Video

The umayyads who built the dome of the rock (around 685 AD under caliph abd al malik) were anti-trinitarian christians, islam as a separate religion was only created later by the abbassids (ie after 750 AD ) and the whole of standard islamic narrative (ie hadiths, tafsir and sira during 8th to 10th century) The "good news" is that the word "muhammad" on the dome of the rock is a title meaning "the praised one" and not a name and does not refer to the islamic prophet Muhammad but to ... Jesus, who was considered as the prophet and messiah by those "heretic" christian umayyads

Heraclius was so revered by the Arabs he is referenced the Quran as Dhul Qarnayn (Alexander)

Maybe there was an Ibadi who was the role model for Muhammed?

So, Islam is Abdul Malik’s religious’ means to legitimise his kingdom? Wasn’t he an anti Trinitarian “Christian” sect?

It is clear that the words "ansar" (ie helpers or allies) and "nasara" (translated as "christians" in quran) have exactly the same arabic trilitteral root of 3 letters: n-s-r ن ص ر which means to help. So the so-called "ansar" (helpers) from Medina (yathrib) were in fact "nasara" ie christians (but they were anti-trinitarian christians and therefore considered as heretics within byzantine empire)

What I dont understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ? Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?

the fictitious character of Muhammad has been invented by the abbassids (8th and 9th century) and what is referred to as "muhammad" in the quran (which means "the praised one") is not a name but a title which refers to Jesus, prophet and messiah. This is a tremendous discovery ... A nuclear bomb for islam !

So the fictitious character of Muhammad has been invented by the abbassids (8th and 9th century) and what is referred to as "muhammad" in the quran (which means "the praised one") is not a name but a title which refers to Jesus, prophet and messiah. This is a tremendous discovery ... A nuclear bomb for islam !

So the fictitious character of Muhammad has been invented by the abbassids (8th and 9th century) and what is referred to as "muhammad" in the quran (which means "the praised one") is not a name but a title which refers to Jesus, prophet and messiah. This is a tremendous discovery ... A nuclear bomb for islam !

So the fictitious character of Muhammad has been invented by the abbassids (8th and 9th century) and what is referred to as "muhammad" in the quran (which means "the praised one") is not a name but a title which refers to Jesus, prophet and messiah. This is a tremendous discovery ... A nuclear bomb for islam !

In the pre-Islamic Arabian peninsula, an ancient goddess worship existed, with the triple Goddesses of Mecca being Manat, Al-Uzza, and Allat (the daughters of Allah). Manat was the most ancient of them all, symbolized by the waning moon and the cup of death. She personified "fate, destruction, doom, and death" and was considered the Goddess of death, often depicted wearing the waning moon above her head. Manat was revered for her ability to bring magic, wisdom, and protection, and her power was rooted in the fear she inspired. As the goddess of fate, she had the ability to alter a person's destiny at will. Jet, black tourmaline, and black onyx were sacred stones to Manat due to their black color, representing her essence. An early poem pays homage to her, praising her shrine as the most sacred place for the tribes that worshipped her. Similar to the modern pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims, ancient tribes would pilgrimage to Manat's shrine, shaving their heads and considering their journey incomplete without worshipping at her idol. The circumambulation of her black stone at the end of a pilgrimage in ancient times often involved participants walking around the Kaaba seven times counter-clockwise, much like the modern Islamic ritual. The Kaaba, then a temple dedicated to Manat, is still clothed in black today (the color of death and representing Manat), with rituals from pre-Islamic Arabia continuing. The feminine black rock in the corner of the Kaaba and the waning moon symbol on top of mosques both represent Manat's legacy within Islam.

