The great secret of Islam - the hidden history of Islam revealed

runninglikezebras

Crystallization of Islam

When closing this chronicle of the origins of Islam and its first formation, we will not forget to mention the process that led to its crystallization. It took place in the late 10th century, once all the phenomena we have earlier described in detail had finished to establish the general discourse of what Islam says about itself (the same that we discussed in the preamble). It is based on the Koran (which, as we have seen, ultimately said very little about itself as Islam if we consider it without the "authorized comments&quot, the Sira, oral traditions (hadiths, at least those considered most reliable) and a proper Muslim "historic" narrative in the context of the appearance of Islam situating Mecca, pre-Islamic history and explanation of polytheism, ignorance (jahiliya), genealogy of Muhammad, his life events, history of the early caliphs revised and updated to meet the legend ... And parallel to it Sharia, the Islamic law, which already was at that time very much like it is today . This crystallization takes place after a series of Baghdad caliphs called "liberals" as Harun al-Rashid or Al-Mamoun, who promoted the development of arts, techniques and thinking (celebrated today as the golden age of Islam). Some critical reflection on Islam was even able to flourish with the moutazilite movement, rationalist school of thought regarding the Quran as a "created" book. The reaction manifested itself in the acharite movement, of opposing nature, which eventually got the support of the Caliphates power (most notably Caliph Muttawakkil) Muttawakkil persecuted the moutazilites. This dogmatist movement became then the current of structuring of thought of Islam. Three major decisions are taken at the turn of the 11th century in these conditions by theologians and authorities of acharite obedience, still in force today

• The affirmation of the dogma of the uncreated Qur'an which would have been the celestial Koran that Mohammed would have received during the night journey.

• The doctrine of abrogation and the abrogated ("nasikh" and "mansukh&quot to end the inconsistencies of the Qur'an the later a Sura was revealed, the more imperative is its command; especially if two suras prove contradictory, consider the later sura as superior. This helps to sort out the injunctions under the so-called Medinan suras (mostly war injunctions) and injunctions of peace and tolerance within the so-called Meccan suras (supposedly to have come from the pseudo-period of Meccan life of Muhammad ). In case of conflict of interpretation, the suras called Medinan, assumed to have been revealed after the Meccan suras, outweigh the latter. This doctrine of abrogating and abrogated was already outlined in the Qur'an (s2,106 and s16,101). We can now understand a little better why such zeal was used to rearrange the order of suras, to justify the timing of their revelation, and why, curiously enough, the suras that must prevail are almost always those who advocate arbitrariness, violence and submission in the best interest of caliphs .

• The "closing of the doors of ijtihad", that is to say, stopping the effort of reflection on religion and interpretation work, the latter having then been deemed sufficiently supplied and otherwise dangerous for the cohesion of the empire because of differences of development within four jurisprudential schools of Islam; it establishes the prohibition of any criticism of religion, still in force in Muslim countries.

With the absolute sacredness of the character of Muhammad as described in the Islamic narrative, that of the early days of Islam, as well as the rachidun caliphs, these three decisions have crystallized the Muslim religion. It has since changed very little in its doctrine and its discourse , any attempt to modernize it being very quickly thwarted. The practice however could change with the changes of the times, as Muslims were under the authority of the caliph or outnumbered in a foreign jurisdiction, as this area was hostile it welcomed them in a liberal framework . In reality, the only flexibility that the fossilization of Islam only allows the pious believer to choose from a palette ranging from "modern" Islam of the 10th century to Islam of its pseudo-legalistic origins of the 7th century (source of Salafism), according to the four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence . This orders every generation to perpetually repeat what Islam thinks it was, to repeat the fantasy constructed by centuries of manipulation.

Sunnism and Shiism

Furthermore, without going into its complex maze, we must also say a word on Shiism , a divergent main branch of Islam (Islam is predominantly Sunni, 85% today). If it actually comes from the descendants of Ali supporters established in Persia, opponents of the Umayyads, we must remember that it contains the exact same core as Sunnism The Koran itself, although Shiites still feel that in the 16th century the Qur'an Sunni was falsified, almost the same Sira, and a discourse and sharia which are similar in their principles. From this common core, we can see that the Sunnis linked to the military caste, had historically focused on earthly conquest, predation and political dominance while Shiism, was more held by mysticism lent to Ali and his eschatological as referred to, was more concerned of faith. This divergence is clearly evident in the organization of the religion, Shia has a real centralized clergy who oversees political affairs. This is the translation of the historicopposition of supporters of Ali to the caliphs power. It will result in Shiism with the construction of a religious justification and a pseudohistorical discourse which is significantly different, according to the same logic of backward construction.

http//i.imgur.com/TIUP051.png

Image Mosque of Ali, housing his tomb (Najaf, Iraq, third most sacred place in islam in the world for pilgrimage)

The terrible struggle that opposes Shi'ism and Sunnism and which still opposes them today, proceeds from the internal motor common to the whole messianic ideology and its logic of surreality. It follows from this vision of the world as the site of the battle that must lead the pure against the impure in their project to eradicate evil by this measure, nothing is more miserable than a hypocrite, someone who is "falsely" pure, nothing more hateful than adulteration of the project. Fighting the impurity of his neighbor, is to assert its own purity . And as one always will eventually find on his way someone expressing to be more pure, it comes back to what we have previously established (see page 56) by nature, Islam is at war against itself.

An additional difference between Shiism and Sunnism which is most interesting results from differences emerging over the centuries because of their parallel environments of conservations, in the Persia on one hand and the Caliphate on the other hand concerning some traditions of the first judeonazarene religion. Sunnism and Shiism do not have exactly the same collections of hadiths, although religious rites ultimately differ very little. The Shiites follow in fact the hadiths related to Muhammad but also their twelve Imams (Twelver ). These are the successors of the Prophet imams, beginning with the Caliph Ali and his son Hasan and Hussein, which is made to almost worship. Other imams succeeded them, until the twelfth, Muhammad al-Hasan al Askari, called Muhammad al Mahdi, whom Allah would have "hidden" in the 9th century until the end of time. The two major branches of Islam deploy different visions of the scenario of end of time. Yet they show a common waiting both advocate the rule of law of Allah on earth, waiting for the last judgment and the coming of world savior, the Mahdi (the "rightly guided&quot, they will support him in his fight against the evil forces coalesced around the Antichrist which will become elected in his kingdom. Mahdi who will be supported by the return of Jesus, which Allah removed before the crucifixion, hidden in heaven where he is held in reserve for this. But while Shiites believe the Mahdi is their last imam, "hidden Imam", the Sunnis believe that the Mahdi will be the last successor of Muhammad, one that will unite the ummah. The Mahdi could even be Jesus himself, since according to some hadiths narrated by Anas ibn Malik in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, "Mahdi" is a title worn by Jesus.

