Speaking at the 5th Annual Conference of the Network of Oromo Studies (NOS), which took place on 27th February 2021 on Visual Technology, I exposed one more Western colonial distortion, falsification and machination; the title of my speech was: “Fake Nubia: a Colonial Forgery to deprive Cushitic Nations from National Independence, Historical Identity and Cultural Heritage”.
The text of my contribution was published without the notes here:
I herewith publish the first two notes of my speech; they constitute a brief but direct denunciation of the major Western anti-African forgeries, namely
– the Nubianization of the East African Cushites and of their historical past and heritage,
– the disparagement of the Berbers, and
– the denial of the existence of the Hamites.
Although short, this text provides readers with a comprehensive insight into the evil, racist and systematic efforts of distortion of the African past by the Anglo-French and the American criminal fraudsters and biased pseudo-academics.
—————————————–
Northern Africa is entire Hamitic, not Hamito-Semitic, not Afro-Asiatic!
The fallacy of the term ‘Afro-Asiatic languages’ is a byproduct of the forgery of Pan-Arabism. There are no Arabs in Africa; there are only Pan-Arabic and Islamist dictatorships that tyrannically imposed Arabic as official language.
The true map of Northern Africa
The educational tyranny of Arabic must be abolished across Africa.Berber, Coptic and Cushitic languages in Eastern Africa must be declared as official languages.
Whatever is said in the BBC is an evil lie; one of them revolves around the Nubianization of the Cushitic-Meroitic heritage of the Modern Oromos and the other Cushitic Eastern African nations.
Extensive politicization, political exploitation of Nubians’ socio-economic problems in either Egypt or Sudan, colonial falsification of the History of Cush, and usurpation of Cushitic monuments and archaeological sites where most Nubians live today are parallel endeavors of Western academics, diplomats, politicians, Human Rights activists, mainstream media, international NGOs, and other groups of pressure: this is called ‘Nubianization’. The existing vast literature has the evident target to push toward the dismemberment of Egypt and Sudan, by cutting off sizeable territories from both countries (namely South Egypt and North Sudan). For this reason, the old Nubian resentment for the construction of the Aswan High Dam is every now and then rekindled, as Nubians in Egypt never liked their relocation to newly built villages north of Aswan, pretty much like Nubians in Sudan did not enjoy at all their enforced relocation to New Wadi Halfa.
The three Christian kingdoms of Sudan, i.e. true, historical Ethiopia: Nobatia was a Nubian kingdom, but Makuria and Alodia were entirely Cushitic.
The problem would be limited in the purely political sphere, if the Western colonial plotters did not involve an enormous deal of confiscation of Cushitic monuments, usurpation of ca. 5000 years of Cushitic History, expropriation of historical past from today’s Cushitic nations, and disastrous division among the descendants of the Ancient Hamitic-Cushitic nations of Kemet (Masr-Egypt) and Cush (Arabic-speaking Sudanese and Oromos, Somalis, Afars, Sidama, Kaffa, etc).
In fact, there is not and there cannot be any divide between
a) Arabic-speaking Cushites-Hamites in today’s Egypt and Sudan, and
b) Cushitic-Hamitic native speakers from the African Atlas and the Sahara to the Nile Delta and thence, across the Eastern African inland and coast, down to Mombasa.
The Pyramids of Napata, at today’s Karima in Northern Sudan, nearby the Mount (Jebel) Barkal; Napata was the capital of the Cushitic Kingdom of Ancient Sudan (the true Ethiopia). These monuments are common heritage to Arabic speaking Sudanese (who are ethnically Cushitic) and to modern Cushitic nations of Eastern Africa, notably the Oromos, the Sidamas and the Kaffas.
{In this case, the postmodern rejection of a) George Reisner’s false identification of the Ancient Cushitic nation of Sudan as Negroid and b) his racist assumption as per which Ancient Sudan’s (i.e. Cush’s) “native negroid race had never developed either its trade or any industry worthy of mention, and owed their cultural position to the Egyptian immigrants and to the imported Egyptian civilization” comes as a new type of even more distortive racism like that of the notorious Stuart Tyson Smith, who has embarked on a more obscure project of overwhelming Nubianization of the Cushitic / Meroitic past of Ancient Sudan (i.e. real, historical Ethiopia)}. Even worse, the new racism is absolutely Zionist of inspiration and benefit.
h ttps://undark.org/2018/02/19/nubia-sudan-amara-west-archaeology/
The pyramids of Meroe (near modern Bagrawiyah) represent a later period of the Cushitic kingdom of Ancient Sudan (i.e. Ethiopia); these pyramids are not ‘Nubian’.
Amongst others, the Khan Academy takes a particular interest in diffusing the Nubianization dogma. The same is valid for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is known for its most mistaken online presentations. This propaganda is coupled with misleading presentations featured in the National Geographic.
{Note: It is interesting to observe the frequent mistakes of the various web pages of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s portal; in the link above, go straight to fig. 8! The legend reads: “The kiosk on Philae Island probably built by the Emperor Augustus (30–14 B.C.) Photo by Adela Oppenheim”! Well, Octavian Augustus reigned from 27 BCE to 14 CE; not just 16 but 41 years!!}
Núria Castellano, Rival to Egypt, the Nubian kingdom of Kush exuded power and gold
The extraordinary confusion of the terms ‘Kushite’ and ‘Nubian’ really exudes from this worthless publication; the two terms are used alternatively and overlapping one another during the whole article, thus fully confusing specialists and non-specialized readers alike. Cushites and Nubians are however ethnically, linguistically and culturally as different from one another as Sumerians were from Elamites or Romans were from Franks.
Indicatively nonsensical excerpt: “Kushite culture blended Egyptian customs into its own, creating a distinctive, visual style. Truncated and with steep sides, the pyramids left by the long line of Nubian kings populate the desert near the site of Meroe”.
How well fallacious colonial historiography and Western political interference propaganda are interconnected one can admire in the site of the Minority Rights Group International (https://minorityrights.org/about-us/). Excerpts:
“The Nubian city of Meroë”: not one Nubian lived in Meroe in the past, and not one Nubian lives there now!
“Coptic Christianity spread to Nubia, where a Christian kingdom existed from the sixth to the fourteenth centuries. At the end of this period Nubia adopted Islam, 700 years later than the north of Egypt”: that’s totally wrong! Three Christian kingdoms (not just one) existed in South Egypt and North Sudan over the said period (“from the sixth to the fourteenth centuries”), but only the northernmost was Nubian. The other two Christian kingdoms were Cushitic, not Nubian. As Nobatia merged with Makuria, it lost its northern territories. Aswan became Muslim in the beginning of the 10th c., i.e. only 300 years “later than the north of Egypt”!
The temple of Maluli (Mandulis) at Tarmes/Talmis (modern Kalabsha) is one of the very few truly Nubian monuments. This is so because during the Antiquity the Nubians were culturally assimilated into the Egyptians and the Cushites /Meroites. To be saved from the rising waters of the lake behind the High Dam of Aswan, the temple was transported 75 km from its original site not far from the western side of the High Dam.
The Nubian God Mandolis in the Kalabsha temple near the High Dam of Aswan
With the exception of a) the Nilo-Saharan nations, b) the Niger-Congo ethnicities, c) the Bantu ethnic groups, d) the Khoisan group of people, and e) the Semitic-Yemenite origin Abyssinians (Amhara-, Tigrinya-, and Tigre-speaking), Africa is home to Hamitic nations.
Contrarily to the Semites, who originate from Asia, the Hamites are indigenous in Africa. As a matter of fact, the Hamitic group of nations is Africa’s largest in terms both of geographical area and number of native speakers. The Hamitic nations are the only to have created high-level civilizations in Africa, contrarily to the Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, Bantu and Khoisan nations, which -due to advanced tribal fragmentation- did not develop major empires and thus remained at a primitive level of social organization until recent historical periods.
The temple of Wadi as Sebua (150 km south of Aswan) was built by Ramses II on the same location of an earlier temple constructed by Amenhotep II. To be saved, the temple was transported 4 km from its original place.
The two temples of Abu Simbel (275 km south of Aswan), close to the modern borderline between Sudan and Egypt, were built by Ramses II to function as mortuary temples for him (the great temple) and for his queen Nefertari (the small temple). To be saved, the two temples were transported to a higher elevation.
In the Antiquity, the Hamitic nations covered already Africa’s largest part, namely the entire northern half from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, Sahara included, and the Eastern part of Africa down to the area of today’s Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. The Ancient Kemetians (Egyptians), the Ancient Cushites (Ethiopians – so, unrelated to Abyssinians), the Ancient Kingdom of Somalia (Punt), and the Ancient Berbers (called ‘Libyans’ by the Ancient Greeks and Romans) of the wider Atlas region, who inhabited the vast space from Modern Egypt’s western confines to the Atlantic Ocean, were the major and the most advanced Hamitic nations fostering civilization throughout Africa and Europe during four millennia of pre-Christian era.
Except the Hamites, the Phoenicians (a North-Western Semitic nation) developed great centers of civilization in Africa; but they were mainly concentrated in the northern coastal areas where they settled and developed several colonies like notably Carthage which was founded in 814 BCE. The Carthaginians (Qart Hadasht means ‘New City’ in Ancient Phoenician) became totally independent of the Phoenician city-kingdom of Tyr from where they originated; they created a formidable African maritime empire, colonizing Sicily, Sardinia, the Baleares, Spain and Portugal, other South European coasts, and the entire North-Western coasts of Africa. However, what we now call ‘Carthaginian’ or ‘Punic’ (from the Latin word for ‘Phoenician’) Civilization is a mixed, Phoenician and Berber (Hamitic African) synergy and interaction. Africa’s circumnavigation undertaken by Phoenician navigators, who were employed by the Berber (‘Libyan’) Pharaoh Nechao II (610–595 BCE), was another major Hamitic-Semitic interaction that took place in the Antiquity.
Significant Hamitic-Semitic cooperation also took place in the Horn of Africa region during the Late Antiquity, when first the Ancient Yemenite kingdoms of Qataban and later Sheba (the Sabaeans) and Himyar colonized the region from the Horn itself (Raas Caseyr or Ras Asir in Af Somali; known as Cape Guardafui in Western languages) down to Dar es Salaam (Rhapta in Ancient Greek) and entered in extensive intermarriages with the local Somalis to consolidate their regionally unmatched commercial supremacy. This, vast, Eastern African colony of the Ancient Yemenites was named ‘Azania’ by an anonymous Alexandrian Egyptian merchant and captain, who authored the Periplus of the Red (‘Erythraean’)) Sea (2nd half of the 1st c. CE); in contrast, the exceptionally informative and accurate writer called the Northern Somali coast (from the Bab el Mandeb straits of the Red Sea to the Horn itself) ‘the Other Berberia’.
‘Azania’ corresponds to the historical Chinese term Zesan (澤散), which was in use already in the 3rd c. CE. Contrarily to Azania, which at those days was ruled by the Marib-based Yemenite King of Sheba, ‘the Other Berberia’ was self-ruled (with the local elders in control after the Yemenite fashion, i.e. similarly with the ‘mukarrib’). The use of the name ‘the Other Berberia’ for the entire region of Northern Somalia clearly suggests close ethnic relationship with the coastal Cushitic inhabitants of the today’s Eastern Sudanese regions, because those lands were called ‘Berberia’ in the aforementioned text that was written by a well-informed entrepreneur and voyager, who had apparently traveled extensively between Egypt and Indonesia, if not China. The term also denotes the close relationship between the North-Western African Hamites of the Atlas region (Berbers) and some of Eastern Africa’s Cushites.
