A clear and detailed summary of important research. Excellent video. Jay's summary and point by point recap helps clarify a complicated bit of history.
Odon, your work is groundbreaking all very interesting. You can even pierce with your materials „Holes in the narrative”. Can you share your slides, I would love to translate them into my language. 😇
@@OdonLafontaine Thanks - I appreciate the categorical approach that you have taken - it will make disemination much easier for the foot runners - Bravo.
Great work, Odon. Very many thanks for your research and work presenting the data. The term “Christian” (Χριστιανός) appears in the New Testament. As the word “Christ” is from Greek for “messiah” or “anointed”, as you know it does not automatically mean specifically Trinitarian Christian, or Christians who regard Jesus as God along with God the Father (Binitarian); so in distinguishing these from those who believed Jesus was a political messiah (and maybe “son of God” in the sense of God’s messianic agent) but were not trinitarian or binitarian, I think including the word “Trinitarian”, “Binitarian”, and perhaps also “Unitarian”, before the word “Christian”, where relevant, would clarify some distinctions between these Christians of old, if you decide to put this in book-form. This seems somewhat important to acknowledge for historic clarity in following Christian developments. During the first century c.e, a number of Roman Emperors were being referred to as “son of a god/son of the divine” (divi filius) and even as “lord and god” (dominus et deus). Apart from John of the Fourth Gospel, who either was not Jewish (but maybe a Greek recording memoires of the “Dear Disciple”; and who was perhaps the Elder of the John letters, who was still living c. 140 c.e in Asia Minor) or later distanced himself from it, other apostles (including John of the “Revelation”, if one examines the Koine Greek) did not write, or reportedly speak, of Jesus in a way that made him part of a triune or biune deity but, rather, only referred to what Trinitarian Christians would call “God the Father” as God. (Thomas’ exclamation, “My lord and my God”, on seeing Jesus’ wounds is not clearly coalescing the two, or identifying “God” with Jesus.) I would suggest that many early Christians would not have been trinitarian/binitarian and would not have passed these forms on to proselytes.
The term “Christian” (Χριστιανός) was given to "disciples", at a time when there was no question about "trinity" (a greek-latin conceptualisation of what the Aramaic gospels say in a much simpler way) or about "unitarism". Those issues emerged decades after the beginning of the apostles times.
The trinity is not aa new idea to Judaism if you study First Temple beliefs, traditions and practices. Until the end of the seventh century BCE, when a movement influenced by the ideals of Deuteronomy came to dominate the religion of Judah and Jerusalem, there had been not only God Most High but also his sons, the great angels. The Firstborn of these angels was YHWH, who was appointed the guardian of Jacob/Israel. When the Old Testament is read with the presupposition that it is about ONE God, it is assumed that all the various titles-God Most High, YHWH, El, ’elohim and so on-refer to the ONE God. But this is not the case. Texts in the Second Isaiah, who lived shortly after the changes in Jerusalem introduced under King Josiah at the end of the seventh century BCE (2 Kings 23), show that both the names and the theologies were changing. Belief in God Most High and his son YHWH was being replaced by the monotheism that we now regard as familiar. King Josiah "reformed" temple practices by the sword to conform to monotheism. Dr Margaret Barker the foremost expert on First Temple theology writes about this in depth.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Thank you for your comment. I think messianic theology in present-day Orthodox Judaism reflects what you are saying about trinity not being a new idea (I do not recall exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote the comment above but think I had not grasped this). As I understand it now, the Messianic Angel, the Son, would be regarded as ‘divine’ and of the same essence (homoousios) as God the Father (Ein, אֵין, linguisitically the negative particle; Ein Soph, אֵין סוֹף, “Limitless”; Or Ein Soph, אוֹר אֵין סוֹף, “Limitless Light”) but subordinate to the Father. This messianic being walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, spoke to Noah, came to Abraham as three visitors, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, appeared as a column of fire, appeared to Joshua as a soldier holding a sword, and so on. Regarding Jesus as another occurrence of that same angel is not ‘heretical’ from the perspective of that theology (which may not be quite the dyophysite perspective of the Roman Catholic (and descendants) Trinity). As you mention, there are other names for the Messianic Angel… In the panentheist Jewish Qabalah and other Judaic sources, is Archangel Metatron (?Yahoel), sometimes called “the lesser YHVH” (YHVH ha-katan, יהוה הַקָטָן) or “lesser Lord” (adonai ha-katan, אֲדֹנָי הַקָטָן) and “Prince of the Face” (Sar ha-Panim, שַׂר הַפָּנִים). In the Rosh HaShanah (New Year) prayer book is mention of “Yeshua Sar ha-Panim”: Joe of Bei Abedan (formerly Red Judaism) has remarked that here “Yeshua” (יֵשׁוּעַ) is in the form of a proper name, and is not the noun for “salvation”, providing some interesting explanations.
