reply - you suit that category, right? Read my reply again all i asked was to add time stamps since it is a long video. Now! it is a different ball game - stay tuned for more. -:)
Dr jay Another one of your mistakes that shows your lack of understanding of the islamic history is your claim that abdul malik and the umayyads used to pay tribute to the bizantine emperor because at first they kept the christian symbols on their coins. That is far from being true. I know there is a report saying he has to pay the bizantine emperor some money and other stuff but that has nothing to do with the coins . As you have noticed the coins that were minted by the muslims opposed to the ummayads in persia ALL had the zoroastrian symbols whether the ones of ibn zubair or those of the kharijites. There is even a coin from jerusalem that has the jewish symbol on one side and the muslim shahada on the Other. All that doesn't show they were giving tributes to others rather it shows the TOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS BY ISLAM. In islam there is no compulsion in matters of belief and muslims don't force people to believe in islam. That is why they left the religious symbols of others without changing it . When the majority of people converted willingly they changed the symbols to a more islamic ones. This is the same reason Umar refused to pray in a church in jerusalem when he was invited to do so out of fear that the muslims might take it as an excuse to turn the church into a mosque. It is because of this tolerance that the jews were happy when the muslims took over palestine from the bizantine christians who used to force them to convert and restrict their religious freedom. It is the bizantine emperors who force their religious symbols on others through their coins, not the muslims. At least the good ones who understand their religion well. I hope you have learned something about islam now and that you will not repeat the same mistake again.
Zubair stop your bullshit. Muslim systematically force non Muslim to convert to Islam with tax and deprivation. It is still happening today in Islamic countries.
Islam doesn't like research works.
No questions.
who said that?!
@The Astronomer This is what we call the straw man fallacy?!!!!!!! plz Do not skew hadiths!!!!!!
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Thanks for a good research Dr. We catch up next week.
This gentleman is not a single man he is a university ...I am proud of you Great man.May God bless you
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
The moxy of pre-Islmic Araba /Nabateans using the stars and poetry to cross the desert, in your last video, was really fascinating.
Thank you Dr J Smith for truthful presentation.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Well done Dr. Jay ..
In fact, the Muslim’s mind has been programmed to see the parts of Islam, but he is not permitted at all to link things together, for example we read hadiths that talk about Muhammad dealing in "dirhams and dinars", (which is a Greek Christian mony "coins" bearing Christian symbols, including the cross) ... Other hadiths say that Muhammad did not allow anything that bears a cross shape in his wives homes, where sometimes it has some shapes which could looks like a crosses 🤣😜
dumb how muslims believe bukhari - he threw out 99% of mohammad's saying based on how people treated their animals. it was 200 years too late, and he said if someone beat their animal he would throw out what they said about mohammad.
@Jason El Bourno that hadith was talking about Any geometric shape resembles or similarity to the Cross in Christianity
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
I was told the other day by a Muslim that one of Muhammad's miracles was his birth. According to him when Muhammad was born the sun was so bright that the day was longer.. so I asked him what day was Muhammad born? Haha he never replied..
Interesting facts from the coins
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Dr.. Jay, Abd al-Malik did not introduce a new religion. Rather, he presented himself as a Christian doctrine contrary to the main Christian doctrines at the time, and we are talking about a geographical area in which almost countless Christian heresies appeared, influenced mostly by the general political climate and the Byzantine-Persian conflict.
Example: Abd al-Malik’s coin shows what is a vertical cross or a simple cross. Here we are talking about a Christian heresy that wanted to distinguish from the rest of the Christian sects. Also, Muhammad, as you know, is not a name but an honorary title, and I think that the idea has become clear, so here we are not talking about a new religion but about a doctrine of a religion
ASHORSHEMAYA nice
@Jason El Bourno My religion? I'm a Christian bro, but unfortunately, even in Christianity there were & are sects and there are also heresies until this day.
@Jason El Bourno Your religion is a sect.
@Jason El Bourno You have absolutely no concept of what the word in English means. Amish are a sect just as are Quakers or Molakin * a Russian group.
