Nice job Mel. I love this subject. Looking at the material evidence (the building material, architecture, and the mosaic sections typical of the late antique) these determine over the literary evidence that those mosaic inscriptions are from the Umayyad era. Rather than supporting the standard Islamic narrative though, they undermine it once the content of the message is recognized as pointing to Christ. This spot had the church of Santa Sophia on it where the rock of Gabbatha with the impressions of Jesus’ footprints were said to have been left during the trial before Pilate. The crusaders and Muslims both had the wrong layout of the Temple Mount. Al Asqua was also a church which was dedicated to St. Mary’s presentation in the temple. The Byzantine mosaic floor of that church was discovered too in the 1930’s after an earthquake damaged Al Asqa.
Anyone asserting or implying there were no Christians fluent in Arabic ignores how the Church quickly learned local languages for missionary purposes, let alone how commerce naturally spread language in ancient and Medieval times. Also, native Christians were active in Arabic likely since St. John of Damascus, but no later than Theodore Abu Qurrah. There were also the Mozarabs of Spain. It's an absurd notion that Christians couldn't read Arabic at the time of the Crusades.
The best part is we all have become good friends, which means we can help each other in various ways. It is all a great blessing. I offer the work up to the Lord.
More likely than not they would have taken at least one Christian from Andalusia with them to the Levant who could speak Arabic, even if it was rudimentary. Its very improbable the Crusaders wouldn't be able to find one person to translate an Arabic text voluntary, for money or even under duress. And if needed via an intermediary language, like for instance Greek.
William of Tyre: What was that, the man couldn't speak Arabic? He was the first documented student from Jerusalem in Europe. He first studied art in Paris, later theology in Orleans and then law in Bologna. The Holy Land has always required various language skills, so why should he have only had a rudimentary knowledge of Arabic? Perhaps the writers simply did not have access to a biography of William of Tyre (Archbishop)?
Totally intrigued me. Got me thinking but it’s not that valuable with my Muslim friends if I can’t back up the sources. I’m only asking because you may already have done the research.
The pilgrim accounts are primary evidence and they do some attempt to be thorough, that some are priests is helpful in establishing that they are truthful witnesses. Ibn Khaldun is highly regarded even beyond islamic circles. www.britannica.com/biography/Ibn-Khaldun/Later-years
Great research. It’s also possible that there were crypto Muslim Jews who engraved those inscriptions like caliph Solomon. I think many Jews joined Muslims so as to gain access to the Temple Mount. It may even be that some of the knights Templar were Jewish even Arab. Didn’t Syrians and other local people become knights and profess to be Christian? Saracens were a mixed bunch. Doesn’t the word mean offspring of Sara? The saracen pirates arising out of revenge for expulsion from Spain etc.
He says that Salah-ad-din destroyed the church,uncovered the Rock,and rebuilt the Mosque.That could be read as,"he rebuilt the Al-Aqsa Mosque".Since the Dome of the Rock isn't a mosque.
Given the Al-Asqa is not over the rock, I can't see how he suddenly switched from talking about one building to another. It could be that he sees it as a mosque even if that's not very precise or not how it is seen today.
If the Crusaders built an actual church on the Rock of the Temple. If Saladin actually destroyed the church to the ground, and constructed a new Dome of the Rock, then Saladin was creator of it, rather than Abd al Malik.
