The Untold Story-Islam Documentary by Tom Holland

[Al-Fatihah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8n5oGYECE

Historian Tom Holland investigates the roots of Islam and its origin in this documentary. In it, he makes several claims to make the argument that the Qur'an is not of divine origin as proclaimed by the Muslims, and the Qur'an and the religion of Islam was invented much later after the death of Muhammad (saw). Is he correct?

Let's have a dialogue.

[Al-Fatihah]

Tom makes the claim that after reviewing Christian sources, they admit that the conquering Arabs of Jerusalem took over by peaceful negotiations. However, the Arabs never claim to be in a particular religion. Not even Islam. They only say they are believers. Even the ruler Muawiyah 30 years later never claims to be a Muslim or mentions Muhammad (saw) in these sources. Also, the earliest coin after Muhammad's (saw) death with his name on it is dated to be 60 years after his death. He also notices that there are stories mentioned in the Qur'an from the Bible, and that Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an. Therefore, he concludes that the Qur'an and Islam was invented much later by the Arabs when they became rich and wealthy after conquest and they purposely made Mecca the origin of revelation since it is a barren land with no  history, so it was easier to make up history in the area.

This however, is a bias and logically flawed approach in studying the origin of Islam. For he only chooses to look at Christian and non-Muslim sources and not the sources of Muslims. Therefore, you cannot conclude a historical account of a religion without at least viewing all other sources, which would include the Muslim sources itself and instead only refer to specific sources. At the same time, he compares what he finds within these outside sources, with what is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is a Muslim source.

This is cherry-picked research. Notice, he rejects almost all Muslim sources in the beginning, then he uses the Qur'an later, which is a Muslim source, to draw his conclusions. So his historical account is not valid, because cherry-picked research is bias, rather than objective. He also makes the claim that because the name Muhammad or the word Islam is not in these early non-Muslim sources and mentioned many years later after Muhammad's death, this means that Islam was invented much later by the Arabs. Again, such a claim is logically flawed. For again, he does not look at Muslim sources, such as the hadith and works of early Muslims, who do in fact document his name.

So the research by Tom Holland is invalid and cannot be utilized to conclude that historically, Islam was invented by the Arabs much later after Muhammad's death.

To the contrary, his admission that the Arabs conquered Jerusalem by peaceful negotiations shows that Islam was not spread by force, and the absence of historical records would support divine revelation since a miracle is beyond natural cause and effect, and the historical method only applies natural cause and effect.

[PeteWaldo]

Hello Al-Fatihah and welcome to the forum!

Tom makes the claim that after reviewing Christian sources, they admit that the conquering Arabs of Jerusalem took over by peaceful negotiations. However, the Arabs never claim to be in a particular religion. Not even Islam. They only say they are believers. Even the ruler Muawiyah 30 years later never claims to be a Muslim or mentions Muhammad (saw). It  was not until about 80 years later after Muhammad's death that a coin is found with Muhammad's name. Therefore, he concludes after comparing statements of the Qur'an that Islam was invented much later.

This however, is a bias and logically flawed approach in studying the origin of Islam. For he only chooses to look at Christian and non-Muslim sources and not the sources of Muslims. Therefore, you cannot conclude a historical account of a religion without at least viewing all other sources, which would include the Muslim sources itself and instead only refer to specific sources.

For some years now I have been inquiring in Muslim forums, and of Muslims that make their way into this forum, to present some historical or archaeological evidence from Muslim sources that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, or its Kaaba prior to the 5th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

At the same time, he compares what he finds within these outside sources, with what is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is a Muslim source.

This is cherry-picked research. Notice, he rejects almost all Muslim sources in the beginning, then he uses the Qur'an later, which is a Muslim source, to draw his conclusions. So his historical account is not valid, because cherry-picked research is bias, rather than objective.

What he pointed out is that the quibla of the earliest mosques do not point to Mecca, which is an immovable physical matter of fact. Also that the area they do point to is as described in the Quran, while Mecca is one of the driest places that even Arabia has to offer.

