We shall wait and see one layer at a time how Christian foundation formed and getting peeled off from other religions such as from Jewish, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Ancient Celtic, Ancient Greet, etc. and keep going backwards until we get "knocked off". In other words, all religions are somewhat copycats of the others.
@@earthlycreature8772 not sure what planet you inhabit but this has been and continues to be done on Christian beliefs. And what point are you trying make? I’m sure that you can easily find channels that do exactly that.
@Pankaj A But the challenge is to get Indian Muslims exposed to the historical falsehoods of Islam. It's already happening in Kerala. There are so many ex-Muslims there.
Praying for the days when it will be safe everywhere to come out as an ex Muslim. Its the suppression of apostasy that prevents other doubters from investigating further, crossing that red line.
@@TAlexander Welcome and we look forward to more videos and materials from you and finally the book that we are all waiting..take your time and finish that...thanks again.
That’s great work Thomas. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together. So can we say that it was Abdul Malik bin Marwan who united the Arab tribes under the one “Muhammad” faith, built them a monument and wrote them a book to be proud of? They now; officially; had their own prophet, book, language and identity. A spot of genius on the part of Abdul Malik.
I would say that the Quran as we know it only came together during the Abbasid period. But Abd al-Malik may have popularised a Beta-Version if you will.
Yes Thomas, Abdul Malik of the Merv commenced the collection of Quran and it seemed not even stabilized until he died. The Sanaa manusctipt, for example, is said to have been written in the time of al Walid (Abdul Malik's son) and there were still different of style of writing, composition of suras & number of verses in each sura.
I am so excited by this whole materials. Please I would like to ask Dr Jay. How can one be accessed to these materials. Here in nigeria as a Christian I need to know my facts to confront our Muslim brothers
UAE just made Sunday and Saturday as weekend holidays and made Friday a working day! A miracle! When I worked there, I remember worshipping at St Mary's church on Fridays and working on Sundays and even on Christmas. This is a great step. Praise Jesus. Change is coming. I pray and hope that the whole Middle east will turn to Jesus whom they abandoned for a false prophet and make every mosque into churches. Christ will reign!
I hope both false prophets will fall and we start anything humanity and take our responsibility for the planet we are living on instead of removing responsibility because we can shove it on some non existing god. These vids help us discover that science is stronger than religion.
3:45 Thanks, Thomas! Murad had suggested "Year of Heraclius", which makes sense. But year of the Hagrenes seems like a slam dunk. Maybe not even a term the Arabs first used themselves, but were keen to adopt. The Arab armies outside of the Levant were calling themselves the "Hagarenes", instead of Muslims for the first few centuries following their conquest. One can understand why the Abbasids and their scribes would be quick to change such a name painful to Persians.
This was great! I loved the bit about the book of treasures, which gave us a view into the legends that existed prior to the 7th century as regards the Temple Mount. The idea that it was the site of Adam's crypt and symbolically Christ's crypt, or Muhammad's crypt to use their term for Christ, was an eye opener for me, as a number of months ago, I proposed the idea that perhaps the purpose of the Dome of the Rock was as a mausoleum for Muhammad. I think this video would suggest I was right but not literally: it had that purpose on a symbolic level, a substitute crypt in place of the Holy Sepulcher. Well done, Thomas! Your output has been phenomenal! Keep up the great work. The new microphone is making a huge difference.
There is no temple mount in this heavily edited book. Your whole theory falls flat. It's your 21st century presupposition that the book is talking about that spot.
@@Victory1942 Even on medieval Christian maps, Jerusalem is always at the centre. It’s indeed a well attested belief. The fact that the book of the Cave of Treasures even goes beyond that, is highly interesting and important for understanding the origins of Islam.
@@alonzoharris6730 my brother, when you live in an echo chamber your unable to think out of the box. I suggest you open your mind, and it won't sound so far out.
Excellent research... We may not be able to know for sure what actually happen, but one thing you have discovered for sure - is that the Standard Islamic Narrative is utterly and completely false and without any historic foundation.
First to like your video! Please like and share these videos to dismantle the lies and deceptions of Islam. God bless our brother Dr. Jay Smith and his guests!
I think this is why Islam does not let girls go to school or study or let other Muslims study other Religions they will see this Koran was absolutely plagerized from Torah and Christianity and written as a mirror opposite to Revelations their Savior is our Anti-Christ...timelines don't add up... thru all my years of deep theological study I could never find the 'Mohamad' I could find many Mohamads but never the'M' I really think this is why they refuse to show his grave and have removed all pictures of his face, this is a strange circumstance unless you are hiding covering up a lie..... this group is the only place I am able to reveal all my personal truths freely may Yashua Jesus Bless You All and Protect You🙏🫂❤🕯
Amazing Jay and Thomas, please can you upload this material to podcast as it will help educate. I know it doesn’t have the graphics but it will lead people to find it on RUclips. I’m praying your work will convert many muslins.
Thomas, danke schön für die faszinierende Materie! [Eine Randnotiz über total etwas anderes: in "Holy Sepulchre" spricht man den "ch" nicht aus wie ein "tsch" (wie in TSCHechien) sondern wie ein "k", weil der "ch" nicht aus dem Französischen/Germanischen sondern aus dem Lateinischen "sepulcrum" ausstamt. Englisch ist eine unmögliche Sprache...] Vielen Dank fürs lehren, aus Holland!
The Church of the Sepulchre was built over where Byzantine Christians believed Jesus was crucified, outside the then city walls of Jerusalem. Whereas the Temple Mount is the VERY HOLIEST Jewish site of all, where Abraham is believed to have taken his son Isaac to sacrifice him as a test from G-d who stopped him before it could be done and a ram caught in a bush was substituted instead. Even today Jews can only pray silently and are severely limited as to access on the VERY HOLIEST Jewish site of all. When more and more Jews are seeking to worship G-d there, according to the restrictions of Jewish law ie avoiding anywhere the Temples could have stood (until we can be purified by the ashes of a red heifer). That still leaves a vast area where Jews should be allowed to worship and pray openly. Absolutely outrageous that only Muslims can do so there! Jews were worshipping and sacrificing to G-d as required under the Torah for many centuries on the Temple Mount. Jews were worshipping there long long before the first Arabs invaded the Jewish home land in 7th century.
yes, it is outrageous. Equally galling is the complete denial that the Jews even had a temple there that is bandied about in Dawah circles. It is a blocking move designed to deny Jewish legitimacy and a right to a homeland. It is all very unfair and unjust.
I had done research on this Dome of the Rock and there was a Jewish man who also spoke Arabic and had a very interesting video explaining the plaque that is outside the entrance he said the translation says that this mosoluem is built as a temple for the Jews (3rd Temple)then he explained the writing along the outside the video and his channel was removed about 3years ago and I really wish I would have saved it... it is really hard to find information on the Dome.... I did watch another video on when they were changing the prayer rugs carpet inside and the floor underneath was an ancient mosaic tile floor of the horoscope with Jesus Yashua underneath showing him as a fisherman holding fish🙏 😀
@@Speakers154 it was about 6years ago and I took still frames of the floor but I lost it when my tablet burned out I will go look for your video I might have it mixed up with the tile floor of the synagogue in Nazareth that was uncovered in recent years it might be the Nazareth floor I am thinking of👍👍❤ God Bless🙏
*“By Allah - Muawiya died on a religion other than Islam.”* The book ”Masail Ahmad ibn Hanbal” - Narrations of Ishaq ibn Ibraheem ibn Hani al-Nisaburi, prepared for publication by Abul Ashbal Ahmed ibn Salim al-Masri - Alta’seel and Almawada institution. In this book we read: Narration number 1866 he says: “I heard Aba Abdillah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) and he was told by Dalaway that I heard Ali ibn al-Ja’ad he says”: *“By Allah - Muawiya died on a religion other than Islam.”* Ahmad ibn Hanbal is not a nobody in Islam....
The bad reputation in Islam of Muawiyah, founder of the defeated Umayyads, could be a case of victor’s history. If there were one aspect of the SIN of which one would logically be most skeptical it is the treatment of him.
In life there are lots of uncertainties, lots of choices you have to make. But I am certain of one thing: if you chose to love God and love your neighbor (and to even love your enemies!) as Jesus Christ commands us to do, I am 100 % certain that you cannot be wrong. All praise be to God.
The Cave of Treasures book almost duplicates what Muslims have attributed to the Ka'ba and Mecca. Everyone lived there and everything happened there. The book was mapped almost wholesale on Mecca just as other events and places were mapped onto it like Safa and Marwan and its associated story. Abd Al-Malik's Arabization program as described makes very good sense in terms of what happened before and what direction he he wanted to take. The Year of the Arabs (622) definitely seems masked as some kind of triumphalism later with the Hijra story. The real Hijra is probably the move made from Jerusalem to Mecca.
And like the Mecca-Medina Hijra, the protagonists returned in triumph, conquering Jerusalem? The narrative remapping to Mecca seems to be accurate, as you point out, but I am having trouble understanding the when, why, who, how. Abd al Malik from the Dome of the Rock inscriptions seems to be clearly an anti-trinitarian Christian. How could such a person incorporate a holy rock at Mecca (Petra?)? So this happened later? And the buddhist influences? Zoroastrian? Why Targum, not Old Testament? Why apocrypha, not New Testament? Perhaps Abd al Malik was less a faithful sectarian of any kind and really a dabbler who had strong political motives. If that were the case, he might think: why not syncretize various currents flowing within the Arab power structures? So a bunch of things could get thrown in and be declared the faith. Mughal emperor Akbar unsuccessfully tried to do this with his own design of a syncretization of Islam and Hinduism in the 16th century. Or somehow this happened at a later stage. Thomas will undoubtedly be giving an explanation.
@@charlesiragui2473 From when is anti-Trinitarian brand of Christianity called ISLAM...HA HA HA...this is the idiocy educated people have to content with.
This brings all the threads of the search for the origins of Islam together with great clarity. will anyone in the academic world accepts this research as authentic
I highly doubt it because mainstream media is funded and sustained by saudi petrodollars...so this material will always be on the fringe never to become mainstream...
Thank you for the great video. I had read that the British surveyor of the Temple Mount Wilson (1860’s) had theorized that the Byzantine’s church of Hagia Sophia in which was venerated the stone Gabbatha of Pilate’s praetorium had been transformed by Abdul Malik into this shrine of the dome of the rock. Apparently the pilgrims of the pre Islamic times believed Jesus left his footprints in the rock and that legend got transformed into Muhammad’s footprints being in the rock. Of course the Byzantines could have been wrong about the location of the praetorium, if the site is really the temple’s location, but pilgrims to the Mount at that time have recorded at least two churches up there, one of them being a basilica. I wonder if the honeycomb-like Byzantine capitals lying near the Al Asqa mosque could be from those churches? And maybe the Byzantine chancel piece in the dome of the rock itself could be from one of those churches?
The quote I found from Wilson from the 1896 survey during the British protectorate: “This description of the church of St. Sophia, on the site of the Praetorium, in close connection with the Mary Church of Justinian and the Temple, is curious and interesting; especially on account of the resemblance of some of the traditions to those attached to the Dome of the Rock. Thus, the Sakhrah represents the square stone of the Praetorium; the footprints of Mahomet take the place of those of Christ, and the 'many virtues' the stone are still believed in by the Moslem pilgrims who purchase the dust of the Sakhrah, as a specific against all diseases.” We know now that the St. Mary’s church on the Mount wasn’t the Nea of Justinian but another church/monastery that may be the origins of the Byzantine mosaic floor found under the Al Asqa again during the time of the British in Jerusalem when they had permission to do some archeology on the Temple Mount. I’d like to reiterate that I’m not saying the Temple wasn’t on the Temple Mount.
