Thank God for Jay and Al Fadi. I wouldn't even be on TH-cam if you two and the Dizzle wasn't on here anymore. God bless brother, and as always a great discussion.
In the end, the whole world has to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
@Rayrad 696 -In the end, the whole world will have to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
research this its all true save urself from the fake christianity Mistakes in the bible ⁰the earth aint disc shaped ⁰the earth has no boudaries ⁰ stars do not go missing ⁰stars dont fall to the earth ⁰the value of pi is not 3 it is 3.14... ⁰all languages did not originate from the town of babel ⁰carnivores did not originate from herbivores ⁰flying snakes dnt exist ⁰snails dnt melt as they travel ⁰stars dnt disapear.
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM, this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:13-15) Jesus answered, "Truly I tell you, before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:53-58)
The pillars of I slam are crumbling ... and the base itself will also eventually crumble into dust ...to be scattered to the winds from the four corners of heaven. This is because I slam is not founded by truthful people upon righteousness and truth. The more one digs into I slam, the more one discovers the lies, the deceptions, and sees the blackness of satanic darkness.
Says who. Billions of Christians worldwide globally turn their backs on yre Jesus whom u claim to b God Tht never was when they find out the truth how they hve been brainwashed and lied to. Trinity biggest man made fairytale. Egyptians pagan belief
@@nafisasalie6230 So boastful. Do you even check the facts and care for truth? The last time I checked there are still 2.4 billion Christians and Christianity is still the largest religion on earth. Unless you can say something factual and intelligent, shut up. Why must the Abdols be compelled to shamelessly lie the moment they open their mouth or write some comments? Furthermore, Christ did not compel any one to believe in Him yet there are still 2.4 billion Christians. Unlike Mo with his unjust laws of blasphemy and apostasy that compels people to stay or to shut up and pretend to be Muslims but in secret countless have in reality left and are leaving every single day.
Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to conquer and confiscate. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting divisions. The prophet of Islam chose the order of the doomed tribes carefully. He knew that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, for example, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent conflict. He also knew that the third would not assist the second - due to a dispute over "blood money." The last tribe remaining was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power. Some 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists (according to Ibn Kathir, the number ranges from 400-900 v.3 p.170). It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also refutes the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.
It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial. Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience. Others are unaware of it altogether. But, the incident well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad). Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad personally did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate. They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind. Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth. In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time, between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries. Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding merchant caravans traveling to and from his former home of Mecca. He would steal property and kill anyone who defended it (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424-425). The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this. Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders, and they appreciated the value of doing business securely in a crime-free environment. They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.
After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of piracy operations by Muhammad's gang. In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (the Muslims dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance). The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, away from the battle, were caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by an emissary (a previously evicted Jewish leader) and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters). The chief of the Qurayza did not wish even to entertain the envoy, but he was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674). Once there, the envoy began making the case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent. The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians: When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army... They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." (Ishaq/Hisham 674) After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict. He would neither contribute fighters to the city’s defense nor assist its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers. The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had provoked with the Quraish of Mecca. The first twenty days of the conflict passed "without fighting" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 676) other than a few exchanges of arrows across the trench. A half-hearted effort on that day to breach the defenses proved fatal to the Meccan tribe, thus convincing their leader that they could not win unless the Qurayza joined the battle from the other side. However, the Jewish tribe refused, thus sealing their own fate (ironically) by prompting the Meccans to abandon the siege (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.154).
A grand total of just six Muslims had been killed at the Battle of the Trench. Each of their names were carefully recorded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 699) - none were killed by the Qurayza or by anything done by the Qurayza. With the battle over, however, Muhammad surprised his army by turning them against the Qurayza fortress, claiming that the neutrality of the leader was a breach of the original covenant of Medina which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier. The original language of this 'treaty' is not known definitively. Later renderings as to what it may have said seem suspiciously tailored. It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97). Muhammad had also attacked the two other Jewish tribes - parties to the same agreement - looting their property and then evicting them from their land. It is likely that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were part of the sales pitch made by the Meccans to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality - along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans. From Kab's perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims. In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza. In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers. The lack of participation in battle plainly refutes the apologist argument that the Qurayza had done something to merit their fate. Obviously they did not know this, otherwise they would have fought for their lives. According to Muhammad, it was the angel Gabriel (seen only by himself, of course) who ordered the siege on the Qurayza. After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam. As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688). Another misconception popularized by apologists is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it. There is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad attempted to offload responsibility onto another party. However, from the narrative, it is clear that Muhammad approved of the subsequent slaughter - a fact further verified both by his choice of "arbitrator" and his reaction to the 'verdict'. First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of "one of their own." In fact, this was a convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench. Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment. According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying "unbelievers" even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).
Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval. In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148). Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims try to assure us he was. In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties? Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope. He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches. In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies pushed down into the ditch. There is some evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic "you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded. In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the massacre, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly "widowed" and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693). Other women were not quite as compliant. The historians record the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The executioners apparently found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted: “I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed" (Abu Dawud 2665) (One can forgive Aisha's obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, Muhammad's wife was only 12-years-old). Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty. The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes. Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390). There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none. There had been no combat!
Question: How can there be a mosque in Jerusalem in 620 AD ... as claimed by the Quran ... when there were no muslims in Jerusalem until 638 AD at the earliest? Interesting question. No wonder the pillars of I slam are crumbling ... with conundrums like these popping up more and more with no good answers.
Muslim is who surrender to the will of God. All prophets and their followers surrendered to God. So all are Muslims. Mosque is nothing but house of God where His name is pronounced.
@@frankestein1001 No. That is neither accurate nor true. Muslim are those who submit to A llah according to the Shahada that does not say submission or surender to God. But A llah is not God nor is the Creator God A llah. A llah may be the God worshiped by the Muslims but hardly the God of everyone and certainly never the God of the Christians. The God of the Jews has always been only Jehovah ... not A llah. They submit to God but they are not Muslims. The God of the Christians is the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also Jehovah manifested in the flesh. The Christians also submit to the will of their Savior God, the Lord Jesus Christ but they are not Muslims. When the Christians fully submit to the Lord Jesus Christ, they do so with clear understanding in their mind, great love in their heart, and with perfect willingness in their free and independent will, not with blindness and certainly not with compulsion under the threat of death, of curse, or of hell-fire. And they are men belong to Christ alone, and hence called Christians (Acts 11:26), not Muslims. So, you should accurately proudly say that Muslims are those who surrender to the will of A llah and not to the will of God. For many do not believe that A llah is God and we do not submit to the will of A llah while submitting to the will of God.
And if the mosque is just a place of worship and not that important whether you are a Muslim or not, which I appreciate and applaud, then why is there the need to lie that Muhammad flew on a donkey to the mosque in Jerusalem and from there ascended to heaven and came back? Why the lie? Why the myths? Why such a record in your Quran which came down from A llah? Is the Quran lying or is A llah lying?
Zoe Ashes Oh boy!!! Learn before you talk. Don’t talk gebberish. Allah means God also the personal name of God. What is the name of God of Jesus? What is tge name of God of Arab christians?
@@frankestein1001 Really? That is for you the Muslims only but not for all others, oh boy! And you still have not answered the question how Muhammad has fly to heaven from the Mosque in Jerusalem when there is no mosque there yet! Oh boy! Trying to evade and avoid the obvious conundrum.
Extremely difficult to have wood surviving 2 destructions that included Fire for the Temple of Solomon, the last 600+/- years prior to the raising of the Muslim Mosque.
@@RoarT19 Don't care it is not possible to get 1500 year old burnt wood to be used in a structure. There is just words no proof. And with the amount of fabrication the words are suspect.
The name Muhammad is such a blasphemous name itself! If someone had this name amongst the Jews prior to the Jewish exile, they would be stoned for blasphemy. Only God is the Blessed One.
Since the time, I've been following Al Jadi, Jay Smith, David Wood, and Sam Shamoun debating and arguing about the Quran, I've found myself becoming more Christian by knowing the Quran through these incredible guys. God bless you all. Reading the Quran and understanding the Quran makes you a Christian. I never knew that.
Thank you gentlemen for the work you both been doing. May God bless your work as you continue to inform, educate mostly Muslim viewers around the world about the true way to Salvation ( John 14:6; Acts 4:12; John 3:16).
That story about the 50 prayers a day being reduced to 5 a day sounds familiar. Taken from the story of Lot? Lot convinced God to lower the number of people who needed to be faithful down so he wouldn't destroy his city. Stolen?
research this its all true save urself from the fake christianity Mistakes in the bible ⁰the earth aint disc shaped ⁰the earth has no boudaries ⁰ stars do not go missing ⁰stars dont fall to the earth ⁰the value of pi is not 3 it is 3.14... ⁰all languages did not originate from the town of babel ⁰carnivores did not originate from herbivores ⁰flying snakes dnt exist ⁰snails dnt melt as they travel ⁰stars dnt disapear.
