Disclaimer: This video shows some sources that directly insult the Prophet Muhammad. If that's hurtful to your religious sentiments, please don't watch this video. Support Al Muqaddimah financially: Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
Before watching the video I would say the discrepency could be solved by saying the non-muslims didn’t know much about Muhammad at the time, they just saw a muslim army chant Muhammad's name and they saw their "King" was Umar so they might've assumed Umar was Muhammad. I'd lean towards the muslim sources because they are more thorough (e.g. Ibrahims death coinciding with the eclipse which was confirmed scientifically). Also it would've been a big deal if Muhammad entered the Holy Land so it would've been mentioned in the Quran and hadith.
Surah 69: If Muhammad was a false prophet, God would cut his aorta. Then death came to him with poison and said: I feel that my aorta has been cut. Hadith 4428
@@GigaGoose123 This verse is a warning of immediate punishment and doom, if the Prophet ﷺ were to falsely attribute some words to Allah. But what is well-known and well-established is that Allah protected the Prophet ﷺ and encompassed him with His care throughout his mission and prophethood when he was conveying the message to the people from his Lord and saying: “My Lord said; my Lord instructed me; my Lord forbade me…” And Allah never once proved him to be lying; He never let him down and He never broke a promise to him, let alone sending down a punishment upon him or bringing about his death. Moreover, if he had wanted to falsely attribute something to Allah or lie about Him, the easiest, and most likely, thing for him to do would be to omit this verse, or conceal it and not convey it, if it was from Allah. Or at least he would not have said anything that would prove him guilty or show him to be a liar. What need would there be for one who falsely claims to be a prophet, brings such a scripture and claims that it is from Allah to come up with such a verse, in which he threatens himself and proves himself to be guilty? If he had been fabricating lies, he would not have said when he was dying: “Now is the time for my aorta to be severed”; he would not have referred to that at all. Finally, during his final days revelation was already finished marked by the verse, {This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islām as religion.}. So he wasn't receiving any revelation to fabricate.
@@nabz5538 but then why state "God will strike me down in a very specific way if I am lying". Proceeds to die feeling his aorta is closed off or severed. No prophet would say that
@@GigaGoose123Read the verse after that in chapter 69. it states that Muhammad’s right hand would be cut off if he made up false revelations and his aorta would be cut off too. There is no narration of his right hand being cut off and the word used in Chapter 69 and the Hadith narration for “aorta” is different because they refer to different body parts. Hope this helps.
As someone from south india I would really love to know about the history of islam in south india like in places like Kerala Sri Lanka or even places like Malaysia As mopila muslim (muslim of Malabari origin) i would like to know about the history of my people
Cheraman Perumal Tajuddin. A Hindu king that converted to Islam after his journey to Arabia after meeting the prophet. Kerela has the oldest mosque in India, built in 624 AD at Kodungallur , it was mandated by him.
The "Believers" was a new state founded by Muhammad, which defined its whole identity as the followers of Muhammad. For outsiders describing the sudden appearance of this new empire, it makes sense to describe it as wholly Muhammad's doing. So statements like "he unified Arabia and then conquered Syria" make sense because it's not really talking about Muhammad the individual leader, it's talking about Muhammad and his humble successors together as one combined entity. It's like saying "Romulus established a city on the Tiber hills and then conquered Latium" - it was actually later generations of Romans who expanded, but to a distant observer summarising, the deeds of "Romans" (the followers and heirs of Romulus) count as deeds of Romulus.
I believe the most poetic ending would be Muhammad’s (pbuh) conquest of Jerusalem. If that's the case, no one in their right mind would alter it in the history books.
poetic injustice... the Arab tribes had zero right to claim the religious tradition of the Jews and Christians as their own.... they were a polytheistic people like the Hindus, and suddenly they claim to be the true owners of the sacred tradition of the Jews and Christians.... No, just no.... The Muslims were nothing more than conquerors with the sword... From the Muslim so-called "prophet" massacring the Jews of Yathrib and Khaybar to the early Muslim conquests, the Muslims used the sword from the very beginning of their so-called "faith".... Islam did not start out as a faith or a religious belief.... It was a militant campaign of conquest...... Muhammad invented and fabricated a new "religion" which was nothing more than a plagiarized version of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and used that a excuse to go on a series of bloodstained conquests....
0:25 Just a note here that you said "both islamic and western", as if these terms are exclusive, which is not true as one can be a westerner and a muslim. I just wanted to point this out that we shouldn't internalize that racist and bigoted view point. You could use "secular" or "non-islamic" or such.
I disagree. That dichotomy makes perfect sense in the context of the years 622-632, when contemporary sources were either from the newly established muslim world OR from a christian west. Secularism didn’t really develop in Europe until over a thousand years later.
This is fascinating! It's really interesting to learn about the early days of Islam and how it changed over time. Also, you called them the Romans! I'm so happy!
I didn't know that Imperator Leo III and Caliph Umar II actually communicated with one another before. Thank you for this information, Syawish! And by taking the perspective of the Arabs at the time, they most likely viewed the events such as the Battle of Mu'tah and the Expedition to Tabuk as the beginning of the Conquest of the Roman Empire. So you may be right here, Syawish. Because if that is the case, his successors will certainly to see its completion one way or another. And that continued until the Abbasid Caliphate came to power. So yes, your conclusion is the most likely one here.
It isn't surprising when considering the context. Leo III, the founder of the Isaurian Dynasty, had Arab origins, and his first language was Arabic. he seized the throne with the help of Arab armies who hoped to subjugate the Byzantine Empire through Vassalage (ps: it didn’t go as planned). The Isaurians were followed by another dynasty of Arab origins, the Nikephorian, founded by Nikephoros I. He had a similar relationship with Harun al-Rashid of the Abbasids, marked by hostility. Harun al-Rashid even degraded Nikephoros in his letters, calling him a “dog of the Romans,” which was to suggest that Nikephoros, an Arab, was serving the Roman Empire against his own kin.
Make more historical Muhammad videos, I am interested in a picture of the man outside of the Islamic tradition. There are a good amount of non-Arab sources that mention Muhammad during and just after his life, a video exploring this and trying to flesh out the man as he really was would be fascinating
Most non islam sources of mohammad are very bad and you dont want to know. Most common is they call him fake prophet who used allahs names to fullfill his wishes and whims.
Traditionally we know that the prophet (ﷺ) died in 12 Rabi’ Al awwal, 11 AH.then Abu bakr became caliph and reigned until 22 Jumada Al awwal, 13 AH. Then Umar reigned until 29 Dhul Hijjah, 23 AH and was buried in 1 Mahram 24 AH. There’s rock inscription discovered in Hejaz called The Inscription Of Zuhayr, which writes the following “In the name of God I, Zuhayr, wrote [this] at the time ʿUmar died in the year four and twenty (i.e., 24 AH).” This rock inscription supports the Islamic tradition, if the prophet (ﷺ) went to Syria then we don’t have room for the reign of Abu Bakr.
Great video as always. I agree that the suggestion of secret editing is unlikely, and would add evidence in the negative. There were attempts in antiquity to "edit" history that didn't work. For example, a man seeking eternal fame set fire to the temple of the Great Mother in Ephesus. In response, it was widely agreed that his name should be condemned to oblivion. Yet we still know his name. This editing of history was broadly popular yet still failed. Which makes something as controversial as successfully editing the life of Muhammad far more unlikely.