@Jason El Bourno Your statement exposes your lack of learning. Go study using an English Dictionary as a guide for understanding. Add in two more things, a book of historical timelines - religious and one on church history usually divided into volumes of early, medieval and modern with the modern split between Reformation and Counter Reformation. We in the west usually like to use Occam's Razor as a guide. But then we do like to have conversations that contain understanding and knowledge.
Great great efforts
Seven years I have been researching in Islam
Seen some of these coins heard some comments about them
But man !!
You brought it all together
God bless you all
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Excellent work !!
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
As I've mentioned before, it appears that the first "muhammad rasool allah" dates from 685, not 692. It's from a coin issued on behalf of Ibn Zubair, by the governor abd alMalik of Bishapur (not to be confused with abd alMalik the Umayyad Caliph) in 685. It features the effigy of the ruler, who seems to be a copy of Khosroe, with bismillah and muhammad rasool allah around the figure. So it looks quite clear from the context that it's not referring here to a prophet, but to the ruler, who is given legitimacy in the name of God (bismillah) and is honoured "praised be the sent one of allah". On the obverse (other face) we still have the Zoroastrian fire altar.
So it seems to me reasonable that it was Ibn Zubair's faction that started the "muhammad rasool allah" thing, and after his defeat and death at the hands of abd alMalik, to help consolidate the Eastern part of the empire, abd alMalik took the slogan over and developed it.
Or do you believe the dating of this coin is wrong? I've seen it displayed on several sites now, so it appears to be legitimate. A quote from one of the sites mentioning this:
"The first appearance of the slogan “allāhu akbar“ (Allah is Great) on a coin - one minted in Central Asia c. 684 CE (65 AH) in the name of the Umayyad governor, Salm b. Ziyād, and bearing inscriptions in three languages: Pahlavi, Arabic, and Bactrian (using Greek script)!
The first appearance of the name of the Prophet Muhammad in any dated Islamic text (except the Qur'anic manuscripts), and the first instance of the declaration “muḥammad rasūlallāh” (Muhammad [is] the messenger of Allah). This occurred on coins issued by ‘Abd al-Malik b. ‘Abdullāh, Ibn Zubayr's governor of Bishapur c. 685 CE (66 AH) (see Figure7). Once started, this trend caught on quickly, and the phrase became standard on Umayyad coinage within a few years.
The first appearance of the full “shahāda“, or expression of the Muslim creed on a coin issued by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Abdullah, Ibn Zubayr's governor of Sistan (Eastern Iran) c. 691 CE (72 AH) (Johns, 2003). Remarkably, this too was written in Pahlavi, reading “One God, except He / no other god exists / Muhammad [is] the messenger of God” (Mochiri, 1981). Thus, the first surviving instance of the Islamic shahāda is not in Arabic but in Pahlavi! An Arabic version would not appear until a few years later."
www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2016/06/viewing-the-early-islamic-state-through-its-coinage.html
See section IV: The Second Fitnah: 680 CE - 692 CE
Also interesting is the assertion that the first "Islamic" shahada found is written in Pahlavi, not Arabic, in 691. That tends to point in the direction of where Mel want us to go.
@Ekondig G This also fits into why the Abbasids rose so fast against the Umayyads as they had a wide power base to work from in Persia.
I've talked about this in the video here. Did you get my answer?
@@pfanderfilms Thanks, I took another look. I somehow missed number 11 at 38 minutes. There does appear to be a difference of opinion here, possibly a confusion of two different people, both called abd alMalik:
1. The coin was minted under the authority of Caliph abd alMalik bin Marwan.
2. The coin was minted by abd alMalik bin Abdallah, who was not a caliph but governor of Bishapur and was under the authority of Ibn Zubair, the rival of abd alMalik (bin Marwan).
I don't think it's extremely important, but nice to find out which of the 2 fits the history.