@@MadaraUchiha-ub7tb How many times have you pasted the same thing thinking you sound smart? Maybe you should study the Bible and learn of its literary beauty, its numerous genres, it's humanity and it's inspiration, and then come back and talk.
I agree with Jay's assessment regarding if Muhammad or Jesus was meant in the inscription. I would also say it is ambiguous, possibly purposely ambiguous. I've read one report that the Byzantines provided some of the materials for the building; I think it was Italian marble. Why the Byzantines would contribute to such a building is a complete mystery to me.
Surah 17, the night Journey, is actually called the children of israel. It’s about the exodus of the children of israel led by moses. The word “ Muhammad “ is added.
Mahamed died he did not rose again , even he did not says to come back again but Jesus died, and rose again , He promised To come back again...Mahamed did not says that about the way to heaven but Jesus said that I am the way and life and the truth... That mean there is no onother way accept Jesus christ...
Yah..! Why not ..i proud of Jesus that he rose up among of the died persion...Becouse nothing is imposible for God and he created the univers by his with the voice .
Our God is bigest super nature musician master pease, there is prove about jisus since adam and eve fall in tamtation of the saitan. The Isaia prophecy Fortall that mesaia will born and He will died On the cross and after three days will be raise again...that is complitely fullfiled.but for mahammed there is no prove ,even no prophet about of mahammed history..
"Jesus answered: Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many... so when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ as spoken of through the prophet Daniel then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains... For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. See, I have told you in advance...So if they tell you, ‘There He is in the desert,’ do not go out..." (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21)
The Greatest Building of that day was Hagia Sophia in Constantinople not the Dome of the Rock; though it was a prominent building for its day, it wasn’t the MOST prominent. The architecture that it resembles was (is) the Cathedral of San Vitale at Ravenna which was constructed by around 540 a.d. (c.e.) in Italy from the Ostrogoths slightly before the same time that the Hagia Sophia was built. Ravenna was the last capital of the Roman Empire and became the capitals of the Ostrogothic Kingdom (a semi-client state of the Byzantines for a while) and then the Byzantine administrative capital of Italy after the Byzantine’s reconquored Italy during the reign of Justinian (Justinian built the Hagia Sophia around or after 630 if memory serves correctly). The Franks, I believe under Charlemagne also copied San Vitale’s architecture in a cathedral in their then capital of Aachen (now far western Germany).
It was a church at first then became a mosque then became a museum now it’s a mosque it should be a church we need to talk over Istanbul and rename it Constantinople
IMPORTANT: Do we have record of what scripts were written on the portions of the Dome of the Rock which were destroyed in the conflicts? They seem to be assuming that there were none. That is drawing an "argument from silence" which is never a sound basis. How do we know that the prior inscriptions were not the same as those now present on the reconstruction, which are more in line with the Quran?
Allah The Almighty will disgrace those speak ill of Islam in this world and Hereafter, undoubtedly and vice versa. Like the case of Pharoah whose story is hidden by non believers of Islam. His history is not taught to children by teachers now. Why? Similarly, the history of Dead Sea. Then why Allah The Almighty doesn't punish these people immediately? Because, Allah The Almighty is so merciful and testing everyone of mankind.
In Qur’an, you do not know who the speaker was. Sometimes the speaker was Allah, sometimes he was the Prophet. In Surat 1, In the name of God, most Gracious, most merciful. This should be the prayer of the Prophet, similar to the Christian prayer: In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. This tells us that the Qur’an was written by a man, who probably was a heretic Syriac bishop that knew the Bible, Pshitta, well. Lay Christian did not have the education of Bible and Church theology that presented in Qur’an. This author of Qur’an venerated Jesus, but he denied the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. He was the Seventh Century Martin Luther.
@Aron Aronsky The Bible plainly says so. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (Christ in Greek, Jesus himself said so in John 4:25-26), the Son of the Living God (angels, evil spirits, and the centurion at Jesus' crucifixion said this), Jesus himself is God (John 20:28; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13) and Jesus is the Savior of all who will put their trust in Him.
Revelation 21:1-8 [1]And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. [2]And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. [3]And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. [4]And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. [5]And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. [6]And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. [7]He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. [8]But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
In this up and down movement in an effort to get down the number of prayers was the prophet meeting with Allah face to face? Was this particular revelation too large or too important for Jibreel to convey? What exactly is the importance of this journey, when God could make it happen in a swift?
Open-minded: Dear Dr. Jay Smith, thank you very much for the clearification, which was told the same by Professor to me to change last name to have better future in 2016 in New Zealand. It opened new doors, changed my personality. I changed my last name from DADAMUKHAMEDOV (GRANDFATHER MUKHAMMAD) to AZIMOV. It impacted my acceptance to the western world with good intention.
Dr. Smith states, the dome of the rock was the greatest structure of Byzantine architecture of its day. That is not correct. The Hagia Sophia as christian church build 532-537 in Constantinople was and still is the greatest Byzantine structure. With an original span of 33 metres, the dome of the Hagia Sophia remains to this day the largest brick dome in architectural history built over only four supporting points. This christian church was used as a mosque from 1453 until 1935, then as a museum and is used again as a mosque since 2020.
I am so happy in my heart May Our Lord bless you .n believe me I instantly prayed to living son of God Jesus to protect n bless you beyond imagination for increasing faith in unbelievers
It makes sense that an Arab culture of pride and shame that Abdul Malik the Umayyad caliph would be incensed with the idea that the greatest prophet in the Quran Isa al-Masih (not Muhammad) should have a real Yasou al-Masih who had an even greater account of prophetic greatness who would have been subject to the most ignoble treatment and death on the Roman cross.
I don't care what's others thought ,Bible is God's Book filled by his words which kept in heaven in holy 🔥 flame 🔥 we are soo lucky that it's in our Hand ,,,In the beginning word was there , everything created for him by him is non other but is Jesus ,He is Eternal GOD who redeem us from the curse of the LAW
referring to your statement re. the anti Christ thought on the dome; Lloyd De Jongh maybe right (recent video presentation) that the Islamic ideology has been much influenced or is another version of Gnostic philosophy.......
Readers digest version: The reason for building the dome of the rock by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan is: He is convinced that the Plague of maiden, is a sign of the end of the world (as the catastrophes in 550:ish: the Justinian plague and the winter-summer years crop failure for 10 years in a row.. So he got the dome of the rock to have 8 sides that are the 8 days of the creation, the 8th day of the creation: the end of the world. They knew Christ with its army would come from the east over the mount of olives. Then, go to the dome of the chain where all are judged. If one can pass under the chain, they are allowed in the Dome, by the eastern door of the rock to ascent to heaven.
A little note on the source of the bargaining of "Muhammed" with "Moses" in the heavens: It makes sense to me that this originates from Abraham bargaining with the LORD in Genesis asking that there need only be 50, 45, 40, 30, 20, 10 righteous people. this became the basis for the Minyan under Judaism: 10 heads of households, 10 men. In the new testament, you see 5 pillars of the church: Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers. So really, Muslims don't understand these 5 pillars: they are the gifts found in the foundation of every church, they are essential to the function of every church. So it also fits in with the average between praising God 7 times a day and praying morning, noon, and night.
Okay, first point, a “mosque” is simply the Arabic name for a sanctuary/place of worship, at such, the farthest mosque would translate to the place of worship that existed before al Aqsa mosque was built by the “Muslims”. These are the temple grounds which served as the center of worship for the abrahamic God. It is known that the Aqsa mosque was built at the location of the temple which was already present. So here the farthest mosque is referring to the masjid which was always located at those coordinates. People automatically link a “mosque” solely to an Islamic place of worship when it should be linked to anything abrahamic.
As the specific wording aliens more with the coins over the written Quranic verses one should lean towards the Occam's Razor slicing down to the most simple explanation equaling the work of the Umayyads.
In the end, the whole world will have to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
@@dfwtransport2420To put it other way, the choice is between love and hatred, compassion and terror, equality and religious discrimination, inclusivity and religious exclusivity, multi culturalism and mono culturalism, spiritual religiosity to political religiosity, rule of law and mediaeval religious rules, democracy and theocracy....I prefer the former.
@@eagleeye7251 - When the Antichrist System spreads all over the world, evil will dominate. You seem to be one of those who will side with the Antichrist, because all those who go against the Antichrist System will be the exact "Opposite" of what the rest of the world is doing. The people who oppose the Antichrist will be made to look "Full of hate, terrorists, discriminatory, exclusive, politically incorrect, unruly and a threat." ---- Obviously you are not someone who will oppose the System of the Beast. Only ISLAM can fight the evil System of the Beast.
@@eagleeye7251 - When the source of our knowledge is the One God who has been sending down revelation since the time of Adam, then yes you will have that problem.
