The Dome of the Rock: A Response to AJ Deus - 1 - Introduction
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2022
- A.J. Deus' latest paper on the Dome of the Rock has caused some waves. In it, he argues for a young Dome of the Rock with a fake history. According to A.J., the inscriptions are late forgeries and the Dome in its current form has existed for less than 200 years.
Given how extensive the article is, I had to take quite some time to look into A.J. Deus' claims. As it turns out, none of his claims hold up to scrutiny. A.J. is asking some legitimate questions, but his answers are not warranted.
In this video, I will give a quick introduction into the claims made by A.J. Deus and we will look at an initial example for an error on A.J.'s part which showcases how he fails to correctly read his own sources, something that we will see again and again in later videos.
#islam #domeoftherock #jerusalem #al-malik #al-mamun #dome #rock #safa #ajdeus #fraud #christianity #judaism #arab
Music by Darren Curtis.
____________________
If you like my content and would like me to be able to continue producing more, you can support me in the following ways:
Become a Patron and get access to some exclusive content: / thomasalexander
Donate via PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_...
Donate Bitcoin: 36AcDS46SGX23xSDQWJQi9C4xtGaqevGba
Donate ETH or ERC20 Tokens: 0x466b19D59D0Ad527a27871001e18283fA6F3D2fd
____________________
Here you can find A.J. Deus' paper:
www.academia.edu/69970087/THE...
Less than 2 weeks after publishing a paper on Academia about Doctrina Jacobi, A J Deus copied its new analysis & conclusion into a paper that he published on the same site without referencing where he got the new analysis from.
Learning from the ‘profit’!
Point taken as regards 15:25, that's quite a different translation to that given by Robert Hoyland, who AJ Deus uses for the translation. Not disputing the accuracy of the translation, but this doesn't change anything of substance: the building can't be assumed to be over the rock but over ruins. I would caution not to assume foul play on Deus part, Hoyland's collection of sources is used by most scholars. As regards the opening part and the Christological argument on the inscriptions that Jesus is not greater than a prophet. This fits in with Deus' argument that it responds to a contemporary figure, Mollo Kabiz's argument that Jesus ought to be treated as greater than Muhammad, which a fair reading of what the Qur'an would also suggest. While the reference to Mollo Kabiz could be dismissed as a conspiracy theory - and agreed AJ Deus does go over the top on this - Kabiz was a huge figure in the 16th century. We haven't heard much about him as he only had an internal revelance for Islam. A movie was made about him, which unfortunately is just in Turkish, so I can't view it here's a clip: czcams.com/video/I7W0mUxIsV8/video.html His theological arguments did cause a split at that time that needed to be responded to. Also, the Suleyman inscriptions that are not referred to in AJ Deus do indicate a contemporary concern in the battles with Vienna and other places. I look forward at that next video, which I will see over the weekend. Thank you, Thomas!
As I say in the video, it‘s really not important where exactly the wooden structure was, but the way AJ came to the conclusion that it must have been east is indicative of his diligence (or lack thereof).
Though if we take Arculf at his word, it can only be on top of the rock. But I’m sceptical too.
Anyway, it only gets worse from there. It’s really escalating. Particularly the third video will be devastating to AJ‘s argument. If you want to stick to this theory, you’ll basically have to start from scratch, because all of his core evidence turns out to be bad.
@@TAlexander If he was working from Robert Hoyland's translation, then it would be a reasonable assumption, however, your translation makes it more open to interpretation. I look forward to seeing what you have got on that.
@@IslamicOrigins I‘m not familiar with Hoyland‘s translation, but I just checked out John Wilkinson‘s translation. He also writes the following: "Moreover near the wall on the east, in that famous place where once there stood the magnificent Temple, the Saracens have now built an oblong house of prayer, which they pieced together with upright planks.and large beams over some ruined remains. This they attend, and it is said that this building can hold three thousand people."
So it seems like the reference to the second temple is also there. But again, this is the least of the issues, it’s simply indicative of what’s to come.
