Amazing! The original octagonal structure of the later Dome of the Rock was build by Abd al-Malik from 685 on when Islam was still just a branch of Christianity. This presentation fits perfectly with the revisionist islamic vision of the 'SIN-sifters'. Great video again Thomas!
@@juddullahlatiif839 why? I know history already. I know greek and I can read hebrew with a hebrew alphabet cheatsheet. Why do I need to study the arabic? I only need many details in history explained.
@@pinoydataanalyst1705 you have to study everything to show thyself approved the Arabic of the Quran has not changed only the English translation don't give me that stuff about you only need a little of this and that you are very biased and can not do your own studying get an Arabic lexicon and then break down Quran I challenge you to do so
It is obvious no one in here has any knowledge of a Arabic lexicon for those who don't speak Arabic I challenge any one of you to get a lexicon and do your own research
@@juddullahlatiif839 I don't need to study arabic. I only need to study history. and this series connected the dots i know about the history in the middle east. you want to argue about the language? argue arabic with Al Fadi, he's a native speaker. He knows arabic more than you. There are other apologists in this channel that speaks arabic, lke Murad. Funny, language is your only argument with everything that was presented in this series?
Brilliant 🤩 Series.. Where have you been we have missed you.. Because of you I’m now reading a lot of books on the original origins of early Islam and they are very far away from the standard Islamic narrative.. It’s clear to see now that Islam sprang from non trinitarian Christianity. I’m sure Muslims are going to be in for a massive shock in the future… This is going to bust Islam.
I have now watched all these very excellent videos. Concise, clearly captioned, your voice is easy on the ears and they aren't too long. Best of all, I have learned many new elements on the origins of Islam. So thank you very much and I look forward to many more. Rgds, Euphrosene
Really interesting, thanks so much! I've decided to learn something new every day (and sometimes write it down), and this was today's lesson. I'm sure your channel will be on my list again soon. 👩🏻🎓
I just read a paper by Thomas Lewin from 1873, that concluded that the spot was at the Acra above the Temple area where Hadrian placed a statue of Jupiter, it being the highest elevated point where mandatory to Temple building practice , the statue of the god had to be placed. The columns we see today placed at the eight gates are remnants or a rebuilding of the columns of that ancient temple. Hadrian didn’t live long enough after the barkockba revolt and founding of Aelia Capitolina to complete a temple, so his successor did it, making a temple in the round like the one in Diocletian’s palace in Croatia. These are some speculations that might be helpful for figuring it out I hope.
I saw a clip which showed that the wall writing attributing the building of the DofR to Abdolmalek Marwan was subsequently changed to show Ma’mun as the builder. It also showed a wall design in the DofR which was exactly the design of Sassanid coin (Khosrav ll). Can you please comment on these, specially the wall design.
Hi Thomas, I saw the following to mecca existing in the 4th century: "according to historical documents, the Khuzaa’h tribe from Yemen built Mecca in the 4th century AD [Al-Azraqi, Kitab Akhbar Makka, Vol. 1, p. 6]. The king Abu Karb Asa’d led this, who reigned over Yemen in 410-435 A.D, built the Kaaba similar to the Kaaba found in Yemen [A. Jamme. W. F, Sabean Inscriptions from Mehram Bilqis (Ma’rib), the John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1962, vol. III, p. 387]." I can't see any reference to this in your video archives but I'm sure you know about it. Can you point me to a useful review/analysis of this and what it's significance is?
@@whatistheevidence370 Yeah sure, I tried to keep my short comment understandable also for non-German speaking participants... 😊👍 English and German really do seem to be more similar than you might think. And your ability to understand my sentence is the answer to the question in your name. Cheers! 💕
@@whatistheevidence370 You should sub to Simon Roper's channel ua-cam.com/channels/hnRk6mxWsSOGElm8phdSxw.html if you're interested in this topic. He covers this to some extent in his videos on proto-Germanic and old English.
Greetings Thomas, I was wondering if you could answer or do a video on how the Sunni-Shia split was formed and answer questions regarding this matter such as: Why the Shia despise so much the first three Rashidun Caliphs, many of the Sahabah (ie Khalid ibn al-Walid, Muawiyah l etc), Aisha, one of the well known wives of Muhammad. Also how the Shia have different hadith books and how the conflict between Ali's family and the Ummayads was formed. It would be helpful too if you could answer or do a video on how the terms Ishmaelite, Saracen and Hagarene were used before the rise of the SIN. Best regards.
These are the some of the big question marks for me. I find it very hard to make sense of the Sunni-Shia split in the context of this theory. The notion that a massive sectarian split emerged because of an imagined political rift amongst the imagined companions and family members of an imagined prophet strains credulity for me. You need people on opposing sides to accept the same invented set of relationships and grievances and historical episodes for that split to exist, which doesn't seem likely to me. Likewise, I find it hard to make sense of a massive undocumented religious conversion amongst the Arabs from anti-trinitarian Christianity to Islam. Just as I'd expect more evidence for the historical Muhammad, I'd expect evidence of significant dissent and division arising from the shift from Muhammad I to Muhammad II.
Would it make more sense of the myths if the Canaanite and other Pagan shrines that often were taken over by the Jews and Christians are also taken into account? Several temple floor plans are using geometrical shapes associated with various Gods, there is a Hexagonal mosaic floor in a temple in Harran(?) ..sorry I can't remember which God it is dedicated to. Thank you for these very interesting and enlightening lectures .
