More islamic comedy and the saga of the letters of Abul Qasim

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 26, 2010 at 07:14

And the comedy goes on and on as our dear Deb does not know what is a primary historical source and what is really an extant literary evidence

>You can find out the same in H.G. Wells famous book "THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY". That is if you can read and analyze proper English.

Who on earth is our dear HG? Let me guess: Is this the nom de plum of Mr Naik and I'm being sarcastic

You are not quoting a primary source here you need to look up what is a primary source and what does the word extant really mean before you post this

Oh or is this another tablighee argument from kuffar?

Mr ignorant: we are looking for extant evidence as you shall see

>Chapter 30.4 The First Message from Islam (Page : 544)It Was while Heraclius was engaged in restoring order in this already desolated Syria after the death of Chosroes II, and before the final peace with Persia, that a strange message was brought to him. The bearer had ridden over to the imperial outpost at Bostra in the wilderness south of Damascus. The letter was in Arabic, the obscure Semitic language of the nomadic peoples of the southern desert; and probably only an interpretation reached him presumably with deprecatory notes by the interpreter.

Our dear HG's little book is a primary historical source! Sobhanallah

How come we do not have such message part of Hoyland Survey? Do you know why? Because there is no such message period

For the readers: Hoyland collected all extant lietrary evidence (papyri, cions epigraphy etc..) from from 632CE until the end of the Umayyad's dynasty in 750CE and in his book Arabia from the stone age to the coming of Islam he collects all the extant literary evidence from the stone age to the coming of Islam and letters from Abul Qasim are not there period

What HG the ignorant is describing what historians call salvation history and this is what your Arab maters call a qissa (story of fiction) and no more or it is what the pious believed happened and it is not real history

Shame on you for posting this nonsense

>It was an odd, florid challenge from someone who called himself Muhammad, the Prophet of God. This Muhammad, it appeared, called upon Heraclius to acknowledge the one true God and to serve him. Nothing else was definite in the document.

Really? then how come the no Greek wrote after the Arab invasion :"oh those Arabs are the followers of Abul Qasim the Arabian warlord and caravan raider that wrote a letter to Heraclius about joining a religion that did not even exist untl 200 years later? Any guesses?

Oh and his name now is Heraclius right mr careless reader?

>There is no record of the reception

Because it never happened

>of this missive, and presumably it went unanswered. The emperor probably shrugged his shoulders, and was faintly amused at the incident.

Oh really? Aragument from shrugging right mr tablighee? Oh where was Allah when you need him

There was no letter period and it is a bogus story as you shall see in the letter to al-muqawqas

>But at Ctesiphon they knew more about this Muhammad. He was said to be a tiresome false prophet, who had incited Yemen, the rich province of Southern Arabia, to rebel against the King of Kings. Kavadh was much occupied with affairs he had deposed and murdered his father Chosroes II, and he was attempting to reorganize the Persian military forces. To him also came a message identical with that sent to Heraclius. The thing angered them. He tore up the letter, flung the fragments at the envoy, and bade him begone.

So where is the extant letter that was sent to malik al-majus? Let me help you there is none it is all Islamic BS

>------ Now do you want to call Mr. HG Wells a bogus , too ?

Say hello to HG who ever he is! Is this argument from kuffar right?

For the readers: the story of the letters of Muhammad in unhistorical and stay tuned for my post about the letter from Muhammad to al-muqawqas

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".