Hi Mel. When considering what the directions of East and West are after 1500's AD, also consider that rumour has it,that before 1500'sAD ,the East of nowadays may have been West prior to 1500AD eg like the Idrisi Map,where South is at the North pole position.
NB when English Qur'an says,the Lord of the two easts and two west's,that could refer to,that East is on the right side as well as the left side, depending on who has the insistanceness to state in history books where the directions are.
@@TAlexander can't wait for the subsequent evidences. Thanks Thomas for leading the call for carefullness and honesty in doing research.
There is a virtue in going to the source and reading himself as Thomas does. I am more or less convinced that the Dome of the Rock has been rebuilt more than a few times. Jerusalem has had a turbulent history and no building there is supposed as constructed in the beginning. The inscription seems both archaic and contemporary. Maybe there it was in the beginning but not as prominent as now. Looking forward to seeing how Thomas rebukes D.J.'s argument.
Thank you thomas, for the 1st introduction.🙏🏽💕
Hi Thomus, great rebuttal to AJ.Deus. Awesome job, Thomas, keep it coming. 👍
Again, very informative! Thanks a lot, Thomas! I really like how you and Mel are pushing this thing in a fruitful discussion. Grüße aus Wien!
This changes what Mel being saying to Jay, but still the SIN is false thanks again T.A.
Once again Thomas an excellent video, and what a shame you did all that work and no sound. Your video rather debunks Deus's claim on this point, and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series on this, thank you for your hard work.
I'd say that while it's possible that AJ's claim regarding the position of the wooden structure is correct, his conclusion is not warranted based on the facts. This is something that he does constantly. He draws a very specific conclusion which doesn't follow at all from the source he presents while pretending that it's the one true conclusion.
But eventually, he also goes beyond faulty logic and just outright misreads (or misrepresents) his own sources, leading him to operate with premises that are demonstrably not true with the consequence that his conclusions collapse in on themselves.
@@TAlexander Thank you for the extra explanation Thomas, from your video I was coming to that conclusion, and I'm certainly looking forward to the rest of the series
Thomas cheers for making it cursor bigger so we can see where ur pointing no just the tiny arrow it really makes such a difference
Entire Temple mount's eastern wall is part of the eastern wall of the entire Jerusalem CITY!
Therefore the building is definitely near the eastern wall of the CITY in relation to the rest of the city walls.
Obvious bait and switch tactic by deuce trying to make it seem as if the frame of reference is only the temple mount, and not the entire city.
This is only the first example and quite inconsequential for the larger argument. However, as you'll see in part 3, there is a pattern there, that's why I brought it up in the introduction.
At last! God bless you
I can't actually describe how excited I am to watch this! 😍
I don't know...maybe a bit of expectation management is in order, this is only the introduction after all... 😉
@@JesusisaMuslim generalising a massive group of people with a negative connotation isn't a good look.
@@JesusisaMuslim Abdul number one has spoken!!!
@@JesusisaMuslim how does it feel to know your religion is a cheap imitation of Judaism and your al aqsa is sitting on top the Jewish Temple which land of you abduls have stolen?
@@JesusisaMuslim Why are you reacting?
Great intro. How frustrating to loose that previous video.
I have a theory that Solomon’s temple was thought to be where Al Asqa sits. I think that even the crusaders thought this and called it Solomon’s temple and called the dome the temple of the Lord referring to Jesus maybe? And Maybe Arculf was standing in the old cardo of Jerusalem when he describes the mosque, then looking east you would see the Temple Mount as close to the eastern wall. Also Wilson’s arch could have still been standing, providing the bridge he was talking about leading to the mosque.
The fact Arculf doesn't mention a new religion, a man called Mohammed, Islam or Muslims is enough to put the final nail in the coffin.
thomas It will be a very interesting thing to hear a chat between you and David Miano from World of Antiquity
Hey Thomas.
I think you should have shown a picture of the old city to show how the entire Temple Mount complex is near the eastern wall of the city (the eastern part of the Temple mount is infact part of the CITY's eastern wasll)
People not familiar with the outlay of the city might not understand.
Yes that's true. In part 3, I'm actually doing that when going through similar issues. But I missed out on this one.