That's very difficult to say. AFAIK, there have never been proper archaeological excavations which could have given us anything concrete. And if there was something, it would havee been destroyed when all those modern buildings were erected. But even if Mecca existed by the 7th century, it would have been a tiny settlement, not a great trading hub. Patricia Crone's argument is solid on that count. Even if she underestimated the role caravans played at that time (which she probably did), Mecca is out of the way and beyond a massive mountain range, not to mention the lack of water there. Why would a caravan take a difficult and dangerous detour where there's no food and very little water? The odd caravan may take the detour in order to visit the Kaaba, but many other cities also had pagan sanctuaries, most notably Ta'if which was much better situated and rather fertile.
@@TAlexander You mention about the possibility of the occasional caravan visit to the Kaaba, but if it was a tiny settlement in the 7th century, would the Kaaba have been there? Thanks in advance, the very best Simon
@@simonhengle8316 Well, there would have been a sanctuary. Whether or not it would have looked like the Kaaba today is a different matter. Impossible to say.
@@TAlexander Once again many thanks for insight, I think the Mecca in the Hijaz is central to disproving Islam's historical narrative, the very best Simon PS From my own point of a historical series on Mecca would be great
Hi Thomas, sorry you're not carrying on with your great work, I have a couple of questions about Abdul al Malik, I understand if you don't want to answer. Have you read Shoemaker's book?
The Light for all Nations YT channel has posted their opinion that there was a muhammed during the invasion of Egypt, based on the writings of John of Nikiu, a coptic bishop. I can't find whether you have covered this in your videos (not found on a word search). Here is the start of their article, "Why I believe that Muhammad existed, and he isn't a complete myth eventhough he wasn't exactly as the Arab Muslim books said. If you read the manuscript of John of Nikiu The Egyptian Coptic Bishop who lived during the time of invasion of Egypt, You will find him mentioning Muhammad" They quote parts of the book, which for some reason it is in arabic rather than coptic(?). If you have already covered this, can you please point me to your video?
I haven't made a specific video on that document yet. But the short version is that this text is highly problematic. It only exists in a 17th century Ethiopian translation of an Arabic text which itself likely had a source that was either Greek or Coptic. Yehuda Nevo and Judth Koren analysed the text in detail and they've shown that the mentioning of Islam and Muslims was not part of the original but were later insertions.
I suppose that the octagon itself has a Christian symbolic function? I found this commentary online: The octagon and the star octagram were religious symbols for rebirth and resurrection. It was used in baptismal fonts in many churches, large and small. JC Cooper states that baptismal fonts were octagonal because the octagon symbolizes renewal, rebirth, regeneration, and transition.
Another really interesting deep dive where few, if any, others go. It makes a strong case that the Dome of the Rock lies in a Christian architectural tradition. More please. I would like to know if other Islamic structures elsewhere follow this form, or are all other comparable structures Christian?
Centuries later, we see some Islamic structures which copy the Dome of the Rock. But this type of octagonal shrine is otherwise absolutely Christian. Nobody else built these.
@@markaxworthy2508 In Istanbul, there is for example the mausoleum of Suleiman the Magnificent who died in 1566 AD. This one is clearly inspired by the Dome of the Rock. Another one that may be inspired by the Dome of the Rock (although it's not as clear) is the dome of the mausoleum of Sultan Qaytbay in Cairo which was completed in the year 1474. In this case, the building as a whole is very different though, it's only the dome which bears some resemblance with a circular dome over an octagon (which then quickly turns into a square though).
0:43 Surely, the quotation from Ibn Battuta is counter-evidence to the thesis that a structure like what exists today was there back then. Maybe something very different was there then? It can hardly be described as singular in shape. (Not these Islamic scholars can necessarily be trusted, but that quote would give me pause.)
No, his view is understandable. None of the other examples in the holy land were still around. The time of these types of domes had passed. And obviously he wouldn’t have seen the ones in Western Europe which still were around. If anything, the fact that these buildings were out of fashion at that time confirms that the Dome of the Rock is much older. They obviously weren’t even aware of the archetype which the Dome of the Rock followed. Not to mention all of the evidence that we do have for its existence, from pilgrims who described it as octagonal with a circular drum to wooden beams with dated dedications which aren’t even visible. And of course the inscriptions. No, the Dome of the Rock must have been built at a time when these structures were still around. The fact that it closely follows the shrine archetype can hardly be a coincidence.
@@TAlexander Even if these building were not still around, records of these existed in books. Architects were aware of these in a way that lay people could be excused of ignorance. The problem is any time period could have created this. All it would take is for someone to design it familiar with Byzantine architecture and hey presto, it could be built. The inscriptions are very late as already obvious from the huge amount of time before an Abd al Malik is referenced, while for centuries references to Umar were the only thing mentioned. William of Tyre's 12th century contrary evidence that there were numerous inscriptions saying Umar built it - inscriptions that were probably wrong as many re-builds probably occurred over the centuries - undercuts your whole thesis. His reference to them giving "ample testimony" suggests a confidence that what he is saying is not remotely in doubt or controversial. He doesn't refer to what language they were in. If presumably they were in Arabic, there were plenty of clergy conversant in Arabic to be aware of it. Arab Christians obviously existed in Jerusalem as much as muslims.