I am not sure if you are familiar with this hadith, but this is what came to mind when you said that kufr means coverers, referring to Jews covering the truth: A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Messenger on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." `Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Messenger, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn `Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. Url: sunnah [dot com] / bukhari : 6819 I changed the url so UA-cam wouldn't flag this comment as spam.
Je ne sais si c'est le gospel spirit, mais je comprends un peu mieux odon Lafontaine en anglais car il parle plus lentement et articule mieux. Cela rend sa thèse d'autant plus convinquante. Bravo à lui. Tout musulman devrait le remercier pour redonner sa cohérence au coran.
Je vois cependant une objection dans votre histoire de la conquête de Jérusalem par les chrétiens et l'armée du prophète, c'est que jerusalem était déjà chrétienne (empire byzantin). Dans ces conditions, pourquoi les chrétiens nazoreins auraient ils eu besoin de reprendre la ville avec les troupes de mohammed ?
Je vous invite odon vallee et les autres spectateurs à voir le DHEH 18 à propos de l'Arabie pré islamique. La langue grecque répandue en mer rouge grâce au Royaume ethiopien d'axum. On y apprend que le judaïsme aurait été très répandu chez les arabes rivalisant avec les chrétiens. J'aimerais avoir votre retour à ce sujet.
oui, c'st connu parmi les chercheurs Vous pouvez lire "Le trone d'Adoulis", livre écrit par un historien sur le royaume d'Axoum (Ethiopie) et les luttes avec le royaume juif du Yémen
The Byzantines might have facilitated the spreading of Judaeo-nazarene propaganda among the Arab auxiliaries of Persia during the Byzantine-Sassanid war. "Might"
@@OdonLafontaine It was around the 800-900 Ad time if it occurred. Thank you for helping us fill the Holes in the Narrative. I saw a teaching in it a long time ago.
Bonjour, vous pouvez avoir des sous-titres en français, il faut bidouiller en cliquant sur la petite icône "sous-titres" en bas à droite de la vidéo, puis sur "options", ce n'est pas simple mais j'y suis arrivée. Bonne lecture.
@@volubilis7307 oui, ca marche c'est cependant une traduction automatique (donc bof bof) faite sur la translitération automatique (donc bof bof) des propos tenus en anglais
@@OdonLafontaine Bonjour ! Oui, je sais, la traduction est parfois approximative mais c'est mieux que rien, je comprends et lis assez bien l'anglais mais je suis beaucoup plus à l'aise en français (de France et de la Belle Province, salut à nos "cousins"). Je suis un prof agrégé depuis peu en retraite, athée bien qu'issue d'ancêtres catholiques, juifs et athées, en octobre 2001 j'ai lu le coran et ai été horrifiée, depuis je lis beaucoup sur l'islam et l'histoire des religions juive et chrétienne, et des essais et des ouvrages de philosophie, j'ai lu aussi des livres de Stephen Hawking et Richard Dawkins, j'ai publié quelques articles, je "balance" des idées sur les forums youtube, j'aime énormément vos vidéos même si je préférerais un format plus court et plus fréquent. Merci de votre attention et bonne continuation à vous, avec mes meilleures pensées.