We are now almost coming to the end of this chronicle of the origins of Islam. Its great secret appears in full light a different story, complex, very different from that what Islam wants to believe. We showed its judeonazarene origins, very close to the Jewish Christianity but nevertheless a radical break with it. We understood its messianic hope, the key event of the capture of Jerusalem which precipitated the failure of judeonazarism, the various manipulations that succeeded to retract them for the benefit of the Arabs, and the painful work of recovery and self-justification of conquerors posing as the new masters of the world and the centuries.

But before risking to make a conclusion on such a reading, we suggest to further detail some of the mechanisms that have allowed such manipulation. With them, we can consider some key readings of the Koran that will allow to detect the persistent traces of the truth about the origins of Islam.

The constitution of Sharia has also led to its share of Quranic changes.
Even when abrogated by the Medinan suras the Meccan suras are not much good contextual interpretation of the Meccan suras and Medinan applies. When Muslims are in a minority, as was the case in their view in Mecca for Muhammad, they must adopt the conduct of tolerance advocated by the Meccan suras. When they find themselves in a position of strength, in the image of the life of Mohammed in Medina, in case of numerical superiority, in the aspect of stronger of force or in the case of Muslim countries, they must apply the Medinan suras.
As has been stated by various thinkers and theologians of the second millennium.
We will return in conclusion about the distinction between Islamic doctrine and practice of Muslims. See also footnote 131 above.
We speak here of the Twelver Shi'ism, main branch of Shiism (90% of Shiites).
We see the example in the progressive development in the history of Shias animosity towards all first caliphs (which Sunnis honor as rachidun); they came gradually to view them as traitors to the religion.
We find this logic in all messianism the worst enemy of communist fighter for the advent of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the figure of the social traitor, the worst enemy is the Stalinist Trotskyite, the worst enemy of jihad is the bad jihadist.
Alongside the Twelver Shia (90% of Shia), we find the Ismaili Shiites, who stopped the succession of imams at the seventh, and Zaydi Shiites, who in turn stopped with the fifth. Other families of minority are also linked directly or indirectly to the Shiite tradition (Druze, Alawites, Nizari, Alevis ...).

reel

I refrained from responding to Reel since her post was entirely ad homimem.

I'm willing to debate these issues and defend them myself. But as I'm still facing the task of completing the translation of this book, the translation process has my priority for now. Once finished I will gladly debate every detail of it. This translation process will also allow me to familiarize myself better with the fine details of its content and debate them with more expertise. I haven't spent two years working with E.M. Gallez. Though I wish I had!

You don't have to defend yourself bro. I still appreciate that you took time to translate. My criticism was towards the main writer.

I don't agree with you. See for instance sura 19,40 "We Only, We inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned." you will see in the third part of my book a short quranic study explaining this verse.

You don't have to agree with me. You are mainstream anyways and you will see everything by using that. So from one line you come to conclusion that conquering is permitted? Did the British and khans also go around invading countries by being inspired by this verse?

Gallez is by no mean a "prophet", just a scholar who based his work on facts and real historical material (ie contemporary sources of the events he tries to explain). Some of this material is rather new and revolutionnary (letters & documents that has been discovered lately, new methods and analysis, that haven't been taken into account by previous scholars. See Robert Hoyland's book, Seeing islam as others saw it - some of his work can be found here http//christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html# and here http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html and also in Alfred-Louis de Pr?mare's Les Fondations de l'islam / Islam's Foundations)

Your para above is a clear sign that your critical thinking ability is so bad that you won't even pass SAT. My comment about Abu Huraira was simply an analogy to your claim of why we should believe what you said (as in, I worked with the guy).

My book does not pretend to be something else than the vulgarization of his work. He asked me to do it because he doesn't have my "vulgarization" abilities, and because he is now too old and tired to cope with such a hard work. So, consider my book as his, he vouches for it.

Typical tactic used by journalists. When questioned blame the ones from whom the disinfo is taken.

The term "Nasara" in the Qur'an, the meaning of his employment.
The Nazarene figures in Islam as having instructed Muhammad (Waraqa, to a lesser extent Bahira). Islamic history cannot account for this.
The concordance of Jewish eschatology (at least some scenarios) with Muslim eschatology and beyond, the strange similarity between numerous Muslim traditions with some Jewish traditions, such as the descent of the quran ("Isra and miraj" vs. Moses going to heaven to get the Torah from God) and others elements (texts, laws ...) ; the concordance of Nazarene worldview and that of Islam.
The Syrian origins of the Qur'an and Islam the judeonazarene toponymy (place names, hills, temples, which are found in the quran, as Abil Bet Ma'ka Abu Kaaba, Abu Qobels ... ), the quraysh places names that are not found anywhere else (caravanserai of Quraysh, Quraysh River), archeology, with excavations that have shown that judeonazarenes lived in Syria and they lived together in same places with Arabs from the late 6th century, philology which showed that the language used in the quran is not south Arabic but north Arabic (see the work of Robert Kerr http//www.tingismagazine.com/article/the_language_of_the_koran.html) and the quran itself, which describes the pseudo-Meccans as inhabiting the Mediterranean regions (farmers, cattle breeders, fishermen) and describes their habitat (vegetation) as Mediterranean, as proved by Patricia Crone.
The coincidence of the history of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem (including rediscovery by Alfred-Louis de Pr?mare) with the judeonazarene project to rebuild the temple, the sourced evidence of the presence of Jews with Arabs, the weirdness of the islamic testimonies of the reconstruction of the temple under Omar (built by and for Jews, whereas they are supposed to be hatred since the slaughter of Banu Qurayza in Medina)
Chronicle of Pseudo Sebeos which I quote in The Great Secret of Islam
New computer study of the quran (publication in 2014 of the thesis of Jean-Jacques Walter), which is a proof in itself (whereas the historical hypotheses are no more than probable hypotheses at most).

Etc, etc. To really dig the issue I recommend reading the thesis of Father Edouard-Marie Gallez, I have made no secret that it was essential for detailed understanding of what I describe in The Great Secret of Islam.

and also ...

It seems you wrote your book with the preconceived notion that Islam was a new religion/deen, Quran was a new book, Islam gave permission to Arabs to go around being savage.

Here is your Jean-Jacques Walter and his book

The Quran was written by at least thirty authors, more than one hundred, more likely fifty (p. 21)
The Koran was written over a period of more than two hundred years (p. 25)
The difference between suras of Mecca and Medina suras is a grammarian artifact without historical significance (p. 30)
Muhammad was inducted founding prophet of Islam earlier than 60 years after his death (p. 31)
The Islamic theology is not an innovation it is an almost "copied and pasted" the Nazarene theology. One of the few 50 authors of the Koran wrote all the verses that come from the Nazarene theology (p. 39)
The first foundation of Islam is not monotheism, but the anti-Christianity (p. 45)

As for your Father Edouard-Marie Gallez, since he is a clergyman (traditionalist just like rabbis and mainstream Muslim scholars who live in the land of lies) I will remain suspicious of his work.