There is zero evidence for changes in the inscription above the ambulatory. The only concrete evidence we have is the inscription itself. If you're referring to AJ Deus, his assertions are mostly pure speculation based on some stories without any direct connection to the temple, whereas he's simply wrong on Elzearius Horn's account as AJ didn't read the entire text. Horn did in fact not see the Arabic text which claims Abd al-Malik to be the builder. But there's other evidence for the age of the Dome as well, like 7th century decorated bronze plaques on the tie beams as well as dedications from repair-efforts from the 9th century. William of Tyre saw multiple dedication to Umar, inside and outside the Temple. That doesn't mean that the inscription above the ambulatory was different. In fact, we have found floor tiles from the 9th century elsewhere which ascribe the Dome of the Rock to Umar. Given that he mentions multiple dedications, I would imagine something along those lines. But it could also have been bronze plaques which have since gone missing. By the way, William of Tyre describes the Dome of the Rock as octagonal building with a round roof rising above. And he's not the first one to do so. And of course the Umar references make sense in the light of tradition according to which Umar found the Rock underneath some rubble and had a temple built on top of it. From Arculfus, we also know that there was a wooden structure there. The later tradition explicitly has Umar as the original builder of the Temple, but Abd al-Malik as the "restorer", i.e. he built the structure which we see today in the place where Umar had his temple built. Historically, the Umar temple is of course shrouded. But there is concrete evidence for the Dome of the Rock, first and foremost the Dome itself with all the datable bits and bobs. As for building this shrine archetype centuries after the fact, I wouldn't bet on them keeping blueprints of all those destroyed shrines around. But even if they did, architecture typically follows trends. You won't find Romanesque churches in central Europe during the time the Gothic style was in full swing. The same is true all across time and space, so the Dome of the Rock would have to be a huge exception. Also remember that not only was the form out of fashion, so was the function. Why build such a shrine with an ambulatory at a time when Muslims no longer circumambulated the rock? When Mecca had long taken over as the pilgrimage site? Plus, to build a dome around a sacred rock is specifically Christian. Neither Jews nor Muslims do it or did it. Therefore only an early temple makes sense, because only then would the Christian identity still be strong enough to explain such a building. The inscription itself confirms it, being all about Christology, THE hot topic among 7th century Christianity. Only an early temple can explain all the data we see without a boatload of additional assumptions, conspiracies and conjectures.
I have just looked at William of Tyre again. And it's not as clear cut as I said above. He says something along the lines of "...that Umar is the original builder is confirmed by inscriptions which can be found on the outside and on the inside..." So it's not clear whether or not there are multiple dedications to Umar. The meaning could be that there are multiple inscriptions, but that only one refers to Umar. In a different part of the text he says that the inscriptions tell us about who built the Dome, when it was built, how much was paid for it and when it was finished. So it could also be that he was mainly referring to the inscriptions on the outside of the Dome which have long been lost. But if there were inscriptions like this, then this would lend credence to al-Wasiti's account which I had previously dismissed in which he gives details about the construction of the Dome of the Rock. Initially, I agreed with AJ that we can't take this account at face value, given that it appears centuries after the fact. But if William of Tyre was truthful, then the information would have been on the outside of the Dome itself, hence it would have been preserved for centuries. We probably still shouldn't just accept it, but the core of the story may well be based on the dates and figures provided on the Dome itself.
Thank you so much for this research. I have been battling with accepting that the Dome of the Rock was built by Muslims/Arabs. Architecturally, that story doesn't fit. It looks like a Byzantine structure with a Muslim facade. Thank you for confirming this!
Nice work as always, I just had a light go on, do you think the Dome represents a crown? A King crown! Islam just tried to copy other religions instead of just one they took on most religions but mostly before Jesus walked the earth, they went back to agnostic's religion, funny how you Mentioned that rock that Jesus entered into heaven from, it almost sounds like Mohammads night journey, again copy and paste.
Lo que haces lleva mucho trabajo pero tus argumentos te falta decir de donde sacas la información como no lo has hecho en tus ultimos videos tus argumentos de que la palabra o nombre "abraham,"shaytan"como el arabe tiene aramismos palabras y expresio es que vienen del arabe me parece que no tiene sentido porque como en las lenguas occidentales hay mucho de otras lenguas en las orientales también por eso es normal que haya aramismos en el arabe porque pertenecen a las misma familia de las lenguas semiticas con el hebreo y las lenguas sub arabigas por lo tanto tus argumentos son refutados y los origenes del islam no tiene nada que ver que la escritura mas antigua en arabe sea cristiana con que los cristianos hayan creado el islam atraves de misionero cristianos y tus libros no son fue te para refutar o señalar no tiene que ver que la revelacion de dios sea en arabe con la revelacion de Dios ,Dios revelo en arabe porque eligio a un mensajero arabe si el mensajero hubiese sido chino la revelacion habria sido en chino y ALLAH lo dice en El Coran no tiene que ver lo que dices de la lengua con la revelacion la lengua es una cosa que cambia todo el tiempo y la revelacion no cambia por eso es que ves cosas que no son el rabe de hoy pero en esa epoca lo era gracias.