Who Rebuild the second Temple and which was the second Temple Token?
Mel and Jay just post a new video few hours ago, using AJ's material. I think, AJ's arguments give a strong basis for the claim, that the inscription and architecture of the Dome of the Rock are recently constructed and scribed.
Unfortunately, much of AJ Deus' evidence does not hold up to scrutiny. But you'll see my argument over the next week and you'll be able to make up your own mind.
@@TAlexander I think, AJ give a good solid evidences.
@@borneandayak6725 It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. You’ll see once all three of my videos are released.
Unfortunately Jay was duped by Mel... He'll soon regretted it after Thomas had done with his refutation series.
Where are you Mr Thomas? I wish you’d go on Mythvision and other shows and continue spreading this information.
Thomas u cld have shown the pic. I just cld not understand where is the temple Mount. To which side is the temple Mount. I had to see from half the video to understand
Interesting but I can’t follow you !
So the whole thing is a later fabrication to fix some older fabrications ?!
That's what AJ Deus claims. I'll be trying to debunk his claims over the next couple of videos.
lovely music
The Arculf quote used by Deus is from a translation by Adomnan, not MacPherson which you used. The exact same quote is used by Hoyland in Seeing Islam as others saw it. Deus' interpretation of that quote is reasonable but not definitive. I would have expected that a square Saracen building on the Temple Mount (presumably initiated by Umar) would have been over the Foundation Stone.
It look like the ottoman time when they where spreading Islam in the 16th century > the ottoman did the same thing to Hagia Sophia and in the 16 century they built the blue mosque .
Much of Bukhari was written by the Ottomans.
Sorry, I am late to the party,WHO IS this Deus guy?
He's a self styled scholar, writing papers on Islam. His Dome of the Rock paper is the latest one and the first one which I have looked into in detail. Let's say I'm not impressed.
@@TAlexander Any other A. J. Deus papers you're not impressed with? His credentials and other works doesn't exactly scream "I'm objective and unbiased".
@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 As I said, this paper is the first one I looked into in detail. I did skim over the "Doctrina Jacobi" paper which seemed like an amalgamation of baseless speculation, but not having delved into it, I can't really form an informed opinion.
But after this debacle, I don't think I'll ever feel the urge to examine one of his papers again. AJ first needs to rethink his entire approach which seems to be an unlikely thing to hope for.
@@TAlexander
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply.
I really appreciate it.
Thomas I have some information to share with you related to the convergence of church - Jewish and Islamic history, the current state of these institutions, as they relate to one another, and future events. I'm not a scholar, but I have studied Scripture and 100s of nonfiction books for over 40 years. Underneath the most significant things in life there is an unseen spiritual element.
" Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to CHRIST. For in Him dwells all the fullness of DEITY BODILY; and you are complete in Him, who is the Head of all principality and power. " ( Colossians 2: 8-10)
I am still putting together the last part of the resource outline. I just feel " compelled " to share this information with you. If you agree that I can. Should I private message you? And if so, how? Thank you.
You can send me an e-Mail to the address in the about section of my channel, just put your user name in the subject line, so that I know what to look for.
Ok if you''ve found sth but if you cite Scripture you must understand it but it is not in your case here: here, (Col 2:8-10),"philosophy" means simply some gnosis or a contemporary ideology of New Age (or other Junk);"philosophy"is a strict "science" (rather meta-science) like mathematics, now called "semantic realism" (Aristotle+A.Tarski). In general, Scripture is a proof that Semites (some authors) had a huge problem in comprehension of divine Aristotle's logic@hence, there are plenty of illogical statements (like in the Quran) that God is the cause of everything including evil (ex. Isaiah 45:7, others in Torah also in NT) but according to Rev.Prophet, Aristotle, evil=privation of being, therefore, there is no causal relation between being and the lack of being, privation. Don't be a silly Semite!
@@krzysztofciuba271the problem is the original word/Ha'nachash means to hiss 🐍.. the angel god of Beth-el ????😅Genesis 31:11-13 which means Satan Lord of Israel . the lying Spirit who creates chaos Shemot 12:23..