This is not "my" claim but his. But I know enough of his claim to defend it myself

I did not expect you to lie. This is what you said in your website
relying on the work of real scientists, foremost among which Father Edward Gallez-Marie, with whom I worked for two years for writing the Great Secret of the Islam.

Knowledge about it comes from Dussaud's work, archaelogical excavations, Patricia Crone's work, interpretation of the quran and islamic traditions in the light of this new data, new and old sources that place the Ishmaelites in northern Iraq and Syria that are all cited in my book

This does not explain a thing about how they had all the resources for the conquest and wars. You don't seem to even understand the meaning of Islamic traditions. To me, its like saying that hadiths are true.

How about being suspicious of Edouard-Marie Gallez's work ? He's no journalist but an independant scholar, not linked to any institution funded with saudi oil money or hindered by political correctness...

You admitted that you are a journalist and my little google search revealed that Mr Edouard-Marie Gallez is a clergyman. The book or whatever you wrote now looks more like celebration of pinocchio's long nose.

Some historical uncertainties have been cleared out by Gallez's work. Lots remain also, but the point of Gallez's work (and also my book) is not to explain everything but to assert a general scheme, a sort of frame in which the events took place. This frame is 1) the transmission to some Arabs of a jewish-christian hope that the Messiah would come back as a political figure and that he would give the world to his true followers, ie Arabs and Judeonazarene 2) the appropriation of this hope by those Arabs, excluding the Judeonazarene, their former religion masters, from it. I believe Gallez has a very strong case to support this frame.

Academically, things remain unclear without the review done by other scholars. So you believe that only people of Abrahamic religions are waiting for messiah who would rule the world, but Quran just forgets to mention it? D

Already explained it in the book, many times, from the jewish perspective, the judeonazarene one, the Arab one, the muslim one ...

D Because I didn't mention its real meaning you didn't want to mention it either to save yourself.

I did more than study it I explained it with the idea of salvation and how it had been used (and still is used) as a political ultima ratio

Its actually psychological first and then political.

You seem to know my intentions better than me !! How prescient of you ... Actually, I have no other intention than to bear witness unto the truth, or at least unto what little we can know of it based on facts (and not on an history that has been written centuries after the events it is supposed to describe). It's like I am just telling people that Santa Claus does not exist. Kids (and grown ups) might feel pain learning this, but still, even the hugeness of this pain does not prevent Santa Claus from not existing.

I am not the only one who knows your intention better. That is why, journalism is dead and news channels are dying. Based on facts???? You truly don't have idea about academic research.

"Extremism" does not mean anything at all. A french comedian told once a joke about real "extremist" christians, that they should be giving hugs and kisses to everyone according to their texts (he might not have known some american extremist "christians" ...). I tried to explain the real roots of violence in religion and in political-philisophical systems it is the idea that we can achieve a world freed from evil, from pain, from bad guys, that we can build a "better" world, that we can change the very nature of the world and of men, that there is a salvation that is achievable through politics and human force. I showed that it comes from the news ideas introduced by Jesus and christians, who had at that time no political agenda at all, but triggered all sorts of "extremisms" among others.

Extremism means a lot. It takes away our liberty, gives power to elite, cleans up ghettos, generates profit, creates policies, divides people, maintains hate and gives birth to 50 shades of grey that you have here.

Hope my english is clear enough. Maybe I should quit debating since I feel I cannot express my ideas as well as I want to ... Maybe I should let Runninglikezebras do the talking. You tell me !

You have problem with English, but you are sure your work is full of facts? I have news for you. Zillions of English journal articles have looked into Islamic history. We use them to learn how much of what has truth. I see that Mr Edouard Marie Gallez's book has been received by certain databases, but not inspected by scholars. Hence, I would be careful in giving it importance right now.

You don't need to spend time defending yourself. It will not work on me at least because I have already seen so much blood shed your type has caused in this world through lies and manipulation that I can no more take you seriously. Do it for others if you wish to. I won't waste time responding here anymore.

Over and out

Man_of_Faith

It is not proper to replace a lie with another lie.

Quran is written in a script allegedly invented by the Nabeteans in northern Arabia, and the script was conspicuously finished only about 100-200 years before Quran was allegedly written. A Carbon-14 dating has shown likelihood that a copy of Quran that they have discovered is from before 600 with 75% or something probability, but that does not prove it is the oldest ever available.

Be safe
Amenuel

huruf

You don't have to defend yourself bro. I still appreciate that you took time to translate. My criticism was towards the main writer.
You don't have to agree with me. You are mainstream anyways and you will see everything by using that. So from one line you come to conclusion that conquering is permitted? Did the British and khans also go around invading countries by being inspired by this verse?
Your para above is a clear sign that your critical thinking ability is so bad that you won't even pass SAT. My comment about Abu Huraira was simply an analogy to your claim of why we should believe what you said (as in, I worked with the guy).
Typical tactic used by journalists. When questioned blame the ones from whom the disinfo is taken.

It seems you wrote your book with the preconceived notion that Islam was a new religion/deen, Quran was a new book, Islam gave permission to Arabs to go around being savage.

Here is your Jean-Jacques Walter and his book

The Quran was written by at least thirty authors, more than one hundred, more likely fifty (p. 21)
The Koran was written over a period of more than two hundred years (p. 25)
The difference between suras of Mecca and Medina suras is a grammarian artifact without historical significance (p. 30)
Muhammad was inducted founding prophet of Islam earlier than 60 years after his death (p. 31)
The Islamic theology is not an innovation it is an almost "copied and pasted" the Nazarene theology. One of the few 50 authors of the Koran wrote all the verses that come from the Nazarene theology (p. 39)
The first foundation of Islam is not monotheism, but the anti-Christianity (p. 45)

As for your Father Edouard-Marie Gallez, since he is a clergyman (traditionalist just like rabbis and mainstream Muslim scholars who live in the land of lies) I will remain suspicious of his work.
I did not expect you to lie. This is what you said in your website
relying on the work of real scientists, foremost among which Father Edward Gallez-Marie, with whom I worked for two years for writing the Great Secret of the Islam.
This does not explain a thing about how they had all the resources for the conquest and wars. You don't seem to even understand the meaning of Islamic traditions. To me, its like saying that hadiths are true.
You admitted that you are a journalist and my little google search revealed that Mr Edouard-Marie Gallez is a clergyman. The book or whatever you wrote now looks more like celebration of pinocchio's long nose.
Academically, things remain unclear without the review done by other scholars. So you believe that only people of Abrahamic religions are waiting for messiah who would rule the world, but Quran just forgets to mention it?
Because I didn't mention its real meaning you didn't want to mention it either to save yourself.
Its actually psychological first and then political.
I am not the only one who knows your intention better. That is why, journalism is dead and news channels are dying. Based on facts???? You truly don't have idea about academic research.
Extremism means a lot. It takes away our liberty, gives power to elite, cleans up ghettos, generates profit, creates policies, divides people, maintains hate and gives birth to 50 shades of grey that you have here.
You have problem with English, but you are sure your work is full of facts? I have news for you. Zillions of English journal articles have looked into Islamic history. We use them to learn how much of what has truth. I see that Mr Edouard Marie Gallez's book has been received by certain databases, but not inspected by scholars. Hence, I would be careful in giving it importance right now.

