In the1970s a German Protestant theologian scholar named Dr Gunther Luling (a Dr. in Arabistics and Islamics and a pioneer in the study of early Islamic origins) wrote his Doctoral thesis on the origins of the Qur'an, where he reconstructed a comprehensive pre-Islamic Christian Hymnal hidden within the Qur’an, taken from 5th-6th century Syriac Christian hymns.
His 1970 PhD thesis received the ‘Opus Eximium’ (high distinction) grade, the highest available in Germany, which should have promoted him to professorship anywhere, but in 1972 he was kicked out of his University, for no reason. One German scholar said ‘He was a crack-pot’, possibly because his research was just too new and too explosively controversial.
In the 1990s his thesis was translated into English, which gave it a much wider audience, and he was rehabilitated, so that by the time he died in 2014, he had been exonerated.
Following Dr Luling's example another German Arabist and Syriac scholar, Dr Christoph Luxenberg broke new ground on the Qur'an, discovering that much of it came from previous Christian Lectionaries, Homilies, and Hymns, written in Syro-Aramiac, and then interposed into Arabic later on.
Like Luling, he was ostracized by the German academic community. As a result, he changed his name and never publicly showed his face, in order not to be identified.
He was curious concerning the 25% of the Qur'an which even the scholars don't understand, known as the "Dark Passages", and so decided to apply Lulings methodology, using his own 7-step process of peeling back the layers of the Arabic to find what the text originally said.
Here is his 7-step process:
1) He checked al-Tabari's 10th century Tafsir (commentary) for an Arabic meaning for the words in question.
2) He then checked the 13th century Lisān al-ʿArab (“Tongue of Arabs” = Arabic Dictionary) which was compiled by Ibn Manzur (in 1290) for dictionary meanings of those words.
3) He looked to see if there were homonymous (synonymous) roots in the Aramaic, even perhaps with a different meaning.
4) He then tried different diacritics (the 5 dots above and below each of the letters in Arabic) to see if he could fine other alternatives.
5) He finally went to the Aramaic language to find an Aramaic root using different Aramaic diacritics (dots similar to those in Arabic).
6) Upon trying the different diacritics, he then re-translated the Arabic words back into the Aramaic
using the semantics of the Syro-Aramaic word.
7) And finally he tried to find the lost meanings of Arab words using 10th century Syro-Aramaic
lexicons.
After employing these 7-step he was able to reproduce the 25% "Dark Passages" and noticed that they were simply Aramaic Christian Lectionaries, Homilies, and Hymns written by Christian priests in the 4th - 6th centuries in worship to JESUS!
So, his exercise had nothing to do with ‘what he found’, but ‘who he found’!
What can we conclude?
•The Qur’an is a mixture of Arabic and Aramaic words, originally written in Aramaic script, later transcribed into the Arabic script.
•When taking Aramaic into account, the Qur’an can be fully understood as a Christian text.
•During the 9th & 10th centuries (according to the Germans), diacritics/vowels were added and the reading was therefore fixed (scriptio plena).
•The present Qur’an is an interpretative act by Muslim Arabs (no longer Christians) who decided where the dots and vowels would go.
•Thus, the Qur’an was changed, and claims that an oral tradition ensures the correct reading are patently false.
Here then is a possible time line, including 5 periods of Textual evolution:
·7th century = Aramaic texts were transposed into Arabic, though few of the compilers knew
Aramaic well.
·8th - 9th centuries = Arabic manuscripts began to appear, but without diacritics or vowels, making it difficult to read.
·8th - 10th centuries = Qira’at & Ahruf copies were compiled (736 - 905 AD) by over 700 different men put their dots/vowels wherever they chose, and then gave their name to their Qur'anic text.
·10th - 15th centuries = 7 Qira'ats (chosen by Ibn Mujahid in 936 AD), then 14 (chosen by al Shatabi in 1194 AD), then 9 ‘Readings’ (chosen by al Jaziri in 1429 AD) were designated the 30 official Qira'at Qur'ans, with over 93,000 differences between them. As different geographical groups memorized their Qur'an, they followed the Qira'at of their choice, which created problems.
·20th century = So, in 1924 the final and singular ‘Hafs’ Qur’an was chosen, first for Cairo, then in 1936 for Egypt, and then for the whole world in 1985.
So, Muslims began with 1 Qur'an, which became 7, then 21, then 30, and finally back to 1 again. Yet, they still claim that there has always been only 1 Qur'an, without one letter or one word different.
With all this new evidence before you, who then are you going to believe?
© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2022
(62,830) Music: "Natural Paradise" by musiclfiles, from filmmusic-io
I speak Arabic & changing a dot on one letter changes the whole meaning for sure true Dr. Jay
Do it for your OT. Change the dots and diacritical marks of the Masoretic text.
@@JesusisaMuslim hahaha, just because you ramble this mantra every time you get insecure doesn't make it true brother.
@@JesusisaMuslim Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China
@@JesusisaMuslim lets put that statement in context. You are not born a Christian you become one. A person born to a muslim family is deemed to be a muslim. In addition, muslim majority countries tend to have a higher birth rate. If you are suggesting that islam is the fastest growing religion because of conversions, I would suggest you are sadly mistaken. Birth rate and conversion are two seperate categories. They are not the same.
@@JesusisaMuslim Sure. Refuse to accept the truth. Islam is dead & will be gone in 50 years, thank God.
This video alone started my journey into uncovering all the lies of Islam. I nearly went that way and you saved me. I think alot of people should produce videos like this and post it everywhere because if you don’t speak the truth out loud most people will fall into the trap.
yeah cause christianity did come first... kinda like christianity doesn't agree with mormonism for the reason that if they look at the christian new testament it doesn't agree... the best they can do is imply verses out of context to fit the New testament.... well.... that works the exact same way with the Hebrew testament ... the jews don't agree with Christianity because unlike what christians try to say that "jews don't know their own bible" but Jews(the righteous remnants) actually know their bible and know that jesus didn't fulfill ... neither have ANY of the prerequisites of the real new testament given to them by God himself has happened yet even till this day those signs never happened with jesus
What he’s saying isn’t true but ok
There is no true or good abrahamic faith, if you worship from a Bible you're just as evil, just as spiritually dishonest and fuel the great deceiver. Reject the worship of evil, reject the scripture of subversive destroyers, there is no salvation to be found in Jews
You know better how much bible has corrupted words
@@samialfadhli9176 who the guy in the video?
Your work is astonishing and absolutely necessary for the world to know. I admire your bravery as I imagine this does not gp down well in certain quarters. May God always bless and protect you.
I learned a lot, thank you for this video!
I can watch and listen to my old friend Jay for hours. He taught me so much. He is a wonderful friend and teacher. Keep up your good work
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 your whole concept is wrong like word Allah can change nature and God FATHER of Bible God of Israel Yehovah , all copied caracters cant change God, quran is heretical compilation nothing more and attack on Yeshua divinity and Gospel message of salvation and blood atoinement of sin and your attemp to somehow justify your book with etymology of word God cant change truth
Amazing presentation. I pray the truth comes to the masses. God bless and protect you Dr. Jay.
There's a reason why these works have been rejected by even the most critical scholars of Islam (i.e. Patricia Crone). "Christopher Luxenburg" fails to provide convincing evidence for his theory and his efforts have been likened to 'dilettantism'.
All muslims already know this bruh he paints it as if it's a discovery wich is not there are verses from the torah in the quran too both books were sent by allah
Truth will out and Time will tell . . .
I put a Muslim on to this channel and RC & CP. He is exMuslim now. Good for him.
Hold yourself accountable on day of judgement .
@@omarassebab6076 Nobody wants to hear about your Pdiddy Profit Achmed. We're all focused on the one true God Yeshua HaMassiach.
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁you got him
Thank you soooo much, Dr. Smith. Keep up the good work
Great work Jay! God bless you.
Blessings and Love from Malaysia. Thank you Dr Jay 🙏
I'm also from Malaysia, Dear 😊
Very good video! Quite fascinating and certainly something that requires more research and ought be more mainstream. Thank you.
Tq Dr Jay Smith, Christian Prince, David Wood, Sam Shomoun, Rob Christian and Al Fadi Channel for the great info. God blessed.
Thank you from Indonesia
Why are you thanking for? He tries to erase Islam and lies about your Quran!
I don't think so
@@Nightwacther203 from young till hes old..soon he will be underground..he tried to erase islam...
@@EasternOrthodox101 A lie is something that cannot be proven. How can you prove your quran? Or islam?
😂
Wow!!! Incredible work & presentation! Thank you MUCH, Dr. Jay, AND those who have labored in this field before you, and now WITH you, for bringing to us the real truth about the Qur'an and Islam!! Praise Him who he himself is honored in the Aramaic praise poetry that became foundational in the Qur'an itself! Amin!