I love you guys work. Thanks for open my eyes. Could we start going after the Hadith now? The authors of the Hadith authenticity and the relations with the political power of their day. Did the authors of those books really existed? Who pay them to write those books and the purpose of them?
@Forgiving Fragrance The onus is upon 𝒚𝒐𝒖 to prove it, silly. Prove that a slave trader and a caravan raider that came SIX CENTURIES after Christ is trustworthy and honourable in character, and is telling the truth about Christ. Can you ?...
The problem is the two Civil Wars - the Fitna’s were faught before 690 and those wars were fought over who was the rightful heirs of Mohammed - his blood kin or some other delegate. No side of the Fitnas were arguing or fighting over whether or not there was a Mohammed - they all seem to agree to that. Those fitnas are an established fact of history. So, almost certainly there was a Mohammed. However the modern explanation may be more of an allegory as to what happened. (Just like we think the stories of the founding of Rome are allegories as to what really happened). (However, it does not mean that the Mohammed was who they say he was. More importantly, it doesn't mean that Mecca was the Mecca, (it may indeed have been that Petra was the real-Mecca, and the entire thing got shoved south as a way to transcend the differences between the Eastern and Western wings of the Arab/Islamic state. I think a better way to think of this is that the Arabian state was at least a tri-part state (oh, the irony that it was a kind of trinity, but maybe there were even more parts): there were the Lakhmids (in the East, adjacent to Mesopotamia) and the Ghassanids (in the West, adjacent to Palestine/Syria or the Levant) and somewhere in there, kind of to the south and/or in the middle were the Muslims. The Muslims look like they were based upon Arab identity focused on Hagarism that was more attached to the monotheistic practice of their Jewish cousins and an Arabian tribe just to the south of Nabataeans, the Sabeans (excuse my misspellings here, I mean the Sabeans that are mentioned in the Koran which appears to have been a form of proto-Islam). Mohammed appears to have taken and coopted Sabeanism religion and making himself the prophet of it. Before Islam both the Lakhmids and Ghassanids were largely Christian but of different sects. The Byzantines concluded the long bipolar war between then and the Sassanians, with a Byzantine nominated candidate on the Sassanian thrown. In which case, it looks like both the Lahkmids and the Ghassanids may have lost their subsidies from the larger Empires. It may very well be, that the Fitnas were struggles over which of the two tribes would dominate the Caliphate: the Western branch Ghassanids or the Eastern Branch Lahkmids. The Sassanians, after their accommodation and peace made with Heraclius, conquered their former allies, the Lakhmids outright. The Lakhmids then appear to have fallen back upon the early Islamic state as a kind of backstop, joining forces and then rallying around the more Arabian Islamic banner in a counter reaction against the Persians. At about the same time, it appears that the Islamic state had made accomodations with perhaps some of the Ghassanids too, or at least a faction of them. Either way the Lakhmid+Islamic cooperative made war succesfully upon the Sassanians with three important victories. And then the Ghassanids+Islamic group attempted the same in the west. But the animosity between the Ghassanids and Byzantines in Syria was not the same, nor was the religious differences, so it appears that the Western Group had more problems assaulting Syria than the Eastern Group in assaulting Mesopotamia. This lead to Eastern Forces being redirected to help in the West - and that appeared to work. The combined force won - but they did so by making concessions to the monophysite Christians there. The Arabs of Lakhmid persuasion & location were, maybe, more heavily committed to Islam than the Western/Ghassanids - because Sassanians had channeled the Lakhmids into a version of Christianity different from their Ghassanid cousins, which created a wedge between the two tribes - but when the Sassanians subjugated the Lakhmids outright, the Lakhmid reaction appears to have been to more thoroughly embrace Islam - this is my general impression at this time - of course its a guess but it looks right. Nevertheless in the first Fitna, the Western side (Ghassanids+Monophysite Christian) side managed to prevail over the Lakhmid-more-thoroughly-committed-to-nativist-islam side. So, after the 1st Fitna, the West prevailed in the person of Mauwiyah - whose strength rested largely on alliances with Monophysite christians. When Mauwiyah died another Fitna broke out, this time the West won again, and eventually settling on Malik bin Marwan. After that 2nd Fitna, it appears that the construction of the Dome of the Rock meant Marwan was making a clean break with the Christians, perhaps in the hope of doing so he could co-opt the Lakhmid reaction against the Ummayad domination of the Caliphate. It may have been that by 690, there were enough converts to Islam in the west that reacting against Christianity was good politics inside the Caliphate, perhaps hoping to coopt a lot of the Mesopotamian/Fomerly Lakhmid reaction against the Ummayads. No doubt, the Abbasids used this wedge to help them overthrow the Ummayads, which at least moved the capital further East and provide for more Iranian influence into administration. Currently I suspect that the Lakhmids, like the Medinans and the Shias, and the Shiites, never ever really made out all that well in history. Occasionally they got hegemony in some subset of the Islamic empire, but the majority of the Islamic world is Sunni. According to the traditional account, both the Ummayads and the Abbasids were clans that came out of Mecca. Some have said that the Shia movement was an avatar for Mesopotamia/Eastern wing, which is why Shia-ism was strong in Southern Iraq and Iran and the Sunni movement was an avatar for the Western wing of Islam. Either way, it appears that the settling of the Byzantine-Sassanian wars altered the relationship between the client Arab states as buffers between the two larger states. They joined forces and succeeded in overthrowing the Sassanians. The border of the Islamic Empire in 651 was almost identical to the border of the Sassanian Empire in 626 (except with the additon of the Arabian Peninsula). (See Colin McEvedy's "The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, pages 30-33). (What many historical atlas's don't show, is that the Lakhmid influence, if not outright control, extended over much of Najd (eastern half of the Arabian peninsula), including much of the south shore of the Persian Gulf. So, when the Sassanians conquered the Lakhmid controlled areas of the south banks of the Eurphrates, they still left themselves vulnerable to Arab attacks springing up coming out of the desert. The Byzantine-Sassanian accomodation appears to have triggered a Lakhmid-Ghassanid accomodation as well with a possible Hejaz-western half of the Arabian peninsula state formation just south of the Ghassanid area. The Hejaz was more purely Arab and the compromise between the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids.)
The answer is that there is no specific confirmation of the Night Journey in the Quran. A single sentence similar to several others relating to Moses has been distorted and deliberately inserted at the beginning of a sura to make it fit the narrative. The entire story of the Night Journey told by Muhammad himself is related only in the hadith and in biographies like Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. It never was a revelation from Allah and has no Quranic authority.
I am neither muslim nor jews nor Christian. But as per the law Dome of the Rock must be demolished and at that place a majestic huge Third temple of Jews must be built.
The Prophet Daniel spoke about "The Awful Horror". According to Prophet Daniel, "IT WILL BE STANDING IN THE HOLY PLACE UNTIL THE GOD'S GLORY STRIKE IT DOWN". The place where the Dome of the Rock is standing, is the place where Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac. Later the Muslim Rulers built the "Dome of the Rock" after conquering Jerusalem.
(Playing devil’s advocate): 1. There is no proof of Jesus’ presence anywhere in the Holy Land, either. There are Christian claims, but that means very little, except to believers in Christ. The same logic applies to Islam. Both religions make claims that are hard or impossible to substantiate. 2. What sort of proof, of having been around, is being asked for - in the case of Mo, or of Jesus ? IOW - what would be acceptable as proof ? If St Paul could be rapt to the third heaven - maybe Mo was as well. If Abraham (assuming he existed) could haggle with God over Sodom - why could Mo not haggle as well ? That is one of the problems with Christian anti-Moslem polemic: the objections to Islam & the Koran can at times be applied, with equal force & justice, to Christianity & the Bible. That is one of the reasons that Christian mockery of Islam seems anything but wise. The two religions have a good deal in common.
You need to study deeper there's plenty evidence of Jesus existance by many sources, including Flavius Josephus who was a jew. Christianity is far more reliable in history, archeology and etc. You could start reading Scott Hahn, Eusebius of Ceasarea and Tom Woods
👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏 , mohon terjemahan Indonesianya....agar sy dan juga Indonesia lainnya yg blm ngerti 100% bahasa Inggris bisa ngerti dan paham... Tuhan Yesus Kristus memberkati kita semua...amin
People say they dream of christ and mohhamad. .so if there is no mohammed who did they see ..same as people dream of christ is it christ they see or is it an illusion. .
dear jay thanks for all your efforts and novel thoughts I have one doubt All chronoloy / dates that you refer ( in order to prove the non existance of mohmed ) are based on the traditions only If you want to prove the non existance of Mohamed, then you have to completely depend only on clear historical proofs - independent of the muslim traditional chronology How are u going to do that ?