Google Quran 76:19 translation is not what you publish. Can we consider this as hate speech?

proto-Islam isn’t just Unitarianism. Their biblical knowledge is quite superficial and almost exclusively relies on popular spins (mostly Jewish) on biblical stories. It’s pretty ignorant of lot of the intricate theology especially around sacrifice and sorteology. A good video is Passing over Passover. It makes no sense in insisting that the crucifixion was set to signify and echo Passover but it didn’t happen. What’s the point of building up intricate connections to not execute it. For example the crowd in Matthew yells that “his blood is on our heads”

I see so this story from the Alexender Romance was orally circulating in the Middle East in some form until it was added into the Quranic corpus much later by the Abbasids when they took power.

But you have to ignore the parallels of gog and magog , the building of the wall with metals. There are too many parallels you try to search for some and ignore the most obvious ones. A wall being made of metals built to hold off gog and magog has to addressed

Before Muawiya there were multiple nomadic Arab tribes scattered across the newly conquered lands that they got from the Byzantines and the Sassanids and the Arabian peninsula itself migrating and settling in new lands there was no centralized government as mentioned in the standard Islamic tradition. There were many different religions and sects of Christianity that were considered heretical were the major religious groups in the Middle East alongside other religions at that time.

Christians' attempts to disprove the divine nature of the Holy Quran are futile. They lack the wisdom to understand its true meaning and instead create their own flawed interpretations. Their efforts reflect intellectual bankruptcy.

The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Languages degrade, they do not "evolve". It is a tool for thinking, not communication, it is what separates other lifeforms from humans. The mere fact that translation is even possible underlies a common origin for all languages, orca whales separated from their birth pod are unable to communicate with other whales if they get adopted, they are only able to track the others visually. Classical Arabic has largest phonemic inventories among semitic languages. It has 28 consonants (29 with Hamza) and 6 vowels (3 short and 3 long). Some of these sounds are rare or absent in other semitic languages. For example, - Classical Arabic has two pharyngeal consonants /ʕ/ (ع) and /ħ/ (ح). These sounds are found only in some semitic languages (Hebrew and Amharic), but not in others (Akkadian and Aramaic). - Classical Arabic has two emphatic consonants /sˤ/ (ص) and /dˤ/ (ض) These sounds are found only in some semitic languages (Hebrew and Amharic), but not in others (Akkadian and Aramaic). - Classical Arabic has two glottal consonants /ʔ/ (ء) and /h/ (ه), which are produced by opening and closing the glottis ). Akkadian has lost the glottal stop /ʔ/, while Aramaic has lost both the glottal stop and the glottal fricative /h/. - Classical Arabic has six vowel phonemes /a/, /i/, /u/, /æ /, /e/, /o/, which can be short or long. Akkadian has only three vowel phonemes /a/, /i/, /u/, which can be short or long, while Aramaic has only two vowel phonemes /a/ and /i/, which can be short or long. |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | "Semitic" is just mumbled Arabic, really. Imagine English with a third of its letters removed and simplified grammar. That's Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. For example, combine T and D into just T; there's no need to have 2 letters. The same goes for k, q, c - they should all be c from now on, etc., etc. Arabic is the only corollary to proto-Semitic. In fact, the whole classification of Semitic languages is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning brain. Hebrew, Aramaic, and the rest of these made-up dialect continua only have 22 letters out of the 29 proto-Semitic letters. Arabic has all 29. The difference between Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as the difference between Latin and pig Latin or Italian. "Phoenician" is an Arabic dialect continuum, and not only that, it is pidgin. It is simplified to the point of stupidity. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Arabic would see this clearly. What happened was that Arabic handicapped "scholars" saw the equivalent of Scottish Twitter spelling, with added mumbling due to phonemic mergers (22 letters, not 29), and mistakenly thought they were seeing a different language." Let's start with a simple sentence: ## The house is big Arabic: البيتُ كبيرٌ al-bayt-u kabīr-un Proto-Semitic: *ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u Hebrew: הבית גדול ha-bayit gadol Akkadian: bītum rabûm Amharic: ቤቱ ገደሉ betu gedelu As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-). But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include: - The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian. - The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. - The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian. - The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber. Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen. Arabic: كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Proto-Semitic: *kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Hebrew: המכתב נכתב בעט ha-michtav niktav ba-et Akkadian: šipram šapāru bēlum Egyptian: sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t Berber: tturra-t tibratin s uccen Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing? Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