The bible IS NOT preserved SEE POSTS below on the codexs ) The 3 Oldest Manuscripts ( the bible Containing the Corrupted Greek New Testament (2 Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century and 1 Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century) ALL HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus (PBUH), and ALL in Greek, Jesus did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of Aramaic 1 church fathers changed the words and are not reliable such as Jhon 17:3 And church father Augustine 2 Only evidence we have is Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of Aramaic. No creditable bible scholar or historian makes the claim of speaking Greek 3 also no evidence THAT THE COMPLETE BIBLE writen say you claim 40-70 years As no Christian scholar can back this up no evidence The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century. is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size. Scholars date the writing of Matthew’s gospel to the late 50’s or early 60’s in the first century. This is due in part to a comment by the church father Irenaeus that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” John’s gospel is dated to the late first century, after the composition of the other gospels. Again, Irenaeus, writing near the end of the second century states, “ Afterward, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”7 Early church history records that John lived the final years of his life in Ephesus, dying as an old man sometime near the end of the first century. This means that these two manuscripts date to within 100-150 years of the original autographs. For comparison, Pliny the Elder wrote his encyclopedia, Natural History, in the first century and the earliest manuscript we have is from the 5th century - a gap of about 400 years. first reasonably complete copy of the Gospel of John is from around 200 C.E. That is still a long time after John was written (well over a century). But it is still pretty old-older than most manuscripts for most other authors from the ancient world, by a wide margin. first complete manuscripts of the New Testament start appearing about 150 years after that, in the mid-fourth century C.E. (three hundred years or so after the originals). And so with the New Testament we are in the good situation of having some manuscripts-even if highly fragmentary-from within a century or two of the books’ originally having been written. Having a few scraps from within a hundred years of when the New Testament was written does not give us what we’d really like to have: complete manuscripts from near the time the authors published their books. If our first reasonably complete copies of the New Testament do not appear until two or three centuries after the books were first put in circulation, that’s two or three hundred years of scribes copying and recopying, making mistakes, multiplying mistakes, changing the text in ways big and small before we have complete copies. We can’t compare these, our oldest surviving copies, with yet older ones to see where their mistakes are. There aren’t any older ones. And the problems get worse. In later times, when we have an abundance of manuscripts, the copyists of the New Testament were trained scribes-usually monks in monasteries who copied manuscripts as a sacred duty. These monks of the Middle Ages did their level best-most, but not all, of the time-to copy their texts accurately. They sometimes got tired and inattentive and made mistakes; and they sometimes changed the text because they thought it was supposed to be changed. Still, for the most part they did a good job. But that was only much later in Christian history. In the earliest centuries, the vast majority of copyists of the New Testament books were not trained scribes. We know this because we can examine their copies and evaluate the quality of their handwriting, and we can assess how accurately they did their work. The striking and disappointing fact is that our earliest manuscripts of the New Testament have far more mistakes and differences in them than our later ones. The earlier we go in the history of copying these texts, the less skilled and attentive the scribes appear to have been. Also the authors of mark ,Luke Mathew , Jhon Are not known as it even says according to them not from them the codex I shown all above prove my claims about the ALL these Codex’s from HUNDREDS of years after Jesus’ disappearance (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century, and Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century)
Quran Compilation in the Life of Prophet Muhammad The entire Quran was revealed during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. It was not only revealed during this time but it was also present in the written form. Whenever any verse was revealed by Allah, the Holy Prophet would advise his scribes to jot down that piece of revelation. Here are a few things on which the verses of the Holy Quran were written. Papers Stones Pieces of leather Shoulder blades of camels Palm leaves The verses of the Holy Quran were revealed according to the need of that time. But they are not in the sequence of revelation. Whenever any verse was revealed, it was also advised which Surah the verse should be placed in. So even the sequence of placement of the verses was revealed by Allah. The scribes placed each verse in the same order they were asked to do. In this way, the sequence of the Holy Quran was never changed. Not only the sequence of verses but the names of Surahs was also revealed by Allah. Hazrat Zaid Bin Thabit was one of the most prominent scribes of the Holy Quran. By the demise of the Holy Prophet, the revelation of the Quran was completed. The Battle of Yamamah As mentioned earlier, the memory of the Arabs was very strong. Relying on the strong memories they had, the Holy Quran was compiled in the form of a book. It is because a lot of people had Hifz Quran. Due to their strong memory, the need for the compilation of the Quran was never felt by anyone. But during the 632 A.D (11 A.H), a very harsh battle took place at the place of Yamamah. This battle was so intense that hundreds of companions of the Holy Prophet were martyred who had Hifz Quran. It had created a fear of losing the Holy Quran. Compilation During the Reign of Abu Bakar After the Battle of Yamamah, only a few people were left who had Hifz Quran. Hazrat Umer Bin Khattab became anxious that if the situation continues or worsens, a large portion of the Holy Quran could be lost. He expressed his fears to the Caliph of that time; Hazrat Abou Bakar and asked him to compile the Holy Quran in the form of a proper book. Abu Bakar did not agree with him at first. He said that he could not do anything like that as the Holy Prophet did not compile the Quran during his lifetime. But when Umer Bin Khattab persuaded him, he agreed and ordered him to compile the Quran in the form of a book. Hazrat Zaid Bin Thabit became in charge of the compilation process. He was asked to collect and compile the Quran in a single book. At first, he was also hesitant to do something that the Holy Prophet did not do in his life. But when he was told about the whole situation, he became ready to do it. After that, the process of compilation began. He collected all the written verses from the materials they were written on. He also listened to the people who had Hifz Quran. Moreover, everyone was asked to bring the verses they had. Only those verses were included, which were testified by at least two persons. In this way, there was no chance of including any verse mistakenly. In this way, the Quran was compiled in the form of one book. Umer Bin Khattab was the official custodian of the compiled version. After he passed away, the volume of the Quran was transferred to his daughter Hazrat Hafsah. That is how the second phase of the compilation of the Quran came to an end. In The Reign of Hazrat Usman Bin Affan Till the time of Hazrat Usman, the Islamic federation had spread over a large area. It also included the areas which were not even Arabic. Those people were not native speakers of the Arabic language. With the expansion of Islam to no native speakers, the problem of dialects started to get common. Different people had a different style of pronunciation and people started to get into conflicts by blaming the other person for reading wrong. When Hazrat Usman came to know about the conflicts on recitation, he feared that the conflicts may get more intense and divided the Muslims. He immediately took action and asked Hazrat Hafsah for the original volume of the Quran. Hazrat Zaid Bin Sabit was appointed as the head of the committee responsible for writing the Quran in a specified dialect. Finally, the Quraish accent was appointed to be used by Muslims all around the world. It is because the Holy Quran was revealed in the Quraish accent. Once the copies of the Quran were made, the original version of the book was given back to Hazrat Hafsah. These copies were sent to all the provinces of the Islamic states. It was ordered to burn all other copies of the Quran or replace them with the new version. In this way, the Muslim community was saved from getting divided into groups. Conclusion From the day of its revelation, not even a single word has been changed in the Holy Quran. Every precautionary measure was taken to compile the Holy Quran without even making the slightest change in it. Now it is up to take care of the Holy Quran. Although Allah has taken the responsibility to protect the Holy Quran, we should also be responsible for protecting this book. For that purpose, it is the best practice to Hifz Quran. The more hafiz e Quran there in the world, the more difficult it is to do any fabrication in the Quran.
@@shahidhussain9176 The Qur'an is also NOT PRESERVED. What's wrong with you? 🤦🏻♂️🧠
@@shahidhussain9176 Dude Jesus speaks Greek during the Roman occupation. Really what's wrong with you? 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🧠🧠🧠🧠
This is the problem we're facing today, this one of the many antichrist spreading fabrications and false news and the teachings if their false prophet against Jesus. I don't even need to use verses from The Holy Bible but using geographical timeline to counter your fabricated self-proclaimed so called facts. Don't bother lecturing me with the much fabricated Quran because I believe more in facts than just fabrication written hundreds of years after Jesus's death. Also, how tf do you know where did Jesus go at 33? You don't because you didn't follow THE HOLY BIBLE but you stick to and through the fabricated book called The Qu'ran.
Mind blowing and overwhelming informs, will have to look into this deeper.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🙏🙏from Christian Iraqi who speak Aramaic language even the word Quran is Aramaic .
I have a question. Is there a Aramaic Al Fatiha in Aramaic Bible?
How many people in Iraq still speak Aramaic. And to what extent does the Aramaic language differ from the Chaldean?
😂😂😂😂If what you said is the truth then tell us the meaning of al quran but i am sure its your lies.
Quran comes from Aramaic word (Quryana), meaning to call it out. Or calling something or someone speaking it out loud.
Our God love you and bless brother, greetings from the Pacific.
God bless you for your incredible sharing of this great work! Finding your channel changed my life completely! I knew so little about Islam then now over a year later💪🏽 read the Quran and am now reading Shahi Al Bukhari and CP’s Deception of Allah.
You should follow Sam Shamoun @Shamounian and Christian Prince.
Yes. 27 mentions of Christ . only four [ muhamad] added later..by the Abbassid Caliphate.
They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my rabb (lord) and your rabb." Indeed, he who associates (shirk) others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no ilah (deity/god) except one ilah. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. Say, "Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing?" Say, "O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way." (Al-Quran 5:72-77)
@@metot1 Yes! I even have CP’s book. He changed my life when I found his channel. Thank you so much for the advice! Great Advice!! 🙏🏽😇
@@albertlouisseize. I just pray the more Muslims find these channels
Great composition of all of your studies. I was sometimes skeptical of the German theologians, but I have come to start to appreciate their work a lot more. Look more into the Syrian/Aramaic Christian Hymns as well as poetry by St. Ephrem and St. Isaac. Also the fact that so many heretical Christian groups were able to form and exist in the deserted regions of the Syrian Desert and northern Arabia, two large areas largely not policed by Byzantium or Persia. Add to this the already-existing Semitic hatred of Byzantium's Hellenization process, and you have a pretty clear idea why a non-Trinitarian message formed in the desert.
Please discuss this topic in your channel from a Middle eastern perspective...
