Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - runninglikezebras

Pages: [1] 2 ... 4


Indeed, as-Safa and al-Marwah are among the symbols of Allah . So whoever makes Hajj to the House or performs 'umrah - there is no blame upon him for walking between them. And whoever volunteers good - then indeed, Allah is appreciative and Knowing.


It's not hard to see Marwah is Mount Moriah (Temple Mount) today in Arabic still called ﻣﺮﻭﻩ Marwah.  Wiki link.  The oldest reference to Mount Moriah is in Genesis and in Chronicles (OT).  This landmark has been called Moriah/Marwa for at least 3000 years.


Safa is a bit harder to identify.    The writing of the historian Josephus were most helpful in identifying this landmark.  Josephus narrates a story about Alexander the great visiting Jerusalem.  Although the story is most likely fiction, the names of landmarks most likely aren't.

From Jewish antiquities 11.317-345:

[11.329] And when Jaddus understood that Alexander was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple.

Now if you understand Sapha means prospect, it's easy to identify the landmark. Prospect in Latin is Scopus.  The landmark Sapha Quran is referring to is Mount Scopus.  This mount gives a prospect over Jerusalem and Temple mount (mount Moriah).  Wiki link

View from mount Scopus (Safa) towards mount Moriah (Marwa)

PS: Yes, this implies the majority of Muslims in the world are doing pilgrimage to the wrong place and praying towards the wrong place (Mecca instead of Jerusalem).

Quranic Divinity / The Quran and the function of the human heart
« on: December 12, 2015, 12:02:37 PM »
In the 7th century the function of the human brain was hardly understood.  Today it's common knowledge functions such as thought and cognition take place in the human brain.  In ancient times people did not accredit the human brain with such functions but attributed it to the human heart.  As we know, the human heart is an organ that serves the function to circulate blood inside the human body.  It has no cognitive functions nor is it capable of thought.

Now let's see what Quran tells about this.  The first thing we can conclude about the Quran is that it nowhere mentions the human brain.  Not one single verse speaks about it, instead we find many verses speaking about the heart.  Here are a few examples:

2.9. Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive
themselves, and realise [it] not!
2.10. In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And
grievous is the penalty they [incur], because they are false [to themselves].

=> Quran is stating disbelief is caused by a heart disease of doubt and hypocrisy

23.62. On no soul do We place a burden greater than it can bear: before Us is a
record which clearly shows the truth: they will never be wronged.
23.63. But their hearts are in confused ignorance of this; and there are, besides
that, deeds of theirs, which they will [continue] to do,-

=> Quran is stating hearts can be confused and ignorant

26.200. Thus have We caused doubt to enter the hearts of the sinners.
26.201. They will not believe in it until they see the grievous Penalty;

=> Quran is stating hearts can be in doubt

7.43 And We shall remove from their hearts any lurking sense of injury;

=> Quran is stating the heart can have a sense of injury

41.5  They say: "Our hearts are under veils, [concealed] from that to which thou
dost invite us, and in our ears in a deafness, and between us and thee is a
screen: so do thou [what thou wilt]; for us, we shall do [what we will!]"

=> Quran is stating heart can be blinded (from perception)

9.77 So He hath put as a consequence hypocrisy into their hearts, [to last] till
the Day, whereon they shall meet Him: because they broke their covenant with
Allah, and because they lied [again and again].

=> Quran is stating the heart can be afflicted with hypocrisy

Of course all of these are contradicting the scientific facts about the human organ called the heart.  In defense many muslims claim these verses are intended metaphorically and shouldnt be interpreted literally.  Well then let's look a little further to see if this argument of metaphorical understanding is true or not:

7.179. Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts
wherewith they understand not
, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith
they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless
[of warning].

=> Quran explicitly states the hearts are used to understand, just like eyes are used to see and ears are used to hear.  There is no margin for metaphor here. 

5.44  among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have never believed;

=> Again leaving no margin for metaphors.  The heart is accredited with believing or not believing what one expresses.

From all of this we can conclude the God in Quran is totally unaware the brain is responsible for thought, emotion, understanding, cognition but instead attributes these functions to the human heart.  This is fully contradicting a divine origin.  It is evidence the author of Quran had no understanding of the human brain and confused it with the human heart.

Remains of a Byzantine-period church were discovered in 1992 near the Monastery of Mar Elias, when the highway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem was widened and a bulldozer accidentally uncovered and damaged a mosaic floor. In the first, limited excavations (October 1992 ? February 1993) only a section of the western part of the church was uncovered, revealing mosaic floors which were re-covered to ensure their preservation.

Located in an ancient olive grove within the southern municipal borders of Jerusalem, on land owned by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the site is bordered in the south by a terrace with an open water reservoir, known by its Arabic name, Bir Kadismu.

Bir means water cistern or reservoir, Kadismu preserves the Greek name of the place, Kathisma, meaning "seat."