I think the quality of your videos has reduced. In your earlier videos you would have a lot of graphics which made it very engaging to watch , now for the most part we're just looking at your face.
during the tabuk expedition two towns(udhruh and ayla/eilat) that are considerd part of palestine accepted prophet muhammad pacefully. so i think it is correct to say the propeht personally started the annexation of palestine
Hey I've been subscribed for over a year or two now (I think) your videos disappeared off my page a while back and I didn't realise. I just reset my algorithm thingy and they're back now. Really strange.
If the conquest of Syria was started by Prophet Muhammad and finished by his successors, it would make sense for Muslims to want to downplay it so that it wasn't seen as a failure to complete it in his lifetime.
I know that the traditional history of Islam may have errors, inaccuracies and fabricated false stories. Even the Muslim religious scholars don't believe that the Sira of the prophet is perfect, because the it's not scrutinized with the same criteria as the Hadith. However, having this kind of bold claims with the faintest of proof is just mind boggling! My guess is this kind claims are not intellectually honest and that they're motivated by personal gain, as the bolder the claim, the more attention and interest it brings.
The Prophet PBBUH actually indicated about the grave of Prophet Musa (Moses) PBUH that it was near Jerusalem, and had he (Prophet Muhammad) been there, he would've shown that to us. Here's the full hadith: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) having said that the Angel of Death came to Moses and said: Respond (to the call) of Allah (i. e. be prepared for death). Moses (peace be upon him) gave a blow at the eye of the Angel of Death and knocked it out. The Angel went back to Allah (the Exalted) and said: You sent me to your servant who does not like to die and he knocked out my eye. Allah restored his eye to its proper place (and revived his eyesight) and said: Go to My servant and say: Do you want life? And in case you want life, keep your hand on the body of the ox and you would live such number of years as the (number of) hair your hand covers. He (Moses) said: What, then? He said: Then you would die, whereupon he (Moses) said: Then why not now? (He then prayed): Allah, cause me to die close to the sacred land. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Had I been near that place I would have shown his grave by the side of the path at the red mound. Sahih Muslim 2372 b So, the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was never in Palestine, had he been there, he would've shown us
Is it possible that all the contemporary sources confused the Arabic term for caliph and prophet with a more general term for leader. Also prophet was probably used very loosely during ancient times since the Romans would have had their own Oracles translated as prophets in a more common tongue. Also what records do the Byzantines have of the Fall of Jerusalem. Do we have any sources for that?
Thanks a lot for your insightful videos. Learning about the history of Islam is not easy on YT so I really appreciate them. I hope to find more about how various beliefs evolved like the qur'an being the literal words from god.
i recommend ali a olomi's 'head on history' podcast for more info about the development of islam's beliefs! he's an afghan american professor of islamic history and goes a lot into what you may be looking for, he also uses similar sources/methods to this channel. really great dude i recommend him a lot
When u say that later scholars removed it then u should also give it a 2nd thought that it's not easy to remove it as there will always be people who will tell the original tale!!! 👻
I swear, I am this close to being financially able to support this guy's work and I cannot wait for that to happen. Among so much noise and the absolute bias of Islamic sources, channels like this help regular people so much in getting a holistic understanding of issues. Thank your brother, lots of love from India.
When Hazrat Umar conquered Jerusalem the Christians gave him Jerusalem without world because he was to mention the good king in their book and said to him that you are not allowed to let people live or settle in this land not allowed to visit their Holy sites agreed on the contract but said they are not allowed to live or settle in the land but are allowed to visit their Holy sites Hazrat Umar agreed on the contract and said they are not allowed to live or settle in this land but are allowed to visit their Holy sites basically talking about the Jewish people and that is why for Muslims there is only one state solution and whoever goes against that is a non believer
I have been watching your Videos for a while as being neutral you do things from all angles but being Muslim you should be respectful towards Prophet Peace Be Upon Him while Saying His Peace Be Upon Him, name. That's all I want to say
some claim Muhamad is but a title ( the favored) . in Arabic and Hebrew alike, some claim it is the Arabic version, Quranic version, of Jesus , fitting to the Arabic culture and mind set
@@MuhammadAlkomy Do you know your own language ? or not? and in Hebrew Mahamad is the favored one or the one that is nice to the eye ,its called etymology , is that illogicl to you as well ?
@rigel472-ql9dd plenty of other names have similar meanings as well so it proves nothing, you are claiming that abbasids, Umayyads, Shia and kawarij all magically agreed on the general events of Muhammed story and who he is while all getting it wrong
@@MuhammadAlkomy exactly !! not magically no but politicly!!! . Islam always been a political tool controlling the masses. the early mosques never pointed toward Mecca, and Mecca didn't even existed in the 7th century , and its description and geography in Islamic writings do not fit with Mecca of today . the Quran you hold is a 10th century document invented by people who never knew Muhammad or his followers . its all eclectic endeavor taking half of the information, bits here and there, from Jews and christens, nothing original (almost laughable to Jews), its a gospel for the Arabs nothing more. learn about the Nasareans and eastern christens sects that theologically refuse to receive Jesus divinity ( as the Jews ) the theological dispute with the Byzantine church led t o an uprising ,the Arabs of the region joined ( that is Islam birth for you and its conquest ,a regional uprising and very much domestic of already weak empire). probably there were no Muhammad figure ever . people are gullible and the fact they are all illiterates helps the cause , the state easily made them to change the direction of the Kiblah , from political needs . the rivelry between the Abbasids and Umayyads for supremacy. Islam is nothing but a false religion and anti-thesis to the judo-Christian doctrine , and as such, it has to defeat them to gain its legitimacy it must negate all other religions and cultures , for those, pointing out the mistakes, the lack of originality, and overall inferiority .
Even non Muslims are looking at this from a point of view of religion or lack therefore .Their own. They are also biased towards their worldview. Everyone in the field is biased.
I hope not and I don't think so. Muslims are nicer than people give us credit for. People can be rude for sure, but we've thicker skin than people think. Plus, there's provocation. I don't try to provoke people by being unnecessarily dickish.
about the source of the history of patriachs of alexandria, you mentioned it doesnt talk bad about the prophet mohammed saw, is this not because the writer lived in fatimid egypt and it was one of the first coptic texts written in arabic? surely slander of the prophet would have him punished in that period? are there any sources that slander the prophet that were written in islamic realms?
Well, there's a version of the Secrets of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai that's from the Cairo Geniza (also written under the Fatimids), that's very very negative about the Prophet.
Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai was a great Jewish mystic and scholar who lived in the 2nd century during the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. That is 450-500 years before the Prophet Muhammad was living. So any source that claims he is quoting Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai is likely not very reliable and.used his name to give his book legitimacy by claiming it was a kabbalistic inspired prophecy. I would think that is not a source that is reliable or useful. Probably someone in Egypt with an agenda used this as a way to spread his opinions.
How did Mecca become a holy place? It seems like the center of monotheism has been Jerusalem for thousands of years until Muhammad then it became Arabia. How?
@@Bouda_sr Over time it shifted to idol worship and the Kaaba would eventually house many idols. These idols made it a big source of income for the Quraysh.
16:34 is he implying that Macchiaveli was a prophet??? :D :D Anyway... the video is interesting, but it ignores the French research completely. Hela Ouardi has an impressive book about it (Les derniers jours du prophète Mahommet). Jacqueline Chabbi has also a lot to say and I can affirm that her scholarship is way better than anything published by the English and the Americans. My point is, when you want to do professional, honest, responsible scholarship, you must go beyond your little world and check what others are researching, in this case the French... the Germans also have lots of important scholarship in the area. But IF you want to stick to scholarship in English only, you also MUST add "ONLY" to your videos, texts, etc... as "The Historical Mohammed according to the scholarship in English ONLY"
If MHMD is Muhammad, and means the blessed one, any or all Caliph could have been Muhammad, or all of them. This first being the original one. Or even Jesus. The commander of the faithful.