There are three pretty clear sources for evidence that there were at least two churches on the Temple Mount, the Brevarius of Jerusalem, the Piacenza pilgrim, and the poems about the holy sites of Jerusalem by Sophronius. The Brevarius of Jerusalem was an itinerary for pilgrimages written before the 600’s. It describes the basilica of Holy Wisdom and house of Pilate which could be visited when you also visited the parapet of the Temple where Christ was tempted. There is an account from Anonius the pilgrim from Piacenza that describes the church of St Sophia where there is the rock where Christ left his footprints when he was judged by Pilate. It is near the church of St Mary which he visited. This was the old St Mary’s not the Nea. The other source is from the poems written by the patriarch Sophronius who writes about the parapet and the church of Hagia Sophia where Christ stood when he was judged and the rock that was venerated there. I know this is a controversial theory, so I want to say I don’t have any political or apocalyptic motivation to bring it up. I know there are some folks who want to relocate the Temple off the Mount. I don’t have any sympathy for that.
Thanks, I need to take a look at that British survey. I hadn’t heard about that before. Sounds interesting and it fits right in with what I presented here.
@@TAlexander you’re welcome. Your videos are very interesting and bring together the whole history for us. I was first interested in this subject because the anti-Trinitarian anti-incarnation inscriptions in the ambulatory are another really strong indication that this had been a rock venerated by Christians. I’m looking forward to your take on it. All the best
Your suggestion that Abd al Malik wanted to unite the theology of the Arab Christians makes sense from a political perspective and we can see a similar desire in Constantine and other Byzantine emperors calling ecumenical councils because they wanted to avoid schism: unity makes strength, division weakens. But I can see a couple of potential differences too. 1) this seems to have been for the Arabs, uniting them as opposed to ecumenical councils intending to unite all. 2) this seems to have been at its origin oppositional, against Byzantine Christianity rather than purely for a correct understanding without regard to competing ideologies (ecumenical councils were never convoked to address to external, wrongful beliefs, only to internal wrongful beliefs).
And of course the ecumenical councils were gatherings where debate occurred among bishops, rather than a political figure declaring a decision. Though some, now rejected, councils did have this political domination feature: for instance the Council of Hieria in 754AD was convoked to endorse Leo III's banning of icons in 730AD.
Also, Leo III was known as “the Syrian”. Perhaps this can again contribute to the Syrian, Aramaic pushback on Greek theology. And again this would suggest that iconoclasm might be an influence on Islam rather than a reaction to Islam.
The quote I found from Wilson from the 1896 survey during the British protectorate: “This description of the church of St. Sophia, on the site of the Praetorium, in close connection with the Mary Church of Justinian and the Temple, is curious and interesting; especially on account of the resemblance of some of the traditions to those attached to the Dome of the Rock. Thus, the Sakhrah represents the square stone of the Praetorium; the footprints of Mahomet take the place of those of Christ, and the 'many virtues' the stone are still believed in by the Moslem pilgrims who purchase the dust of the Sakhrah, as a specific against all diseases.” We know now that the St. Mary’s church on the Mount wasn’t the Nea of Justinian but another church/monastery that may be the origins of the Byzantine mosaic floor found under the Al Asqa again during the time of the British in Jerusalem when they had permission to do some archeology on the Temple Mount. I’d like to reiterate that I’m not saying the Temple wasn’t on the Temple Mount.
Yes, you're talking the octagonal Byzantine church that was built on the Temple Mount, and which is still sometimes shown in icons of the child Mary being brought to the Temple (Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple). Although of course I can't find any examples to link here, right at the moment!
@@suburbanbanshee yes, I read that the feast day of the entrance of Theotokos in the temple (November 2 I think?) is the commemoration of that church and the Nea that Justinian built is called Nea because it is the “new” St Mary’s but much larger and on the old cardo (Main Street) of Jerusalem. Am I right about this?
Just looked it up. The presentation of Mary is November 21 on the Gregorian calendar. It said this date was chosen because it was the dedication of St. Mary’s in Jerusalem. I’m guessing mean Justinian’s Nea I don’t know.
___Got a bigger screen on which to view your videos. ___As soon as Thomas clicks-in a new slide, I am going to pause, pre-read the slide, go look at a map if I have to, then click 'play'. Rollin' up me sleeves, I am. ;)
Would it be possible to have a written transcription of that intervention? I admire Thomas’ work, but sometimes when he quickly speaks, his german accent is a bit hard to understand.
So interesting to see how this religion evolved over time, and why they came to be so ruthless. I still think they compiled it from the religious books that were roaming around at that time, including the Torah, and other Apocryphil writing.
The Islamic calendar is a pure lunar calendar (doesn't adjust back to the solar to stay in line with the seasons as the Jewish calendar does), which means that by the year 681AD the Islamic calendar dating should be 61AH or about two extra years from time zero. Do we know whether the Arab, pre-Islamic calendar that you are positing was lunar? Can we match an event with a known AD dating and AH dating from this early, pre-Abd al Malik period, that shows that in fact the Arab tributaries were using a pure lunar system for their new calendar? This information could also influence the correct dating of Muawiyah's fall from power or Abd al Malik's rise to power? Under a pure lunar system, 681AD is 61AH; under a corrected lunar calendar or solar calendar 681AD is 59AH, so 61AH would be 683AD.
@@alonzoharris6730 It would seem the descendants of Haggar. That is how they were identified in ancient times apparently. I suppose native speakers of Arabic would be another way of defining it. Or perhaps by nation? Lakhmids and Ghassanids? How would you define “Arab”?
@@alonzoharris6730 Who is they? I’m not sure where you are going with this. It used to be said in the 19th century that if one walked from Moscow to Warsaw, one would never notice the change in language, yet Russian and Polish are not easily mutually intelligible. Sometimes that’s the case. Sometimes there are sharp linguistic boundaries. Was Aramaic monolithic? I would guess that it was not and that regional variation existed across the territory marked pink on Thomas’s first map. Also, there has been a long-standing debate regarding whether Hebrew was actually spoken in the 1st century, whether the use of the term “Hebrew” in patristic sources referred to Aramaic as well, etc. Language and identity are complicated.
@@charlesiragui2473 I mean those that mention Arabs in their sources. It's all based on assumptions what these writers understood as seperate language and seperate people. Alexander has an anti modern Arab motive. This is shaped by a colonial mindset. That's why he ignores Arab sources and only uses Christian sources. He accepts these sources blindly to be authentic. He doesn't apply his hypersceptical approach on his own 'sources' and theory.
I have the same doubt from Thomas...i requested a video on the same topic from him...clarifying what the independence thing is all about in 622..independence from what and how?
I've heard it mentioned a few times that the "Dome of the Rock" has been (destroyed??) several times. However looking on the Internet I can only find the SIN and no mention of any destructions just expansions to the existing structure. So my question is who destroyed it, when, why, by how much?
It would be helpful if you could explain how the events at Karbala and the death of Hussein integrate into your narrative. Hussein was the grandson of Prophet Muhammed and a rival claimant to the title of the Kalif, against Yazīd I who succeeded his father, Muʿāwiyah
The only reason why Abd alMalik ibn Marwan and AlHajjaj bin Yusuf got the Qurans written in Jordanian Arabic is to make it completely cryptic and at the same time, invent a belief system based on blind-faith. Otherwise, they could have easily got it written in Sabaaic Arabic which was used in the Hijaaz region. They didn't want Jews and other surrounding, educated people to really understand what Quran was compiled of.
@@alonzoharris6730 How do you know that the earliest Quran manuscripts were written in het Hijazi dialect because e.g the Samarkand and the Sana'a were written without the diacritical marks?
@@alonzoharris6730 No, none of any Quranic manuscripts are in Sabaaic-Arabic i.e Hijaazi dialect. That's the problem. All dia-critical marks had to be added during recent time to make them agree with the present day Hafz text.
@@peacock69mcp All earliest Quranic manuscripts are in the Hijazi dialect. It's called Hijazi script.😁 Go read linguistics like Marijn van Putten and he will tell you. Stop pretending to be an expert. You are not.
@@alonzoharris6730 Have you even watched any research videos on Quran by Dr. AlFadi or Dr Jay Smith or Dr. Daniel Brubaker? You stop pretending to be Arab expert.
Thanks again, and again, Thomas (and Jay). Maybe I am not a practicing catholic, but I am theist (in the Aristotelian and scholastic rigorous metaphysics that its even by today standards of conjectures followed by prof inside mathematics pristine), I see todays atheism as a pseudo-religion with a lot of misuse of science in the form of "ideological scientificism" insted of real methodology, and of course I feel in great debt with our Hellenistic, Roman and Cristian values.... I hope with all my heart that the levant and all the southern part of the mediterranean will embrace for the second time the same values they also formed before Islam Thomas please don´t forget the Al andalus evidence for future videos!!!! Jan
THE Mark of GOD Ezekiel 9:3-5 "3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side; 4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof . 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: " The word MARK was written as TAU in the original text . TAU is a CROSS . A CROSS on the Forehead
Thomas, did Abd al Malik believe that Jesus was crucified? Could you find any evidence that this was what he believed, given that the Dome of the rock was built atop the burial site of Christ?
Really enjoy these videos. However, I feel like either I'm missing something, or something is missing from these theories. Where does the Islamic schism fit into these theories. If it is real, it should be included. If it is an anachronism, it needs to be addressed. Maybe I've missed something along the way, but wondering how the Sunni/Shia split fits in.
The idea that Abdl Malik introduced the formula of “Jesus is Muhammad” to unify his empire is hard to understand. At that time Jesus was a widely known concept or personality with 600+ yrs of history behind it, but who or what was Muhammad at that time? how many people knew about him or the concept it refers to? Where did this notion of Muhammad come from? How old and widespread it was? Why this would cause unification? I know about Popp’s Ugarit theory of its origin but it’s too old without anything in-between supporting it. It all make sense if there were a Muhammad movement at that time, either as a person or a concept.
Top video Jay and Thomas. Thus proto islam was a great fabrication to create an Arab identity away from the Persian, Byzantine empires and using Arabic (borrowed heavily from Aramaic sources)
Abd al Malik was a Jewish Arab like Herod the Great was an Idumean , converted to Judaism by force, and so then the Jews all hated Herod. Now , the Dome of the Rock was raised over a Christian site and over the Fort Antonia and would be Solomon's Court, "Hall of Judgement". This was a Judahite site, because it corresponds to the pattern of how the Tribes of Israel proceeded in array in the Exodus with the Ark carried by the Priest in their midst. not on one end or another but central to the tribes in their camps, where the camps all formed a Cross, as they trekked through the Exodus experience. So Abd al Malik wanted the new Arabs who came to believe in the Jewish God, as Allah to bow down prostrate towards Jerusalem to this fort or sanctuary where Jews had a camp or fortress for a Jewish King, Solomon. But the Arabs soon learned that they were being pushed to worship towards the city of Jerusalem and to this rock , that was Hall of Judgment in a Jewish Camp, in Solomon's palace, later used by Christians as a Church and now it was a focal point to make the Arabs bow to Jerusalem . The Arab Muslims got mad when they realized what the Jewish Muslims were doing, and so they turned their back sides to "MOON" the Jews , and so they put their backside to the Dome of the Rock, and faced south somewhere towards PETRA or Mecca, or Becca Valley , and so Islam made their break from Jewish Arabs, and became a distinct religion that would not bow in any direction towards the ancient places of Jewish Kings, etc. Now the real Temple would be easy to find. Just like a theater is designed for the seating to aim into the center stage , all the graves of the real Priests of Solomon' Temple, would be aligned for the Day of Resurrection so they can stand up from their graves and tombs and directly be pointing on the first day of light, towards the stage center point where the door of the Temple was, and the Messiah comes out to them. So , as they say all roads lead to Rome, all the true grave sites of ancient Temple Jews , in the time of Solomon , would be aimed to the door of the temple. So up on the Mount of Olives, by the graves of the prophets and priests ,who died in a time where the Temple was there, their graves point to the doorway, so they can head to toe , stand up and be looking at center stage on that day of the Lord. As the Easter Sunrise comes over the Mount of Olives, on the Day of Resurrection , preceded by the Full Moon the Morning Star and Spring Vernal Easter Sunrise, on a fifty year cycle of aligning, following the Sign of Aries the Ram, the first month of the year, the Sign of the Ram, , is why the Lord gave a Ram on that day he spared Isaac, after Abraham offered his son , and God could either spare the son and prolong his days to reign in succession to Abraham , when the Father was then in Heaven, the timely offering of the Ram, was based on the First Day of the Year agreeing with the Sign of Aries , some time around April 15th, and then that paces through to Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, the setting up of the Tabernacle and the coming down of the Shekinah Glory to incarnate as the Priest. So Jesus was CONCEIVED as Bread of Heaven , UNLEAVENED BREAD , being a sign of the RAM in ARIES , April 15th , to some time around the Feast of the Unleavened Bread to mark the First Day of Light , Jesus was INCARNATED as a Conception of the Immaculate Conception in the Ark of the Covenant and carried along as a ALMAH VIRGIN WOMB , a birth place of a nation and a Messiah, out of the box, the Mercy Seat, that continued as the womb of Jesus , and the Nation of Israel anew, for nine months through the Seven Festival Liturgical Year of Moses Law, Atoned for on the Seventh Month Festival and left to quietness that the Woman bore the child at Christmas, some time between December 25th through January 6th the Day of the Epiphany . So the Temple was where David was led in a procession by the Priests of the Way of the Lord from the Mount of Olives to the area by the Gihon Spring, where a hill stood that later was taken down to conceal it as a mystery. and all the graves they can be measured in a land survey by cartographers , mapping out the lay of the land so that the rising SUN on EASTER makes an ARC overhead the Temple from the top of the Mount of Olives. So , a ROD or ten foot pole on the grave of the Prophet correctly lain in a tomb, on Easter, causes the rising SUN to CAST A SHADOW OVER THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS OR VALLEY OF DEATH . So said David in the 23rd Psalms, and Psalms 110 where he comes to the brook by the way ,and looks up to see the Zion Hill, above the Gihon, but today the hill is no longer there. So the only coordination is to go to the graves of the original Temple Priests , Judges and Kings and aim their alignment to a convergence zone of X marks the spot. It is just like a theater , they turn all the seats to aim in on center stage. VOILA .
