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

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.

runninglikezebras

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

As complicated as it may seem, this scheme does not claim completeness. Islamic discourse has become remarkable complex to satisfy its logic and internal consistency. Muslim tradition has recreated a mythical past, borrowing some real memories transformed by the imagination of scribes and the religious. Obviously, it is also necessary to consider that the Qur'anic text was already spread, resulting in an imaginative game of back and forth between interpretation of this text and the 'making of the past. " In the end, one has the illusion of a clear history and a text that would be just as clear. Some verses of the Quran are also invoked to confirm this clarity in the eyes of Muslims, despite the fact that its making mention of a total different text (the "qor'?no" or "Koran" of judeonazarenes, their lectionary, which existed already). In fact, no careful reader of the Quran can find it clear and the Islamic themes of clarity and the "miracle of the Qur'an" lend themselves to laughter, in addition to the loss of a number of meanings, successive manipulations removed the text of the original Quranic sheets and the clarity which it claims.

Despite all their talent, it was indeed impossible for the scribes of the caliphs to retain overall consistency to a text as big as it was when they began to manipulate it, and started playing with the meaning of words. To change the meaning of an expression requires it be compatible with all its occurrence in all 114 suras and 6236 verses accounted for in the canonical version of the Quran. And if this new meaning is in conflict with what is already written in it, we must make further manipulations, textual or interpretative. It is even less possible given that it must also take into account requirements linked to the concealment of the real historical and geographical origins how to achieve to keep everything in line with what is demanded by the Islamic discourse and tradition?

Despite the meticulous effort which Islam makes to absolutely destroy everything that preceded it, there always remain traces. The believer must therefor believe so willingly or by force, without question, without doubt. Doubt is also one of the worst sins in Islam. And if the threat of hell and terrible punishments awaiting the wrong believers is not yet enough, the punishment can also be very earthly apostasy, already subject to hell according to the Koran, is also punishable by death (in the words of the hadith related by Muhammad Bukhari "Whoever changes his religion, kill him&quot. Every believer is encouraged to monitor and correct his neighbor, his friend, his son, his daughter or his parents if they prove guilty of deviance. Any "novelty" (bidah) is perceived as heretical, reprimanded and banned since the crystallization of Islam in the 10th century. The prohibition of critical thinking that has prevailed thus locks the believer forever into submission to religion according to its discourse and logic. And since religion has been reduced to the idealized figure of Muhammad, the prohibition of critical thinking will apply in particular about him. Any doubt, any critical approach - not even talking about the cartoons - are therefore more than prohibited they are sacrilegious.

Yet even a simple reading of the Quranic text raises many questions, as we shall see.

Among the many references of the Quran concerning clarity of language and intelligibility of its own verses, we cite the following s5,15 "There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book."; s26,192-195 "And indeed, the Qur'an is the revelation of the Lord of the worlds. The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down. Upon your heart, - that you may be of the warners - In a clear Arabic language."; s39,28 " an Arabic Qur'an, without any deviance that they might become righteous"
114 is also the number of "logia" of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, a writing a widely circulated during the first centuries in Syria and in judeonazarene environments.

runninglikezebras