You don't need to spend time defending yourself. It will not work on me at least because I have already seen so much blood shed your type has caused in this world through lies and manipulation that I can no more take you seriously. Do it for others if you wish to. I won't waste time responding here anymore.

Over and out

Congratulate you on your patience, Reel, I have not been reading the work of Olaf, but overreding a line here and there, which is not much for sure, but for me it is enough to get the connfirmation that it is the same as it began and that it is all creativeness over,inter and intraclouded with plenty of unaconnected material which on sheer quantity and strength is forced as related to what it is purported to proofe, but which in fact continues to be unrelated. Tons of material, but useless for the declared purpose. Rather like prooving that since milk is white and a paper is also white one comes from the other.

And again all in the line of joyously discrediting the Qur'an. Meaningless work.

Salaam

runninglikezebras

You don't have to defend yourself bro. I still appreciate that you took time to translate. My criticism was towards the main writer.

Your criticism is indeed a personal attack on the author instead of criticism on elements of his work. As Olaf explained, it's difficult for him to defend in a language he doesn't fully master. So I'm stepping in. And will try to respond to your criticism where it is not aimed personally at the author but on supposed weaknesses in his work (which is still not completely translated by yours truly).

You don't have to agree with me. You are mainstream anyways and you will see everything by using that. So from one line you come to conclusion that conquering is permitted? Did the British and khans also go around invading countries by being inspired by this verse?

About the author being mainstream... This is a misunderstanding. As Olaf explained, he is a journalist. Part of his work, is to popularize work done by scholars so it becomes accessible to all. This does not mean the author himself is mainstream, in fact his orientation should be entirely irrelevant. The author is only using mainstream tools, such as social media, publishing the book and distributing it. The core idea itself is NOT mainstream it is the work of scholars that have not been getting enough attention by media in the past. The aim of the author is to change this and incorporate this knowledge into the mainstream thinking by publishing a book that is accessible to everyone and not only academics.

The British were never a muslim empire. The mongols were at some point however, in fact Islam was easy to embrace for the mongols since it fitted perfectly well with their already existing practice of conquest.

Your para above is a clear sign that your critical thinking ability is so bad that you won't even pass SAT. My comment about Abu Huraira was simply an analogy to your claim of why we should believe what you said (as in, I worked with the guy).

You are not asked to believe anything. You are encouraged to read and verify.

Typical tactic used by journalists. When questioned blame the ones from whom the disinfo is taken.

It seems you have a general distrust for journalism. I don't feel Olaf's work contains disinformation. The source references are the work of academics, scholars. If you disagree with them, I suggest you write a peer review. For a peer review, you will need substantial counter-evidence however, insulting someone's intelligence is not an academic argument.

It seems you wrote your book with the preconceived notion that Islam was a new religion/deen, Quran was a new book, Islam gave permission to Arabs to go around being savage.

And you base this suspicion on what?

Here is your Jean-Jacques Walter and his book

The Quran was written by at least thirty authors, more than one hundred, more likely fifty (p. 21)
The Koran was written over a period of more than two hundred years (p. 25)
The difference between suras of Mecca and Medina suras is a grammarian artifact without historical significance (p. 30)
Muhammad was inducted founding prophet of Islam earlier than 60 years after his death (p. 31)
The Islamic theology is not an innovation it is an almost "copied and pasted" the Nazarene theology. One of the few 50 authors of the Koran wrote all the verses that come from the Nazarene theology (p. 39)
The first foundation of Islam is not monotheism, but the anti-Christianity (p. 45)

Your point? I would agree with almost everyone of those points and they were indeed used in Olaf's work as source. The author has never hidden this.

As for your Father Edouard-Marie Gallez, since he is a clergyman (traditionalist just like rabbis and mainstream Muslim scholars who live in the land of lies) I will remain suspicious of his work.

Again, next to a suspicion in general for journalists you admit to being also suspicious of clergyman. There is nothing wrong with feeling like that, but you have to understand THOSE are NOT RATIONAL ARGUMENTS but entirely EMOTIONAL. Objectively, it doesn't matter if E-M Gallez is a clergyman. He published his thesis using academic standards for research and published it for academic review. Are academics not allowed to have a religion? If so, you should throw out 95% of your science books as most of those contain the understanding of roman catholic scientists.

I did not expect you to lie. This is what you said in your website
relying on the work of real scientists, foremost among which Father Edward Gallez-Marie, with whom I worked for two years for writing the Great Secret of the Islam.
This does not explain a thing about how they had all the resources for the conquest and wars. You don't seem to even understand the meaning of Islamic traditions. To me, its like saying that hadiths are true.

You accuse the author of not having explained how this was possible but the reasons are many times covered in the work of the author the devastating effect of the Persian-Byzantine war made conquest possible, while meeting little resistance. Next to this the author pointed to political reasons anti-Byzantine sentiments made the conquerors in some regions to be liberators. Predating this events the Justinian plague crippled the major powers (Byzantines-Persians) significantly.

You admitted that you are a journalist and my little google search revealed that Mr Edouard-Marie Gallez is a clergyman. The book or whatever you wrote now looks more like celebration of pinocchio's long nose.
Academically, things remain unclear without the review done by other scholars. So you believe that only people of Abrahamic religions are waiting for messiah who would rule the world, but Quran just forgets to mention it? D

This is also covered in the original work first of all it is mentioned in sura 19,40. Next to this the author explains how the messianist interpretation (waiting for a messiah to return), shifted to one of conquest and cult of the caliph (with caliphs as lieutenants of God). Furthermore the author never claimed this idea is exclusive to Abrahamic religion.

D Because I didn't mention its real meaning you didn't want to mention it either to save yourself.
Its actually psychological first and then political.
I am not the only one who knows your intention better. That is why, journalism is dead and news channels are dying. Based on facts???? You truly don't have idea about academic research.
Extremism means a lot. It takes away our liberty, gives power to elite, cleans up ghettos, generates profit, creates policies, divides people, maintains hate and gives birth to 50 shades of grey that you have here.
You have problem with English, but you are sure your work is full of facts? I have news for you. Zillions of English journal articles have looked into Islamic history. We use them to learn how much of what has truth. I see that Mr Edouard Marie Gallez's book has been received by certain databases, but not inspected by scholars. Hence, I would be careful in giving it importance right now.