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Your first point is horseshit. Muhammad rasulallah means "Praised be the servant/Messenger of God", referring to the Muhammad of the early seventh century. We know this because this corresponds with other inscriptions that explicitly call him a Prophet by name and even make references to things known in hadith which come 2 centuries later. This also corresponds with the earliest Non Islamic Christian writings we have about Muhammad as a preacher, a warlord and a ruler such as Sebeos, Doctrina Iacobi, Thomas of Presbyter, John of Damascus debating Ishmaelites etc.
As for the fire altars, the Arabs were just going on with the Sassanian coin tradition for some time after their independence. In the 690's it's removed and replaced with Qur'anic verses and phrases.
As far as I am aware, Dan Gibson sees the M standing for Muhammad but I like your explanation!
Nope, as his name would not be known that early in that area
Cool work
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Adnan Rashid the coin collector man but missed these coins and denying the history just a afford to protect his fake prophet.
Great video, thank you Dr Jay Smith 🙏❤️
Dr. Jay, great work by the Team to search out the truth behind the ' narrative'.
It appears that the Narrative incubated over a period of 300 years.
From 632. + 22 years for the first Uthman Quran
From 632 + 200 years to get Ibn Isham first biography
From 632 + 238 years to get the first hadit.
From 632 + 283 years to get the last Al Nisai Hadith
From 632 + 291 years to get the commentary by Al Tahiti
So it took 291 years to create the masterpiece that is Islam with Muhammad as it's main character, and the various Caliphs dictating the script.
Also something is adrift with the Uthman narrative. He recalled the copy made by Abu Baker and given to Hafsa , Uthman's daughter. Why did Baker gave it to Hafsa and not his own daughter Isha , the mother of the believers ?
And why did Uthman compile a new version when he already has the Hafsa 's version . Unless there was none and he was using Abu Bakr to get legitimacy for an early Quran.
I have more faith in Revelation chapter 9 to tell about Islam than the ' standard narrative ' .
9:1 And I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth and to him was given the key to the bottomed pit.
bottomless pit = desolate , uncultivated , wasteland like the South western Arabian desert.
9 : 2 -- 3 And he opened the bottomless pit and there arose the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened. And there came out of the smoke , locusts upon the earth .And unto them was given power ,as the scorpions of the earth have power.
The Arab raiders were like locusts in number and destruction.
9:5. And to them was given that they should not kill them but to torment them for 150 years.
This is when the Ottomans besieged Constantinople, the eastern third of the Roman Empire. It was not to kill them but to torment them for 150 years. This took place from 1299 to 1444. On 27 th July, 1444 Constantinople peacefully submitted to Sultan Amurath.
9 : 12 -- 15. Loose the 4 angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates for an hour , a day a month and a year, to slay the third part of men.
This time of 391 years and 15 days was given to the Ottomans to conquer Constantinople the eastern third of the Roman Empire ,so to kill the third part of men. The next third of the Roman Empire centred in Egypt was already taken by the Arabs. There yet remained the third part of the Roman Empire centred in Europe which was not to be given over to the Arabs.
After the peace with Sultan Amurath on 27th July, 1444 ,he died and His son Mahomet broke the truce and went on to take Constantinople and to rule from there. As they still do today.
The 391 years and 15 days prophecy started in 17th July , 1444 to 11th August , 1840 with Turkey peacefully transferring power to the 3rd part of the Roman Empire centred in Europe.
It's history and fact proving the God of the Bible is in charge of the affairs of this world and He would do to His pleasure.
Sadly 9:20 says. And the rest of the men which were not killed by the plagues repented not of their sins. This is apostate Christianity in the third part -- Europe.
Will the resurgence complete the work for which it was ordained to do in the East by persecuting the Western third of the Roman Empire ?
I hope not but God has a way to punish apostasy.
With the fall of Turkey the Eastern provinces got their independence ,including Israel.
Instead of these independent countries thanks the West , they are being on the West's destruction. How ungrateful. But then they are not students on Bilical prophecies which establish the God of Israel as Father of all and Lord of all.
