UNESCO has blindness of their thoughts. I see all organizations blindly support lies and mythical stories as truth. God bless you Thomas Alexander for coming up with facts of proven history. These are history how can anyone debunk, terms and terminologies can differ to make audiences understand simply. Kudos...
UNESCO has as little integrity as that WHO guy who is owned by China over COVID. If you were a gutless liberal, why not suck up to Moslems who have petrodollars behind them for donations?
UNESCO always funding-based organizations, some of main funder is Arab countries, because they know they would run out of oils. They willingly making up everything around them with aim to pumping up the tourisms. You will be wondering, if you know how much they would spend in here (Indonesia) to doing hajj.
Thanks Thomas once again for your short but informative videos.Oh yeah the romanticisation of myth and history blended into Andalusia has been far too long and that must be busted...
I’m sure you hear this all the time, but this is truly an amazing lecture series and you are an extremely talented researcher and presenter. I hope you write/have written your research in book form because it would be a bestseller.
Fun fact. The book The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Morera tells you all you need to know about Muslim rule in Spain. The invading Muslums had no art or architecture of their own own. They destroyed synagogues and turned churches into mosques. Christians and Jews were made to wear distinctive clothing and forced to pay jizyah on their knees in abject submission just as the Qur'an says in Sura 9. There was continual warfare between many factions until 1492 when the last Muslims were booted out of Spain and the great European Renaissance came into its own.
Jews and Muslims were allies against Christians in Andalusia...make no mistake. You are biased and incorrect. In fact, it was the Jews of Toledo who made first contact with and appeal for aid from Tariq ibn Ziyad, with their North African co-religionists acting as go-betweens.
@@BoqPrecision You have to say which century you are referring to. Allegiances between all factions in Spain varied throughout the 700 years of Muslim oppressive rule.
@@Oxygen11115 Fun fact. When Muhammad reached Tabuk with his army, John of Ayla paid jizyah protection money in return for a document guaranteeing his prople freedom from Muslim attack by land or sea. Jizyah = protection money. 😁
"Bin Laden's quotes from the Quaran resonated in my brain: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck." "If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely and put others in your place." "Wherever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, ambush them." "You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them." - Ayaan Hirsi, Ex muslim
All your references are from events that happened at least 2500 years ago. You are saying that Islam is no better than what men were back then? Why yes. Just look at Saudi Arabia as a shining beacon of progress.
@@jxcess3891 . hi.i think the OT and the Prophets and the law are still applicable today for those with Christ ie Christians and Jews who are with Christ. OT info is never voided.
@@asifbrettishmaelmakki9 Don't force your beliefs onto Christians. We know mohemadans are ext-remists. The OT is no longer applicable to Christians. Do mohemadans still practice mootah today? 🤔
@@jxcess3891 . Soz,i don't agree with you.the law and the prophets where until John. John Revelation is still active hence the law and the Prophets are still active. NB. NT upholds the Prophets. scurry away 😐,i am with the Christians,and your gob means nothing,in saying otherwise💪.
Yes I'm shocked, they are only supposed to represent the good side of the world as part of the UN. They should definitely take sides and become arbiters of right and wrong, so that Russia or China would nuke them.
It is very surprising to know that there was no Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, Qur'an and Mecca in the 7th and 8th centuries, when they were all central to the Muslim faith. Muslim said, Islam start from Mecca in 7th century
Too many evidences confirm that Islam is nothing but anti-trinitarian Christianity transformed into Islam much later than the Islamic narrative story. Quran itself never describe the desert climate of Arabia, no biography of Mohamed, just ambiguous texts, Miss matched and often wrong historically.
What I don't understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ? Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?
As the bishops tell us, they would have used the same scriptures as the Trinitarian Christians. There is no evidence of them having a separate literary tradition. So while we may have scriptures used by them, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The Arian Gothic upper class on the other hand did have the so called "Wulfila Bible", a Gothic translation of the Bible. We have many fragments of that, covering slightly more than half of the NT but only small fragments of the OT, but it seems to have included pretty much all the books that are in the Bible today. In fact, the specimens we have are among the oldest examples of Biblical manuscripts still in existence which is an interesting fact. From the examples we do have, it is obvious that the Wulfila Bible was translated from a Greek template.
@@TAlexander What is difficult to comprehend is how by pure chance all these independent lectionaries from the far corners Roman and Persian world evolve into the same religion at around the same time. If that was valid the model would be the way the Reformation went. They formed Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Anabaptist, Unitarian, etc. and not just one new religion.
It's not a coincidence. Of course there was a lot of cultural exchange within the regions ruled by the Arabs. Innovations that worked did spread. At the same time, you're approaching this with too much of a Christian mindset. The structures in Islam are different. There never was anything comparable to the Church in Christendom. Spiritual and secular realms were always intertwined which is reflected in the path Islam took. At the same time we do have different sects of Islam. And not just the difference between Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya, Sufis, etc. but there's also a lot of differentiation within the various sects. The Shi'a do for instance split into the twelvers, seveners and fivers, plus other sects like the Alevi, etc. On the Sunni side, you have all the different schools of jurisprudence which differ amongst themselves just as much as Catholics and Protestants do on the Christian side. We had for instance the fight between the Hanbali and the Mu'tazila in the Abbasid caliphate, while Spain and Western Africa were firmly Maliki in orientation. So we did get a differentiation, albeit in a different shape as compared to Christianity.
So originally Spain 🇪🇸 couldn’t have been Muslim .. Just Non Trinitarian Christians .. And this developed until it literally rolled over to an aggressive form of Sunnie Islam ☪️.. Brilliant 🤩 Thomas Alexandria I’ve been seriously searching for information on this for a while now .. As the origins of early Islam are confusing to say the least.. You just can’t rely on their Standard Islamic narrative.. But constantly have to dig deeper.. And what we find is anything but what they tell us .. One Quick Question 🙋♂️ As the Quran was fabricated over 200 years.. When was the word “MUSLIM” first used.. And is mentioned in the Quran 19 times .. But are the verses it’s mentioned in the newest verses .. As the oldest only show stories that were already in existence before islam was made up.. Once again I really appreciate your work here Thomas..😃
The evidence for the emergence of the Hadith seems to point to the middle of the 8th century. Though we only have concrete proof starting in the 9th century. But I'm inclined to go with the 8th century.
I think hadith propergation could have started around 1500AD,with Hajar Askalani and Suyurti and then to Shah waliyullah. Before Hajar Askalani (1500AD)the is just a referencing on paper,that has a chain of approx 80 male preservers of the hadith collection,that go back to Al Bukhari. NB.the chain from Al Bukhari to Hajar Askalani,I feel it can be a totally fake construeding. The hadith preservation chain, finishes/ends at Hajar Askalani,hence it could actually start from him.
@@TAlexander What I don't understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ? Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?
Very interesting and informative as usual. Mr Alexander, have you thought or examined this ambiguous word ( Arab)? What does it really mean? Knowing that it’s not an identity, ethnicity or a race. Correct me if I’m wrong. How did this name come to be given to many peoples separated from each other geographically, culturally and historically? Who named the Actual Saudi Arabia ( Arabia)? Was there another Arabia in the levant? What languages gave birth to Arabic? At last what are the true identities of those historical characters ( beside their Arabic language) I apologize for the multiple questions, but it’s very important to decorticate the Arabism in general, it is an ally to Islamism and contribute often in keeping Muslims in a fantasy world and Arabian nights where everything finds its origins in a mythical Arabian world. Thanks a bunch ❤️
I did read somewhere that the word "Arab" is of Persian origin and simply meant people from the West (from a Persian point of view). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it.
@RC I did read about this a while ago, Arav ( desert), Ervi ( the inhabitant of the desert). But also arava ( a transporting vehicle, Gharab ( west)… We need to get to the bottom of this, of course through our precious historians and researchers.
@@TAlexander Thank you for your answer Mr Alexander. I just hope one of you precious researches can find interest in digging into this unclear word and it’s designation. Thanks again.
I found it again. It was from Volker Popp. Here is what he said: Contemporary inscriptions make reference to the rulers of Hatra as “mlk hdr” and to the whole of the (a)'R(a)B. In the language of Hatra, (a)‘R(a)B simply means: West. Today a flight from Israel to Europe is therefore a flight to “e'R(e)B [...] The “environs of" or “land surrounding” Hatra is called “(а)'R(а)В“, as it lies to the West when seen from the Tigris. Thus “Arabia on the island” is in Mesopotamia. This is also confirmed by Xenophanes, whereas the Romans referred to the Nabataean region as a “Province of Arabia”. The inhabitants of this “Arabia on the island” (Arabic: Gazira) between the Tigris and Euphrates, were not Arabic-speaking Arabs, but “(A)’r(a)bi", i.e., inhabitants of the “West”. That is why they did not speak Arabic (lisan al-'Arab), but “(А)'г(а)bi", the language of the province of Hatra.