The colonial, academic etymology of the noun ‘Berber’, as supposedly related to the Ancient Greek onomatopoetic term ‘barbaros’ (barbarian), is a racist invention and aberration. There has never been any historical, philological, ethnographic, linguistic or ethno-sociological proof about an eventual association between the ethnonym ‘Barbar’ / ‘Berber’, as used by several ancient authors, and the word ‘barbarian’. To offer an example, in the sixth paragraph of the Periplus of the Red (‘Erythraean’) Sea, the use of the adjective ‘barbarika’ has clearly an ethnic connotation (Berber), being totally unrelated to the common Ancient Greek adjective “barbarian’:
“ιμάτια Βαρβαρικά άγναφα, τα εν Αιγύπτω γενόμενα, Αρσινοϊτικαί στολαί”
(imatia Barbarika agnafa, ta en Aigypto genomena, Arsinoitikai stolai)
The grossly identification of the ethnonym ‘Berber’ with ‘barbarians’ and the deliberate colonial etymology of this ethnonym from the Ancient Greek word ‘barbaros’ (barbarian) demonstrate the enormous hatred harbored by colonial historians against the Berbers and the Hamites. Involving causality between a hypothetical, fictional status of barbarism among the Eastern Hamites-Cushites of the coast of today’s Sudan and North Somalia and the appellation that the Ancient Greeks and Romans used to denote these and other Ancient Hamitic-Cushitic nations is an outrage. However, it helps today’s unbiased academics from China to Africa to Latin America realize how monstrously distortive the colonial Greco-centric model of History is.
It is however necessary at this point to underscore the fact that this provocative colonial bias does not reflect any eventually racist consideration among the ancient authors; on the contrary, all of the ancient authors expressed a great part of esteem and consideration for the Hamitic-Cushitic Berbers. In modern times, the first attempt to establish a causality link between the ethnonym ‘Berber’ and the Ancient Greek word ‘barbaros’ (barbarian) is attested in the case of the so-called ‘Barbary Coast’, a noxious, racist term coined for the coastal region of North Africa from today’s Libya to Morocco.
The extremely derogatory term was extensively used from the 16th to the 19th c. (until these provinces of the Ottoman Empire were colonized by the Western European racist gangsters) and, even worse, served as pretext for colonial wars, projection of Eurocentric falsehood of History, and exportation of European and North American Yankee criminality on those parts of Africa. Still today, the verses “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli” (from the disreputable and evil US Marines’ Hymn) remind us of the monstrous association of the ethnonym ‘Berber’ with the Ancient Greek word ‘barbaros’ (barbarian), and of its dangerous impact. More details about this forgery one can get here:
Even worse, over the past decades, colonial historians, linguists, archaeologists, and ethnographers went further adrift and even rejected (without a proper academic refutation) the existence of the Hamitic nations, which had been accepted earlier and for more than 250 years of Western European scholarship. The absurd rejection of the existence of the Hamitic nations is only the result of extreme Jesuit, Freemasonic and Zionist fanaticism and colonial forgery; it first started with the farcical subordination of the Hamites to the Semites and the subsequent construction of the erroneous term ‘Hamito-Semitic linguistic group’. Over the past 6-7 decades, all sorts of nonsensical justifications, pretexts and innuendos have been incessantly used so that the highly politicized authors, known for their heavily ideologized motives, possibly ‘prove’ that the Hamitic languages do not exist as a fully independent linguistic group.
To carry out the unprecedented forgery, as per which there have never been Hamitic languages (sic!), numerous biased explorers and bogus-academics, incredible pseudo-intelligentsia, and mysterious apparatchiks
1) separated Hausa and several other Hamitic languages from the rest, identifying them as ‘Chadic’ (which is tantamount to shameless academic terrorism);
2) pretended that the ‘remaining’ three branches of Hamitic languages (Berber, Egyptian-Coptic, and the Eastern Cushitic group of languages) do not form an exclusive phylogenetic unit of their own (which is a paranoid lie);
3) viciously denigrated many great scholars, historians and linguists, of the 19th c. and the early 20th c. as ‘racists’, because they correctly and extensively underscored the Hamitic-Cushitic cultural superiority over all the other African ethnic-linguistic groups (which is a hysteric form of historical revisionism);
4) generated the pseudo-theory of scientific racism, which is a scheme as per which the criminal Jesuit, Freemasonic and Zionist pseudo-academics disreputably and nonsensically disparage at will numerous great scholars of the 19th c. and 20th c., who had steadfastly rejected such evil theories and inhuman concepts diffused by those villains;
5) deliberately and defamatorily associated many great European scholars and specialists of various Hamitic languages and civilizations with colonialism (which is preposterous and false);
6) attempted to refute the evident relationship between the Hamitic nations and the Caucasoid peoples;
7) fabricated an absolutely meaningless, erroneous, and pathetic term ‘Afro-Asiatic languages’ in order to depict the Hamitic-Cushitic family of nations as totally subordinated to the Semitic nations; and
8) theorized that the modern academic bibliography about the Hamitic nations (that they mistakenly rejected) was mainly due to religious (sic!) reasons pertaining to the fake Biblical and Talmudic story, which is known as the ‘Curse of Ham’. This idiotic approach and bogus-theory bears witness to sheer dementia, because many scholars, who had correctly accepted the reality of the Hamitic nations, languages and civilizations, were known for having totally rejected Judaism and Christianity. Consequently, they could not therefore be influenced by these religions and the related holy books in their research.
The absurd rejection of the existence of Hamitic nations, languages and civilizations by the militant pseudo-scholars and propagandists of today’s collapsing Western World has so many internal contradictions that easily one can identify, refute and irrevocably denounce the inconsistencies of the advanced arguments. However, it is important for all to bear in mind that the pseudo-scientific fabrication ‘Afro-Asiatic languages’ and the associated anti-Hamitic / anti-Cushitic hysteria, are due to two main targets sought after by the colonial academia and regimes:
First, this dogmatic nonsense allowed politically motivated academics and colonial diplomats to incessantly propagate the abhorrent fallacy of Pan-Arabism, as per which the Arabic-speaking populations of North Africa are Arabs (and therefore of Semitic origin), whereas in reality, not even one drop of Arab blood flows in the veins of today’s Egyptians, Libyans, Sudanese, Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans and Mauritanians. Linguistic Arabization has been a marginal phenomenon that was promoted by the colonial powers and their local stooges only during the last 220 years.
There have actually been innumerable Arabization campaigns in the colonially detached provinces of the Ottoman Empire; they were all carried out by the evil local tyrants-puppets of the colonial powers. Whether they have one native language (speaking Arabic, Berber and Coptic) or they are bilinguals, all the populations of Northern Africa are Hamitic of origin and therefore totally unrelated to Arabs or Semites. Assuming that the Egyptians, the Tunisians or the Algerians are ‘Arabs’, just because they speak Arabic, is tantamount to pretending that the African Americans, who are English native speakers, are / can ever be (considered as) …. Anglo-Saxons!!
Second, the paranoid abnegation of the existence of Hamitic nations, languages and civilizations helped politically motivated academics and diplomats to
a) boost an enormous Pan-Bantu propaganda movement, which tries to fallaciously increase the importance of the Bantu contribution to the History of Africa;
b) emphasize erroneously the otherwise nonexistent relation between the Hamitic Ancient Egyptians and the Bantu tribes of Africa’s southern parts;
c) carry out a project of extensive Nubianization of part of the Ancient Kemetian (Egyptian) historical heritage (across Modern Egypt’s territories located south of Aswan); and
d) delete the Ancient Cushitic historical heritage (which belongs to i) today’s Arabic-speaking people of Sudan’s central provinces and ii) today’s Eastern Cushitic nations, namely the Oromos, the Sidamas, the Kaffas, etc.), by fallaciously attributing it entirely to today’s Nubians, who live in North Sudan. Selected bibliography on the topic can be found here:
The aforementioned fallacies may be crucial for the future of all Cushitic and Hamitic nations of Africa, either they enjoy nominal national independence or not, either they retain their historical language or not. As a matter of fact, it probably heralds a well-programmed political subordination to Semitic groups, a systematically prepared projection of evil faiths, cults and practices, as well as of anti-Cushitic/anti-Hamitic immoral norms and behavioral systems among today’s Eastern African Cushites (Rastafarianism), and the racial amalgamation of Eastern Cushites with Bantu tribes of the African South.
Few days ago, an Egyptian friend wrote to me and commented on my article ‘Plea for Jean Baptiste Duroselle’s Brilliant Book, Europe: A History of its Peoples’:
I. How Simple People can utterly destroy today’s World
II. Jean Baptiste Duroselle and Yahya Ibn Zakariya
III. Lassalian Monks and Schools
IV. Western European Elites hide their Manichaean Nature and Evil Faith
V. “Gods” do not accept Multipolar Worlds!
VI. A Greek World Leader and False Messiah: One of the several Antichrists to come
VII. The Duroselle Affair in Greece, and I
I. How Simple People can utterly destroy today’s World
His pessimistic viewpoint forced me to write a rather long response, because it is an essential issue of Moral and a supreme moral obligation for anyone not to associate himself with the injustice and the lawlessness of today’s world, and even more so, to do all that it takes to dissociate himself from the surrounding environment, to reject it and to denounce it as inhuman, impermissible and subject to monstrous, terminal annihilation.
It is only due to the prevailing worldwide, overwhelming and compact materialism, evolutionism and relativism that people lost their faith and cannot duly assess the eventually great spiritual power of the wish and of the negative wish. A faithless person that does not truly believe in the spiritual world cannot bring forth results in either wishes or negative wishes; I have to point out that I fully distinguish between negative wish and curse. In the latter case, one person invokes something harmful to someone, whereas in the former case, one demands forcefully that a negative development be averted or cancelled. Although a curse may be at times morally imposed to be uttered, a negative wish is essential to be thunderously expressed every time one person encounters a case of injustice, a wrongdoing, evilness, and any sort of falsehood, deceit, perfidy, scheme, chicanery or lie.
Today’s faithless Muslims, Christians, Confucians, Taoists, Hindus, Buddhists and others have lost real faith in the spiritual, ‘supernatural’, world. They stupidly believe only in diverse stories and unimportant narratives, which -in spite of their possible veracity- do not constitute an inherent part of the true religion; their faith to God is only nominal. The ensuing catastrophic consequences lead to indiscriminate feelings of inefficiency, impotency and, even worse, self-depreciation. Due to this situation, they become effectively irreligious, because they practice their religion only mechanically (imitating ancestors) or hypocritically (to show to the society that they are faithful); but this is utter disbelief. What follows this encumbering situation is spiritual apathy; this involves also emotional indifference, and full purposelessness in life. These people are characterized by moral depravity indeed, not in the sense of being genuinely corrupt, but for not reacting, for keeping silent, and for tolerating the wrongdoing.
A positive wish can do wonders for many; and a negative wish has the power to prevent many evil acts and ominous developments from happening. Virtually any taciturn or vociferous person, who has strong faith, can express formidable negative wishes and bring forth results. This actually happens, but today’s idiotic materialists simply cannot ‘see’ or understand it. A very well focalized negative wish cancels everything; from a simple governmental act to an assassination attempt to a war. And I can conclude that the chaotic situation in which all the powerful and evil lobbies of today’s world find themselves, failing to achieve what they intend, has much to do with highly synchronized negative wishes that resolutely cancel the Satanic plans of all the ‘Christian’, ‘Jewish’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Hindu’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Taoist’, ‘Confucian’, ‘Shinto’ or other governments, which sooner or later will disappear in utmost ruination.
In fact, all the forthcoming disasters come -also- from the negative wishes expressed in our world by people who -thanks to their moral standards and irrespective of their religion- fully understand that this world is impermissible to exist and has therefore to vanish in monstrous extermination. All negative wishes expressed against today’s lawless world are the path of the few to the Paradise; and every sort of reluctance, every form of indifference, and every aspect of apathy toward today’s criminal governments, Satanic presidents, demonic prime ministers, and other anomalous magistrates open the Gates of the Hell to all the idiots who think that Eternal Life can possibly hinge on meaningless cults hypocritically performed just to ensure later ‘reward’.
Quite unfortunately for the present, diabolical but perishing world’s establishment, God is not as malleable and as stupid as they delusionally imagine He is; and I am not referring to the ‘Demiurge’….
You can herewith find my friend’s comment and my lengthy response.
— A friend’s comment about my Plea for J. B. Duroselle’s Book —
Very interesting story about this guy Jean Baptiste! His name reminded me of my college: College St. Jean Baptiste De La Salle in Bab El Louk, then Khoronfich, then in Daher…
This shows how Europeans are like the other crooks, how they plan things in advance, and they pass them on.
What do we have in our hands to change things, except to write and express our views, without any results…
——————– My response ——————
Dear Awadallah,
Thank you for your response, which so well shows that you understand that the Jean Baptiste Duroselle affair (in Greece 1990-1991), although it looks like an ‘internal’ European story (as an indication of the barbaric, ultra-nationalist and paranoid character of the basically uneducated and absolutely uncultured Greek society), has indeed wider implications. That is true.