Feel free to have a look at the commentary -- Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith , disprove his interpretation of the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation in the Bible.
Keep up the good work that the TE A M was destined to do.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Amazing video 📹 👏
This is really exciting stuff! It is all coming together really well. We are getting ever more clarity. The Islamic narrative was bogus all along!
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
@Vishal Ashtrey image is not haram in islam it is 3d images like idols that are haram.
@Vishal Ashtrey the reason for that has been clarified in the book islam as others saw it. The local people refused to use the coins without their religious symbols so the muslims put them there. It was just a political decision nothing else.
Job well done
In Aug 2020, 425 gold coins were found in Israel that were dated to 9th century from the period of Abbasid Caliphate and the coins were of Islamic origin. In the hoard they also found coins of Byzantine emperor Theophilos, who ruled from 829 to 842. It seems there were connection between the two rival empires.
We also need to graft in the narrative of the Shi'ahs as they too have a narrative the splits from the Sunni narrative. Being that the Shi'ahs are mostly in Persia me thinks there is another story that dovetails into what Mel is working on.
The basic Sunni books from which the Islamic Sharia was derived precede the basic Shiite books 100 to 150 years, so when Sunni Islam collapses, Shiite Islam will collapse more quickly. This is in addition to the number of Sunni Muslims greatly exceeding the number of Shiite Muslims. So when Sunni Islam collapses, you will not need much effort to break down Shiite Islam
@@ASHORSHEMAYA Thanks, my intent is see how their narrative has been manipulated to suit their ideas. Just as the spread of 'Islam' does not make logistical sense coming from the south and desert while coming from the east to Jerusalem from Stephon/Baghdad does; So to the narrative that the split in the Uma by garrisoned troops held outside the city does not follow a logical strategy. There is more to the story than we have been told.
The man from tayayye really gave us problems.
😂🤣😜
He might actually have been a decent human being.It's the monsters who wrote all the stories that we have to thank.
Perfect Dr. Jay. Your lecture is full of facts. I love to watch your Lectures
Tututututututututuututu!.....Jay Smith wearing Tutu !!!!!!
That chapter 112 on the last coin
A very good morning sir and thank you for these material
@Colonel Sanders He came home, the most intelligent thing he could do...so can you...
Colonel Sanders
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32 KJV
Colonel Sanders better than 72 virgins in heaven
Colonel Sanders no it’s just
“Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:4 KJV
Colonel Sanders aren’t you the one talking about Numbers from the Old Testament and Jesus from the New Testament? 😆 under the video with the topic about coins😆
who is the one diverting?😆
Explain yourself master of diversions 😆
Jay has changed his shirt 😂😂😂
Yep, the others needed to finally be washed. Blame my wife!
Great video. Thank you.
Great lecture & convincing evidence Dr. Jay. Perhaps _"History is written by the winners",_ but *The Truth* is stamped on their coinage.
Super interesting! I sure would like to see the correspondence between the western and eastern arab nations! I wonder if it would look like the Talmud arguments between the different jewish yeshivas? Surely with these important decisions there would be communications between the groups to "get their stories/narratives straight"?
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
not starting something new but taking possession of the old
Dr Jay smith southern Russia also came under the control of the Islamic world after the emergence of the timurid dynasty.
Jay, your voice is a bit low on your recent videos.
These recent videos concerning the "Q" lectures were all recorded on Zoom, as I was teaching students in many countries, so it comes across a bit grainy and the audio a bit low. My apologies. When I record in my office with my camera, the audio and video is much more realistic.
@@pfanderfilms no problem Sir. Thanks for getting back to me. God bless you.
@@pfanderfilms please increase volume of your videos
38:35 It is not Abd al Malik who mint the Bishapur coin, it is Zubayr who is revolting against him.
Jay, you said Al Bukhari is a long way away. What if he is in the right place for the start of Islam and Muhammed is in the wrong place, wouldn`t that be more correct.