@@TAlexander I truly appreciate your kindness for coming back with more information. Amazing how things transform and mutilate to hold different meanings throughout time. Mr Alexander, not only Islam destroyed many nations but Arabism still prevents the unification of the people of every country whose identity has been obliterated to be replaced by a fictitious name and that it belongs to the Arab world. There is a division between the groups that adhere to their geographical, historical, cultural and linguistic identities, and there are those who live in their countries with their bodies, but their minds live in an imaginary place called Arabism because of its association with the religion of Islam and its emotional inclinations. This creates instability and inability to move forward. ( No past means no future) God bless Mr Alexander ❤️
Hi Thomas, what's the evidence we have that the Sassanians and the Umayyads used the Christian Ibadis in the conquests of north africa and that they were instrumental?
We know that the Ibadi were in North Africa at the latest by 719, but it is likely that they entered North Africa much earlier with the Sassanids (Elizabeth Savage, A Gateway to Hell, a Gateway to Paradise. The North African Response to the Arab Conquest, Princeton 1997). In his history of the conquest, Ibn Abd al-Hakam often calls Berber tribes simply "ibadi" or "sufri". Apparently, they were already converted by the Ibadi at that point. Later Berber historians claim that the Berbers were so naive, that they literally believed their leaders when they claimed that Jesus would come down and fight on their side. We also know that the Tamim were involved in the conquest. Some of their tribesmen were explicitly named. The Tamim are a sub-group of the Ibadi.
@@TAlexander are you suggesting that the Ibadis العباديون is the same as the Islamic sect الاباضيون? There's a clear difference between the two. Is Elizabeth talking about the الاباضيون? If so, yes it's uncontested that these were present and even had their own state at some point. If not, what's the evidence she used to prove that the Christian العباديون were present? Moreover I'm contesting the points you mentioned in the previous video. Do we have any evidence that the Christian Ibadis were used and were instrumental in the conquests? I'd have to read Ibn Abd al Hakam, but I'd assume he's clearly referring to the اباضية as a Muslim sect and not as Christian عباديون.
@@TAlexander Thomas I entertained all your theories with healthy skepticism from the very beginning but here you're showing a lot of carelessness. How is الاباضيون the same as العباديون? You haven't answered the question also, what's the evidence you used in creating your narrative that the Christian العباديون were used in the conquests and that they were instrumental in it?
For example: we know that the al-Ibad and the North African Ibadiyya (of the 8th century) are the same people because of the Tamim connection which I mentioned. Or the fact that both think of themselves as Lakhmids. There's more clues still in Ibn Abd al-Hakam. But I really can't re-narrate all the papers I'm using. That's what the papers themselves are there for. For more details, check out the source in the description box: Thomas, Johannes. "Frühe spanische Zeugnisse zum Islam: Vorschläge für eine differenzierte Betrachtung der Konflikte und der religiösen Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen dem Osten und dem Westen des arabischen Reiches." Schlaglichter (2008): 93-186. It's freely available online in three parts and itself includes tons of references which you can follow up on. Also, check out: Popp, Volker. "The Early History of Islam, Following Inscriptional and Numismatic Testimony." The Hidden Origins of Islam (2010)
What I dont understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ? Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?
Elipandus promoted a kenotic Christology. This is the belief that the pre-incarnate Logos emptied himself of his divine attributes during his incarnation on earth and resumed them after his resurrection and ascension to heaven. In eighth century Spain, which was then largely under Islamic rule, a heresy known as “Spanish Adoptionism” was developed and taught by Archbishop Elipandus (717- c. 808) of Toledo and Bishop Felix of Urgell. Swiss theologian Augustin Gretillat (who also promoted a kenotic Christology) states Elipandus and Felix affirmed the traditional duality of the natures and wills but went further by introducing a duality in the person of Christ. He explains that Elipandus taught that Christ was the Son of God in his divine nature. He was also the Son of God after his assumption, that is, ascension back to heaven. In another sense, he became the Son of God according to his human nature. This occurred by adoption from the time of his resurrection. Felix maintained that Christ was born twice, first as a man with human nature from his mother, then as Son of God at his baptism.[F. C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth: A Manual of Paulician Church of Armenia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898), clxxii (page numbers are given in Roman numerals).] Eugene Webb believes that “Spanish Adoptionism” is a misnomer because the controversy was more about kenosis. Those who promoted it should have been called “Spanish kenoticists”. [Eugene Webb, In Search of the Triune God: The Christian paths of East and West (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2014), 156-157.] Elipandus understood Philippians 2:7 ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν to mean that God emptied himself of his divinity. In a document known as Symbolum fidei Elipandianae (dated 785) his beliefs are stated thus, “Whom the holy Scripture testifies was made man for the salvation of the human race, having emptied [exinanita] himself of his deity […]” [J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Tomus XCVI, Hildefonsus, Leodegarius, Julianus et Plurimi Auctores Saeculi VIII (Paris: Excudebat Migne, 1851), 917. Latin: “Quem sacra Scriptura testatur pro salute humani generis, deitate exinanita, hominem factum […].”] He uses the same word for “empty” [exinanio] as that found in the Latin Vulgate translation of Phil 2:7 which in English is: “But emptied [exinanivit] himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in fashion found as a man.” Alcuin of York (c. 734-804) and Beatus of Liébana (c. 730- c. 800) opposed Elipandus and Felix. They condemned their teaching as heresy in their writings. [Alcuin wrote Adversus Felicem and Adversus Elipandus. Beatus also wrote another letter, Adversus Elipandum.] Alcuin argued that Christ’s divine nature was not diminished in assuming human nature. The condemnation of the teaching of Elipandus and Felix was formalised in the Council of Frankfurt, summoned by Charlemagne, in 794.
I wonder what light this evolution from Christianity, through non-Trinitarian Christianity to Islam casts on the Muslim rulers of Sicily and the conquest by tiny numbers of Norman mercenaries in the mid to late 11th Century.
There is some misunderstanding about Albar and Eulogius: Eulogius became an integrist catholic presbyter after his discovering in Navarre of a surprising book about an arab prophet called Moamath, a figure that had been previously unknown in Cordoba. Eulogius urged some catholics to martyrdom. The bishop of Cordoba, Saul, obtained permission of Abd al-Rahman II, whose actual title in Latin was 'Spaniae Rex Habderragmanus" to gather a 2nd Synod in Cordoba, where the clergy condemed the furor of integrist martyrdom and got to stop it definitely. Albar Cordubensis, from Visigothic and Jewish parents, was a moderate intellectual layman, who lamented the abandon of the cult Latin language in favor of Arabic: "Heu pro dolor, omnes juvenes christiani... harabico elloquio sublimati... linguam suam non advertunt Latini, legem suam (=religion) nesciunt Christiani..." Woe! All Christian youths skillfully speak Arabic... Latins avoid their own tongue, Christians ignore their own law (=religion)..." Eulogius was urgerd by his bishop to pronouce a mass in Arabic, he denied and instead came into the great mosque and proferred insults agaisnt Muhammad, he had the opportunity of retract and apologise, but denied, then was executes. Albar however did nothing like that and died peaceful at an older age.
In Memoriale sanctorum 851 (Martyrs of Cordoba), it is mentioned that Maria and Flora were two women which had at least a "Muslim" parent. They were executed for Blasphemy after sitting in a court with a Qadi in 851 >> These women should at least be 12 - 15 years old (very conservatively) before execution. >> One of the women is mentioned to have her Muslim father died very early in her age >> Her father was a Muslim at least, very conservatively, ~10 years ago. This proves "Muslims" existed around 840. Whereas your analysis claims that there was no such a thing since Alvaro didn't mention it explicitly back then (absence of evidence). This shows there's at least one generation (very conservatively) before them which were Muslims. Moreover, the source also mention that Artemia had witnessed the execution of two of her sons thirty years before, and retelling it to Flora. This points that also her sons were executed for apostacy around 820, although the source is not explicit here. Just speculating that within the context of talking to Flora she probably was referring to apostacy execution. Now were these people all anti-trinitarian Christians persecuting trinitarian Christians? They had an apostacy law, a blasphemy law against Muhammad (at least in 851 it is mentioned explicitly) which fits very neatly with the Islamic narrative. If we connect the fathers to such a fact, this "religion" must have existed at least (conservatively) 10 years before around 840, whereas your same guy Alvaro is seemingly unaware of it. Moreover we can push it to 820 if we trust the account of the woman Artemia.
The graves at the Tauste cementary are usually clssified as Muslim graves because they are different from the usual Christian graves in the area. According the radio carbon datings the oldest graves are from the 8th century CE. Do you think these graves are Christian?
Depends on your definition. But I would say yes, they were Christians. Anti-Trinitarian Christians, Monarchianist Christians, Christians who were on their way to becoming Muslims, but not Muslims yet. That would really be a development of the 9th century. But they were certainly very different Christians from the Catholic Christians who otherwise populated the Iberian peninsula.
