SomaliNet Forums

lol this so called "historian" is known for his anti-islam propaganda, not gonna bother watching. adeer is you muslim horta mise mulxid?

CigaalSHiiDaaDCFC wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:20 pm lol this so called "historian" is known for his anti-islam propaganda, not gonna bother watching. adeer is you muslim horta mise mulxid?

I know Arabs/Muslims don't like him but then again they don't like any western historian/anthropologist who tries to understand the origin of the religion. There is no question that Judaism and Christianity are man made and Islam borrows heavily from these man made religions so he's just questioning why a God sent religion would borrow from man made ones and he's not the only western historian who is studying its origin but he's one of the well spoken, this is a recent video he did, so I just thought people might want to check it out.

Hotep.

DaacasBiyo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:59 pm

CigaalSHiiDaaDCFC wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:20 pm lol this so called "historian" is known for his anti-islam propaganda, not gonna bother watching. adeer is you muslim horta mise mulxid?

I know Arabs/Muslims don't like him but then again they don't like any western historian/anthropologist who tries to understand the origin of the religion. There is no question that Judaism and Christianity are man made and Islam borrows heavily from these man made religions so he's just questioning why a God sent religion would borrow from man made ones and he's not the only western historian who is studying its origin but he's one of the well spoken, this is a recent video he did, so I just thought people might want to check it out.

Hotep.

This guy ignores all early islamic sources and attempts to substantiate his agenda by utilising distorted anti-islamic sources.

He essentially infers entirely consequential evidence to reach his point that Mecca & Medina are not were the Quran originated.

There is nothing scholarly about him, his motives are clear.

He wants to discredit Islam and gain popularity by engaging a controversial subject.

DaacasBiyo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:59 pm There is no question that Judaism and Christianity are man made and Islam borrows heavily from these man made religions

Islam didn't borrow, it's a confirmation for what come before. It has the same original message in Judaism and Christianity which the Jews and Christians altered.

paperino wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:49 am

DaacasBiyo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:59 pm There is no question that Judaism and Christianity are man made and Islam borrows heavily from these man made religions

Islam didn't borrow, it's a confirmation for what come before. It has the same original message in Judaism and Christianity which the Jews and Christians altered.

Well said

It is common sense that God with a message to mankind delivers similar beliefs consistent throughout and there should be no differences in the fundamentals of religion always. Form Adam to the last man on earth, they should have access to the same message. Makes simple sense. I don't understand how this would be a problem for Islam.

Sharmarke91 wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:26 am

DaacasBiyo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:59 pm

CigaalSHiiDaaDCFC wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:20 pm lol this so called "historian" is known for his anti-islam propaganda, not gonna bother watching. adeer is you muslim horta mise mulxid?

I know Arabs/Muslims don't like him but then again they don't like any western historian/anthropologist who tries to understand the origin of the religion. There is no question that Judaism and Christianity are man made and Islam borrows heavily from these man made religions so he's just questioning why a God sent religion would borrow from man made ones and he's not the only western historian who is studying its origin but he's one of the well spoken, this is a recent video he did, so I just thought people might want to check it out.

Hotep.

This guy ignores all early islamic sources and attempts to substantiate his agenda by utilising distorted anti-islamic sources.

He essentially infers entirely consequential evidence to reach his point that Mecca & Medina are not were the Quran originated.

There is nothing scholarly about him, his motives are clear.

He wants to discredit Islam and gain popularity by engaging a controversial subject.

I don't think you are familiar with basic chronology of Islam . all the thing today you know about Mohammed came to be written almost 2 centuries after his demise.

So what do you mean by early sources? These are the earliest and they are 2 century late.

As a man who studied the new and old testament he is talking lies and propaganda. I dealt the likes of David Wood and Bill Warner.

Islam is the first religion and the last religion. From Adam to Muhammad peace be them believe in One God. They came from different places and called God in their language like God, Allah,Alaha,Elohim,Jehovah,YHWH and other names. But all these messengers and prophets came and said this
Worship Allah and avoid Taghut.
Taghut in this sense means Idols or false gods.

Did you know Jesus said in the bible
I submit my will to the will of the father.
in the bible father means God

In Arabic It means Muslim.

Jesus said I am a Muslim.

As for case of stories of Prophets, we did not take any stories from the Torah or Injiil. These stories are from the same source of Information which is from God. In the bible it mentions fabricated stories of Noah, Solomon and David. Which are R rated and disgusting. The Christians still call them the men of God.

Christian missionaries use Shia rafidah sources not correct sources.

X.Playa wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:01 pm

Sharmarke91 wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:26 am

DaacasBiyo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:59 pm


I know Arabs/Muslims don't like him but then again they don't like any western historian/anthropologist who tries to understand the origin of the religion. There is no question that Judaism and Christianity are man made and Islam borrows heavily from these man made religions so he's just questioning why a God sent religion would borrow from man made ones and he's not the only western historian who is studying its origin but he's one of the well spoken, this is a recent video he did, so I just thought people might want to check it out.

Hotep.

This guy ignores all early islamic sources and attempts to substantiate his agenda by utilising distorted anti-islamic sources.

He essentially infers entirely consequential evidence to reach his point that Mecca & Medina are not were the Quran originated.

There is nothing scholarly about him, his motives are clear.

He wants to discredit Islam and gain popularity by engaging a controversial subject.

I don't think you are familiar with basic chronology of Islam . all the thing today you know about Mohammed came to be written almost 2 centuries after his demise.

So what do you mean by early sources? These are the earliest and they are 2 century late.

This guy and the other revisionists who hold similar despise for Islam, do not dispute that the Prophet (SAW) existed and they admit as they say he was associated with Quran.

However, their dilemma is derived from their reluctance to accept that a small time trader from a town in the middle of the desert concord such a vast amount of territory in 10 years and his followers brought down two of the greatest empires of that time (Byzantine and Persian) in a few decades later.

If they were to accept this truth then they're forced to accept Islam as the true religion, as this a miracle, that came from god.

Inevitably the infidels pursued a different route to discredit the prophet (SAW), they completely ignore all Islamic sources and other contemporary sources which mentioned Islam or the Prophet, the dome of the rock which was built about 50 years after the prophets death, the copy of the Quran found in Yemen which was carbon dated to be made around the time of the prophet or 10-20 years later. These "historians" literally had dispute the location of Mecca for their absurd theory to work.

I am not an expert but i am confident even i can rebut what revisionists such Tom Holland concocted with simple research.

The following is a passage from an article wrote by an Australian historian John Moorhead;

The bishop wrote about the prophet and islam a mere 30 years after the death of the Prophet (saw). Additionally, there are hundreds of other sources and artefacts that proof the existence of the prophet, the Quran and the location of Mecca and Medina.

The earliest Christian discussion of Islam seems to be that contained in the History of Heraclius written by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, and probably completed in 661. According to Sebeos, after the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had defeated the Persians his troops came to Edessa, but when they tried to take the city they encountered opposition from the Jews. Ultimately the Byzantines captured the city, whereupon the Jews took the desert road to Arabia and asked the Arabs for help, explaining that according to the Bible 'the children of Ishmael', by whom the Arabs were meant, were releated to themselves. Their appeal was not successful. However, at about that time one of the children of Ishmael, the merchant Muhammad, began preaching to his people. 'Being very learned and well-','ersed in tile Law of Moses, he taught them to know the God of Abraham.' They accepted his preaching, and 'abandoning the cults of vanity, turned back to the living God who had revealed himself to their father Abraham'.