He also makes the claim that because the name Muhammad or the word Islam is not in these early sources and mentioned many years later after Muhammad's death, this means that Islam was invented much later by the Arabs.

I don't think he said it "means" that, however in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it does pose quite a dilemma for those that wish Islam had a history.

Again, such a claim is logically flawed. For again, he does not look at Muslim sources, such as the hadith and works of early Muslims, who do in fact document his name.

But dating of the Hadith would suggest very "early Muslims" were not responsible for it.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2860.0

And of course none of them could have had the foggiest idea, as to what went on just a century or so before Muhammad. The hadith was all put to the pen without reference to any actual historical record from before about the time of Muhammad's birthday, when the history of Mecca began to be recorded.

So the research by Tom Holland is invalid and cannot be utilized to conclude that historically, Islam was invented by the Arabs much later after Muhammad's death.

Why bother trying to shoot the messenger?
Simply offer us some historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, when immigrants from Yemen initially settled the area, and built their kaaba in the 5th century for Arabian star family worship.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1133.0

[Al-Fatihah]

Hello Al-Fatihah and welcome to the forum!

Tom makes the claim that after reviewing Christian sources, they admit that the conquering Arabs of Jerusalem took over by peaceful negotiations. However, the Arabs never claim to be in a particular religion. Not even Islam. They only say they are believers. Even the ruler Muawiyah 30 years later never claims to be a Muslim or mentions Muhammad (saw). It  was not until about 80 years later after Muhammad's death that a coin is found with Muhammad's name. Therefore, he concludes after comparing statements of the Qur'an that Islam was invented much later.

This however, is a bias and logically flawed approach in studying the origin of Islam. For he only chooses to look at Christian and non-Muslim sources and not the sources of Muslims. Therefore, you cannot conclude a historical account of a religion without at least viewing all other sources, which would include the Muslim sources itself and instead only refer to specific sources.

For some years now I have been inquiring in Muslim forums, and of Muslims that make their way into this forum, to present some historical or archaeological evidence from Muslim sources[/b] that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, or its Kaaba prior to the 5th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

At the same time, he compares what he finds within these outside sources, with what is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is a Muslim source.

This is cherry-picked research. Notice, he rejects almost all Muslim sources in the beginning, then he uses the Qur'an later, which is a Muslim source, to draw his conclusions. So his historical account is not valid, because cherry-picked research is bias, rather than objective.

What he pointed out is that the quibla of the earliest mosques do not point to Mecca, which is an immovable physical matter of fact. Also that the area they do point to is as described in the Quran, while Mecca is one of the driest places that even Arabia has to offer.

He also makes the claim that because the name Muhammad or the word Islam is not in these early sources and mentioned many years later after Muhammad's death, this means that Islam was invented much later by the Arabs.

I don't think he said it "means" that, however in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it does pose quite a dilemma for those that wish Islam had a history.

Again, such a claim is logically flawed. For again, he does not look at Muslim sources, such as the hadith and works of early Muslims, who do in fact document his name.

But dating of the Hadith would suggest very "early Muslims" were not responsible for it.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2860.0

And of course none of them could have had the foggiest idea, as to what went on just a century or so before Muhammad. The hadith was all put to the pen without reference to any actual historical record from before about the time of Muhammad's birthday, when the history of Mecca began to be recorded.

So the research by Tom Holland is invalid and cannot be utilized to conclude that historically, Islam was invented by the Arabs much later after Muhammad's death.

Why bother trying to shoot the messenger?
Simply offer us some historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, when immigrants from Yemen initially settled the area, and built their kaaba in the 5th century for Arabian star family worship.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1133.0

Response: Even if we accept all of what Tom states, it does not logically conclude that the Qur'an was invented later. To demonstrate so, we need to analyze things point by point. This way, the discussion can be more focused, rather than all over the place. 