Su argumento no consiste en lo que trataste de presentar. Deberías leer el libro de Christoph Luxenberg. No solo dice qué existen ciertas palabras del arameo etc. en el Corán, sí no qué partes del Corán fueron originalmente escritos en la lengua sirio-aramea. Después de añadir los signos diacríticos se corrompió el significado original de esas partes.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg fue un científico y escritor alemán. Fue profesor de la Universidad de Gotinga, donde a su vez en su juventud tuvo en su misma función a Gotthelf Kästner. Dirigió misiones astronómicas en Hannover y en Osnabrück. es cierto que era profesor de la universidad de moringa y escritor pero ni el ni sus alumno hablaban arabe además el era profesor de física y química y no era un erudito europeo además de el gran desconocimiento de las lenguas orientales en su época además de seguir las lo que ponia en los textos griegos y romanos corruptos y digo corruptos por las múltiples traducciones a lenguas occidentales además de desacuerdos e incoherencias entre los filósofos de las antiguas sociedades romanas y griegas sobre los idiomas y las múltiples versiones adaptadas cada vez a una nueva religión del imperio y nuevas visiones para mi los argumento que presenta el escritor en su libro son incoherentes con otros eruditos más veraces y los argumentos de el señor tomas son refutados y nos son coherentes en realidad siempre es lo mismo hay mucha gente que dice refutar y demostrar cosas pero siempre suelen ser las mismos mentiras refutadas ya en la antigüedad y no veo como un profesor se meta tanto en temas muy profundos con argumentos muy débiles gracias.
Gracias por la aclaración pero espero no confundirme el escritor alemán era un poco desconocido para el saber común de las personas pero tra leer sobre el unos artículos me he dado cuenta de que el escritor usaba ese seudónimo para protegerse además de ser hablante del arabe pero distingo una cosa sobre las demás es la parábola que sostiene es que el arabe que la tribu quraysh de La Meca hablaba el una mezcla del arabe y arameo y eso no es verdad ya que se tiene constancia de que las tribus judías y árabes de esa zona hablaban en "hejazi" una forma de escritura y lengua que eran arabe pero de esa zona y no era una mezcla de arameo con arabe de hecho el fragmento más antiguo del Coran esta escrito en "hejazi" además el señor tomas se sostiene en otros en eruditos europeos que sostienen argumentos débiles y ya refutados te recomiendo investigar sobre estos temas la verdad de los orígenes del islam es incierta para alguien que se fía de personas de dudosa vercidad y textos antiguos corruptos por tantas traducciones atraves de años y atraves de tantos credos y me gustaría recalcar que el señor tomas en más de un video suyo dijo que el arabe tiene mucho del arameo y la verdad es que si como todos los idiomas pero eso no afecta a la revelacion y justo en este video el señor tomas habla de que la cúpula de la roca tiene que ver con los orígenes de islam ya que es una cúpula no entiendo que pretende el señor tomas con respeto pero sus argumentos no son válido para decir los orígenes de la religión islámica atraves de eruditos griegos y Romanos y y basando en sus textos ya que sus textos están obsoletos y quizá ya no sean originales por las continuas remodelaciones de los mismos textos aunque el arabe tenga cosas del arameo no significa que los cristianos hallan creado el islam además de las siguientes palabras y frases del Coran en textos arameos no hay una fue te veraz ya que los reinos que adoptaron esta lengua eran reinos en el Levante Mediterráneo y por hay hubo mucho paso de imperios y cada vez más guerras que en conclusión eso pone en duda la veracidad de estos textos tan antiguos gracias.
@@NagroNigro Luxenberg no dice qué el Corán fue creado por cristianos, si no que poesía aramea fue integrada en el texto del Corán. Y eso del “hejazi” me parece ser un mito, ya que los manuscritos más antiguos no incluyen signos diacríticos necesarios para distinguir entre dialectos árabes y entre el árabe en si y el arameo de su tiempo.
This thomas guy is not a scholar of the Arabic language obviously he is a liar his narative is not a educational narative it is his opinion and assumptions
Amazing! The original octagonal structure of the later Dome of the Rock was build by Abd al-Malik from 685 on when Islam was still just a branch of Christianity. This presentation fits perfectly with the revisionist islamic vision of the 'SIN-sifters'. Great video again Thomas!
I am French and I thank you for your work which allows me to learn more about this subject
Don't feel pressured to make specifically a continuation to this series, if you made any other video on this channel's topic it would be so great
Hey man, are you currently working on any new content? Its been a while since I've seen you release anything and I've found your work very helpful
Great video! You have done a brilliant job gathering all these examples.
Very informative, as always! Great work. Thanks again, Thomas. Herzliche Grüße aus Wien!
this series explained a lot on the tradition and practices of islam! wow! what scholarship! great job. and thanks for enlightening us.
Do your own research get a Arabic language lexicon
@@juddullahlatiif839 why? I know history already. I know greek and I can read hebrew with a hebrew alphabet cheatsheet. Why do I need to study the arabic? I only need many details in history explained.
@@pinoydataanalyst1705 you have to study everything to show thyself approved the Arabic of the Quran has not changed only the English translation don't give me that stuff about you only need a little of this and that you are very biased and can not do your own studying get an Arabic lexicon and then break down Quran I challenge you to do so
It is obvious no one in here has any knowledge of a Arabic lexicon for those who don't speak Arabic I challenge any one of you to get a lexicon and do your own research
@@juddullahlatiif839 I don't need to study arabic. I only need to study history. and this series connected the dots i know about the history in the middle east. you want to argue about the language? argue arabic with Al Fadi, he's a native speaker. He knows arabic more than you. There are other apologists in this channel that speaks arabic, lke Murad. Funny, language is your only argument with everything that was presented in this series?
