FALSE STORY OF ISLAM? A conversation In the context of this book: Did Mohammed E

http://68.media.tumblr.com/9bd47868450a065d472a80383e80a60a/tumblr_inline_muqgje6p0F1qhtuka.jpgTHE FALSE STORY OF ISLAM?

A conversation In the context of this book:

Did Mohammed Exist?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JBRUKMG/

The story of Islam is, in essence, the following..

There was always a strain of Jewish thought more inclined towards Messianism….after all the Jewish holy books proclaim the coming of a Messiah.

After Jesus’ death, some Jews pronounced him the Messiah.

The Messians, or Nazarenes, were a Jewish sect. They differed from that group of Jews following Christ who became Christians.

After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Nazarenes saw it as a sign that they were vindicated.

The failure of Jews to recognize the Messiah had led to the destruction of the Temple (I believe some Christians believe this also).

So, like the Christians before them, they left Israel and went North to Bekaa: a Valley in Lebanon. It was here that they began convert Arabs to their Sect.

This sect differed from mainstream Judaism which rejects prosyletizing.

The Nazarenes sought to convert / ally with the Arabs to achieve their principal goal – the recapture of the holy city of Jerusalem – which they now believed was in the hands of apostates (mainstream Jews).

The Nazarenes gave the Arabs their texts (in Aramaic script) and they were successful in converting many of them.

The Arabs were motivated by the opportunity for conquest and they proceeded to invade Jerusalem.

After invading Jerusalem these Arabs promptly went to the Temple Mount and began to pray.

They then initiated construction of a new temple on the ruins of the old temple destroyed 550 years earlier – entirely consistent with the aims of the Nazarenes.

This was later the very same spot where the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. Their construction was based on dimensions of the old Temple built by Herod.

Later, there was a falling out between the Arabs and the Nazarenes. The Arabs slaughtered the Nazarene rabbis.

But those early Nazarene texts became the foundational literature for the Koran.

Much of the Koran is simply a bad Arab translation of the original Aramaic. I.e. the 72 virgins nonsense is a mistranslation of 72 royal raisins – no joke – white raisins were a specialty reserved for the very rich. Further, the Koran is littered with references to the Nazarenes.

Muslims simply say that Nazarene = Christian

yet the Christians never referred to themselves as Nazarenes.

Further, the Koran writes about early Nazarene rabbis conducting marriage rights for the early Muslims.

It also states that the Nazarenes are those closest to the Muslims.

The Koran also has multiple references that are anti-Jewish – in fact the Koran is openly hostile towards the Jewish religion – which is entirely consistent with the feelings the early Nazarenes had towards the mainstream Jews.

Incidentally, there is not a single reference to Mecca in the Koran – instead the holy place for Muslims is referred to as Bekka – which is where the Nazarenes went into exile.

We also know from archeology that it is towards Bekka where the early proto-Muslims prayed – because this is where their Mosques were pointed towards.

Mecca being the holy city is an elaborate fabrication that was added to Islam as a means of solidifying Arabs politically.

They needed this new religion to be a pro-Arab ideology so a non-Arab city would not do.

The problem is that the Koran describes Bekka as a flourishing agricultural valley filled with olive groves.

…Mecca never had olives – ever – not now, not then – we know this from archeological study. It is a desert trading outpost and always was.

Islam was designed when there was conflict amongst the Arabs on which leader would assume control of the territories that its nomadic warriors had created.

One Arab contender had claimed that his opponent wasn’t loyal to this new faith with the prophet Mohammed. That Arab lost the battle for succession but the winner saw the political use of the religion and from that arose Islam.

Mohammad, at the time, was simply an honorific meaning ‘the blessed’ – and was a title used for Jesus by the Nazarenes.

(CURT: So basically the mediterranean civilizations reached maximum under the roman empire, and made possible the expansions of germans to the north, the slavs and others to the east, and the arabs to the southeast, wand the ‘migration period’ made possible by the technological innovations of the ancient empires is what produced the fall of those empires.

So the fall of the ancient civilizations is a SINGLE EVENT from all directions, caused by the empowerment of the lesser peoples on her borders. )

Mohammad later became a name just like ‘Christian’ did.

I don’t understand how mohammed and the koran are united into a single ‘movement’.

It’s all interlinked. The Arabs would never have succeeded if not for the fall of Byzantine and Persia due to their wars with one another.

Had they not succeeded there would have been no Arab conquest and no lands to inherit and no need for a religion to justify political unity over those lands.

The religion was needed to build an Empire. And unite it while at the same time justifying Arab supremacy.

Of course the expansion need not stop. Nomadic warriors desired more conquest and Islam gave them justification.