@@TAlexander A new type of graves was introduced, and the graves of this new type are quite similar to later Muslim graves, but they are quite distinct from previous Christian graves. There are also graves of this new type in Toledo that are dated to the 8th century. In archaeology one would normally see a sudden change in the funeral practice as a strong indication of change in religion. I find it strange if a change in funeral practice happened in the 8th century and a change in religion happened later without a change in funeral practice.
It was a change in religious practice for sure. That's what I'm trying to say. It's not the same Christianity. And it would later evolve into Islam. So I don't see the contradiction.
@@PeterHarremoes That's a good point. Not only that but all the coins starting from Abd al Rahman are distinctly Islamic. Clearly with Quranic verses, and mentioning Muhammad as the messenger of God who was sent with "the true religion". Now of course Thomas will say that Muhammad is Jesus and the "true religion" is actually Christianity. Quran was also viewed as an accepted Christian text. It's only later that all this would somehow change... With that premise, you can tiptoe around any evidence.
@@TAlexander Ibadi Christianity "tipped over" into Islam... How?? Did this happen in Spain only? How come the isolated Christian Ibadi pockets we still have today also "tipped over" into Islam (supposedly by Abd al Rahman II)? The living Ibadi pockets today in the Mzab Valley in Algeria, in the island of Jerba in Tunisia, and in the Sultanate of Oman, all of these isolated pockets of persecuted Ibadis, "tipped over" into Islam and converged into the same sect of Islam?
Wow!!! No wounder the verses in the Quran contradict it self and says one thing then another, I just thought Allah was suffering from dementia but it seems the writers kept some old sayings as it revolved. Look at Quran 22:5 for example Muslims say Jesus was not resurrected yet in this verse says otherwise, it starts off as O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust. So this is saying Believe in the resurrection as you are made from dust that my take on it, as they revolved you can almost say they are becoming like the church of Scientology it seems they followed what ever that was more favorable at the time to win more followers hence they are a cocktail of religions rolled into one. I think Islam ran with what was popular at the time as they wanted to compete against them all to be superior over them. Its all about politics and power/control.
I am no friend of Islam. Far from it. But I believe you have misinterpreted the verse. Islam holds to the Resurrection as an event at the final judgement. That's what it refers to. Not Jesus' resurrection, which it clearly rejects as part of rejecting his crucifixion. I say this to save you from making a mistake that might embarrass you.
@@polemeros , look at 22:1 Sahih International O mankind, fear your Lord. Indeed, the convulsion of the [final] Hour is a terrible thing. Here they use Lord not Allah, Lord = Yahweh throughout the Bible, you don't here them call out Lord Akbar do you!! Again using a Aramaic word in a Arabic text.. If your going to use God as Allah why not use Lord as Raba in the Arabic languish, you have hundreds of Aramaic words used in a Arabic Quran.
@@bobfisher1909 What an absolutely confused individual you are lol. “Rab” is a title for Allah used throughout the Quran. It’s also used in the Arabic Bible. It’s the Arabic equivalent of “Lord”. Perhaps, if you continued reading that same chapter, you would’ve seen that the “Lord” referred to in 22:1 is not “Yahweh”, but “Allah”. Allah alone will resurrect the dead at the final Hour. *“That is because Allah is the Truth and because He gives life to the dead and because He is over all things competent”* *”And [that they may know] that the Hour is coming - no doubt about it - and that Allah will resurrect those in the graves.”* (22:6-7) There’s no words to describe just how thoroughly you embarrassed yourself here.
@@mukalal2160 lol, you don't get it do you, why call Lord Lord and Allah Allah in the same book? If you going to use Arabic then stick with Arabic not Aramaic and Arabic. If your Quran wants Allah in the English Quran then use Raba as Lord as well, How hard is it to understan that. Again English Quran should not use Allah if it means God in English!! Use God. If you want to use Lord then use God, See my point or you to stupid? So English Quran should call Allah God and like they do Lord. Or if you want to keep Allah then also use Raba not Lord stick with the same theme...
Ok its making more sense now but still a few lose ends. So someone went all the way from Andulisia to Abbassids controlled part and brought Islam with them that replaced the anti- trinitarian Christianity? But there must have been huge animosity between ummayids and Abbassids
It was a gradual change in the West as well as in the East. Nobody converted, they evolved. And yes, it was a large cultural area, so ideas did spread, but it happened in little drops, not as a big undertaking.
@@TAlexander Your theories are in-line with everything I heard from Jay Smith, Mel, etc... but there is one big question. As the early "Muslim" empire spread over a large region, how did they all decide to become new Muslims and believe in this newly invented prophet Mohamed in the end, surely some would have wanted to stay proto-Islamic (i.e. Christians). Yet we don't see this, most of the Christians in the middle-east believe in the Trinity. And there is no explanation why the Arabs in Spain decided to arbitrarily adopt the Mohamed created by their enemies the Abbasids. I just don't see the incentive.
Fun fact. For gruesome historical details of the cruelties of Umayyad rule in Spain read Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Morera. Chapter 4 The Myth of Umayyad Tolerance: Inquisitions, Beheadings, Impalings, and Crucifixions. Enjoy. 😁
Well, everything is possible I guess, though that particular hypothesis sounds quite far fetched IMHO. Why would anyone do something like that? Either Mecca is the important place to which praying believers must face, in which case you'd expect them to at least try and point the qibla towards Mecca, or it's not important. But copying the direction from Syrian places of worship guarantees that you're not praying towards Mecca.
I know, TBH, I'm not sure what to make of Dan Gibson's hypothesis. There's just too much "noise" in his qibla data, and too many possibilities. He arbitrarily focuses on Petra and Mecca for example. At the same time, there are also clear patterns there. So I can neither dismiss nor embrace his conclusions. I think we're still missing the key to unlock the qibla conundrum. But Gibson's work is certainly a valuable step towards finding that key.
I would like to know if you have come across the story about some of the Ummayad rulers of al Andalus who went up to Switzerland in that period and ruled that place for a small amount of time. Is it true? Were they still antitrinitarian christians at that time?
According to the Biblical book Songs of Solomon, the covenant was transferred from the דּוֹדִֽים dwdym (David's people or the Jews - Songs 5:1) to the מַחֲּמַדִּים mhmdyim (Muhammad's people - Songs 5:16). (Both words are Hebrew masculine, plural NOUNS which the Christian translators have rendered as the adjective, lovely in their translations to hide the transfer of the covenant.). The Hebrew plural, masculine nloun suffix 'ym' is used to denote the people of the nation to which the proper noun refers as in מּוֹאָבִים (Moabym or Moabites), Ammonites or Amonym עַמֹּנִים, Egyptians or Musrym מִּצְרִים, Chaldeans or Chasidym כַּשְׂדִּים, Lydians or Lydym לוּדִים etc. The words mhmdym and dwdym are unique and only used once each in the entire Bible. So, one expects the translation to also be unique. The words dwdym and mhmdym constitute a synonymous parallelism which references the covenant relationship between these 2 peoples. The dwdym or Jews were the last ancient Semitic people to hold this covenant before it was transferred to the mhmdym or the Muslims who were and are Muhammad's people. In addition, the Palestinians are the original Jews as they carry the haplotype J1c3d. The Ashkenazi who control Palestine are not Semites. So, Palestinians, the native inhabitants for more than 5000 years, are the rightful owners of Palestine according to history, genetics and the bible. The control of the land of Israel was based on the contingency that those bound by the covenant would obey the law (Torah) and worship the One, True God. According to the Bible, the Jews failed to abide by the covenant conditions. The last straw was when they attempted to murder the Prophet, Jesus (as). Matthew 21:43 has Jesus declare: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." So, it is clear that Jesus confirmed the prophecy in Songs 5 and the covenant was taken from the dwdym (David's people) and given to the mhmdym (Muhammad's people). The Mhmdym (Muslims) fulfilled the messianic expectations of the Jews when they created an empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean. The Mhmdym also rebuilt the former temple as Masjid Al Aqsa on the site which the Christian had deliberately defiled to dishonor the Jews and their god, Yhwh. Songs is an allegory with many different levels of meaning. On one level, the symbolism is: the groom symbolizes the deity, the bride symbolizes the people who worship the deity and the love between the 2 symbolizes the contract or covenant between the deity and the people he chose to spread his message/religion throughout the world. On another level of interpretation, the groom is Solomon (Shlomo) whose name means 'peace' or Islam, the bride is the Shulamite whose name means 'the peaceful'. It is the love, the covenant or contract, that brings peace. Peace is accomplished when both the ruler and ruled agree to obey the contract as expressed in the Law. Songs is a prophecy that the Law or Torah was to be expressed through a covenant between the deity and the people who were committed to the purified Torah which became known as the Shariah, the law or Torah of the Muslim ummah. Allah's (swt) promises are always true, Subhanallah.