Brilliant 🤩 Series.. Where have you been we have missed you.. Because of you I’m now reading a lot of books on the original origins of early Islam and they are very far away from the standard Islamic narrative..
It’s clear to see now that Islam sprang from non trinitarian Christianity.
I’m sure Muslims are going to be in for a massive shock in the future… This is going to bust Islam.
😂😂
Are you a Christian?
Really interesting. Excellent research. Thank you for your work.
I'm really enjoying this Thomas, once again thank you for your research and imparting your knowledge to us
I have now watched all these very excellent videos. Concise, clearly captioned, your voice is easy on the ears and they aren't too long.
Best of all, I have learned many new elements on the origins of Islam. So thank you very much and I look forward to many more.
Rgds, Euphrosene
Not on Rumble Alex?
Great video as always :)
Nice to see you back to work :)
All of my Videos are mirrored on Odysee and Rumble:
odysee.com/@thomasalexander
rumble.com/c/thalex
Really interesting, thanks so much!
I've decided to learn something new every day (and sometimes write it down), and this was today's lesson. I'm sure your channel will be on my list again soon. 👩🏻🎓
Fascinating ! Thanks a lot for the video.
We misss u wen u dont show up. Great info
Excellent work.
Excellent and new research
I am still anxious to see and hear more of your excellent presentations. Please confirm that you have more in preparation?
Finally! Where have you been Thomas??
Do you have plans to make
more videos?
I just read a paper by Thomas Lewin from 1873, that concluded that the spot was at the Acra above the Temple area where Hadrian placed a statue of Jupiter, it being the highest elevated point where mandatory to Temple building practice , the statue of the god had to be placed. The columns we see today placed at the eight gates are remnants or a rebuilding of the columns of that ancient temple. Hadrian didn’t live long enough after the barkockba revolt and founding of Aelia Capitolina to complete a temple, so his successor did it, making a temple in the round like the one in Diocletian’s palace in Croatia. These are some speculations that might be helpful for figuring it out I hope.
I saw a clip which showed that the wall writing attributing the building of the DofR to Abdolmalek Marwan was subsequently changed to show Ma’mun as the builder. It also showed a wall design in the DofR which was exactly the design of Sassanid coin (Khosrav ll). Can you please comment on these, specially the wall design.
Hi Thomas, I saw the following to mecca existing in the 4th century: "according to historical documents, the Khuzaa’h tribe from Yemen built Mecca in the 4th century AD [Al-Azraqi, Kitab Akhbar Makka, Vol. 1, p. 6]. The king Abu Karb Asa’d led this, who reigned over Yemen in 410-435 A.D, built the Kaaba similar to the Kaaba found in Yemen [A. Jamme. W. F, Sabean Inscriptions from Mehram Bilqis (Ma’rib), the John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1962, vol. III, p. 387]."
I can't see any reference to this in your video archives but I'm sure you know about it. Can you point me to a useful review/analysis of this and what it's significance is?
Hey Thomas, are you still active here? Can we expect more videos to come?
Danke Thomas für diese MEHR als wertvollen Informationen
@@whatistheevidence370 Yeah sure, I tried to keep my short comment understandable also for non-German speaking participants... 😊👍
English and German really do seem to be more similar than you might think. And your ability to understand my sentence is the answer to the question in your name.
Cheers! 💕
@@whatistheevidence370 You should sub to Simon Roper's channel ua-cam.com/channels/hnRk6mxWsSOGElm8phdSxw.html if you're interested in this topic.
He covers this to some extent in his videos on proto-Germanic and old English.
Greetings Thomas,
I was wondering if you could answer or do a video on how the Sunni-Shia split was formed and answer questions regarding this matter such as: Why the Shia despise so much the first three Rashidun Caliphs, many of the Sahabah (ie Khalid ibn al-Walid, Muawiyah l etc), Aisha, one of the well known wives of Muhammad. Also how the Shia have different hadith books and how the conflict between Ali's family and the Ummayads was formed. It would be helpful too if you could answer or do a video on how the terms Ishmaelite, Saracen and Hagarene were used before the rise of the SIN.
Best regards.
These are the some of the big question marks for me. I find it very hard to make sense of the Sunni-Shia split in the context of this theory. The notion that a massive sectarian split emerged because of an imagined political rift amongst the imagined companions and family members of an imagined prophet strains credulity for me. You need people on opposing sides to accept the same invented set of relationships and grievances and historical episodes for that split to exist, which doesn't seem likely to me.
Likewise, I find it hard to make sense of a massive undocumented religious conversion amongst the Arabs from anti-trinitarian Christianity to Islam. Just as I'd expect more evidence for the historical Muhammad, I'd expect evidence of significant dissent and division arising from the shift from Muhammad I to Muhammad II.
Would it make more sense of the myths if the Canaanite and other Pagan shrines that often were taken over by the Jews and Christians are also taken into account? Several temple floor plans are using geometrical shapes associated with various Gods, there is a Hexagonal mosaic floor in a temple in Harran(?) ..sorry I can't remember which God it is dedicated to.
Thank you for these very interesting and enlightening lectures .
GBU brother!