(CURT: So basically judaism was invented to unite a few small semitic tribes against occupeiers, and this ‘techniology’ of the christians and arabs assisted tribes in uniting against the romans, byzantines, egyptians, and persians. Nomadic warriors live off predation, they don’t need to be funded by an army. )

That also explains why the Koran is actually so secular. The creation of a caliphate is very explicit.

The ‘Muslim realm’ is clearly outlined and its expansion encouraged.

This is all simply politics.

So what is mohammed doing when he is running around? does it have anything to do with religion or is he just having a war of it and then the religion comes in later? Or does he propose the religion as he’s going around warring?

Yes, the Arabs saw the value of religion to unite themselves and to ward of internal conflict.

It was initially very much an Arab endeavour – only later did others join them.

So they maintained the proselytizing of their Nazarene creators but changed the writings to aid their politics.

The idea that there was ever a Mohammad in Mecca that then conquered Jerusalem is ridiculous.

I fact they were not even Muslims at the time. When they entered Jerusalem, the Jews even welcomed them because they believed they may also be Jews – this belief was reinforced when the Arabs prayed on the Temple Mount.

But Jewish or Nazarene Arabs were not politically useful.

We have no independent information outside Arab sources that Mohammad ever existed. He is likely a fabrication or a construction out of Jesus and one or more Arabs.

When the Arabs first conquered Jerusalem, not one Arab, ever, mentioned Mohammed. The Jews and Christians living there were interacting with these invaders and writing about them. Not once did they mention Mohammed – they did mention a prophet but never Mohammed.

This is consistent with the idea that they were proto-Muslims – somewhere still between the Nazarenes and Islam.

The Koran, of course, hadn’t yet been written.

The Koran was written 80 years after Mohammed presumably died – of course, outside the Koran and the Suras we have no evidence that he ever lived. Despite the fact that the Muslims claim his armies conquered Jerusalem.

It would be like the Macedonians conquering Babylon and the conquerors never mentioning Alexander.

Further, and I find this fascinating.. take a look at this photo of one of the first coins the Arabs minted after conquering Jerusalem. (link deleted)

On the one side is a man with a cross (Jesus), on the other is the inscription ‘M’

‘M’ for Mohammed: “The Blessed”.

This is consistent with the Arabs referring to Jesus as ‘the Blessed’.. Mohammed translates to ‘the Blessed’ and was reserved for pious persons. i.e. used by Arab Christians for Jesus.

So what does mohammed translate to in that period?

the name I mean.

…but entirely inconsistent with Islamic theology which forbids the display of the cross and certainly not by Muslims who do not believe Jesus died on the cross.

However, it is entirely consistent with the Nazarene concept of Jesus being the Messiah.

Alternatively, means ‘the praised’ or ‘the praiseworthy.’

again, how early Arab Christians referred to Jesus just as Greek Christians referred to him as Christ.

Not to suggest that it was exclusively used for Jesus. The coin however makes it obvious that it was used also for him.

Some say the meaning of ‘Mohammed’ can also be translated as ‘the chosen one’ – which, again, is consistent with Nazarene image of Jesus as the Messiah.

It is probable that the title was used for Jesus because of the Christian phrase, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

( CURT: So muhammed is just king arthur? both have likely original individuals of ordinary status, but are conflated with jesus? )

Right.

The Nazarenes tried converted some Arabs to their sect around 600 (when the Muslim Mohammed supposedly existed).

They later went on to invade and capture Jerusalem. Proceeded to build a replica of part of Herod’s temple on top of it – where later Arabs built a Mosque (Al Aqsa) on the same spot – and claimed that the earlier Arabs were, indeed, followers of the Muslim Mohammed.

After the creation of Islam, the Arabs claimed the word

Nazarene in the Koran is a reference to the Christians.

This despite the Muslims being far closer to the Jews in almost every respect.

However, it becomes obvious what the reference is when considering that the reference is, in fact, to the original Nazarenes not the actual Christians who never used the term Nazarenes to describe themselves.

So, in a nutshell, Islam is a politically motivated fabrication based on the foundation of a Jewish sect.

It’s ridiculousness is only matched by its success.

I don’t believe it could ever have gained any traction outside of the Arab peninsular because of the sheer obviousness of its fabrication.

Orientalists in the West, using Western historical methods are pulling Islam to pieces. And this is being supported by archeological finds and linguistics (Aramaic) experts.

The whole thing is a gigantic fraud.

The arabs have tried to carefully hide their tracks – i.e. burning Nazarene texts and alternative Korans.

Hence the burning of the libraries as they moved westward.

(CURT: Thanks. Can I share this?)

Yes. Anonymously.