It s pretty hazardous to build such brilliant construct according to the current conclusions of the archeology and the linguistics. Sadly, the shadows of eurocentric prejudices still hover on your theory. As Arabs were unable to find alone their way to monotheism like their neighbors . It s true, Arabs were in the Levant and in Mesopotamia since the Assyrian empire. The emperor of Rome Philip was called the Arab...However, it s unthinkable to talk about the rise of Islam without the Arabic peninsula and idiom. You admit that the first Muslims were caravaneer merchants, it s an important linguistic evidence in the Coran. But you forget that Qoraich was nomad tribe also. The Yémen played a great role in the beginning of Islam, it was conquered with Oman before Jerusalem. "Mouchrikounes" mean a form of monotheism whish represent some divinities as intermediates between people and God and they are the first target of the jihad. The Coran sounds blaming them for forgetting the uniqueness God because Arabs, there, were informed of one God since Salomon and the Queen of Saba and probably of the adnani descents of Abraham. The existence of some cities like Mecca and Yatrib...is more than possible. If you have some doubts about this, wonder that in the X century, populous tribes, Banou Hilal and Banou Soulayme leaved the Hijaz and the Najd because a change cycle of drought and the calif Fatimide in Egypt sent them to the Maghreb and they arabised this region. Probably the same demographic change had prevailed in the conquest of Islam.
What is hazardous is to rely only on a narrative that was written centuries after the facts and to ignore all that we happen to know now about the actual context of the facts, about the actual 7th century. 1) Arabs were not "unable to find alone their way to monotheism like their neighbors". You do not want to look at it because it contradicts the Islamic narrative, but it is there nonetheless: Arabs had all been christianized in the 7th cent. There is absolutely no source, no archeological remain of any active Arab pagan cult in the 7th. cent. There are thousands of archeological remains, inscriptions and sources proving they were Christians, or that they had been christianized. 2) The focus on the Hijaz that is imposed by the Islamic narrative does not stand. Nothing has been found here. All of earliest evidence comes from much farther north, particularly the earliest quranic fragments. Nothing can live and endure there outside of the oasis. You just proved the point with the story of Banou Hilal and Banou Soulayme. As for the rest, please listen to what I said. I already answered.
@@OdonLafontaine Seeking archeological evidences of the jahiliyya era is very complicate. The reason is dogmatic essentially. Islam gushed forth in the history as a revolution. Its firth mission was the give Arabs the best religion and to break out with paganism whish was perceived by the elite marchant as shameful. Like Talibans with the Bouddha's statue of Bamyan or Daech with Palmyre, first Muslims were very antipathic to the residues of ancient idolatry. Other reasons came from the destructive campaigns of wahhabites of any track of soufisme in Arabie whish means the breakage with ancestral cultes. Also the Saudi regime prohibited the excavation and the visit of western archeologues for centuries. First Muslims and Mahomet among them lived in messianic conviction that they will survive to the Messy and the last judgement so they did not consider the necessity to write, build, creat.. Curiously when the jihad and the conquest stopped with the Abbassid the oral patrimony took form in the books. This mouvement fits with all other historical phenomenons.
@@mohammedchebli5891 yet the remains of the Arab paganism are not destroyed. They still exist nowadays, in Petra or in Hegra for example, and elsewhere. They have not been destroyed (or all destroyed) by Islam. But there is nothing to prove that pagan cults were active in the 7th cent, whereas we have found thousands of churches, monasteries, synagogs, inscriptions... And all the sources converge towards the same description of Arabs being Christians or having been christianized in the 7th cent. (some of them being Jews or judaized). The jahiliya only exist in the very late Islamic narratives, which furthermore contradict the literal meaning of the quranic text (no pagans in this text, only Christians being accused of being "associationists"). You can create a false narrative, but you cannot create a whole false history, with false sources, false archeological remains, false inscriptions, false relics, etc. Which is why we find nothing about the so called jahiliya. The Islamic narrative has nothing to rely on whereas the new narrative that emerges thanks to recent historical discoveries relies on solid ground. You'll have to live with it;
@@OdonLafontaine I think associanism or "achirk"is polysemic word and a derogatory accusation whish can't go further than a suspicion of heresy or blasphemy. Salafists accuse marabotics of chirk, soufists accuse salafists of chirk because they deify the prophet and his compagnions...like the accusation of hypocrisy for example and so on. Since there was a tribal society in Arabia, never unified before, we can't talk about dominant religion or official dogme or church. They were christians but Scattered and persecuted in some areas as in Najrane in south Arabia " ashab Al oukhdoud", their martyrdom is mentioned in the Coran and the perpetrator was pagan. Before Islam Arabia was tribal and chaotic (a part in the months of horom with the consensual and traditional peace )so deeply multi-confessional. The jahiliyya is an Islamic concept rather than an historical period. It serves, still now, to prevent the Muslim to acte like ancient unbelievers. For example, youth are told that tattoo is jahili practice. Some historians compare jahiliyya to the Homeric times but I think is more a reaction to very brutal archaic monotheism that Islam wanted to resurrect again.