II. Jean Baptiste Duroselle and Yahya Ibn Zakariya
All neighboring states must demonstrate a particular concern when, in a wretched country, people react with such hysteria, every time the lies that they stupidly believe in are overwhelmingly rejected by the world’s leading scholars.
Your email offered me the chance of a flash back and of a self-reappraisal; I will tell you what I mean.
However, let me start with a funny episode of the Greek, absurd and paranoid, reaction (back in 1990-1991) against Duroselle’s book, which is nowadays the cornerstone of all the EU member states’ secondary education — except for the backward trash of Greece where the education manuals are more racist than those in Nazi Germany at the time of Hitler.
In the fever of the anti-Duroselle madness that turned the average Greeks to rabid dogs back in 1989-1991, every famous person felt stupidly obliged to contribute to that mental and intellectual cholera, to promote the local chauvinism, and to speak against Jean Baptiste Duroselle.
The ignorant, uneducated and clownish «poet» Odysseas Elytis wanted to add his childish nonsense to the insults aired against the excellent French academician and his pertinent book. Bear in mind that his fake Nobel Prize was purchased by the Greek government of Constantine Caramanlis with the money of the idiotic average Greek taxpayer! I have to also add that Elytis’ real surname is Alepoudellis, which sounds very low and even derogatory in Greek (as it means «puppy fox» or «fox-relative»), and that is why he changed it (due to his enormous psychological complex of inferiority). By the way, you have to also know, when it comes to the filthy rascal Elytis, that when he found out that his wife had multiple sclerosis, he locked her in a clinic to get rid of her and to enjoy his cursed life with the company of a young prostitute.
So, this stinky trash of Elytis, in order to «prove» (!!!??!!!) that Jean Baptiste Duroselle was wrong for not including events of the otherwise unimportant Ancient Greek History in his comprehensive book of European History, said the following silly sentence: «Duroselle forgot that even his name is Greek»!
This is an allusion to the academician’s two personal names, namely «Jean Baptiste».
Although it appears that the French names originate from the respective Latin names (Ioannes Baptista), and that subsequently the Latin names derive from Ancient Greek, this is simply false.
The conclusion is that Duroselle, when baptized as a Christian, got from his parents the two names ‘Yohannan ha’Matbil’ (Hz. Yahya ibn Zakariya) as personal names in their own language (French). His parents wanted apparently to commemorate the forerunner of the Christian faith.
There is no Greek involvement in this, and surely Yohannan ha’Matbil (Hz. Yahya) did not bother to learn Greek or any other foreign language.
This episode shows clearly that chauvinistic ideas, concepts and thoughts are prevailing in the pseudo-European state of Greece.
III. Lassalian Monks and Schools
This being one point, I have to add that I also know the Cairo-based institution that you attended when a schoolboy.
France is inundated with colleges like the one where you you took secondary education courses in Cairo.
The first of all of them was launched by the saint Jean Baptiste de la Salle himself, when he was in life. The instructors and administrators were members of the religious order that he also initiated.
They are known as Lassalian monks (after «de La Salle»).
IV. Western European Elites hide their Manichaean Nature and Evil Faith
Now about Europe I wrote many articles back in the middle 2000s; I don’t intend to repeat myself. Friends turned the most important of them into a video:
When the good friend of mine, who expressed his readiness to make of this article a video, asked me what music to add, I said «undoubtedly Uighur instrumental»! The result was excellent. I really love Uighur instrumental music.
Russian friends turned the slides prepared my friend to be used in the video, and they published my article as a presentation (although it is in English):
No one understands that today’s real centers of power and secret societies, which shape the Western European process, are all Oriental of origin and they simply try to hide their Oriental past and identity by appearing as descendants of the Greeks and the Romans. That’s why they persistently over-magnified the significance of the Roman civilization, they fabricated the myth about Ancient Greece’s supposedly important ancient civilization, and they threw all this filthy stuff to the eyes of stupid and uneducated people worldwide as a smokescreen.
As a matter of fact, there cannot be one Europe (not because the Germans, the Russians, the Italians, the French, and the Spaniards cannot hypothetically cohabitate in a sizeable Confederacy, but) due to the fact that the powerful secret societies that hide in the coulisses, behind the impotent governments, have different plans and divergent projects for Europe.
What average people do not know is that all these groups of power (the Jesuits, the Freemasons and the Zionists) have opposite plans of eschatological and messianic character. In simple terms, this means that all these groups prepare (or rather have already prepared) their own Messiahs, one for each of them, and they intend to launch them in public. Soon, you will see new, very influential statesmen to appear in clash with one another. They will be slandering one another as the Antichrist.
These centers of power existed for thousands of years; they are not new. And they existed mainly for this reason: in order to launch their Messiah (each of them). So, the clash will be ferocious and it will bring devastating disasters. Countries or people do not matter for them. What matters for each of them is their plan (by saying this, I mean its implementation). They will make entire countries disappear. What you saw in Pakistan is nothing. Bangladesh will disappear in one day.
V. “Gods” do not accept Multipolar Worlds!
Putin understood it very correctly and said it openly. What you and I believe about Allah, Islam, the Quran, etc. does not matter to them. These people believe utterly that they are «God». And they behave like that, using their power to destroy the enemy and the enemy’s pawns. One group of them, the Jesuits, has the secret plan of Russia’s Consecration to the Heart of Virgin Mary.
Do you know what this means? This means that the execrable Satanist, i.e. the Anti-Christian pope Francis I, does not consider Russia as a Christian state. He wants to turn it first to a Catholic dependency and then to use it. He tries to mobilize every stupid and idiotic politician anywhere on Earth for this purpose. Stupid and fake Muslim politicians, who have relations with this subordinate of the impending Antichrist (Masih al Dajjal), will lose their countries in a matter of few weeks (when the confrontation will start), because their enemies will manage to take benefit of the developments.
Now, the people who launched European Union (back in the late 40s and the early 50s), like Jean Monnet and all the others, known as founders of the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_fathers_of_the_European_Union), were opposite to the Jesuits. But they did not protect their project (European Union) well. Then, after the late 1980s, the Jesuits marked a significant comeback.
Duroselle was a close associate of Jean Monnet and a French Freemason. But their plans about Europe included also the split and destruction of Russia (then known as USSR). This became very evident with de Gaulle, who did not say the words «Union soviétique» (or U.R.S.S.) even once. He used to call that state «la Russie». So, de Gaulle spoke about a Europe «de Lisbonne aux Ourals», which means a de facto split of Russia.
Charles de Gaulle and David Ben Gurion
But naive Russians misread this very threatening discourse, by taking it as friendly!!!
Quite unfortunately, guileless Lavrov, like the absolutely idiotic Gorbachev, thinks that de Gaulle meant «one state from the Pacific to the Atlantic».
There could not be worse reading than that. He keeps speaking in a most apologetic manner instead of invading Ukraine in its entirety, and ending the problem once forever. About:
The Russian establishment keeps maintaining useless, fraudulent hopes. They only confuse themselves and endanger their country.
Stephan Kessler, Daniel & Cyrus in Bel’s Temple
Every word uttered by English, Americans, French, Canadians and Australians is a ruse and a fraud.
China makes the same disastrous mistake, speaking about a new multipolar world.
There isn’t going to be any new multipolar world.
The evil, crypto-Manichaean forces that control the Western world, when they will understand that, in their fight against one another, they allowed significant part of force to be obtained by others (Russia, China, India, Brazil, but also Turkey and Iran), will launch suddenly and unexpectedly a nuclear war — not at the scale that most people are afraid, but a nano-nuclear war like what you saw in Beirut.
VI. A Greek World Leader and False Messiah: One of the several Antichrists tocome
Then, there is also a fake Freemasonic lodge that wants to make of Greece a larger state with control over both sides of the Aegean Sea, the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosporus – after the Treaty of Sevres.
They don’t hate Turkey and Islam only; they despise Christianity enormously, and they want to bring back the charlatan – pseudo-gods of the Ancient Greeks. They want also to create a phantasmagoric appearance of UFOs and extraterrestrials, who will ‘land’ on Mount Olympus; of course, as you can guess, these will be fake extraterrestrials.
In reality, they will be demons in humanoid form and they will start having sex in the brothel-temples of Ancient Greece that they will entirely rebuild. Every story that you heard about homosexuality, prostitution, sexual orgies, etc. revolves around this project.
For 1600 years, Theater was -thank God- banned among Christians, but with the establishment of Modern Greece, the French and the English started pushing for the return of the old, evil habits.
To fully prepare for the aforementioned, absurd and evil project, they re-introduced Ancient Theater in Modern Greece only in the 1950s, i.e. 130 years after the country became independent. Due to the shameless pseudo-art of Theater, Modern Greeks lost their religion and they indulge in every abomination, being the shame of their Eastern Roman Christian Orthodox ancestors.
This villainous Freemasonic lodge wants to make of Greece the center of the world and their Messiah will be ruling from Crete where enormous treasures are going to be discovered (these Freemasons know the details). This is the whole secret behind the French-Greek alliance. You have a lot to wait in this regard.
מנא מנא תקל ופרסין
VII. The Duroselle Affair in Greece, and I
And for this reason, the duplicitous and evil Western European authorities rapidly covered the scandal «Greece», which exploded around the book of Duroselle.
Few people remember it today, but it is good to bring it to the surface and to show the level of ignorance and the fake education that prevails in that country in which still today private universities are not allowed to open and function.
Do you know why?
– In order not to allow anyone to challenge the tyrannically imposed bogus-historical dogma of Hellenism.
«Hellenism» is worse than Nazism. Unfortunately, «Hellenism» is merely the filthy, disreputable showcase; but in the abominable backstage, you have an exorbitantly disproportionate dose of sexual anomalies among the evil spirits that the ignorant and uneducated Ancient Greeks accepted as possibly ‘gods’! All to the glory of Satan whose Ancient Greek name was Zeus!
Many friends asked me why I defended Duroselle, although my worldview is different and my approach to European History is very divergent from his.
I responded that their evaluation is correct, but they basically misunderstood me, if they thought -even for a moment- that knowledge is a value for me. Knowledge is never a value. In the past, wisdom was accepted by the spiritually and intellectually superior as the real value. Ultimately, wisdom means accurate evaluation, pertinent judgment, and moral utilization of knowledge. There is no wisdom without Moral, and there is no Moral without Spirituality.
What are then the proper criteria of evaluation and the standards of investigation?
Nothing else except those stated clearly by the Moral.
Without Moral there is no religion, there is no faith, and spirituality ends up in black magic.
Revisiting these days the Duroselle affair and getting a brief retrospective view on it, I noticed how much it helped me.
In younger age, I had never thought to live in Greece; since my childhood, my future was «set» in the regions, lands and cities that my grandparents narrated to me. I then can say that, during the period 1978-1990, a) my postgraduate studies in France, England and Belgium, b) my doctoral studies in Germany, and c) my archaeological explorations in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Iran fully equipped me with detailed knowledge and understanding.
The barbarian, ignorant, narrow-minded and intolerant stance of the Greek elite, society and state, as expressed in the Duroselle affair, simply showed to me that I had to take distance from, and never return to, Greece.
I then drew the conclusion that a rubbish-collector in Sudan, Yemen, Chad, Somalia or Tanzania is superior to a professor of university, an academician, a prime minister or a president in Greece. Why? Because rubbish collectors are cleaner than all those who are plunged in the Satanic contamination and the falsehood of Hellenism!
Then, it did not matter whether I agreed or not with Duroselle; what mattered was that I disagreed with the disgusting sewerage of Greece. Ever since, my position has been irreversible, intransigent and unconditionally uncompromising.