Imagine if Muhammad indeed conquered Jerusalem. That would make the city the holiest site for Muslims. That would give the Israel-Palestine conflict a whole new dimension.
That just shows that Jerusalem does not belong to the Muslim in the first place. Even the dome of the rock are built on op of the Jewish temple to mock the Jews. Jerusalem never is an Islamic holiest site.
I wonder why Muhammad s.aw and his close followers prayed towards al aqsa and the reason why wo many 7th and 8th century mosque point in qibla towards al aqsa
Did cook change his views because of a change of worldview or more likely because of shifting politics of the current age. You uncritically make no mention of this possibility.
What I want to ask is just why the rashiduns engaged in hostilities with the Roman’s and sassanians? Is there any sources that can give us a casus belli?
The Romans and Persians dominated commerce and politics in the region. The growth of a third power with an indigenous developed religion created instability because of the balance of power shift. Also, Arab tribes resided in Persian and Roman controlled territories and actually helped the Arab Muslims conquer these territories. So the Persians and Romans saw the Arabs as a threat
If the case was that the Arab Muslims attacked first; it was a brilliant political strategy. The wars would’ve happened at one point or another due to the balance of power
after uniting Arabia, prophet send letter to neighbour ruler, Oman and yemen accept Islam. the head of coptic bishop in Egypt sent intention of friendship by gift him some tribute and a slave which he marry gave him a boy. the roman emperor reject nicely, so no hard feeling and in Islamic tradition Heracles have nice reputation to muslim. the governor of Syria mock the messenger and challenge Muslims. the Sassanid shah kill the messenger which prophet swear that his empire will break.
He's representing a historical perspective, not a theological one... Mohammad in history is just Mohammad... In theology he's a Prophet...it's two different subjects
I am so very disappointed at your choice of scholars regarding the matter under discussion. Certainly one might assume that Middle Eastern scholars would tote to Centrist line as the did regarding the matter of Petra as the orign of Islamic tradition (see: Dan Gibson). However, such conduct does not reconcile with your choice of a non-Islamic scholar who is little better than Extremist Deconstructionists such as Jay Smith. Please get back to the Middle Ground so that people can properly use you as an authentic Ground of Being from which to gauge their Own scholarship. Alhamduilah.
Stephen Shoemaker is an actual academic, and Jay Smith is a moron whose brain is disconnected from itself. Shoemaker's thesis is one interpretation of facts, a very revisionist one but certainly done with the same intentions as any other academic in the field of Islamic studies. His work can not be dismissed based on my opinion of him and his work. His book does raise interesting questions, why do these sources say what they say? The answer to that is subjective and not set in stone by anyone. Jay Smith is deliberately dishonest with his facts and fits them to work with his opinions rather than the other way around. Shoemaker is respected in the field of Islamic studies. A very bad comparison for anyone to make. Anyhow, even in that case, I didn't say that Shoemaker was right or blindly propagated what he said. I just shared the sources and my opinion. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from it.
13:35 Just asking out of curiosity that how was it "established" in pre-islamic Arabia that the northern and western arabs were descendants of Ismail when the biblical Abraham is never placed in Arabia? Did pre-Islamic Arabia also have its own narrative for Prophets? And if that pagan society was not following the torat, zabur or injeel, where did it get its knowledge of Abraham or Ismail from?
Abrahamic religions weren't at all alien to the Pagans of Arabia. They went to the Levant to trade. There were quite a few Christian Arab tribes, there were also Jewish folks in Arabia. Also, the northern Arabs, the Adnanites were actually from the North. They were pushed into Arabia but they actually came from the North so they felt they had a kinship with the people to the North, the Christians and Jews.
Check the historicity of bible. Original bible should have been in Hebrew or Aramaic . However, New Testament written in Greek & later on Latin language. Why ? Why the original bible is not in the language of that time ? No historic document to support that jesus was a Jew. You have tens & thousands of copies of Mathew, Mark, Luke & John, yet no two copies are same, more importantly not enough evidence to proof authenticating the time period of era when Jesus was there. If you look at the old books authenticating more evidence in terms of that time period, those were not included in the bible. Even Protestant & catholic bible are not same. Whereas Quran was in original language revealed to prophet mohammed in the same language of the area & the language he spoke & people spoke around him, memorised & written in the same duration, same language, Enough supporting evidence. Here in, Old Testament, there’s whole description of prophet but Jesus name is not mentioned. There’s 50-100 verses in the bible that fits the description of prophet Mohammed. Jesus ministry was for 3 years. Bible from genesis 2 revelation, HMD is in Hebrew where it translates to Ahmed in Arabic, Ahmed of all nations will come. His house will be greater than the former (switching from Jerusalem to Mecca ). In deuteronomy 32:1 through 3 - ‘The god (Moses) came from Sinai downed from Seir (Palestine) & shined forth from mount paran. Who shined forth from mount paran ? Where’s paran ? In the bible it says ‘when Abraham took Hagar & her son ismael out & left them in the wilderness of paran & he grew to be archer. So where’s paran ? Paran is another name for Mecca. Also, he came with 10,000 saints with a fiery law in his hand (prophet mohammed gathered 10,000 soldiers & won Mecca). For Prophet Ibrahim & Ismael - Quran - chapter 2, verse 125: And ˹remember˺ when We made the Sacred House1 a centre and a sanctuary for the people ˹saying˺, “˹You may˺ take the standing-place of Abraham2 as a site of prayer.” And We entrusted Abraham and Ishmael to purify My House for those who circle it, who meditate in it, and who bow and prostrate themselves ˹in prayer˺.
Ishmael is well known figure to them before the biblical writing devlopment Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions and North Arabian inscriptions from 9th to 6th century BCE, mention the king of Qedar, sometimes as Arab and sometimes as Ishmaelite, of the Inscriptions mentioning the Ishmaelites is Sennacherib's Annals, in column vii line 96. It says ""The Gifts of the Sumu'-anite and the Temeite Enter through it," the Desert-gate;"
In 7th century after the war between Byzantine and Sassanid empire both empires were severely weakend. Sassanid empire collapsed into smaller states governed by Persian warlords meanwhile Byzantine empire was open to attacks from nomadic beduin arabs so around mid seventh century may arab tribes launched raids and skirmishes into Levent and Egypt and after all fighting the peace was signed and Levant and Egypt were given the new arab rulers who were not Muslims as Islam as religion did not yet exist and was created by the Abbasids much later. The new arab rulers ruled as warlords over their own states until Muawiyah a Monophysite Christian came to power and united all the arab states. At this point most Arab rulers were Nestorian Christians, Monophysite Christians, polytheists and jews no trace of Islam has been found anywhere clearly showing there was no Islam in seventh century or and was created during the Abbasid period. The Ummayads followed a different Islam which believed Jesus was the last and final prophet of god and he was a human they also rejected his sonship, divinity and trinity. And had their own bible which was very different from the bible you and i know. Thry also had many lectionaries, hymns and exegisis compiled into the book form that would gradually over time evolve into the Quranic corpus we know today reaching its final form in the Abbasid period.
Muhammad and his arab army never called the levant "Palestine ." I mean, he was not even literate.. also, there is no "P" in Arabic... the name comes from the Greco-Roman Syria-Palestina after the great Jewish expulsion also.. the Jews have always lived in the region for at least 3000 years continuously in some number. Even the Persians let the Jews resettle and built in Judea and the region there are indeed many nomadic and displaced ethnoreligious in the region.
