Amazing stuff! A small contribution: Baghdad wasn't known as such till after the Mongol conquests, the name used in the times discussed here was Madinat Al-Salam, the city of peace. An Arabic version of the name Jerusalem, which has the same meaning. You once published a video named "Ohlig's thoughts on Islam's origins" (hope I got it right) about a book of his and others published around 2008. There is also a sequel to that book in 2013, which contains many more information, including what I said about the original name of Baghdad and a wonderful initial article written by Volker Popp. I recommend you get it in case you don't have it already! Ohlig died last month by the way, I will always have immense esteem for him.
Talmudic evidence suggests Baghdad existed before it received its very Jewish, City of Peace name. I will have to double check but if my memory serves me right, Pumbedita means at the mouth of Baghdad, it specifies the location of a canal linking to Baghdad. Considering Pumbedita's antiquity, this - all things being considered - would necessitate Baghdad being a very old name for the city. I have that book. I will get back to Ohlig as soon as I can.
Wow, wow and double wow! Once the Muslims understand that in fact historically they were a branch of Jewish history centred on Bahgdad and Iran they will implode.
@@MrSupplementScene If I recall correctly, there is mention of city walls around Mecca in reference to Zubairs rebellion in the 2nd fitna (civil wars).
@@roshlew6994 yes but there is no archeological evidence of city walls at Mecca. Mecca didn't have the water or food resources to have a population of a middling city. This leads us to believe the fitna wars happened elsewhere and for whatever reason they re-wrote history.
@@MrSupplementScene According to the standard islamic narrative, the 2nd fitna wars happened during the reign of umayyad ruler abd al-malik and he sent his lieutenanent Mohmed al-hajjaj to quell the rebellion by Zubair. Zubair took shelter in Mecca and al-Hajjaj lay seige to Mecca outside the city walls. He used trebuchets to throw stone projectiles into Mecca, which caused damage to the Kaaba and ultimately was able to defeat Zubair. None of this makes sense if Mecca never had walls surrounding it.
If the black stone is supposed to speak for all believers that kissed the black stone and had their sins forgiven on the day of judgement, how does this work if the black stone was broken into 7 pieces? Sounds like a dead stone to me.
I'm trying to figure this out. Benjamin's evidence contradicts the Aqueduct. One solution is that it was part of the Ottoman work, seeing as we have no pre-Ottoman building in Mecca. My default position is to accept an account unless proven to be false. If it turns out that the Zubayda aqueduct is much later, that would be highly disappointing, even if undermining for Islam. I will contact AJ Deus to see what he has on this. @@roshlew6994
@@IslamicOrigins Yeah, that was my thinking too.. Looks like the ottomans did an awful lot of things to further the islamic narrative, even moreso than the Abbasids. I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that the sunnah literature (hadiths, sirats & thareeks) were actually created during the ottoman period i.e. after the 13th century.
Fantastic work. This confirms the archeological and topographical evidence found to date. The clouds of deception are slowly disappearing. I think it’s just a matter of time before it becomes so clear that even those practicing Islam will have to confront it. Role on Jesus.🎉 Maybe then the world will become more peaceful?
Considering which group had a splinter up their behinds after the ravaging persection by the Romans, it's possible to see how some individuals wanted to reestablish themselves with a vengeance.
I've already done a lot of videos on his book before, mostly on my previous channel. Might come back to it, even I can be sure what is and is not interpolation.
This makes perfect sense! This seems to be confirmed in the Bible after the Babylonian captivity and integration of the Jewish captives. I.e. ESTHER: 8 On that day King Ahasuerus gave to Queen Esther the house of Haman, hthe enemy of the Jews. Esther was queen and she was Jewish! If this isn’t an open door to the influential powers of the day don’t know what is. Time allows the establishment to occur. ESTHER: 1 Now in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned afrom India to Ethiopia over b127 provinces.
15:06 minutes.When you mention Zaydi,could that be linked to quran word Zayd,rather than Zayd the son-in-law of Mohamed in the SIN? I dont know!yet SIN is so messed up,so anything could be possible.
Funny guy. Ironically, this work is questioning a "flat earth" consensus and you think I'm on the wrong side of history. Allow me to laugh right back at you.
This is actual research, WITH EVIDENCE. You just don't like where the evidence points. You prefer the standard Islamic narrative, for which there is ZERO 7th century historical evidence.
![Iran's Poisoned Arrows [5]: St John of Damascus -"from that time to the present"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eeI0eb_LW3Q/mqdefault.jpg)
![Iran's Poisoned Arrows [5]: St John of Damascus -"from that time to the present"](/img/tr.png)
Amazing stuff! A small contribution: Baghdad wasn't known as such till after the Mongol conquests, the name used in the times discussed here was Madinat Al-Salam, the city of peace. An Arabic version of the name Jerusalem, which has the same meaning.
You once published a video named "Ohlig's thoughts on Islam's origins" (hope I got it right) about a book of his and others published around 2008.
There is also a sequel to that book in 2013, which contains many more information, including what I said about the original name of Baghdad and a wonderful initial article written by Volker Popp. I recommend you get it in case you don't have it already!
Ohlig died last month by the way, I will always have immense esteem for him.
Talmudic evidence suggests Baghdad existed before it received its very Jewish, City of Peace name. I will have to double check but if my memory serves me right, Pumbedita means at the mouth of Baghdad, it specifies the location of a canal linking to Baghdad. Considering Pumbedita's antiquity, this - all things being considered - would necessitate Baghdad being a very old name for the city. I have that book. I will get back to Ohlig as soon as I can.