You don't need to spend time defending yourself. It will not work on me at least because I have already seen so much blood shed your type has caused in this world through lies and manipulation that I can no more take you seriously. Do it for others if you wish to. I won't waste time responding here anymore.

Over and out

You keep repeating your general distrust for journalism (bordering paranoia) and projecting some hidden agenda on the author, that simply isn't there. You don't substantiate any of your criticism with rational arguments, but keep resorting to an emotional narrative of distrust for media. How do you expect Olaf to respond to this except shrug?

Jafar

Thank you @Olaf for the works..
And thank you @Runninglikezebras for the translation.
Shukran to both of you..

A long material, I will read and comment later..
In a meantime, please disregard the "Ad Hominemers"..
But I guessed you have expected as such, as the materials will not be a 'pleasant read' to many..
They feel 'personally attacked' by the materials, thus they directed their attack, in response to their inconvenience, to your 'persona'....
A common behaviors shown by human being everywhere...

runninglikezebras

You're welcome Jafar. I will continue the translation until the document is complete. Haters gonna hate.

Taro_Hiroshi

Peace runninglikezebras,

I suggest translating the whole book and then post it here. I think it will be easier for people to read the book, if you translate the whole book, then create a pdf file, and share it on this thread. I think it is easier to be able to read all of a book, instead of having to wait and only read it little by little until it's translation is finished.

Keep up the good work.

runninglikezebras

I agree in a sense. The end-result will be exactly that. Olaf will be using these translations in helping to create an English version of his work and make it available as a pdf.

My modus operandi is such that I prefer to chop up the work in parts and publish those when ready. This has certain advantages. The first pieces of translation are with this method more quickly available to Olaf and to the freeminds community. They are sort of an English premiere, you should feel privileged.

Olaf

Two american scholars are currently translating the book. The work of runninglikezebras speeds us the process. A finalized english version will be published within a month and half/ two monthes maximum (pdf document under creative commons licence, with nice layout, images, maps, photos, and internet links to sources and usefull information). It will be avalaible freely on my website, like the french edition.

runninglikezebras

KEYS OF READING THE ISLAMIC DISCOURSE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS REAL ORIGINS

What became the Quran has changed considerably since the proto-Quran composed of judeonazarene sheets until the development of its final text. It suffered as seen an amount of manipulations during a very complex process. The Qur'an thus proves to be one of the most reworked texts and is therefore one of the most difficult to access. It is also difficult to understand it without its glosses and without accompanying texts who explain it. Likewise, the discourse of explaining has also changed dramatically over time, undergoing its share of manipulation. In short, it has long been very difficult to read it clearly. But giant strides have been made with the work of Edouard-Marie Gallez on judeonazarenes and highlighting their key role. While there is still much to be done for researchers to unravel the layers of rewriting and manipulation of texts and manipulation of the Islamic discourse. Lets use this light brought to us to clear things up in the future.

SOME CONSTITUTIVE MANIPULATIONS OF THE ISLAMIC DOGMA

We can already isolate some mechanical manipulations of dogma and Islamic history, and even date them in the light of events we have showed. We must understand that there have been two major "technical" manipulations

• When the texts were in the hands of the Muslim leaders (first caliphs, until Abd al-Malik), it was relatively easy to directly change their content, but at the risk of civil war destruction or addition of sheets, scratching and rewriting unseemly references (palimpsests), pure and simple additions of words or whole sentences in the course of the text (interpolations) ... And of course, the scribes of the caliphs also used the tools of the reorganization of the text constitution of suras by the choice of the most appropriate verses, ordering of the suras and verses ... We can speak in this case of text manipulation, as was noted in the study of the Quranic Sanaa manuscripts .

http//i.imgur.com/qDTVDoN.jpg

Examples of manipulation of the Qur'an revealed on the Sanaa manuscripts by the visible presence of palimpsests (the lower writing being scraped or washed off, is still visible in the upper writing)

1 - David Manuscript 86/2003, front (photo Sotheby's, carried out for the auction in 1992)
2 - Enlargement of a manuscript fragment photographed by Gerd Puin
3 - Lighting of a portion of the portfolio with ultraviolet light revealing the palimpseste
4 - Inferior text of a palimpsest reconstituted by Asma Hilali (see note 13; here it shows an earlier version of a fragment of text s24,33 different from the Cairo edition

• When the written Arabic language began to settle under Abd al-Malik, and the Qur'an was distributed more widely, it proved far more difficult to directly manipulate the text. This phenomenon occurred more often (for example by playing with the vocalization of the text allowing for example the change of a verbal form from active to passive, we'll see an illustration of this on page 87 ). Also, as mentioned above, it was preferred instead to manipulate the meaning of the texts change the meaning of certain words, arbitrary assignment of names of places or people to make the text mean something differently, inventing a speech in annex to explain and interpret the text according to what its manipulators wanted them to mean, creation of false evidence by the hadiths, rewriting of historical events ... The creation of the episode of the night journey illustrates very well the imagination of scribes and historians serving the caliphs. We can speak in this case of manipulation of discourse. This operation continues still today with the work of concordists they are Islamic scholars who absolutely try to find in the Qur'an today established scientific truths, but inconceivable at the time of Mohammed. Sometimes reaching the grotesque , these attempts to establish so-called "scientific miracles of the Qur'an" perfectly illustrate the backwards logic presiding in Islam, that is to say building constructed reasoning to justify predetermined conclusions.

These "techniques" were employed in the service of the formation of Islamic dogma. The starting points that constituted the "religion of Abraham and the Messiah Jesus " as preached by the judeonazarenes and the memory of the actual historical origins have become very difficult to discern under the thick layers of successive manipulations. The text of the Quran explained by the Islamic discourse has almost completely overshadowed them. But thanks to new scientific research as presented in these pages, it becomes possible to clarify some of these manipulations. The understanding allows to decrypt the Islamic discourse, and thus by using the right reading keys, to find its real origins. Let us examine a few symbolic manipulations, such as the manipulation of terms to denote believers of different monotheistic religions, and historical and geographical transfer of the actual origins of Islam. We will see later how this knowledge restores a little of the historical truth in the Quran and in the Islamic discourse.