Point one, Islam acknowledges that the Muslims did not face Mecca and this is a known and acknowledged fact even accepted by Muslims. So the claim that the Muslims did not pray towards Mecca is a moot point.

[PeteWaldo]

Hello Al-Fatihah and welcome to the forum!

Tom makes the claim that after reviewing Christian sources, they admit that the conquering Arabs of Jerusalem took over by peaceful negotiations. However, the Arabs never claim to be in a particular religion. Not even Islam. They only say they are believers. Even the ruler Muawiyah 30 years later never claims to be a Muslim or mentions Muhammad (saw). It  was not until about 80 years later after Muhammad's death that a coin is found with Muhammad's name. Therefore, he concludes after comparing statements of the Qur'an that Islam was invented much later.

This however, is a bias and logically flawed approach in studying the origin of Islam. For he only chooses to look at Christian and non-Muslim sources and not the sources of Muslims. Therefore, you cannot conclude a historical account of a religion without at least viewing all other sources, which would include the Muslim sources itself and instead only refer to specific sources.

For some years now I have been inquiring in Muslim forums, and of Muslims that make their way into this forum, to present some historical or archaeological evidence from Muslim sources[/b] that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, or its Kaaba prior to the 5th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

At the same time, he compares what he finds within these outside sources, with what is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is a Muslim source.

This is cherry-picked research. Notice, he rejects almost all Muslim sources in the beginning, then he uses the Qur'an later, which is a Muslim source, to draw his conclusions. So his historical account is not valid, because cherry-picked research is bias, rather than objective.

What he pointed out is that the quibla of the earliest mosques do not point to Mecca, which is an immovable physical matter of fact. Also that the area they do point to is as described in the Quran, while Mecca is one of the driest places that even Arabia has to offer.

He also makes the claim that because the name Muhammad or the word Islam is not in these early sources and mentioned many years later after Muhammad's death, this means that Islam was invented much later by the Arabs.

I don't think he said it "means" that, however in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it does pose quite a dilemma for those that wish Islam had a history.

Again, such a claim is logically flawed. For again, he does not look at Muslim sources, such as the hadith and works of early Muslims, who do in fact document his name.

But dating of the Hadith would suggest very "early Muslims" were not responsible for it.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2860.0

And of course none of them could have had the foggiest idea, as to what went on just a century or so before Muhammad. The hadith was all put to the pen without reference to any actual historical record from before about the time of Muhammad's birthday, when the history of Mecca began to be recorded.

So the research by Tom Holland is invalid and cannot be utilized to conclude that historically, Islam was invented by the Arabs much later after Muhammad's death.

Why bother trying to shoot the messenger?
Simply offer us some historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, when immigrants from Yemen initially settled the area, and built their kaaba in the 5th century for Arabian star family worship.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1133.0

Response: Even if we accept all of what Tom states, it does not logically conclude that the Qur'an was invented later. To demonstrate so, we need to analyze things point by point. This way, the discussion can be more focused, rather than all over the place. 

Point one, Islam acknowledges that the Muslims did not face Mecca and this is a known and acknowledged fact even accepted by Muslims. So the claim that the Muslims did not pray towards Mecca is a moot point.

I don't believe so. The mosques that are referenced were all built long after the Hijra when Muhammad switched the quibla from Jerusalem to Mecca.

[Al-Fatihah]

I don't believe so. The mosques that are referenced were all built long after the Hijra when Muhammad switched the quibla from Jerusalem to Mecca.

Response: Your answer implies that you know the exact date when it was mentioned to change the direction of prayer. What is the date and what valid reference confirms this?

[PeteWaldo]

I don't believe so. The mosques that are referenced were all built long after the Hijra when Muhammad switched the quibla from Jerusalem to Mecca.

Response: Your answer implies that you know the exact date when it was mentioned to change the direction of prayer. What is the date and what valid reference confirms this?

The "exact date" would be irrelevant since they were all built after Muhammad's lifetime (if indeed he existed as some wonder, but I'll go along with the Hadith in that regard for the time being).
But the dating would be the 1st year on the Islamic calendar (or just before), wouldn't it?

