Where then was the Qur'an Compiled? Thomas puts forward where the Germans believe the Qur'an was finally compiled, and the place he introduces will probably be new for almost all of you! So, watch the video to find out! So, now you have it...the German school, Thomas informs us, believes the Qur'an was compiled as a holy book, not in the towns of Mecca or Medina, as the Standard Islamic Narrative tells us, but in the city much further north, and much further to east, situated near to present day 'Mary' or 'Bayramaly', in Turkmenistan! It has all the ingredients which were needed for such a book to be compiled! But, do you agree with the Germans? Let us know... © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2021 (58,000) Music: "Travels" by Aleksound, from filmmusic-io ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZWI68mWDkk

Al Fadi asks Robert Spencer and Jay to come onto his Livestream to talk about the historical problems with the 9th-10th century Traditional Muhammad in the 7th century. Here is the Livestream with that discussion (43,220) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dut4xayuQo

To support the myriad of theories King uses concerning why the earlier Arabs didn’t point their mosques towards Mecca, he introduces 6 mosques, believing that these 6 will prove his theories correct. Let’s assess whether they do explain why the Qiblas are all incorrect early on. Mosque #1: The Jami’al – Umawi al-Kabir mosque in Damascus, built in 709 AD. King explains that while it faces Petra, it does so because it was built on a Byzantine Basilica, which replaced a Roman temple at that spot. The Syrians who built it, King continues, happily constructed the Mosque facing the ‘Syrian Corner’ of the Kaaba. Gibson knew that the Byzantines did not follow the designs of the Roman temple below it. They only used the rocks and debris from the Roman temple to build their Basilica. The Muslims likewise built their mosque at the same place as the Basilica, but they completely tore it down and built over top of it, using its debris. Furthermore, this mosque does not face Petra, but the ‘between’ position, like 20 others of that time. Mosque #2: The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, along with the Dome of the Chain were built in 691 AD and faced closest to Petra. Its Qibla is off by 12% from Mecca, while it is only 3.4% from Petra, and 3.7% from the ‘between position’, but this was built before the ‘between’ mosques were even created. King suggests that the Qibla is facing south, so that could possibly be Mecca. Gibson confronts this response saying that the whole citadel is facing directly towards Petra. Mosque #3: The Guangzhou (Canton) Mosque in China is facing directly towards Petra. It is oriented at 292%, while Petra is at 295%, and Mecca is at 285%. These are modern degrees and show that it is closer to Petra than Mecca. King believes it was directed towards the summer solstice (295%), and it couldn’t have been built in 627 AD, which is before Muhammad had died. Gibson refers to an Islamic tradition which says it was built by an uncle of Muhammad in 630 AD, and then rebuilt in 1350 and again in 1695 AD. To answer the question of such an early date he shows that there was much contact between the Arabs and Chinese from between 100 BC to 600 AD, so there is no reason to doubt contact could have existed during Muhammad’s lifetime. John Hill, in his book ‘Through the Jade Gate to Rome’ writes about a Chinese explorer who visited the Middle East between 25-50 AD. King obviously did not know about this much more recent research. Mosque #4: The Sana’a Mosque in Yemen. King suggests that the major axis of the mosque is ‘parallel’ to that of the Ka’aba in Mecca. They wanted the Qibla to face the southeastern wall of the Ka’aba, not Petra, which they knew nothing about. Gibson responds by saying that everyone had ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKH7uMhWGNQ