Lol it's not just Christians who translated it .the jews did too .So according to you ,two different religions somehow got together and decided to translate that one word as an adjective ? First tell me why was it translated that way? And also tell me if the same word appears somewhere else , maybe in another book of the Holy Bible? Since you consider Quran to be authoritative , tell Me is song of Solomon as per the Quran, a book or revelation from your God ?is it part of Torah...no What about psalms of David... no Gospel...no. So on whose authority do you consider its contents to be prophetic? On account of the Christians and Jews ? Or Allah? If it's the latter then there is no evidence for it from Quran. And if former can you trust the people who you accuse to have corrupted the scriptures.This is why Islam apologetics is a joke.Islam is like 7th century version of mormonism, a religion started by a conman . And why would Christians who follow YHWH destroy the only temple (sorry never has been mecca) of their GOD.do you not understand what Jesus means int hebrew ? Or the fact that YHWH is the same God that Christians to worship infact st.paul and even Jesus himself worshiped at the temple do you not see the problem here ? The temple was destroyed by the pagan Romans in 70 AD as a punishment for Jewish rebellion . Muslims are the odd one out with their Arab Allah.
@@Abk367 The Jews translated Songs into Koine Greek. In their translation mhmdym is translated as ἐπιθυμία which is a singular, feminine noun in the nominative case. This is a very bad translation as mhmdym is a common, plural, masculine noun in the absolute construct state. The Greek ἐπιθυμία is in no way comparable to the Hebrew מַחֲּמַדִּים . But, of course, that didn't stop Jerome et al translating the word as desiderabilis and the AKJ authors following suit with lovely. Christian translations as the Vulgate were based upon the Koine Greek translation and not the Hebrew original because the Hebrew version would not be availabe until circa 1000 CE. The Hebrew bible was standardized under the Umayyid and Abbassid caliphates. So, now we can deal with the Hebrew word mhmdym. The plural of the root mhmd is mhmd. So, the 'ym' suffix indicates that this word is describing a people as the 'ym' suffix is frequently to indicate a people or naiton. I gave many examples of this usage in my original post. Since, mhmdym refers to a people, this word means the people of Mhmd which is spelled in Hebrew exactly as it is spelled in Arabic: מַחְמָד (mhmd) and محمد in Arabic. The spelling in both languages is a one for one perfect match. Mhmd means Muhammad and mhmdym means Muhammad's people or ummah.
Started off well, then got into politics and the diatribe against UNESCO, which is a kind of kumbaya organisation, not Harvard university. I doubt any invasion of any country would be considered good. Islamic conquest of Spain is no different. I don't think the Dutch were thrilled when the Germans invaded them (No UNESCO at the time). At least the Moors didn't have cruise missiles, as happened to my country when it was invaded in recent years using shock and awe. The other parts of this video are amazing and nothing I have heard before.
AD 780 dated coin (614FC22) shows that Abd al Rahman I, minted coins with Quranic verses and clear mention of Muhammad as a prophet. How do we reconcile this? There was no Quran, no Islam... "Muhammad is the messenger of God who sent him with the guidance and true religion..."
@Mysotiras 010 so they were also referring to Jesus along with Quranic verses on the same coin, until at some point, the Abbasid narrative also came in force in Spain and Muhammad was created and pushed down ardent Christians throats? Never mind that Abd al Rahman I fled from the Abbasids and he and the Christian Umayyads of Spain had every reason to not follow their new heresy of making Muhammad a new character, different from Jesus... In my opinion, it's hard to believe.
Go and read the book "La revolución islamica en Occidente" by Ignacio Olague and you will better understand the tragedy of the Muslims and Jews of the peninsula. It should be noted that the peoples who came from the barbarian invasions that sacked Rome, such as the Visigoths, but also the Ostrogoths, Lombards, Suavs and Vandals, were of unitary and not Trinitarian dogma, and the abjuration of Arianism by King Recardere I did not change the beliefs of his people. It is easier to understand that the vast majority of the population did not follow the Trinitarian dogma of the church (THE real heresy because it associates God with another entity, thus polytheism) but were more inclined towards what the church calls "heresies", which explains why the Iberians progressively converted to Islam and adopted the Arabic language, which was the lingua franca, the scholarly language of the time, of the Arab-Muslim civilisation, to the detriment of the decaying Latin. This also explains the meteoric rise of Islam from the Levant to the Iberian Peninsula, regions that formed the periphery of the Roman Empire and that were mostly followers of different religious currents other than the Trinitarian dogma (Judaism, Aranism, Nestorianism, Mazdeism, Manicheism, etc.). The Arianism of the Iberian population is one of the most taboo subjects because more than a struggle between Muslims and Christians during centuries through a fantasized Reconquista (work of the Catholic propaganda), We would rather have witnessed a merciless struggle between Unitarians and Trinitarians from the Iberian Peninsula to North Africa via the Levant well before 711, which I would situate at least in the 4th century AD (Christianity as the official religion in 313 and the imposition of the Trinitarian dogma in 325) until the fall of the Catholic Church (Protestant reform, infiltration by Freemasonry). And there, the story takes on a whole new meaning. Moreover, it is worth noting the novlanguage that consists of calling Muslim populations Moors, Moriscos or Mudéjars. This semantic manipulation induces in our minds that these populations were ethnically different, that they were foreigners, that they were the descendants of invaders, whereas they were similar to the Catholic Iberians, and it is not the arrival of Arab and Berber horsemen that would have visibly changed the ethnic make-up of the peninsula. To believe that the inhabitants of the peninsula magically became Arabs and Berbers in the ethnic sense is truly ignorant. Even if Arabs and Berbers had landed, the men took Iberian wives and established themselves on the spot, and it is well known that it was fashionable to invent an Arab genealogy (go and see the Maghreb). It cannot be said often enough, but the full conversion to Trinitarian Christianity only took place from 1614 (17th century), i.e. after the conversion and expulsion of the Jews and then the Muslims (Moriscos, Mudejars), This makes Spain (composed of different kingdoms before 1492) one of the last Christianised countries in Europe, well after the Nordic countries (conversion of the Vikings in the 10th century) and the Baltic countries (the last pagan countries in Europe converted to Trinitarian Christianity by the Teutonic knights). The policies of the Catholic kings after 1492 were just appalling in comparison: - Inquisition from 1478 - Expulsion of the Jews from 1492 - Policy of forced conversion by decree on 14 February 1502 - Doctrine of blood purity (limpieza de sangre) - Expulsion of Moriscos between 1609 and 1614 by Philip III of Spain With hindsight, this policy has nothing to envy and all proportions to the ethnic cleansing practiced in ex-Yugoslavia. From there to say that the inquisition was set up to liquidate the Muslim (but also Jewish) past of the peninsula and to dissuade the Spaniards from deviating from the Trinitarian dogma, it's a step I wouldn't take, but it looks like it.
UNESCO has blindness of their thoughts. I see all organizations blindly support lies and mythical stories as truth. God bless you Thomas Alexander for coming up with facts of proven history. These are history how can anyone debunk, terms and terminologies can differ to make audiences understand simply.
Kudos...
UNESCO has as little integrity as that WHO guy who is owned by China over COVID.
If you were a gutless liberal, why not suck up to Moslems who have petrodollars behind them for donations?
@@20july1944 I found your comment is sarcastically funny, I hope sir you will not mind by saying so...
UNESCO always funding-based organizations, some of main funder is Arab countries, because they know they would run out of oils. They willingly making up everything around them with aim to pumping up the tourisms. You will be wondering, if you know how much they would spend in here (Indonesia) to doing hajj.
For excellent analysis of the true state of Spain under cruel and oppressive Muslim rule, try The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Morera. 😁
UNESCO is a globalist atheist anti Christian organization! They push many lies!
I am glad someone finally make sense of history!
Thank you Thomas 🙏🏼
Fascinating work. I can’t wait to hear the rest.
Thanks Thomas once again for your short but informative videos.Oh yeah the romanticisation of myth and history blended into Andalusia has been far too long and that must be busted...
Thanks again, Thomas! It is always a pleasure. Grüße aus Wien
I’m sure you hear this all the time, but this is truly an amazing lecture series and you are an extremely talented researcher and presenter. I hope you write/have written your research in book form because it would be a bestseller.
Brother Tomas thank you for the wonderful information God bless
Thank you for you work Thomas. It is very important what you do.
Fun fact. The book The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Morera tells you all you need to know about Muslim rule in Spain. The invading Muslums had no art or architecture of their own own. They destroyed synagogues and turned churches into mosques. Christians and Jews were made to wear distinctive clothing and forced to pay jizyah on their knees in abject submission just as the Qur'an says in Sura 9. There was continual warfare between many factions until 1492 when the last Muslims were booted out of Spain and the great European Renaissance came into its own.