[edit add] Second Year of the Hijra as this first offhand source I grabbed suggests:
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/second-year-hijra

[Al-Fatihah]

The "exact date" would be irrelevant since they were all built after Muhammad's lifetime (if indeed he existed as some ponder).
But the dating would be the 1st year on the Islamic calendar (or just before), wouldn't it?

[edit add] Second year of the Islamic calendar as this first offhand source I grabbed suggests:
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/second-year-hijra

Response: What is the name of the mosque?

[PeteWaldo]

The "exact date" would be irrelevant since they were all built after Muhammad's lifetime (if indeed he existed as some ponder).
But the dating would be the 1st year on the Islamic calendar (or just before), wouldn't it?

[edit add] Second year of the Islamic calendar as this first offhand source I grabbed suggests:
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/second-year-hijra

Response: What is the name of the mosque?

Mosques, plural, as in many. He and others list them, but it has been of little interest to me as there are far more pressing issues, like that Mecca did not exist prior to the 4th century AD. Dan Gibson documents the mosques and qiblas thoroughly in his book that he was in here peddling.

[Al-Fatihah]

Mosques, plural, as in many. He and others list them, but it has been of little interest to me as there are far more pressing issues, like that Mecca did not exist prior to the 4th century AD. Dan Gibson documents the mosques and qiblas thoroughly in his book that he was in here peddling.

Response: Yet these many mosques have no names, so one cannot say they were mosques. Furthermore, even if we accept they were facing the wrong way, that does not mean the Qur'an is not divine. Divinity is not defined by which direction someone prays.  Also, Muslims are required only to turn and face the direction of the Kaaba to pray. Not turn the building around or create one facing that way. When I pray, I simply face the direction. Not rebuild my apartment to face the direction.

Additionally, Muslims never claimed that the city known as Mecca was always called Mecca. Tom even admits the name is not mentioned in the Qur'an, which Muslims agree and never claimed it is mentioned. So again, these claims are moot.

[PeteWaldo]

Mosques, plural, as in many. He and others list them, but it has been of little interest to me as there are far more pressing issues, like that Mecca did not exist prior to the 4th century AD. Dan Gibson documents the mosques and qiblas thoroughly in his book that he was in here peddling.

Response: Yet these many mosques have no names, so one cannot say they were mosques. Furthermore, even if we accept they were facing the wrong way, that does not mean the Qur'an is not divine. Divinity is not defined by which direction someone prays.  Also, Muslims are required only to turn and face the direction of the Kaaba to pray. Not turn the building around or create one facing that way. When I pray, I simply face the direction. Not rebuild my apartment to face the direction.

Additionally, Muslims never claimed that the city known as Mecca was always called Mecca. Tom even admits the name is not mentioned in the Qur'an, which Muslims agree and never claimed it is mentioned. So again, these claims are moot.

Not at all. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that any city by any name existed, in the area where Mecca was initally settled by immigrants from Yemen, in around the 4th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

[Al-Fatihah]

Not at all. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that any city by any name existed, in the area where Mecca was initally settled by immigrants from Yemen, in around the 4th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Response: This only makes my point. Neither the Qur'an or Sunnah says there was a city by the name of Mecca. So it remains a moot point, since no one ever makes that claim.

[PeteWaldo]

Not at all. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that any city by any name existed, in the area where Mecca was initally settled by immigrants from Yemen, in around the 4th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Response: This only makes my point. Neither the Qur'an or Sunnah says there was a city by the name of Mecca. So it remains a moot point, since no one ever makes that claim.

So then you agree that the absence of historical or archaeological evidence demonstrates that there was absolutely nothing or nobody in the area where Mecca was eventually settled, prior to around the 4th century AD.

[Al-Fatihah]

So then you agree that the absence of historical or archaeological evidence demonstrates that there was absolutely nothing or nobody in the area where Mecca was eventually settled, prior to around the 4th century AD.