I like your theories. However, I have two problems concerning them. 1. Why in the world should the most important and powerful Christian Empire of that time, the Byzantines, leave the most holy places of Christendom, namely Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulture, to Arab sects and not keep them in their Empire, at least for the many christian pilgrims, but also for their own legitimacy? 2. If islamic theology developed so slowly from Muawiyya to Abd-el Malik and later the Abbassids, how do you explain the speed of the Islamic Expansion, conquering Egypt and Persia in the 640s, and have the Umayyads conquer Spain as early as 711 AD?
1) Remember that the Byzantine Empire was on its knees following the Justinian plague, the invasion of the barbarians in the West and the costly war with the Persians in the East. Heraclius completely revamped administration and governance, everything outside of Greece and Asia Minor was no longer part of the core. At the same time, initially, it wasn’t a case of abandoning these lands, rather they installed client kings. The goal was to load off the burden of protecting these lands while at the same time continuing to have access to them. That plan failed when Mu’awiya consolidated his power as an enemy of the Byzantines. But that was decades later. 2) First of all, I’ve already gone into the fall of Persia which was really more a disintegration from within than a conquest from outside. As it happens, the Arabs were the last ones standing, though it was still disjointed tribes initially. Apart from that, why would the expansion necessarily need to be Islamic in nature? Empires have always tried to expand, with or without a religious motivation. Mu’awiya seems to have operated without a religious motivation. Abd al-Malik however clearly put religion in the mix. It wasn’t yet Islam, but that’s kinda beside the point.
@@TAlexander Thanks a lot Thomas, for your comprehensive answer! You are right, in the 7th century all the Empires of late antiquity were either destroyed (like the Western Roman Empire), or exhausted from long wars (Byzantium and the Sassanid Empire) and other misfortune like the plague. The new powers in the West, like the Frankish Kingdom under the rule of the later Merovingian "shadow kings" and the Visigoth Kingdom in Spain were presumably weak and not so well organized, with lots of rivalry inside, between counties and regions. But were the Arabs so much better organized? They became united under one ruler/caliph, but were they so many people and so well equipped in order to conquer Egypt, the Maghreb and Spain in such a short time? If not religion was the reason of their motivation, what made the Berbers and Moors become their allies and spread throughout North Africa and into Spain, before the Abbassids finally took over and shaped Islam? I mean, in comparison, it took centuries for the Romans to become the primary power in Italy alone, and some centuries more to build the whole Roman Empire.
@@NostalgieFreak Late Antiquity was a very different time than Antiquity at its height. It didn’t take large armies to conquer entire nations. Hans Delbrück wrote a seminal book on the issue more than 100 years ago. He also doubted the traditions that talk about armies of 200,000 warriors or more, overrunning the Roman Empire. He pointed out that the logistics wouldn’t have been possible. Instead, he argues that none of the Germanic tribes would have had more than 15,000 fighting men. Once you add women, children and slaves, you have a group of roughly 70,000 people which is the most they would have been able to handle logistically. At first glance, it sounds crazy for instance that the Ostrogoths would have been able to conquer Italy with 15,000 warriors, but he makes some good arguments. Despite their vast numerological superiority, Western Rome wasn’t capable of fielding an army anymore. They had been relying on Germanic auxiliaries for centuries. The comparatively wealthy populace on the other hand would have rather surrendered than risked their own lives. Unlike the Goths, they had a lot to lose. In the end, it was Germanic Goths fighting other Germanic soldiers who were in the service of Rome. You can also see it by the fact that Germanic rulers like the Vandals or Visigoths razed all fortifications within their newly conquered countries. Why? Because they didn’t have the men to besiege rebellious towns. So better to remove all defences as a preventive measure. The relative ease with which the Vandals and the Goths were beaten by the Byzantines also supports this argument. I think we have a very similar situation in the East. The Arabs didn’t need massive armies. There just weren’t enough soldiers to defend the lands. So making the Arabs clients was a sensible approach. If you can’t beat them, join them. It backfired in the end, but it’s very plausible that the Byzantines would have lost these lands anyway. As for a motivation, that’s easy: Wealth and power. The oldest of all motivations. The Arabs were poor, Syria, Egypt and Carthage were rich. And the hungry, young nations typically overrun the saturated old ones. For the Berbers, it wouldn’t have been a big deal. They would have replaced one master with another. Byzantines out, Arabs in.
My advice to all , religion is your right Think of why i born in this religion and work for it . reform it and its followers , Dont advertise it . Dont leave it . If attack other one you will be wiped out by others
For a language to become a lingua franca it takes a lot of time. If Abd al Malik reigned from 681AD till 705 AD and if he was the one who introduce Arabic as the lingua franca. Is that not in conflict with the dating of the Sana'a Palimpsest? The lower text of it is dated from 671 AD - 705 AD and the upper text is dated from 705 AD -->
The Sana'a manuscript is a rendition of the Quran. I think everyone agrees that at least elements of the Quran, an Arab language text, date from the 7th century. As the Quran says of itself, it was a text for the Arabs, so that they could understand better. That's the opposite of a lingua franca. By lingua franca, I believe Thomas is speaking about the coming use of the Quran in the 8th century as a holy book for all peoples, thereby encouraging everyone to learn and use Arabic. For an Aramaic-speaking population this shift to Arabic wouldn't have been very difficult and, by contrast, even today Arabic is not spoken in Iran, where Aramaic was not spoken prior to the Arab 7th century takeover.
Most people didn't speak Syriac. This is a fairy tale. Palmyra under Queen Zenobia were almost all Arab speaking. The same goes for all other cities. This Syriac myth is propagated by Christians.
@@alonzoharris6730 Arab traditions making Zenobia fully Arab seem to stem from al Tabari in the 9-10th centuries. Zenobia lived in the 3rd century, contesting for power with a Roman Empire in crisis. She seems to have spoken Aramaic from contemporary sources.
@@charlesiragui2473 Just because she also spoke Aramaic doesn't make her Aramaic. Most people in Palmyra were Arabs. We know that from the inscriptions of the personal names. The Aramaic name Bat Zabbai doesn't make any sense. Her name was Zayneb. The city also venerated Arab gods like Allat, Manat and Rudda. This is testified in inscriptions. The word sakara is attested several times in Palmyrene inscriptions in relation with various deities as a divine epithet. This word can only be interpreted according to Arabic 'to thank'.
Its a common misconception that lingua franca takes time to form...i will compare the making of Greek language as lingua franca of west asia during alexander time to same intensity during the making of arabic as lingua franca during abd al malik...it doesnt take much time for that...only a strong will and a powerful leader to do in a lifetime.
The transition from Muwayyah to Malik is confusing. It looks like Muwayyah was ok with Monoenergism formula. Its fall in the west following Ecumenical council led to the fall of Muwayyah and accession of Malik a more anti Byzantine, radical Monophysite. The Iranian tribe dominated Abbassids cant accept the name of the calender as Year of Hagarins or Arabs. That may be the one reason, they manipulated the name
It is confusing in as far as the only thing we know about the transition is that the standard account is not true. Mu’awiya certainly wasn’t as focused on religion as Abd al-Malik. Which is why we don’t really know what kind of Christian he was. If he was indeed related to Abd al-Malik, he could have been anti Trinitarian. Though I’m not really sold on that.
@@TAlexander its a common practice to make the new ruler related to the earlier one with fake genealogies. Relationship btw Muwayyah & malik must be manipulation one for Maliks legitimacy. But then who is Marwan? Does he have any relationship with Maron, the founder of Maronite? Maron & Marwan share same time period, place & similar name. Maron founded a new Church because he didnt like christology of Byzantines and Monophysite Jakobites. Probably he was a Monoenergism guy who was unhappy about the falling of that formula. Maronites did many battles those days as per their history. But those battles were actually Ummayad battles with Byzantine
@@catholicorthodoxfaith2689 I‘ve previously presented the linguistic analysis of Marwan. Keep in mind that on the coins, it says “Abd al-Malik Marwan” and NOT “Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan”. The word “Marwan” however literally means “from Merv” or “of the Merven tribe”. Since we don’t have any physical evidence of anybody named “Marwan”, the assumption is that there wasn’t any such person and that we’re either looking at another misreading and misinterpretation or a deliberate attempt to fudge the genealogy while introducing classical tropes of rulers and their families.
@@TAlexander or is it derived from Mount Moriya also called Mount Marwa? An Arab kingdom of Muwwyah getting highjacked by an Iranian / Turk guy from Merv (Uzbekistan ) without any trace?
"Devil Deceives Whole World" 1. Devil's Drugs/Dictatorship Deceiving... 2. PhysciansPoliticiansPeoplePrincipalitesPastors... 3. JudgesJouralists end up with Judas... 4. Age of Grace ends in Disgrace... 5. Replaced with Messiah's Magnificent Millennium.....
Here's an idea that has just crept into my mind. What if the myth about the burning of the early Qurans is actually based on Abd al Maliks attempt to Arabize his peoples by burning all the non Arabic books he could get his hands on.
As you say.. Abdullah al Zubayr power was mainly in Persia, minting included. But he was supposedly in 'Mecca'..!!! . .As Murad showed, 'the Mohammed ' of the SIN and his amigos , as well what you confirm about Abdullah Al Zubayr were in Tadjekestan, Mesopotamia. And so is" Mecca" and "Medina". And,if you,skip the Hejaz bullshit and you follow what happens physically in the ground it becomes an absolute evidence.
I am waiting for Alonzo Harris to say "there was no Bible before the 4th century"..... Meanwhile he read a quran that was compiled in 1924....., not even 100 years old. The quran is perfectly preserved......., since 1924.
Complete Bible from 4th century are codex vaticanus siniacticus alexandrinus ....we have aramaic peshitta translation from mid 2nd century...muratorian fragments from early 3rd century...and here we have abdools saying that Bible was written in 4th century.