Even Western scholars who are hostile to Islam argue the point that monotheism was native to Arabia. H.A.R Gibb in his book ‘Muhammedanism’ argues that “The existence of a supreme God, Allah, is assumed as an axiom common to Muhammad and his opponents. The Koran never argues the point; what it does argue is that He is the one and only one. La ilaha illa’aalah, ‘there is no god but Allah. But it is more doubtful whether this is to be regarded as the direct deposit of Christian or Jewish teaching. In the Koran it is connected with a different tradition altogether, an obscure Arabian tradition represented by the so-called ‘hanifs’, pre-Islamic monotheists whose very name shows that the Syrians regarded them as non-Christians (Syriac “hanpa”, ‘heathen’). Muhammad glories in the name and attaches it as a distinctive epithet to Abraham, “who was neither Jew nor Christian.”
@@QabilAGhor Excellent quote
@@QabilAGhor , Your last statement - Abraham definitely not an arab bedouin. Lol.
@@peacebe2u480 Abraham was born in Iraq, so today he would be considered an Arab. Bedouins are a sub-group of Arabs, and people of settled communities in Arabia, such as in Mecca and Medina were never considered as Bedouins. In fact, they were called Eraab, to distinguish them from other Arab tribes. Quran also criticizes them for their ignorance.
Thank you for this
Dr Smith I appreciate your lecture. GOD bless you.
Wonderful! I want more video on this subject. "The previous Quran"
@@irishheritage893 HAHHA
@Truth Seeker Why should we beleive that Mohammed is the last prophet? Jesus also say that he is the last one and we don't have to wait for another one. Mohammad wasn't illiterate like a lot of muslim say (in the meaning of able to read or write). A lot of muslim say that to explain that it's impossible for a disable person to create a book like this. It's crystal clear that Mohammed is illiterate in the meaning that he didn't know God books (Gospel and Injeel). But if you accept that meaning, it's mean that you reconnize that at the time of Mohammed they was well preserve Gospel and Injeel because it would be stupid to talk about Mohammed as an illiterate if any other people at this time are also illiterate. For you why a lot of muslim lie about the ability to read or write of your prophet? The quran is clear on the meaning of illiterate, Mohammed signed threat of peace and at his last hours someone bring him material to write.
@UCJWIPdZaC0uc260YmLCS35Q If Allah know everything and Mohammed is the most knowledgeable person in the world, how can the quran have big error like in quran 18:90 ?
@Truth Seeker how it's rhetoric that the sunset in a spring of water?
@Truth Seeker what tell you that the perspective of this guy? And if it's the perspective of this person how could he see it like this? You can believe a lake is a see because you don't see the end of it. But not the opposite. If this guy have seen the sunset in a spring of water, that's mean that he saw the sun enter in it. And behind the sun he saw some land because it s a spring of water. Could you enlight me on this subject?
“All that is not eternal is eternally useless.” ― C.S. Lewis
Eternity is antithetical to a time-bound being.
@@00SEVEN28 "The Atoms of Democritus And Newton's Particles of light Are sands upon the Red sea shore, Where Israel's tents do shine so bright." William Blake
@@00SEVEN28 Nope. You can write a book and even if you die, that book as part of your being, lives on. That is just one example.
@@BD638 information exists, authors die.
yes. now let's go back to our beliefs from Africa that lasted to this day our ancestral original ways heard about any? including first human language? 😂
GOD BLESS YOU 🙌 🙏 ❤...THANK YOU FROM SOUTH AFRICA 🇿🇦
Keep Up the enlightenment. I believe you
Dr Jay is very passionate and driven..I wish I could find a subject or something that would absorb me the way it does to Dr Jay.
The truth always comes out in the end!! 🙏🏼✝️😊👍🏻
 Sahih International And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart." (Al-Qur'an 17:81)
@@kamarudinhj.dolmoin8578amen! Islam should depart from the world
do you eat bread? that sugary food without any nutritional value? why nobody wrote in holy texts to not eat it as it's not natural to human nor healthy?
@@szymonbaranowski8184 the bread of today is far from the bread eaten a thousand years ago. Stone ground, no -gmo etc.
Subscribed! Thank you!
Attacking from all sides with D.Wood, Hatun, Sam and Dr. Smith. Keep up the good work!
Thank you Jay for your considerable work, I am an Aramaic speaking Jew
If I may ask, how did it come about that you speak Aramaic? Was it a mother tongue or scholastic study?
@@tinitus23 Hi, my mother is Syrian Jewish that's our language at home even my father's family used to speak a judeo Aramaic language in Tunisia I am half half. with my grandfather 30 years ago I already had the same discussion leading to the same conclusions as Professor Luxembourg. of course we speak and we read western-Aramaic, biblical Hebrew and classical Arabic. By nature I end up scholar in semitic languages
@@eliesakroudi5783 Thank you very kindly for your reply. What a wonderful lineage you enjoy. There's not much I can provide in response. Only two things come to mind - I met a Chaldean speaker in Saudi Arabia once who nervously discussed his language and view of the origins of Islam, and - I met a large man, black bearded in a black cassock at Dammam airport KSA, I wondered what sect of Islam he supported; only to see him wearing a large pearl cross at Bahrain airport. He was the Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Paris. We discussed the Syrian experience post arrival of Islam.
@@tinitus23 My pleasure sir, we have always known; we the levantine jews (mizrahim). I am not talking about all jews; the hidden real story behind the re-edited protagonist of islam. Elyia Bar-Kabsa the underlying name behind MHMD !
@@eliesakroudi5783 I very much miss talking to educated and knowledgeable Middle Easterners..My mother (not Jewish) did her apprenticeship with a Jewish firm of clothiers and stayed with them for years, hence, having Jews around our lives. I expect they we Ashkenazi Jews being in the North of England. I used to wonder what the difference was between Ashkenazi and other lines of Jews. Sephardic I understand to be Western Mediterranean Jews. I live in an area populated by Jews - many Hassidic (possibly other sects, I'm not sure), and regularly stop them - to their great surprise, (they usually look like they think I'm to attack them) to discuss matters. Who is the mysterious character you mention?
Hi Dr Jay Smith! What surahs are the 25% of the Qur'an which you said are the "Dark Passages" that the scholars don't even understand the meaning?
Awesome insights for all to know.
Amazing stuff!
Sir, with due respect and honour to you, the linguist, I would take the opportunity to say that I am a muslim by birth. In my childhood, I had a dream, where an angel was ordering me to read an arabic sentence , which is not my mother tounge. I could not read it. So he asked me three times. And lastly he asked me to read it in my mother's language. I playfully read it in my language, and lo the angel was too happy to embrace me. I was happy for my success ! Soon I discovered that I could read four of the poems of Quran in my language ! I did not try more as it is a great task. But I memorized the whole Quran in arabic and I could not fathom it. Later I went for translations and understood very much of it. But througthout my whole life journey I always felt that I must transliterate the Quran. I also felt that Mohammed might have done it from a Book which was written in another ancient language. Recently, a Mobile is gifted to me by my mother and lo I found you ! I think I found my answers. But I can not discuss it with anyone in my country, which is a mulim nation by birth. For me it is a great dillemma. Know that my mother language is Bengali.
It was most likely an angel of the Lord. Read the Catholic bible brother, God be with you!
Don't you think this is a little bit of a poor excuse for propaganda from Indian Christians 🤦 We all know Assamese have Christian populations who know most bengalis being Muslim and kuki Christians who love next door to bengali muslims You guys shouldn't spread false propaganda
hahahahahaha You're kil ling me!
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Many of you have wondered what happened to the 'Sneaker's Corner' channel on KZhead, as it now no longer has any videos. Mel had to take it down for security reasons, which is unfortunate. Nonetheless, he has been able to move the channel and his videos over to 2 new platforms: 1) On Odysee it is still called Sneaker's Corner: odysee.com/@SneakersCorner:0 2) On Rumble it is called Origins: rumble.com/c/Origins Because of the difficulties for many of us confronting the history of Islam here on KZhead, we may all have to begin setting up new channels on these much more open platforms.
Looks like Sneakers corner was banned from YT because of Hate speech.
oh that is a shame :( please update us so we don't lose you if something goes wrong!
oh no!
Wow, sorry to hear this. Thanks for letting us know Dr. Jay! Praying!
Christoph Luxenberg's book seems to be unobtainable in English Is there any prospect of a new print run?
Great work Jay!
Thank you 👍 worth the time 🌊
I want to have one those books. Please do help and suggest me for any links if found in online.
Very interesting and eye opener developments there. I love listening to your explanations about the Qur'an and it's origin. I've lived with Arabs and Muslim in their very homes as a servant, and you can't believe how true your content is. I especially am thrilled by that part of the 25% which was traced back to Aramaic language, as lectionary, used in liturgy by then Christians, but doctored to suit Arabic islam Quran. This answers a puzzle in.my head I heard from a Catholic apologetic, who concludes there's an answer to how they Islam and quran come back to God , Jesus and Christianity, through Mary, who appears in the Qur'an but as well doctored. I love listening to you, great work you're doing, congratulations
Qur'an is from Satan. Do not be Deceived.
When the truth of the Quran is revealed, it will lead all of Arabia back to God, through Christ, through Mary.
@@Danaluni59 Through Christ only. Never through Mary xx
Any Muslim watching especially the Arabic speakers know this is either lazy research or propaganda. Some basic facts are wrong about the use of dots in the letters. The logic in his conclusions are solely based on the desire to believe them to be true lol No one’s mind is changed.
