We have been looking for ways to interpret the 7th century word MHMD in Arabic, which Muslims believe was their prophet 'Muhammad'; yet, we are finding it had many more meanings than that, especially when we look historically where this word came from and what it meant in the 7th century, when supposedly the Qur'an was being created, and when supposedly Islam's prophet was living. It is being proven by A.J. Deus, and now by Mel (from the 'Islamic Origins' YouTube site), that Islam was created as a Messianic religion, in-other-words, that it was created in anticipation of the Messiah's return to "liberate his people", which in the 7th century would have been the Jews and the Christians. Much of the Jewish and Christian literature from that period, and in what is today Syria, Jordan and Iraq, centered around this notion that both the Jews and the Christians were anticipating the Messiah coming (for the Jews), and His return (for the Christians), and therefore, in Arabic the word MHMD was used to refer to that Messianic figure, the word itself translated to mean "Beloved", or "Lovely", or "The praised one". A.J. Deuss and Mel now introduce another word which has the same meaning as MHMD, but is used in the Qur'an in Surah 9:30, but because of a careless scribe (either intentionally or un-intentially) it was changed to mean the prophet Ezra from the Old Testament. Today Surah 9:30 says this: "And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah...Allah's curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth." Deception #1: No Jew believes that Ezra was "the son of God", so this reference makes no sense theologically. Thus, Ezra is not the correct word for this verse. Someone must have changed it to Ezra, from another previous word. Deception #2: It looks like either a scribe at some time when the diacritical marks were being introduced (sometime in the 8th - 9th centuries), or at a later date, decided not to include a dot over the last letter in this word, and thus changed it from an 'z' letter to an 'r' letter. So, initially this word would have been "Aziz" (with a 'z' at the end), but by removing the dot above the 'z', it then became an 'r', and thus the term Aziz, which has the same meaning as MHMD ("Beloved", or "Lovely", or "The praised one"), was changed to the name "Ezra", the prophet from the Old Testament. This not only makes this verse unworkable theologically, it also doesn't make any sense in the sequence of the sentence. But if you change it back to its original meaning 'Aziz', the verse now says that both the Jews and the Christians believe that the Messiah is the son of God, which both Jews and Christians believe. Thus, it is an anti-Trinitarian polemic against the Christians, as well as a polemic against the Jewish Messiah, who has yet to come. Odon Lafontaine, our colleague in France, has come up with even more support to prove that the original word in Surah 9:30 was Aziz and not Uzair. When looking at the Wetzstein II Qur'anic manuscript, which is dated to the late 8th century, at the time when diacritical marks were first being introduced, the word in Surah 9:30 is indeed Aziz, and not Uzair, suggesting that Aziz was the original word. So, by taking off just ONE DOT above ONE LETTER the 8th century Muslims have changed the meaning for Surah 9:30, from referring to "the Praised one' (Aziz) who was the promised Messiah for the Jews, and he becomes nothing more than the Old Testament prophet Ezra. This is not only theologically confusing, but hides what the Muslim's real intent was at that time. They wanted their own prophet, one who was uniquely Arab, and who would supersede both the Jew's and the Christian's Messiah to be recognized as the final prophet, little knowing that the word Aziz which they changed meant the same as the name of their prophet MHMD. See how much damage ONE DOT can do! © Pfander Centre for Apologetics & Polemics - US, April 1, 2024 (104,400) Music: 'Country Girl' by aleksound, from filmmusic-io ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvVpQ5emTjk