I have to laugh at all the comments about how Christianity is proven by this debate. So these guys spend hours showing that a religion is false and so the Christian don’t think my religion is false too? Wake up, religions have been create to control you
Traditions uphold most of the religious scriptures including quoran; they are made rival to Bible with myths. The bible alone for the past 2000 yrs has been rationally critiqued by all religionists, athiests and christians themselves and it stands aloft. If alll other religious scriptures rationally studied may not stand criticism and fall.
Is it not the customary practice that when you quote something from the sceipture you put the name of the book page numbers or chapter and verse numbers? Then why the shahada on the dome of the rock doesn't follow that? Is it because the book has taken the Quote from there and not the other way? Curious
@Todd Beamer Yes, I have seen them - it is the "protocols" I am interested in. He mentioned them twice in this video but I haven't seen him talk about them previously.
Iyas bin Qabisa Al-Taei He is the king of Mandari Iyas bin Qabisah Al-Ta’i (Elia / Aliya), nicknamed (Al-Muhammad), the conqueror of the Romans and the Persians and the founder of the Islamic religion on the monotheistic Christian Nestorian Judaism of the Ebionites to fight the Trinitarian Christianity, the religion of the Roman Byzantine state - the plot to overthrow and assassinate him by the military commander and Ruler (Merv) in Persia Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (Mawiyah / Nectas bin Shahr Baraz) from Armenia and liquidation of his family and the seizure of power over the state by the monotheistic Christian Umayyads - the takeover of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Abd al-Malik from Meru), founder of the Islamic state On the rule of the Umayyads and the crystallization of the monotheistic Jewish-Christian religion of Islam and its official establishment - Putting down the revolution of Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr (Abdullah from Al-Zabeel) Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf Al-Thaqafi is a destroyer The Kaaba of Petra in Jordan and the first forger of Islam and the Qur’an - the rule of the Abbasids, the Asian Mongols, and their transfer to the Qiblah of Muslims and the place of pilgrimage from Petra to the Kaaba of Mecca, the current Hijaz, and their completion of the forgery of Islam at the hands of the biography writers, all of them from Persia and Khorasan (Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Al-Nisaburi Or An-Nasa’i, Ibn Muslim) to establish the pillars of political rule and to resolve the struggle for power in the Islamic state.
Bro there is evidence for Jesus First of the accounts of him are actually written within his Century and Josephus a Jewish Historian mentions him 2 times within the 1st Century
In rasm script MHMD means praised, exaltaed, it's neither a noun nor an adjective, but a verbal form, it’s the past participle of the verb HMD praise, exalt. The determinate article al- is not needed. Hence, the whole phrase is mḥmd rswl ’ll’ ḥ without any single al- : Praised Messenger (of) God. The inner inscriptions is a proclamation thata Messiah Jesus son of Mary (masyh ys' bn mrym) is messenger of God and (his) servant; and it adds "Stop saying Three". It's a firm statement of Unitarian believers confronting the Trinitarians. It was intended for trinitarians entering the buiding so that they disbelieve in any triniyty. Some Christians still believe that teh Messiah is a Servant of God (Matthew12:15-21), that Jesus proclaimed the unicity of God (Mark12:30,32) and that jesus said he's not god himself (Luke10:18)
In the end, the whole world will have to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
Incorrect interpretation of translated Arabic sometimes leads Dr Jay to make totally wrong conclusions. While I think some of his other hypothesis are worth investigating in this specific video, he interpreted the word "Masjid" (Mosque) incorrectly. Dr Jay is interpreting the word "Masjid" as an exclusively muslim mosque. In reality the word could be used for any place of prayer. Masjid in Arabic means a place where you kneel / bow. Any religion or cult where subjects kneel could use the word Masjid. As such the first "Masjid" referred to in the Surah in the Quran (Chapter 17 verse 1) could be a place of prayer for the jews or christians.
Jesus might have foreseen this structure wherein denial of His Divinity is written. It's an iconic rejection of Christ. This structure blocks the view of Calvary to one who stands on the Mount of Olive, which may be called a graphic representation of the Rejection. Christ had wept when he gazed at Jerusalem from Mt Olive (Dominus Flevit)
WHY JESUS WILL RETURN TO EARTH NOT. MOHAMMED....ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, MOHAMMED IS THE LAST PROPHET, AND WHY JESUS A PROPHET ACCORDING TO QURAN WILL RETURN IN THE FINAL DAYS...
Jesus will return as a normal man not as, a prophet. He will die and be buried like a normal human being to show the disbelievers Tht he is not God becse God does not die God is eternal forever God is immortal and alive. God is not a man nor a woman. God is everywhere. God is nearer to you than your jugular vein. Gone can say b and it is. Jesus will be dead and will appear in front of God
May Yahweh continue to bless you both. Islam has been shaken to its foundation. Please continue to tell the truth.
They are telling lies.
Neo Abu Jahal. Did he became muslim? His heart has been sealed.
👆🏻😩🤣🤣🤣
@Talha off-topic. Again: "hey, look over there!" Can't defend your own religion?
@Talha Think about it, maybe you're smart enough to figure it out...
Thank God for Jay and Al Fadi. I wouldn't even be on TH-cam if you two and the Dizzle wasn't on here anymore. God bless brother, and as always a great discussion.
@Rayrad 696 thank you for your time in writing this.
Israel & Palestinians------Conflict and Conciliation,
th-cam.com/video/3SDk2-M8J1s/w-d-xo.html
In the end, the whole world has to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
@Rayrad 696 -In the end, the whole world will have to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
research this its all true save urself from the fake christianity
Mistakes in the bible
⁰the earth aint disc shaped
⁰the earth has no boudaries
⁰ stars do not go missing
⁰stars dont fall to the earth
⁰the value of pi is not 3 it is 3.14...
⁰all languages did not originate from the town of babel
⁰carnivores did not originate from herbivores
⁰flying snakes dnt exist
⁰snails dnt melt as they travel
⁰stars dnt disapear.
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM, this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:13-15)
Jesus answered, "Truly I tell you, before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:53-58)
a true prophet of God knows He is Yahweh yet Muhammed came in another name was another God!
Malik made Islam Muhammed either fable or else actual l person who became a legend pretty much all tall tales;
Koran and Muhammed seemed to be made up developed over large period of time really nothing can be shown true regarding Muhammed historically
"I am who I am" I am your supreme Lord" in fact that was the pharaoh of Egypt saying to the people and to Moses !.
Jesus mm ade big and immediate impressions historically Muhamned not do much seems to be made up required for Islam to come about!
The pillars of I slam are crumbling ... and the base itself will also eventually crumble into dust ...to be scattered to the winds from the four corners of heaven. This is because I slam is not founded by truthful people upon righteousness and truth. The more one digs into I slam, the more one discovers the lies, the deceptions, and sees the blackness of satanic darkness.
Islam is not a religion it's organized crime.
Says who.
Billions of Christians worldwide globally turn their backs on yre Jesus whom u claim to b God Tht never was when they find out the truth how they hve been brainwashed and lied to.
Trinity biggest man made fairytale. Egyptians pagan belief
@@nafisasalie6230 So boastful. Do you even check the facts and care for truth? The last time I checked there are still 2.4 billion Christians and Christianity is still the largest religion on earth. Unless you can say something factual and intelligent, shut up. Why must the Abdols be compelled to shamelessly lie the moment they open their mouth or write some comments? Furthermore, Christ did not compel any one to believe in Him yet there are still 2.4 billion Christians. Unlike Mo with his unjust laws of blasphemy and apostasy that compels people to stay or to shut up and pretend to be Muslims but in secret countless have in reality left and are leaving every single day.
@@nafisasalie6230 Address the issue in the video. Stop with the BS. That's not the issue being discussed here.
@@nafisasalie6230 Says who?
There is an old German saying:
Who is sitting in a greenhouse(lit. glasshouse) should not throw stones.
I love how they talk to each other. Both wait till the other finishes and no interruptions very good.
I am very happy to hear you both- special envoys of our Lord Jesus. May God bless you to succed to bring all the lost sheeps to his folks.
Great Explanation! Thank you Brother! God Bless you!
Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to conquer and confiscate. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting divisions.
The prophet of Islam chose the order of the doomed tribes carefully. He knew that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, for example, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent conflict. He also knew that the third would not assist the second - due to a dispute over "blood money."
The last tribe remaining was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.
Some 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists (according to Ibn Kathir, the number ranges from 400-900 v.3 p.170). It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also refutes the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.
It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial. Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience. Others are unaware of it altogether. But, the incident well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad).
Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad personally did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate. They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind.
Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth. In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time, between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries.
Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding merchant caravans traveling to and from his former home of Mecca. He would steal property and kill anyone who defended it (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424-425). The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this. Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders, and they appreciated the value of doing business securely in a crime-free environment. They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.
After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of piracy operations by Muhammad's gang. In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (the Muslims dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).
The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, away from the battle, were caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by an emissary (a previously evicted Jewish leader) and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).