The problem is that al Bukhari places the start of Islam with Muhammad in 632. I don't believe from the evidence we are seeing that Islam began that early, and certainly not the Islam which we read about in the traditions, and which is practiced today. That Islam was created possibly with Abd al Malik, but didn't get placed or become a real entity until after 749 AD, and finally canonized sometime in the 9th and 10th century.
Hello, @22:20 the coin shown (gold Solidus) shows Heraclius (not Justinian) who reigned from 610-641 AD.
Impressive research
For those who like this coins series... I recommend the work of Anatoly Fomenko: New Chronology..
This compliments this work.. And can explain many of these *errors* in time..
It's a long read.. But absolutely worth it..
Howdy Jay,
This video is a keeper, great content presented beautifully.
I believe you made a mistake at @22:15, Justinian(482 - 565) was much too early and didn't have children. That coin is much more likely to be Heraclius(575 - 641) with his sons Heraclius Constantine and Heraclonas.
You are correct, I should have made it clear that I meant Justinian II who reigned from 685-695, and again from 705-711, so would be pictured on the coin, and did have children as well.
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
God bless and be safe
@Colonel Sanders I've been called worse!
@@pfanderfilms Lack of evidences to disprove your work will give you all sort of names. But I know in the end they will appreciate you for the liberation. Keep up the wonderful work Dr❤.
@@pfanderfilms Ducks and water.
@Colonel Sanders I'm surprised by the hate I feel in your answer. That's nonsensical.
Didier Favre there’s no hate. Look at his avatar (he?) thinks Jay invented KFC.😁😆😜
Good morning Sir
Jay, are you planning to write a book, kind of a narrative that could be quick alarm to all the ignorant in the world? You should, please....
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Good morning Jay
@Colonel Sanders Fool, donkey, they are all the same to me :-)
@@pfanderfilms Better names over being on a ladder. Just a thought, in an over tired brain, you were born an expat like Paul. Are you using it like Paul to be here instead of Londinum?
@Colonel Sanders Congratulations on your excellent ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with reality and facts, just your hurt feelings. It's implicitly an admission that Jay is correct. Islam was invented in 749 AD.
Jay Thanks a lot, the early Islamic ruler according to their own history must be merchants and they know very well coins and its symbolic message on it therefore if they capture somewhere they know they shouldn’t keep the old ruler symbol on coins.
According to their own history they were full of obsessed and hate from their powerful neighbors therefore they absolutely don’t keep any sign of old ruler, if their written history is correct
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
I think even during this period the word Mohammed was referring to Jesus.As Murad said on your channel, this ward was referring to Jesus with the meaning beloved as he was referred to in the Bible.It seems they oppose the deity of Christ and call him(Jesus) mohammed (beloved) the messenger of Allah.So this word mohammed was referring to Jesus whose deity they deny .
@irishxxkelt The word mohammed means beloved ,and Jesus is called beloved Son of God in the Bible.
that's why they can yell toward Christianity out loud, but when Christian verbally offending, they become so angry. the history told about them back then
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Pure History
Guess: Since Izlam Don't allow Picture or Visual Representation, Those Rulers didn't mint their coins.
Wow! Is there an accurate history of Abd al-Malik?
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Odessa in Turkey and what about Qhble direction?
@Hypota68 remember that there is a separation between cultural, religious and political as the Nabs did not have an empire.
Why did Abd al-Malik pay tribute to the Byzantine emperor? Did the previous emirs of the faithfull (kaliphs) do the same?
Isn't it interesting that this idea of paying homage to the Byzantine Christians is nowhere in the Islamic Traditions? According to the Traditions, once Muhammad secured Arabia, the next 4 caliphs secured all of the land between Tripoli and Afghanistan, and there was no competition, and certainly no tribute to any Christian kingdom. History is now showing us a much more different story, and one which is more complicated, yet more politically logical.
@@pfanderfilms Yes, that is interesting, but it does not answer my question.
4:40 The first synopsis of the biography is 'Urwa b. al-Zubayr (d.713), not Ibn Ishaq.