Mel is back again, asking yet more questions concerning the authenticity of the Islamic Traditions, what we call the 'Standard Islamic Narrative' (SIN). He asks whether the Ridda Wars (known also as the 'apostasy wars' in the Standard Islamic Narrative) ever happened? According to the SIN these battles took place immediately following the death of the prophet Muhammad, between 632-636 AD, as Islam sought to enforce the return of those who had left Islam following the prophet's death. But 7th century history doesn't agree that these battles ever occurred for that reason, nor at that time, nor even in that place, Arabia. According to Dr Parvaneh Pourshariati, in her book "Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire", the accounts by Islam completely confuse the Ridda Apostasy Wars of Arabia with the Political Succession battles of the Sasanian empire following the death of Khusrow II in 628 AD. His death left a political vacuum which needed to be filled, and these battles all took place mostly along the Euphrates River, in Iraq, between 628 - 630 AD, and not further south in Arabia, between 632 - 636 AD. Using Sasanian (Persian) accounts, which would have no reason to refer to wrong dates nor wrong places, she found that these battles were never in Arabia, but 100s of miles further north, because Arabia was a desert, with no water, and thus few people. What's more, they also happened roughly 4 years earlier than the dates attributed to them by the 8th century Kufan scholar of the Ridda Wars, Sayf ibn Umar in his work entitled "Kitab al-futuh al-kabir wa-l-ridda", which means 'The Great book of Conquest and Apostasy'. He places these battles all in Arabia between 632 - 636 AD, as the SIN would have us believe. Interestingly, al Tabari (d. 923 AD) the Abbasid Tarikh compiler confronts Sayf and stipulates that the Ridda wars took place even later, between 635 - 636 AD, suggesting a biassed theological agenda. Mel looked at 10 of these battles, taken from Pourshariati's book to prove just how wrong the Standard Islamic Narrative was concerning the Ridda Wars. 1) Battle of Ubullah: The Sasanian historical account has it in Basra in 628 AD. The Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN) has it in Arabia in 633 AD, thus 4-5 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 2) Battle of Dhat al-Salasil: The Sasanians put it in Kuwait, in 629 AD. SIN puts it in Arabia in 633 AD. So 4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 3) Battle of Madhar: The Sasanians put it in Basra, Iraq, in 629-630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 633 AD. So 4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 4) Battle of Walajah: The Sasanians place it near As Samawah, Iraq, in 629-630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 633 AD. So 3-4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 5) Battle of Ullays: The Sasanians situate it near Al Qadisiyah, Iraq, in 630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 633 AD. So 3-4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 6) Battle of Maqr: The Sasanians say it's near Kufa, Iraq, in 630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 633 AD. So 3-4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 7) Battle of Veh Ardashir: The Sasanians stipulate that it's near Baghdad, Iraq, in 630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 634 AD. So 4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 8) Battle of Anbar: The Sasanian historical account has it near Anbar, Iraq, in 630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 634 AD. So 4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 9) Battle of Ayn Tamr: The Sasanians say it's near Ein ut Tamr, Iraq, in 630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 634 AD. So 4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. 10) Battle of Firaz: The Sasanians suggest it is near Firaz, Iraq, in 630 AD. SIN has it in Arabia in 634 AD. So 4 years too late, and 100s of miles too far south. Mel suggests that the reason the historical dates are all 4 years earlier may have to do with the real date of the Hijrah, which the SIN uses for its dating system. According to 4 external historical accounts, the "Year of the Saracen Rebellion" (note, not a movement from one place to another) took place in 618 AD, and not in 622 AD as the SIN suggests. 1) The Chinese (651 AD) say it happened 34 years earlier, thus 618 AD. 2) The Samarkand Chronicle (719 AD) refers to the 100th year since it happened, thus 618 AD. 3) The Byzantine Arab Chronicle (741 AD) places it in the 7th year of Heraclius, thus 618 AD. 4) The Hispanic Chronicle (754 AD) also places it in 618 AD. These are all external sources, which all agree that this was a rebellion, not an immigration, and that it happened in Syria and Iraq, not Arabia. So, history tells us that these battles were mostly in Iraq, immediately following 628 AD due to political succession struggles, while the SIN says they were between 632-636 AD, due to apostasy, proving that they were at the wrong time and the wrong place, with the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2022 (67,940) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idq0i-TJZME