@IslamicOrigins Thanks for the clarification, very Jewish indeed... Glad you have that material!
Truth is always stranger than fiction.
Wow. This research is amazing. If I understand this correctly, the Jews are the original Abduls. That is insane but, it is not beyond belief.
Wow, wow and double wow!
Once the Muslims understand that in fact historically they were a branch of Jewish history centred on Bahgdad and Iran they will implode.
Hi Mel great work as usual
Can't wait for the next topic
Did Mecca ever have city walls?
No, the Saudi's admit this. So it can't be in Mecca
Mecca did not exist before 741ad -->>> no water no life no camels no trade no parchment.
@@MrSupplementScene If I recall correctly, there is mention of city walls around Mecca in reference to Zubairs rebellion in the 2nd fitna (civil wars).
@@roshlew6994 yes but there is no archeological evidence of city walls at Mecca. Mecca didn't have the water or food resources to have a population of a middling city. This leads us to believe the fitna wars happened elsewhere and for whatever reason they re-wrote history.
@@MrSupplementScene According to the standard islamic narrative, the 2nd fitna wars happened during the reign of umayyad ruler abd al-malik and he sent his lieutenanent Mohmed al-hajjaj to quell the rebellion by Zubair. Zubair took shelter in Mecca and al-Hajjaj lay seige to Mecca outside the city walls. He used trebuchets to throw stone projectiles into Mecca, which caused damage to the Kaaba and ultimately was able to defeat Zubair. None of this makes sense if Mecca never had walls surrounding it.
If the black stone is supposed to speak for all believers that kissed the black stone and had their sins forgiven on the day of judgement, how does this work if the black stone was broken into 7 pieces? Sounds like a dead stone to me.
Or you got 7 chances to be forgiven.
It was always a dead stone. Only people with the minds of children believe that stones will magically start speaking one day.
When was aqueduct of queen zubaida built? Wasn't it supposed to supply water for Mecca?
Supposed to be built by 801 unless this is another fabrication.
@@IslamicOrigins Does it imply Mecca was established as center of Islam by 800 AD?
I'm trying to figure this out. Benjamin's evidence contradicts the Aqueduct. One solution is that it was part of the Ottoman work, seeing as we have no pre-Ottoman building in Mecca. My default position is to accept an account unless proven to be false. If it turns out that the Zubayda aqueduct is much later, that would be highly disappointing, even if undermining for Islam. I will contact AJ Deus to see what he has on this. @@roshlew6994
Great question! Zamzam has always been an inadequate water source for Mecca, ever since Mecca was chosen as a pilgrimage site.
@@IslamicOrigins Yeah, that was my thinking too.. Looks like the ottomans did an awful lot of things to further the islamic narrative, even moreso than the Abbasids. I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that the sunnah literature (hadiths, sirats & thareeks) were actually created during the ottoman period i.e. after the 13th century.
Fantastic work. This confirms the archeological and topographical evidence found to date. The clouds of deception are slowly disappearing. I think it’s just a matter of time before it becomes so clear that even those practicing Islam will have to confront it. Role on Jesus.🎉 Maybe then the world will become more peaceful?
Nice Mel, great job explaining, you deserve a glass of Shiraz.
Considering which group had a splinter up their behinds after the ravaging persection by the Romans, it's possible to see how some individuals wanted to reestablish themselves with a vengeance.
Any information from robert hoylands book islam as others saw?
I've already done a lot of videos on his book before, mostly on my previous channel. Might come back to it, even I can be sure what is and is not interpolation.
This makes perfect sense! This seems to be confirmed in the Bible after the Babylonian captivity and integration of the Jewish captives. I.e. ESTHER: 8 On that day King Ahasuerus gave to Queen Esther the house of Haman, hthe enemy of the Jews. Esther was queen and she was Jewish! If this isn’t an open door to the influential powers of the day don’t know what is. Time allows the establishment to occur. ESTHER: 1 Now in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned afrom India to Ethiopia over b127 provinces.
15:06 minutes.When you mention Zaydi,could that be linked to quran word Zayd,rather than Zayd the son-in-law of Mohamed in the SIN?
I dont know!yet SIN is so messed up,so anything could be possible.
When you replace one lie with a other delusion, you dont get history, you get.... This.
'According to Wikipedia.' sums it up.
Wikipedia is there to give you Islam's version. Might not have made that clear.
Wikipedia is NOT a primary source. Most of the articles on Islam it contains were written by devout Muslims. Hardly trustworthy.
Let me guess, the Earth is flat too? 😂🤦♂️
Funny guy. Ironically, this work is questioning a "flat earth" consensus and you think I'm on the wrong side of history. Allow me to laugh right back at you.
People who still believe in the standard islamic narrative are just like the flat earthers 😄
@@roshlew6994 please do explain the standard islamic narrative
@@0MVR_0 what do you want to know?
How much of early islamic history do you know?
@@roshlew6994 Do me the favor of two requests. Tell me what language Jesus spoke then look up the word for 'god' in that language.
*Promo sm*
This is not a research, but filled with suppositions, probabilities and revisionist, basically, nonsense.
Yet. more factual and believable than the standard Islamic narrative..
Islam's narrative is 100% revisionist. Restoring historicity is not revisionism.
Dont you appreciate how history is now being told in a truthful and accurate manner?
This is actual research, WITH EVIDENCE. You just don't like where the evidence points. You prefer the standard Islamic narrative, for which there is ZERO 7th century historical evidence.
Of course he has something to say it will shake him badly to find out that they are worshipping a jewish exilarch