@@Danaluni59The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. ˹Many˺ messengers had ˹come and˺ gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. Quran ch5v75
Mind blown.... thank you
Wow thank you!! YHVH bless you in abundance. Carol S Africa
I can listen to Dr Jay for hours, he is so convincing. May Our Most Blessed Lord keep you and preserve you. Amen
Amen.
Amen
he is a gifted speaker, glad he uses it to preach the right things..
Go to pfander films, FOCL ONLINE and KT LEARNING CHANNEL I think it is. You’ll get a university style lesson in Islam real quickly! Grab a pen and paper tho cuz he dishes out some doozies
Loool ignorance everywhere
Speaking of Salomon, I spent a lot of time in Kyrgyzstan. Sometimes I would leave the capitol of Bishkek & fly over to Osh. There was a large hill, or small mountain with a wonderful cave in it. There were also great hiking trails that would go up & down the hill/mountain. It was a Muslim holy site as Salomon was supposed to have traveled to the area & spent some time in the cave. Under the Soviets they turned the cave into a museum. Paved floor & lots of exhibits. Very interesting.
Ur screename lol
@@temporaryaccount5307 Your the first to mention it. I don't think many people remember Chef Boyardee.
@@sheikhboyardee556 it’s still in stores are u kidding me?! Of course, it’s probably overlooked w all the other gross crap the stores sell today. Certainly don’t see advertising for it anymore lol
Dear christain This theory was given by a Lebanese Christian in 2001 in the book Aramaic Reading of the Qur'an. And all the scholars rejected it. There is no mention of Jesus in the Qur'an for more than three or four pages
@@amin3099 Of course it was rejected. Otherwise alah and muhammad duo will be busted in next seconds.
That's crazy! I hope someday they find the original sources for these praises.
Powerful!!!
Say what you want abut this guy (I´m an agnostic atheist),he´s a great narrator, and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to him. Keep it up Sir!
How can you be an agnostic atheist, that’s an oxymoron.
@@popscratchie3985 i don't know what started the universe, or how it came to be. I am however open to the idea of the existence of an uncaused existence from which everything started, though I don't know what this thing could be. I am hence an agnostic. On the other hand, I see clear evidence that all gods which humans have worshipped in the past and worship today are all man-made gods. I am hence an atheist. Does that answer your question?
@@markorbit4752 not really an agnostic is a “person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”. An atheist is “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods”. These two definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary. To sum up the first definition of an agnostic is an ambiguity about the belief in god the second (an atheist) is a definite belief in the absence of god. You cannot be both uncertain and certain about the same thing at the same time as they are opposites hence an oxymoron. Your explanation (or understanding) of what makes you an agnostic is wrong it doesn’t follow the dictionary definition which I gave you above. You are therefore an atheist only. Does that answer your question 👍
@@popscratchie3985 the concept of god is meant to answer questions regarding our origin,.the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Hence this all boils down to the definition of a god. An atheist lacks belief in the existence of a god as defined by religions, I.e. a deity who communicates with humans and wishes to be worshipped. But if we call the universe for example god, then certainly atheists will believe in the existence of the universe. An agnostic does not know what caused the universe to exist, and if for example, the energy of the universe was ever created or was eternal. If energy turns out to be eternal, then energy would be god. God in this case would be whatever caused the universe to be. Hence as an agnostic atheist, I reject all gods worshipped by humans. As an agnostic, I don't know what caused the universe. And even if we call that thing god, I have no way of knowing what it is
@@markorbit4752 I think your understanding of the word agnostic is flawed, it has nothing to do with how the universe began and even if it did, the fact that you believe the universe was god or even could be god would preclude you from being an atheist because an atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of god at all regardless of whether your description of god is different to the traditional accepted meaning. I understand that calling yourself an agnostic atheist may sound a bit more interesting than merely calling yourself one or the other but words have meanings and the meanings of the words in question are in opposition to each other. If you can find me a dictionary definition of an atheist that describes an atheist as a person who doesn’t believe in the existence of god or gods (but only religious god or gods described by humans) then I will be happy to change my opinion as it would be wrong. However as far as I am aware the description of an atheist as somebody who doesn’t believe in god doesn’t stipulate the nature of that god.
I feel bad about Muslim. They have been lied to for so long. Thankfully the truth is coming out. Good job with this video!
Lmao , the speaker is a Christian which is equally delusional.
If Muhammad copied your corrupted Biblos, how can Quran considered by Arab as Golden standard of Arabic classic but not the corrupted Biblos at that time ? Also it came from unlettered dessert merchant . come on man you guys should come up something more convincing not taking from those clown who believe God went to toilet. 🤣
Also original Gospel you have was writen in Greek not Aramaic and the only surviving fragment of it as size as a Credit card. Another hole in your lie 🤣
Your dude talking about Aramaic taken from Bible when there ain't a single Aramaic Bible out there. Quran is a revelation from God through Gabriel to Mohammed pbuh
@@sidik811 as a former Christian, now a deist, I ponder why would God after introducing Jesus to the world tell a man 600 years after to form another religion. It makes no sense. Unless God was smoking at the time or Muhammad was seeing and hearing things. This causes confusion among we humans and its a sick joke. If Christianity was wrong, why wait so long. Why God didn't inform Jesus's disciples that they were teaching the wrong thing? Religion is one of the bane of human existence.
Actually the Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" (This here is in quotations to appeal for the common understanding, it should be said the he was a Muslim in reality, for a Muslim is not an abstraction, it is a verb and it means one who abides by the will of the creator) by belief and practice, as well as by birth. He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions. Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. When the miracle-begotten apOstle had been preaching to the Gentiles for three years, he went to Jerusalem, and stayed two weeks with Peter. He saw no apostles save Peter and James, and so far as the record says, did not consult with them about religious doctrines, nor preach to the people (Gal. 1:18-22J). Fourteen years later he Went up to Jerusalem again. During all this time he had been preaching among the Gentiles, and preaching doctrines acceptable to them. He found that they would not become "Christians", if it were necessary for them to observe the ceremonial law of Moses. The Greeks and other heathen would not submit to circumcision, nor observe the Sabbaths or the feast days, nor abstain from pork, nor refuse to eat with pagans. Converted these heathen must be ; Converted they would not be, if they were required to adopt the mummeries of Moses ; Converted they might possibly be, if they were permitted to disregard those mummeries ; And thus Paul gave them that permission. His gospel was different from that preached in Judea. When he went to Jerusalem the second time, he says, " I went by revelation and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run or had run, in vain" {Gal. 2. 2). He evidently gives us to understand that his gospel was different from that of every body else, and so far different, that it was even necessary for him to teach it in private. What law preached among the Gentiles Let his own words answer. " By the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. 3.20). The following passages from his epistles are indicative of his claims to independence and originality: " I am the apostle of the Gentiles.", " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic and communistic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It proclaimed that the unsearchable riches of Christ were to be distributed as freely among the Gentiles as among the Jews. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; and popular speech recognized the correctness of the claim by calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Great video
this is very exciting!! by the way, Does anyone know any good resources for learning aramaic? best regards!
The INALCO in Paris
Syria
@@isaacvipin lol
@@Purwapada there is a town in Syria where they still speak Aramaic.
@@isaacvipin oh yes I will check that out
Salamu alaykum! PART I This whole video...I cannot begin to describe just how much this man lacks in the understanding of not only the Quran as a text, but also in regards to its preservation, the history of the religion and the interpretation of said text. To call anything he's stated as facts or true is itself an insult towards the works of muslims that have spent their lives on studying, memorizing and interpeting what was given and made but also an injustice to the words truth and fact itself. 1. He uses a man who took arabic text that he then eliminated the diacretical marks (thus eliminating the true pronounciation of their words and therefore not be God's words and place them into the hands of man for intepretation), TRANSLATING them into a different language (another way of placing them into the hands of man for interpretation). Then he states that these passages are parallel to christian poems. The only conclusion one can derive is that, for the quran to be viewed in a christian lense, would need to strip the text of its original pronounciations and meaning ,translate using the understanding of man and intepret it using your own text...that's simply hilarious and saddening. 2. The man uses many examples of quran in the form of Qir'aats which he calls out (harf and warsh). To insinuate that they are completely different is just decieving the audience because a) he TRANSLATES the arabic words into english, thereby risking the interpetation to be incorrect UNLESS you understand and explain the root word while also viewing the verses in its respective chapter (because the same identical verse can show up in different chapters but how its utilized can change) but we clearly see that the man has zero knowledge regarding this since he never presents these things. b) He gives HIS OWN interpetation of what would be a BETTER option regarding the qiraat as though his interpretation would match the message that God has conveyed to people (using IF I were a prophet, IF I were an angel, etc). Qiraat are the quraan that has been revealed simultaneously to prophet muhammad by God, with the only intermediary being angel gabriel. The words do not change the overall meaning of the verse (as was demonstrated by the verses he put out). Prophets have fought (like moses) and prophets have been killed (Zachariah and John). Angels are slaves to God (the word used is Abd which means servants because they do as God commands and its completely hilarious how he would rather deny this interpetation and go for the latter qiraat) and they are also in his presence because Angels are in Heaven. The one regarding the parents is dumb because the root world "HSN" speaks of beauty in both in outer and inner. When someone does good to people, it is understood as a form of beauty which is why people can be good-looking but their character/personality can make them seem ugly and vice versa. No one would conclude that their appearance is ugly just by reading the verse properly except one who has an agenda in mind. The fact that he ignored this by interpreting through the TRANSLATED version speaks of an agenda in mind. I cannot speak regarding the "innocent" because I haven't studied the Warsh Qiraat and so the text and its interpretation is not available for me. However, he uses a translation for his interpretation here aswell so it doesn't help his case. 3. Regarding who wrote the Quran, there are things that are misunderstood from non-muslims on how the quran came to be. The quran was originally presented to the prophet PBUH verbally because the man could not read or write. As such, different Qiraat of the quran came down verbally and simultaneously and when understood and memorized, was transmitted to the companions for further preservation. The preservation of the quran was always focused orally with a written being done by those who could write during the prophet's PBUH time. So the Quran was compiled in a written and oral form during the prophets life. The times that he referes to regarding the Hafs is not something I have knowledge of either so it would be better to ask where his sources are. Where he gets 30 or 700 versions is also just confusing so the sources should be provided.