The inscriptions in and of themselves are tangible, historical evidence. Coupled with centuries of traditions, you need tangible, historical evidence to negate it. AJ Deus tried to construct such a case, yet he failed utterly. None of his tangible arguments held up, most of them distorted reality so much as to invert it. Also: The Kufic script fits the bill for the 7th century whereas later inscriptions we’re all done in different scripts. We know that the Dome of the Rock existed before the crusades because some building materials can be dated. So your best argument is: The crusaders would have removed the inscriptions. That is circumstantial at best and isn’t enough to challenge the established view. But the idea that the crusaders would even have recognised the script is also by no means certain. The crusaders were Latin Christians. They never studied Arabic. They didn’t need to. They ran the kingdom of Jerusalem. The Christians who already lived in Jetusalem on the other hand were not Latin. Not only would being able to speak Arabic be rare among them, the ability to read it was ultra-rare. Literacy was low to begin with, let alone among Christians who typically had different liturgical languages (either Greek or Aramaic). But then, the few who could read Arabic probably never got to see the Dome of the Rock anyway. While the Muslims ruled, they weren’t allowed in due to them being Christian. When the Latin crusaders ruled, they were also considered heretics, particularly the Syrian Orthodox Christians, but also the Greek Orthodox ones. The Knights Templar had control over the Temple Mount, having their headquarters in the Al Aqsa Mosque and being in charge over the dome of the Rock. In fact, we know that access to the Dome of the Rock was highly restricted. On top of that, even if access wasn’t heavily restricted, why would any members of the other churches even want to go to a Latin mass? They would have found the idea just as abhorrent. But even ignoring all orchards, there are countless plausible explanations for why the inscriptions would have been left unaltered, like practical considerations or political considerations or something different entirely. Maybe they were covered up, for example with the writings Johann saw. Or they felt that redesigning the Temple was good enough. Or they were first focusing on more low hanging fruit and never got around to changing it before Jerusalem fell, or they valued the inherent beauty of the inscriptions. Lastly, there are plenty of other Islamic buildings which were converted into christian buildings where Arab inscriptions survived: The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Great Mosque of Tripoli, the Mosque in Acre and others in smaller places. So whatever the reason, there clearly was a pattern. Why would the Dome of the Rock necessarily have to break that pattern?
Adam refers to humans, rather than the first man. There is no mention of Eve in Quran. It says, humans are created in 72 tribes. So there was groups of people scattered around the world. You should take out your Biblical glasses if you want to talk Islamic matters. Do you have a catalog of all things Arab Christians did not know? Maybe simply they did not think it was something importatnt to write own for your benefit.
Why do we assume that the Arabic writing is polemic to Christianity? It speaks of Jesus as the Syrian church would understand Him and describe Him. It has nothing to do with the SIN interpretations really…
"So why would Muslims create an inscription in the 15th which is very problematic for the standard islamic faith? Why did Muslims create an inscription that actually addresses non-muslims, people of the book, who cannot even enter the building? (O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)) If it was created in the 15th century, whiy would the creators use such an arcane kufic script, when arabic script had improved considerably?" I think this is evidence to the fact that the inscrpition is not from the 15th century.
@@kilianklaiber6367 , not necessarily. It might be no more than an attempt to imitate a script style that was greatly admired and considered more authentically "Islamic" by later Muslims.
@@kilianklaiber6367, there were many different versions of the Qur'an. Always have been. For all we know, the inscription might be quoting one of those Qur'anic versions perfectly.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
There was no way any Christian Crusaders would have allowed islamic blasphemy to remain anywhere in the Levant.
BINGO!
You mean gnostic blasphemy right?
@@thejoseonone yes, Islam indeed both Gnostic and Arian heresy, Christologically speaking.
Damn Mel, you are fast.
God bless you brother and happy father's day.
Haha, I don't hang around. :)
Great to see you again Mel. Please keep hammering these points.
Nice job Mel. I love this subject. Looking at the material evidence (the building material, architecture, and the mosaic sections typical of the late antique) these determine over the literary evidence that those mosaic inscriptions are from the Umayyad era. Rather than supporting the standard Islamic narrative though, they undermine it once the content of the message is recognized as pointing to Christ. This spot had the church of Santa Sophia on it where the rock of Gabbatha with the impressions of Jesus’ footprints were said to have been left during the trial before Pilate. The crusaders and Muslims both had the wrong layout of the Temple Mount. Al Asqua was also a church which was dedicated to St. Mary’s presentation in the temple. The Byzantine mosaic floor of that church was discovered too in the 1930’s after an earthquake damaged Al Asqa.