Sorry, that is only attributed to him, but does not exist anywhere near that early, or even within that century
@@pfanderfilms First I consider that "Muhammad", like R. Spencer, has never existed (anywhere...nor "Mecca" as both are unbreakable) He is not the author of the Quran.
Second, you could say the same of Urwa (d.713) letters about Muhammad to Abd al Malik about Ibn Ishaq. Muslim sources states that Urwa is the first to talk about Muhammad to Abd al Malik in letters sent to him. There is no good reasons to not believe them. Why? Simply because Urwa is the brother of the first who have minted *"Muhammad rasul Allah"* in 685 in Bishapur: Abdallah b. al Zubayr who is revolting against Abd al Malik .Why Urwa is spared when Abdallah b. al Zubayr is defeated and executed in 692 after an hard war vs Abd al Malik? Because Urwa knows the story of "Muhammad" which is a very short synopsis that he has plausibly invented from the Quranic texts (which were not necessarily in a codex form at that time). He placed himself as the nephew of Aisha the "wife" of Muhammad.
So yes, it is Urwa who is the first, not Ibn Ishaq.
What kind of connection is there between Nabateans and the Umayyads?
The one became the other over time
@@pfanderfilms Thank you very much for answer and for all the interesting productions. May they lead to liberation for all muslims.
I think you have busted your own hypothesis of Al Mansur.
What about Shia hadiths tho?
36:15 Wrong Jay the *first* "Muhammad rasul Allah" is *685* Bishapur coin, not 692.
I do refer to that in the video
@@pfanderfilms Yes I saw that. Good move.
With the coin of 692, could the name Muhammed actually be referring at this point to "the messiah" ie Jesus, thus refuting the Christian trinity? Instead, perhaps the "historical" figure of Muhammed was essentially created between then and 696 (at first confused with the Christian messiah) and superimposed over the historical accounts of the Iraqi king (of the Tayiye) you have referred to in other videos. Bear in mind many Christians in this whole area may have been Ebionites in the first place ie non-trinitarian. In other words, the human architects behind this growing new religion of Islam effectively created their own prophet whom they wanted to consider greater than Jesus, to replace Christianity completely, and Ebionites would more easily have accepted it than would trinitarian Christians.
I really like then Jay does his "Uhtututu" typical indian.
Sorry to be dense, does Muhammed's name appearing on the Abd al Malik coin challenge the theory that the Dome of the Rock inscription refers to Jesus?
@Tim Skinner I would not think so. There are lead times for both; on coinage there would be protocols for commissions, proofing and minting while construction has planning, design, financing, assembly of materials and contractors then building time. Overlapping in timing is extremely possible.
'Unto Lah'- The MOON GOD.....
To hear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
Jay the answer to the puzzle is easy if you take it logically,as the old song goes! The personality of Mohamed( pbuH) and the four Califs contrast drastically with that of Muawiya and of those who followed him. The first were very frugal focusing on spreading the new faith, sprituality and social justice( through Beit el mel). They did not care about minting coins. They used the existing ones. The latest (Banu Umiyah) were more concerned about the symbol of wealth and power of their dinasties hence their imitation of Byzantinian rulers by appearing on coins to show their reign. Try this path!
@Colonel Sanders who's Farid?
"They used existing ones." EXACTLY. Islam plagiarized everything.
@@ahowell417 Islam came to focus on essentials not on forms: spreading the message of Almighty Creator, piety, social justice. The coins used at that time in Arabia were gold and silver. When Islam came, Arabs were Bedouins and unsophisticaded so they saw no reason to mint their own coins.
@Be Skeptical Of Everything let's be fair! Has man ever got rid of the sword, even in present time? The use of the sword should be considered in a relative way. The issue is not the sword but coins!