PART II 4. He asks for a historical claim for the quran's divinity by presenting an early manuscript. Simple, the birmingham manuscript, dated in between 568 and 645, which coincides with the prophet's lifetime (570-633). However for muslims, the claim for divinity is not just used in its written preservation. We use many different methods such as its linguistic style of recitation/writing, its historical claims, scientific claims, oral preservation, future profecies, etc. So far, anything that has been stated has not been disproven so it's a little odd why he says the bible has passed when there are christian scholars who say the gospel authors are anonymous, claims by christians that the book is inspired by god (insinuating that it's not the words of god but the words of man) and the mere fact that christians in various groups adhere to certain texts and disregard others (implying that alot of people believe certain texts to not be the words of god, especially protestants that are found across Europe and the Americas). 5. The example he gave (Solomon PBUH & Sheba) was completely misintepreted. The actual story can be, correctly found in ch 27 called Surah Naml. It is true that the Quran states that prophet Solomon PBUH had an army consisting of Birds but also Humans and another creation of God known as the Jinn. Prophet Solomon PBUH was actually inspecting his army when he found one member missing from the birds. When the bird returned, it spoke to Solomon of a land known as Sheba ruled by a woman who worships the sun and not the allmighty God. The bird does not mention anything about her physical appearance which is confusing where he got this information from. Prophet Solomon PBUH investigates the statements of the bird by TELLING IT TO DELIVER A LETTER to the queen. We know this as sending a messenger bird. The queen did not speak with the bird since this gift was only given to prophet Solomon by God. She was only handed a letter, afterwhich the bird flew back to solomon, fullfilling his duty. The guy skips the parts on the Jinn because, of course, the bible doesn't talk about how they were involved in convincing the queen to convert. The verses continue after the letter is sent with solomon asks which Jinn will bring the Queen's throne to his palace, different jinns taking turns on how they will do it. One presents his method and performs it and prophet Solomon PBUH shows his gratitude to God for being blessed. The Queen shows up, she thinks prophet Solomon's PBUH palace floor is made of water but he assures her it's just glass/crystal. He asks her if she recognizes the throne, which she does, and she declares her convertion to the monotheistic God to prophet Solomon PBUH. Parallel stories found between the Quran and the Bible are meant to prove that some stories in the Bible are not lying. That's a good thing for a christian/jew and it shows that the event is agreed upon by God according to the quran. Those that don't parallel should be looked into and studied but insinuating that they must lies from apocryphal sources is just insulting because then you would have to prove that every statement from the quran can be traced to apocrypha WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE. This story not being found in the bible doesn't really prove the Quran as a lie because Prophets are known for their miracles and wonders that they perform in the name of God. The quran has presented this with Moses splitting the sea, Jesus raising a clay bird to life, Abraham surviving a blazing fire unharmed. All of these have been done by Gods work and no miracle can be made humans without God. 6. He doesn't present any sources of people who confront the prophet PBUH for his sexual proclivities and violence. Regarding sexual proclivities, what exactly did he do that should be worthy of confrontation? He married multiple women? That was a common practice across all people in his time. The women he married were for different reasons which are all considered valid. a) To bring stability in the household. b) Political alliances. c) Protection for widows (If you're a widow, you risk a life of poverty because people wouldn't want to marry a widow during that time and you would not have an income because women had difficulty being employed. Through the prophet's PBUH actions, more people were accepting of the idea of marrying those less fortunate). The violence part has been debunked several times but I'm still curious as to what exactly the prophet did which is considered violent and then present sources to back your statement. 7. The prophet not existing? That is definitely the dumbest question a non-muslim can ever come up with because that would raise more issues than it would solve. I can link this video in regards to the question: kzhead.info/sun/oMyHdJiRo5hpdpE/bejne.html&ab_channel=AlMuqaddimah 8. David Wood has been debunked more times than I can count. There are literally hourly videos of debates of muslims (Sheikh Uthman ibn Farooq and Muhammad Hijab) answer all of Davids questions/accusations while David cannot give an explanation to any that muslims present. Hatun is not a known so I cannot make any comments. Sourcing David though as an intellectual debater against islamic theology is laughable because of the many instances he has misintepreted and shown lacking in disolaying proper sources or just make up on the spot. 9. The verses regarding Jesus where he says he doesn't believe? isn't that considered heresy against the traditional doctrine of Jesus in regard to his nature? There are christians who DEFINITELY believe that Jesus has a divine nature. They DEFINITELY believe that there are three distinct person but they all make up God, hence the three in one that defines the trinity. Christians DEFINITELY believe that Jesus is at the right hand of God, which is an association of partnership because there is a distinction between Jesus and God. This passage of Jesus at the right hand is not the only verse that makes a distinction between him and God though. The allmight not eating proves his divine characteristics becuase to eat means dependency on other/s. Jesus and Mary eating implies their dependency of food and thus denying divinity. The bible also contains verses where Jesus eats which shows he cannot have a divine nature. Mary included in the trinity is because of some denominations of christians believing in the veneration to Mary by praying to her, an act that would most definitely be considered worship.(they are later known as Catholics). Basically the verse takes into account the worship of Jesus and Mary found across ALL christians whether they adhere to one of them or both. And now for the crown of all these verses - "Jesus was not killed on the cross". There is no early manuscript of the Quran that goes against this verse. This proto-Quran, if it exists, would have been rampant across European universities because of their nation's influence in the muslim regions or it would have been destroyed. The verse 4:157 talks specifically that Jesus was not killed nor crucified but was made to appear so. It doesn't contradict 19:33 because the verse implied that Jesus will someday die and someday rise again. This is the same experience for EVERY human being who is created by God, every soul shall taste death and everyone will return to their creator and everyone will be resurrected (rise again) to stand on the day of judgement. 19:33 is a miracle of God because Jesus saves his mother from accusations of adultery all while showing the blessings given to Jesus from birth all the way till the day of judgement. His death is not on the cross but rather after his second coming, which is mentioned in hadith (you know the books that this man doesn't seem to recognize as valid sources and only focuses on the quran despite making mistakes with its interpretation). Overall, this is just a mess of things that I honestly don't know where he obtained things from. To present this as secret knowledge that muslims are trying to hide or truth that need to be told really speaks of the arrogance that he portrays while not bothering to learn about the structure that maintains the religion. Islam is the only pure monotheistic religion (The name itself means "submission" which can ONLY be done to God and one needs to understand who God is, why he says so and my relationship with him in order to be convinced to do this act.). It has a prophet that cannot be denied if one views from a christian lens or Jewish lens and its book, the quran, has a preservation is unlike anything that can be found in this world (millions of people spend their lives memorising the book with certified teachers that practice how to pronounce, how to understand language, its style, its root words, its grammar. Then the history of the people through the practices of the prophet PBUH preserved by his companions (what he said, what he ate, what he drank, when he laughed, what he wore, where he walked, how he sat, how he greeted, when he prayed, how he prayed and SO much more). The lists can simply go on and on and its really shameful that so little is cared for just for this agenda. Anyway I'll leave at here.
The problem with the conflicting stories from the Quran versus the Bible comes down to this simple fact: the Quran has stated so many times that the People of the Book (or the Bible) and the Torah have not been changed; even more so, that your god and messenger (Muhammad) approves on reading them and encourages no one to turn them down. If that is the case, then how can we reconcile the most obvious contradictions? How can the prophet Solomon in the Quran be the same Solomon, son of David, who was King over Israel from the Bible? This will require you to read about Solomon in the Bible fully in order to reach a consensus, but some just don’t want to do that. Therefore, it isn’t right for you guys to keep spreading misinformation as well, saying the Bible is corrupted thus holds no doctrine of value. It would be a beautiful thing if Christians and Muslims could have a dialogue in which the goal in mind is to ACCURATELY, free of any prejudice or personal bias, search for the truth together and reach a conclusion to these issues. If we could respect each other and stop spreading lies about each other, we could actually work together to make this world a more beautiful place. The sense of competition and desire to be the one in the right gets in too many people’s heads, making their judgement completely flawed even before they start. You must empty your mind of all biases and do a diligent research on both books- the Quran and the Bible. Think of it as a project for school, not one where you are trying to persuade someone to convert. This is what appropriate judgement is. If you want to think of how a god should judge or even a judge in court (although man’s judgement is super flawed compared to God as we aren’t perfect. We are sinners). The Bible actually teaches Christians to judge righteously; unfortunately, not all do this appropriately. It simply means to not be a hypocrite; to remain fair and unbiased to ALL. It calls to be a quiet observer, carefully considering all facts. This means you must be careful of biased or unreliable sources, as you are dipping into research about religion which sources have been created by man (and who knows the intention of such man?). Looking around for context clues to see if you find ANY indications of bias, then demanding to keep your integrity by finding another source which is actually reliable, free of pre-supposed ideas. If you find a source written by an atheist who is passionate about their atheism, you already know what you are going to read about. Some atheists are great researchers though but it takes close insoecfion and a genuine hunger inside yourself to want to pursue for the actual truth, not what you are being fed to in the mosque or from a church for Christians.