Jews and Muslims were allies against Christians in Andalusia...make no mistake. You are biased and incorrect. In fact, it was the Jews of Toledo who made first contact with and appeal for aid from Tariq ibn Ziyad, with their North African co-religionists acting as go-betweens.
@@BoqPrecision You have to say which century you are referring to. Allegiances between all factions in Spain varied throughout the 700 years of Muslim oppressive rule.
@@Oxygen11115 Fun fact. Khalid b al-Walid said to his pals 'Lets convert to Islam before Muhammad takes our necks like hyenas in a cave!' 😁
Muslims weren't expelled from Spain until the 1600s.
@@Oxygen11115 Fun fact. When Muhammad reached Tabuk with his army, John of Ayla paid jizyah protection money in return for a document guaranteeing his prople freedom from Muslim attack by land or sea. Jizyah = protection money. 😁
Thank you for the great scholarship and citing sources. This is true history
"Bin Laden's quotes from the Quaran resonated in my brain: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck." "If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely and put others in your place." "Wherever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, ambush them." "You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them."
- Ayaan Hirsi, Ex muslim
All your references are from events that happened at least 2500 years ago. You are saying that Islam is no better than what men were back then? Why yes. Just look at Saudi Arabia as a shining beacon of progress.
@@JesusisaMuslim
False equivalence: The OT is no longer applicable to Christians today but the ko-ooran is for all generations of mohemadans.
@@jxcess3891 .
hi.i think the OT and the Prophets and the law are still applicable today for those with Christ ie Christians and Jews who are with Christ.
OT info is never voided.
@@asifbrettishmaelmakki9
Don't force your beliefs onto Christians. We know mohemadans are ext-remists. The OT is no longer applicable to Christians. Do mohemadans still practice mootah today? 🤔
@@jxcess3891 .
Soz,i don't agree with you.the law and the prophets where until John.
John Revelation is still active hence the law and the Prophets are still active.
NB. NT upholds the Prophets.
scurry away 😐,i am with the Christians,and your gob means nothing,in saying otherwise💪.
Shame on UNESCO.
Yes I'm shocked, they are only supposed to represent the good side of the world as part of the UN. They should definitely take sides and become arbiters of right and wrong, so that Russia or China would nuke them.
The ‘official’ history never made sense to me, but what you describe does.
It is very surprising to know that there was no Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, Qur'an and Mecca in the 7th and 8th centuries, when they were all central to the Muslim faith. Muslim said, Islam start from Mecca in 7th century
Too many evidences confirm that Islam is nothing but anti-trinitarian Christianity transformed into Islam much later than the Islamic narrative story. Quran itself never describe the desert climate of Arabia, no biography of Mohamed, just ambiguous texts, Miss matched and often wrong historically.
Islam was created by the Abbasids, well after the conquest of Spain.
What I don't understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ?
Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?
Doing a great job.
Are there any writings or other records from these anti-trinitarian Christians? Or were they all burned?
As the bishops tell us, they would have used the same scriptures as the Trinitarian Christians. There is no evidence of them having a separate literary tradition. So while we may have scriptures used by them, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The Arian Gothic upper class on the other hand did have the so called "Wulfila Bible", a Gothic translation of the Bible. We have many fragments of that, covering slightly more than half of the NT but only small fragments of the OT, but it seems to have included pretty much all the books that are in the Bible today. In fact, the specimens we have are among the oldest examples of Biblical manuscripts still in existence which is an interesting fact. From the examples we do have, it is obvious that the Wulfila Bible was translated from a Greek template.
@@TAlexander What is difficult to comprehend is how by pure chance all these independent lectionaries from the far corners Roman and Persian world evolve into the same religion at around the same time. If that was valid the model would be the way the Reformation went. They formed Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Anabaptist, Unitarian, etc. and not just one new religion.
It's not a coincidence. Of course there was a lot of cultural exchange within the regions ruled by the Arabs. Innovations that worked did spread.
At the same time, you're approaching this with too much of a Christian mindset. The structures in Islam are different. There never was anything comparable to the Church in Christendom. Spiritual and secular realms were always intertwined which is reflected in the path Islam took. At the same time we do have different sects of Islam. And not just the difference between Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya, Sufis, etc. but there's also a lot of differentiation within the various sects. The Shi'a do for instance split into the twelvers, seveners and fivers, plus other sects like the Alevi, etc.
On the Sunni side, you have all the different schools of jurisprudence which differ amongst themselves just as much as Catholics and Protestants do on the Christian side. We had for instance the fight between the Hanbali and the Mu'tazila in the Abbasid caliphate, while Spain and Western Africa were firmly Maliki in orientation. So we did get a differentiation, albeit in a different shape as compared to Christianity.
So originally Spain 🇪🇸 couldn’t have been Muslim .. Just Non Trinitarian Christians .. And this developed until it literally rolled over to an aggressive form of Sunnie Islam ☪️..
Brilliant 🤩 Thomas Alexandria I’ve been seriously searching for information on this for a while now .. As the origins of early Islam are confusing to say the least..
You just can’t rely on their Standard Islamic narrative.. But constantly have to dig deeper.. And what we find is anything but what they tell us ..
One Quick Question 🙋♂️ As the Quran was fabricated over 200 years.. When was the word “MUSLIM” first used.. And is mentioned in the Quran 19 times .. But are the verses it’s mentioned in the newest verses ..
As the oldest only show stories that were already in existence before islam was made up..
Once again I really appreciate your work here Thomas..😃
Devil comes in all ways to destroy the Faith of Christ, he fails everytime and will fail.
Would like to know from when the Hadiths started appearing.
The evidence for the emergence of the Hadith seems to point to the middle of the 8th century. Though we only have concrete proof starting in the 9th century. But I'm inclined to go with the 8th century.
I think hadith propergation could have started around 1500AD,with Hajar Askalani and Suyurti and then to Shah waliyullah.
Before Hajar Askalani (1500AD)the is just a referencing on paper,that has a chain of approx 80 male preservers of the hadith collection,that go back to Al Bukhari.
NB.the chain from Al Bukhari to Hajar Askalani,I feel it can be a totally fake construeding.
The hadith preservation chain, finishes/ends at Hajar Askalani,hence it could actually start from him.
I've heard that some of Bukhari was written as late as the 16th century, by Ottomans.
Mufti Abu Lathe has a utube video about Mouley Ismail and Bukhari Army.👈 That history indicates tyrannts and not peacekeepers.
@@TAlexander
What I don't understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ?
Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?
Maimonides was certainly not forgotten. He is very prominent in Judaism until today.
Very interesting and informative as usual. Mr Alexander, have you thought or examined this ambiguous word ( Arab)? What does it really mean? Knowing that it’s not an identity, ethnicity or a race. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How did this name come to be given to many peoples separated from each other geographically, culturally and historically?
Who named the Actual Saudi Arabia ( Arabia)? Was there another Arabia in the levant?
What languages gave birth to Arabic?
At last what are the true identities of those historical characters ( beside their Arabic language)
I apologize for the multiple questions, but it’s very important to decorticate the Arabism in general, it is an ally to Islamism and contribute often in keeping Muslims in a fantasy world and Arabian nights where everything finds its origins in a mythical Arabian world.
Thanks a bunch ❤️
I did read somewhere that the word "Arab" is of Persian origin and simply meant people from the West (from a Persian point of view). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it.
@RC
I did read about this a while ago, Arav ( desert), Ervi ( the inhabitant of the desert). But also arava ( a transporting vehicle, Gharab ( west)…
We need to get to the bottom of this, of course through our precious historians and researchers.
@@TAlexander
Thank you for your answer Mr Alexander. I just hope one of you precious researches can find interest in digging into this unclear word and it’s designation. Thanks again.
I found it again. It was from Volker Popp. Here is what he said:
Contemporary inscriptions make reference to the rulers of Hatra as “mlk hdr” and to the whole of the (a)'R(a)B. In the language of Hatra, (a)‘R(a)B simply means: West. Today a flight from Israel to Europe is therefore a flight to “e'R(e)B [...] The “environs of" or “land surrounding” Hatra is called “(а)'R(а)В“, as it lies to the West when seen from the Tigris. Thus “Arabia on the island” is in Mesopotamia. This is also confirmed by Xenophanes, whereas the Romans referred to the Nabataean region as a “Province of Arabia”.
The inhabitants of this “Arabia on the island” (Arabic: Gazira) between the Tigris and Euphrates, were not Arabic-speaking Arabs, but “(A)’r(a)bi", i.e., inhabitants of the “West”. That is why they did not speak Arabic (lisan al-'Arab), but “(А)'г(а)bi", the language of the province of Hatra.
@@TAlexander
I truly appreciate your kindness for coming back with more information.