I. Ancient, Christian, and Muslim historiographers
II. Oversights and errors attested in the existing bibliography
A. ‘Battle techniques’
B. ‘Two great empires exhausted and weakened’
———- EXCURSE I: HISTORICAL FOCUS —————-
Borders, fronts, rebellions, divisions and fights
1- Post-conquest Iran
2- Eastern Roman Empire
3- Upper Egypt and the Sudan (: historical Ethiopia)
4- Internal conflicts transported from Hejaz to Syria and Mesopotamia
——————————————————————————-
C. ‘History of states’ and not of peoples and cultures
D. Poor conceptualization of the early Islamic conquests by modern scholars
—— EXCURSE II: ETHNO-LINGUISTIC & RELIGIOUS FOCUS ———
Ethno-linguistic groups
Religious groups
i- the Christian Aramaeans of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Monophysites)
ii- the Christian Aramaeans of the Great Church of the East (Nestorians)
iii- the Gnostic Aramaeans
iv- the Manichaean Aramaeans
v- the Copts (Monophysitic Christian Egyptians)
vi- the (Aramaic-speaking) Jews, followers of Rabbinical Judaism
vii- the Persians and other Iranians followers of various Iranian religions
viii- the Eastern Roman Orthodox Christians, who sided with the Patriarchate of Constantinople
———————————————————————————
E. The demographic structure of the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Western Iranian provinces: the Aramaeans
F. The central provinces of the Islamic Caliphates: the lands of the Aramaeans.
G. Lack of historical criticism in Islamic Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies
III. The astounding scarcity of contemporaneous sources
IV. Critical incidents during the Battle of Yarmouk
V. The true dimensions of the Battle of Yarmouk and of its outcome
An early 7th c. drawing on a 5th c. biblical manuscript: the unusual and unnecessary representation of Job and his family is correctly viewed by modern scholars as a cryptographic representation of Heraclius and his family, notably his second wife Martina, his sister Epiphania, and his daughter Eudoxia. There is a clear reason for this allegory; by associating Heraclius with Job, the calligrapher and painter interpolated the concept of the Righteous Suffering and projected it onto Heraclius. The apparently Monotheletist artist wanted to praise the Monotheletist emperor for his patience and tolerance toward the Orthodox extremists among the Constantinopolitan clergy, who incessantly insulted the basileus. He therefore identified him with the Biblical person that embodies the concept of the Righteous Suffering, which is of entirely Assyrian-Babylonian origin as the illustrious epic Ludlul bel nemeqi – https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=cop-facbooks
The battle that led to the withdrawal of the Eastern Romans (‘Rum’ – therefore not ‘Greeks’) from Syria, Palestine, and North Mesopotamia has been the object of numerous studies, essays, chapters of books, and treatises. Modern Orientalist historiographers distorted and/or concealed the historical realities that determined the fact. They impacted their writings with unnecessary astonishment, unsolicited admiration, bizarre bewilderment, and at times childishly subjective descriptions. It is as if they are either blind or predetermined to disorient readers from the historical truth. It is most unfortunate that this situation prevails, despite numerous military experts delving into historical texts, many philologists scrutinizing posterior sources, and several historians publishing the corpus of the textual evidence as regards the event.
The confusion of the average reader and learner is completed with the modern, definitely unscholarly, Islamist pamphleteering as per which ‘the faith in the only true God’ gave the victory to the less-experienced, numerically inferior, and surely ill-equipped and poorly armed (if compared with the Eastern Romans) Muslim armies. I will not expand on this nonsense, because it would only prove that all victors and conquerors were true believers and all the defeated armies belonged to disbelievers – which is absurd.
I. Ancient, Christian, and Muslim historiographers
At this point, I have to highlight that, when it comes to the attitude toward History and historiography, there is a deep chasm between our modern world (after 1500) and past generations that lived in the Antiquity or during the Christian and Islamic times. The modern theories that History can ‘teach’ and that, by studying History, one can avoid past mistakes did not exist before the modern world; these theories are wrong, insane, inhuman and disastrous.
‘History’ does not ‘teach’, and not one Muslim, Christian, Manichaean, Gnostic, Zoroastrian, Babylonian or Egyptian ever thought or expected that History could possibly ‘teach’ him anything. In their perception of the world, there was clarity whereas modern minds are terribly confused about a critical issue: recording facts (historiography) is not History. History is what happened. No one can reconstitute it in its entirety, except by living in the past and being present in the events.
Historiography, i.e. simple recording of facts, did indeed happen for more than five millennia, but not for the purpose of ‘teaching’ or being ‘taught’. This reality determined all ancient historical records, be they Ancient Egyptian Annals, Babylonian Chronicles, Assyrian Annals, Greek and Roman history writing, Christian and Muslim Chronography or other. And for the purpose of objectivity, in most of the cases, the authors eliminated their personal views and considerations; and this is quite normal, as we all understand that a fact is always a fact per se, irrespective of the author’s (or narrator’s or historian’s) personal favor and/or understanding.
For the above reasons, serious, decent and valuable ancient authors did not include in their narratives what was evident to all: the historical context. Contextualization would be tantamount to self-devaluation for an historian like Tabari or Theophanes or the anonymous, 7th c. CE, Aramaean author of the Syriac Chronicle of Kirkuk, which is mainly known as ‘History of Karka de Beth Selok’. About:
(Throughout the present article links to the Wikipedia are included only for further research and access to historical sources and bibliography – not for the contents of the entries that are often impertinent and biased and the ensuing conclusions misplaced)
Ka’ba-ye Zardosht (Zoroaster’s Kaaba): one of the holiest shrines of the Sassanid Empire of Iran at Naqsh-e Rustam, ancient Achaemenid necropolis; it is to be noted that there were several pre-Islamic times’ holy buildings in rectangular shape. They were located in Iran and in Yemen. The Kaaba of Najran was the Christian cathedral in Yemenite Najran (currently under Saudi occupation).Saint Sophia: the Eastern Roman Empire’s greatest cathedral was not a holy shrine for the Monophysitic and Nestorian Aramaeans and the Copts (Egyptians), because they viewed the Patriarchate of Constantinople as heretic. This played an enormous role and impacted the historical developments back in the 630s.
II. Oversights and errors attested in the existing bibliography
Contrarily to Ancient, Christian and Muslim authors and people, who did not expect ‘History’ (but their holy books) to teach them the correct path in life and who did not repeat past mistakes by delving into moral depths (and not into useless historical manuals), we need extensive contextualization to accurately perceive and correctly understand epochs that totally differed from ours. This is what is terribly missing from the studies of almost all the scholars who were interested in the Battle of Yarmouk.
Yarmouk battlefield in Jordan today
A. ‘Battle techniques’
Many scholars focused on the battle techniques of Khalid ibn al-Walid (592-642 CE). But however successful these techniques may have been, military dexterity does not explain why the bulk of the indigenous populations of the eastern provinces (North Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica) of the Eastern Roman Empire did not rebel against the early Muslim rule. The battle of Yarmouk may have been won by the Muslims, but 10 or 20 years later a violent local rebellion could have eventually terminated the foreign rule. But this did not happen.
Typical samples of worthless bibliography and lectures:
One of the wrong diagrams that one can find in the Internet nowadays; suffice it that you read Tabari and you will understand the mistakes.This type of diagrams can never explain historical processes; it is therefore wrong, confusing and disorienting.
B. ‘Two great empires exhausted and weakened’
Several authors explained the early Islamic victories by referring to the exhaustion of the then known world’s two greatest empires, namely the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran. This is correct and true, but still it does not help us understand why the outright majority of populations of the western provinces of Iran and the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire did not rebel against the foreign invaders in the first 2-3 decades of Islamic rule. However, this fantasy is reproduced even in serious UNESCO documentation on the Silk Road: https://fr.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/default/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_III%20silk%20road_the%20arab%20conquest.pdf
The Sassanid Empire of Iran and the Eastern Roman Empire at the time prophet Muhammad was bornMain movements of Eastern Roman and Sassanid Iranian armies
———- EXCURSE I: HISTORICAL FOCUS —————-
Borders, fronts, rebellions, divisions and fights
In this regard, it is noteworthy to point out a quadruple phenomenon that took place in the first decades of Islamic rule in the Caliphate’s central provinces:
1- Post-conquest Iran
The first rebellions against the new rule started early in Iran, but they occurred in remote provinces (Gilan, Mazandaran, Azerbaijan) that were inhabited by nations other than those living in the former western provinces of Iran. In any case, both great empires, the Eastern Romans and the Iranians, were multi-ethnic imperial structures.
2- Eastern Roman Empire
The first line of Eastern Roman defense against the Islamic Caliphate was created alongside the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains, whereas the upper flow of Euphrates became the border between the two empires. This is the location where the formidable Akritai appeared to fight and stop every advance of the Omayyad or Abbasid armies to the West, apparently coordinating with the Islamic opposition to the pseudo-Islamic rule of the caliphs.
3- Upper Egypt and the Sudan (: historical Ethiopia)
Upper Egypt totally escaped the Islamic rule, as Nobatia was incepted as Christian Coptic kingdom with capital at Faras (almost on the present Egyptian-Sudanese borderline). The Islamic rule in Masr (Egypt) did not exceed beyond the region between Al Minya and Assiut (ca. 350 km south of Cairo), and while Seville, Cordova, Sicily, Crete, Samarqand and the Delta of Indus belonged to the Islamic Caliphate, Coptic monasticism flourished in Thebes of Egypt (today’s Luxor; from Al Uqsur, ‘the military camps’) where all ancient Egyptian temples and antiquities, notably Deir al Bahri and Deir al Madina, had become monastic cells. Two other Christian Sudanese kingdoms rose further in the South: Makuria and Alodia, limiting the Islamic presence in Eastern Africa to the Red Sea coastland.
4- Internal conflicts transported from Hejaz to Syria and Mesopotamia
The only conflicts that took place in the early Islamic Caliphate’s central provinces (i.e. the lands that belong today to Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, SE Turkey, Iraq, SW Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and the northern parts of Saudi Arabia) were those related to the ‘new’ faith, prophet Muhammad’s preaching, and the interpretation of this faith’s prescriptions as regards the governance of the state. This means, in other words, that the Arabs of Hejaz, brought with them to Syria-Mesopotamia the deep divisions that characterized their society (acceptance, rejection and/or distortion of prophet Muhammad’s religious revelation) even before prophet Muhammad’s death (632 CE). These divisions were ferocious and the bloodshed tarnished irrevocably the History of Islam, although it really paled if compared with the bloodshed caused after the official imposition of Constantinopolitan-Roman Christianity as the sole religion throughout the Roman Empire. And the early converts from the newly occupied lands that earlier belonged to the Eastern Romans and to the Sassanid Iranians vividly participated in these divisions, debates, polarizations, conflicts and civil wars.
This quadruple phenomenon was never studied per se until now, and to duly investigate it one needs to delve in the ethnic and religious/theological conflicts that took place in the two great empires (the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran) for about 300-400 years before the Battle of Yarmouk. This clearly demonstrates that not one specialist of the Early Islamic History can be taken seriously without the knowledge of at least two among the following languages and religious/literary traditions: Coptic, Syriac Aramaic, Middle Persian, Medieval ‘Greek’ (‘Roman’: the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire), Manichaean, and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (: the language of Rabbinical Judaism).
——————————————————
C. ‘History of states’ and not of peoples and cultures
Numerous authors write on the topic, while focusing on State History (Eastern Roman, Sassanid Iranian, Omayyad and Abbasid Islamic); this is one way ticket to misperception, misunderstanding, and distortion. States are not representative of subject nations and peoples, but of ruling elites and their doctrines; in their effort to secure their interests, states destroy all historical, literary, religious or theological documentation that would challenge them. States are to some extent the reason for the scarcity of documentation that characterizes the 7th and the 8th centuries CE (or, to put it otherwise, the first 100-150 years AH/anno Hegirae).
D. Poor conceptualization of the early Islamic conquests by modern scholars
Most researchers failed to contextualize the early Islamic conquests, because they were unable to properly conceptualize the historical developments in the first place. Battles are undertaken by social groups or eventually states, but socio-cultural processes and historical developments are generated by peoples and nations. So, the proper manner to approach the topic is to view it as an affair of various nations and ethno-linguistic and religious groups that lived in the wider region between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, from the Taurus Mountains to the Indus River Delta, and in-between the Nile and Syr-Darya (Iaxartes River) in Central Asia.
——– EXCURSE II: ETHNO-LINGUISTIC & RELIGIOUS FOCUS ————
In this regard, it is essential to conclude from the aforementioned that the only pertinent manner to tackle the topic is via interdisciplinary studies. Until now, no effort was displayed in this direction; and yet, there can be many combinations of interdisciplinary studies applying to this case.