In history books and the SIN, the Umayyads were responsible for the large expansions of the Caliphate. Now that it appears that they were Christians, the pillages, murderings, rapes, mass deportations and (war)crimes shifts from SIN Muslims to Christians. There were two choices, capitulate and accept their creed or be decapitated. Eventually, the Abbasids took over this mindset and these deeds, since then granting the world with this attitude It is excellent to correct the narratives. But, unfortunately, the creed may be corrected, but not the deeds. That they now seem to be (Syriac) Christians does not make it a sudden Hallelujah feat. Their war crimes, led by especially the terrorist al-Hajjaj and his general Muḥammad bin Qasim and other generals are not short of comparisons with the Hamas, Hezbollah, IS and the Taleban.
If Muhammad is Jesus then Jesus went to Heaven after his resurrection and came down later , where did He take off from? oh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
The temple mount was never considered to be the spot by Jews and Christians. This belief only came after the crusaders. Benjamin of Tudela brought this belief in circulation after visiting Jerusalem.
There is no historical evidence for the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Not a single rock is found. Alexander should start with the Christian Standard narrative first.😊
There were no camels in the Levant in the time of Abraham or Moses. Camels were only found in What is now Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Eastern Arabia. The bible claims that there were camels in Arabia. Abraham was in Arabia and not in the Levant. The Chaldean didn't exist in the time of Moses either. They translated Kasdim as Chaldeans. The Chaldeans only came after 900 bce. Moses lived in 1400 bce. Abraham lived in 2000 bce. There is a lot of deception going on with translations into Greek and English.
The Hebrews are from Yemen and not from the Levant. The deception started with the translation of the Canaanite text into Greek with the Septaguint in Alexandria. They started to make Egypt and the Levant the centre of the OT stories with made up translations. River became Nile.🤔 It's also assumed that UrShalim (Jerusalem) is always the same city in the OT. That's totally false. It simply means the city of peace. The earliest historical record of Jerusalem is from an Arab king called Abdi Heba in the Amarna letters.
There is zero archaeological evidence for the temple of Solomon. It's even funnier that nobody ever documented a temple there. Alexander the Great never heard of it. The later stories of Josephus are all legends. The clown wrote that the pagan Roman Flavius leaders healed people. The Greeks passed through that strategic area and made Egypt the centre of their kingdom. No mention of a temple or Jerusalem. Nothing is found.
We have to be careful with our definitions I guess. I know that “Monophysite” is a contested term these days. I’m still using it because it has been so established. What I mean by it is the same as “Miaphysitism”
@@MrAbc54321 I know. That's also how I'm using the term "Monophysite" because it has been established as such historically. Even though literally, you could interpret it differently. Just like "Orthodox Church" has become a term for the Eastern churches even though many people using the term don't literally believe the Orthodox Church to have the "correct" belief.
Keep it up and watch what your world turns into. Stop 🛑 trashing Islam. It shall rule the World by every letter of the Quran just wait and see. You will be ranked among those who reject it, no one will believe you
There is still simply no evidence that Abdul Malik came from the East. It is nothing but a very bad etymological interpretation of the surname ibn Marwan.
Well, Volker Popp, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Robert Kerr and others don’t think it’s a bad etymological interpretation but a good one. But of course there’s more. In the “influences” video, I went over a lot more that’s pointing towards the East.
@@Bei-Abedan There clearly is a lot of evidence. I have presented some of it in the videos on this channel and referred to more in some published papers. You are of course free to weigh it any way you like. If you don’t find it convincing, then that’s perfectly fine. But to say there is none is certainly an overstatement. As it happens, I do find it convincing, but I also made clear that there is speculation involved in the video on Merv.
@@TAlexander Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant when I said still. It means I have seen all of the videos and so far there is no evidence that Abdul Malik came from the East. Not even circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps you don't actually understand what evidence is. There is neither Primary nor Secondary nor Tertiary evidence on this matter. There is plenty of speculation, but no evidence. Speculation is sometimes interesting (if the person speculating has indeed canvassed all available sources) but it is not evidence neither is it inductive reasoning nor deduction. Finally I don't know why you are even bothering to answer my comment when you failed to answer my question on our first encounter, you expressed horrific bigotry in our second encounter and promised never to interact with me again. Our third encounter was even worse but again the same promise came yet apparently you are not a man of your word. I suppose your generation was not taught to feel shame, guilty or remorse over such repugnant behaviour. Although I will not forgive you for that, I for my part continue to praise you on your strengths on my channel and hope you will stick to them and get out of the mire you have waddled into. Yes Islam was founded by the type of Christians you describe (although you failed to use the correct term for them, and Odon's "Judeo-Nazarenes" is a much better term). And yes, Volker Popp is probably correct about Abdul Malik's coins while Odon isn't. So there is some give and take. But both of you have made an elementary error which undermines a lot of what you both say and I will record an explanation on that with Jay tomorrow God willing.
@@Bei-Abedan Please remind me what the question was I didn't answer. As for me promising never to interact with you again, that never happened. I said I will only reply if it's on the topic and not if it's getting personal. Yes, our interactions have been unpleasant at times. As you can imagine, my interpretation is quite different from yours. But I don't want to peddle drama which is why I won't get into any more of that. I'm still not sure what you consider to be evidence. Evidence isn't proof, but I never claimed it to be. But we do have coins migrating from East to West. "Marwan" literally does mean "from Merv" or "of the Meven tribe", the influences, particularly the Buddhist ones do point far East, the Arabic script is derived from an Aramaic script, the term Nasara is used for Eastern Syriac Christians, Anti-Trinitarian beliefs did survive longer in the East. So there's plenty of evidence out there. We haven't found the smoking gun, but it's at the very least an educated guess, I'd argue it's more than that. As for the term Judeo-Nazarenes, you know my position. I don't like it for implying that we're dealing with Jews, which I don't believe they were. Their christology may have been influenced by messianic Jews like the Ebionites centuries earlier, but they wouldn't have considered themselves to be Jews, even though they shared a lot in terms of religious understanding, tradition and particularly christology. Similarly to what Muslims say today, these anti-Trinitarian Christians would have denounced Judaism and postulated that they alone conserved the correct faith. Ethnically, we're looking at Arabs, or Hagarenes, or Ishmaelites, whichever term works for you, who converted to an early form of Syriac Christianity, not at Hebrews or Israelites. Nazarenes is also a difficult term as it has been used to denote Aramaic speaking Christians in general, so that group would be much larger than the anti-Trinitarian one we're looking at. Judeo-Nazarenes works for me if you don't interpret the "Judeo" part literally but in terms of a spiritual influence. But since few would do that, I'd rather not use the term. Be that as it may, I'll be looking forward to your video with Jay.
Hans with all that has been uncovered since last year, you are still in denial. Because muslims were following Christianity and wanted to highjack the religion by changing the scriptures. I wonder how were they going to take Jesus away from the Christians.... with the sword???
@@murielpucoe9213 I am not in denial I just don't see any solid evidence. For me it looks like an echo chamber of pople confirming their stories... There are some peculiaritie which can be explained much simpler: eg the roundness of the dome of the rock could indeed mean that abd al Malik wanted to change the qibla direction. Or simply he wanted to establish Jerusalem as a new center for Islam (understandble with the ongoing war against Mekka wherever we Mekka locate at) All the contrary evidence such as Islamic accounts are ignored
@@hans471 wait for book from Thomas coming soon...he will present solid evidence with references...coming from Inarah school of Research based in Germany.
@@antonypage7308 this is exactly what Bible says will happen in the last days...the antichrist (Imam mehdi of Islam) will have complete authority over religion and politics in the world...he will impose Islam on the whole world...all the countries will give him their power...
On the title: "Thomas: (Pt.5) The 'Dome of the Rock', Islam's 1st home!" >>> Totally wrong. Islam is not a new religion. All the prophets were Muslims, Islam was their religion, the Kaaba is the 1st house of Islam.
@Kate Iceheart Why do you want the '3rd' temple? You believe Jesus to be god right? Doesn't Paul teach that Jesus is the temple? Why do you need a temple? For what?
@@alonzoharris6730 you guys quote the bible, you believe Jesus to be the righteous one, which means sin less. Yet you don't even believe what he said in the gospels. He told everyone that he would be crucified and on the third day he would be risen from the grave, yet you do not believe him. In reality you and your book are no more than a big contradiction.
@@tomdowney9336 I'm quoting the bible because Christians believe in the bible. I don't take your bible serious. I'm wondering why a Christians wants a 3rd temple and at the same time believe that Jesus was the sacrifice and the temple?? That's a contradiction. The temple was used for sacrifices and rituals. Something you claim is not valid anymore. Why do you need a temple? For what? To dance?
Explain yourself. What are they lying about? Don't just make statements like that, give proof why they are liars and clowns. Without an explanation it makes you look like a clown.
One layer at a time, the Islamic foundation is being peeled off. Good job guys
We shall wait and see one layer at a time how Christian foundation formed and getting peeled off from other religions such as from Jewish, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Ancient Celtic, Ancient Greet, etc. and keep going backwards until we get "knocked off". In other words, all religions are somewhat copycats of the others.
@@earthlycreature8772 not sure what planet you inhabit but this has been and continues to be done on Christian beliefs. And what point are you trying make? I’m sure that you can easily find channels that do exactly that.
I can’t express how much I am enjoying this. Thanks Thomas and Jay
@Pankaj A
But the challenge is to get Indian Muslims exposed to the historical falsehoods of Islam. It's already happening in Kerala. There are so many ex-Muslims there.
Praying for the days when it will be safe everywhere to come out as an ex Muslim. Its the suppression of apostasy that prevents other doubters from investigating further, crossing that red line.
I never enjoyed and learned from a videos series so much as this one...Thanks Jay Thomas and the whole Team.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
@@TAlexander Welcome and we look forward to more videos and materials from you and finally the book that we are all waiting..take your time and finish that...thanks again.
This video deserves to be celebrated with a GIN tonic!! Great stuff!!
Thank you Thomas good work
You are getting better and better.
Thank you, thank you.
Revealing the truth.
This is just fabulous Thomas, and thank you Jay for being the platform for this
God bless Jay and thomas
That’s great work Thomas. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together. So can we say that it was Abdul Malik bin Marwan who united the Arab tribes under the one “Muhammad” faith, built them a monument and wrote them a book to be proud of? They now; officially; had their own prophet, book, language and identity. A spot of genius on the part of Abdul Malik.
I would say that the Quran as we know it only came together during the Abbasid period. But Abd al-Malik may have popularised a Beta-Version if you will.
@@TAlexander Indeed, he got the ball rolling so to speak. Thank you Thomas.
Yes Thomas, Abdul Malik of the Merv commenced the collection of Quran and it seemed not even stabilized until he died. The Sanaa manusctipt, for example, is said to have been written in the time of al Walid (Abdul Malik's son) and there were still different of style of writing, composition of suras & number of verses in each sura.
I am so excited by this whole materials. Please I would like to ask Dr Jay. How can one be accessed to these materials. Here in nigeria as a Christian I need to know my facts to confront our Muslim brothers
UAE just made Sunday and Saturday as weekend holidays and made Friday a working day! A miracle! When I worked there, I remember worshipping at St Mary's church on Fridays and working on Sundays and even on Christmas. This is a great step. Praise Jesus. Change is coming. I pray and hope that the whole Middle east will turn to Jesus whom they abandoned for a false prophet and make every mosque into churches. Christ will reign!
I think the reason because of global marketing.
I hope both false prophets will fall and we start anything humanity and take our responsibility for the planet we are living on instead of removing responsibility because we can shove it on some non existing god. These vids help us discover that science is stronger than religion.
3:45 Thanks, Thomas! Murad had suggested "Year of Heraclius", which makes sense. But year of the Hagrenes seems like a slam dunk. Maybe not even a term the Arabs first used themselves, but were keen to adopt. The Arab armies outside of the Levant were calling themselves the "Hagarenes", instead of Muslims for the first few centuries following their conquest. One can understand why the Abbasids and their scribes would be quick to change such a name painful to Persians.
it's weird how "islam" is always shifting - shifting meanings, shifting teaching, shifting history, person, place, time and tongue!