@@mohammedchebli5891 "Shirk" in the 7th cent. and before was not polysemic. It was specifically used by "strict monotheists" (especially Jews) to criticize the Christian faith. What Salafists do nowadays is not relevant in the 7th cent. context. Besides, Arabs had been united before Islam. There were traditionnally 2 major "federations" (Ghassanids and Lakhmids). A completely united Arab federation even emerged at the end of the 6th cent, under the authority of Christian Arab king Al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir. He was the "king of all the Arabs of the empires of Persia and Byzantium", and was baptised in 594. He was the leader of the Lakhmids, who had extended his authority to "all Arabs" (including Ghassanids) before being assassinated shortly after his baptism by the Persians, thus provoking the "revolt and dispersion of all Arabs" (according to the Chronicle of Serts, also known as Nestorian History - cf. Robert Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, Oxford University Press, 2015). Jahiliyya is not an historical fact but an ideological claim. Since Islam must have had been a progress, pre-islamic society must have had been barbaric, otherwise there would not have been any progress (hence the stories about baby girls being buried alive, and so on). This is exactly the same with the invention of the so-called "Dark Ages" to justify the progress that the "Enlightnment" supporters claim.
If you were an Arabic speaker you will avoid to bring the exemple of " géhenne" to debate on the origine judeo-nazareen of the primitive Islam. There are nine authentically Arabic synonyms of géhenne mentioned in the Coran, the ante-islamic poetry and the oral traditions...: Alhoutama, sakar, saiir, sajine...and we don't know whish was the loan from the Hebraic liturgy of the term "géhenne": jahanname or jahime. All those synonyms refer to " the place where people will expiate and be chastised for their sins after the death" some thing like " Hades" in Hellenistic mythology. All those synonyms have absolutely no semantic links with the extreme climatic condition of the sun or the heath. The Arabs had also the choice to describe that place that involves the idea of the fire and the punishment by all the numerous synonyms of "fire" or all the metaphoric or metonymic allusions of it.
I don't think the Judaeo-Nazarenes were the ones who introduced Gehenna in Arabic. It is a common Christian word. It just shows that the Arab society had been christianised.
Bonjour Odon, j'ai un problème avec un élément de la fin de cette vidéo : il me semble avec très peu de doutes que pour les musulmans de France issue d'Algérie que j'ai connus au cours de mon existence, ainsi que des étudiants encore civilement algériens, "kouffar" ne désigne pas du tout une communauté de croyants mais au contraire, le terme désigne strictement les athées.
C'est peut-être une dérive récente et il est probable qu'à l'époque de la construction du narratif islamique, il n'y avait pas d'athées, ainsi tous les "mécréants", alias "kouffars" désignaient alors ceux qui ne partageaient pas la vision islamique d'Allah, mais par la suite, peut-être sur le tard, avec l'apparition de l'athéisme à partir du 18ème, les gens du livre ont été considérés comme des croyants en Allah qui s'ignorent, ce qui est moins grave que de ne pas croire du tout en Dieu, grief qui finira avec le temps par emporter à lui seul l'emploi courant de la terminologie. C'est curieux comme un mot commençant par signifier talmudiste puisse finir son histoire en signifiant athée.
A clear and detailed summary of important research. Excellent video. Jay's summary and point by point recap helps clarify a complicated bit of history.
Bravo Odon! Very well done. Thank you for all your work.
I can’t wait for more English content ❤️❤️
Here it is: ua-cam.com/video/oMiZeGfKPhM/v-deo.html
And new videos with Jay will be released soon
0:14 " he bas returned ".......👌👌👌
Joseph Smith used place names from his childroom area in New York State for names in his Book of Mormon.
really?
Odon, your work is groundbreaking all very interesting. You can even pierce with your materials „Holes in the narrative”. Can you share your slides, I would love to translate them into my language. 😇
I am putting them on my english website today: www.thegreatsecretofislam.com
@@OdonLafontaine Got it thanks 😇
@@OdonLafontaine Thanks - I appreciate the categorical approach that you have taken - it will make disemination much easier for the foot runners - Bravo.