Azedine BENAMMAR
Piety , and social justice ? You kidding😛
Tracing the materialistic history of early Islam is a rational endeavor from your part. However i think you sank into irrationality when you said that Abulmalik was against Jesus when he ordered to write the scriptions inside the the Dome of the Rock. He just removed the deity from Jesus and considered him a prophet. The scriptions are venering Jesus and revealed that he is the praised one: Mohamed. I think he was trying to create a new religion based on Mohamed "Jesus" as a prophet, an extention of Christianity but without deity in him because logically it is incredible to intelligent human thinking. The shahada on his coins is a palpable proof. The question is why the Abbasids destroyed this new christian religion???
@Qui Creva Sp thanks for your comment. But there is no answer to my question.
@Qui Creva Sp I have read the scriptions many times in Arabic which is my mother tongue. The Mohamed described in the Dome is definetly not the one in islamic literature. It is Jesus indeed. Abdulmalik did not know the Islamic Mohamed as a prophet because there was no Islam. Abdulmalik was steeped in a christian byzantine world. He did not see Jesus as a God because it was not only a question of religion it was a new political history which had began when the jews were expelled from Jerusalem early in the beginning of 7th century and their religious influence on their Arab allies against the byzantine empire in the desert of Jordan and Syria. That is how Abdulmalik finally when he was no longer in peace with the empire took out the deity from Jesus but still believed as per the scriptions in the Dome that Jesus is the praised the Mohammed of Allah. The question is not religious in as much as it is political. How Mohamed after the Oumayads became arab although there had been no Mohamed before except an Arab warrior who helped the jews in their endeavors to keep back Jerusalem. This warrior governed only 10 years somewhere in Jordan according to some early christian chronicles. I am not speculating. I am asking a huge question.
@Qui Creva Sp that is correct.
Greek Bible mention Muhammad name in Revelation chapter 13:18, Greek number 666 is Muhammad name.
We would like to see the same thing done for the first Christian state.
There won't be a Christian state until Jesus returns and he'll be the ruler.
@@jonnyy4088 I take this as never.
@Erkin Alp Guney What do you mean by Christian state? There have been many, Armenia or Franks, Anglo-Saxon or Norway; Spain has had several pre-Islamic and later. The Balkans and German Principality States. Irish and Polish; Hungarian, Philippines or Rus and Ethiopia. You need to define the term and time.
@@gilbertjones9157 I mean a state that is administered according to Christian Bible.
@@erkinalp Now you need to name a date with in the last 2000 years and be wear of what translation of scripture is used.
To ear jay saying that at the time the ibn zubair coin was minted persia was under the rule of abdul malik bin marwan is ignorance a true historian would be ashamed of.
Every historian knows that the whole islamic world gave allegience to ibn zubair except the area of shaam and north africa which was under umayyad rule .
So this statement is just false.
And what proves that it is false is that this coin was minted by abdul malik bin abdalah (not bin marwan)
Who was a zubayrite governor in persia.
Abdul malik did not control persia at that time it was under ibn zubair's control before falling to the khawarij much later.
It is there in bishapur in persia that ibn zubair's governor abdul malik bin abdallah minted this coin.
When the khawarij took persia from in zubair they minted the khariji coin.
See the map here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
dr jay claims falsely that the two coins from numista and numisbids are the same. That is a fabrication.
Just by looking at the 2 photos it is obvious they are different in shape and form.
Second: the first coin on numista is a later coin by the khawaarij in 695 long ofter ibn zubair's death. So how can it be the same coin of 685 minted by the governor of ibn zubair? That just doesn't make sense.
The coin he claims to be on numisbids is just not there. That is another fabrication.
You guys claim to be researchers and you don't even provide links for people to be convinced of your credibility. That's amateur.
I don't like to say dr jay lied but his informations are false. Maybe he was mislead by your arab and exmuslim friends who help you. Very sad indeed.
To conclude. this coin of ibn zubair in 685 is not disputed by anyone. This coin really puts your quest to an end. Just be honest as Jesus instructed you and stop deceiving people. I don't think Jesus will be happy about that on the day of judgement.
We are still waiting for the official announcement of the end of the quest by other than the ummayads.