Amazing how things transform and mutilate to hold different meanings throughout time. Mr Alexander, not only Islam destroyed many nations but Arabism still prevents the unification of the people of every country whose identity has been obliterated to be replaced by a fictitious name and that it belongs to the Arab world. There is a division between the groups that adhere to their geographical, historical, cultural and linguistic identities, and there are those who live in their countries with their bodies, but their minds live in an imaginary place called Arabism because of its association with the religion of Islam and its emotional inclinations. This creates instability and inability to move forward. ( No past means no future)
God bless Mr Alexander ❤️
Great research: agree with its contents
Thankyou quite informative
"You can't carry water in a basket it Wii spiil down "
Muslims Scolars have always given a different narrative
Yes, and Thomas's theory is quite a basket case, isnt it? 😁
Hi Thomas, what's the evidence we have that the Sassanians and the Umayyads used the Christian Ibadis in the conquests of north africa and that they were instrumental?
We know that the Ibadi were in North Africa at the latest by 719, but it is likely that they entered North Africa much earlier with the Sassanids (Elizabeth Savage, A Gateway to Hell, a Gateway to Paradise. The North African Response to the Arab Conquest, Princeton 1997).
In his history of the conquest, Ibn Abd al-Hakam often calls Berber tribes simply "ibadi" or "sufri". Apparently, they were already converted by the Ibadi at that point. Later Berber historians claim that the Berbers were so naive, that they literally believed their leaders when they claimed that Jesus would come down and fight on their side.
We also know that the Tamim were involved in the conquest. Some of their tribesmen were explicitly named. The Tamim are a sub-group of the Ibadi.
@@TAlexander are you suggesting that the Ibadis العباديون is the same as the Islamic sect الاباضيون? There's a clear difference between the two.
Is Elizabeth talking about the الاباضيون? If so, yes it's uncontested that these were present and even had their own state at some point.
If not, what's the evidence she used to prove that the Christian العباديون were present?
Moreover I'm contesting the points you mentioned in the previous video. Do we have any evidence that the Christian Ibadis were used and were instrumental in the conquests?
I'd have to read Ibn Abd al Hakam, but I'd assume he's clearly referring to the اباضية as a Muslim sect and not as Christian عباديون.
In all cases here, we are talking about the Christian Ibadi originating from al-Hits.
@@TAlexander Thomas I entertained all your theories with healthy skepticism from the very beginning but here you're showing a lot of carelessness. How is الاباضيون the same as العباديون?
You haven't answered the question also, what's the evidence you used in creating your narrative that the Christian العباديون were used in the conquests and that they were instrumental in it?
For example: we know that the al-Ibad and the North African Ibadiyya (of the 8th century) are the same people because of the Tamim connection which I mentioned. Or the fact that both think of themselves as Lakhmids. There's more clues still in Ibn Abd al-Hakam. But I really can't re-narrate all the papers I'm using. That's what the papers themselves are there for.
For more details, check out the source in the description box: Thomas, Johannes. "Frühe spanische Zeugnisse zum Islam: Vorschläge für eine differenzierte Betrachtung der Konflikte und der religiösen Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen dem Osten und dem Westen des arabischen Reiches." Schlaglichter (2008): 93-186.
It's freely available online in three parts and itself includes tons of references which you can follow up on.
Also, check out: Popp, Volker. "The Early History of Islam, Following Inscriptional and Numismatic Testimony." The Hidden Origins of Islam (2010)
What I dont understand is why the ummayyads, who were originally anti-trinitarian christians, accepted to convert to sunni islam (hadiths, tafsir and sira), which was invented by the abbassids who were the arch ennemies of the ummayyads ?
Has there been some kind of reconciliation ?
Elipandus promoted a kenotic Christology. This is the belief that the pre-incarnate Logos emptied himself of his divine attributes during his incarnation on earth and resumed them after his resurrection and ascension to heaven.
In eighth century Spain, which was then largely under Islamic rule, a heresy known as “Spanish Adoptionism” was developed and taught by Archbishop Elipandus (717- c. 808) of Toledo and Bishop Felix of Urgell.
Swiss theologian Augustin Gretillat (who also promoted a kenotic Christology) states Elipandus and Felix affirmed the traditional duality of the natures and wills but went further by introducing a duality in the person of Christ. He explains that Elipandus taught that Christ was the Son of God in his divine nature. He was also the Son of God after his assumption, that is, ascension back to heaven. In another sense, he became the Son of God according to his human nature. This occurred by adoption from the time of his resurrection. Felix maintained that Christ was born twice, first as a man with human nature from his mother, then as Son of God at his baptism.[F. C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth: A Manual of Paulician Church of Armenia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898), clxxii (page numbers are given in Roman numerals).]
Eugene Webb believes that “Spanish Adoptionism” is a misnomer because the controversy was more about kenosis. Those who promoted it should have been called “Spanish kenoticists”. [Eugene Webb, In Search of the Triune God: The Christian paths of East and West (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2014), 156-157.]
Elipandus understood Philippians 2:7 ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν to mean that God emptied himself of his divinity. In a document known as Symbolum fidei Elipandianae (dated 785) his beliefs are stated thus, “Whom the holy Scripture testifies was made man for the salvation of the human race, having emptied [exinanita] himself of his deity […]” [J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Tomus XCVI, Hildefonsus, Leodegarius, Julianus et Plurimi Auctores Saeculi VIII (Paris: Excudebat Migne, 1851), 917. Latin: “Quem sacra Scriptura testatur pro salute humani generis, deitate exinanita, hominem factum […].”]
He uses the same word for “empty” [exinanio] as that found in the Latin Vulgate translation of Phil 2:7 which in English is: “But emptied [exinanivit] himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in fashion found as a man.”
Alcuin of York (c. 734-804) and Beatus of Liébana (c. 730- c. 800) opposed Elipandus and Felix. They condemned their teaching as heresy in their writings. [Alcuin wrote Adversus Felicem and Adversus Elipandus. Beatus also wrote another letter, Adversus Elipandum.]
Alcuin argued that Christ’s divine nature was not diminished in assuming human nature. The condemnation of the teaching of Elipandus and Felix was formalised in the Council of Frankfurt, summoned by Charlemagne, in 794.
Thank you got exposing this false religion
False? All religions are false.
I wonder what light this evolution from Christianity, through non-Trinitarian Christianity to Islam casts on the Muslim rulers of Sicily and the conquest by tiny numbers of Norman mercenaries in the mid to late 11th Century.
There is some misunderstanding about Albar and Eulogius:
Eulogius became an integrist catholic presbyter after his discovering in Navarre of a surprising book about an arab prophet called Moamath, a figure that had been previously unknown in Cordoba. Eulogius urged some catholics to martyrdom. The bishop of Cordoba, Saul, obtained permission of Abd al-Rahman II, whose actual title in Latin was 'Spaniae Rex Habderragmanus" to gather a 2nd Synod in Cordoba, where the clergy condemed the furor of integrist martyrdom and got to stop it definitely.
Albar Cordubensis, from Visigothic and Jewish parents, was a moderate intellectual layman, who lamented the abandon of the cult Latin language in favor of Arabic: "Heu pro dolor, omnes juvenes christiani... harabico elloquio sublimati... linguam suam non advertunt Latini, legem suam (=religion) nesciunt Christiani..." Woe! All Christian youths skillfully speak Arabic... Latins avoid their own tongue, Christians ignore their own law (=religion)..." Eulogius was urgerd by his bishop to pronouce a mass in Arabic, he denied and instead came into the great mosque and proferred insults agaisnt Muhammad, he had the opportunity of retract and apologise, but denied, then was executes. Albar however did nothing like that and died peaceful at an older age.
Keep up the good work Thomas. The trolls and haters will always try to SUBVERT the truth.
Could you tell us your sources please
In Memoriale sanctorum 851 (Martyrs of Cordoba), it is mentioned that Maria and Flora were two women which had at least a "Muslim" parent. They were executed for Blasphemy after sitting in a court with a Qadi in 851 >> These women should at least be 12 - 15 years old (very conservatively) before execution. >> One of the women is mentioned to have her Muslim father died very early in her age >> Her father was a Muslim at least, very conservatively, ~10 years ago. This proves "Muslims" existed around 840. Whereas your analysis claims that there was no such a thing since Alvaro didn't mention it explicitly back then (absence of evidence).
This shows there's at least one generation (very conservatively) before them which were Muslims. Moreover, the source also mention that Artemia had witnessed the execution of two of her sons thirty years before, and retelling it to Flora. This points that also her sons were executed for apostacy around 820, although the source is not explicit here. Just speculating that within the context of talking to Flora she probably was referring to apostacy execution.