Great work, Odon. Very many thanks for your research and work presenting the data. The term “Christian” (Χριστιανός) appears in the New Testament. As the word “Christ” is from Greek for “messiah” or “anointed”, as you know it does not automatically mean specifically Trinitarian Christian, or Christians who regard Jesus as God along with God the Father (Binitarian); so in distinguishing these from those who believed Jesus was a political messiah (and maybe “son of God” in the sense of God’s messianic agent) but were not trinitarian or binitarian, I think including the word “Trinitarian”, “Binitarian”, and perhaps also “Unitarian”, before the word “Christian”, where relevant, would clarify some distinctions between these Christians of old, if you decide to put this in book-form. This seems somewhat important to acknowledge for historic clarity in following Christian developments. During the first century c.e, a number of Roman Emperors were being referred to as “son of a god/son of the divine” (divi filius) and even as “lord and god” (dominus et deus). Apart from John of the Fourth Gospel, who either was not Jewish (but maybe a Greek recording memoires of the “Dear Disciple”; and who was perhaps the Elder of the John letters, who was still living c. 140 c.e in Asia Minor) or later distanced himself from it, other apostles (including John of the “Revelation”, if one examines the Koine Greek) did not write, or reportedly speak, of Jesus in a way that made him part of a triune or biune deity but, rather, only referred to what Trinitarian Christians would call “God the Father” as God. (Thomas’ exclamation, “My lord and my God”, on seeing Jesus’ wounds is not clearly coalescing the two, or identifying “God” with Jesus.) I would suggest that many early Christians would not have been trinitarian/binitarian and would not have passed these forms on to proselytes.
The term “Christian” (Χριστιανός) was given to "disciples", at a time when there was no question about "trinity" (a greek-latin conceptualisation of what the Aramaic gospels say in a much simpler way) or about "unitarism". Those issues emerged decades after the beginning of the apostles times.
The trinity is not aa new idea to Judaism if you study First Temple beliefs, traditions and practices. Until the end of the seventh century BCE, when a movement influenced by the ideals of Deuteronomy came to dominate the religion of Judah and Jerusalem, there had been not only God Most High but also his sons, the great angels. The Firstborn of these angels was YHWH, who was appointed the guardian of Jacob/Israel.
When the Old Testament is read with the presupposition that it is about ONE God, it is assumed that all the various titles-God Most High, YHWH, El, ’elohim and so on-refer to the ONE God. But this is not the case.
Texts in the Second Isaiah, who lived shortly after the changes in Jerusalem introduced under King Josiah at the end of the seventh century BCE (2 Kings 23), show that both the names and the theologies were changing. Belief in God Most High and his son YHWH was being replaced by the monotheism that we now regard as familiar.
King Josiah "reformed" temple practices by the sword to conform to monotheism. Dr Margaret Barker the foremost expert on First Temple theology writes about this in depth.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Thank you for your comment. I think messianic theology in present-day Orthodox Judaism reflects what you are saying about trinity not being a new idea (I do not recall exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote the comment above but think I had not grasped this). As I understand it now, the Messianic Angel, the Son, would be regarded as ‘divine’ and of the same essence (homoousios) as God the Father (Ein, אֵין, linguisitically the negative particle; Ein Soph, אֵין סוֹף, “Limitless”; Or Ein Soph, אוֹר אֵין סוֹף, “Limitless Light”) but subordinate to the Father. This messianic being walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, spoke to Noah, came to Abraham as three visitors, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, appeared as a column of fire, appeared to Joshua as a soldier holding a sword, and so on. Regarding Jesus as another occurrence of that same angel is not ‘heretical’ from the perspective of that theology (which may not be quite the dyophysite perspective of the Roman Catholic (and descendants) Trinity). As you mention, there are other names for the Messianic Angel… In the panentheist Jewish Qabalah and other Judaic sources, is Archangel Metatron (?Yahoel), sometimes called “the lesser YHVH” (YHVH ha-katan, יהוה הַקָטָן) or “lesser Lord” (adonai ha-katan, אֲדֹנָי הַקָטָן) and “Prince of the Face” (Sar ha-Panim, שַׂר הַפָּנִים). In the Rosh HaShanah (New Year) prayer book is mention of “Yeshua Sar ha-Panim”: Joe of Bei Abedan (formerly Red Judaism) has remarked that here “Yeshua” (יֵשׁוּעַ) is in the form of a proper name, and is not the noun for “salvation”, providing some interesting explanations.