Ethno-linguistic groups
During the 6th–7th c. CE, the main nations which lived in the lands that, after the Islamic conquests, became the central provinces of the Islamic Caliphate were:
i- the Aramaeans,
ii- the Copts,
iii- the Persians and other Iranians, who manned the imperial administration at Tesiphun (Ctesiphon) and controlled the Iranian military outposts,
iv- the (Aramaic-speaking) Jews, and
v- the Eastern Romans, who were organized in small communities living in the major cities of the eastern provinces of the empire, notably around the Chalcedonian patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.
This means that at those days the outright majority of the populations living in lands belonging to today’s SE Turkey, Syria, Iraq, SW Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and the North of Saudi Arabia were Aramaeans.
And the outright majority of the populations living in the Nile Valley were Copts.
Urhoy-Edessa of Orhoene-Urfa (SE Turkey): a major Aramaean cityNasibina-Nisibis-Nusaybin (SE Turkey): a major Aramaean city Hatra (NW Iraq): a major Aramaean city Dura Europos on Euphrates (Eastern Syria): a major Aramaean cityTadmur-Palmyra (Central Syria): a major Aramaean city Bosra (Southern Syria): a major Aramaean city Rekem (Petra, Jordan): a major Aramaean city of the Nabataean dynastyHegra, the necropolis of the Aramaean Nabataean kingdom, at 350 km distance north of Yathrib (Madina)Charax Spasinu (South Iraq): a major Aramaean city
Religious groups
When it comes to ethno-religious and linguistic groups existing at those days (6th–7th c. CE) in the aforementioned region, we enumerate the following:
i- the Christian Aramaeans of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Monophysites) Although entirely anti-Constantinopolitan, the Christian Aramaeans were divided into Miaphysitic (Monophysitic) anti-Chalcedonian Christians and Nestorian anti-Ephesine Christians (see below no ii).
Christian Aramaeans of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Monophysites) formed the outright majority of the populations living in the Eastern Roman provinces of Syria, North Mesopotamia, and Palestine.
The term Monophysitic (Monophysitism/Monophysites) being quite pejorative, it is currently replaced by Miaphysitic (Miaphysitism/Miaphysites). The most common appellation of the church is Jacobite, after St. Jacob Baradaeus (also known as Jacob bar Addai).
Deir Zafaran (also known as Mor Hananyo) Monastery, near Mardin (SE Turkey): a high place of Syriac Jacobite (Miaphysitic/Monophysitic) Christianity
It is also necessary to underscore that the noun/adjective ‘Syriac’ is totally unrelated to the land of Syria (in such case the adjective is ‘Syrian’), but denotes a late phase of Aramaic that survived down to our days, being one of the main liturgical languages in the History of Christianity. Syriac alphabet derived from Aramaic alphabet (in the 1st c. CE) and, similarly, Arabic alphabet derived (in the 4th c. CE) from Nabataean Aramaic alphabet; Aramaic and Hebrew were the two original languages in which the Old Testament was written.
Syriac Aramaic in Serto writingSyriac Aramaic in Estrangelo writing
Monophysitic Aramaeans were essential for the formation and the diffusion of historical Islam. Their overwhelming rejection of the Constantinopolitan theology and of the anti-Aramaean policies of the Eastern Roman Empire totally alienated the Aramaeans from the authorities that ruled them. For Monophysitic Aramaeans, the Eastern Roman Empire was ruled by heretics. And as the illustrious Aramaean theologian, historian and erudite scholar Tatian (112-185 CE) demonstrated in his magnificent opus Oratio ad Graecos (Address to the Greeks), the enormous cultural gap between Aramaeans and Greeks played a considerable role in the destabilization of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (and subsequently of the Eastern Roman Empire), because the Constantinopolitan authorities cooperated basically with the Greek-speaking minority.
The determinant role played by the Monophysitic Aramaeans in the formation and the diffusion of historical Islam is highlighted by the case of Sergius Bahira, the Syriac Jacobite (Monophysitic) monk, who encountered prophet Muhammad in young age, when he accompanied his uncle Abi Taleb ibn Abd el Muttalib to Syria and other provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire.
ii- the Christian Aramaeans of the Great Church of the East (Nestorians)
These Aramaeans followed Nestorius in his doctrine that was a radical form of what is called Diophysitism (belief in two natures/hypostases of Jesus); they are called Nestorians, although the term is not regarded as correct (being tantamount to calling the Muslims ‘Muhammedans’). Nestorians rejected the Council of Ephesus (431 CE), pretty much like the Monophysites/Miaphysites rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE).
h ttps://news.assyrianchurch.org/category/education/english-articles/
Dair Mar Eliya (Monastery of St. Elijah) in North Iraq: Nestorian monastery of the 6th c.Nestorian Gospel in SyriacThe Anikova plate: representation of the Siege of Jericho; masterpiece of Sogdian Nestorian Art from Semirechie (southeastern Kazakhstan and northeastern Kyrgyszstan). Probable date: 8th-9th c.Ecclesiastical provinces of the Nestorian Church in the 10th c.Nestorian communities in the 10th-11th c.
Christian Aramaeans of the Great Church of the East (Nestorians) formed the outright majority of the Sassanid Iranian provinces of Central and South Mesopotamia, South Transtigritane, and Arabia, namely Huzistan, Meshan, Asurestan, Nodshiragan (Adiabene), and Arabestan.
Nestorian Aramaeans were essential in the formation and diffusion of historical Islam. Their staggering rejection of both, Constantinopolitan Christianity and Sassanid Mazdeism (the official Iranian imperial religious dogma that consisted only in a later form of the Achaemenid Zoroastrianism), was highly determinant for the early success of the caliphs. At this early point, I only state the well-known (but not deeply understood) fact that, for ca. 180 years before the arrival of the Islamic armies in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, the Nestorians called Virgin Mary ‘Mother of Christ’ and not ‘Mother of god’, in striking opposition to the Constantinopolitan theologians, monks and courtiers. In this manner, Nestorian Aramaeans proved to be the real precursors of prophet Muhammad and his teachings. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the 7th c. CE, the Nestorians were closer to the early Quranic text, which may have reached them through hearsay (before the early Islamic armies), than to the Nicene Creed.
Constantinopolitan theology and the anti-Aramaean religious and economic policies of the empire totally alienated the Aramaeans from the ruling authorities. Even worse, in Iran, the Nestorian Aramaeans were persecuted in definitely crueler manner than the Monophysitic Aramaeans were in the Eastern Roman Empire. And the ceaseless Eastern Roman – Sassanid Iranian wars devastated -more than any other territories- the lands inhabited by the Aramaeans.
Their surviving remnants are nowadays the Mandaeans. There are about 100000 Mandaean Aramaeans worldwide, but due to the ongoing persecution and oppression, most of them live currently in the Diaspora, and not in their historical land, i.e. Central and South Mesopotamia (Iraq) and South Transtigritane (SW Iran).
Gnostic Aramaeans were essential in the formation and diffusion of historical Islam. Their participation in Muslim spiritual life is at the origin of the formation of groups like the legendary Ikhwan Safa, whose rituals have been later reproduced by numerous Islamic mystics, spiritualists, occultists and scholars from the Qarmatians and the Isma’ilis to all types of Batiniyya (‘esoterism’) wise elders and great spiritual scientists, like Muhammad al Fazari, Al Ghazali, Abu ‘l Qassim ibn al Saffar, Maslam al Majriti, and Muhyieldin ibn Arabi.
Rasa’il Ikhwan al-Safa, (‘Epistles of the Brethren of Purity’), Book I – on the mathematical sciences; Western Iran, ca. 14th c.
Even the communication manners and literary style of the Ikhwan Safa’s treatises and manuals appear to be Gnostic in their essence. What is nowadays erroneously called ‘Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity’, which is in fact the compendium of their wisdom, consists of letters or ‘messages’ (رسائل), being thus a reminiscence of the typically Gnostic manner of sharing knowledge, wisdom and spiritual practices.
The religion composed, proclaimed and propagated by Mani was displayed in 242 CE in front of the formidable Sassanid shah Shapur I to whom the prophet of Manichaeism dedicated one of his books, titled Shabuhragan. Shapur I did not adhere to the new religion, but he realized its imperial importance for the Sassanid state and supported the young prophet (born in 216 CE) in his mission. It is not wrong to consider Manichaeism technically as a type of Gnosticism, but it was indeed a Gnostic system apart from the rest.
Aramaeans, Persians, Iranians, Sogdians, Turanians, Mongolians, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Romans, Armenians and many other nations wholeheartedly accepted Manichaeism, which was the first religion in the world to have adepts from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The last Manicheans performed their rites in China’s eastern coastland before 150-100 years. Following the rise of Mazdeism (a later form of Iranian Zoroastrianism) and the prevalence of Kartir among the Sassanid courtiers, Manichaeism was persecuted and Mani was tortured to death, but the diffusion of Manichaeism was not impacted; quite on the contrary! Mani’s faith spread and many Manichaean communities existed at the times of the Islamic conquest in both, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran. Aramaean Manichaean communities in Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine greatly impacted Islam in many dimensions.
Almost 400 years before prophet Muhammad postured to be the last of the prophets, the prophet of Manichaeism claimed to be the ‘seal of the prophets’. Manichaean hierarchy seems to have been diffused among many Muslim esoteric spiritual orders. Some of the greatest historians and chronographers of Islamic times, like Tabari, al Biruni, and al Nadim, expanded on Mani and the Manicheans. The five prayers that a Muslim must perform daily seem to have been a compromise between the four daily prayers of the Manichaean ‘hearers’ (laymen) and the seven daily prayers of the elects (ecclesiastical hierarchy). Prophet Muhammad’s discussions with earlier prophets, during the Isra and Mi’raj nocturnal voyage to the Celestial Jerusalem, seem to exactly reflect similar considerations. Furthermore, the ablutions before the prayer appear to be a repetition of Manichaean practices. In addition, the Ebionite and Elcesaite impact on Manicheans seems therefore to have been passed on to the Muslims.
Was Mani crucified? The question remains unanswered, as several Islamic sources reported a dire end following a terrible persecution unleashed by the Sassanid imperial priesthood against the prophet of Manichaeism.The diffusion of Manichaeism eclipsed that of any other religion before the Modern Times; but Manichaeism was state religion only once: among the Uyghur nation of Central Asia.
The religion of Mani may have by now gone extinct, but its impact on Islam was tremendous. Many scholars tried to retrace fundamental concepts of Islam to the beliefs of several Jewish or Christian groups and notably the Nazarenes, but it would make more sense to closely examine how some of Mani’s innovative concepts found their way into prophet Muhammad’s cardinal tenets and world conceptualization.
Although Christianity accepted the Ancient Hebrew prophets as such, Islam is characterized by a definitely different approach, as it makes of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isma’il, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David and Solomon prophets as well (also extending the status of prophet to John the Baptist and Jesus). Furthermore, it is noticeable that Islam’s position on prophethood is flexible enough to encompass other historical figures or outstanding persons not directly known to the small Meccan community of the times of Muhammad ibn Abdullah. However, this fresh approach to World History, which is a novelty for Christianity and Judaism, was absolutely Manichaean or origin. Mani first introduced the concept by accepting Zoroaster, Buddha and Jesus as earlier prophets and by thus giving to his religious system a universal-imperial dimension that was badly needed for a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious empire.
Manichaean Aramaeans were systematically persecuted in both, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran; it was therefore quite normal for them to support the replacement of the double yoke with an Arab state and administration that they would be able to fully staff and operate (along with other Aramaeans who were followers of other religions, notably Christianity), taking into consideration the fact that the uneducated, uncultured and primitive Arabs of Hejaz, who had never formed any kind of proper state, would be definitely and absolutely unable to face such a challenge.
In the early Islamic times, there have been many notable Manichaean scholars, who prospered in the Islamic Caliphate; as Abbasid Baghdad became a center for either Manicheans or Manichaean converts to Islam, many Manicheans of other origin flocked there to contribute to the illustrious Beit al Hikmah (بيت الحكمة/House of the Wisdom) university, library, archival organization, academic center of translations, research center, botanical garden, and observatory. Abu Hilal al-Dayhuri, a Berber from Maghreb, was one of them. On the other hand, elements of the criticism that Abu Isa al Warraq addressed to Islam and to prophet Muhammad seem to be Manichaean of nature.