Actually your point about p not existing in fact is a mark *against* your argument. Words beginning with p get loaned into Arabic with a b sound, so for Palestine to begin with an f in Arabic means that the word had to be in the language so long that it's usage predates the p-f sound shift that happened in Old Arabic.
Also it is modern Palestinians who are the main descendents of ancient Jews, proven by DNA. Switching faith does not switch your blood, and keeping a faith does not keep your blood pure.
Completely false, the world for Palestine in arabic is Falastin/Filistin. "Palestine" is an anglicisation of the word "Falastin/Filistin". "Filistin" may also have come from the Philistines an ancient group of peoples massacred in the Old Testament.
There’s a difference between spreading the religion by the sword & expanding the territorial control of the Islamic empire. Wanna know who spread what religion by the sword? Trinitarian Christianity was spread by the sword. Christianity was a tiny religion until the 4th century when Rome adopted Christianity, had some councils to decide “what is orthodoxy“ & then forced that so called orthodoxy by the sword throughout the empire & that’s how trinitarian Christianity became the dominant version of Christianity & why it’s basically the only mainstream Christianity.
@@Aresydatch oh yea of course many places had Islam introduced without the empire coming in, but my comment was a response to the person who said that Islam spread by the sword which is wrong since forced conversion is not allowed in Islam
First muhammad is Jesus. Muhammad never existed.. the wisdom questions we need to ask is how and why did non arab give you hadith and history.. they us a reason the shia are persians. It's a reason they love ali. This so call islam history is just far more than what we think we know. Even abu sufyan said the cause of ibn kalbisa!!
Prophet Muhammad never existed he was simply a legendary figure based on an Arab warlord, christian preacher, Arab Poet and Arab Merchent oral traditions about these people were merged to create early Muhammad in the early Abbasid period which then gradually evolved and became the holy prophet of Islam.
Ali Ibn Talib, Hasan Ibn Ali and Husayn Ibn Ali never existed they were simply legendary figures possibly inspired from the kings of Lakhmid kingdom who ruled from 636 CE to 656 CE and Lakhmid insurgents in the Ummayad caliphate this movement would gradually over time evolve into Shite religion becoming a new religion in the Abbasid period. Ali Ibn Talib was originally a king of Lakhmid kingdom and was a Nestorian Christian Husyan and Hasan were his successors but couldn't rule because of the Ummayad empire which had beaten theire kingdom it was all secular political struggle. But gradually over time people think of it is as a religious conflict and many hadiths were forged.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia First you claim that Imam ‘Ali ع never existed, then you claim he was a Nestorian King of Banu Lakham? Also many of the 12 Imams ع were alive during the Abbasid Era and persecuted by the Abbasid leaders, and they have solid geneology going back to Muhammad ص
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته Before watching this video, I'd like to yell you viewers that this individual teaches a very corrupt version of history, one that looks more like a stained glass picture rather than an objectively true one, do not take lessons for content youtubers, and seek actual scholars with an objective view on things.
It’s not convincing to be honest, the people back then could have just thought that the prophet Muhammad was still alive hearing the Muslims stating sentences like « Muhammad rasoulouLlah ». Also if Muslim power had the power to simply rewrite history (assuming that the companions still alive and their pupils and just normal people had massive amnesia about the death of the man they loved the most and revered as the link between them and God) why did they not actually said that the prophet succeeded in taking Jerusalem and died right after ? It would have added to the prophetic image. Also why didn’t they succeed at hiding other embarrassing events about the prophet in hadiths or just the different fitnah ? Or the rising that the ummeyads faced ? Are we to believe that concurring Muslims factions all agreed on a lie ? The same people that killed each other ?
@@kawtarhadi7359 i am not a scholar of Islam so I can’t answer you, but I suggest you to check for proof of gods existence, about proofs of prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, about the Quran and why it is a miracle, read the Burhan from Mohammed hijab, and read about the contingency argument.
Disclaimer: This video shows some sources that directly insult the Prophet Muhammad. If that's hurtful to your religious sentiments, please don't watch this video.
Support Al Muqaddimah financially: Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
Well I must say you've got some serious balls to be able to make this.
Thank you, now I ain't watching most of it.
I'm a Muslim I am used to it
@@szuvibes9474 You can watch the first half-ish, I guess. I do give the disclaimer in the video as well so you'd know where to stop.
You could put timestamps where the offensive content is as a trigger warning
Before watching the video I would say the discrepency could be solved by saying the non-muslims didn’t know much about Muhammad at the time, they just saw a muslim army chant Muhammad's name and they saw their "King" was Umar so they might've assumed Umar was Muhammad.
I'd lean towards the muslim sources because they are more thorough (e.g. Ibrahims death coinciding with the eclipse which was confirmed scientifically). Also it would've been a big deal if Muhammad entered the Holy Land so it would've been mentioned in the Quran and hadith.
Exactly. Seems quite straightforward
Surah 69: If Muhammad was a false prophet, God would cut his aorta. Then death came to him with poison and said: I feel that my aorta has been cut. Hadith 4428
@@GigaGoose123 This verse is a warning of immediate punishment and doom, if the Prophet ﷺ were to falsely attribute some words to Allah. But what is well-known and well-established is that Allah protected the Prophet ﷺ and encompassed him with His care throughout his mission and prophethood when he was conveying the message to the people from his Lord and saying: “My Lord said; my Lord instructed me; my Lord forbade me…” And Allah never once proved him to be lying; He never let him down and He never broke a promise to him, let alone sending down a punishment upon him or bringing about his death.
Moreover, if he had wanted to falsely attribute something to Allah or lie about Him, the easiest, and most likely, thing for him to do would be to omit this verse, or conceal it and not convey it, if it was from Allah.
Or at least he would not have said anything that would prove him guilty or show him to be a liar. What need would there be for one who falsely claims to be a prophet, brings such a scripture and claims that it is from Allah to come up with such a verse, in which he threatens himself and proves himself to be guilty?
If he had been fabricating lies, he would not have said when he was dying: “Now is the time for my aorta to be severed”; he would not have referred to that at all.
Finally, during his final days revelation was already finished marked by the verse, {This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islām as religion.}. So he wasn't receiving any revelation to fabricate.
@@nabz5538 but then why state "God will strike me down in a very specific way if I am lying". Proceeds to die feeling his aorta is closed off or severed. No prophet would say that
@@GigaGoose123Read the verse after that in chapter 69. it states that Muhammad’s right hand would be cut off if he made up false revelations and his aorta would be cut off too. There is no narration of his right hand being cut off and the word used in Chapter 69 and the Hadith narration for “aorta” is different because they refer to different body parts. Hope this helps.
As someone from south india I would really love to know about the history of islam in south india like in places like Kerala Sri Lanka or even places like Malaysia
As mopila muslim (muslim of Malabari origin) i would like to know about the history of my people
I just know that Hindu Indians really hate Muslims because they successfully conquered India
as someone not from India I would also really love to know about this history, especially one detailing the rise of the Bahmani sultanate
Cheraman Perumal Tajuddin. A Hindu king that converted to Islam after his journey to Arabia after meeting the prophet. Kerela has the oldest mosque in India, built in 624 AD at Kodungallur , it was mandated by him.
