Problems w/ Islamic Coins: A Livestream w/ Hatun & Jay

The British Museum just opened up two new galleries on Islam, showcasing Islam's influence on the world. Notice, there are no galleries at the Museum showcasing Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other 'ism', only a gallery for Islam, proving, yet again, how Britain panders to Islam, out of fear, or Political Correctness. What's more, the galleries showcased only positive contributions to the world by Islam, while just next door, in a gallery on Byzantium art, there was a feature stipulating just how horrendous and destructive the 'Christian Crusades' were against Islam, underlining a very real bias by British scholarship against Christianity. Earlier (two weeks ago), Hatun and Jay did a video looking at some of the problems they found in this room. Among their discussion were the early Islamic coins, featured in one display cabinet. Their quick discussion on the coins garnered quite a bit of interest, so they decided to go back to that issue in this livestream on December 11th. In this livestream they pointed to the sequence of the earliest coins, noting that the earliest Byzantine Drachmas were copied and used by Arabs until around 661 AD, when the incoming Umayyad Dynasty introduced their own similar coin, called the 'Dirham'. Yet, curiously, they included images of the Caliph with two of his retainers on the front side of the coin, which is forbidden in Islam, as it's considered idolatrous, and this practice continued right up until 685-692 AD when the caliph Abd al Malik minted coins with his image on the front as well. Why was this not noted by the British Museum? Then, in 692 AD Abd al Malik took his image off of his coin and introduced a new Dirham with only script on either face, on the front the 'Shahada' (there is only one God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet), and on the back references from Surah 112 of the Qur'an. This is hugely significant, because, along with the Dome of the Rock, and the Caliphal protocols (both introduced in 691 AD, a year earlier), Abd al Malik also introduced that same Shahada, which is the first time Muhammad's name is found in any Arab inscription, though he had supposedly died in 632 AD, and was the one who introduces Islam and supposedly was given the Qur'an. Why did it take the Arabs roughly 60 years to first write down his name on any inscription, and why was it Abd al Malik who takes on that task? All of this was completely lost on the curators of the British Museum. What's even more damaging...if the first 'Dirham' was only created in 661 AD by the Umayyad Dynasty, then why do we find this very coin referred to by name (Darhama in Arabic) as the coin used by Joseph's brothers when they sold him to the Egyptians (another error), in Surah 12:20 in the Qur'an? If the Qur'an was indeed only revealed to Muhammad, and was thus finalized before Muhammad died in 632 AD, then how can it be referring to a coin which would not yet be created for another 30 years, in 661 AD? This would be impossible, unless, of course this verse was written and included into the Qur'an after 661 AD, as a later redaction... Yet, another glaring historical problem with the Qur'an. And yet, another difficulty noted by Jay and Hatun which was completely lost by the British Museum, as their remit seems to be only to promote just how positively influential Islam has been for the rest of the world. We would like to know when scholars in Britain will begin using their gifted critical faculties to not just criticize Christianity when it goes wrong, but also do the same with Islam? Basically, we're asking or reciprocity, that's all. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2019 (25,900)