However, one must admit that, despite similarities, loans and impact, Islam and Manichaeism soon became rival systems and most of the Islamic erudite scholars portrayed Mani in a rather negative manner. This approach made of Muslims the major opponents of the Manicheans, after the Christians and the Jews; but this situation is attested in rather later periods (9th–10th c.). However, this is not quite strange, if we take into consideration the fact that the Old Testament god Yahweh was portrayed as the Demiurge (i.e. the Satan) by Mani.
v- the Copts (Monophysitic Christian Egyptians)
As close allies of the Monophysitic Aramaeans (see above unit i-), they were ferocious enemies of the oppressive Constantinopolitan administrative hierarchy and Patriarchate. Similarly with the Monophysitic Aramaeans, who belonged to the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and rejected the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (which sided with Constantinople), the Monophysitic Copts followed the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and rejected the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Coptic manuscript with illuminationsCoptic manuscriptCoptic Gospel with illumination representing the four Evangelists.Coptic manuscript with illuminations
Similarly with what happened in North Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine where the followers of the Constantinopolitan doctrine-related patriarchates (in Antioch and Jerusalem) were not numerous, as they constituted the Greek-speaking minority of those regions, in Egypt, the followers of the Constantinopolitan doctrine-related patriarchate (in Alexandria) were few, and they constituted the Greek-speaking minority of Egypt.
This leads to a detrimental conclusion as regards the Eastern Roman Empire and its chances to maintain control across its eastern provinces, namely North Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica; both, the Constantinopolitan authorities and their local stooges were loathed and reviled by the outright majority of the local populations that would certainly do all that it took to get rid of the heretical rulers at Constantinople. All they needed was an opportunity, and prophet Muhammad’s preaching in Hejaz was apparently more important for them (as a tool) than to Arabs (as a faith).
vi- the (Aramaic-speaking) Jews, followers of Rabbinical Judaism
After the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) and the failure of the Bar Kokhba (136 CE) rebellion, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Zealots did not have a chance to survive as religious-spiritual-intellectual systems among the Judaic Jews. Ever since, Judaism has revolved around the Pharisees, who thus formed what is now known as ‘Rabbinical Judaism’. As Ancient Hebrew was already a dead language, all Jews were already speaking Aramaic. Expelled from Aelia Capitolina (former Jerusalem), Jews could stay in Palestine or preferably settle in Arsacid (and after 224 CE, Sassanid) Iranian Mesopotamia.
They then (and over several centuries) elaborated a new religious book that marks a clear line of separation between their ancestors’ religion (Ancient Hebrew religion based exclusively on the Old Testament) and their new religion; this book is the Talmud, which is the product of the criminal priests who never repented for having killed the ancient prophets of Israel. Today, most scholars hide the critical fact that Judaism (i.e. Rabbinical Judaism or Talmudic Judaism) is totally different from and diametrically opposed to the Ancient Hebrew religion. As priestly literature and theological exegesis, the two different Talmud collections, namely the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalemite Talmud, were written in Aramaic.
Manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud with text from the tractate KiddushinManuscript of the Babylonian Talmud with text from the tractate Rosh ha-shannah
Contrarily to the Judaic Jews, who were marked by the composition and the diffusion of the Talmud among them, the Aramaean Jews in their totality turned to Early Christianity; this concerns the Samaritans of the time of Jesus and many other Aramaean Jewish communities that prospered in Syria and Mesopotamia, notably in Dura Europos where the Synagogue fully reveals the impetus and the magnificence of Aramaean Art. By the time of prophet Muhammad there was no Aramaean Jew.
Although late 6th c. and early 7th c. CE Jews wholeheartedly supported the Sassanid Iranians in their wars against the Eastern Roman Empire (in striking contrast with the early Muslims of the period 610-628/629, who clearly regretted the early Iranian advance and conquests, and later rejoiced with the final Eastern Roman victories) and in spite of many unfortunate incidents that occurred between the early Muslims and the Hejaz Jews (during prophet Muhammad’s lifetime), the early (634-651 CE) Islamic conquests were enthusiastically accepted by the Jews of the wider region, who found their ally and protector in the ominous figure of Omar ibn al Khattab, as he allowed them to enter Jerusalem, no less than 568 years after they were kicked out of there by the Romans. Jews actively supported the early Islamic Caliphates, notably the Umayyad state of Damascus, the Abbasid Empire of Baghdad, and the Umayyad caliphs of Córdoba (Andalus).
vii- the Persians and other Iranians followers of various Iranian religions
Being only one of the Sassanid Empire’s nations, the Persians lived in the province of Fars, which in Ancient Greek was translated as Persia; there cannot be confusion between ‘Persian’ and ‘Iranian’. Persians were/are only one of the Iranian nations.
The Persians controlled the administrative machine of the Iranian Empire during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE) and during the Sassanid times (224-651 CE), whereas the Parthians, another Iranian nation of Turanian origin, controlled the administrative machine of the empire during the Arsacid times (250 BCE-224 CE).
The Iranian Empire had always many imperial capitals, notably Pasargadae, Persepolis, Susa, Babylon, Ecbatana, Nisa (Mithradatkirt/Parthaunisa), Qumis (Hecatompylos), Ray (Ragae), Tesifun (Ctesiphon), and Istakhr; on the other hand, Praaspa (Adur Gushnasp/Takht-e Suleyman), at an elevation of 3000 m, in the northern part of Zagros Mountains, was permanently the Zoroastrian religious capital of the empire.
In the Mesopotamian provinces of the Sassanid Empire of Iran, there were few and rather small Persian communities; in these western provinces of Iran were also settled people originating from other Iranian nations that were indigenous in the central, eastern and northern provinces of the empire. They were dispatched to the imperial administration at Ctesiphon and they served in the army. But they were a minority among the indigenous Aramaeans of Central and Southern Mesopotamia, Transtigritane, and the Persian Gulf’s southern coastlands.
This reality has not been either assessed or revealed by any type of specialists who studied and wrote about the topic of the early Islamic conquests. Yet, it is uniquely determinant and utterly explanatory. It changes drastically our scholarly approach to the topic (see below unit E).
Another critical dimension that impacted greatly the fate of the Sassanid Empire of Iran was its religious multi-division. If we leave the Nestorian Aramaeans, the Gnostic Aramaeans, the Manichaean Aramaeans, other Manichaean Iranians (notably the Sogdians), and the Aramaic-speaking Jews aside, the Persians and the other Iranian nations of the Sassanid Empire were spiritually and religiously divided. Among them, there were adepts of the following religious systems:
1- Mazdeism: the imperial religion and Zoroastrian doctrine established by Kartir;
2- Mithraism: the popular religion that made of Mithra a god of polytheistic features;
3- Zurvanism: Mithra broke away from Zoroastrianism and Zurvan from Mithraism;
4- Mazdakism: the subversive socio-religious system of rebellious mobedh (priest);
5- Gayomardism: an offspring of Mazdeism and Mithraism, with monotheistic traits;
If one adds to the numerous aforementioned religions, several religious systems prevailing among nations of the Iranian periphery and border regions, notably Buddhism, Turanian Tengrism, and other Central Asiatic and Indus River valley religions, one gets a complete picture of the internal divisions that existed in the Sassanid Empire of Iran and finally lef to its destruction.
Sassanid Iranian relief with representation of the high priest, mystic and reformer of Zoroastrianism Kartir, a primary initiate who can be viewed as the founder of Mazdeism, i.e. the late form of Zoroastrianism that was instituted as official dogma in Sassanid Iran. Possibly Turanian (Turkic) of origin, Kartir (or Kerdyr) can be held as main responsible for the execution of Mani and the persecution of Manicheans in Iran until the end of the Sassanid times. Long before the Arabs of Hejaz heard of the Mi’raj story (prophet Muhammad’s nocturnal, transcendental travel to the Temple Mount and thence to the Celestial Jerusalem), the Iranians learned about Kartir’s celestial journey in the Heaven. There is also another (parallel?) Middle Persian story about the celestial journey of the sublime initiate Arda Viraf in the Heaven; however, the Middle Persian manuscripts of Arda Wīraz namag seem to date back to the 9th c., although the entire narrative echoes Sassanid traditions. About: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/kartir / https://www.academia.edu/37850211/The_nature_of_spiritual_journeys_in_Zoroastrianism_based_on_Kartir_and_Arda_Viraf_tripsThe Mithraic temple of Anahita at Bishapur near KazerunThe heroic elements of the Sassanid times’ Mazdeism were preserved in the Iranian epics of Islamic times, thus leading to a very different form of Islam than what Muhammad preached in Mecca; Esfandiyar faces Simurgh. Without Iranian epics composed 300 years after the death of prophet Muhammad, one cannot possibly identify correctly the cultural-spiritual-intellectual-artistic-educational environment of Iranian, Turanian, Central Asiatic, Caucasus and Indian Muslim societies. In fact, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh became the second Quran for Ottoman sultans, Mughal emperors, Iranian shahs and Eurasiatic Muslims.Gayomard (Keyumars) fighting evil spirits; a reminiscence of Gayomardism of the Sassanid times was preserved in the Iranian epics of Islamic times.The execution of Mazdak, the preacher of the world’s first religion which evangelized a communist social structure without property, as represented in Islamic times’ miniatures of manuscriptsRepresentation of Zurvan, the all-consuming ‘god’ of time
viii- the Eastern Roman Orthodox Christians, who sided with the Patriarchate of Constantinople
As I already said, the few Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian communities, settled in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and several other cities in North Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica, supported the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Constantinopolitan imperial administration, but they were largely outnumbered by the local Aramaean (in Asia) and Coptic (in Africa) populations (which rejected the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its local stooges). That is why the few Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian communities were greatly loathed: they ultimately functioned as tools of the imperial oppression and persecution of all those who disagreed with the Constantinopolitan theologians.
These populations and their ecclesiastical authorities, namely the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its dependencies in the East, i.e. the three minor institutions at Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria that were unrepresentative (as they were accepted as ‘patriarchates’ only by the tiny local minority of the Greek-speaking populations of the respective cities), wanted to monopolize the term ‘Orthodox’, but this was merely their propaganda, against those whom they called ‘Monophysites’. It would be however wrong to imagine that there was concord within the sphere of influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople; there was discord and division instead.
Caesarea of Cappadocia (Kayseri): the city walls erected by Justinian in the middle of 6th c. The early Islamic conquests were stopped in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains beyond Cappadocia. The bulk of the Eastern Roman population was centered between Caesarea and Smyrna (Izmir) whereas Cappadocia was the holy land of Eastern Roman Christianity.The rupestrian Cappadocian Art: one of Christianity’s most stupendous contributions to ArtTypical sample of rupestrian Cappadocian ArtThe highland of Cappadocia where many hundreds of cells and churches have been built and hewn in the rock.Caesarea: The basis of the Eastern Roman defense against the Islamic Caliphate for more than 400 years
The new theological-Christological dispute revolved around the ‘energy’ and the ‘will’ (thelesis) of Jesus, in the sense of whether they were one or two (human and divine) and, if two, what the relationship of the two energies or two wills was. As a matter of fact, it was the resurgence of the old dispute (about the ‘nature’ (physis) of Jesus), which had given birth to what we now call Miaphysitism/Monophysitism.
This new division concerned mainly vast populations living in the central provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, namely Anatolia (Turkey), Constantinople, the Balkan Peninsula, southern and eastern Italy, Sicily, and Carthage. The division had already reached the top of the imperial structure, as Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople were accused of Monoenergism and Monothelitism. And the fact that Heraclius got married with his niece Martina (as second wife) unleashed an abysmal hatred against him from the part of the uncompromising ‘Orthodox’ theologians, monks and priests, as they viewed the marriage as incestuous.