These manuscripts of the Koran are among the oldest ever, found in Sanaa, Yemen in 1972, and having escaped destruction ordered by the caliphs of all non-compliant writings. Some date back to the second half of the 7th century (perhaps even before for the dating of the erased writings and recovered palimpsests). The German palaeographer Gerd R?diger Puin was called by the Yemeni authorities to restore, catalog and investigate these manuscripts (estimated at 12,000 fragments and whole folios). He realized, with other researchers, an impressive collection of photographs currently under study. These manuscripts reflect heterodox versions of the Koran, and at least one story of his writing, progressive and eventful as we have seen, contradicting that of Muslim traditions (final edition of the Koran under the Caliph Uthman). They support some of analysises of Edouard-Marie Gallez of manipulations of the Qur'anic text. This discovery rather disturbs, as shown, and makes Yemeni authorities feel uneasy - See also the work of Asma Hilali and her study of Sanaa Qurans, published in The World of the Bible (Summer 2012) and developed since (her article "The Palimpsest Sana'a and the canonization of the Qur'an New Developments&quot. She assumes that "Heterodoxy" of manuscripts can be explained by the requirements of that time and by the process of exegesis and learning.
Remember that this work of vocalization of the text lasted until the 10th century
Many Muslims recognize this themselves and are demanding an end to these works that "demean Islam." Some examples on this site http//www.miraclesducoran.com/scientifique_index.html

Fusion

Thanks buddy for your snaps of the oldest quran found.

I maybe asking too early but It would be interesting to know how much Sanaa palimpsest differs from the Quran that we have today. Especially if there is a change of meanings. Does it also present new chapters or deleted chapters ?

Another interesting aspect is to wait and see the results of the investigation into Sanna manuscripts. Muslims common belief is that the Quran we have today is the perfect unchanged word of God, unlike Bible which has gone through various changes through history.

The claim that Sanna quran is the oldest, as you mentioned during first two centuries of Islam, it is imperative that we know the variations to the present day Quran. The most important is were the changes minor or major .

cheers

Fusion

Some research I found.

http//www.answering-christianity.com/karim/mosque_of_sanaa.htm

runninglikezebras

Thanks buddy for your snaps of the oldest quran found.

I maybe asking too early but It would be interesting to know how much Sanaa palimpsest differs from the Quran that we have today. Especially if there is a change of meanings. Does it also present new chapters or deleted chapters ?

Another interesting aspect is to wait and see the results of the investigation into Sanna manuscripts. Muslims common belief is that the Quran we have today is the perfect unchanged word of God, unlike Bible which has gone through various changes through history.

The claim that Sanna quran is the oldest, as you mentioned during first two centuries of Islam, it is imperative that we know the variations to the present day Quran. The most important is were the changes minor or major .

cheers

The author is not making claims it is the oldest Quran but among the oldest fragments known today. Their study is ongoing. You can find a list of suspected verses on the website of E-M Gallez see http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm

You may also want to check Gerd R. Puin 's work, though I'm not sure his work has been translated from German to English. For a short summary in video format check https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXCSATYVGBA

Taro_Hiroshi

I agree in a sense. The end-result will be exactly that.

Good to hear

runninglikezebras

Muslims, Christians, Jews and "polytheists" according to the Islamic dogma

As we saw in the introduction, Islam claims to have appeared in an environment which remained fiercely polytheistic even though the entire Middle East had been christianizing for six centuries, and even though regular and close contacts with Jews and Christians were established a long time ago for commercial reasons. Among Qorechites, these connections with Jews and Christians have been particularly important for Muhammad, as has been emphasized in the Muslim tradition. In the sense that the "prophet of Islam ", did not need either of them since his message was directly dictated by an angel of God. Based on these elements of the Islamic dogma, Western discourse sought to rationally imagine how Islam has been founded by Muhammad. As such we can imagine how the latter could obtain information from representatives of Christianity and Judaism in order to make himself a "new religion." And even though it denies any divine intervention, this seemingly rational Western discourse followed that of Islam in its main premise no group of former judeochristians such as that of the judeonazarenes could have been the direct initiator of changes among Qorechites, and Islam would have suddenly appeared out of nothing, that is to say within a polytheistic environment (Mecca). How is such blindness even possible?

It seems that the factor that has so long kept in check the Western rationality was firstly the ability shown by the caliphs, with the scribes who worked for them, to fully retract the memory of judeonazarenes. If there is indeed question of Christians and Jews in the idealized life of Muhammad as the Islamic discourse reconstructed it, then there is no trace of judeonazarenes. By what trick could they be completely hidden in the history of Islam while they have contributed so much to it?

To understand this, we have to go back in history to the time of the alliance between judeonazarenes and Arabs, in Syria and in Yathrib-Madina. Here is how they then considered different types of believers in their neighborhood (qualifiers all come from the judeonazarane doctrine) there were Christians, most of them Arab (and other Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians), qualified as idolaters ("musrikun" ) and the Rabbinical Jews, qualified as concealers ("kuffar" - see note ), hated by judeonazarenes ("Nasara&quot, and converted Arabs (to judeonazarism). Rabbinical Jews and judeonazarene Jews together constituted the "people of the Book" ("ahl al kitab&quot. What "book" could be referred to at the beginning of the seventh century? Obviously the Torah, the book of books , the reference book of judeonazarenes. "People of the Book", are thus all the Jews of that time, the heirs of the Torah. This primarily concerns the rabbinical Jews, the most numerous. But the small group of judeonazarenes share this heritage with their rabbinical "ethnic" cousins, even when they revile as much as they can these "kuffar" in their texts and in their indoctrination among Arabs. Moreover, judeonazarenes and Arabs who made their allegiance, sharing the same faith and the same messianic project, form the ummah ("umma&quot, which can be translated as "clan", "tribe", " community "or "nation".

Let us ponder on this term umma, a very common word formed from "umm," mother. It comes from the Torah , where it refers to the twelve tribes of Israel, the chosen people. The term was preserved by judeonazarenes who considered themselves according to their faith as the only true Jews. They claimed to be the true Israel, the community (meaning the tribal clan, the people) of just Jews, of the solely elect. This is attested to even in the Koran if you read it correctly, as we shall see. When the alliance with the Arabs becomes effective, over the indoctrination of the late 6th century and early 7th, the ummah will include the allocation by the patriarch Abraham by Arab descent. It will become a composite judeonazarene and Arab community.

Then comes the episode of 640 and the retraction of the judeonazarenes. To justify it a posteriori, we saw that Omar, Uthman and their successors changed the sheets that form the Quran by adding (interpolating) the term "Nasara" (= Nazarenes = judeonazarenes) to certain verses of distrust towards Rabbinical Jews. They then wanted to flatten by force the meaning of "Christians" in this term. It is a case of manipulation of text and discourse, simple enough to understand but difficult to detect . It was initially to justify the sudden hatred of Arabs towards their former masters. But it moved quickly to transfer the meaning of the original ummah exalted in the texts to that of the new Ummah consisting of only Arabs, the community of true believers (marking their contempt for the false beliefs of judeonazarenes) and then to that of the ummah of Muslims only.

And so, with these first manipulations and over the many others that followed, a new religion appeared. A religion that is no longer justified by its real historical past, radically derived from Judeo-Christianity as operated by judeonazarenes but by a new revelation, a new choice of God. And as it is imperative that this choice is new, it is also necessary that the Arabs have nothing to do with the past. It had to be so that Islam and Quran appeared in a milieu untouched by Christian and Jewish previous revelations. They must therefore invent an environment of pagan origin, an idolatrous and polytheist environment and it must be so that the Quran and its external discourse mention this polytheistic substrate in which it affirms that Islam has been revealed. The problem, though, is that the discourse of this new religion was mainly developed after the text of the Quran had been almost fixed and distributed by Abd al-Malik and his successors. How then make these texts say what is not written, what they do not mean?