Now were these people all anti-trinitarian Christians persecuting trinitarian Christians? They had an apostacy law, a blasphemy law against Muhammad (at least in 851 it is mentioned explicitly) which fits very neatly with the Islamic narrative. If we connect the fathers to such a fact, this "religion" must have existed at least (conservatively) 10 years before around 840, whereas your same guy Alvaro is seemingly unaware of it. Moreover we can push it to 820 if we trust the account of the woman Artemia.
The graves at the Tauste cementary are usually clssified as Muslim graves because they are different from the usual Christian graves in the area. According the radio carbon datings the oldest graves are from the 8th century CE. Do you think these graves are Christian?
Depends on your definition. But I would say yes, they were Christians. Anti-Trinitarian Christians, Monarchianist Christians, Christians who were on their way to becoming Muslims, but not Muslims yet. That would really be a development of the 9th century. But they were certainly very different Christians from the Catholic Christians who otherwise populated the Iberian peninsula.
@@TAlexander A new type of graves was introduced, and the graves of this new type are quite similar to later Muslim graves, but they are quite distinct from previous Christian graves. There are also graves of this new type in Toledo that are dated to the 8th century. In archaeology one would normally see a sudden change in the funeral practice as a strong indication of change in religion. I find it strange if a change in funeral practice happened in the 8th century and a change in religion happened later without a change in funeral practice.
It was a change in religious practice for sure. That's what I'm trying to say. It's not the same Christianity. And it would later evolve into Islam. So I don't see the contradiction.
@@PeterHarremoes That's a good point. Not only that but all the coins starting from Abd al Rahman are distinctly Islamic. Clearly with Quranic verses, and mentioning Muhammad as the messenger of God who was sent with "the true religion". Now of course Thomas will say that Muhammad is Jesus and the "true religion" is actually Christianity. Quran was also viewed as an accepted Christian text. It's only later that all this would somehow change... With that premise, you can tiptoe around any evidence.
@@TAlexander Ibadi Christianity "tipped over" into Islam... How?? Did this happen in Spain only? How come the isolated Christian Ibadi pockets we still have today also "tipped over" into Islam (supposedly by Abd al Rahman II)? The living Ibadi pockets today in the Mzab Valley in Algeria, in the island of Jerba in Tunisia, and in the Sultanate of Oman, all of these isolated pockets of persecuted Ibadis, "tipped over" into Islam and converged into the same sect of Islam?
THANK YOU. MAY THE LORD JESUS THE CHRIST BLESS EACH AND EVERY DAY OF YOU LIFE AND ALL YOUR FAMILY . AND ALL YOUR LOVED ONES AMEN.
God and Jesus are fiction
I add another known figure in Islamic studies today: Ibn Hazm and they burned his books in Saville
Wow!!! No wounder the verses in the Quran contradict it self and says one thing then another, I just thought Allah was suffering from dementia but it seems the writers kept some old sayings as it revolved.
Look at Quran 22:5 for example Muslims say Jesus was not resurrected yet in this verse says otherwise, it starts off as O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust.
So this is saying Believe in the resurrection as you are made from dust that my take on it, as they revolved you can almost say they are becoming like the church of Scientology it seems they followed what ever that was more favorable at the time to win more followers hence they are a cocktail of religions rolled into one.
I think Islam ran with what was popular at the time as they wanted to compete against them all to be superior over them. Its all about politics and power/control.
I am no friend of Islam. Far from it. But I believe you have misinterpreted the verse. Islam holds to the Resurrection as an event at the final judgement. That's what it refers to. Not Jesus' resurrection, which it clearly rejects as part of rejecting his crucifixion. I say this to save you from making a mistake that might embarrass you.
@@polemeros , look at 22:1 Sahih International
O mankind, fear your Lord. Indeed, the convulsion of the [final] Hour is a terrible thing.
Here they use Lord not Allah, Lord = Yahweh throughout the Bible, you don't here them call out Lord Akbar do you!! Again using a Aramaic word in a Arabic text..
If your going to use God as Allah why not use Lord as Raba in the Arabic languish, you have hundreds of Aramaic words used in a Arabic Quran.
@@polemeros OK then, so they don't believe Jesus can be resurrected but they think in the last day its possible, makes sense, Not.
@@bobfisher1909 What an absolutely confused individual you are lol. “Rab” is a title for Allah used throughout the Quran. It’s also used in the Arabic Bible. It’s the Arabic equivalent of “Lord”. Perhaps, if you continued reading that same chapter, you would’ve seen that the “Lord” referred to in 22:1 is not “Yahweh”, but “Allah”. Allah alone will resurrect the dead at the final Hour.
*“That is because Allah is the Truth and because He gives life to the dead and because He is over all things competent”*
*”And [that they may know] that the Hour is coming - no doubt about it - and that Allah will resurrect those in the graves.”* (22:6-7)
There’s no words to describe just how thoroughly you embarrassed yourself here.
@@mukalal2160 lol, you don't get it do you, why call Lord Lord and Allah Allah in the same book? If you going to use Arabic then stick with Arabic not Aramaic and Arabic.
If your Quran wants Allah in the English Quran then use Raba as Lord as well,
How hard is it to understan that.
Again English Quran should not use Allah if it means God in English!! Use God.
If you want to use Lord then use God, See my point or you to stupid?
So English Quran should call Allah God and like they do Lord. Or if you want to keep Allah then also use Raba not Lord stick with the same theme...
doesn't this explain the insertion of the Filioque in Spain
Ok its making more sense now but still a few lose ends. So someone went all the way from Andulisia to Abbassids controlled part and brought Islam with them that replaced the anti- trinitarian Christianity? But there must have been huge animosity between ummayids and Abbassids
It was a gradual change in the West as well as in the East. Nobody converted, they evolved. And yes, it was a large cultural area, so ideas did spread, but it happened in little drops, not as a big undertaking.
@@TAlexander Your theories are in-line with everything I heard from Jay Smith, Mel, etc... but there is one big question. As the early "Muslim" empire spread over a large region, how did they all decide to become new Muslims and believe in this newly invented prophet Mohamed in the end, surely some would have wanted to stay proto-Islamic (i.e. Christians). Yet we don't see this, most of the Christians in the middle-east believe in the Trinity. And there is no explanation why the Arabs in Spain decided to arbitrarily adopt the Mohamed created by their enemies the Abbasids. I just don't see the incentive.
Fun fact. For gruesome historical details of the cruelties of Umayyad rule in Spain read Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Morera. Chapter 4 The Myth of Umayyad Tolerance: Inquisitions, Beheadings, Impalings, and Crucifixions. Enjoy. 😁
Stop spamming
It has been claimed that the Cordoba qibla is pointed toward Mecca from the viewpoint of the caliph's Syria homeland. Can this be true?
Well, everything is possible I guess, though that particular hypothesis sounds quite far fetched IMHO. Why would anyone do something like that? Either Mecca is the important place to which praying believers must face, in which case you'd expect them to at least try and point the qibla towards Mecca, or it's not important. But copying the direction from Syrian places of worship guarantees that you're not praying towards Mecca.
@@TAlexander Dan Gibson claims the Cordoba qibla is parallel to a line between Petra and Mecca, as a compromise.
I know, TBH, I'm not sure what to make of Dan Gibson's hypothesis. There's just too much "noise" in his qibla data, and too many possibilities. He arbitrarily focuses on Petra and Mecca for example. At the same time, there are also clear patterns there. So I can neither dismiss nor embrace his conclusions. I think we're still missing the key to unlock the qibla conundrum. But Gibson's work is certainly a valuable step towards finding that key.
I would like to know if you have come across the story about some of the Ummayad rulers of al Andalus who went up to Switzerland in that period and ruled that place for a small amount of time. Is it true? Were they still antitrinitarian christians at that time?
According to the Biblical book Songs of Solomon, the covenant was transferred from the דּוֹדִֽים dwdym (David's people or the Jews - Songs 5:1) to the מַחֲּמַדִּים mhmdyim (Muhammad's people - Songs 5:16). (Both words are Hebrew masculine, plural NOUNS which the Christian translators have rendered as the adjective, lovely in their translations to hide the transfer of the covenant.). The Hebrew plural, masculine nloun suffix 'ym' is used to denote the people of the nation to which the proper noun refers as in מּוֹאָבִים (Moabym or Moabites), Ammonites or Amonym עַמֹּנִים, Egyptians or Musrym מִּצְרִים, Chaldeans or Chasidym כַּשְׂדִּים, Lydians or Lydym לוּדִים etc. The words mhmdym and dwdym are unique and only used once each in the entire Bible. So, one expects the translation to also be unique. The words dwdym and mhmdym constitute a synonymous parallelism which references the covenant relationship between these 2 peoples. The dwdym or Jews were the last ancient Semitic people to hold this covenant before it was transferred to the mhmdym or the Muslims who were and are Muhammad's people. In addition, the Palestinians are the original Jews as they carry the haplotype J1c3d. The Ashkenazi who control Palestine are not Semites. So, Palestinians, the native inhabitants for more than 5000 years, are the rightful owners of Palestine according to history, genetics and the bible.