Anyone asserting or implying there were no Christians fluent in Arabic ignores how the Church quickly learned local languages for missionary purposes, let alone how commerce naturally spread language in ancient and Medieval times. Also, native Christians were active in Arabic likely since St. John of Damascus, but no later than Theodore Abu Qurrah. There were also the Mozarabs of Spain. It's an absurd notion that Christians couldn't read Arabic at the time of the Crusades.
Thank you Mel.
Fantastic work Mel as always You , LIoyd and Jay are such a Blessing thank you for your deep insights and hard work , God Bless You😊🤍❤🤎🖤
The best part is we all have become good friends, which means we can help each other in various ways. It is all a great blessing. I offer the work up to the Lord.
More likely than not they would have taken at least one Christian from Andalusia with them to the Levant who could speak Arabic, even if it was rudimentary.
Its very improbable the Crusaders wouldn't be able to find one person to translate an Arabic text voluntary, for money or even under duress. And if needed via an intermediary language, like for instance Greek.
Keep on with your blessed works❣️
William of Tyre:
What was that, the man couldn't speak Arabic?
He was the first documented student from Jerusalem in Europe.
He first studied art in Paris, later theology in Orleans and then law in Bologna.
The Holy Land has always required various language skills, so why should he have only had a rudimentary knowledge of Arabic?
Perhaps the writers simply did not have access to a biography of William of Tyre (Archbishop)?
Good topic, thanks!
Excellent video
Great video, thanks Mel and bye bye Islam
Jesus doesn't exist either, or if he did, he's not a supernatural being. All religions are created, why is it so hard for people to accept this.
@@SzTz100 But there were eyewitnesses amigo
@@SzTz100Of course they are created but from what? Reality? You decide based on the earliest information available.
I'm thinking there were plenty of bicycles for Theoderich to consult but no elephant to see.
:)
YOU NEED TO WRITE A BOOK ON THIS AND YOUR RESEARCHES 🎉
How solid are the accounts that you cite? It’s really important to know that.
Totally intrigued me. Got me thinking but it’s not that valuable with my Muslim friends if I can’t back up the sources.
I’m only asking because you may already have done the research.
The pilgrim accounts are primary evidence and they do some attempt to be thorough, that some are priests is helpful in establishing that they are truthful witnesses. Ibn Khaldun is highly regarded even beyond islamic circles. www.britannica.com/biography/Ibn-Khaldun/Later-years
Great research. It’s also possible that there were crypto Muslim Jews who engraved those inscriptions like caliph Solomon. I think many Jews joined Muslims so as to gain access to the Temple Mount. It may even be that some of the knights Templar were Jewish even Arab. Didn’t Syrians and other local people become knights and profess to be Christian? Saracens were a mixed bunch. Doesn’t the word mean offspring of Sara?
The saracen pirates arising out of revenge for expulsion from Spain etc.
He says that Salah-ad-din destroyed the church,uncovered the Rock,and rebuilt the Mosque.That could be read as,"he rebuilt the Al-Aqsa Mosque".Since the Dome of the Rock isn't a mosque.
Given the Al-Asqa is not over the rock, I can't see how he suddenly switched from talking about one building to another. It could be that he sees it as a mosque even if that's not very precise or not how it is seen today.
@@IslamicOrigins He could be talking about the Temple Mount in general.But you have far more knowledge than me.
@@Nelson-oy9oy He is talking about the specific building as far as I can see.
If the Crusaders built an actual church on the Rock of the Temple. If Saladin actually destroyed the church to the ground, and constructed a new Dome of the Rock, then Saladin was creator of it, rather than Abd al Malik.
Acts 2:11 - Arabs were in Jerusalem since at least Pentecost.