Hi Thomas, a somewhat off topic question, but what is the earliest date that you have for Mecca in the Hijaz? many thanks Simon
That's very difficult to say. AFAIK, there have never been proper archaeological excavations which could have given us anything concrete. And if there was something, it would havee been destroyed when all those modern buildings were erected. But even if Mecca existed by the 7th century, it would have been a tiny settlement, not a great trading hub. Patricia Crone's argument is solid on that count. Even if she underestimated the role caravans played at that time (which she probably did), Mecca is out of the way and beyond a massive mountain range, not to mention the lack of water there. Why would a caravan take a difficult and dangerous detour where there's no food and very little water?
The odd caravan may take the detour in order to visit the Kaaba, but many other cities also had pagan sanctuaries, most notably Ta'if which was much better situated and rather fertile.
@@TAlexander
That’s fabulous Thomas, many thanks 👍
@@TAlexander
You mention about the possibility of the occasional caravan visit to the Kaaba, but if it was a tiny settlement in the 7th century, would the Kaaba have been there?
Thanks in advance, the very best Simon
@@simonhengle8316 Well, there would have been a sanctuary. Whether or not it would have looked like the Kaaba today is a different matter. Impossible to say.
@@TAlexander Once again many thanks for insight, I think the Mecca in the Hijaz is central to disproving Islam's historical narrative, the very best Simon
PS From my own point of a historical series on Mecca would be great
Hi Thomas, sorry you're not carrying on with your great work, I have a couple of questions about Abdul al Malik, I understand if you don't want to answer. Have you read Shoemaker's book?
@@Perceptionista correction it’s Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan
@@Perceptionista All this from a person with no content on their channel🤣
@@Perceptionista You have no proof of your authority on this matter via your channel, so I treat what you have to say with a large pinch of salt
Hi bro Thomas , are QS 3: 123 refers to the battle of badr that Muhammad got help by angel ?
The Light for all Nations YT channel has posted their opinion that there was a muhammed during the invasion of Egypt, based on the writings of John of Nikiu, a coptic bishop. I can't find whether you have covered this in your videos (not found on a word search). Here is the start of their article, "Why I believe that Muhammad existed, and he isn't a complete myth eventhough he wasn't exactly as the Arab Muslim books said. If you read the manuscript of John of Nikiu The Egyptian Coptic Bishop who lived during the time of invasion of Egypt, You will find him mentioning Muhammad" They quote parts of the book, which for some reason it is in arabic rather than coptic(?). If you have already covered this, can you please point me to your video?
I haven't made a specific video on that document yet. But the short version is that this text is highly problematic. It only exists in a 17th century Ethiopian translation of an Arabic text which itself likely had a source that was either Greek or Coptic.
Yehuda Nevo and Judth Koren analysed the text in detail and they've shown that the mentioning of Islam and Muslims was not part of the original but were later insertions.
Anything new in preparation? I do hope so!
I suppose that the octagon itself has a Christian symbolic function? I found this commentary online:
The octagon and the star octagram were religious symbols for rebirth and resurrection. It was used in baptismal fonts in many churches, large and small. JC Cooper states that baptismal fonts were octagonal because the octagon symbolizes renewal, rebirth, regeneration, and transition.
It's of Greek origin. So would have been common around the Byzantine Empire, as Thomas pointed out.
Another really interesting deep dive where few, if any, others go. It makes a strong case that the Dome of the Rock lies in a Christian architectural tradition. More please. I would like to know if other Islamic structures elsewhere follow this form, or are all other comparable structures Christian?
Centuries later, we see some Islamic structures which copy the Dome of the Rock. But this type of octagonal shrine is otherwise absolutely Christian. Nobody else built these.
@@TAlexander Could you put a place and date on the earliest of these similar Islamic structures?
@@markaxworthy2508 In Istanbul, there is for example the mausoleum of Suleiman the Magnificent who died in 1566 AD. This one is clearly inspired by the Dome of the Rock. Another one that may be inspired by the Dome of the Rock (although it's not as clear) is the dome of the mausoleum of Sultan Qaytbay in Cairo which was completed in the year 1474. In this case, the building as a whole is very different though, it's only the dome which bears some resemblance with a circular dome over an octagon (which then quickly turns into a square though).
@@TAlexander Thanks for your time and explanation.
0:43 Surely, the quotation from Ibn Battuta is counter-evidence to the thesis that a structure like what exists today was there back then. Maybe something very different was there then? It can hardly be described as singular in shape. (Not these Islamic scholars can necessarily be trusted, but that quote would give me pause.)
No, his view is understandable. None of the other examples in the holy land were still around. The time of these types of domes had passed. And obviously he wouldn’t have seen the ones in Western Europe which still were around.
If anything, the fact that these buildings were out of fashion at that time confirms that the Dome of the Rock is much older. They obviously weren’t even aware of the archetype which the Dome of the Rock followed. Not to mention all of the evidence that we do have for its existence, from pilgrims who described it as octagonal with a circular drum to wooden beams with dated dedications which aren’t even visible. And of course the inscriptions.
No, the Dome of the Rock must have been built at a time when these structures were still around. The fact that it closely follows the shrine archetype can hardly be a coincidence.