This will be an emblematic case of manipulation of discourse and meaning by transfers, shifts of the meaning of words represented in the following diagram

http//i.imgur.com/o1nZiiK.png

John of Damascus wrote in 746 in his treatise on Heresies that Arabs accused the Christians "to introduce a partner alongside God saying that Christ is the son of God, and is God." They were repeating the judeonazarene indoctrination of faith, as we have seen on Page 26. It translates the Arabic 'musrikun "with" idolaters "and not by" pagans "or" polytheists. "
Just as the word "Bible" comes from the Greek "" or "bible" and simply means "books" (originally it comes from elsewhere Byblos, a major center for the production of books).
For example Genesis 25 (translation "nation", "people", "tribe&quot
This manipulation was established by Antoine Moussalli Edouard and Marie-Gallez (see note 84).
"You are the best nation produced for mankind"(S3,110)

runninglikezebras

This manipulation was made gradually made since the early caliphs it began with the addition of "Nasara" in texts, since Omar, the adding intended to justify the reversal of alliance against the judeonazarenes. Then it continued until the 10th century by forcing the meaning of words in the Quran and building around it a discourse justifying this new sense (with as a key, the force of Hadith and other chronicles of so-called historians). The Ummah has become the Muslim community alone (initially the community of Arabs in the new religion of Abraham, and the community of all Muslims with the opening of the universal Islam under the Abbasids). The "People of the Book" have become believers of the three monotheistic religions each with a holy book.

By the way, this new concept of "People of the Book" suits Islam well as it becomes a religion just as valid as the other two, with a Koran it claims as completely comparable to the Bible ( and even better). This is further justification with the story of the prophet's discourse of succession of divine revelations correcting eachother, one after another and completed with Islam. This very subtle theological construction moreover allows to explain the similarities between the monotheistic religions (hence the qualifier "Abrahamic religions&quot They are obvious in view of the many shared laws, customs and traditions and troubling similarities between the sacred texts. We now know what is the real reason. And this is especially true for Messianic Judaism and Islam, which we now understand, are very close relatives who are unaware of eachother. Returning to the terminology of manipulation it retracts the judeonazarenes indeed. Their old designation of "Nasara" now returns to Christians. When we want to change reality, we always start by changing the meaning of words. It has also twisted the meaning of "kuffar" and the verb "kafara" (cover, to cover up) which characterized the rabbinical Jews versus the Nazarene Jews, to give them new meaning of "infidels" and "unbelievers" and respectively "to reject" and "to deny". This avoids uncomfortable questions being raised about the reasons of distincting between bad Jews who "conceal their texts" and good Jews who do not cover them who are these good Jews then? So why would they be friends of Muslims? What had these evil jews concealed so they are hated as much? Finally, the meaning was distorted from "musrikun" which originally meant Christians to the famous invented polytheists, similar to how this mythical "jahiliya" was invented , this time of ignorance in which they received the Islamic revelation. In the end, this is how we come to find all the concepts that justify the discourse of Islam in the Quran.

Some transfers of real history to the Islamic discourse

Along with these manipulations of terminology, manipulations were also made to the historical and geographical material of actual origins of Islam. This was of course initially to mask the role of judeonazarism. Then, driven by the game of outbidding, it led to the current discourse. It proceeded on the one hand to a self-justification of logic, but also to a logical interpretation of the historical evidence. Among these testimonies, there was of course the Quran, whose verses became very obscure and which required an effort of consistent imagination to make sense of them. There was also material evidence place names, buildings, such as mosques and the nonconforming qibla or the Dome of the Rock (which originally had nothing to do with the night journey it's supposed to celebrate according to the Muslim discourse, as we recall).

But there were also oral testimonies, the memories reported by word of mouth which had to be reinterpreted with the formation of hadiths. The first collections of these hadiths appeared at the end of the 8th century, there has been considerable inflation of these "testimonies" as we move further away in time or further from the words spoken as they were supposed to be reported. We see them competing with eachother with more and more details and which fifty or a hundred years ago the few testimonies related to the same subjects proved very much more succinct or did not exist at all. The goals of these manipulations are clear to attribute to the figure of an idealized Muhammad the remains and memories of historical events which resulted in Islam. Without going into the details of all these transfers, here are some of the most emblematic in the sense of logic of manipulation

• In geographical terms, the most significant transfers are those that affect the environment of the tribe of Muhammad (around Latakia in northwestern Syria, as we have seen); changing to Mecca names places, names of hills, destination of the pilgrimage (originally made to Jerusalem) and prayer orientations ...

• In a historical perspective, it was the same for the memory of ancient battles that ultimately led to the surrender of Jerusalem, transferred and deformed in the Muslim discourse in as many episodes of the struggle of the party of Medinan against the supposed Meccans.

• In terms of inspiring figures, the influence of judeonazarene preachers could not be hidden. We find the figure of the judeonazarene priest Waraqa who in the Muslim discourse is simply made a Christian priest. About Bahirah, he is a late figure in the Islamic discourse; he is found first in the Christian apologetic to personify the judeonazarene environment which indoctrinated Muhammad. Islamic discourse partially returns this figure by making him a Christian monk who recognizes the prophethood of Muhammad.

• Regarding the anti-Judaism in the Islamic discourse, we can find its true source in the judeonazarene opposition towards the rabbinical Jews (as we shall see later in the review of the Qur'an). To recall, it was particularly materialized during the conquest of Jerusalem in 614, when the rabbinical jews drove their judeonazarene cousins and their Arab allies out of the city or region. In the final Islamic discourse, this souvenir is spoken of with the theme of betrayal, particularly that of the "Jewish tribes" of Medina. This story also refers to Muhammad's life certain events befallen otherwise and later under Umar in 640, when Arab leaders had broken with the judeonazarenes, massacred their leaders and expelled others. In the current Muslim narrative, these memories, of anti-Judaism which it relates to Mohammed giving it legitimacy, are expressed by the expulsion by the "Prophet" of two of the "three Jewish tribes of Medina" (fictitiously placed in 624-625) and the massacre of the third (supposedly 627).

• The theme of illegitimate challenges to the authority of the representative of God on earth does not arise at the time of the historical Muhammad. But the extension of his sacralized figure to his successors (the rachidun or "rightly guided&quot, will be used to legitimize the authority of the following caliphs. When it is said that Mohammed represses the opposition of Munafiqun (hypocrites), all present and future opponents are covered - the wars of apostasy (al houroub ridda) are thus legitimized.