Odon you are my favorite
I am not sure if you are familiar with this hadith, but this is what came to mind when you said that kufr means coverers, referring to Jews covering the truth:
A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Messenger on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." `Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Messenger, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn `Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.
Url:
sunnah [dot com] / bukhari : 6819
I changed the url so UA-cam wouldn't flag this comment as spam.
I would love to see Odon and Jay back in speakers Corner against the Muslim dawah team.
Impressionant
ODON … I am an expert in this field …and your thesis is brilliant
Tx!
Je ne sais si c'est le gospel spirit, mais je comprends un peu mieux odon Lafontaine en anglais car il parle plus lentement et articule mieux. Cela rend sa thèse d'autant plus convinquante. Bravo à lui. Tout musulman devrait le remercier pour redonner sa cohérence au coran.
Je vois cependant une objection dans votre histoire de la conquête de Jérusalem par les chrétiens et l'armée du prophète, c'est que jerusalem était déjà chrétienne (empire byzantin). Dans ces conditions, pourquoi les chrétiens nazoreins auraient ils eu besoin de reprendre la ville avec les troupes de mohammed ?
Je vous invite odon vallee et les autres spectateurs à voir le DHEH 18 à propos de l'Arabie pré islamique. La langue grecque répandue en mer rouge grâce au Royaume ethiopien d'axum. On y apprend que le judaïsme aurait été très répandu chez les arabes rivalisant avec les chrétiens. J'aimerais avoir votre retour à ce sujet.
oui, c'st connu parmi les chercheurs
Vous pouvez lire "Le trone d'Adoulis", livre écrit par un historien sur le royaume d'Axoum (Ethiopie) et les luttes avec le royaume juif du Yémen
Filling the Holes in the Narrative. Now we know why the third Caliph Burned the originals. Is it true Rome had a hand in creating the Quran and Islam?
No, why would Rome create an enemy that robbed it of over 60% of its Empire?
The Byzantines might have facilitated the spreading of Judaeo-nazarene propaganda among the Arab auxiliaries of Persia during the Byzantine-Sassanid war. "Might"
@@OdonLafontaine Do you think these Arab auxiliaries of the Persians were the Tayeye who formed the Arab Empire?
@@RedWolf75 EDIT : Tayyaye were traditional allies of the Lakhmids, I think
@@OdonLafontaine It was around the 800-900 Ad time if it occurred. Thank you for helping us fill the Holes in the Narrative. I saw a teaching in it a long time ago.
Thanks Odon. Didn’t the Nusair group came to be known as the Alawaite sect in Lathikiyta?
Pourrons nous l’avoir en français ?
Bonjour, vous pouvez avoir des sous-titres en français, il faut bidouiller en cliquant sur la petite icône "sous-titres" en bas à droite de la vidéo, puis sur "options", ce n'est pas simple mais j'y suis arrivée. Bonne lecture.
@@volubilis7307 je vais essayer merci
@@volubilis7307 oui, ca marche
c'est cependant une traduction automatique (donc bof bof) faite sur la translitération automatique (donc bof bof) des propos tenus en anglais
@@OdonLafontaine Bonjour ! Oui, je sais, la traduction est parfois approximative mais c'est mieux que rien, je comprends et lis assez bien l'anglais mais je suis beaucoup plus à l'aise en français (de France et de la Belle Province, salut à nos "cousins"). Je suis un prof agrégé depuis peu en retraite, athée bien qu'issue d'ancêtres catholiques, juifs et athées, en octobre 2001 j'ai lu le coran et ai été horrifiée, depuis je lis beaucoup sur l'islam et l'histoire des religions juive et chrétienne, et des essais et des ouvrages de philosophie, j'ai lu aussi des livres de Stephen Hawking et Richard Dawkins, j'ai publié quelques articles, je "balance" des idées sur les forums youtube, j'aime énormément vos vidéos même si je préférerais un format plus court et plus fréquent. Merci de votre attention et bonne continuation à vous, avec mes meilleures pensées.