The Aramaic word for God is Alaha. It's the word Isa PBUH (Jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J). Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels, it is A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), adducted from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum) 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha). In addition, The word God in hebrew is eloah, is a cognate of the Arabic I-L-H, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it into eloh, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elah. Infact it is written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic cause it is an Alef with hamza below ( إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,( ا ) The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes as aforementioned. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. "protosemetic" Alphabet (29), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. This kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, and then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

The Aramaic word for God is Alaha. It's the word Isa PBUH (Jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J). Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels, it is A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), adducted from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum) 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha). In addition, The word God in hebrew is eloah, is a cognate of the Arabic I-L-H, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it into eloh, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elah. Infact it is written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic cause it is an Alef with hamza below ( إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,( ا ) The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes as aforementioned. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. "protosemetic" Alphabet (29), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. This kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, and then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

This series is incredible (this is my third time watching it through) and I really hope you come back and produce more. I would like to say, however, that it’s a misnomer to suggest that Trinitarian theology is in any way “Hellenized” or not “based on the Old Testament”. Go look at the standard bearers of Orthodox Christian theology and you’ll see an explicit rejection of Hellenistic philosophy and arguments backing up every theological doctrine built directly on the Old Testament as well as the New.

❤

Dhul qarnain is not Alexandre

Jesus is the Praised One.. 👑👑👑👑👑

So Islam is a Christian sect? 😂 sounds like self serving Christian orientalism

How to respond to Muslims who'd say obviously Islam will have parallels to other Abrahamic faiths because they're essentially the same. Islam is only the last edition as the older scriptures were corrupted by people? Thank you!

NO NO NO. Logos ('word') is 'KALIMAH' in arabic. KALIMAH does not appear in those verses which you are quoting. You are imputing words that do not exist !! This is not only dishonesty but it is not academic and certainly wastes YOUR time.

The annoying background music makes it incredible difficult to understand what you're saying

So where are the arguments against these points? The fact that by changing the diacritical marks to Aramaic, makes sense of the dark passages that are otherwise gobbledygook, is surely something that should be mainstream information and evidence that the Quran is something of a parody of the original text and meaning. The entire religion hinges on the understanding of its words which are apparently not the intent of the writer. Honestly, no wonder this religion if falling on its backside these days.

Is it very clear when Mohammed /Christ and Mohammed /the war lord are being referred to? With Christ we aren't sure if he was a particular person, mythical or several spliced together holy men etc, couldn't certain references to the later guy be referring to incidents in the life of some of these other characters? And with M2 , does he ever get mixed up with someone like Imru' al- Qais , some of his poetry seems to turn up in the Koran, and aspects of his life sort of fit, he even later had a horrible skin disease so that he was all covered up...perhaps like the way images of M2 are?

Apparently there was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria at the time of Christ, and texts in the Nag Hammadi Library sounded (to me ) like a form of Vajrayana Buddhism rather than the earlier schools .Also, when Christ says 'let the dead bury their dead', is he referring to a ceremony that various groups of Sadhus make in India, when they perform their own funeral rites ,so they are dead to the world and their fellow Sadhus dispose of the body when they die physically? Some of the advise he gives might help a renunciant but probably not be very useful for most people having to live in the material world. +Weren't there originally 5 locations with a Kaaba ? One was in what is now Iran.Which site was being referred to? Thank you for these fascinating lectures.