The "Believers" was a new state founded by Muhammad, which defined its whole identity as the followers of Muhammad. For outsiders describing the sudden appearance of this new empire, it makes sense to describe it as wholly Muhammad's doing. So statements like "he unified Arabia and then conquered Syria" make sense because it's not really talking about Muhammad the individual leader, it's talking about Muhammad and his humble successors together as one combined entity. It's like saying "Romulus established a city on the Tiber hills and then conquered Latium" - it was actually later generations of Romans who expanded, but to a distant observer summarising, the deeds of "Romans" (the followers and heirs of Romulus) count as deeds of Romulus.
I believe the most poetic ending would be Muhammad’s (pbuh) conquest of Jerusalem. If that's the case, no one in their right mind would alter it in the history books.
poetic injustice...
the Arab tribes had zero right to claim the religious tradition of the Jews and Christians as their own....
they were a polytheistic people like the Hindus, and suddenly they claim to be the true owners of the sacred tradition of the Jews and Christians....
No, just no....
The Muslims were nothing more than conquerors with the sword...
From the Muslim so-called "prophet" massacring the Jews of Yathrib and Khaybar to the early Muslim conquests, the Muslims used the sword from the very beginning of their so-called "faith"....
Islam did not start out as a faith or a religious belief....
It was a militant campaign of conquest......
Muhammad invented and fabricated a new "religion" which was nothing more than a plagiarized version of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and used that a excuse to go on a series of bloodstained conquests....
Except it’s literally false. Go read the Seerah which is paramount to any Western liberal Palestinian propaganda
it could make sense as it corresponds to Moses dying on mount nebo before reaching the promised land
it always interested me how Muhammad seemed much more historical and historically grounded than Moses or Jesus. even Nietzsche talks about it. 😯
Thank you. I learned a lot from this. Peace.
One of the best video I have ever seen on Islam with the perspective of western studies. 👍
0:25 Just a note here that you said "both islamic and western", as if these terms are exclusive, which is not true as one can be a westerner and a muslim. I just wanted to point this out that we shouldn't internalize that racist and bigoted view point. You could use "secular" or "non-islamic" or such.
Totally agree. I would prefer the terms Traditional vs Historical Critical
I agree completely
I disagree, western civilization is fundamentally one founded on Christian principles not Islamic ones. You are a Muslim in a western society.
Yes, the western/Islamic dichotomy is entirely false.
I disagree. That dichotomy makes perfect sense in the context of the years 622-632, when contemporary sources were either from the newly established muslim world OR from a christian west.
Secularism didn’t really develop in Europe until over a thousand years later.
This is fascinating! It's really interesting to learn about the early days of Islam and how it changed over time.
Also, you called them the Romans! I'm so happy!
I advise you to read books
Eastern romans of the Heraclius times never call themselves as a Byzantines. Of course, they are Romans.
@@chairmanrosethewisegentleman I agree, 100%. But this person hasn't always been consistent about that, so I'm happy to see it when he is.
I saw "itsbruce" on your Patreon list, a fan
I didn't know that Imperator Leo III and Caliph Umar II actually communicated with one another before. Thank you for this information, Syawish!
And by taking the perspective of the Arabs at the time, they most likely viewed the events such as the Battle of Mu'tah and the Expedition to Tabuk as the beginning of the Conquest of the Roman Empire. So you may be right here, Syawish. Because if that is the case, his successors will certainly to see its completion one way or another. And that continued until the Abbasid Caliphate came to power. So yes, your conclusion is the most likely one here.
It isn't surprising when considering the context.
Leo III, the founder of the Isaurian Dynasty, had Arab origins, and his first language was Arabic.
he seized the throne with the help of Arab armies who hoped to subjugate the Byzantine Empire through Vassalage (ps: it didn’t go as planned).
The Isaurians were followed by another dynasty of Arab origins, the Nikephorian, founded by Nikephoros I.
He had a similar relationship with Harun al-Rashid of the Abbasids, marked by hostility. Harun al-Rashid even degraded Nikephoros in his letters, calling him a “dog of the Romans,” which was to suggest that Nikephoros, an Arab, was serving the Roman Empire against his own kin.
Make more historical Muhammad videos, I am interested in a picture of the man outside of the Islamic tradition. There are a good amount of non-Arab sources that mention Muhammad during and just after his life, a video exploring this and trying to flesh out the man as he really was would be fascinating
Well there is big book that is called Islam as seen by other which will satisfy your need. in all honesty depending of this book to much is wrong too
@@thekinghassThere is no book called ”islam”, and if you’re referring to the Quran, it is hardly a biography about Muhammad’s life
@@Facerip no, the book i believe he is referring to is titled "Seeing Islam as Others Saw It." Its also mentioned in the video
Why not follow islamic sources?
Most non islam sources of mohammad are very bad and you dont want to know. Most common is they call him fake prophet who used allahs names to fullfill his wishes and whims.
Great video
@AlMuqaddimahYT You’re my favorite, I’ve learned a lot from you.❣️✌️
Traditionally we know that the prophet (ﷺ) died in 12 Rabi’ Al awwal, 11 AH.then Abu bakr became caliph and reigned until 22 Jumada Al awwal, 13 AH. Then Umar reigned until 29 Dhul Hijjah, 23 AH and was buried in 1 Mahram 24 AH.
There’s rock inscription discovered in Hejaz called The Inscription Of Zuhayr, which writes the following
“In the name of God I, Zuhayr, wrote [this] at the time ʿUmar died in the year four and twenty (i.e., 24 AH).”
This rock inscription supports the Islamic tradition, if the prophet (ﷺ) went to Syria then we don’t have room for the reign of Abu Bakr.
Great video as always.
I agree that the suggestion of secret editing is unlikely, and would add evidence in the negative. There were attempts in antiquity to "edit" history that didn't work. For example, a man seeking eternal fame set fire to the temple of the Great Mother in Ephesus. In response, it was widely agreed that his name should be condemned to oblivion. Yet we still know his name. This editing of history was broadly popular yet still failed. Which makes something as controversial as successfully editing the life of Muhammad far more unlikely.
I think the quality of your videos has reduced.
In your earlier videos you would have a lot of graphics which made it very engaging to watch , now for the most part we're just looking at your face.
You're welcome. Hehe.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT I’m curious on why the change? Your Mughal videos were one of the most engaging content I’ve watched in my life
@@newgoblin49Why, you don’t like his face or what?😂
@@newgoblin49 There's a video on his channel explaining the change.
Wow, in my country the birth of prophet is set on 12 Rabiul Awwal and it is set as national holiday.
Which country is that??
@@2ag789 indonesia
during the tabuk expedition two towns(udhruh and ayla/eilat) that are considerd part of palestine accepted prophet muhammad pacefully. so i think it is correct to say the propeht personally started the annexation of palestine
Hey I've been subscribed for over a year or two now (I think) your videos disappeared off my page a while back and I didn't realise. I just reset my algorithm thingy and they're back now. Really strange.
What would Metatron's Vehicle mode be? A Flaming wheel covered in eyes?
If the conquest of Syria was started by Prophet Muhammad and finished by his successors, it would make sense for Muslims to want to downplay it so that it wasn't seen as a failure to complete it in his lifetime.
I know that the traditional history of Islam may have errors, inaccuracies and fabricated false stories. Even the Muslim religious scholars don't believe that the Sira of the prophet is perfect, because the it's not scrutinized with the same criteria as the Hadith. However, having this kind of bold claims with the faintest of proof is just mind boggling! My guess is this kind claims are not intellectually honest and that they're motivated by personal gain, as the bolder the claim, the more attention and interest it brings.
Metatron is real, the transformer movies were right😂😂😂😂😂
Metatron is real, he has a RUclips channel and everything
Even angels are creating content right now. What is happening to our world?!