This, briefly presented, was the situation in which the two great empires, the Eastern Romans and the Sassanid Iranians, found themselves in the eve of the battles that ended with the loss of the eastern provinces of the former and the final dissolution of the latter. As I said in the last paragraph of the EXCURSE I: HISTORICAL FOCUS, there has to be an academic focus on interdisciplinary studies and research, which will certainly unveil many points and elements of common faith shared by Muslims and followers of other religions (notably Manicheans) or Christian denominations (notably Miaphysitic/Monophysitic and Nestorian). This will greatly impact our understanding of the Eastern Roman and the Iranian defeats, because it may reveal that these early battles (and the Battle of Yarmouk was only one) had been already won before they were fought; furthermore, it will also explain why the situation, which arose as a consequence of these battles, proved to be irreversible for many long centuries.
————————————————————-
E. The demographic structure of the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Western Iranian provinces: the Aramaeans
No scholar examined in detail the demographic structure of the populations that inhabited the central territories of the early Caliphate outside Hejaz and Yemen. This has much to do with the above EXCURSE II: ETHNO-LINGUISTIC & RELIGIOUS FOCUS. A detailed demographic study covering the period 224-750 CE would reveal that the bulk of the Aramaean populations living in the Western Iranian provinces and in the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire were
1- ethnically different from the nations that ruled both empires (the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans and the Persians);
2- religiously opposed to the official imperial religions of both empires;
3- systematically persecuted and marginalized by both imperial administrations and armies;
4- detrimentally devastated by the incessant wars fought between the two empires, because the ordinary battlefield was precisely located in their own lands, namely the Western Iranian provinces and the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire (and consequently the bulk of the populations of the ruling nations, namely the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans and the Persians, was not significantly affected by these wars); and
5- linguistically very close to the Arabs of Hejaz, because in fact Arabic was a southern Syriac dialect and the Arabic writing derived from Syriac Aramaic.
Ctesiphon: the remaining part of the then world’s most magnificent palace. Taq-i Kisra (or Al Mada’in) was the Sassanid palace in Mesopotamia and the archway is the largest single-span vault of unreinforced brickwork in the world. One of the best samples of pre-Islamic Aramaean-Iranian Art.In fact, Ctesiphon (Tesifun) in today’s central Iraq was an enormous agglomeration involving four cities; one of them, Seleucia, known as Mahoze in Aramaic, was the worldwide center of Nestorian Christianity.The Great Mosque of Damascus is a masterpiece of Aramaean Art.
F. The central provinces of the Islamic Caliphates: the lands of the Aramaeans.
No scholar noticed that, in addition to the aforementioned points, for about five (5) centuries (661-1258), the central regions of the Islamic Caliphates (Umayyad or Abbasid) were exactly the lands of the Aramaeans. The first Islamic capital was at Madinah, but this was soon terminated, as the Umayyad dynasty was based in the Aramaean city par excellence: Damascus. The determinant impact of the Aramaean universities, academies, monasteries and scriptoria (notably those of Urhoy/Edessa, Nisibis/Nusaybin, Tur Abdin, Mahoze/Ctesiphon, and Kerkha/Kirkuk) on the formation of the Islamic educational, academic, intellectual and scientific life changed totally the backward, uncivil and primitive environment in which prophet Muhammad’s preaching was undertaken.
The Sassanid Empire of Iran in its greatest extent at 621 CEHeraclius’ campaigns’ 611-628
This historical process and development made of the early Arab fighters, the so-called Sahaba, a marginal element that played almost no role in the History of Islamic Civilization. In other words, the Islamic Civilization in its early stage was clearly an Aramaean – Iranian civilization with significant Coptic, Yemenite and Jewish contributions; at a later stage, Berber, Turanian, African and Indus River Valley contributions to the Islamic civilizations have also been attested. However, there was never an ‘Arab civilization’ or -as per the French Orientalist forgers- “une civilisation arabo-musulmane”.
This automatically cancels the theoretical importance of the early Islamic conquests that are absurdly amplified and incommensurately over-magnified by both Western scholars and Islamic terrorists; in fact, the real winners were the inhabitants of the central regions of the Islamic Caliphates, i.e. the Aramaeans, who saw others fighting for their cause (to get rid of the double, Eastern Roman and Sassanid Iranian, yoke), for the transfer of the imperial capital into their land, and for the establishment of an imperial elite manned basically by them. In addition to the Aramaeans, the Persians and other Iranians and Turanians managed also to make their way into the new imperial administration. But prophet Muhammad had never spoken about an … ‘Islamic’ empire….
G. Lack of historical criticism in Islamic Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies
Taking all the aforementioned determinant parameters into account, reading the historical sources from the viewpoint of historical criticism, and viewing the historical facts in the light of the hitherto unevaluated critical factors, modern scholars can come up with a totally different interpretation/interrelation of sources and a dramatically contrasting reconstitution of the historical past, which would be diametrically opposed to the nonsense of military experts, who focus exclusively on battle techniques, and to the absurd and paranoid, pseudo-religious belief, as per which ‘god’ was involved in the events that took place in the 630s and 640s and shook the world between the Mediterranean, the Indus River valley, and Central Asia. Historical criticism of all sources relating to these events is indispensable and inevitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
Hadhrat Ali’s tomb in Najaf; Ali ibn abi Taleb (599-661) was designated as the first caliph, but after meeting fierce opposition, he was accepted as the fourth caliph. The early divisions of the small Muslim community after the death of Prophet Muhammad are an extra reason for historians to apply today extensive historical criticism and to reject the absolutely reconstructed and erroneous version of History.The tomb of the 3rd imam Hussein ibn Ali (626-680) at Kerbala. The sons of Ali had to become caliphs in his stead. But the grandson of prophet Muhammad (Hussein) was slaughtered by the son of prophet Muhammad’s worst enemy (Mu’awiya ibn Abī Sufyan / Muawiyah son of Abu Sufyan). If this situation does not impose extensive historical criticism, this means that today’s fake academics receive orders from the powers that be as regards what to study, what not to explore, and how to investigate the topics of their research. Yet, what happened in Kerbala (680 CE) illuminates very well what occurred after the Hudaybiyah treaty when Abu Sufyan rushed to Palestine to meet Emperor Heraclius and deceive him.
III. The astounding scarcity of contemporaneous sources
The first serious difficulty that every modern historian faces, when dealing with the early Islamic conquests, is the extreme scarcity of contemporaneous historical sources. A recent and highly commendable scholarly publication, titled ‘Seeing Islam as Others saw it: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam’ (by prof. Robert G. Hoyland), enumerates ca. 140 different authors, manuscripts, texts or inscriptions (categorized as a. sources; b. apocalypses and visions; c. martyrologies; d. chronicles and histories; and e. apologies and disputations) that involve various narratives in Syriac Aramaic, Coptic, Greek, Armenian, Middle Persian, Christian Arabic, Jewish Aramaic, Latin and Chinese primary sources, which date back to the period between 620 and 780 CE.
As it can be easily understood, most of the above mentioned texts were not written with the specific purpose to detail the battles and the events that took place in the area under study in the 630s and the 640s; consequently, their mention of facts and their references to episodes were rather brief, because the main scope of the narrative was other. The Eastern Roman chronicler and monk Theophanes the Confessor (758-817) presented the longest description of the events by an Eastern Roman author. His text is to be found in Medieval Greek and Latin translation: J. P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, cviii (vol.108, col.55-1009). But when Theophanes wrote his venerated Χρονογραφία (Chronographia), at least 150 years had passed after the Battle of Yarmouk was fought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophanes_the_Confessor
Still this is fine if compared with the Muslim Arabic sources; the scarcity of 7th c. CE Islamic sources is spectacular. The Islamic sources of that period are much scarcer than the non-Islamic sources. Even worse, as the Arabs of Hejaz were not civilized and kept no historical records of their otherwise primitive and therefore dreary societies, a long formative period had to first pass, until -under clear Aramaean, Persian, Coptic and Jewish guidance- some rudiments of historiography be formed.
Most of the first, important historians of Islamic times were of non-Arab origin:
1- Muhammad ibn Ishaq (704-767) was the grandson of an Aramaean young boy held captive in a Christian monastery in Shetata (Ayn al Tamr) in Mesopotamia;
2- Al Waqidi (747-823) was the son of a Persian lady of noble ancestry whose family introduced letters, arts and music to uncivil and primitive Hejaz;
3- Tabari (or rather Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari/ محمد بن جرير الطبري; 839-923) was an Iranian born in the southern coastlands of the Caspian Sea (Tabaristan), a location to which he owes the name by which he became widely known. Tabari’s Chronography was not different from the Eastern Roman historiographical tradition, as he started his narrative from the Creation. Tabari accumulated an enormous, unprecedented documentation, and he mentioned explicitly his sources for each and every part of his colossal text (a recent, unilingual English translation needed 40 volumes of ca. 300 pages each to be published), making it unattractive to the non-specialists. But Tabari wrote no less than 230 years after the Battle of Yarmouk was fought.
The situation is even worse, when it comes to Islamic religious, theological, biographical, and hagiographical literature. The earlier manuscripts that survived down to our days date back to the 8th, 9th and 10th c., while few existing exceptions are in truly fragmentary condition and cannot be taken as ‘proofs’ properly speaking.
The scarcity of the contemporaneous sources makes the interdisciplinary research imperative for the case of the early Islamic conquests and for the study of the first decades of caliphs’ rule. The contrast or the agreement between two different sources and the often divergent perspectives offered can help drastically stimulate the research orientation and push scholars toward hitherto unidentified areas, which may then grant a far better understanding of the historical facts than present-day clichés do.
The Teaching of Jacob (Διδασκαλία Ἰακώβου/Didaskalia Iakobou; Doctrina Jacobi) is an example in this regard; preserved partially in Medieval Greek manuscripts and integrally in Latin, Arabic, Ge’ez and Slavonic translations, the text consists in a debate among Jews as regards their eventual conversion to Christianity. It seems to be dated back to 634 CE, and it provides some of the earlier references to the Islamic conquests. In fact, it contradicts all Islamic sources, because it describes prophet Muhammad (without naming him) as waging wars in Palestine. However, the brief excerpt that concerns these facts makes state of an alliance between Palestinian Jews and the Arab armies. On the other hand, those among the Palestinian Jews, who had converted to Christianity (or rather were forced to), saw in the person of the ‘warrior prophet’ the Antichrist and even expected the imminent return of the Christ, also regretting that it took them long to identify Jesus with the Biblical Messiah.
The Syriac ‘Chronicle of 640’, written by Thomas the Presbyter, consists in a particular Christian Chronography down to the year 640 CE; the scribe, who copied the manuscript ca. 85 years later (724 CE), added an extra text containing the list of the Umayyad caliphs, who had reigned until that year. The Chronicle contains critical references to the early Islamic attacks and conquests, also stating that an enormous bloodshed followed the battle “between the Romans and the Tayyaye of Muhmd (the Arabs of Muhammad)”, which took place on 4th February 634 CE in Palestine, east of Gaza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Presbyter
Two years later (636 CE), the Syriac ‘Chronicle of 640′ mentions explicitly the Sassanid Iranian debacle (without however naming the Battle of Qadissiyyah) and the subsequent arrival of the Islamic armies in NE Mesopotamia and notably Mardin (today in SE Turkey), which was the religious capital of the Tur Abdin Aramaean Miaphysitic/Monophysitic monasticism; these events also caused great bloodshed there. However, by dating these events in 636 CE {year 947, indiction 9, of the Seleucid Era (starting 312-311 BCE)}, the author makes it impossible for us to date the Battle of Yarmouk in 636, which is nowadays the tendency of several scholars who rather follow Theophanes’ text. On the contrary, Tabari makes it very clear that the Battle of Yarmouk occurred days after the death of Abu Bakr in August 634 CE.
Another brief and fragmentary inscription written on a blank page of a 6th c. Syriac copy of the Gospel of Mark makes state of the failure of the Eastern Roman army to properly defend the eastern regions of the empire; the same expression is used in Syriac (Tayyaye of Muhmd), but the dating is arbitrary. The inscription may well have been written in the 630s, but we cannot specify when exactly. Modern scholars have the tendency to deliberately mistrust the historical authors in order to fabricate the version of historiography that pleases them, and that is why several specialists assumed that the inscription’s author mistook Gabitha for Yarmouk; the inscription mentions a battle between the Eastern Romans and the Muslims in Gabitha (Jabiyah, in Syria) and the modern scholars translate it as ‘Yarmouk’ (in Jordan). It would be however more interesting to focus on similarities and dissimilarities between Syriac and Arabic, because practically speaking the same noun (Gabitha, Jabiyah) ended up having two totally different meanings. If one applies Syriac reading to the Quranic text before vocalization, the surprises may be phenomenal.