The chief of the Qurayza did not wish even to entertain the envoy, but he was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674). Once there, the envoy began making the case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent. The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians:
When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army... They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." (Ishaq/Hisham 674)
After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict. He would neither contribute fighters to the city’s defense nor assist its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers. The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had provoked with the Quraish of Mecca.
The first twenty days of the conflict passed "without fighting" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 676) other than a few exchanges of arrows across the trench. A half-hearted effort on that day to breach the defenses proved fatal to the Meccan tribe, thus convincing their leader that they could not win unless the Qurayza joined the battle from the other side. However, the Jewish tribe refused, thus sealing their own fate (ironically) by prompting the Meccans to abandon the siege (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.154).
A grand total of just six Muslims had been killed at the Battle of the Trench. Each of their names were carefully recorded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 699) - none were killed by the Qurayza or by anything done by the Qurayza.
With the battle over, however, Muhammad surprised his army by turning them against the Qurayza fortress, claiming that the neutrality of the leader was a breach of the original covenant of Medina which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier. The original language of this 'treaty' is not known definitively. Later renderings as to what it may have said seem suspiciously tailored.
It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97). Muhammad had also attacked the two other Jewish tribes - parties to the same agreement - looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
It is likely that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were part of the sales pitch made by the Meccans to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality - along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans. From Kab's perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims. In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza. In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.
The lack of participation in battle plainly refutes the apologist argument that the Qurayza had done something to merit their fate. Obviously they did not know this, otherwise they would have fought for their lives.
According to Muhammad, it was the angel Gabriel (seen only by himself, of course) who ordered the siege on the Qurayza. After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam. As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688).
Another misconception popularized by apologists is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it. There is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad attempted to offload responsibility onto another party. However, from the narrative, it is clear that Muhammad approved of the subsequent slaughter - a fact further verified both by his choice of "arbitrator" and his reaction to the 'verdict'.
First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of "one of their own." In fact, this was a convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench. Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment. According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying "unbelievers" even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).
Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval. In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148).
Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims try to assure us he was. In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?
Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope. He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches. In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies pushed down into the ditch.
There is some evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic "you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.
In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the massacre, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly "widowed" and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693).
Other women were not quite as compliant. The historians record the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The executioners apparently found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted:
“I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed" (Abu Dawud 2665)
(One can forgive Aisha's obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, Muhammad's wife was only 12-years-old).
Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty. The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes. Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390). There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none. There had been no combat!
Jay Smith is probably one of the best scholar on Islam today.
Question: How can there be a mosque in Jerusalem in 620 AD ... as claimed by the Quran ... when there were no muslims in Jerusalem until 638 AD at the earliest? Interesting question. No wonder the pillars of I slam are crumbling ... with conundrums like these popping up more and more with no good answers.
Muslim is who surrender to the will of God. All prophets and their followers surrendered to God. So all are Muslims. Mosque is nothing but house of God where His name is pronounced.
@@frankestein1001 No. That is neither accurate nor true. Muslim are those who submit to A llah according to the Shahada that does not say submission or surender to God. But A llah is not God nor is the Creator God A llah. A llah may be the God worshiped by the Muslims but hardly the God of everyone and certainly never the God of the Christians. The God of the Jews has always been only Jehovah ... not A llah. They submit to God but they are not Muslims. The God of the Christians is the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also Jehovah manifested in the flesh. The Christians also submit to the will of their Savior God, the Lord Jesus Christ but they are not Muslims. When the Christians fully submit to the Lord Jesus Christ, they do so with clear understanding in their mind, great love in their heart, and with perfect willingness in their free and independent will, not with blindness and certainly not with compulsion under the threat of death, of curse, or of hell-fire. And they are men belong to Christ alone, and hence called Christians (Acts 11:26), not Muslims. So, you should accurately proudly say that Muslims are those who surrender to the will of A llah and not to the will of God. For many do not believe that A llah is God and we do not submit to the will of A llah while submitting to the will of God.
And if the mosque is just a place of worship and not that important whether you are a Muslim or not, which I appreciate and applaud, then why is there the need to lie that Muhammad flew on a donkey to the mosque in Jerusalem and from there ascended to heaven and came back? Why the lie? Why the myths? Why such a record in your Quran which came down from A llah? Is the Quran lying or is A llah lying?
Zoe Ashes Oh boy!!! Learn before you talk. Don’t talk gebberish.
Allah means God also the personal name of God. What is the name of God of Jesus? What is tge name of God of Arab christians?
@@frankestein1001 Really? That is for you the Muslims only but not for all others, oh boy! And you still have not answered the question how Muhammad has fly to heaven from the Mosque in Jerusalem when there is no mosque there yet! Oh boy! Trying to evade and avoid the obvious conundrum.
It was Destroyed numerous times by earthquakes
And even the Cedar wood of Solomon temple was found inside the Al Aqsa
The Al Aqsa was built in 710 A.D
Extremely difficult to have wood surviving 2 destructions that included Fire for the Temple of Solomon, the last 600+/- years prior to the raising of the Muslim Mosque.
@@gilbertjones9157
There were Inscriptions found in the Temple mount Friend
@@RoarT19 Don't care it is not possible to get 1500 year old burnt wood to be used in a structure. There is just words no proof. And with the amount of fabrication the words are suspect.
@@RoarT19 what inscriptions and when?
If Muhammad is the blessed one, why was he poisoned to death.
Very weak arguement! Why is your so called blessed false GOD being killed on cross?
The name Muhammad is such a blasphemous name itself! If someone had this name amongst the Jews prior to the Jewish exile, they would be stoned for blasphemy. Only God is the Blessed One.
@@crypterworm9959 Jesus died for the sins of humanity. Surely you have heard this millions of times.
@@crypterworm9959 If weak, then prove wrong.
@@crypterworm9959 You forgot the resurrection part. mohamad is in hell.
Since the time, I've been following Al Jadi, Jay Smith, David Wood, and Sam Shamoun debating and arguing about the Quran, I've found myself becoming more Christian by knowing the Quran through these incredible guys. God bless you all. Reading the Quran and understanding the Quran makes you a Christian. I never knew that.
Me too
@@hk-cruise4687 Praise Yahweh. There is proof in everything in the Bible says there is proof for.
So you come to us carrying David wood and Sam shamoun arguments
A fantastic debate. Logically, AbdAlMalik would have gave himself the title "Al Mohammed". Every aspect got covered.
God bless you brothers for speaking the truth and showing these people who they are
Thank you gentlemen for the work you both been doing. May God bless your work as you continue to inform, educate mostly Muslim viewers around the world about the true way to Salvation ( John 14:6; Acts 4:12; John 3:16).
Honorable Al fadi n j.smith- As always, this time also wonderful, very logical and eye-opening information, thank you 👍
Hey bhai..y u not muslim
@@dundadunda552 of course I am muslim, but I am not conservative one✔
@@ferozkhan-nc5zu
Out of curiosity, why are you a Muslim?
@@Xbalanque84 excellent remake ✔ actually i am a human being only
L9g8cal eye there is jesus but our prophet Muhammad pbuh he doesn't exist!?what a non s3ns3
That story about the 50 prayers a day being reduced to 5 a day sounds familiar. Taken from the story of Lot? Lot convinced God to lower the number of people who needed to be faithful down so he wouldn't destroy his city. Stolen?
It's actually stolen from "Ardavirafname"
Hi, just to say it wasn’t Lot who bargained with God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was Abraham (Genesis 18:16-33). Shalom 🤗🙏✝️
@@tomobrien5795 Yes, I had it wrong. My mind is going. Thanks.
@@thomaskelly9174 No worries! I’m 63 myself and getting plenty of senior moments 😳🥴😊
I wish they would bulldoze the dome of the rock
And hide the truth? The Dome is extremely valuable: it destroys the SIN. I will show you how in the autumn.
@@Speakers154 I understand but I still hate that a pagan idol is on top of a temple where ppl worshipped the true living god.
research this its all true save urself from the fake christianity
Mistakes in the bible
⁰the earth aint disc shaped
⁰the earth has no boudaries
⁰ stars do not go missing
⁰stars dont fall to the earth
⁰the value of pi is not 3 it is 3.14...
⁰all languages did not originate from the town of babel
⁰carnivores did not originate from herbivores
⁰flying snakes dnt exist
⁰snails dnt melt as they travel
⁰stars dnt disapear.
@@MadaraUchiha-ub7tb How many times have you pasted the same thing thinking you sound smart? Maybe you should study the Bible and learn of its literary beauty, its numerous genres, it's humanity and it's inspiration, and then come back and talk.