@@TAlexander Even if these building were not still around, records of these existed in books. Architects were aware of these in a way that lay people could be excused of ignorance. The problem is any time period could have created this. All it would take is for someone to design it familiar with Byzantine architecture and hey presto, it could be built. The inscriptions are very late as already obvious from the huge amount of time before an Abd al Malik is referenced, while for centuries references to Umar were the only thing mentioned. William of Tyre's 12th century contrary evidence that there were numerous inscriptions saying Umar built it - inscriptions that were probably wrong as many re-builds probably occurred over the centuries - undercuts your whole thesis. His reference to them giving "ample testimony" suggests a confidence that what he is saying is not remotely in doubt or controversial. He doesn't refer to what language they were in. If presumably they were in Arabic, there were plenty of clergy conversant in Arabic to be aware of it. Arab Christians obviously existed in Jerusalem as much as muslims.
@@TAlexander
So, it was probably built by a Christian Arab sect that later metamorphosed into Islam? No wonder it doesn't have the quibla.
There is zero evidence for changes in the inscription above the ambulatory. The only concrete evidence we have is the inscription itself. If you're referring to AJ Deus, his assertions are mostly pure speculation based on some stories without any direct connection to the temple, whereas he's simply wrong on Elzearius Horn's account as AJ didn't read the entire text. Horn did in fact not see the Arabic text which claims Abd al-Malik to be the builder. But there's other evidence for the age of the Dome as well, like 7th century decorated bronze plaques on the tie beams as well as dedications from repair-efforts from the 9th century.
William of Tyre saw multiple dedication to Umar, inside and outside the Temple. That doesn't mean that the inscription above the ambulatory was different. In fact, we have found floor tiles from the 9th century elsewhere which ascribe the Dome of the Rock to Umar. Given that he mentions multiple dedications, I would imagine something along those lines. But it could also have been bronze plaques which have since gone missing. By the way, William of Tyre describes the Dome of the Rock as octagonal building with a round roof rising above. And he's not the first one to do so.
And of course the Umar references make sense in the light of tradition according to which Umar found the Rock underneath some rubble and had a temple built on top of it. From Arculfus, we also know that there was a wooden structure there. The later tradition explicitly has Umar as the original builder of the Temple, but Abd al-Malik as the "restorer", i.e. he built the structure which we see today in the place where Umar had his temple built.
Historically, the Umar temple is of course shrouded. But there is concrete evidence for the Dome of the Rock, first and foremost the Dome itself with all the datable bits and bobs.
As for building this shrine archetype centuries after the fact, I wouldn't bet on them keeping blueprints of all those destroyed shrines around. But even if they did, architecture typically follows trends. You won't find Romanesque churches in central Europe during the time the Gothic style was in full swing. The same is true all across time and space, so the Dome of the Rock would have to be a huge exception. Also remember that not only was the form out of fashion, so was the function. Why build such a shrine with an ambulatory at a time when Muslims no longer circumambulated the rock? When Mecca had long taken over as the pilgrimage site? Plus, to build a dome around a sacred rock is specifically Christian. Neither Jews nor Muslims do it or did it. Therefore only an early temple makes sense, because only then would the Christian identity still be strong enough to explain such a building. The inscription itself confirms it, being all about Christology, THE hot topic among 7th century Christianity.
Only an early temple can explain all the data we see without a boatload of additional assumptions, conspiracies and conjectures.
I have just looked at William of Tyre again. And it's not as clear cut as I said above. He says something along the lines of "...that Umar is the original builder is confirmed by inscriptions which can be found on the outside and on the inside..."
So it's not clear whether or not there are multiple dedications to Umar. The meaning could be that there are multiple inscriptions, but that only one refers to Umar. In a different part of the text he says that the inscriptions tell us about who built the Dome, when it was built, how much was paid for it and when it was finished. So it could also be that he was mainly referring to the inscriptions on the outside of the Dome which have long been lost.
But if there were inscriptions like this, then this would lend credence to al-Wasiti's account which I had previously dismissed in which he gives details about the construction of the Dome of the Rock. Initially, I agreed with AJ that we can't take this account at face value, given that it appears centuries after the fact. But if William of Tyre was truthful, then the information would have been on the outside of the Dome itself, hence it would have been preserved for centuries. We probably still shouldn't just accept it, but the core of the story may well be based on the dates and figures provided on the Dome itself.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a jewish serpent king. 😱
Thank you so much for this research. I have been battling with accepting that the Dome of the Rock was built by Muslims/Arabs. Architecturally, that story doesn't fit. It looks like a Byzantine structure with a Muslim facade. Thank you for confirming this!
Hrmmm is your name first "Thomas", and middle name "Alexander "?
So is my name
Last name being shufeldt " zshufeltio"
Dom of Rock was temple of mother Marry in past.
لو سمحت اعرض لنا جميع كتب المورخين الباحثين في تاريخ الاسلام والقران للاسف تم خداعنا
واجعل الترجمه العربيه متاحه في فديوهاتك
Nice work as always, I just had a light go on, do you think the Dome represents a crown? A King crown! Islam just tried to copy other religions instead of just one they took on most religions but mostly before Jesus walked the earth, they went back to agnostic's religion, funny how you Mentioned that rock that Jesus entered into heaven from, it almost sounds like Mohammads night journey, again copy and paste.
Iam named Thomas , Alexander , shufeldt
This is normal Orxodox Christian building.
you should uncover the fairytales of christianity around the historical nonexistant jesus too
Not needed that much, there are tons of people that already did or are doing. But the other side? Not really there.
Elagabalus one of the weirder people in history.