The control of the land of Israel was based on the contingency that those bound by the covenant would obey the law (Torah) and worship the One, True God. According to the Bible, the Jews failed to abide by the covenant conditions. The last straw was when they attempted to murder the Prophet, Jesus (as). Matthew 21:43 has Jesus declare: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." So, it is clear that Jesus confirmed the prophecy in Songs 5 and the covenant was taken from the dwdym (David's people) and given to the mhmdym (Muhammad's people). The Mhmdym (Muslims) fulfilled the messianic expectations of the Jews when they created an empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean. The Mhmdym also rebuilt the former temple as Masjid Al Aqsa on the site which the Christian had deliberately defiled to dishonor the Jews and their god, Yhwh.
Songs is an allegory with many different levels of meaning. On one level, the symbolism is: the groom symbolizes the deity, the bride symbolizes the people who worship the deity and the love between the 2 symbolizes the contract or covenant between the deity and the people he chose to spread his message/religion throughout the world. On another level of interpretation, the groom is Solomon (Shlomo) whose name means 'peace' or Islam, the bride is the Shulamite whose name means 'the peaceful'. It is the love, the covenant or contract, that brings peace. Peace is accomplished when both the ruler and ruled agree to obey the contract as expressed in the Law. Songs is a prophecy that the Law or Torah was to be expressed through a covenant between the deity and the people who were committed to the purified Torah which became known as the Shariah, the law or Torah of the Muslim ummah. Allah's (swt) promises are always true, Subhanallah.
Lol it's not just Christians who translated it .the jews did too .So according to you ,two different religions somehow got together and decided to translate that one word as an adjective ? First tell me why was it translated that way? And also tell me if the same word appears somewhere else , maybe in another book of the Holy Bible? Since you consider Quran to be authoritative , tell Me is song of Solomon as per the Quran, a book or revelation from your God ?is it part of Torah...no
What about psalms of David... no
Gospel...no.
So on whose authority do you consider its contents to be prophetic? On account of the Christians and Jews ? Or Allah? If it's the latter then there is no evidence for it from Quran. And if former can you trust the people who you accuse to have corrupted the scriptures.This is why Islam apologetics is a joke.Islam is like 7th century version of mormonism, a religion started by a conman .
And why would Christians who follow YHWH destroy the only temple (sorry never has been mecca) of their GOD.do you not understand what Jesus means int hebrew ? Or the fact that YHWH is the same God that Christians to worship infact st.paul and even Jesus himself worshiped at the temple do you not see the problem here ? The temple was destroyed by the pagan Romans in 70 AD as a punishment for Jewish rebellion . Muslims are the odd one out with their Arab Allah.
@@Abk367 The Jews translated Songs into Koine Greek. In their translation mhmdym is translated as ἐπιθυμία which is a singular, feminine noun in the nominative case. This is a very bad translation as mhmdym is a common, plural, masculine noun in the absolute construct state. The Greek ἐπιθυμία is in no way comparable to the Hebrew מַחֲּמַדִּים . But, of course, that didn't stop Jerome et al translating the word as desiderabilis and the AKJ authors following suit with lovely. Christian translations as the Vulgate were based upon the Koine Greek translation and not the Hebrew original because the Hebrew version would not be availabe until circa 1000 CE. The Hebrew bible was standardized under the Umayyid and Abbassid caliphates. So, now we can deal with the Hebrew word mhmdym. The plural of the root mhmd is mhmd. So, the 'ym' suffix indicates that this word is describing a people as the 'ym' suffix is frequently to indicate a people or naiton. I gave many examples of this usage in my original post. Since, mhmdym refers to a people, this word means the people of Mhmd which is spelled in Hebrew exactly as it is spelled in Arabic: מַחְמָד (mhmd) and محمد in Arabic. The spelling in both languages is a one for one perfect match. Mhmd means Muhammad and mhmdym means Muhammad's people or ummah.
A true law will not let a prophet marry a child.
Started off well, then got into politics and the diatribe against UNESCO, which is a kind of kumbaya organisation, not Harvard university. I doubt any invasion of any country would be considered good. Islamic conquest of Spain is no different. I don't think the Dutch were thrilled when the Germans invaded them (No UNESCO at the time). At least the Moors didn't have cruise missiles, as happened to my country when it was invaded in recent years using shock and awe. The other parts of this video are amazing and nothing I have heard before.
Came to study some history, discovered some weird Christian-centered revisionism...
Somebody bought Dawah for Dummies.
AD 780 dated coin (614FC22) shows that Abd al Rahman I, minted coins with Quranic verses and clear mention of Muhammad as a prophet. How do we reconcile this? There was no Quran, no Islam...
"Muhammad is the messenger of God who sent him with the guidance and true religion..."
@Mysotiras 010 so they were also referring to Jesus along with Quranic verses on the same coin, until at some point, the Abbasid narrative also came in force in Spain and Muhammad was created and pushed down ardent Christians throats? Never mind that Abd al Rahman I fled from the Abbasids and he and the Christian Umayyads of Spain had every reason to not follow their new heresy of making Muhammad a new character, different from Jesus... In my opinion, it's hard to believe.
Islam always be false religion
Essential Study material for all muslims who are turned into drones.
Go and read the book "La revolución islamica en Occidente" by Ignacio Olague and you will better understand the tragedy of the Muslims and Jews of the peninsula.
It should be noted that the peoples who came from the barbarian invasions that sacked Rome, such as the Visigoths, but also the Ostrogoths, Lombards, Suavs and Vandals, were of unitary and not Trinitarian dogma, and the abjuration of Arianism by King Recardere I did not change the beliefs of his people.
It is easier to understand that the vast majority of the population did not follow the Trinitarian dogma of the church (THE real heresy because it associates God with another entity, thus polytheism) but were more inclined towards what the church calls "heresies", which explains why the Iberians progressively converted to Islam and adopted the Arabic language, which was the lingua franca, the scholarly language of the time, of the Arab-Muslim civilisation, to the detriment of the decaying Latin.
This also explains the meteoric rise of Islam from the Levant to the Iberian Peninsula, regions that formed the periphery of the Roman Empire and that were mostly followers of different religious currents other than the Trinitarian dogma (Judaism, Aranism, Nestorianism, Mazdeism, Manicheism, etc.).
The Arianism of the Iberian population is one of the most taboo subjects because more than a struggle between Muslims and Christians during centuries through a fantasized Reconquista (work of the Catholic propaganda), We would rather have witnessed a merciless struggle between Unitarians and Trinitarians from the Iberian Peninsula to North Africa via the Levant well before 711, which I would situate at least in the 4th century AD (Christianity as the official religion in 313 and the imposition of the Trinitarian dogma in 325) until the fall of the Catholic Church (Protestant reform, infiltration by Freemasonry).
And there, the story takes on a whole new meaning.
Moreover, it is worth noting the novlanguage that consists of calling Muslim populations Moors, Moriscos or Mudéjars. This semantic manipulation induces in our minds that these populations were ethnically different, that they were foreigners, that they were the descendants of invaders, whereas they were similar to the Catholic Iberians, and it is not the arrival of Arab and Berber horsemen that would have visibly changed the ethnic make-up of the peninsula.
To believe that the inhabitants of the peninsula magically became Arabs and Berbers in the ethnic sense is truly ignorant.
Even if Arabs and Berbers had landed, the men took Iberian wives and established themselves on the spot, and it is well known that it was fashionable to invent an Arab genealogy (go and see the Maghreb).
It cannot be said often enough, but the full conversion to Trinitarian Christianity only took place from 1614 (17th century), i.e. after the conversion and expulsion of the Jews and then the Muslims (Moriscos, Mudejars), This makes Spain (composed of different kingdoms before 1492) one of the last Christianised countries in Europe, well after the Nordic countries (conversion of the Vikings in the 10th century) and the Baltic countries (the last pagan countries in Europe converted to Trinitarian Christianity by the Teutonic knights).
The policies of the Catholic kings after 1492 were just appalling in comparison:
- Inquisition from 1478
- Expulsion of the Jews from 1492
- Policy of forced conversion by decree on 14 February 1502
- Doctrine of blood purity (limpieza de sangre)
- Expulsion of Moriscos between 1609 and 1614 by Philip III of Spain
With hindsight, this policy has nothing to envy and all proportions to the ethnic cleansing practiced in ex-Yugoslavia.
From there to say that the inquisition was set up to liquidate the Muslim (but also Jewish) past of the peninsula and to dissuade the Spaniards from deviating from the Trinitarian dogma, it's a step I wouldn't take, but it looks like it.
Mahshallah!
Second
Utter sophistry spread by deeply flawed & insecure christian fundamentalistic zealouts. It's so transparent. Exposed. Historical critical method. absolute rot.
Nice assertions.
Cope and seethe