@@AlMuqaddimahYT late capitalism. Angels ran out of work and need to hustle.
That’s Megatron… 😅
@@kuroazrem5376 So, their status was changed from employees to contractors?
Thanks for your videos. I am an atheist but I enjoy your videos.
Have u tried reading abt islam?
@@kalebj7001 yes.
The Prophet PBBUH actually indicated about the grave of Prophet Musa (Moses) PBUH that it was near Jerusalem, and had he (Prophet Muhammad) been there, he would've shown that to us. Here's the full hadith:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) having said that the Angel of Death came to Moses and said:
Respond (to the call) of Allah (i. e. be prepared for death). Moses (peace be upon him) gave a blow at the eye of the Angel of Death and knocked it out. The Angel went back to Allah (the Exalted) and said: You sent me to your servant who does not like to die and he knocked out my eye. Allah restored his eye to its proper place (and revived his eyesight) and said: Go to My servant and say: Do you want life? And in case you want life, keep your hand on the body of the ox and you would live such number of years as the (number of) hair your hand covers. He (Moses) said: What, then? He said: Then you would die, whereupon he (Moses) said: Then why not now? (He then prayed): Allah, cause me to die close to the sacred land. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Had I been near that place I would have shown his grave by the side of the path at the red mound.
Sahih Muslim 2372 b
So, the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was never in Palestine, had he been there, he would've shown us
Fascinating.
TAKE NAME OF OUR BELOVED PROPHET (PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM)WITH RESPECT
Is it possible that all the contemporary sources confused the Arabic term for caliph and prophet with a more general term for leader. Also prophet was probably used very loosely during ancient times since the Romans would have had their own Oracles translated as prophets in a more common tongue. Also what records do the Byzantines have of the Fall of Jerusalem. Do we have any sources for that?
Thanks a lot for your insightful videos. Learning about the history of Islam is not easy on YT so I really appreciate them.
I hope to find more about how various beliefs evolved like the qur'an being the literal words from god.
i recommend ali a olomi's 'head on history' podcast for more info about the development of islam's beliefs! he's an afghan american professor of islamic history and goes a lot into what you may be looking for, he also uses similar sources/methods to this channel. really great dude i recommend him a lot
What if some are mixing Syria and Palestine. You should start with the geographic definitions
When talking about Syria in a historical sense it is actually a near-synonym for the Levant.
All hail the algorithm
Here before you know who
When u say that later scholars removed it then u should also give it a 2nd thought that it's not easy to remove it as there will always be people who will tell the original tale!!! 👻
I swear, I am this close to being financially able to support this guy's work and I cannot wait for that to happen. Among so much noise and the absolute bias of Islamic sources, channels like this help regular people so much in getting a holistic understanding of issues. Thank your brother, lots of love from India.
When Hazrat Umar conquered Jerusalem the Christians gave him Jerusalem without world because he was to mention the good king in their book and said to him that you are not allowed to let people live or settle in this land not allowed to visit their Holy sites agreed on the contract but said they are not allowed to live or settle in the land but are allowed to visit their Holy sites Hazrat Umar agreed on the contract and said they are not allowed to live or settle in this land but are allowed to visit their Holy sites basically talking about the Jewish people and that is why for Muslims there is only one state solution and whoever goes against that is a non believer
Upon whom be peace, bro .
Do you upload pictures on Unsplash?
Brother, the transformer's name is Megatron not Metatron
That's his cousin from the late antiquities period
I legit lol'd at work
We can't depend on Torah psalms prophets not what the people's say from their experiences of what they saw.
Dude where do you find these topics that we never heard of!!!! Impressive
I'm pretty sure he gets most of his information from orientalists who are/were hostile towards Islam.
I have been watching your Videos for a while as being neutral you do things from all angles but being Muslim you should be respectful towards Prophet Peace Be Upon Him while Saying His Peace Be Upon Him, name.
That's all I want to say
some claim Muhamad is but a title ( the favored) . in Arabic and Hebrew alike, some claim it is the Arabic version, Quranic version, of Jesus , fitting to the Arabic culture and mind set
All are illogical, it's a name
@@MuhammadAlkomy Do you know your own language ? or not? and in Hebrew Mahamad is the favored one or the one that is nice to the eye ,its called etymology , is that illogicl to you as well ?
@rigel472-ql9dd plenty of other names have similar meanings as well so it proves nothing, you are claiming that abbasids, Umayyads, Shia and kawarij all magically agreed on the general events of Muhammed story and who he is while all getting it wrong
@@MuhammadAlkomy exactly !! not magically no but politicly!!! . Islam always been a political tool controlling the masses. the early mosques never pointed toward Mecca, and Mecca didn't even existed in the 7th century , and its description and geography in Islamic writings do not fit with Mecca of today . the Quran you hold is a 10th century document invented by people who never knew Muhammad or his followers . its all eclectic endeavor taking half of the information, bits here and there, from Jews and christens, nothing original (almost laughable to Jews), its a gospel for the Arabs nothing more. learn about the Nasareans and eastern christens sects that theologically refuse to receive Jesus divinity ( as the Jews ) the theological dispute with the Byzantine church led t o an uprising ,the Arabs of the region joined ( that is Islam birth for you and its conquest ,a regional uprising and very much domestic of already weak empire). probably there were no Muhammad figure ever . people are gullible and the fact they are all illiterates helps the cause , the state easily made them to change the direction of the Kiblah , from political needs . the rivelry between the Abbasids and Umayyads for supremacy. Islam is nothing but a false religion and anti-thesis to the judo-Christian doctrine , and as such, it has to defeat them to gain its legitimacy it must negate all other religions and cultures , for those, pointing out the mistakes, the lack of originality, and overall inferiority .
whats the name of the mosaic work at 10:57?
I found it via reverse image search, it is in Sednaya, Syria en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Saidnaya_Monastery
Even non Muslims are looking at this from a point of view of religion or lack therefore .Their own. They are also biased towards their worldview.
Everyone in the field is biased.
What was the name of Palestine during prophet
The birthday of Nabi Saw is not know...the 12th of rabi al awwal was created by the fatimid dynasty and then copied by all other rulers
Will you get hate for questioning the traditional timeline?
I hope not and I don't think so. Muslims are nicer than people give us credit for. People can be rude for sure, but we've thicker skin than people think. Plus, there's provocation. I don't try to provoke people by being unnecessarily dickish.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT I find the truth is so much more interesting than the myth.
I really like your user profile. Nowadays, its really hard to find Star Wars fans who appreciate the Yuuzhan Vong.
@@aimanmarzuqi4804 thanks 🙏🏻
about the source of the history of patriachs of alexandria, you mentioned it doesnt talk bad about the prophet mohammed saw, is this not because the writer lived in fatimid egypt and it was one of the first coptic texts written in arabic? surely slander of the prophet would have him punished in that period? are there any sources that slander the prophet that were written in islamic realms?
Well, there's a version of the Secrets of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai that's from the Cairo Geniza (also written under the Fatimids), that's very very negative about the Prophet.
Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai was a great Jewish mystic and scholar who lived in the 2nd century during the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. That is 450-500 years before the Prophet Muhammad was living. So any source that claims he is quoting Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai is likely not very reliable and.used his name to give his book legitimacy by claiming it was a kabbalistic inspired prophecy. I would think that is not a source that is reliable or useful. Probably someone in Egypt with an agenda used this as a way to spread his opinions.