Lo que haces lleva mucho trabajo pero tus argumentos te falta decir de donde sacas la información como no lo has hecho en tus ultimos videos tus argumentos de que la palabra o nombre "abraham,"shaytan"como el arabe tiene aramismos palabras y expresio es que vienen del arabe me parece que no tiene sentido porque como en las lenguas occidentales hay mucho de otras lenguas en las orientales también por eso es normal que haya aramismos en el arabe porque pertenecen a las misma familia de las lenguas semiticas con el hebreo y las lenguas sub arabigas por lo tanto tus argumentos son refutados y los origenes del islam no tiene nada que ver que la escritura mas antigua en arabe sea cristiana con que los cristianos hayan creado el islam atraves de misionero cristianos y tus libros no son fue te para refutar o señalar no tiene que ver que la revelacion de dios sea en arabe con la revelacion de Dios ,Dios revelo en arabe porque eligio a un mensajero arabe si el mensajero hubiese sido chino la revelacion habria sido en chino y ALLAH lo dice en El Coran no tiene que ver lo que dices de la lengua con la revelacion la lengua es una cosa que cambia todo el tiempo y la revelacion no cambia por eso es que ves cosas que no son el rabe de hoy pero en esa epoca lo era gracias.
Su argumento no consiste en lo que trataste de presentar. Deberías leer el libro de Christoph Luxenberg. No solo dice qué existen ciertas palabras del arameo etc. en el Corán, sí no qué partes del Corán fueron originalmente escritos en la lengua sirio-aramea. Después de añadir los signos diacríticos se corrompió el significado original de esas partes.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg fue un científico y escritor alemán. Fue profesor de la Universidad de Gotinga, donde a su vez en su juventud tuvo en su misma función a Gotthelf Kästner. Dirigió misiones astronómicas en Hannover y en Osnabrück. es cierto que era profesor de la universidad de moringa y escritor pero ni el ni sus alumno hablaban arabe además el era profesor de física y química y no era un erudito europeo además de el gran desconocimiento de las lenguas orientales en su época además de seguir las lo que ponia en los textos griegos y romanos corruptos y digo corruptos por las múltiples traducciones a lenguas occidentales además de desacuerdos e incoherencias entre los filósofos de las antiguas sociedades romanas y griegas sobre los idiomas y las múltiples versiones adaptadas cada vez a una nueva religión del imperio y nuevas visiones para mi los argumento que presenta el escritor en su libro son incoherentes con otros eruditos más veraces y los argumentos de el señor tomas son refutados y nos son coherentes en realidad siempre es lo mismo hay mucha gente que dice refutar y demostrar cosas pero siempre suelen ser las mismos mentiras refutadas ya en la antigüedad y no veo como un profesor se meta tanto en temas muy profundos con argumentos muy débiles gracias.
@@NagroNigro Estoy hablando de Christoph Luxenberg, no Georg Christoph Lichtenberg.
Gracias por la aclaración pero espero no confundirme el escritor alemán era un poco desconocido para el saber común de las personas pero tra leer sobre el unos artículos me he dado cuenta de que el escritor usaba ese seudónimo para protegerse además de ser hablante del arabe pero distingo una cosa sobre las demás es la parábola que sostiene es que el arabe que la tribu quraysh de La Meca hablaba el una mezcla del arabe y arameo y eso no es verdad ya que se tiene constancia de que las tribus judías y árabes de esa zona hablaban en "hejazi" una forma de escritura y lengua que eran arabe pero de esa zona y no era una mezcla de arameo con arabe de hecho el fragmento más antiguo del Coran esta escrito en "hejazi" además el señor tomas se sostiene en otros en eruditos europeos que sostienen argumentos débiles y ya refutados te recomiendo investigar sobre estos temas la verdad de los orígenes del islam es incierta para alguien que se fía de personas de dudosa vercidad y textos antiguos corruptos por tantas traducciones atraves de años y atraves de tantos credos y me gustaría recalcar que el señor tomas en más de un video suyo dijo que el arabe tiene mucho del arameo y la verdad es que si como todos los idiomas pero eso no afecta a la revelacion y justo en este video el señor tomas habla de que la cúpula de la roca tiene que ver con los orígenes de islam ya que es una cúpula no entiendo que pretende el señor tomas con respeto pero sus argumentos no son válido para decir los orígenes de la religión islámica atraves de eruditos griegos y Romanos y y basando en sus textos ya que sus textos están obsoletos y quizá ya no sean originales por las continuas remodelaciones de los mismos textos aunque el arabe tenga cosas del arameo no significa que los cristianos hallan creado el islam además de las siguientes palabras y frases del Coran en textos arameos no hay una fue te veraz ya que los reinos que adoptaron esta lengua eran reinos en el Levante Mediterráneo y por hay hubo mucho paso de imperios y cada vez más guerras que en conclusión eso pone en duda la veracidad de estos textos tan antiguos gracias.
@@NagroNigro Luxenberg no dice qué el Corán fue creado por cristianos, si no que poesía aramea fue integrada en el texto del Corán. Y eso del “hejazi” me parece ser un mito, ya que los manuscritos más antiguos no incluyen signos diacríticos necesarios para distinguir entre dialectos árabes y entre el árabe en si y el arameo de su tiempo.
This thomas guy is not a scholar of the Arabic language obviously he is a liar his narative is not a educational narative it is his opinion and assumptions