The inscriptions in and of themselves are tangible, historical evidence. Coupled with centuries of traditions, you need tangible, historical evidence to negate it. AJ Deus tried to construct such a case, yet he failed utterly. None of his tangible arguments held up, most of them distorted reality so much as to invert it. Also: The Kufic script fits the bill for the 7th century whereas later inscriptions we’re all done in different scripts.
We know that the Dome of the Rock existed before the crusades because some building materials can be dated.
So your best argument is: The crusaders would have removed the inscriptions. That is circumstantial at best and isn’t enough to challenge the established view. But the idea that the crusaders would even have recognised the script is also by no means certain. The crusaders were Latin Christians. They never studied Arabic. They didn’t need to. They ran the kingdom of Jerusalem.
The Christians who already lived in Jetusalem on the other hand were not Latin. Not only would being able to speak Arabic be rare among them, the ability to read it was ultra-rare. Literacy was low to begin with, let alone among Christians who typically had different liturgical languages (either Greek or Aramaic). But then, the few who could read Arabic probably never got to see the Dome of the Rock anyway. While the Muslims ruled, they weren’t allowed in due to them being Christian. When the Latin crusaders ruled, they were also considered heretics, particularly the Syrian Orthodox Christians, but also the Greek Orthodox ones.
The Knights Templar had control over the Temple Mount, having their headquarters in the Al Aqsa Mosque and being in charge over the dome of the Rock. In fact, we know that access to the Dome of the Rock was highly restricted. On top of that, even if access wasn’t heavily restricted, why would any members of the other churches even want to go to a Latin mass? They would have found the idea just as abhorrent.
But even ignoring all orchards, there are countless plausible explanations for why the inscriptions would have been left unaltered, like practical considerations or political considerations or something different entirely. Maybe they were covered up, for example with the writings Johann saw. Or they felt that redesigning the Temple was good enough. Or they were first focusing on more low hanging fruit and never got around to changing it before Jerusalem fell, or they valued the inherent beauty of the inscriptions.
Lastly, there are plenty of other Islamic buildings which were converted into christian buildings where Arab inscriptions survived:
The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Great Mosque of Tripoli, the Mosque in Acre and others in smaller places. So whatever the reason, there clearly was a pattern. Why would the Dome of the Rock necessarily have to break that pattern?
There were Arabic doeaking Christians. So they would have told the crusaders.
Adam refers to humans, rather than the first man. There is no mention of Eve in Quran. It says, humans are created in 72 tribes.
So there was groups of people scattered around the world. You should take out your Biblical glasses if you want to talk Islamic
matters. Do you have a catalog of all things Arab Christians did not know? Maybe simply they did not think it was something importatnt to write own for your benefit.
Why do we assume that the Arabic writing is polemic to Christianity? It speaks of Jesus as the Syrian church would understand Him and describe Him. It has nothing to do with the SIN interpretations really…
Maybe, but maybe not. Islam plagiarized heavily from other religions, including Syrian Christianity.
"So why would Muslims create an inscription in the 15th which is very problematic for the standard islamic faith?
Why did Muslims create an inscription that actually addresses non-muslims, people of the book, who cannot even enter the building? (O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is))
If it was created in the 15th century, whiy would the creators use such an arcane kufic script, when arabic script had improved considerably?"
I think this is evidence to the fact that the inscrpition is not from the 15th century.
Imitating an earlier script style would have lent authenticity to the writing, since Islam idolizes the first generations of Muslims.
@@mysotiras21so you claim that its essentially a forgery?
If its a forgery then why did they Not quote the quran correctly? Why is it such a bad forgery?
@@kilianklaiber6367 , not necessarily. It might be no more than an attempt to imitate a script style that was greatly admired and considered more authentically "Islamic" by later Muslims.
@@kilianklaiber6367, there were many different versions of the Qur'an. Always have been. For all we know, the inscription might be quoting one of those Qur'anic versions perfectly.