He received his inheritance through,
El elyon Deuteronomy 32: 8-9. 😅
Jesus saves no one😅 Isaiah 43:10-11
Hmm ... The Dome of the Rock ... is the Tomb of the claims of SIN ...
you should make a tiktok account
Fun fact. The Dome of the Rock was built on the orders of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who succeeded his father, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, as an Umayyad caliph in 687CE, in order to outshine the existing Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As the Muslims had no art or architecture of their own, Abd al-Malik was forced to use Greek and Persian and Byzantine craftsmen to design and build the Dome of the Rock at enormous expense and adorn it with inscriptions from the Quran proclaiming the oneness of Allah and addressing the People of the Book telling them 'not to go beyond the bounds of their religion and that Jesus, son of Mary, was only an apostle of Allah.' (Quran 4.171) 😁
That's false. Arabs had artwork. There are unayyed qasrs that still exist with their architecture and artwork.
@@ACF1901 Fun fact. Muslims had no art or architecture of their own. Just mud-brick houses round a stone-built cube with wooden beams and a cloth on top and a pagan black meteorite to venerate in the corner. 😁
Prove it. Otherwise it's just a made up story of a filthy caravan raider.
@@davidzack8735 go look up umayyed qasrs.
You're actually following the SIN by saying arabs were stupid baby killing pagans with no culture or art except killing their baby daughters, an arabic "dark ages" until muhammed came along and enlightened them and then there was the islamic "golden age".
All these works are based on assumptions and presuppositions.
There was no temple or church on the mount before islam. These are all later narratives after muslims constructed mosques in a former Roman fortress on the mount.
The mount was a Roman fortress. The walls are Roman walls. Thess claims about temples and churches are all later narratives.
If only you'd apply that kind of scepticism to your own beliefs.
@@TAlexander
I have a methodology for my beliefs.
I don't know what yours is.
You are far from clear what your methodology is for history.
We muslims accept chains of transmission and criteria for chains.
What is your method for truth?
@@alonzoharris6730 Yet your Isnads are ridiculous.. Hadiths just get you into Trouble 👿.. Alonzo.. Hadiths are total Fabrications .. As is the whole of Islam..
As it happens, I've just talked to someone who has written a PHD on the various chains of transmission. Fascinating stuff. Half way through, they all converge, indicating that they were not in circulation before. The earliest ones appear around the middle of the 8th century which incidentally coincides with the Abbasid takeover.
Not to mention that none of it is believable. Like people remembering 150 names who died 150 years ago. Or the fact that there's a Hadith for every 5 minutes in Muhammad's life.
But if you're so into chains of transmission, you should be a Catholic, they've got Apostolic Succession after all, traditions and beliefs going back to the eye witnesses of Jesus. That's centuries more than the Islamic chains of tradition.
Sahih Bukhari 3506 reads, “They wrote the manuscripts of the Quran in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, 'If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Quran, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Quran was revealed in their language.’ So, they acted accordingly.”
*
This hadith helps us reach four notable scholarly conclusions about the Arabic Quran:
(1) Jibril (Mohammed’s personal angel) revealed the Quran to Mohammed in Mohammed’s native tongue - the Quraishi language.
(2) Uthman transferred Mohammed’s Quran from its original Quraishi language to the “skeleton texts” of the Arabic language which have no diacritical marks - marks that help in the pronunciations of Arabic words.
3) A few hundred years after the Uthmanic Quran, Muslims introduced diacritical marks, and put them above or below some of Uthman’s Quranic “skeleton texts” in order to normalize (make standard) their Arabic pronunciations.
(4) Today, we can say with certainty that no Arabic Quran, with all its diacritical markings, resembles or reads like Mohammed’s Quraishi Quran - the Quran supposedly inscribed on “Eternally Preserved Tablets”. [See Quran 85:21-22]
*
In closing, we must make two notations: (1) Today, the Quraishi language is no longer a spoken language - it died with the in-fighting of early Muslims in their attempts to completely wipeout one another. (2) Today, no human being can read a written “skeleton texts” Arabic language without the aid (input) of diacritical markings.