@@MadaraUchiha-ub7tb come on man, give us specific verses that say those thing or STFU 🤬
Thank you so much both of you and God bless you both
I agree with Jay's assessment regarding if Muhammad or Jesus was meant in the inscription. I would also say it is ambiguous, possibly purposely ambiguous. I've read one report that the Byzantines provided some of the materials for the building; I think it was Italian marble. Why the Byzantines would contribute to such a building is a complete mystery to me.
Han Solo : Chewie who's on hyperspeed behind us.
Chewbacca : Mohammad with flying horse.
You shall know the Truth and The Truth will set you free...Truth is freedom...!!
Great work guys
Yeshua Jesus Christ is Lord and will return
I never knew you evil doers.
AMEN
@@msyuslan1 may God forgive you
Muhammad was NEVER in Jerusalem. He later changed his story to he had a dream of it.
And there are 3 heavens, not 7 .
Surah 17, the night Journey, is actually called the children of israel. It’s about the exodus of the children of israel led by moses. The word “ Muhammad “ is added.
may all muslims watch this and realize that the true and only living GOD is JESUS CHRIST!
Mahamed died he did not rose again , even he did not says to come back again but Jesus died, and rose again , He promised To come back again...Mahamed did not says that about the way to heaven but Jesus said that I am the way and life and the truth... That mean there is no onother way accept Jesus christ...
Yah..! Why not ..i proud of Jesus that he rose up among of the died persion...Becouse nothing is imposible for God and he created the univers by his with the voice .
Our God is bigest super nature musician master pease, there is prove about jisus since adam and eve fall in tamtation of the saitan. The Isaia prophecy Fortall that mesaia will born and He will died On the cross and after three days will be raise again...that is complitely fullfiled.but for mahammed there is no prove ,even no prophet about of mahammed history..
"Jesus answered: Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many... so when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ as spoken of through the prophet Daniel then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains... For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. See, I have told you in advance...So if they tell you, ‘There He is in the desert,’ do not go out..." (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21)
Good morning work Al fadi
God bless Jay and Al Faydi....
The Greatest Building of that day was Hagia Sophia in Constantinople not the Dome of the Rock; though it was a prominent building for its day, it wasn’t the MOST prominent. The architecture that it resembles was (is) the Cathedral of San Vitale at Ravenna which was constructed by around 540 a.d. (c.e.) in Italy from the Ostrogoths slightly before the same time that the Hagia Sophia was built. Ravenna was the last capital of the Roman Empire and became the capitals of the Ostrogothic Kingdom (a semi-client state of the Byzantines for a while) and then the Byzantine administrative capital of Italy after the Byzantine’s reconquored Italy during the reign of Justinian (Justinian built the Hagia Sophia around or after 630 if memory serves correctly). The Franks, I believe under Charlemagne also copied San Vitale’s architecture in a cathedral in their then capital of Aachen (now far western Germany).
It was a church at first then became a mosque then became a museum now it’s a mosque it should be a church we need to talk over Istanbul and rename it Constantinople
IMPORTANT: Do we have record of what scripts were written on the portions of the Dome of the Rock which were destroyed in the conflicts?
They seem to be assuming that there were none. That is drawing an "argument from silence" which is never a sound basis.
How do we know that the prior inscriptions were not the same as those now present on the reconstruction, which are more in line with the Quran?
Allah The Almighty will disgrace those speak ill of Islam in this world and Hereafter, undoubtedly and vice versa.
Like the case of Pharoah whose story is hidden by non believers of Islam.
His history is not taught to children by teachers now. Why?
Similarly, the history of Dead Sea.
Then why Allah The Almighty doesn't punish these people immediately?
Because, Allah The Almighty is so merciful and testing everyone of mankind.
In Qur’an, you do not know who the speaker was. Sometimes the speaker was Allah, sometimes he was the Prophet. In Surat 1, In the name of God, most Gracious, most merciful. This should be the prayer of the Prophet, similar to the Christian prayer: In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. This tells us that the Qur’an was written by a man, who probably was a heretic Syriac bishop that knew the Bible, Pshitta, well. Lay Christian did not have the education of Bible and Church theology that presented in Qur’an. This author of Qur’an venerated Jesus, but he denied the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. He was the Seventh Century Martin Luther.
I know of a surety that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God and Christ himself is God, the savior of all mankind.
@Aron Aronsky The Bible plainly says so. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (Christ in Greek, Jesus himself said so in John 4:25-26), the Son of the Living God (angels, evil spirits, and the centurion at Jesus' crucifixion said this), Jesus himself is God (John 20:28; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13) and Jesus is the Savior of all who will put their trust in Him.
Another excellent video, be seriously guys, you need to get this written down, even if it's in the explanation
There's no alla in the Bible n there's no Muhammad in the Bible
Jesus spoke Aramaic, translating the word “God” to Aramaic is Allah, Elohem. Allah means God.
Revelation 21:1-8
[1]And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
[2]And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
[3]And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
[4]And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
[5]And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
[6]And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
[7]He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
[8]But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Societies have always created and promoted things for personal benifits.
In this up and down movement in an effort to get down the number of prayers was the prophet meeting with Allah face to face?
Was this particular revelation too large or too important for Jibreel to convey?
What exactly is the importance of this journey, when God could make it happen in a swift?
Man it would be nice to have more illustrations to go along with your stories.
Open-minded: Dear Dr. Jay Smith, thank you very much for the clearification, which was told the same by Professor to me to change last name to have better future in 2016 in New Zealand. It opened new doors, changed my personality. I changed my last name from DADAMUKHAMEDOV (GRANDFATHER MUKHAMMAD) to AZIMOV. It impacted my acceptance to the western world with good intention.
Dr. Smith states, the dome of the rock was the greatest structure of Byzantine architecture of its day. That is not correct. The Hagia Sophia as christian church build 532-537 in Constantinople was and still is the greatest Byzantine structure. With an original span of 33 metres, the dome of the Hagia Sophia remains to this day the largest brick dome in architectural history built over only four supporting points. This christian church was used as a mosque from 1453 until 1935, then as a museum and is used again as a mosque since 2020.
I am so happy in my heart May Our Lord bless you .n believe me I instantly prayed to living son of God Jesus to protect n bless you beyond imagination for increasing faith in unbelievers
Amen praise the Lord God very good explain brothers God blessed yours
It makes sense that an Arab culture of pride and shame that Abdul Malik the Umayyad caliph would be incensed with the idea that the greatest prophet in the Quran Isa al-Masih (not Muhammad) should have a real Yasou al-Masih who had an even greater account of prophetic greatness who would have been subject to the most ignoble treatment and death on the Roman cross.
A prophet who don't show his face ..
A God Allah whom no one can imagine or does not exist
A Quran which no one asked to write .
What is Islam then ?
I am impressed the way Jay twists the history.
Here say uninspiring answer. Try harder.
Twist history compared to what ? The lachish reliefs ? Or the tel Dan stele ?
I don't care what's others thought ,Bible is God's Book filled by his words which kept in heaven in holy 🔥 flame 🔥 we are soo lucky that it's in our Hand ,,,In the beginning word was there , everything created for him by him is non other but is Jesus ,He is Eternal GOD who redeem us from the curse of the LAW
referring to your statement re. the anti Christ thought on the dome; Lloyd De Jongh maybe right (recent video presentation) that the Islamic ideology has been much influenced or is another version of Gnostic philosophy.......
Readers digest version: The reason for building the dome of the rock by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan is: He is convinced that the Plague of maiden, is a sign of the end of the world (as the catastrophes in 550:ish: the Justinian plague and the winter-summer years crop failure for 10 years in a row.. So he got the dome of the rock to have 8 sides that are the 8 days of the creation, the 8th day of the creation: the end of the world. They knew Christ with its army would come from the east over the mount of olives. Then, go to the dome of the chain where all are judged. If one can pass under the chain, they are allowed in the Dome, by the eastern door of the rock to ascent to heaven.
A little note on the source of the bargaining of "Muhammed" with "Moses" in the heavens: It makes sense to me that this originates from Abraham bargaining with the LORD in Genesis asking that there need only be 50, 45, 40, 30, 20, 10 righteous people. this became the basis for the Minyan under Judaism: 10 heads of households, 10 men. In the new testament, you see 5 pillars of the church: Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers. So really, Muslims don't understand these 5 pillars: they are the gifts found in the foundation of every church, they are essential to the function of every church. So it also fits in with the average between praising God 7 times a day and praying morning, noon, and night.
Okay, first point, a “mosque” is simply the Arabic name for a sanctuary/place of worship, at such, the farthest mosque would translate to the place of worship that existed before al Aqsa mosque was built by the “Muslims”. These are the temple grounds which served as the center of worship for the abrahamic God. It is known that the Aqsa mosque was built at the location of the temple which was already present. So here the farthest mosque is referring to the masjid which was always located at those coordinates. People automatically link a “mosque” solely to an Islamic place of worship when it should be linked to anything abrahamic.
As the specific wording aliens more with the coins over the written Quranic verses one should lean towards the Occam's Razor slicing down to the most simple explanation equaling the work of the Umayyads.