IV. Critical incidents during the Battle of Yarmouk
Tabari starts his narration of the events of the year 13 AH (634-635) with the Battle of Yarmouk; it expands on the illness and the subsequent death of Abu Bakr later. This cancels automatically the falsely reconstructed entry of the Wikipedia that dates the event back to 636 CE. Tabari’s two previous units are:
– Those who say Abu Bakr led the pilgrimage
– Those who say Umar led the pilgrimage
It is quite interesting that, in the introductory text for the events of the year 13 AH (before the description of the Battle of Yarmouk), Tabari states clearly that Abu Bakr, after his return from Mecca to Madina (when the hajj was completed), prepared the armies to be sent to Syria. Tabari narrates the developments, based on many different chains of earlier sources. There were many recruits of Yemen, because the Yemenites had recently accepted Islam (630 CE). So, even in these early battles, we cannot speak of ‘Arab armies’, but of Arab and Yemenite armies; the Yemenites are a Semitic nation, but as different from the Arabs as the Jews are from the Aramaeans, and pre-Islamic Yemenite languages and writings were very different from Arabic.
At this point, one has to point out that, before and after the death of prophet Muhammad (632), the early Islamic state in Hejaz, Yemen, Oman and the desert was in a tumultuous situation and incessant rebellions were exploding every now and then here and there, which means that the Islamic army units were in continuous readiness. However, despite this fact, the preparations for the dispatch of the army to the southern confines of Palestine and Syria, as narrated by Tabari, seem to have been rudimentary. In other words, I want to state that, for an event of so cataclysmic importance, the preparations were minimal.
This can only mean one thing: there were ongoing communications and coordination with Aramaeans based in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia as regards a) attrition activities that they would possibly undertake against the Eastern Roman armies, b) defection of Aramaean soldiers from the Eastern Roman armies, and c) public opinion preparation for the forthcoming arrival of the Islamic armies and for the acceptance of the early Islamic faith (which was not what people think today that Islam is). And these developments (in Syria, and not in Hejaz) are exactly what made the difference, irrespective of the battle outcome. Otherwise, an early Islamic victory and invasion could be met with local population resistance and then the dispatch of another imperial army from Constantinople or Cappadocia would demolish once forever the initial state structure that the Arab and Yemenite armies may have imposed for a year or two in Damascus, Emessa (Homs), Caesarea Maritima, and Jerusalem.
Four separate armies were dispatched from Madina at the same time and each of them took a different road, but when they reached the region of Yarmouk River, they decided to unite, because the Eastern Romans outnumbered them. The same tactic was followed by the Eastern Romans. In some early skirmishes a Muslim force under Khālid ibn Saʿīd was defeated. Tabari states that the two armies encamped at a relatively close distance from one another without fighting for several months.
At that point, Tabari gives the date of Abu Bakr’s death, namely in the middle of the month Jumadah al Akhirah of the Islamic calendar (16 August 634), and specifies that the event took place “ten days before the victory (in the battle of Yarmouk River)”. It is noteworthy that prophet Muhammad’s worst enemy and late convert to Islam Abu Sufyan bin Harb accompanied the army and was appointed as the ‘preacher’ (qass). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%C4%81%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%A3
During the description of the battle, Tabari mentions the arrival of the messenger from Madinah, namely the rider who announced the death of Abu Bakr only to Khalid bin Walid, the army leader, keeping it secret from all the fighters for obvious reasons. Tabari narrates also discussions that took place in intervals between Khalid bin Walid and George (Jurjah bin Budhiyah; also mentioned as Jarajis), one of the commanders of the Eastern Roman armies, who finally accepted Islam, performed a brief Islamic prayer (only two prostrations; rak’atayn), and then fought with the Muslims against the Eastern Roman army.
At another point, Tabari mentions an incident between Al-Ashtar (Malik bin al Harith al Nakha’iy, also known as Malik Al-Ashtar; a Yemenite origin Muslim) and ‘a man of the Romans’, who suggested a single combat with any Muslim fighter – a challenge that Al-Ashtar accepted. After the two combatants exchanged many blows, Al-Ashtar said to the ‘Roman’ opponent: “Take that, because I am a youngster from the Iyad tribe”! The ‘Roman’ fighter responded: “May God increase the number of people like you among my people; because, by God, if you were not of my people, I would have supported the Romans (meaning the Eastern Romans), but now I will not help them”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_al-Ashtar
The hills around the Yarmouk riverYarmouk RiverMaps and diagrams about historical developments are useless, as they only offer information of one dimension; one grasps the reality as regards the Battle of Yarmouk only when understanding that the outright majority of the local Aramaean populations passionately desired and wished for an Eastern Roman defeat, expecting the Muslim warriors as liberators. This occurred not because these populations believed in the faith preached by prophet Muhammad, but due to their need to use the Muslim armies in order to get rid from the tyrannical Eastern Roman rule. This truth has been systematically obscured by Western historians who came up with cheap propaganda and empty rhetoric, in order to repeat the divisive clichés that are necessary to the criminal colonial regimes of the West.
Incidents like the aforementioned totally change the image that modern scholars have created as distortion of the historical reality. The Islamic army did not actually need to be numerous; the battlefront would not be the most critical location as regards the battle outcome. Even more so, because if the first battle had been lost, the second would have been victorious in any case!
V. The true dimensions of the Battle of Yarmouk and of its outcome
The linguistic affinity between Aramaeans and Arabs was such that we can easily infer that most of the Islamic fighters could easily communicate in the language of a sizeable part of the Eastern Roman army (the Aramaean soldiers recruited from the lands of today’s SE Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine). There is no doubt about the knowledge and use of Syriac Aramaic among Arabs, due to their long professional involvement across the frankincense and spice trade routes. Even more importantly, the well-documented diffusion of Christianity among the Arabs bears automatically witness to their great skills of Syriac Aramaic in terms of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, written composition, and usage. How close to prophet Muhammad may this situation have been? Extremely close!
The cousin of his first wife, a learned man named Warraqah (: lit. ‘paper’) ibn Nawfal was a Christian convert. The religiosity of those days was such that we can safely claim that Khadijah’s cousin was reading every day excerpts from the Peshitta (the Syriac Bible). To all those, who discuss issues pertaining to prophet Muhammad’s education, knowledge and familiarity with Christological disputes, although it is certain that Khadijah’s husband -in young age- traveled repeatedly to territories of the Eastern Roman Empire (where he may have had month-long discussions with monks, theologians and learned merchants), the easiest response would be:
– Already in Mecca, there were Peshitta copies of the Bible, in the small houses of prophet Muhammad’s relatives!
Peshitta manuscripts with miniaturesAramaean Art of the Book
Also many Aramaeans involved in the trade between Yemen and the Mediterranean could communicate in the provincial Hejaz dialect that we now call ‘Quranic Arabic’. Language issues are mentioned in the Quran, and not without reason. In fact, Arabic sounded like a rough and uncouth dialect to the Aramaeans of Damascus or Antioch, two great cities each of which had larger population than the totality of the (Hejaz and desert) Arabs. On the other hand, the lexicographical poverty of pre-Islamic Arabic, if compared to the treasure of Syriac Aramaic (which also contained loans from other languages), was viewed by the Hejaz Arabs as ‘linguistic purity’; this situation led them to the aberration that their dialect was more ‘ancient’ or more ‘original’, whereas in fact it was more ‘isolated’ and more arid than Syriac Aramaic. And this situation is reproduced nowadays when people, who are well versed in the Quranic text (which stays close to the pre-Islamic Arabic’s ‘purity’, although it is far more elaborate), try to read Ibn Sina’s Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat; they fail to grasp anything.
The religious-cultural similarity between the Arabs, who had just accepted prophet Muhammad’s preaching, and the Christian Aramaeans (either Nestorian or Miaphysitic/Monophysitic) was even more stupendous. Of course, when it comes to religion, tiny differentiations are known to have been reasons of terrible strives and wars, but in this case, there was a tremendously different issue. The Arabs had already rejected their idolatry and polytheistic concepts in order to adopt a faith that had a great number of common points with both, Nestorian and Miaphysitic / Monophysitic Christianity. In other words, they had made the first step in the direction of Miaphysitic/Monophysitic and Nestorian Christianity, and this was how the Christian Aramaeans viewed them; of course, to some Aramaean monks, the Arabs were perceived as heretic, but still this is far ‘better’ than just ‘heathens’.
The truly negative view of Islam was particular only to Constantinople and to Rome; but this detrimental judgment of Islam had basically imperial and material motives; in other words, Muhammad ‘was’ for the imperial ruling class the Antichrist, because his religious system was effective in seriously and irreversibly damaging their imperial posture, material benefits, and ecumenical appeal. Suddenly, the major challenges of 300 years of Christian imperial rule (namely Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius) that the Constantinopolitan theologians had managed to overcome appeared to be extremely weak and minor compared with the latest: Muhammad.
The difference was simple; the earlier challenges (namely Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius) emanated from within the Roman Empire, and the Constantinopolitan elite proved to be able to squelch them, oppressing and persecuting leaders and followers of the ‘heresies’. But Muhammad emanated from outside the Roman Empire. He early managed to secure an independent basis for his faith, and thence he attacked the Eastern Roman provinces that were inhabited by populations, which overwhelmingly rejected the Constantinopolitan doctrine; it was only normal for these populations to massively opt for the standard bearers of the new faith.
In fact, they perceived the arrival of the Muslim armies as liberation from the Roman – Constantinopolitan tyranny. The Anti-Muhammadan rhetoric of the Medieval Latin sources is merely an evil propaganda of the losers; the reality is simple: either they accepted Islam or remained Monophysitic, Nestorian, Gnostic or Manichaean, the Aramaeans, who constituted the quasi-totality of the local populations in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and the southern coastland of the Persian Gulf, did not rebel against the rule of the Caliphate. And the Arab rulers accepted the importance of the lands of the Aramaeans, and that’s why they abandoned their marginal towns and sketchy villages in Hejaz and set up their capitals in the lands of the Aramaeans.
After all, this new doctrine appeared at the time as merely a new Christological dispute and heresy, and its followers were few and originated from lands that had never been historically important and which remained historically unimportant. But the loss for the theological elites of Constantinople and Rome was abysmal; in fact, pretty much like Constantinople was the New Rome, Damascus and Baghdad were meant to be the Final Rome. That is why Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius were never called ‘the Antichrist’, but prophet Muhammad was!
The Umayyad Mosque at Damascus: a masterpiece of Aramaean ArtGrand Mosque of Damascus: the spectacular mosaics in the arcade around the iwan reveal the splendor of the Aramaean Art.
At this point, I terminate the present, first article of the series; in a forthcoming article, I will reveal other critical points explicitly mentioned in the historical sources that modern Western scholars sulphurously disregard, conceal or misinterpret only to advance their historical forgery and intellectual fallacy; in this they are imitated and followed by the disreputable, ignorant and vicious, pseudo-Muslim sheikhs, imams, professors, muftis, qadis and preachers, who have been fabricated and put in place by the English and French colonials in full disruption of the Islamic historical continuity. Yet, these -widely unknown- points help us first achieve a deep and comprehensive understanding of the facts that took place in the 620s-630s and then get the real picture of the entire historical process without the smokescreen of today’s misplaced version of historiography.
In fact, what most people believe today as History of Islamic Conquests and Early Islamic History is entirely false. It is a fairy tale that turns a) most of the Westerners into absurd Muhammad-haters and Islam-deniers and b) most of the Muslims into useful-idiots and naïve believers of a pseudo-Islamic theological doctrine that has nothing in common with the religion preached by prophet Muhammad and ever since advocated by hadhrat Ali and his descendants. It is not a matter of Westerners accepting Islam and Muslims accepting Christianity as faith, but as historical process. Islam was not preached by prophet Muhammad in order to be imposed worldwide. That’s why both groups need to first interpret Emperor Heraclius’ evident reluctance to fight against the Islamic armies. This was the only man in the world who, before meeting with prophet Muhammad’s personal envoy Dahyah al Kalbi, encountered his worst enemy.
megalommatiscomments 