@@sagal1374 By the way, you seem very intelligent and I admire your passion. I just would love to have a genuine conversation with a Muslim, without hate in either of our hearts, and a genuine desire to seek the truth on such problems that exist between Islam and Christianity. It only makes sense that we begin to talk these things out, and hopefully, that will lower hostilities between us as we grow to a deeper understanding and hopefully love towards each other. I personally believe love is the most powerful thing we can do, and we must love in truth.
@@sagal1374 Lol David Wood debunked? i saw the debate. Hijab took a lot of personal attacks during the debate on Wood, and neither theory was good and strong.
@@shayalynnif you know your teacher teach 2+2=5 then you still want to admire and study under him?every book has test..do test on today bible and torah and compare them with quran..you will find result.if you dont know go learn..
Blois (2003) is particularly scathing, describing the book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism" and concluding that Luxenberg's "grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."
the syro-aramaic reading of the koran is actually really hard to find now and is over $250 each!
Are the original arameic texts available for public? I would like to read them. Thank you
Good point. If this is true just publish the Koran with the dots without changing the scripts.
@@judahmaccabee2098 with the dots without changing the scripts
I think we could verify it for small portions by ourselves
As an arab, and an ex-muslim, this video seems very biased towards christianism.
Where doyou think did the writer of Quran get his information? It was all syriac christian texts an arabic, greek, roman doctors.
Nah, just a desire for historical accuracy. That's all we crave
Ah Geez hope I don't get put on The Double Secret FISA watch list now.
This needs to be made public today 2024
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
there is x10 the information of the video in this comment alone
Another awesome talk by the amazing Dr Jay Smith.
@@sidprice6214 Just denial doesn't cut it. He's gives the evidence. Islam is an _obvious_ fraud, just like Mecca is an _obvious_ fraud by the evidence: kzhead.info/sun/bKqoiZ2le4F8nI0/bejne.html
@@endpc5166 As the Quran says: "produce your evidence if your are truthful". Instead you do nothing but conjecture and BS. Maybe i can appeal to your common sense if you have any. So an Arab sits in the desert and one day decides to turn his life upside down. He then gets persecuted by his own people in all sorts of ways - stoning, starvation, ridicule, insults, physical abuse, etc etc. And all of this is so that he can sell Christian Aramaic hymns to the Arabs. You must be an idiot to swallow this. As for your "Mecca" comment i won't even bother. The problem is you haven't done enough study on these matters but you want to offer opinions as if they are fact.
Wow that’s amazing!
Christoph Luxenberg needs to do a reprint. I'd love to have a hardcopy of it.
I am a native Arabic speaker, and dots were not added to the language until several centuries after Muhammad, basically to help non native Arabic speakers to read the Quran
Facts. I’m a Catholic raised American and I knew that as well. The first written copies would have been for native speakers as teaching tools. The Quran wasn’t written down but memorised.
You are right bro, this is Sab'a qiroaat 🤦♂️🤭
@@gianni_schicchi the Quran was written down but it wasn’t compiled into the form of a book until 634-635 which is two to three years after the death of Mohammed (pbhu). In 650-655 the Quran was standardized because it was written in many different languages so to show uniformity they standardized it in Arabic. Who told you the Quran wasn’t written down during the time of the prophet?
@@gianni_schicchiactually, it was written down in many places like sheep skins, paper, etc. So, no, you're wrong.
You would not have confusion with the dots if the Quran really started as oral literature, but the fact that they did (even the scholars) shows that many parts of it had been written down before they were memorized.
I am going to dance 💃💃💃🕺🕺🕺with joy my Christmas🎄🎅🔔❄ was great with the knowledge of the heretic Islam imposed on me... Now this Easter🐰🥚🧺 I have this knowledge. Praise God
Brother Jay Smith is a pathological liar
kzhead.info/sun/Z6qGaMqEhqx6eqs/bejne.html
Dear christain This theory was given by a Lebanese Christian in 2001 in the book Aramaic Reading of the Qur'an. And all the scholars rejected it. There is no mention of Jesus in the Qur'an for more than three or four pages
Like jesus was really born on christmas day🤣😂🤣
Easter from the pagan festival of Eostre.? The Saxon goddess? Or in fact it could have been taken from ishtar.. but it’s certainly not Christian
Fascinating!
The English Language version of Christoph Luxenberg's book is out of print now, I can't even find a used copy on Amazon and I imagine if one does pop up again it'll be very expensive. If you want this information to become more common knowledge you try getting it reprinted with a new edition.
An audible version would be nice too.
I have heard most of this as i have watched your videos with Thomas and other videos. It was still great stuff to hear again. God blesd you for all your work. One thing though so as Christians we have quality arguments when engaging muslims. A counter point to you saying there is a contradictionin the quran saying Jesus didnt die on the cross and then Surah 19:33. My point is that as far as i am aware muslims believe in a ressurection so they may just say Jesus says the day he rises in regard to the day of ressurection. As that seems to be a plausible response.
There are NO contradictions in the Quran ...but your corrupted bibles have tons of contradictions. YOU STATED A counter point to you saying there is a contradictionin the quran saying Jesus didnt die on the cross and then Surah 19:33. My point is that as far as i am aware muslims believe in a ressurection so they may just say Jesus says the day he rises in regard to the day of ressurection. As that seems to be a plausible response. REPLY Surah 19:33 Peace be upon me the day I was born and the day I will die, and the day I will be raised up alive." >>> This speech in the cradle by Jesus was the sign to which the angel referred in( Ayat 21). As Allah intended to punish the children of Israel for their continuous wicked ways and evil deeds, He made a pious virgin girl of the family of Prophet Aaron, who had devoted herself to worship in the Temple under the patronage of Zachariah, bear a child and bring it before her people in order to concentrate the whole attention of the thousands of people assembled there on this extraordinary event. Then He made this new born child speak out even in the cradle that he had been appointed a Prophet. Though they had seen this wonderful sign of Allah, they rejected the Prophethood of Jesus and brought him to the court for crucifixion, and thus incurred the wrath of Allah. (For further details, please see (Surah Aal- Imran E.Ns 44 and 53), and (Surah An-Nisa E.Ns 212, 213).
@@aaabrams1889 clearly another muslim who doesnt read things properley and just copies and pastes replies from google. I didnt say there was a contridiction...
@@Marcus-ec1kx You can't even spell CONTRADICTION...HA HA HA
@@aaabrams1889 Again you are proving my point that muslims dont read things properley. I did spell contradiction correctly. I just didnt put a space between the words 'contradiction' and 'in' It makes sense why you believe islam with your sloppy reading skills. Because you replied i just want to add something. Whilst i dont no if the quran contains internal contradictions. What i do know is, is that the quran doesnt know history as your god thought mary, mother of Jesus was moses sister (chapter 66 verse12) when they lived over 1000 years apart.
@@aaabrams1889 How do you explain veritable obvious errors in the Quran. You've got to deny your reasoning faculties' proper working to continue in the deception. I can sympathise if you are likely to face family rejection, or even worse, but still that is why Jesus said some of his hard sayings about needing to love Him more than family, which is because salvation is in Jesus and not some other person who comes in his own name, in "Mohammeds" case just consider his sex life and tyrannous manner of establishing himself - an unworthy object of faith. Surah 6.101 "The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can he have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?" Surah 66.12 "There is Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into through our spirit ..." See there in one case Allah is saying He can't have a Son as He has no wife, but then another surah describes (graphically in the Arabic) Allah having sex with Mary (yikes). Muslims try to make spirit to be Gabriel, but that is not taught in the Quran, and it agrees she is a virgin.
God blessed Dr Jay Smith, Hatun Tash, Dr Gunther Lulay, Dr Christoph Luxembourg, Christian Prince, Rob Christian, Al Fadi, Dr David Wood and many bretheren who are exposing islam
They only expose their own prejudice, hatred, ignorance and stupidity.
AMEN! Have hatred for Satan and expose his lies
God thank you for keeping me on the right path.❤
All I can say is WOW 😮!! 👍
The story about "talking birds" is a reference to the use of carrier pigeons. Solomon used the carrier pigeons to send messages to the Queen of Shiba. He used them as his "soldiers" in battle to send important messages from the battlefield out to reserve troops so they could move to where they were needed. Great wisdom from the holy spirit is needed when reading such things, you see
Correct, Judaism has allegorical stories called Midrash and Gentile scholars like this make fun of things they do not understand.
Albatross
Not Just Carrier Messenger Pigeons but encrypted talk between people. "The Language of The Birds 🐦 🐦 ."
before it was written in Quran there was an Old testament so whos gonna we believe? Islam just existed 600 years after the death of Jesus so id rather believed what is written in the bible rather than Quran....