The best service anyone can do to humanity is to introduce this and similar channels to the thinking Muslim.
In the end, the whole world will have to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
@@dfwtransport2420To put it other way, the choice is between love and hatred, compassion and terror, equality and religious discrimination, inclusivity and religious exclusivity, multi culturalism and mono culturalism, spiritual religiosity to political religiosity, rule of law and mediaeval religious rules, democracy and theocracy....I prefer the former.
@@eagleeye7251 - When the Antichrist System spreads all over the world, evil will dominate. You seem to be one of those who will side with the Antichrist, because all those who go against the Antichrist System will be the exact "Opposite" of what the rest of the world is doing. The people who oppose the Antichrist will be made to look "Full of hate, terrorists, discriminatory, exclusive, politically incorrect, unruly and a threat." ---- Obviously you are not someone who will oppose the System of the Beast. Only ISLAM can fight the evil System of the Beast.
@@dfwtransport2420 My problem is, you people borrow from other religious texts to support your view point.
@@eagleeye7251 - When the source of our knowledge is the One God who has been sending down revelation since the time of Adam, then yes you will have that problem.
These two were there at the time, and waiting for our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Yeah, they are that old and knows everything. 🙄🙄
I love you guys work. Thanks for open my eyes. Could we start going after the Hadith now?
The authors of the Hadith authenticity and the relations with the political power of their day. Did the authors of those books really existed? Who pay them to write those books and the purpose of them?
It’s so good to know the Islamic Mo never existed!
@Forgiving Fragrance absolutely a lie. Mo is nothing more than a fable invented by the 8th Century Caliphs.
@Forgiving Fragrance ISA is not and never was JESUS and you Muslims know nothing of JESUS’ teachings.
@Forgiving Fragrance
Christ warned the fake prophet and the fake isa the Antichrist was coming
Where we stand is for the truth against IZLM the Lie
@Forgiving Fragrance
The onus is upon 𝒚𝒐𝒖 to prove it, silly.
Prove that a slave trader
and a caravan raider that
came SIX CENTURIES after Christ is trustworthy and honourable in character, and is telling the truth about Christ. Can you ?...
@Forgiving Fragrance SHOW US WHERE
Christ said he had a successor.??
because he said THERE WERE NO MORE PROPHETS AFTER JOHN
Very interesting even Dr zakir Naik said that he didn't find any where the size of the prophets beard which is very strange.
Yani muhhmad tha hi nahi??
Kya muhhmad hi allah aur Muhammad hi prophet hai
The problem is the two Civil Wars - the Fitna’s were faught before 690 and those wars were fought over who was the rightful heirs of Mohammed - his blood kin or some other delegate. No side of the Fitnas were arguing or fighting over whether or not there was a Mohammed - they all seem to agree to that. Those fitnas are an established fact of history. So, almost certainly there was a Mohammed. However the modern explanation may be more of an allegory as to what happened. (Just like we think the stories of the founding of Rome are allegories as to what really happened).
(However, it does not mean that the Mohammed was who they say he was. More importantly, it doesn't mean that Mecca was the Mecca, (it may indeed have been that Petra was the real-Mecca, and the entire thing got shoved south as a way to transcend the differences between the Eastern and Western wings of the Arab/Islamic state.
I think a better way to think of this is that the Arabian state was at least a tri-part state (oh, the irony that it was a kind of trinity, but maybe there were even more parts): there were the Lakhmids (in the East, adjacent to Mesopotamia) and the Ghassanids (in the West, adjacent to Palestine/Syria or the Levant) and somewhere in there, kind of to the south and/or in the middle were the Muslims. The Muslims look like they were based upon Arab identity focused on Hagarism that was more attached to the monotheistic practice of their Jewish cousins and an Arabian tribe just to the south of Nabataeans, the Sabeans (excuse my misspellings here, I mean the Sabeans that are mentioned in the Koran which appears to have been a form of proto-Islam). Mohammed appears to have taken and coopted Sabeanism religion and making himself the prophet of it.
Before Islam both the Lakhmids and Ghassanids were largely Christian but of different sects. The Byzantines concluded the long bipolar war between then and the Sassanians, with a Byzantine nominated candidate on the Sassanian thrown. In which case, it looks like both the Lahkmids and the Ghassanids may have lost their subsidies from the larger Empires. It may very well be, that the Fitnas were struggles over which of the two tribes would dominate the Caliphate: the Western branch Ghassanids or the Eastern Branch Lahkmids.
The Sassanians, after their accommodation and peace made with Heraclius, conquered their former allies, the Lakhmids outright. The Lakhmids then appear to have fallen back upon the early Islamic state as a kind of backstop, joining forces and then rallying around the more Arabian Islamic banner in a counter reaction against the Persians. At about the same time, it appears that the Islamic state had made accomodations with perhaps some of the Ghassanids too, or at least a faction of them. Either way the Lakhmid+Islamic cooperative made war succesfully upon the Sassanians with three important victories. And then the Ghassanids+Islamic group attempted the same in the west. But the animosity between the Ghassanids and Byzantines in Syria was not the same, nor was the religious differences, so it appears that the Western Group had more problems assaulting Syria than the Eastern Group in assaulting Mesopotamia. This lead to Eastern Forces being redirected to help in the West - and that appeared to work. The combined force won - but they did so by making concessions to the monophysite Christians there. The Arabs of Lakhmid persuasion & location were, maybe, more heavily committed to Islam than the Western/Ghassanids - because Sassanians had channeled the Lakhmids into a version of Christianity different from their Ghassanid cousins, which created a wedge between the two tribes - but when the Sassanians subjugated the Lakhmids outright, the Lakhmid reaction appears to have been to more thoroughly embrace Islam - this is my general impression at this time - of course its a guess but it looks right.
Nevertheless in the first Fitna, the Western side (Ghassanids+Monophysite Christian) side managed to prevail over the Lakhmid-more-thoroughly-committed-to-nativist-islam side.
So, after the 1st Fitna, the West prevailed in the person of Mauwiyah - whose strength rested largely on alliances with Monophysite christians. When Mauwiyah died another Fitna broke out, this time the West won again, and eventually settling on Malik bin Marwan. After that 2nd Fitna, it appears that the construction of the Dome of the Rock meant Marwan was making a clean break with the Christians, perhaps in the hope of doing so he could co-opt the Lakhmid reaction against the Ummayad domination of the Caliphate. It may have been that by 690, there were enough converts to Islam in the west that reacting against Christianity was good politics inside the Caliphate, perhaps hoping to coopt a lot of the Mesopotamian/Fomerly Lakhmid reaction against the Ummayads. No doubt, the Abbasids used this wedge to help them overthrow the Ummayads, which at least moved the capital further East and provide for more Iranian influence into administration. Currently I suspect that the Lakhmids, like the Medinans and the Shias, and the Shiites, never ever really made out all that well in history. Occasionally they got hegemony in some subset of the Islamic empire, but the majority of the Islamic world is Sunni. According to the traditional account, both the Ummayads and the Abbasids were clans that came out of Mecca. Some have said that the Shia movement was an avatar for Mesopotamia/Eastern wing, which is why Shia-ism was strong in Southern Iraq and Iran and the Sunni movement was an avatar for the Western wing of Islam.
Either way, it appears that the settling of the Byzantine-Sassanian wars altered the relationship between the client Arab states as buffers between the two larger states. They joined forces and succeeded in overthrowing the Sassanians. The border of the Islamic Empire in 651 was almost identical to the border of the Sassanian Empire in 626 (except with the additon of the Arabian Peninsula). (See Colin McEvedy's "The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, pages 30-33).
(What many historical atlas's don't show, is that the Lakhmid influence, if not outright control, extended over much of Najd (eastern half of the Arabian peninsula), including much of the south shore of the Persian Gulf. So, when the Sassanians conquered the Lakhmid controlled areas of the south banks of the Eurphrates, they still left themselves vulnerable to Arab attacks springing up coming out of the desert. The Byzantine-Sassanian accomodation appears to have triggered a Lakhmid-Ghassanid accomodation as well with a possible Hejaz-western half of the Arabian peninsula state formation just south of the Ghassanid area. The Hejaz was more purely Arab and the compromise between the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids.)
The answer is that there is no specific confirmation of the Night Journey in the Quran. A single sentence similar to several others relating to Moses has been distorted and deliberately inserted at the beginning of a sura to make it fit the narrative. The entire story of the Night Journey told by Muhammad himself is related only in the hadith and in biographies like Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. It never was a revelation from Allah and has no Quranic authority.
MBS: "Mohammed. get lost!"
That is why nobody can find Mohammed.
Did you try Las Vegas?
I am neither muslim nor jews nor Christian. But as per the law Dome of the Rock must be demolished and at that place a majestic huge Third temple of Jews must be built.