How did Mecca become a holy place? It seems like the center of monotheism has been Jerusalem for thousands of years until Muhammad then it became Arabia. How?
Surah baqara verse 144
The early Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem.
Muslims believe that Abraham built the Kaaba and that the angels do tawaf above it.
@ thanks for the reply. As a follow up question. What was happening at the kabba between the time of Abraham and Muhammad?
@@Bouda_sr People worshipped God until most of them turned to adulatory with some staying in the faith of Abraham
@@Bouda_sr
Over time it shifted to idol worship and the Kaaba would eventually house many idols. These idols made it a big source of income for the Quraysh.
16:34 is he implying that Macchiaveli was a prophet??? :D :D
Anyway... the video is interesting, but it ignores the French research completely. Hela Ouardi has an impressive book about it (Les derniers jours du prophète Mahommet). Jacqueline Chabbi has also a lot to say and I can affirm that her scholarship is way better than anything published by the English and the Americans.
My point is, when you want to do professional, honest, responsible scholarship, you must go beyond your little world and check what others are researching, in this case the French... the Germans also have lots of important scholarship in the area.
But IF you want to stick to scholarship in English only, you also MUST add "ONLY" to your videos, texts, etc... as "The Historical Mohammed according to the scholarship in English ONLY"
No, Machiavelli famously said that unarmed prophets were killed but armed prophets weren't or something like that. Can't remember, tbh.
These books you mention aren't history, but political protganda
If MHMD is Muhammad, and means the blessed one, any or all Caliph could have been Muhammad, or all of them.
This first being the original one. Or even Jesus.
The commander of the faithful.
Oceane Summit
Hang on. So if you you invaded Palestine then how do you have more right to it then it’s original people?
Exactly. Arabs back to Arabia
Imagine if Muhammad indeed conquered Jerusalem. That would make the city the holiest site for Muslims. That would give the Israel-Palestine conflict a whole new dimension.
The tagline would be, "Liberate Palestine, it's Sunnah".
He already declared Makkah as the most sacred site. He would not have done anything except through divine permission.
That just shows that Jerusalem does not belong to the Muslim in the first place. Even the dome of the rock are built on op of the Jewish temple to mock the Jews. Jerusalem never is an Islamic holiest site.
I wonder why Muhammad s.aw and his close followers prayed towards al aqsa and the reason why wo many 7th and 8th century mosque point in qibla towards al aqsa
The fact that some Jews at the time actually welcomed the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the holy sites...
Did cook change his views because of a change of worldview or more likely because of shifting politics of the current age. You uncritically make no mention of this possibility.
Nothing to make you think that
Arvel Flats
Why do seem to be inconsistent with sources? This video you have a couple, others a lot, and others have none
Aorta
What I want to ask is just why the rashiduns engaged in hostilities with the Roman’s and sassanians? Is there any sources that can give us a casus belli?
It's something to do with both of empire's Arab vessels ghasanids and lakhmids + will to unite Arab speaking population into the caliphate
The Romans and Persians dominated commerce and politics in the region. The growth of a third power with an indigenous developed religion created instability because of the balance of power shift.
Also, Arab tribes resided in Persian and Roman controlled territories and actually helped the Arab Muslims conquer these territories.
So the Persians and Romans saw the Arabs as a threat
If the case was that the Arab Muslims attacked first; it was a brilliant political strategy. The wars would’ve happened at one point or another due to the balance of power
after uniting Arabia, prophet send letter to neighbour ruler, Oman and yemen accept Islam. the head of coptic bishop in Egypt sent intention of friendship by gift him some tribute and a slave which he marry gave him a boy. the roman emperor reject nicely, so no hard feeling and in Islamic tradition Heracles have nice reputation to muslim. the governor of Syria mock the messenger and challenge Muslims. the Sassanid shah kill the messenger which prophet swear that his empire will break.
on the basis of seularism,it dosent mean that you dont give respect to religious figures,at least write PBUH after muhammad in the thumbnail
He's representing a historical perspective, not a theological one... Mohammad in history is just Mohammad... In theology he's a Prophet...it's two different subjects
Nice clickbait
It's not clickbait you just misunderstood the point of the video
I am so very disappointed at your choice of scholars regarding the matter under discussion. Certainly one might assume that Middle Eastern scholars would tote to Centrist line as the did regarding the matter of Petra as the orign of Islamic tradition (see: Dan Gibson). However, such conduct does not reconcile with your choice of a non-Islamic scholar who is little better than Extremist Deconstructionists such as Jay Smith. Please get back to the Middle Ground so that people can properly use you as an authentic Ground of Being from which to gauge their Own scholarship. Alhamduilah.
Stephen Shoemaker is an actual academic, and Jay Smith is a moron whose brain is disconnected from itself. Shoemaker's thesis is one interpretation of facts, a very revisionist one but certainly done with the same intentions as any other academic in the field of Islamic studies. His work can not be dismissed based on my opinion of him and his work. His book does raise interesting questions, why do these sources say what they say? The answer to that is subjective and not set in stone by anyone. Jay Smith is deliberately dishonest with his facts and fits them to work with his opinions rather than the other way around. Shoemaker is respected in the field of Islamic studies. A very bad comparison for anyone to make. Anyhow, even in that case, I didn't say that Shoemaker was right or blindly propagated what he said. I just shared the sources and my opinion. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from it.
13:35 Just asking out of curiosity that how was it "established" in pre-islamic Arabia that the northern and western arabs were descendants of Ismail when the biblical Abraham is never placed in Arabia? Did pre-Islamic Arabia also have its own narrative for Prophets? And if that pagan society was not following the torat, zabur or injeel, where did it get its knowledge of Abraham or Ismail from?
Abrahamic religions weren't at all alien to the Pagans of Arabia. They went to the Levant to trade. There were quite a few Christian Arab tribes, there were also Jewish folks in Arabia. Also, the northern Arabs, the Adnanites were actually from the North. They were pushed into Arabia but they actually came from the North so they felt they had a kinship with the people to the North, the Christians and Jews.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTYes this is all true, there were even significant Jewish communities as far south as Yemen
Check the historicity of bible.
Original bible should have been in Hebrew or Aramaic . However, New Testament written in Greek & later on Latin language. Why ? Why the original bible is not in the language of that time ? No historic document to support that jesus was a Jew. You have tens & thousands of copies of Mathew, Mark, Luke & John, yet no two copies are same, more importantly not enough evidence to proof authenticating the time period of era when Jesus was there. If you look at the old books authenticating more evidence in terms of that time period, those were not included in the bible. Even Protestant & catholic bible are not same.
Whereas Quran was in original language revealed to prophet mohammed in the same language of the area & the language he spoke & people spoke around him, memorised & written in the same duration, same language, Enough supporting evidence.
Here in, Old Testament, there’s whole description of prophet but Jesus name is not mentioned. There’s 50-100 verses in the bible that fits the description of prophet Mohammed. Jesus ministry was for 3 years.
Bible from genesis 2 revelation, HMD is in Hebrew where it translates to Ahmed in Arabic, Ahmed of all nations will come. His house will be greater than the former (switching from Jerusalem to Mecca ).
In deuteronomy 32:1 through 3 - ‘The god (Moses) came from Sinai downed from Seir (Palestine) & shined forth from mount paran. Who shined forth from mount paran ? Where’s paran ?
In the bible it says ‘when Abraham took Hagar & her son ismael out & left them in the wilderness of paran & he grew to be archer. So where’s paran ? Paran is another name for Mecca.
Also, he came with 10,000 saints with a fiery law in his hand (prophet mohammed gathered 10,000 soldiers & won Mecca).