God bless you all!
This was great! I loved the bit about the book of treasures, which gave us a view into the legends that existed prior to the 7th century as regards the Temple Mount. The idea that it was the site of Adam's crypt and symbolically Christ's crypt, or Muhammad's crypt to use their term for Christ, was an eye opener for me, as a number of months ago, I proposed the idea that perhaps the purpose of the Dome of the Rock was as a mausoleum for Muhammad. I think this video would suggest I was right but not literally: it had that purpose on a symbolic level, a substitute crypt in place of the Holy Sepulcher. Well done, Thomas! Your output has been phenomenal! Keep up the great work. The new microphone is making a huge difference.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
Yes, we really want to know more about the book of treasures.
There is no temple mount in this heavily edited book.
Your whole theory falls flat. It's your 21st century presupposition that the book is talking about that spot.
The Temple Mount being the center of the universe and identical with Mount Moriah is very traditional and accepted belief in Judaism.
@@Victory1942 Even on medieval Christian maps, Jerusalem is always at the centre. It’s indeed a well attested belief. The fact that the book of the Cave of Treasures even goes beyond that, is highly interesting and important for understanding the origins of Islam.
All fascinating stuff especially the break down of the meaning of the Arab name of the Dome on the Rock.
It's ridicilous. Ths guy doesn't even know Arabic. Everything must be explained from his Christian mindset.
@@alonzoharris6730 my brother, when you live in an echo chamber your unable to think out of the box.
I suggest you open your mind, and it won't sound so far out.
Thomas, what do you think of the Edouard-Marie Gallez and Odon Lafontaine’s work?
Excellent research... We may not be able to know for sure what actually happen, but one thing you have discovered for sure - is that the Standard Islamic Narrative is utterly and completely false and without any historic foundation.
First to like your video! Please like and share these videos to dismantle the lies and deceptions of Islam. God bless our brother Dr. Jay Smith and his guests!
I think this is why Islam does not let girls go to school or study or let other Muslims study other Religions they will see this Koran was absolutely plagerized from Torah and Christianity and written as a mirror opposite to Revelations their Savior is our Anti-Christ...timelines don't add up... thru all my years of deep theological study I could never find the 'Mohamad' I could find many Mohamads but never the'M' I really think this is why they refuse to show his grave and have removed all pictures of his face, this is a strange circumstance unless you are hiding covering up a lie..... this group is the only place I am able to reveal all my personal truths freely may Yashua Jesus Bless You All and Protect You🙏🫂❤🕯
Close to the top of the mole hill but not quite.
@@Serendipity818 Girls have more analytical brain ???
Amazing Jay and Thomas, please can you upload this material to podcast as it will help educate. I know it doesn’t have the graphics but it will lead people to find it on RUclips. I’m praying your work will convert many muslins.
Provided this material gets into mainstream but it wont ever...
Makes me wonder why the 1st large scale mosque was built in Jerusalem and not Mecca.
Because their was no mecca in 7th century there was nothing of importance in hijaz in 7th century except the caravan route
Thankyou THIS is the information that will be the main core to break Islam
I believe we have cracked the nut Islam...thanks to Inarah German research and Thomas...
Thomas, danke schön für die faszinierende Materie!
[Eine Randnotiz über total etwas anderes: in "Holy Sepulchre" spricht man den "ch" nicht aus wie ein "tsch" (wie in TSCHechien) sondern wie ein "k", weil der "ch" nicht aus dem Französischen/Germanischen sondern aus dem Lateinischen "sepulcrum" ausstamt. Englisch ist eine unmögliche Sprache...] Vielen Dank fürs lehren, aus Holland!
And Christendom is pronounced with a silent t and soft i. Like Christmas. I hate English spelling!
@@charlesiragui2473 blame the french for horrible English spelling LOL
@@midnightwatchman1 Tout a fait!
In Spanish is "sepulcro".
still a loooooooong way to go
The Church of the Sepulchre was built over where Byzantine Christians believed Jesus was crucified, outside the then city walls of Jerusalem. Whereas the Temple Mount is the VERY HOLIEST Jewish site of all, where Abraham is believed to have taken his son Isaac to sacrifice him as a test from G-d who stopped him before it could be done and a ram caught in a bush was substituted instead. Even today Jews can only pray silently and are severely limited as to access on the VERY HOLIEST Jewish site of all. When more and more Jews are seeking to worship G-d there, according to the restrictions of Jewish law ie avoiding anywhere the Temples could have stood (until we can be purified by the ashes of a red heifer). That still leaves a vast area where Jews should be allowed to worship and pray openly. Absolutely outrageous that only Muslims can do so there! Jews were worshipping and sacrificing to G-d as required under the Torah for many centuries on the Temple Mount. Jews were worshipping there long long before the first Arabs invaded the Jewish home land in 7th century.
yes, it is outrageous. Equally galling is the complete denial that the Jews even had a temple there that is bandied about in Dawah circles. It is a blocking move designed to deny Jewish legitimacy and a right to a homeland. It is all very unfair and unjust.
Great debate
I had done research on this Dome of the Rock and there was a Jewish man who also spoke Arabic and had a very interesting video explaining the plaque that is outside the entrance he said the translation says that this mosoluem is built as a temple for the Jews (3rd Temple)then he explained the writing along the outside the video and his channel was removed about 3years ago and I really wish I would have saved it... it is really hard to find information on the Dome.... I did watch another video on when they were changing the prayer rugs carpet inside and the floor underneath was an ancient mosaic tile floor of the horoscope with Jesus Yashua underneath showing him as a fisherman holding fish🙏 😀
Jay please see that you keep healthy because there is still a lot to do. May God protect you and keep you safe till the end.
I did a video on my channel with photos of those tiles. There was a compass but I didnt see any jesus the fisherman figure.
@@Speakers154 it was about 6years ago and I took still frames of the floor but I lost it when my tablet burned out I will go look for your video I might have it mixed up with the tile floor of the synagogue in Nazareth that was uncovered in recent years it might be the Nazareth floor I am thinking of👍👍❤ God Bless🙏
Wasn’t the dome of the rock fashioned after the Kathisma Byzantine church on the road from Bethlehem to Jerusalem
@@seanmacsweeney2985 I would say yes, the similarity is unmistakable.
*“By Allah - Muawiya died on a religion other than Islam.”*
The book ”Masail Ahmad ibn Hanbal” - Narrations of Ishaq ibn Ibraheem ibn Hani al-Nisaburi, prepared for publication by Abul Ashbal Ahmed ibn Salim al-Masri - Alta’seel and Almawada institution. In this book we read:
Narration number 1866 he says: “I heard Aba Abdillah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) and he was told by Dalaway that I heard Ali ibn al-Ja’ad he says”:
*“By Allah - Muawiya died on a religion other than Islam.”*
Ahmad ibn Hanbal is not a nobody in Islam....
The bad reputation in Islam of Muawiyah, founder of the defeated Umayyads, could be a case of victor’s history. If there were one aspect of the SIN of which one would logically be most skeptical it is the treatment of him.
In life there are lots of uncertainties, lots of choices you have to make.
But I am certain of one thing: if you chose to love God and love your neighbor (and to even love your enemies!) as Jesus Christ commands us to do, I am 100 % certain that you cannot be wrong.
All praise be to God.
The Cave of Treasures book almost duplicates what Muslims have attributed to the Ka'ba and Mecca. Everyone lived there and everything happened there. The book was mapped almost wholesale on Mecca just as other events and places were mapped onto it like Safa and Marwan and its associated story. Abd Al-Malik's Arabization program as described makes very good sense in terms of what happened before and what direction he he wanted to take. The Year of the Arabs (622) definitely seems masked as some kind of triumphalism later with the Hijra story. The real Hijra is probably the move made from Jerusalem to Mecca.
And like the Mecca-Medina Hijra, the protagonists returned in triumph, conquering Jerusalem?
The narrative remapping to Mecca seems to be accurate, as you point out, but I am having trouble understanding the when, why, who, how. Abd al Malik from the Dome of the Rock inscriptions seems to be clearly an anti-trinitarian Christian. How could such a person incorporate a holy rock at Mecca (Petra?)? So this happened later? And the buddhist influences? Zoroastrian? Why Targum, not Old Testament? Why apocrypha, not New Testament?
Perhaps Abd al Malik was less a faithful sectarian of any kind and really a dabbler who had strong political motives. If that were the case, he might think: why not syncretize various currents flowing within the Arab power structures? So a bunch of things could get thrown in and be declared the faith. Mughal emperor Akbar unsuccessfully tried to do this with his own design of a syncretization of Islam and Hinduism in the 16th century.
Or somehow this happened at a later stage. Thomas will undoubtedly be giving an explanation.
Yea also in that book it mentioned satan not wanting to bow down to Adam , satan said he was made from fire
@@charlesiragui2473
From when is anti-Trinitarian brand of Christianity called ISLAM...HA HA HA...this is the idiocy educated people have to content with.
@@aaabrams1889 I don’t understand what you are saying. Islam is anti-trinitarian but I wouldn’t call it Christianity. Would you?
@@charlesiragui2473
No! That is what those idiots are saying...
This brings all the threads of the search for the origins of Islam together with great clarity. will anyone in the academic world accepts this research as authentic
I highly doubt it because mainstream media is funded and sustained by saudi petrodollars...so this material will always be on the fringe never to become mainstream...
Thank you for the great video. I had read that the British surveyor of the Temple Mount Wilson (1860’s) had theorized that the Byzantine’s church of Hagia Sophia in which was venerated the stone Gabbatha of Pilate’s praetorium had been transformed by Abdul Malik into this shrine of the dome of the rock. Apparently the pilgrims of the pre Islamic times believed Jesus left his footprints in the rock and that legend got transformed into Muhammad’s footprints being in the rock. Of course the Byzantines could have been wrong about the location of the praetorium, if the site is really the temple’s location, but pilgrims to the Mount at that time have recorded at least two churches up there, one of them being a basilica. I wonder if the honeycomb-like Byzantine capitals lying near the Al Asqa mosque could be from those churches? And maybe the Byzantine chancel piece in the dome of the rock itself could be from one of those churches?
The quote I found from Wilson from the 1896 survey during the British protectorate: “This description
of the church of St. Sophia, on the site of the
Praetorium, in close connection with the Mary
Church of Justinian and the Temple, is curious and
interesting; especially on account of the
resemblance of some of the traditions to those
attached to the Dome of the Rock. Thus, the
Sakhrah represents the square stone of the
Praetorium; the footprints of Mahomet take the
place of those of Christ, and the 'many virtues'
the stone are still believed in by the Moslem
pilgrims who purchase the dust of the Sakhrah, as a
specific against all diseases.”
We know now that the St. Mary’s church on the Mount wasn’t the Nea of Justinian but another church/monastery that may be the origins of the Byzantine mosaic floor found under the Al Asqa again during the time of the British in Jerusalem when they had permission to do some archeology on the Temple Mount.
I’d like to reiterate that I’m not saying the Temple wasn’t on the Temple Mount.
There are three pretty clear sources for evidence that there were at least two churches on the Temple Mount, the Brevarius of Jerusalem, the Piacenza pilgrim, and the poems about the holy sites of Jerusalem by Sophronius. The Brevarius of Jerusalem was an itinerary for pilgrimages written before the 600’s. It describes the basilica of Holy Wisdom and house of Pilate which could be visited when you also visited the parapet of the Temple where Christ was tempted. There is an account from Anonius the pilgrim from Piacenza that describes the church of St Sophia where there is the rock where Christ left his footprints when he was judged by Pilate. It is near the church of St Mary which he visited. This was the old St Mary’s not the Nea. The other source is from the poems written by the patriarch Sophronius who writes about the parapet and the church of Hagia Sophia where Christ stood when he was judged and the rock that was venerated there.