Odon is the Best !!!!!
It s pretty hazardous to build such brilliant construct according to the current conclusions of the archeology and the linguistics. Sadly, the shadows of eurocentric prejudices still hover on your theory. As Arabs were unable to find alone their way to monotheism like their neighbors . It s true, Arabs were in the Levant and in Mesopotamia since the Assyrian empire. The emperor of Rome Philip was called the Arab...However, it s unthinkable to talk about the rise of Islam without the Arabic peninsula and idiom. You admit that the first Muslims were caravaneer merchants, it s an important linguistic evidence in the Coran. But you forget that Qoraich was nomad tribe also. The Yémen played a great role in the beginning of Islam, it was conquered with Oman before Jerusalem. "Mouchrikounes" mean a form of monotheism whish represent some divinities as intermediates between people and God and they are the first target of the jihad. The Coran sounds blaming them for forgetting the uniqueness God because Arabs, there, were informed of one God since Salomon and the Queen of Saba and probably of the adnani descents of Abraham. The existence of some cities like Mecca and Yatrib...is more than possible. If you have some doubts about this, wonder that in the X century, populous tribes, Banou Hilal and Banou Soulayme leaved the Hijaz and the Najd because a change cycle of drought and the calif Fatimide in Egypt sent them to the Maghreb and they arabised this region. Probably the same demographic change had prevailed in the conquest of Islam.
What is hazardous is to rely only on a narrative that was written centuries after the facts and to ignore all that we happen to know now about the actual context of the facts, about the actual 7th century.
1) Arabs were not "unable to find alone their way to monotheism like their neighbors". You do not want to look at it because it contradicts the Islamic narrative, but it is there nonetheless: Arabs had all been christianized in the 7th cent. There is absolutely no source, no archeological remain of any active Arab pagan cult in the 7th. cent. There are thousands of archeological remains, inscriptions and sources proving they were Christians, or that they had been christianized.
2) The focus on the Hijaz that is imposed by the Islamic narrative does not stand. Nothing has been found here. All of earliest evidence comes from much farther north, particularly the earliest quranic fragments. Nothing can live and endure there outside of the oasis. You just proved the point with the story of Banou Hilal and Banou Soulayme.
As for the rest, please listen to what I said. I already answered.
@@OdonLafontaine Seeking archeological evidences of the jahiliyya era is very complicate. The reason is dogmatic essentially. Islam gushed forth in the history as a revolution. Its firth mission was the give Arabs the best religion and to break out with paganism whish was perceived by the elite marchant as shameful. Like Talibans with the Bouddha's statue of Bamyan or Daech with Palmyre, first Muslims were very antipathic to the residues of ancient idolatry. Other reasons came from the destructive campaigns of wahhabites of any track of soufisme in Arabie whish means the breakage with ancestral cultes. Also the Saudi regime prohibited the excavation and the visit of western archeologues for centuries. First Muslims and Mahomet among them lived in messianic conviction that they will survive to the Messy and the last judgement so they did not consider the necessity to write, build, creat.. Curiously when the jihad and the conquest stopped with the Abbassid the oral patrimony took form in the books. This mouvement fits with all other historical phenomenons.
@@mohammedchebli5891 yet the remains of the Arab paganism are not destroyed. They still exist nowadays, in Petra or in Hegra for example, and elsewhere. They have not been destroyed (or all destroyed) by Islam. But there is nothing to prove that pagan cults were active in the 7th cent, whereas we have found thousands of churches, monasteries, synagogs, inscriptions... And all the sources converge towards the same description of Arabs being Christians or having been christianized in the 7th cent. (some of them being Jews or judaized).
The jahiliya only exist in the very late Islamic narratives, which furthermore contradict the literal meaning of the quranic text (no pagans in this text, only Christians being accused of being "associationists").
You can create a false narrative, but you cannot create a whole false history, with false sources, false archeological remains, false inscriptions, false relics, etc. Which is why we find nothing about the so called jahiliya.