Gabriel Said Reynolds complains that Luxenberg "consults very few sources" -- only one exegete (Abu Jafar al-Tabari) -- and seldom integrates the work of earlier critical studies into his work; "turns from orthography to phonology and back again"; and that his use of Syriac is "largely based on modern dictionaries".[1] Robert Hoyland argues against Luxenberg's thesis that Syro-Aramaic language was prevalent in the Hijaz during the time of the Quran's inception, finding Arabic script on funerary text, building text inscriptions, graffiti, stone inscriptions of that era in the area.[15] He further argues that Arabic evolved from Nabataean Aramaic script not Syriac.[16] He concludes that Arabic was widely written, was used for sacred expression and literary expression, and was widely spoken in the Middle East by the seventh century CE.[17] He proposes that "the rise of an Arabic script in the sixth century" was likely the work of "Arab tribes allied to Rome" and Christian missionaries working to convert Arab tribes.[18] The Quran is "the translation of a Syriac text," is how Angelika Neuwirth describes Luxenberg's thesis - "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Quran is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Quran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics."[12] Blois (2003) is particularly scathing, describing the book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism" and concluding that Luxenberg's "grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."[11] Saleh (2011) describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight."[5]: 51 He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur'ān" and that, ad hominem, no one can understand the Qur'an as "Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text." Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg's method, he states: The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'ān is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur'ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.[5]: 55 [19] Saleh further attests[5]: 47 that Luxenberg does not follow his own proposed rules.[20] Richard Kroes (2004) describes him as "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda."[21] Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, in a 2008 article at opendemocracy.net refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism".
Thank you, a great summary. Of course, the quran can still be shown to badly plagiarize earlier texts and is clearly undivine, but probably this is not a way to show this. It'll be interesting to see how textual criticism of the quran evolves over the coming decades. Of course it's slow going since its dangerous to expose it and since it must be done from outside the muslim countries, unlike biblical textual criticism. The religion of peace isn't.
This is ULTRA-IMPORTANT.
Heres all the arabic letters when the dots are changed; ج - ح - خ: J - H - Kh ت - ث - ن - ب - ي - ئ: T-Th-N-B-Y-‘A ق - ف - و: Q-F-W ع - غ: `A-Gh ص - ض: S-D س - ش: S-Sh ط - ظ: T-Dh د - ذ: D-Dh ر - ز: R-Z ه - ة: Silent-H As you can see the dots COMPLETELY change the entire sound/letter, so its unreasonable to think someone just copied this from some other language without knowing any of the dots
I really like how those people trying to teach us about The great quran and they even speak arabic Now the germans knows about the Quran more than arab people whose done there study for hundreds years ?? There is alot of mistakes in this half hour, I don't even know where I am going to start,
The vocation of the world, or the scholarity is not a proof of intelligence , knowledge or truth, stupid people can get diplomas with perseverance, liars can teach you false things for their interest saying it is truth and pushing it up as truth because that doctrine has existed for years , stupid is the man that believes other man that claim knowledge by papers or knowledge thru years, stupid you are for claiming hat some have studied for hundreds of years, no man lasts that time and every man is different from other to judge that the timeline is right. If you trust to the scholars; poor you are above your imagination since you refused knowledge of your own and put it to the trust of man to expect them to tell you the truth and it's good interpretations that suits only their interest and not the will of God or your salvation, stupid is the man that teaches Koran to others and pretends to know God meaning so that he can brainwash others. Stupid is the man that trusts any man and does not inspect for himself.
Looool i agree. It's just another " give us your money and join our heavenly ✨️ " classically done marketing for these people. We got themmmm moslems nowwww seeeee 😂 Don't forget the " best of the best expert's on the quran" 😂
Me neither, my brain couldn't handle the misinterpretation, misinformation, the lack of basic knowledge of the Qur'an, the absolute weakness of his made-up story about Islam and the holy Qur'an, bro this is unbelievable 😂😂😂
You prove him right. If you indeed have any truth why not say it. A person who has nothing to say after a statement they can't disprove do what you did.
@@aymanelhalawani8302what are the misinformations he shared?
I am reading the description, in paragraf 5, fact or face?
It's now been corrected. Thanks for the 'heads-up'!
Thank you Jay the 99999th time. Who is this scolar Zadi /Sadi nassir who finds much more qurans? Can we find his work somewhere ?
14:17 -- uhhh, Dr. Jay, your translations are wrong... "حسنا = good, as in good works, or good results; "إحسانا = charity. Beauty in Arabic is جمال
I would like to see proof that the oldest poems predate the Quran wouldn't you?
@@tommyrotton9468 it does
@@divyachacko3449 any online photos?
@@tommyrotton9468 you can search online manuscript Birmingham quran which it carbon date on 575AD-625AD and it is in arabic language
@@azurl88 it isn't dated that early, at best it is late 6th century long after the prophets presumed death. It is only the parchment that can be dated, not the ink. And I don't think you'll find and words of Muhammad on it, the speeches etc. just pre Islamic stories that we know were Christian in origin. Yes there were forms of Arabic back then, and anti Trinitarian Christians in the North were using it to translate Aramaic stories into Arabic. But is it the right Arabic? eg is it the Arabic used in Medinan, Yemen or Iranian? Its isn't the style of Arabic with dots so we know it isn't what you read today. There are a lot of holes in what Muslims are taught happened and what historical artefacts show was happening in the 'Arab' world of the era.
This is an amazing work. I think more Muslims should know this, this has more ground and evidence than any of the claims of Muslims. We have to take efforts to covey these messages in the simplest forms which can be understood by everyone, like through animated videos and vlogs.
Pile of crock. Should know what? Can you answer this - how many of the 5500 (or so) manuscripts of the New Testament are in Aramaic?
@@sidprice6214 Why do you even ask this question? he is not talking about new testament manuscripts, he is talking about Aramaic christian hymns that was written in early 4th century which was adulterated in the 7th century.
@Ismail Somali It is not about winning the debate, it is about knowing what is the truth. Muslims first started claiming crusifixion did not happened instead allah made it look like it happened, when they started loosing they came up with the argument judas was crucified and that too failed. Then muslims tried to prove that muhammad is mentioned in the bible,which is bitterly failing everyday. Lot of muslims are leaving islam after understanding the truth of their religion.
@Ismail Somali He said quran was taken from the hymns that was written in aramic about Jesus. Now answer this question, why your quran that is said to be from God which was revealed to muhamad in the 6th century exactly the same as saint ephrem's hymns written in the 3rd and 4th century? That is why you have to research about your own book.
@@marko9131You did not answer my question. I asked the question in an attempt to draw your attention to the lies that Jay preaches. The New Testament cannot (or is not) be traced to any Christian Aramaic writings (despite it being the language of Jesus) yet Jay wants you to believe that the Quran has its roots/origins Aramaic writings - specifically Christian hymns. This is the mischief that people like him does - playing with peoples minds. There are many reasons why he is wrong but i'll mention only 2 simple ones: 1. It is a known fact the Prophet of Islam could neither nor write Arabic. He was illiterate. Hence if he did not know how to read and write in his own language how do you expect he knew how to read and write in a foreign language like Aramaic? 2. If he was going to borrow or copy from the Christians he would have done so from the Bible (New Testament) in Aramaic (a primary source) and not the Aramaic hymns (who would go through the trouble of making up a religion based on hymns - you must be an idiot to think this) - common sense should tell you that. Todate no Christian can point to a specific verse or chapter in the Quran copied from the Bible(NT) or the hymns but this hasn't stopped them from making these nonsense claims.
✨ Hallelujah ✝️🙏🏻
Can we get PDF version of this book? A challenge to islam for reformation
This is awesome!! Glory be to God!! I am so amazed and thrilled that the lie of the devil is finally been exposed and destroyed. Glory be to God Almighty 🙏
satan exposed
Congratulations. You hit it, or, in this case, C.S. Lewis did. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Poor Ramesses. And poor Uncle Scrooge, by the way.
I always find your videos at least interesting, even if I don't know enough about Islam and the Quran to know what you guys are talking about half the time.
That's a great start.
All ancient documents shall be uploaded online so that experts and ordinary people can make discoveries.
Question: where could I find the proto-Coran?
I pray this guided over 1 billion Muslims to Christ!!!!! Jay you are what they say is knowledge coming out in the last day!!!! Your the prophet that give us back the knowledge that was destroyed by satan and allah and mohammed
Go home and do your study the bible contains loads of errors and contradictions
@@ahmedlein9957 if you believe that then there’s no hope for you
@@ahmedlein9957 how bout you read your Quran and learn how mohammed hated black ppl
@@bridgeb856 “All humans are descended from Adam and Eve,” said Muhammad in his last known public speech. “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or of a non-Arab over an Arab, and no superiority of a white person over a black person or of a black person over a white person, except on the basis of personal piety and righteousness.”
@@bridgeb856it’s a fact that white Christian’s are racist please stop your ignorance
Jesus , the most praise
should explain the dots thing, he makes it seem like changing dots changed the whole sentences and somehow still made sense. alot of unexplained stuff
GLORY IS TO THE HOLY TRIUNE GOD... FOR MANKIND CREATED REDEEMED... THANKS, JAY!!!
Sorry to burst your bubble here but the dots in arabic dictate which character is being used. For example the only difference between letters B and T is in where the dots are placed. In other words, If you change a dot in an arabic word, you will be left with a completely different word that would most likely make no sense in the original phrase. For instance, "Your mother can't knit" would become "Your modher can'd knid". The transformation that we applied to the sentence did not give it any new meaning. It only generated meaningless words.
That is the point. He is saying an Arabic speaker picked up a book it Aramaic. They did not know the Aramaic dots. They did their best to read it using their knowledge of Arabic dots. The result of this translation is the Book.