I know this is a controversial theory, so I want to say I don’t have any political or apocalyptic motivation to bring it up. I know there are some folks who want to relocate the Temple off the Mount. I don’t have any sympathy for that.
Thanks, I need to take a look at that British survey. I hadn’t heard about that before. Sounds interesting and it fits right in with what I presented here.
@@TAlexander you’re welcome. Your videos are very interesting and bring together the whole history for us. I was first interested in this subject because the anti-Trinitarian anti-incarnation inscriptions in the ambulatory are another really strong indication that this had been a rock venerated by Christians. I’m looking forward to your take on it. All the best
Your suggestion that Abd al Malik wanted to unite the theology of the Arab Christians makes sense from a political perspective and we can see a similar desire in Constantine and other Byzantine emperors calling ecumenical councils because they wanted to avoid schism: unity makes strength, division weakens.
But I can see a couple of potential differences too. 1) this seems to have been for the Arabs, uniting them as opposed to ecumenical councils intending to unite all. 2) this seems to have been at its origin oppositional, against Byzantine Christianity rather than purely for a correct understanding without regard to competing ideologies (ecumenical councils were never convoked to address to external, wrongful beliefs, only to internal wrongful beliefs).
And of course the ecumenical councils were gatherings where debate occurred among bishops, rather than a political figure declaring a decision. Though some, now rejected, councils did have this political domination feature: for instance the Council of Hieria in 754AD was convoked to endorse Leo III's banning of icons in 730AD.
Also, Leo III was known as “the Syrian”. Perhaps this can again contribute to the Syrian, Aramaic pushback on Greek theology.
And again this would suggest that iconoclasm might be an influence on Islam rather than a reaction to Islam.
The quote I found from Wilson from the 1896 survey during the British protectorate: “This description
of the church of St. Sophia, on the site of the
Praetorium, in close connection with the Mary
Church of Justinian and the Temple, is curious and
interesting; especially on account of the
resemblance of some of the traditions to those
attached to the Dome of the Rock. Thus, the
Sakhrah represents the square stone of the
Praetorium; the footprints of Mahomet take the
place of those of Christ, and the 'many virtues'
the stone are still believed in by the Moslem
pilgrims who purchase the dust of the Sakhrah, as a
specific against all diseases.”
We know now that the St. Mary’s church on the Mount wasn’t the Nea of Justinian but another church/monastery that may be the origins of the Byzantine mosaic floor found under the Al Asqa again during the time of the British in Jerusalem when they had permission to do some archeology on the Temple Mount.
I’d like to reiterate that I’m not saying the Temple wasn’t on the Temple Mount.
Yes, you're talking the octagonal Byzantine church that was built on the Temple Mount, and which is still sometimes shown in icons of the child Mary being brought to the Temple (Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple). Although of course I can't find any examples to link here, right at the moment!
@@suburbanbanshee yes, I read that the feast day of the entrance of Theotokos in the temple (November 2 I think?) is the commemoration of that church and the Nea that Justinian built is called Nea because it is the “new” St Mary’s but much larger and on the old cardo (Main Street) of Jerusalem. Am I right about this?
Just looked it up. The presentation of Mary is November 21 on the Gregorian calendar. It said this date was chosen because it was the dedication of St. Mary’s in Jerusalem. I’m guessing mean Justinian’s Nea I don’t know.
Interesting concepts.
___Got a bigger screen on which to view your videos. ___As soon as Thomas clicks-in a new slide, I am going to pause, pre-read the slide, go look at a map if I have to, then click 'play'. Rollin' up me sleeves, I am. ;)
I do the same.
Would it be possible to have a written transcription of that intervention? I admire Thomas’ work, but sometimes when he quickly speaks, his german accent is a bit hard to understand.
Thomas, do you have a book written summarizing these whole things?
I’’m in the process of putting one together 😉
Amazing!!!
Is the Quran derived from The Kolbrin Bible?
The first coin of Abd al malik from the year 681 is it found?
What evidence is there?
Does this coin have any crosses or Christian symbols?
So interesting to see how this religion evolved over time, and why they came to be so ruthless. I still think they compiled it from the religious books that were roaming around at that time, including the Torah, and other Apocryphil writing.
The Islamic calendar is a pure lunar calendar (doesn't adjust back to the solar to stay in line with the seasons as the Jewish calendar does), which means that by the year 681AD the Islamic calendar dating should be 61AH or about two extra years from time zero. Do we know whether the Arab, pre-Islamic calendar that you are positing was lunar? Can we match an event with a known AD dating and AH dating from this early, pre-Abd al Malik period, that shows that in fact the Arab tributaries were using a pure lunar system for their new calendar?
This information could also influence the correct dating of Muawiyah's fall from power or Abd al Malik's rise to power? Under a pure lunar system, 681AD is 61AH; under a corrected lunar calendar or solar calendar 681AD is 59AH, so 61AH would be 683AD.
What is an Arab?
@@alonzoharris6730 It would seem the descendants of Haggar. That is how they were identified in ancient times apparently. I suppose native speakers of Arabic would be another way of defining it. Or perhaps by nation? Lakhmids and Ghassanids?
How would you define “Arab”?
@@charlesiragui2473
How do you know what they considered to be Arabic?
How do you know what they considered to be a language?
@@alonzoharris6730 Who is they? I’m not sure where you are going with this.
It used to be said in the 19th century that if one walked from Moscow to Warsaw, one would never notice the change in language, yet Russian and Polish are not easily mutually intelligible. Sometimes that’s the case. Sometimes there are sharp linguistic boundaries. Was Aramaic monolithic? I would guess that it was not and that regional variation existed across the territory marked pink on Thomas’s first map.
Also, there has been a long-standing debate regarding whether Hebrew was actually spoken in the 1st century, whether the use of the term “Hebrew” in patristic sources referred to Aramaic as well, etc. Language and identity are complicated.
@@charlesiragui2473
I mean those that mention Arabs in their sources.
It's all based on assumptions what these writers understood as seperate language and seperate people.
Alexander has an anti modern Arab motive. This is shaped by a colonial mindset. That's why he ignores Arab sources and only uses Christian sources. He accepts these sources blindly to be authentic. He doesn't apply his hypersceptical approach on his own 'sources' and theory.
In 622, the Haggarins gained their independence from whom? Was there any observance of the calendar. Where can I get reference on this? Thank you.
I have the same doubt from Thomas...i requested a video on the same topic from him...clarifying what the independence thing is all about in 622..independence from what and how?
@@yakovmatityahu not independence rather established own identity itself
@@yakovmatityahu The Roman Empire, what little was left of it by that time.
I've heard it mentioned a few times that the "Dome of the Rock" has been (destroyed??) several times. However looking on the Internet I can only find the SIN and no mention of any destructions just expansions to the existing structure.
So my question is who destroyed it, when, why, by how much?
build in Jerusalem because that was where the pilgrimage money was, Solomon took 7 years to level the top to make that large convention flat place
Problem with fellow Muslims they are unaware of the recent wrio
Why are the qiblas of mosques built in the 650-680s pointing to Petra and not Jerusalem? Why do Syrian Christian buildings have qiblas?
It would be helpful if you could explain how the events at Karbala and the death of Hussein integrate into your narrative. Hussein was the grandson of Prophet Muhammed and a rival claimant to the title of the Kalif, against Yazīd I who succeeded his father, Muʿāwiyah
The facial expression on Thomas face seems like he has a hard time understanding Jay’s English because he talks fast
Haha, no worries, I understand him well. That's just how I look 😁
Where is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran?
The only reason why Abd alMalik ibn Marwan and AlHajjaj bin Yusuf got the Qurans written in Jordanian Arabic is to make it completely cryptic and at the same time, invent a belief system based on blind-faith. Otherwise, they could have easily got it written in Sabaaic Arabic which was used in the Hijaaz region. They didn't want Jews and other surrounding, educated people to really understand what Quran was compiled of.
All the earliest Quran manuscripts are in the Hijazi dialect.
@@alonzoharris6730 How do you know that the earliest Quran manuscripts were written in het Hijazi dialect because e.g the Samarkand and the Sana'a were written without the diacritical marks?
@@alonzoharris6730 No, none of any Quranic manuscripts are in Sabaaic-Arabic i.e Hijaazi dialect. That's the problem. All dia-critical marks had to be added during recent time to make them agree with the present day Hafz text.
@@peacock69mcp
All earliest Quranic manuscripts are in the Hijazi dialect. It's called Hijazi script.😁
Go read linguistics like Marijn van Putten and he will tell you.
Stop pretending to be an expert. You are not.
@@alonzoharris6730 Have you even watched any research videos on Quran by Dr. AlFadi or Dr Jay Smith or Dr. Daniel Brubaker? You stop pretending to be Arab expert.
"But the coins don't lie." - Thomas
My words of the day :)
Thanks again, and again, Thomas (and Jay). Maybe I am not a practicing catholic, but I am theist (in the Aristotelian and scholastic rigorous metaphysics that its even by today standards of conjectures followed by prof inside mathematics pristine), I see todays atheism as a pseudo-religion with a lot of misuse of science in the form of "ideological scientificism" insted of real methodology, and of course I feel in great debt with our Hellenistic, Roman and Cristian values.... I hope with all my heart that the levant and all the southern part of the mediterranean will embrace for the second time the same values they also formed before Islam
Thomas please don´t forget the Al andalus evidence for future videos!!!!
Jan
THE Mark of GOD Ezekiel 9:3-5
"3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof
.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: "
The word MARK was written as TAU in the original text . TAU is a CROSS . A CROSS on the Forehead
Thomas, did Abd al Malik believe that Jesus was crucified? Could you find any evidence that this was what he believed, given that the Dome of the rock was built atop the burial site of Christ?
Yes .watch thomas previous video
Really enjoy these videos. However, I feel like either I'm missing something, or something is missing from these theories. Where does the Islamic schism fit into these theories. If it is real, it should be included. If it is an anachronism, it needs to be addressed. Maybe I've missed something along the way, but wondering how the Sunni/Shia split fits in.
The idea that Abdl Malik introduced the formula of “Jesus is Muhammad” to unify his empire is hard to understand. At that time Jesus was a widely known concept or personality with 600+ yrs of history behind it, but who or what was Muhammad at that time? how many people knew about him or the concept it refers to? Where did this notion of Muhammad come from? How old and widespread it was? Why this would cause unification? I know about Popp’s Ugarit theory of its origin but it’s too old without anything in-between supporting it. It all make sense if there were a Muhammad movement at that time, either as a person or a concept.
It seems that this Muhammed name for Jesus was known primarily among arabs...
Jesus is the Mohammed. All praise be to God.
May the Blessed one(Jesus/Muhammed) be praised...
Top video Jay and Thomas. Thus proto islam was a great fabrication to create an Arab identity away from the Persian, Byzantine empires and using Arabic (borrowed heavily from Aramaic sources)
Arab identity is ancient Doc ... No one has given it to Arabs ... it goes back to millennia before Islam and Christianity.
Abd al Malik was a Jewish Arab like Herod the Great was an Idumean , converted to Judaism by force, and so then the Jews all hated Herod. Now , the Dome of the Rock was raised over a Christian site and over the Fort Antonia and would be Solomon's Court, "Hall of Judgement". This was a Judahite site, because it corresponds to the pattern of how the Tribes of Israel proceeded in array in the Exodus with the Ark carried by the Priest in their midst. not on one end or another but central to the tribes in their camps, where the camps all formed a Cross, as they trekked through the Exodus experience. So Abd al Malik wanted the new Arabs who came to believe in the Jewish God, as Allah to bow down prostrate towards Jerusalem to this fort or sanctuary where Jews had a camp or fortress for a Jewish King, Solomon. But the Arabs soon learned that they were being pushed to worship towards the city of Jerusalem and to this rock , that was Hall of Judgment in a Jewish Camp, in Solomon's palace, later used by Christians as a Church and now it was a focal point to make the Arabs bow to Jerusalem . The Arab Muslims got mad when they realized what the Jewish Muslims were doing, and so they turned their back sides to "MOON" the Jews , and so they put their backside to the Dome of the Rock, and faced south somewhere towards PETRA or Mecca, or Becca Valley , and so Islam made their break from Jewish Arabs, and became a distinct religion that would not bow in any direction towards the ancient places of Jewish Kings, etc.