All answers are given here...
th-cam.com/video/ISmRKPf1Jho/w-d-xo.html
Hello, Mr. Smith. let me disagree with you regarding Abd al-Malik, as he is, in my opinion, a Christian personality and never a Muslim. The absence of pictures on the last coin does not mean the existence of Islam. The word Islam does not exist in these coins. And if he is a Muslim, then at least he will preach Islam. Rather, he is a Christian Jew, and he relied on the Torah verse that says, “You shall not make for yourself a statue or an image of what is in the heavens or on the earth.” So the currency that you rely on that he became a Muslim is not correct, so please review yourself. Thank you.
If Islam didn't arrive until 749, what was John of Damascus commenting on? He died in that year.
John of Damascus made indeed references on Mohammad but he does not call him Muhammad but Mamed. The first to talk about Islam was actually Saint Maximus the Confessor. He died in 662!! So he experienced some of this madness. John of Damascus called Mo a fake prophet and that this religion of Ishmaelites was deceiving and paved the way for the Antichrist. John of Damascus was an educated man back in the byzantine years so he knew what he was speaking about. In Medina at that time were Jews mostly. Arab tribes came around the 4th century. There must be records of the Jews too. Must be. What are they hiding I wonder. But..nothing hidden under the sun. Behold! We shall laugh a lot from what is unfolding.
@@eternalpromise1383 When you refer to Medina, do you mean Medina in Hejaz, or al-Mada'in, otherwise known as Seleucia-Ctesiphon?
I assume the nowadays Medina where Jewish tribes Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Qurayza inhabited. They were later attacked by Muhammad as we know the history. One of them tribes "broke" the Medina treaty. One of the tribes was entirely put to death, the men only. And of the other men were beheaded. A Greek text written during the Arab invasion in Syria between 632-634 mentions that a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens and Muhammad is being dismissed on the spot as a prophet because prophets do not come with swords and chariots. The dude was actually leading the invasions. There is definitely something fishy here. It is said that Mo died in 632! So who was leading the invasions then? Either an impostor or Mo died later in years then.
First!
no coins were minted because they were out robbing the people who made them??
@Comment Freely @Audrey O'Callaghan Your missing on the word War. You can not get access to coinage across a battle field and collecting diminishing supply is not a trading mentality.
too long with out any time stamps. skipping, unsubscribing.
@Qui Creva Sp how did you like my reply - you suit that category, right?
Read my reply again all i asked was to add time stamps since it is a long video.
Now! it is a different ball game - stay tuned for more. -:)
This all is really interesting, except its no proof for the validity of trinity or divinity of jesus (rip)
Disproving islam does not prove christianity
Dr jay
Another one of your mistakes that shows your lack of understanding of the islamic history is your claim that abdul malik and the umayyads used to pay tribute to the bizantine emperor because at first they kept the christian symbols on their coins.
That is far from being true. I know there is a report saying he has to pay the bizantine emperor some money and other stuff but that has nothing to do with the coins .
As you have noticed the coins that were minted by the muslims opposed to the ummayads in persia ALL had the zoroastrian symbols whether the ones of ibn zubair or those of the kharijites.
There is even a coin from jerusalem that has the jewish symbol on one side and the muslim shahada on the
Other.
All that doesn't show they were giving tributes to others rather it shows the TOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS BY ISLAM.
In islam there is no compulsion in matters of belief and muslims don't force people to believe in islam. That is why they left the religious symbols of others without changing it . When the majority of people converted willingly they changed the symbols to a more islamic ones.
This is the same reason Umar refused to pray in a church in jerusalem when he was invited to do so out of fear that the muslims might take it as an excuse to turn the church into a mosque.
It is because of this tolerance that the jews were happy when the muslims took over palestine from the bizantine christians who used to force them to convert and restrict their religious freedom.
It is the bizantine emperors who force their religious symbols on others through their coins, not the muslims. At least the good ones who understand their religion well.
I hope you have learned something about islam now and that you will not repeat the same mistake again.
Zubair stop your bullshit. Muslim systematically force non Muslim to convert to Islam with tax and deprivation. It is still happening today in Islamic countries.