Response: Not at all. It means the city was not called by the name of Mecca. Yet the name Becca (Bakka) is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is used interchangeably with Mecca in Islamic Sources.

[PeteWaldo]

So then you agree that the absence of historical or archaeological evidence demonstrates that there was absolutely nothing or nobody in the area where Mecca was eventually settled, prior to around the 4th century AD.

Response: Not at all. It means the city was not called by the name of Mecca. Yet the name Becca (Bakka) is mentioned in the Qur'an, which is used interchangeably with Mecca in Islamic Sources.

Unfortunately simply because somebody is willing to make an unsupportable empty claim, doesn't mean it will magically come true. Let me parrot the rest of this "history' so you won't have to.

Sure, and the Jews in Psalms 84 turned their backs on the temple that YHWH had them build on the temple mount in Jerusalem, to wander 1200 kilometers across harsh, barren, unexplored, uncharted, untraveled, uninhabited desert to Mecca - over a thousand years before the first caravan route was established along the Red Sea - to wander around the Kaaba 7 times, and then walk the 1200 kilometers back to Jerusalem eigh? And all about a thousand years before the advent of camel caravan travel in Arabia. Makes  perfect sense,  doesn't it?

And somehow that is supposed to stand in the place of thousands of years of historical and archaeological evidence of Mecca. Really my friend?

Let me help you become more familiar with the origins of the Deedat/Naik/Estes lie you may have been about to try to parrot in here (whether through taquiyyah or through ignorance).
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4363.msg17255#msg17255

[Al-Fatihah]

Unfortunately simply because somebody is  willing to make an unsupportable empty claim, doesn't mean it will magically come true. Let me parrot the rest of it so you won't have to.
Sure, and the Jews in Psalms 84 turned theeir backs on the temple that YHWH had them  build on the temple mount in Jerusalem, to wander 1200 kilometers across harsh, barren, unexplored, uncharted, untraveled, uninhabited desert to Mecca - over a thousand years before the first caravan route was established along the Red Sea - to wander around the Kaaba 7 times, and then walk the 1200 kilometers back to Jerusalem eigh? And all about a thousand years before the advent of camel caravan travel in Arabia. Makes  perfect sense,  doesn't it?

Let me help you become more familiar with the origins of the falsehood you tried to parrot in here (whether through taquiyyah or through ignorance).
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4363.msg17255#msg17255

Response: None of the above refutes the fact that your claim about Mecca remains moot, since no one ever stated a City named Mecca existed during the life of Muhammad (saw). Thus your strawman fails.

[PeteWaldo]

Unfortunately simply because somebody is  willing to make an unsupportable empty claim, doesn't mean it will magically come true. Let me parrot the rest of it so you won't have to.
Sure, and the Jews in Psalms 84 turned theeir backs on the temple that YHWH had them  build on the temple mount in Jerusalem, to wander 1200 kilometers across harsh, barren, unexplored, uncharted, untraveled, uninhabited desert to Mecca - over a thousand years before the first caravan route was established along the Red Sea - to wander around the Kaaba 7 times, and then walk the 1200 kilometers back to Jerusalem eigh? And all about a thousand years before the advent of camel caravan travel in Arabia. Makes  perfect sense,  doesn't it?

Let me help you become more familiar with the origins of the falsehood you tried to parrot in here (whether through taquiyyah or through ignorance).
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4363.msg17255#msg17255

Response: None of the above refutes the fact that your claim about Mecca remains moot, since no one ever stated a City named Mecca existed during the life of Muhammad (saw). Thus your strawman fails.