Now the real Temple would be easy to find. Just like a theater is designed for the seating to aim into the center stage , all the graves of the real Priests of Solomon' Temple, would be aligned for the Day of Resurrection so they can stand up from their graves and tombs and directly be pointing on the first day of light, towards the stage center point where the door of the Temple was, and the Messiah comes out to them. So , as they say all roads lead to Rome, all the true grave sites of ancient Temple Jews , in the time of Solomon , would be aimed to the door of the temple. So up on the Mount of Olives, by the graves of the prophets and priests ,who died in a time where the Temple was there, their graves point to the doorway, so they can head to toe , stand up and be looking at center stage on that day of the Lord. As the Easter Sunrise comes over the Mount of Olives, on the Day of Resurrection , preceded by the Full Moon the Morning Star and Spring Vernal Easter Sunrise, on a fifty year cycle of aligning, following the Sign of Aries the Ram, the first month of the year, the Sign of the Ram, , is why the Lord gave a Ram on that day he spared Isaac, after Abraham offered his son , and God could either spare the son and prolong his days to reign in succession to Abraham , when the Father was then in Heaven, the timely offering of the Ram, was based on the First Day of the Year agreeing with the Sign of Aries , some time around April 15th, and then that paces through to Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, the setting up of the Tabernacle and the coming down of the Shekinah Glory to incarnate as the Priest. So Jesus was CONCEIVED as Bread of Heaven , UNLEAVENED BREAD , being a sign of the RAM in ARIES , April 15th , to some time around the Feast of the Unleavened Bread to mark the First Day of Light , Jesus was INCARNATED as a Conception of the Immaculate Conception in the Ark of the Covenant and carried along as a ALMAH VIRGIN WOMB , a birth place of a nation and a Messiah, out of the box, the Mercy Seat, that continued as the womb of Jesus , and the Nation of Israel anew, for nine months through the Seven Festival Liturgical Year of Moses Law, Atoned for on the Seventh Month Festival and left to quietness that the Woman bore the child at Christmas, some time between December 25th through January 6th the Day of the Epiphany .
So the Temple was where David was led in a procession by the Priests of the Way of the Lord from the Mount of Olives to the area by the Gihon Spring, where a hill stood that later was taken down to conceal it as a mystery. and all the graves they can be measured in a land survey by cartographers , mapping out the lay of the land so that the rising SUN on EASTER makes an ARC overhead the Temple from the top of the Mount of Olives. So , a ROD or ten foot pole on the grave of the Prophet correctly lain in a tomb, on Easter, causes the rising SUN to CAST A SHADOW OVER THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS OR VALLEY OF DEATH . So said David in the 23rd Psalms, and Psalms 110 where he comes to the brook by the way ,and looks up to see the Zion Hill, above the Gihon, but today the hill is no longer there. So the only coordination is to go to the graves of the original Temple Priests , Judges and Kings and aim their alignment to a convergence zone of X marks the spot. It is just like a theater , they turn all the seats to aim in on center stage. VOILA .
👍👍👍
Zephaniah 1:17-18. Hebreo 4:12. Romans 1:25.
I like your theories. However, I have two problems concerning them. 1. Why in the world should the most important and powerful Christian Empire of that time, the Byzantines, leave the most holy places of Christendom, namely Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulture, to Arab sects and not keep them in their Empire, at least for the many christian pilgrims, but also for their own legitimacy? 2. If islamic theology developed so slowly from Muawiyya to Abd-el Malik and later the Abbassids, how do you explain the speed of the Islamic Expansion, conquering Egypt and Persia in the 640s, and have the Umayyads conquer Spain as early as 711 AD?
1) Remember that the Byzantine Empire was on its knees following the Justinian plague, the invasion of the barbarians in the West and the costly war with the Persians in the East. Heraclius completely revamped administration and governance, everything outside of Greece and Asia Minor was no longer part of the core. At the same time, initially, it wasn’t a case of abandoning these lands, rather they installed client kings. The goal was to load off the burden of protecting these lands while at the same time continuing to have access to them. That plan failed when Mu’awiya consolidated his power as an enemy of the Byzantines. But that was decades later.
2) First of all, I’ve already gone into the fall of Persia which was really more a disintegration from within than a conquest from outside. As it happens, the Arabs were the last ones standing, though it was still disjointed tribes initially.
Apart from that, why would the expansion necessarily need to be Islamic in nature? Empires have always tried to expand, with or without a religious motivation. Mu’awiya seems to have operated without a religious motivation. Abd al-Malik however clearly put religion in the mix. It wasn’t yet Islam, but that’s kinda beside the point.
@@TAlexander Thanks a lot Thomas, for your comprehensive answer! You are right, in the 7th century all the Empires of late antiquity were either destroyed (like the Western Roman Empire), or exhausted from long wars (Byzantium and the Sassanid Empire) and other misfortune like the plague. The new powers in the West, like the Frankish Kingdom under the rule of the later Merovingian "shadow kings" and the Visigoth Kingdom in Spain were presumably weak and not so well organized, with lots of rivalry inside, between counties and regions. But were the Arabs so much better organized? They became united under one ruler/caliph, but were they so many people and so well equipped in order to conquer Egypt, the Maghreb and Spain in such a short time? If not religion was the reason of their motivation, what made the Berbers and Moors become their allies and spread throughout North Africa and into Spain, before the Abbassids finally took over and shaped Islam? I mean, in comparison, it took centuries for the Romans to become the primary power in Italy alone, and some centuries more to build the whole Roman Empire.
@@NostalgieFreak Late Antiquity was a very different time than Antiquity at its height. It didn’t take large armies to conquer entire nations.
Hans Delbrück wrote a seminal book on the issue more than 100 years ago. He also doubted the traditions that talk about armies of 200,000 warriors or more, overrunning the Roman Empire. He pointed out that the logistics wouldn’t have been possible. Instead, he argues that none of the Germanic tribes would have had more than 15,000 fighting men. Once you add women, children and slaves, you have a group of roughly 70,000 people which is the most they would have been able to handle logistically. At first glance, it sounds crazy for instance that the Ostrogoths would have been able to conquer Italy with 15,000 warriors, but he makes some good arguments. Despite their vast numerological superiority, Western Rome wasn’t capable of fielding an army anymore. They had been relying on Germanic auxiliaries for centuries. The comparatively wealthy populace on the other hand would have rather surrendered than risked their own lives. Unlike the Goths, they had a lot to lose.
In the end, it was Germanic Goths fighting other Germanic soldiers who were in the service of Rome.
You can also see it by the fact that Germanic rulers like the Vandals or Visigoths razed all fortifications within their newly conquered countries. Why? Because they didn’t have the men to besiege rebellious towns. So better to remove all defences as a preventive measure.
The relative ease with which the Vandals and the Goths were beaten by the Byzantines also supports this argument.
I think we have a very similar situation in the East. The Arabs didn’t need massive armies. There just weren’t enough soldiers to defend the lands. So making the Arabs clients was a sensible approach. If you can’t beat them, join them. It backfired in the end, but it’s very plausible that the Byzantines would have lost these lands anyway.
As for a motivation, that’s easy: Wealth and power. The oldest of all motivations. The Arabs were poor, Syria, Egypt and Carthage were rich. And the hungry, young nations typically overrun the saturated old ones.
For the Berbers, it wouldn’t have been a big deal. They would have replaced one master with another. Byzantines out, Arabs in.
@@TAlexander Thanks a lot again, Thomas, for your fast and compelling response and for clearing that up!
It's Qubbat Al Sakhra not Sahra . قبة الصخرة
Sakhra pronounced Sakhrah ... is rock.
Sahra pronounced Sahraa is desert..
My advice to all , religion is your right
Think of why i born in this religion and work for it . reform it and its followers ,
Dont advertise it .
Dont leave it . If attack other one you will be wiped out by others
For a language to become a lingua franca it takes a lot of time.
If Abd al Malik reigned from 681AD till 705 AD and if he was the one who introduce Arabic as the lingua franca.
Is that not in conflict with the dating of the Sana'a Palimpsest?
The lower text of it is dated from 671 AD - 705 AD and the upper text is dated from 705 AD -->
The Sana'a manuscript is a rendition of the Quran. I think everyone agrees that at least elements of the Quran, an Arab language text, date from the 7th century. As the Quran says of itself, it was a text for the Arabs, so that they could understand better. That's the opposite of a lingua franca.
By lingua franca, I believe Thomas is speaking about the coming use of the Quran in the 8th century as a holy book for all peoples, thereby encouraging everyone to learn and use Arabic. For an Aramaic-speaking population this shift to Arabic wouldn't have been very difficult and, by contrast, even today Arabic is not spoken in Iran, where Aramaic was not spoken prior to the Arab 7th century takeover.
Most people didn't speak Syriac. This is a fairy tale. Palmyra under Queen Zenobia were almost all Arab speaking. The same goes for all other cities.
This Syriac myth is propagated by Christians.
@@alonzoharris6730 Arab traditions making Zenobia fully Arab seem to stem from al Tabari in the 9-10th centuries. Zenobia lived in the 3rd century, contesting for power with a Roman Empire in crisis. She seems to have spoken Aramaic from contemporary sources.
@@charlesiragui2473
Just because she also spoke Aramaic doesn't make her Aramaic.
Most people in Palmyra were Arabs. We know that from the inscriptions of the personal names. The Aramaic name Bat Zabbai doesn't make any sense.
Her name was Zayneb.
The city also venerated Arab gods like Allat, Manat and Rudda. This is testified in inscriptions.
The word sakara is attested several times in Palmyrene inscriptions in relation with various deities as a divine epithet. This word can only be interpreted according to Arabic 'to thank'.
Its a common misconception that lingua franca takes time to form...i will compare the making of Greek language as lingua franca of west asia during alexander time to same intensity during the making of arabic as lingua franca during abd al malik...it doesnt take much time for that...only a strong will and a powerful leader to do in a lifetime.
The transition from Muwayyah to Malik is confusing. It looks like Muwayyah was ok with Monoenergism formula. Its fall in the west following Ecumenical council led to the fall of Muwayyah and accession of Malik a more anti Byzantine, radical Monophysite.
The Iranian tribe dominated Abbassids cant accept the name of the calender as Year of Hagarins or Arabs. That may be the one reason, they manipulated the name
It is confusing in as far as the only thing we know about the transition is that the standard account is not true.
Mu’awiya certainly wasn’t as focused on religion as Abd al-Malik. Which is why we don’t really know what kind of Christian he was. If he was indeed related to Abd al-Malik, he could have been anti Trinitarian. Though I’m not really sold on that.
@@TAlexander its a common practice to make the new ruler related to the earlier one with fake genealogies. Relationship btw Muwayyah & malik must be manipulation one for Maliks legitimacy. But then who is Marwan? Does he have any relationship with Maron, the founder of Maronite? Maron & Marwan share same time period, place & similar name. Maron founded a new Church because he didnt like christology of Byzantines and Monophysite Jakobites. Probably he was a Monoenergism guy who was unhappy about the falling of that formula. Maronites did many battles those days as per their history. But those battles were actually Ummayad battles with Byzantine
@@catholicorthodoxfaith2689 I‘ve previously presented the linguistic analysis of Marwan. Keep in mind that on the coins, it says “Abd al-Malik Marwan” and NOT “Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan”.
The word “Marwan” however literally means “from Merv” or “of the Merven tribe”. Since we don’t have any physical evidence of anybody named “Marwan”, the assumption is that there wasn’t any such person and that we’re either looking at another misreading and misinterpretation or a deliberate attempt to fudge the genealogy while introducing classical tropes of rulers and their families.