For Prophet Ibrahim & Ismael -
Quran - chapter 2, verse 125:
And ˹remember˺ when We made the Sacred House1 a centre and a sanctuary for the people ˹saying˺, “˹You may˺ take the standing-place of Abraham2 as a site of prayer.” And We entrusted Abraham and Ishmael to purify My House for those who circle it, who meditate in it, and who bow and prostrate themselves ˹in prayer˺.
Ishmael is well known figure to them before the biblical writing devlopment Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions and North Arabian inscriptions from 9th to 6th century BCE, mention the king of Qedar, sometimes as Arab and sometimes as Ishmaelite, of the Inscriptions mentioning the Ishmaelites is Sennacherib's Annals, in column vii line 96.
It says ""The Gifts of the Sumu'-anite and the Temeite Enter through
it," the Desert-gate;"
In 7th century after the war between Byzantine and Sassanid empire both empires were severely weakend. Sassanid empire collapsed into smaller states governed by Persian warlords meanwhile Byzantine empire was open to attacks from nomadic beduin arabs so around mid seventh century may arab tribes launched raids and skirmishes into Levent and Egypt and after all fighting the peace was signed and Levant and Egypt were given the new arab rulers who were not Muslims as Islam as religion did not yet exist and was created by the Abbasids much later. The new arab rulers ruled as warlords over their own states until Muawiyah a Monophysite Christian came to power and united all the arab states. At this point most Arab rulers were Nestorian Christians, Monophysite Christians, polytheists and jews no trace of Islam has been found anywhere clearly showing there was no Islam in seventh century or and was created during the Abbasid period. The Ummayads followed a different Islam which believed Jesus was the last and final prophet of god and he was a human they also rejected his sonship, divinity and trinity. And had their own bible which was very different from the bible you and i know. Thry also had many lectionaries, hymns and exegisis compiled into the book form that would gradually over time evolve into the Quranic corpus we know today reaching its final form in the Abbasid period.
good story but no source.
Imam Hasan ع and Imam Husayn ع both resisted Muawiyah (LA)
Muhammed Jihad
Muhammad and his arab army never called the levant "Palestine ." I mean, he was not even literate.. also, there is no "P" in Arabic... the name comes from the Greco-Roman Syria-Palestina after the great Jewish expulsion also.. the Jews have always lived in the region for at least 3000 years continuously in some number. Even the Persians let the Jews resettle and built in Judea and the region there are indeed many nomadic and displaced ethnoreligious in the region.
Actually your point about p not existing in fact is a mark *against* your argument. Words beginning with p get loaned into Arabic with a b sound, so for Palestine to begin with an f in Arabic means that the word had to be in the language so long that it's usage predates the p-f sound shift that happened in Old Arabic.
Also it is modern Palestinians who are the main descendents of ancient Jews, proven by DNA. Switching faith does not switch your blood, and keeping a faith does not keep your blood pure.
Completely false, the world for Palestine in arabic is Falastin/Filistin. "Palestine" is an anglicisation of the word "Falastin/Filistin". "Filistin" may also have come from the Philistines an ancient group of peoples massacred in the Old Testament.
Its crazy that the first comment on this video that I see is some irrelevant zionist rambling. Just foolish on every level, have some shame.
@@Threezi04the lies you Muslims tells is too much. This is why I believe Allah is a false god because you guys lie a lot. 😅
Unsubscribe.
Subscribing
But it's true that Quran and hadith shows they used sword to spread his religion.
So he was involved in sword and blood
Lmao 😂 you know nothing
There’s a difference between spreading the religion by the sword & expanding the territorial control of the Islamic empire.
Wanna know who spread what religion by the sword? Trinitarian Christianity was spread by the sword. Christianity was a tiny religion until the 4th century when Rome adopted Christianity, had some councils to decide “what is orthodoxy“ & then forced that so called orthodoxy by the sword throughout the empire & that’s how trinitarian Christianity became the dominant version of Christianity & why it’s basically the only mainstream Christianity.
@@Leo-wy1bythey don't wanna hear facts bro
@@Leo-wy1byMeanwhile Indonesia and Malaysia have Muslims without a single Arab solder going there
@@Aresydatch oh yea of course many places had Islam introduced without the empire coming in, but my comment was a response to the person who said that Islam spread by the sword which is wrong since forced conversion is not allowed in Islam
First muhammad is Jesus. Muhammad never existed.. the wisdom questions we need to ask is how and why did non arab give you hadith and history.. they us a reason the shia are persians. It's a reason they love ali. This so call islam history is just far more than what we think we know. Even abu sufyan said the cause of ibn kalbisa!!
My brother you are talking nonsense
The Holy Land belongs to.....
Palestinians, obviously.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT i was trying to start a flamewar😔
The one who created it and will inherit it
All the zionists left after a couple of my videos.
The Albanians, obviously.
Give it to them.
Prophet Muhammad never existed he was simply a legendary figure based on an Arab warlord, christian preacher, Arab Poet and Arab Merchent oral traditions about these people were merged to create early Muhammad in the early Abbasid period which then gradually evolved and became the holy prophet of Islam.
😂 lmao so wrong
@@shafsteryellow provide evidence for your sources.
Shi’a tradition disproves this theory
Ali Ibn Talib, Hasan Ibn Ali and Husayn Ibn Ali never existed they were simply legendary figures possibly inspired from the kings of Lakhmid kingdom who ruled from 636 CE to 656 CE and Lakhmid insurgents in the Ummayad caliphate this movement would gradually over time evolve into Shite religion becoming a new religion in the Abbasid period. Ali Ibn Talib was originally a king of Lakhmid kingdom and was a Nestorian Christian Husyan and Hasan were his successors but couldn't rule because of the Ummayad empire which had beaten theire kingdom it was all secular political struggle. But gradually over time people think of it is as a religious conflict and many hadiths were forged.
@@DomainofKnowlegdia
First you claim that Imam ‘Ali ع never existed, then you claim he was a Nestorian King of Banu Lakham? Also many of the 12 Imams ع were alive during the Abbasid Era and persecuted by the Abbasid leaders, and they have solid geneology going back to Muhammad ص
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Before watching this video, I'd like to yell you viewers that this individual teaches a very corrupt version of history, one that looks more like a stained glass picture rather than an objectively true one, do not take lessons for content youtubers, and seek actual scholars with an objective view on things.
It’s not convincing to be honest, the people back then could have just thought that the prophet Muhammad was still alive hearing the Muslims stating sentences like « Muhammad rasoulouLlah ». Also if Muslim power had the power to simply rewrite history (assuming that the companions still alive and their pupils and just normal people had massive amnesia about the death of the man they loved the most and revered as the link between them and God) why did they not actually said that the prophet succeeded in taking Jerusalem and died right after ? It would have added to the prophetic image. Also why didn’t they succeed at hiding other embarrassing events about the prophet in hadiths or just the different fitnah ? Or the rising that the ummeyads faced ? Are we to believe that concurring Muslims factions all agreed on a lie ? The same people that killed each other ?
I have a ask
@@kawtarhadi7359 tell me
@Blackbeard1222 I have weak faith in Islam, is this against Islam?
@@kawtarhadi7359 i am not a scholar of Islam so I can’t answer you, but I suggest you to check for proof of gods existence, about proofs of prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, about the Quran and why it is a miracle, read the Burhan from Mohammed hijab, and read about the contingency argument.
@@kawtarhadi7359 i also recommend you the RUclips channel Blogging theology, Sapience institute, Farid responds, asadullah Al Andalusi