The Prophet Daniel spoke about "The Awful Horror". According to Prophet Daniel, "IT WILL BE STANDING IN THE HOLY PLACE UNTIL THE GOD'S GLORY STRIKE IT DOWN". The place where the Dome of the Rock is standing, is the place where Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac. Later the Muslim Rulers built the "Dome of the Rock" after conquering Jerusalem.
I just wish that MBS (Muhammad Bin Salman) is watching Jay’s videos as well as Al Fadi’s and other apologists against Islam.
Then peace will finally return in the middle east when Islam fades.
You still cant prove there wasnt a falafel restaurant next to the rock.
Hahaha
😆😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 ...what else can I do? ..🤭🤭🤭🤪🤪😂😂😂😘
So they launched another dimension, According to Muslims Adam, .. Moses.... Jesus ..... Muhammad were all Muslims.
Oooh my I love my jesus my lord and my religion the truth and the way Christian glory be to God and our Lord jesus christ alleluia
(Playing devil’s advocate):
1. There is no proof of Jesus’ presence anywhere in the Holy Land, either. There are Christian claims, but that means very little, except to believers in Christ. The same logic applies to Islam. Both religions make claims that are hard or impossible to substantiate.
2. What sort of proof, of having been around, is being asked for - in the case of Mo, or of Jesus ? IOW - what would be acceptable as proof ?
If St Paul could be rapt to the third heaven - maybe Mo was as well. If Abraham (assuming he existed) could haggle with God over Sodom - why could Mo not haggle as well ?
That is one of the problems with Christian anti-Moslem polemic: the objections to Islam & the Koran can at times be applied, with equal force & justice, to Christianity & the Bible. That is one of the reasons that Christian mockery of Islam seems anything but wise. The two religions have a good deal in common.
You need to study deeper there's plenty evidence of Jesus existance by many sources, including Flavius Josephus who was a jew. Christianity is far more reliable in history, archeology and etc. You could start reading Scott Hahn, Eusebius of Ceasarea and Tom Woods
👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏 , mohon terjemahan Indonesianya....agar sy dan juga Indonesia lainnya yg blm ngerti 100% bahasa Inggris bisa ngerti dan paham...
Tuhan Yesus Kristus memberkati kita semua...amin
Pm aja sharing2 mba
Doesn't surprise me that it is of Byzantine design. It was always going to be either that or Persian.
People say they dream of christ and mohhamad. .so if there is no mohammed who did they see ..same as people dream of christ is it christ they see or is it an illusion. .
Good information!
Abdul Malik the script writer par excellence !
Moses the last word ! 😎
dear jay
thanks for all your efforts and novel thoughts
I have one doubt
All chronoloy / dates that you refer ( in order to prove the non
existance of mohmed ) are based on the traditions only
If you want to prove the non existance of Mohamed, then you have to completely depend
only on clear historical proofs - independent of the muslim traditional chronology
How are u going to do that ?
I have to laugh at all the comments about how Christianity is proven by this debate. So these guys spend hours showing that a religion is false and so the Christian don’t think my religion is false too? Wake up, religions have been create to control you
Yet what really matters is that there’s proof of Christ in the Holy Land and the rest of the world, the way, the truth, and the life. Amen 🙏
Wow - so much special education here
Why Gaza boiling.. One man blunder Miraj.. Just imagine that Blunder Miraj still boiling against Jews..
Can the real Muhammad stand up?
What is the proof that you are born to your father
Traditions uphold most of the religious scriptures including quoran; they are made rival to Bible with myths. The bible alone for the past 2000 yrs has been rationally critiqued by all religionists, athiests and christians themselves and it stands aloft. If alll other religious scriptures rationally studied may not stand criticism and fall.
But still one question remains: why is there such a black hole of obscurity around this mohammed figure?
Is it not the customary practice that when you quote something from the sceipture you put the name of the book page numbers or chapter and verse numbers?
Then why the shahada on the dome of the rock doesn't follow that? Is it because the book has taken the Quote from there and not the other way?
Curious
Jay mentions the 'protocols' along with the coins and the dome. Can anyone point me to more info about this?
@mysotiras7 Thanks buddy, appreciated.
@Todd Beamer Yes, I have seen them - it is the "protocols" I am interested in. He mentioned them twice in this video but I haven't seen him talk about them previously.
Iyas bin Qabisa Al-Taei
He is the king of Mandari Iyas bin Qabisah Al-Ta’i (Elia / Aliya), nicknamed (Al-Muhammad), the conqueror of the Romans and the Persians and the founder of the Islamic religion on the monotheistic Christian Nestorian Judaism of the Ebionites to fight the Trinitarian Christianity, the religion of the Roman Byzantine state - the plot to overthrow and assassinate him by the military commander and Ruler (Merv) in Persia Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (Mawiyah / Nectas bin Shahr Baraz) from Armenia and liquidation of his family and the seizure of power over the state by the monotheistic Christian Umayyads - the takeover of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Abd al-Malik from Meru), founder of the Islamic state On the rule of the Umayyads and the crystallization of the monotheistic Jewish-Christian religion of Islam and its official establishment - Putting down the revolution of Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr (Abdullah from Al-Zabeel)
Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf Al-Thaqafi is a destroyer
The Kaaba of Petra in Jordan and the first forger of Islam and the Qur’an - the rule of the Abbasids, the Asian Mongols, and their transfer to the Qiblah of Muslims and the place of pilgrimage from Petra to the Kaaba of Mecca, the current Hijaz, and their completion of the forgery of Islam at the hands of the biography writers, all of them from Persia and Khorasan (Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Al-Nisaburi Or An-Nasa’i, Ibn Muslim) to establish the pillars of political rule and to resolve the struggle for power in the Islamic state.
No proof for the existences of Jesus or Moses either...
There is hundred percent proof
Bro there is evidence for Jesus First of the accounts of him are actually written within his Century and Josephus a Jewish Historian mentions him 2 times within the 1st Century
Please captions
In rasm script MHMD means praised, exaltaed, it's neither a noun nor an adjective, but a verbal form, it’s the past participle of the verb HMD praise, exalt. The determinate article al- is not needed. Hence, the whole phrase is mḥmd rswl ’ll’ ḥ without any single al- : Praised Messenger (of) God. The inner inscriptions is a proclamation thata Messiah Jesus son of Mary (masyh ys' bn mrym) is messenger of God and (his) servant; and it adds "Stop saying Three". It's a firm statement of Unitarian believers confronting the Trinitarians. It was intended for trinitarians entering the buiding so that they disbelieve in any triniyty. Some Christians still believe that teh Messiah is a Servant of God (Matthew12:15-21), that Jesus proclaimed the unicity of God (Mark12:30,32) and that jesus said he's not god himself (Luke10:18)
I LOVE YOU YESHUA AMEN
In the end, the whole world will have to choose between the worship of One God and Monotheism (ISLAM) or a Trinity god and Polytheism (Christianity). I choose the Lord of Abraham and Islam.
Well researched about Mohammed and truth is out. Allah oh Akbar.
Can you please also comment and shed some light about the inscription of Gadara in Palestine, seems its very significant from what i read
Incorrect interpretation of translated Arabic sometimes leads Dr Jay to make totally wrong conclusions. While I think some of his other hypothesis are worth investigating in this specific video, he interpreted the word "Masjid" (Mosque) incorrectly. Dr Jay is interpreting the word "Masjid" as an exclusively muslim mosque. In reality the word could be used for any place of prayer. Masjid in Arabic means a place where you kneel / bow. Any religion or cult where subjects kneel could use the word Masjid. As such the first "Masjid" referred to in the Surah in the Quran (Chapter 17 verse 1) could be a place of prayer for the jews or christians.
jay and his team will never stop
Islam jay lost face to face with
hijab and mansoor
Wonderful message God is great all the time.
Abdel Malik did the same what Constantine did with Christianity ;)
Jesus might have foreseen this structure wherein denial of His Divinity is written. It's an iconic rejection of Christ. This structure blocks the view of Calvary to one who stands on the Mount of Olive, which may be called a graphic representation of the Rejection. Christ had wept when he gazed at Jerusalem from Mt Olive (Dominus Flevit)
WHY JESUS WILL RETURN TO EARTH NOT. MOHAMMED....ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, MOHAMMED IS THE LAST PROPHET, AND WHY JESUS A PROPHET ACCORDING TO QURAN WILL RETURN IN THE FINAL DAYS...
Jesus will return as a normal man not as, a prophet. He will die and be buried like a normal human being to show the disbelievers Tht he is not God becse God does not die God is eternal forever God is immortal and alive. God is not a man nor a woman. God is everywhere. God is nearer to you than your jugular vein. Gone can say b and it is. Jesus will be dead and will appear in front of God
@bluestar check Zakir Naik vdeo.
@@ismihaidar2181 Zakir Naik is a liar and a wanted man in his country, don't believe that knob.