If the Temple was influenced by earlier pagan shrines, there's a section in the Esoteric Tarot by Roland Decker, p53 that might be relevant. 'Harran reputedly possessed temples not only for the moon god but for all planetary spirits worshiped by the ancients. Each temple had its peculiar floor plan for a chamber with a specific colour and with a metal statue elevated on a dais having a specific number of steps. Planet. Floor Plan. Interior Colour Metal Sculpture. Steps. Saturn hexagon black. lead. nine Jupiter. triangle. green. tin. eight Mars. rectangle. red. iron. seven Sun. square. gold. gold. six Venus. isosceles triangle blue. copper. five Mercury square in hexagon brown. mercury-filled. four Moon. pentagon. white. silver. three' Would this be of any help in understanding the shape and colour of the Dome on the Rock?

Would it make more sense of the myths if the Canaanite and other Pagan shrines that often were taken over by the Jews and Christians are also taken into account? Several temple floor plans are using geometrical shapes associated with various Gods, there is a Hexagonal mosaic floor in a temple in Harran(?) ..sorry I can't remember which God it is dedicated to. Thank you for these very interesting and enlightening lectures .

They were not "antitrinitarian chiristians". Original "antitrinitarian christians", i.e. arians and their kinds, at that time were left only in the western parts of the antique Roman Empire (i.e. those that later would be called Western Roman Empire). In the East by that time there were only nestorians and, later, monophysites/miaphysites/iconoclasts/other weirdos. All of them are not antitrinitarians in the obvious way. Yet, good Orthodox Theologian would, of course, make a case, that nestorians are crypto-arians, i.e. arians with a twist, and monophysites ultimately are polytheists - which, interestingly, makes Standard Islamic Narrative a cover story for the weird heretical history of the region, lookup recent "Arabian Heresy" paper on Academic, for example. This video has some huge holes and white spaces due to lack of Church history knowledge.

Alexander and Dhul Qarnayn are two different people

This makes Qur'an more universal since it cuts across different social, historical, spiritual, contextual dimensions! Allahu akbar. Great commentaries in the service of the Quran.

Thanks

Radio Carbon dating is a scam!

I love your videos. Can you do the same about Judaism please.

Thank you for making this knowledge available.

Wow i thought jay smith and hatun craked the case on the quran but Luxemburg was way ahead. 👏

Amazing series!

moralistic nonsense made by a pseudointellectual

m.czcams.com/video/BCUIQikPIyY/video.html&pp=ygUaNzIgdmlyZ2lucyBtYXJ2ZWxvdXMgcXVyYW4%3D

An object could be viewed from 3 dimensional perspectives. When we change our perspective, we could arrive at different conclusion. May i suggest that we anchor our perspective to the fact that isa ibni maryam was sent to ONLY people of BANI ISRAIL ie follower of musa?? Hopefully we get a clearer direction. Sukran.

What about the letter from Muhammad to Heraclius? Is it real and in existence?

Bro... i am LOVING your channel. I was researching here and there, journal articles etc but randomly I entered it on youtube and your channel popped up. you deserve so much more recognition

By your video you suggest that the interpretation of Satan being the serpent is exclusive to the cave of treasures however the idea of Satan being the serpent can be found in the Book of Revelations written in the 1st century, suggesting early Christians not just the ones in Iraq who likely compiled the cave of treasures, believed the same thing. Also you say that both the Cave of Treasures and the Quran call the tree as “The Tree of Life” but the Quran does not say that, the Quran calls the tree “The Tree” الشجرة, maybe Muslims associated the tree with the tree of life but no where in the Quran does it call it that. Lastly, Satan is not eager to see Adam and Eve naked, no where does Satan mention in his manifesto to tempt Adam and Eve is to see them naked but rather for them to disobey God. The two becoming/noticing their nakedness after eating the fruit is not exclusive to Christian Aramaic literature and can be found in early Jewish literature. So, from your perspective as a Christian I presume, you may believe that Islam is the mixture of Christian and Jewish beliefs, however to say it is influenced form Aramaic speaking Christians from this video at least, is false.