Yh that doesn't make sense, the quranic arabic isn't the arabic spoken today. There's also a great challenge that has been set out in the muslim world since over 4000 year's to prove these kind of thing's and no one has ever proven it. The so called " world's biggest and best experts in quranic scholars he is referring to aren't the biggest and best scholars. This is seemingly presented as factually but indeed it is not. Germany has close relationships with Islamic world for well over a century. Don't you think there wouldn't be massive debates in the last century about this? It's not feasible. It's more of a : " ahaa see its this" classic zealot gotcha marketing
@@BookerGoodwin Makes no sense because then the translation wouldn’t make sense
"You mother can't knit" ... I didn't know Arabic was in English... but all jokes aside, I understand what you're saying, it would be great to hear your argument supported by examples examples in Arabic, albeit with Romanized phonetics, one that would definitely 'burst the bubble.'
@@karloxgc45 I think the burden of proof lies on Mr . Jay who is claiming that he took off dots of one language Arabic and put dots of another language Aramaic and he could read the passages that made sense. Mr Jay should have put arabic and aramaic passages side by side on a slide to prove his point (which is actually no point)....what he is saying is actually absurd...its just like i claim that i have put turkish dots and signs on english written text and gave it a new meaning because turkish and english both use english alphabets. doesnt make sense...Mr Jay is all talk and no proof
Ever since I heard it I am amazed
Question : Do The dots represent the 21 points on a cube of six intersecting lines that don’t touch. Dose depending on the dimensions on thy viewer this gives you all your religious symbols language and mathematics of history. A simplification of thy cube is a cross. The tools that built all of history and still dose Why do you hide it behind a god ? Must be a powerful tool After all it killed The King of Kings don’t it
That was one of the funniest things I have ever heard anyone says, you strikes me as a failed comedian, keep trying, and I'll keep laughing 😂🤣🤣😂😂😅
Subhan Allah, this is amazing material Dr Jay, Alhumdullillah your work and zeal is greatly appreciated, may Allah bless you.
Why are you pretending to be a Muslim?
That’s what I felt when I started reading Quran
Lies
Well done brother. Remembering that they are ALL our BROTHERS and SISTERS in Abraham…
How to make Allah's kitab (Qur'an) *Ingredients:* 1. Hadiths-fed mutton - 2kg 2. Sabean book Ginza Rabba - 1 kg 3. Manichean/Nestorian/Mervian cult Aramaic lectionary or Keriana (translated by Waraqah ibn Nawfel) - 2 handfuls 4. Christian/Jewish Apocrypha & Fairy Tales (translated by Waraqah ibn Nawfel) - 2 handfuls 5. Teachings from Zoroastrianism (includes Arda Viraf's night journey on Barag to heaven to meet his god) - 1 cup 6. Jewish Talmud (5 - this must be crushed and made into puree) 7. Mohammad's hallucinations - 5 table spoons 8. Hatred against other religions - 4 handful thinly sliced into 4 parts. 9. Mohammad's self interest - 2 teaspoon 10. Epic of Gilgamesh - 1 teaspoon 11. Shehimo prayer stolen from Syrian Orthodox Christians - 1/2 teaspoon 12. Al Feter copied from Harranian Sabeans - 1 teaspoon 13. Hindu Manusmrithi (purity by sand), to taste - as needed 14. Poem of Imrul Qais, to taste- as needed *Preparation:* Chop hadiths-fed mutton into medium size pieces. Slice Sabean Ginza Rabba into small pieces. Pour the Manichean/Nestorian cult literature Keriana and Christian/Jewish Apocrypha and Fairy Tales into it and saute. Then pour the Teachings from Zoroastrianism into it and bring to boil. Keep this aside. In another pan, fry the Talmud and Mohammad's hallucinations as well as the rest of the ingredients, except Al Feter and Shehimo prayer. Take the Syrian Orthodox Christian Shehimo prayer and make it into the *first 6 lines* of the 'Al Fatiha' and add. Now knead the above into dough and flatten it into a book form. Add Al Feter copied from the Sabeans and rename it as 'Ramdan'. Take 700 copies and burn all but 1 book. Then cut it into several pieces and place in front of a table fan. Now switch the fan at full power, ensuring all pieces are well scattered. Now turn off the fan and scoop up all the bits and bind it onto a book. Start at 96th Chapter and end at 5th Chapter. Make 30 copies. For those of you who like dips, use never-pregnant Aisha's breast milk, whipped cream 😋, cucumber 🥒 and 7 Ajwa dates from 🌴 grown on the wayside. The suggested drink with this dish is warm camel-urine: Al Lah take-beer.🍺🍻. An alternative is Muhammed's favourite alcohol Nabidh. There you go -- now you have the amazing spicy Qur'an for the whole mankind. Note: For those who like a smoke after dinner, they can roll up and use the white powder (the one Aisha scrapes off Mohammad's pyjamas) as special cigarette. *Without lies, Islam dies* *THAQIYYA IBN ISLAM*
😂
bhahahahahahahha
Absolutely fascinating, thanks so much for sharing this. Of course could equally turn the same scientific and scriptural lens on the Christian tradition. Fundamentalism ultimately has to die on the cross for us all to be saved.
Underrated comment.
Everyone gangsta until the doctor pulls out the slides.
Love the Presentation, could’ve done without the music.
And even at that time it had holes in it! Which grew bigger as time past by.
I am so pleased to come across this information, as one who has only this year reclaimed his Christian heritage. Always interested in comparative religions my whole life, this information is astonishing to me. I had previously heard the rational criticisms of the Quran, from the perspective of a religion which became stuck in the past, without any reformations or scholarly work being performed. The Imam's can foist their prejudicial views and even their madness as they choose, unopposed completely. Had this occurred to the Christian church, we would be barbarians today I believe, without any dissenters and no alternatives of view. We were able to thrive both culturally and spiritually and the Muslims of hatred (for most are not, and are men of peace) have been so easily led astray by the devil and the Djinns. We must become one in peace and reconcile ourselves as men of peace, which will take much harder work for the Muslims, as their resistance to change has retarded their spiritual growth it seems. Look at our world of hate and violence, with our hard fought for freedoms vanishing before our eyes daily. Do we still have any Muslims brave enough to bear this tremendous weight of errors I wonder? Insh Allah, & God willing.
To be fair the whole competition off different offshoots of Judaism is crazy. I read all bigger holy books humanity produced and all of them basically tell us same thing. To stop being violent and using others for unjust gains. In a way Christian Church and Buddhism came closest, but still Buddhism is not exactly religion and Christianity is too hierarchical for all that Jesus said that there shouldn't be really priests. ( don't get me wrong it is good we have people who are invested into priesthood, but we built an undemocratic structure in such a way and instead of brotherhood of people striving to be better we now have a company with ceo getting more executive power than even whole church he is responsible for which doesn't happen even in monarchies since such a ruler would fast find his way to be about a head shorter if he ever was vile ). That being said its exactly the same thing with Quran - local priest superinposes his interpretation of it over what people think is right, and while people as a group might have had bad ideas, most often it's all to easy for psychopath to get to the top position in structures, and results never are nice
@@jamessan3404 I personally favour Christianity, for I do not have to favour a church or its infrastructure. Buddhism produces some of the most murderous killers in the world and has not matured. The most grounded is Christianity, because I have a responsibility for my failings, and there is no glorious payoff, it is an ethical attitude one carries. I was raised a nominal Roman Catholic, by that, I mean my father was upset that a Pope decided just after the middle of the 19th century that he was infallible, that was when the wheels really fell off. I am in the same situation, one of respectful insularity with God. It has always been him that I referred to, even while I was an absolute atheist. The Christian tradition was the one I was raised in and it suits my nature. I do not want to get away Scott free, I expect to make mistakes and be sorry for them, and atonement is important too. The one remaining fixture with the Catholics which I like, is that they have never forgotten the devil. The other churches squirmed away from that, and so exorcisms are taken seriously (but never casually) for it can take a long study to ensure a patient is not deranged or has a brain tumour. They also have their scientific arm, the Jesuits, which I have always liked. It was one among them who invented the spectrograph. Not just a backward faith after all. Where their church refuses to back down, I have come to realise is wonderful for us. Where our culture looses its way, a church must keep its foundations.
@@user-en9zo2ol4z I favour Christianity personally too, but to be fair most religions if implemented are fairly good. But church itself needs deep reforms. Catholic one will die if it continues to be like it is ( they have set a bad precedent about pope being right always so next pope can't easily change anything that doesn't work and it worked when human development was slow. But now it sucks big time). In the end however Hinduism Buddhism or Islam books ain't that bad to read. I personally think at least Quran is worth a read especially if you focus only on direct text not it's interpretations added later. In fact it's same approach I take with Bible read it and if I don't know something I research because often innterpertations given by some authors serve an agenda. I don't personally think God talking with farmers was trying to be so profound noone but scholars can understand Him especially since He talked to people and Jesus was even choosing simple fishermen and farmers as his disciples. And I can bet that scholars existed as much as today back then
@@jamessan3404 I'm Christian Orthodox and we have the same issues in Greece too. Somehow we don't trust the church, the priests and the clergy in general. There was a time when the church got involved in a financial scandal. The Greek church is very rich, though they never helped the Greek people when we were going through the financial crisis. Church alone could pay the Greek debt and we wouldn't have to go through any of the financial crises we went into, but no they wouldn't do it, but the public still pays their salaries! another thing that frustrates me in the Orthodox church is the fact that even though Christianity is supposed to support equality, we get 0 Female priests or psalters, women can't carry the Christian banners of the Church, simply because they are women. That was the breaking point for me when it came to the church's matters. I haven't stepped foot in a church for a long time or commune, maybe I only go on Easter eve. I do have a strong intuition inside me that i want to go again to a church, cause, after all, is the house of God and it's also our house, i want to commune, and light up a candle, but i don't wanna hear the priests, i wanna pray by myself.