The Islamic narrative has nothing to rely on whereas the new narrative that emerges thanks to recent historical discoveries relies on solid ground. You'll have to live with it;
@@OdonLafontaine I think associanism or "achirk"is polysemic word and a derogatory accusation whish can't go further than a suspicion of heresy or blasphemy. Salafists accuse marabotics of chirk, soufists accuse salafists of chirk because they deify the prophet and his compagnions...like the accusation of hypocrisy for example and so on. Since there was a tribal society in Arabia, never unified before, we can't talk about dominant religion or official dogme or church. They were christians but Scattered and persecuted in some areas as in Najrane in south Arabia " ashab Al oukhdoud", their martyrdom is mentioned in the Coran and the perpetrator was pagan. Before Islam Arabia was tribal and chaotic (a part in the months of horom with the consensual and traditional peace )so deeply multi-confessional. The jahiliyya is an Islamic concept rather than an historical period. It serves, still now, to prevent the Muslim to acte like ancient unbelievers. For example, youth are told that tattoo is jahili practice. Some historians compare jahiliyya to the Homeric times but I think is more a reaction to very brutal archaic monotheism that Islam wanted to resurrect again.
@@mohammedchebli5891 "Shirk" in the 7th cent. and before was not polysemic. It was specifically used by "strict monotheists" (especially Jews) to criticize the Christian faith. What Salafists do nowadays is not relevant in the 7th cent. context.
Besides, Arabs had been united before Islam. There were traditionnally 2 major "federations" (Ghassanids and Lakhmids). A completely united Arab federation even emerged at the end of the 6th cent, under the authority of Christian Arab king Al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir. He was the "king of all the Arabs of the empires of Persia and Byzantium", and was baptised in 594. He was the leader of the Lakhmids, who had extended his authority to "all Arabs" (including Ghassanids) before being assassinated shortly after his baptism by the Persians, thus provoking the "revolt and dispersion of all Arabs" (according to the Chronicle of Serts, also known as Nestorian History - cf. Robert Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, Oxford University Press, 2015).
Jahiliyya is not an historical fact but an ideological claim. Since Islam must have had been a progress, pre-islamic society must have had been barbaric, otherwise there would not have been any progress (hence the stories about baby girls being buried alive, and so on). This is exactly the same with the invention of the so-called "Dark Ages" to justify the progress that the "Enlightnment" supporters claim.
If you were an Arabic speaker you will avoid to bring the exemple of " géhenne" to debate on the origine judeo-nazareen of the primitive Islam. There are nine authentically Arabic synonyms of géhenne mentioned in the Coran, the ante-islamic poetry and the oral traditions...: Alhoutama, sakar, saiir, sajine...and we don't know whish was the loan from the Hebraic liturgy of the term "géhenne": jahanname or jahime. All those synonyms refer to " the place where people will expiate and be chastised for their sins after the death" some thing like " Hades" in Hellenistic mythology. All those synonyms have absolutely no semantic links with the extreme climatic condition of the sun or the heath. The Arabs had also the choice to describe that place that involves the idea of the fire and the punishment by all the numerous synonyms of "fire" or all the metaphoric or metonymic allusions of it.
I don't think the Judaeo-Nazarenes were the ones who introduced Gehenna in Arabic. It is a common Christian word. It just shows that the Arab society had been christianised.
Bonjour Odon, j'ai un problème avec un élément de la fin de cette vidéo : il me semble avec très peu de doutes que pour les musulmans de France issue d'Algérie que j'ai connus au cours de mon existence, ainsi que des étudiants encore civilement algériens, "kouffar" ne désigne pas du tout une communauté de croyants mais au contraire, le terme désigne strictement les athées.
C'est peut-être une dérive récente et il est probable qu'à l'époque de la construction du narratif islamique, il n'y avait pas d'athées, ainsi tous les "mécréants", alias "kouffars" désignaient alors ceux qui ne partageaient pas la vision islamique d'Allah, mais par la suite, peut-être sur le tard, avec l'apparition de l'athéisme à partir du 18ème, les gens du livre ont été considérés comme des croyants en Allah qui s'ignorent, ce qui est moins grave que de ne pas croire du tout en Dieu, grief qui finira avec le temps par emporter à lui seul l'emploi courant de la terminologie. C'est curieux comme un mot commençant par signifier talmudiste puisse finir son histoire en signifiant athée.
Ref ✌👍
😂😂😂