@@TAlexander or is it derived from Mount Moriya also called Mount Marwa? An Arab kingdom of Muwwyah getting highjacked by an Iranian / Turk guy from Merv (Uzbekistan ) without any trace?
"Devil Deceives Whole World"
1. Devil's Drugs/Dictatorship Deceiving...
2. PhysciansPoliticiansPeoplePrincipalitesPastors...
3. JudgesJouralists end up with Judas...
4. Age of Grace ends in Disgrace...
5. Replaced with Messiah's Magnificent Millennium.....
Here's an idea that has just crept into my mind. What if the myth about the burning of the early Qurans is actually based on Abd al Maliks attempt to Arabize his peoples by burning all the non Arabic books he could get his hands on.
I think it was Abd al malik not Uthman that burned varying quran and standardized the hijazi quran.
The Dome of the rock has been destroyed and rebuilt 4 times
As you say.. Abdullah al Zubayr power was mainly in Persia, minting included. But he was supposedly in 'Mecca'..!!!
. .As Murad showed, 'the Mohammed ' of the SIN and his amigos , as well what you confirm about Abdullah Al Zubayr were in Tadjekestan, Mesopotamia. And so is" Mecca" and "Medina". And,if you,skip the Hejaz bullshit and you follow what happens physically in the ground it becomes an absolute evidence.
I am waiting for Alonzo Harris to say "there was no Bible before the 4th century".....
Meanwhile he read a quran that was compiled in 1924....., not even 100 years old.
The quran is perfectly preserved......., since 1924.
Wonderful am enjoying this
And he is wrong. The complete bible was there Even in the second Century AD
There was no bible before the 4th century.
@@alonzoharris6730 😂😂😂😂
Are you happy with your perfectly preserved 1924 quran?
Complete Bible from 4th century are codex vaticanus siniacticus alexandrinus ....we have aramaic peshitta translation from mid 2nd century...muratorian fragments from early 3rd century...and here we have abdools saying that Bible was written in 4th century.
First!
Congratulations on climbing the mole hill.
👍
Teach.......uuuuu dododou
Jay...suppli cur???..is that how you say it?.....sep ul cur is how I thought it was!
In history books and the SIN, the Umayyads were responsible for the large expansions of the Caliphate. Now that it appears that they were Christians, the pillages, murderings, rapes, mass deportations and (war)crimes shifts from SIN Muslims to Christians.
There were two choices, capitulate and accept their creed or be decapitated.
Eventually, the Abbasids took over this mindset and these deeds, since then granting the world with this attitude
It is excellent to correct the narratives. But, unfortunately, the creed may be corrected, but not the deeds.
That they now seem to be (Syriac) Christians does not make it a sudden Hallelujah feat. Their war crimes, led by especially the terrorist al-Hajjaj and his general Muḥammad bin Qasim and other generals are not short of comparisons with the Hamas, Hezbollah, IS and the Taleban.
Dome is the assuming by Islamist that his Boss go to heaven but not real.
If Muhammad is Jesus then Jesus went to Heaven after his resurrection and came down later , where did He take off from? oh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
Is this about the temple mount?
The temple mount was never considered to be the spot by Jews and Christians. This belief only came
after the crusaders. Benjamin of Tudela brought this belief in circulation after visiting Jerusalem.
There is no historical evidence for the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Not a single rock is found.
Alexander should start with the Christian Standard narrative first.😊
There were no camels in the Levant in the time of Abraham or Moses.
Camels were only found in What is now Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Eastern Arabia.
The bible claims that there were camels in Arabia. Abraham was in Arabia and not in the Levant.
The Chaldean didn't exist in the time of Moses either. They translated Kasdim as Chaldeans.
The Chaldeans only came after 900 bce. Moses lived in 1400 bce. Abraham lived in 2000 bce.
There is a lot of deception going on with translations into Greek and English.
The Hebrews are from Yemen and not from the Levant.
The deception started with the translation of the Canaanite text into Greek with the Septaguint in Alexandria. They started to make Egypt and the Levant the centre of the OT stories with made up translations.
River became Nile.🤔
It's also assumed that UrShalim (Jerusalem) is always the same city in the OT. That's totally false.
It simply means the city of peace.
The earliest historical record of Jerusalem is from an Arab king called Abdi Heba in the Amarna letters.
There is zero archaeological evidence for the temple of Solomon.
It's even funnier that nobody ever documented a temple there. Alexander the Great never heard of it. The later stories of Josephus are all legends. The clown wrote that the pagan Roman Flavius leaders healed people.
The Greeks passed through that strategic area and made Egypt the centre of their kingdom. No mention of a temple or Jerusalem. Nothing is found.
Great work but again the Monophysite teaching is not taught by the coptic church at any given time n history
Yes, it seems it was what opponents accused them of as opposed to what they actually believed.
We have to be careful with our definitions I guess. I know that “Monophysite” is a contested term these days. I’m still using it because it has been so established. What I mean by it is the same as “Miaphysitism”
@@TAlexander the Miaphysite belief is in the one hypostasis not in one nature taking over or denying the other
@@MrAbc54321 I know. That's also how I'm using the term "Monophysite" because it has been established as such historically. Even though literally, you could interpret it differently. Just like "Orthodox Church" has become a term for the Eastern churches even though many people using the term don't literally believe the Orthodox Church to have the "correct" belief.
Keep it up and watch what your world turns into. Stop 🛑 trashing Islam. It shall rule the World by every letter of the Quran just wait and see. You will be ranked among those who reject it, no one will believe you
There is still simply no evidence that Abdul Malik came from the East. It is nothing but a very bad etymological interpretation of the surname ibn Marwan.
Well, Volker Popp, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Robert Kerr and others don’t think it’s a bad etymological interpretation but a good one. But of course there’s more. In the “influences” video, I went over a lot more that’s pointing towards the East.
@@TAlexander Like I said, STILL no evidence.
@@Bei-Abedan There clearly is a lot of evidence. I have presented some of it in the videos on this channel and referred to more in some published papers. You are of course free to weigh it any way you like. If you don’t find it convincing, then that’s perfectly fine. But to say there is none is certainly an overstatement.
As it happens, I do find it convincing, but I also made clear that there is speculation involved in the video on Merv.
@@TAlexander Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant when I said still. It means I have seen all of the videos and so far there is no evidence that Abdul Malik came from the East. Not even circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps you don't actually understand what evidence is. There is neither Primary nor Secondary nor Tertiary evidence on this matter. There is plenty of speculation, but no evidence. Speculation is sometimes interesting (if the person speculating has indeed canvassed all available sources) but it is not evidence neither is it inductive reasoning nor deduction. Finally I don't know why you are even bothering to answer my comment when you failed to answer my question on our first encounter, you expressed horrific bigotry in our second encounter and promised never to interact with me again. Our third encounter was even worse but again the same promise came yet apparently you are not a man of your word. I suppose your generation was not taught to feel shame, guilty or remorse over such repugnant behaviour.
Although I will not forgive you for that, I for my part continue to praise you on your strengths on my channel and hope you will stick to them and get out of the mire you have waddled into.
Yes Islam was founded by the type of Christians you describe (although you failed to use the correct term for them, and Odon's "Judeo-Nazarenes" is a much better term). And yes, Volker Popp is probably correct about Abdul Malik's coins while Odon isn't. So there is some give and take. But both of you have made an elementary error which undermines a lot of what you both say and I will record an explanation on that with Jay tomorrow God willing.
@@Bei-Abedan Please remind me what the question was I didn't answer. As for me promising never to interact with you again, that never happened. I said I will only reply if it's on the topic and not if it's getting personal. Yes, our interactions have been unpleasant at times. As you can imagine, my interpretation is quite different from yours. But I don't want to peddle drama which is why I won't get into any more of that.
I'm still not sure what you consider to be evidence. Evidence isn't proof, but I never claimed it to be. But we do have coins migrating from East to West. "Marwan" literally does mean "from Merv" or "of the Meven tribe", the influences, particularly the Buddhist ones do point far East, the Arabic script is derived from an Aramaic script, the term Nasara is used for Eastern Syriac Christians, Anti-Trinitarian beliefs did survive longer in the East. So there's plenty of evidence out there. We haven't found the smoking gun, but it's at the very least an educated guess, I'd argue it's more than that.
As for the term Judeo-Nazarenes, you know my position. I don't like it for implying that we're dealing with Jews, which I don't believe they were. Their christology may have been influenced by messianic Jews like the Ebionites centuries earlier, but they wouldn't have considered themselves to be Jews, even though they shared a lot in terms of religious understanding, tradition and particularly christology. Similarly to what Muslims say today, these anti-Trinitarian Christians would have denounced Judaism and postulated that they alone conserved the correct faith. Ethnically, we're looking at Arabs, or Hagarenes, or Ishmaelites, whichever term works for you, who converted to an early form of Syriac Christianity, not at Hebrews or Israelites. Nazarenes is also a difficult term as it has been used to denote Aramaic speaking Christians in general, so that group would be much larger than the anti-Trinitarian one we're looking at. Judeo-Nazarenes works for me if you don't interpret the "Judeo" part literally but in terms of a spiritual influence. But since few would do that, I'd rather not use the term.
Be that as it may, I'll be looking forward to your video with Jay.
With all respect this a lot of story telling based on story stelling but (almost) no evidence.
Hans with all that has been uncovered since last year, you are still in denial. Because muslims were following Christianity and wanted to highjack the religion by changing the scriptures. I wonder how were they going to take Jesus away from the Christians.... with the sword???
@@murielpucoe9213 I am not in denial I just don't see any solid evidence. For me it looks like an echo chamber of pople confirming their stories... There are some peculiaritie which can be explained much simpler: eg the roundness of the dome of the rock could indeed mean that abd al Malik wanted to change the qibla direction. Or simply he wanted to establish Jerusalem as a new center for Islam (understandble with the ongoing war against Mekka wherever we Mekka locate at) All the contrary evidence such as Islamic accounts are ignored
@@hans471 wait for book from Thomas coming soon...he will present solid evidence with references...coming from Inarah school of Research based in Germany.
@@yakovmatityahu how do you know that the evidence is solid if the book is not even out?
@@hans471 because Thomas is our book currently untill the physical book has his ideas 👍
There is no Allah but Allah and Abd-al - Malik is his messenger.
You are right 😗😉😉😉
Abd al Malik = New Muhammed
politıcal and religious power in the hands of one person gives complete legitimacy and justification to do whatever he wants
@@antonypage7308 this is exactly what Bible says will happen in the last days...the antichrist (Imam mehdi of Islam) will have complete authority over religion and politics in the world...he will impose Islam on the whole world...all the countries will give him their power...
its all big lie
On the title: "Thomas: (Pt.5) The 'Dome of the Rock', Islam's 1st home!" >>> Totally wrong. Islam is not a new religion. All the prophets were Muslims, Islam was their religion, the Kaaba is the 1st house of Islam.
Liars and clowns at their worst !!!
@Kate Iceheart
Why do you want the '3rd' temple?
You believe Jesus to be god right?
Doesn't Paul teach that Jesus is the temple? Why do you need a temple? For what?
@@alonzoharris6730 you guys quote the bible, you believe Jesus to be the righteous one, which means sin less.
Yet you don't even believe what he said in the gospels. He told everyone that he would be crucified and on the third day he would be risen from the grave, yet you do not believe him. In reality you and your book are no more than a big contradiction.
@@tomdowney9336
I'm quoting the bible because Christians believe in the bible. I don't take your bible serious.
I'm wondering why a Christians wants a 3rd temple and at the same time believe that Jesus was the sacrifice and the temple??
That's a contradiction. The temple was used for sacrifices and rituals. Something you claim is not valid anymore. Why do you need a temple? For what? To dance?
NO DOUBT 100%ISLAM FAKE RELIGION
Explain yourself. What are they lying about? Don't just make statements like that, give proof why they are liars and clowns. Without an explanation it makes you look like a clown.
♥️