Your capacity for reading and comprehending seems to be considerable compromised. Again, there is not a shred of historicaal or archaeological evidence that suggests that any city, by any name ever existed in the area - where Mecca was eventually settled in the 4th century AD - prior to that time.
And again, here is a review of the nonsense you have been trained to parrot. Please read it and let's discuss it. Hold  down your Ctrl button and push "-" a couple of times to shrink the font:
http://www.historyofmecca.com/baca_mecca.htm

[Al-Fatihah]

Your capacity for reading and comprehending seems to be considerable compromised. Again, there is not a shred of historicaal or archaeological evidence that suggests that any city, by any name ever existed in the area - where Mecca was eventually settled in the 4th century AD - prior to that time.
And again, here is a review of the nonsense you have been trained to parrot. Please read it and let's discuss it. Hold  down your Ctrl button and push "-" a couple of times to shrink the font:
http://www.historyofmecca.com/baca_mecca.htm

Response: And as been stated repeatedly, no one said any city was named Mecca, So your point remains pointless.

[PeteWaldo]

Your capacity for reading and comprehending seems to be considerable compromised. Again, there is not a shred of historicaal or archaeological evidence that suggests that any city, by any name ever existed in the area - where Mecca was eventually settled in the 4th century AD - prior to that time.
And again, here is a review of the nonsense you have been trained to parrot. Please read it and let's discuss it. Hold  down your Ctrl button and push "-" a couple of times to shrink the font:
http://www.historyofmecca.com/baca_mecca.htm

Response: And as been stated repeatedly, no one said any city was named Mecca, So your point remains pointless.

The area where Mecca was eventually settled was an empty desert wasteland prior to the 4th century AD.
If you have a single shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests otherwise please present it.
Otherwise I recommend you avail youself of the papers written by a scholar who studied the subject full-time for over 20 years:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Please don't take our word for it. ASK YOUR IMAM for evidence that suggests habitation of the area prior to the 4th century AD when immigrants from Yemen INITIALLY settled the area.

[Al-Fatihah]

The area where Mecca was eventually settled was an empty desert wasteland prior to the 4th century AD.
If you have a single shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests otherwise please present it.
Otherwise I recommend you avail youself of the papers written by a scholar who studied the subject full-time for over 20 years:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Please don't take our word for it. ASK YOUR IMAM for evidence that suggests habitation of the area prior to the 4th century AD when immigrants from Yemen INITIALLY settled the area.

Response: The Qur'an was revealed in the 6th century. So referring to before the 4th century A.D. is another moot point.

[PeteWaldo]

The area where Mecca was eventually settled was an empty desert wasteland prior to the 4th century AD.
If you have a single shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests otherwise please present it.
Otherwise I recommend you avail youself of the papers written by a scholar who studied the subject full-time for over 20 years:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Please don't take our word for it. ASK YOUR IMAM for evidence that suggests habitation of the area prior to the 4th century AD when immigrants from Yemen INITIALLY settled the area.

Response: The Qur'an was revealed in the 6th century.

The 7th century - 600s AD.

So referring to before the 4th century A.D. is another moot point.

Not regarding the Islamic fables that were all created and put to the pen in the 8th to 10th centuries AD, regarding Islam's false claims of anything ever having gone on in Mecca prior to the 4th century when it was initially settled. To claim otherwise is demonstrably pure Islamic hogwash that Muhammad's followers are stuck labeling "tradition" since it is completely unhistorical. As further explored of your feeble efforts, in the subject of Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael that I split off at this link:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4724.0

[PeteWaldo]

In the wake of the recent crescendo that culminated in the rapid blizzard of repetitive posts on several threads, contrary to the rules you agreed to when you joined, we will offer you a 3 day vacation, during which time we hope you can collect and compose yourself. You can still log in and use some forum functions.

When you return from your brief vacation we can begin here:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4721.msg18252#msg18252

[PeteWaldo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8n5oGYECE

Historian Tom Holland investigates the roots of Islam and its origin in this documentary. In it, he makes several claims to make the argument that the Qur'an is not of divine origin as proclaimed by the Muslims.....

Correction. As proclaimed by Muhammad alone through his specifically counter-gospel antichrist record, as parroted by his blind, as well as scripture, history, archaeology and geography challenged, followers. As you aptly and repeatedly demonstrated through your participation in here.