What then are the elements of reality that have crossed the manufacturing of hadiths and formation of the Muslim discourse? The following diagram incorporates some elements within this historical reality, reinterpreted within the final Islamic legend (10th century), highlighting the transfers in space and in time.

http//i.imgur.com/e65Xfzq.png

We referring here to a Judaism claiming for itself a messianic project. This temptation has never left rabbinic Judaism, it is being expressed for example in the episode of Sabbatai Zevi in the 17th century, or today among some "ultras" of Zionism, including those wanting to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
It is to meet this requirement that a Muslim would invent this discourse of small girls being buried alive in the time of polytheists (mentioned in the introduction), wishing to interpret this verse in the sense intended by this concept of jahiliya "He hides himself from the people because of the ill of which he has been informed. Should he keep it (he little newly born girl) in humiliation or bury it in the ground? Unquestionably, evil is what they decide." (S16,59). The Muslim discourse insists to mean "bury" in the Arabic phrase (dassa fi-t-turab), whose primary meaning is nevertheless that of "lay in the dust," or "to give up". Today this expression has even become synonymous with "burying" another example of manipulation of discourse.
These include the iconic Bukhari hadith "The time will not rise until the Muslims fight the Jews, to the point that the Jew will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will say, "O Muslim Here is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!". Unless a thorny tree of Jerusalem named "gharqad". It is indeed a tree belonging to the Jews. "

Jafar

This manipulation was made gradually made since the early caliphs it began with the addition of "Nasara" in texts, since Omar, the adding intended to justify the reversal of alliance against the judeonazarenes. Then it continued until the 10th century by forcing the meaning of words in the Quran and building around it a discourse justifying this new sense (with as a key, the force of Hadith and other chronicles of so-called historians). The Ummah has become the Muslim community alone (initially the community of Arabs in the new religion of Abraham, and the community of all Muslims with the opening of the universal Islam under the Abbasids). The "People of the Book" have become believers of the three monotheistic religions each with a holy book.

There are lot of going on during Abbasid era..
Which I believe can "enrich" your essay or hypothesis..

One of important "chapter" within the Abbasid era (which also lay the foundation of events to come afterwards)
was how they use the Islam religion to "Solve the Turkic problem".

Initially the Abbasid were not so "religious".. "scientific method" and "critical thinking" find it's initial root there..

Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (living around 900 AD) during the height of Abbassid era wrote (among others) the earliest writings of "critics towards dogmatic thinking and religion".

"On what ground do you deem it necessary that God should single out certain individuals , that he should set them up above other people, that he should appoint them to be the people's guides, and make people dependent upon them?"

"If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed."

"You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. , By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say "Produce something like it"?!"
-- Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (Obviously a kuffar and an apostate even with today's Islam standard)

The dude was also a brilliant scientist + physician, wrote many other materials related to diseases, anatomy and biology.
He's now considered as "Father of pediatrics".

He was not murdered, tortured or captured due to his blatant and up front approach criticizing religion and it's dogmatic thinking.
It shows

"The religious" were not powerful during that era.
There were conflict among "The religious / Clerics" versus "Critical thinker / Scientist" within the Abbasid society.

After the Abbassid era, there isn't any similar "critics towards dogmatic thinking and religion" on any part of the world.. until late 19th century. And continues up until today.

Back to the Abbassid and their "Turkish problem"..

The rise of converted Turkish kingdoms (overthrowing the disintegrated Abbassid) also open a new chapter for "The Religion of Islam". The once Arab's controlled religion of Islam was being used and applied by the new Turkish ruler to promote their agenda, kingdom's wealth and power expansion. This is the first time that the religion of Islam was applied without the Arabic language by non Semitic people (neither Arabs or Jews) and the religion works very well with them. Up to the era of Ottoman Caliphate.. until early 20th century.

And much later on, the religion of Islam was again used by non-Semitic people (the invading Mongols, Timurid) with the same purpose.. expanding their dominion to the east.. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, crossing the sea to Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines.. And it also works well for them.. without the Arabic language..

runninglikezebras

The Abbasid era is definitely interesting but falls a bit out of scope of the work, dealing mostly on the origins of Islam. The Abbasid era already had a fixated Quranic text (dating back to Uthman), this of course doesn't negate the fabrication of hadith was still a flourishing business. I found what you posted to be a very interesting piece of criticism, which demonstrates that the inconsistencies resulting from the text manipulation and manipulation of discourse was already a topic during the Abbasid period.

By Islamic standards, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi would have been called an apostate and a kuffar. Anyone opposing the islamic discourse is labeled as such in the modern Islamic discourse.

However, originally kuffar never meant any such thing. It was a precise word used for those who "conceal" (Jewish communities who didn?t recognize Jesus as the Messiah).

You can find E-M Gallez excellent article on the aramaic root kfr here

Jafar

The Abbasid era is definitely interesting but falls a bit out of scope of the work, dealing mostly on the origins of Islam.

By Islam here you mean "The Religion of Islam as we recognized today"?
If that's the case, the Abbasid era (and also the Turkic and Mongolian era) should be put inside the "scope of work".

The author has addressed the "Semitic" (judeo, arabs etc..) root of Religion of Islam. And how come he disregard the "Persian, Turkic and Mongoloid" root of Religion of Islam?

The most notable example is
The Turkic + Mongoloid culture and religion of "Tengriism" has 'contributed' this
http//www.peacefulmind.com/images/symbols/crescent_star.jpg

To the Religion of Islam.
Many people has died and willing to die just to 'defend' the honor of the above symbol..

The Abbasid era already had a fixated Quranic text (dating back to Uthman), this of course doesn't negate the fabrication of hadith was still a flourishing business. I found what you posted to be a very interesting piece of criticism, which demonstrates that the inconsistencies resulting from the text manipulation and manipulation of discourse was already a topic during the Abbasid period.

text manipulation and manipulation of discourse has happened since the "Semitic" era of the religion of Islam. As the author has pointed out...

By Islamic standards, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi would have been called an apostate and a kuffar. Anyone opposing the islamic discourse is labeled as such in the modern Islamic discourse.

Anyone who oppose the "Official Doctrine" will be treated harshly as he or she is a "threat" to the social and power structure of the society.

You can see the evidence of such even inside this forum right?

One that really amazed me was how Razi can "get away with it" during the Abbassid era. He was not being apprehended, murdered, tortured or burned at the stake.

A giant leap of improvement, considering what happened to Abraham when he opposed the religion of his time at nearly the same place much centuries earlier.

Which makes the "Abbassid era" an interesting subject to dig further..
Unfortunately the majority of the writings during that era was lost when the Mongols burned and sacked Baghdad. (13th century)

You can find E-M Gallez excellent article on the aramaic root kfr here

I'm aware of that..
Those who has "something to hide"
That's why they reacted with "Force" trying to instill fear and terror to those who tried to expose the things which he or she is trying to hide.