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hULwx6Axa2I

According to the Standard Islamic Narrative, Mecca was not only the oldest city in the history of the world, but it was also a major trade city in that part of the world, controlling trade north, south, east and west. Yet, history is telling us that this simply isn’t true. Mecca isn’t found on any ancient trade maps, nor is anything written about it on any ancient documents, which created a real problem for the Muslims in the last century, because there was nothing available to support the historical underpinnings for their holy city. Fortunately for them a British scholar named William Montgomery Watt came to their rescue by proposing what he termed "The Trade Route Theory". This theory suggests that the trade in the 7th century originally went from India, across the Arabian Sea and through the Persian Gulf, where it was then unloaded at what is today 'Basra', and sent across to what is today Iraq and Syria, to either Lebanon or Israel, and from there across the Mediterranean Sea. But there was a problem, because in the 5th century the Sassanians began warring against the Byzantines, and for 200 years the battles between these two empires continued, shutting down the trade through the Persian Gulf. Montgomery Watt introduced the idea that the trade then had to be changed so that the boats went across the Arabian Sea to Aden, where the goods were taken off of the ships and put onto camels which then carried them across 1,250 miles of desert to Petra in the north, and then on to Gaza on the Mediterranean Sea. En route across the desert, they had to stop at Mecca, and thus it was the Meccans who controlled the trade. Dr Patricia Crone, in 1987 wrote a book entitled "Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam", where she debunked Montgomery Watt's 'Trade Route Theory' with two simple rebuttals. 1) If all the trade going across the desert of Western Arabia went through well documented oases such as Sa'na, Najran, Taif, Yathrib, Khaybar, Tabuk, Petra and Gaza, all of which were located on the Western Plateau of Arabia, why would you then take a detour at Taif, and go down off of the plateau 3,000 feet to a desolate hamlet called Mecca, which had no water or food for your camels, and then climb back up 3,000 feet to get to Yathrib, which did have food and water? 2) The Standard Islamic Narrative says that Mecca controlled all of the trade. But how could such a desolate and isolated little hamlet control all of the trade from Aden to Petra? 3) The biggest problem comes when you simply look at a map of that area. Notice that there is the Red Sea, which parallels the Western Plateau of Arabia. If you already have all of your goods on boats, why then would you offload them at Adan to go 1,250 miles by land, when you can carry a ton of goods only 50 miles by land for the same price as 1,250 miles by sea. Shipping goods by sea is the cheapest way to transport goods, even today? By land you have to feed and water the camels, protect your goods from robbers who can hide behind rocks, hills and sand dunes. By sea you have nothing to feed or water, as you only need wind to fill your sails to push your boat, and you can see any enemies miles away, as there is nothing to hide behind. So, Dr Crone, who reads and writes 15 languages went to all the trading documents, all written in ancient languages little used today and found out that all the trade in that part of the world from the 1st to the 7th century went by the Red Sea, and very little of it by land, and certainly none of it via the city of Mecca, as there was not one trade document with that name on it, proving that Mecca had nothing to do with the trade of that day. Watch as Al Fadi and Dr. Jay review the evidence that completely debunks the Land Trade Route Theory. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, February 15, 2023 (70,390) Music: "Epic Heroic Conquest" by Musiclfiles, from filmmusic-io ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXu2zKTkKl4

Mel's new 'Origins' channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/c/OriginsofIslam/videos Using the research of A.J. Deus, Mel carries on with his critique of the History of the Dome of the Rock. In this latest episode he notes that: During the Sufyani period (661-680 AD) the only structure on the Temple Mount was one built on the Eastern wall. Then, according to multiple witnesses, during the Marwanid period (680-749 AD) a new structure, referred to as a "Saracen Synagogue" was built, but not in the central area where the Dome of the Rock stands, but just north of it. Later, according to the Zuquin Chronicle of the late 8th century, there was no structure on the Temple Mount until Al Mansur built one between 745-775 AD, and that it used to be a Christian temple, which was then changed into a mosque. Further evidence suggests that our earliest reference to a Dome of the Rock (i.e. a Dome over the Temple Mount foundation rock) is not until the late 9th century, around 897 AD, by the geographer Ya'qubi, who states that it was 'Abd al-Malik' who had built it. There is a possibility that a tower existed for a time over the rock if the Codex can be reliably interpreted that way, but even still, this doesn’t have any arcades which are where the crucial inscriptions are located. Then, in 903 AD Ibn al-Fakih al-Hamadhani gives us the first eyewitness account of the Dome of the Rock, but mentions that it has 12 piers and 30 pillars, which doesn't match the dome we have today. Nonetheless, the evidence would suggest that the Dome is a 9th century creation and that the inscriptions, including a dedication to Abd al Malik, can’t be from the 7th century, but are much later 9th century creations, redacted by the Abbasids back to the 7th century, and attributed to Abd al-Malik. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2022 (64,660) Music: "Townsong" by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMX6valWlXs