Renewed excavations in 1997 revealed a large church built in the 5th century and restored in the 6th century. In the 8th century, it was converted into a mosque, and was destroyed shortly thereafter.

The size of the building and its sophisticated, octagonal plan indicate that this was a church of great importance. Surrounding the flat, protruding rock (the "seat"), which is its focal point, were two octagonal hallways: the inner one served as a walkway (ambulatoria) from which the worshippers could view the stone seat; the outer hallway was divided into rooms and four chapels. The whole church was surrounded by a square envelope, divided into rooms with mosaic floors.

Nearly all the rooms of the church were paved in colored mosaics; some had been added in the 8th century. The mosaics are in many shades of red, yellow and green in a variety of floral and geometric designs, the small tessarae laid on a firm plaster bedding.

Among the motifs are guilloches (braided bands) interspersed with medallions of floral designs. Depicted in the corners of the southern room of the church are four cornucopiae (horns of plenty), supporting acanthus leaves from which grape tendrils emanate.

According to the 6th century "Life of Theodosius", the church and the monastery of the "Old Kathisma" were built by the wealthy widow Ikelia at the time of Juvenalis, Bishop of Jerusalem (450 ? 458). The account indicates that the church was built on the resting-place of Mary, halfway on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and dedicated to Mary Theotokos (God bearer). Also, that St. Theodosius himself, who lived in the 5th century, was sent for training as a monk to the monastery of the "Old Kathisma". From the 12th century onwards, a water cistern in this areas was noted as a holy site; it served as a refreshment and rest station for pilgrims traveling on the Jerusalem-Bethlehem road until the end of the last century.

It's clear to see how this octagonal church (destination of pilgrimage) was the prototype for the later Dome of the Rock also situated on top of a rock.

This is a continued effort to shed more light on the "Over it is 19" verse in Quran 74:30

In a previous topic, I explained how this number 19 can be interpreted as referring to a substance "covering" Saqar.  The element with atomic index number 19, potassium, seems to fit the description of hell, as potassium is the biggest remainder in human ashes.  For more information on the previous findings see:

Let's again read what Quran says about this number and how it should be interpreted:

Sahih International: "And We have not made the keepers of the Fire except angels. And We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve - that those who were given the Scripture will be convinced and those who have believed will increase in faith and those who were given the Scripture and the believers will not doubt and that those in whose hearts is hypocrisy and the disbelievers will say, "What does Allah intend by this as an example?" Thus does Allah leave astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And none knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him. And mention of the Fire is not but a reminder to humanity."

Clearly this number is mentioned as evidence for "those who were given the Scripture".  We know this scripture is not the Quran, as this Quran was still in the process of being revealed.  The Scripture referred to here is the Hebrew Bible.  The judeonazarenes, for when facing criticism of Arab christians, provided their teachers with an argument that is capable of convincing the truth in it by referring to the original Scripture (the Tanakh).

Certainly, this is has to be a very well known example.  Common knowledge to any jew or christian.  A strong reminder of an event that would be an example of hell.  What happens if we interpret this "19" as a bookmark.  Is there any event associated with "19" that could be referred to with the judgment of Hellfire?

The first book of the Hebrew Bible is Genesis.  Let's read Genesis 19 and see what we find...

Genesis 19 - New International Version (NIV):

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 ?My lords,? he said, ?please turn aside to your servant?s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.?

?No,? they answered, ?we will spend the night in the square.?

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom?both young and old?surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, ?Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.?

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, ?No, my friends. Don?t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don?t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.?

9 ?Get out of our way,? they replied. ?This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We?ll treat you worse than them.? They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, ?Do you have anyone else here?sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.?

14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, ?Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!? But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, ?Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.?

16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, ?Flee for your lives! Don?t look back, and don?t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!?

18 But Lot said to them, ?No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can?t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I?ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it?it is very small, isn?t it? Then my life will be spared.?

21 He said to him, ?Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.? (That is why the town was called Zoar.[f])

23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah?from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities?and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot?s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

The story of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is depicted here.  A catastrophic event, destroying the cities entirely.  All the elements that are exemplary of hell are present:

  • Angels are mentioned, bringing total destruction
  • Fire, smoke, brimstone are mentioned.  The analogy with a furnace is made.
  • The destruction of the city is a punishment, as is hell, for their wrong ways.

Surely, if the Judeonazarenes wanted to counter Arab christian sceptics, this event of apocalyptic destruction should convince them of being the truth from the Lord.  Again the judeonazarene understanding of Quran reveals the keys to reading and understanding it correctly.

Furthermore, recent research has proven that the total destruction of the cities of the plains may have actually happened.  (See this BBC documentary  In this documentary is explained how the ancient location of Sodom and Gomorrah is situated on the convergence of 3 tectonic plates, but also that the ground contains methane which only recently caused a huge explosion when road constructions were done on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea.

But runninglikezebras, what about your understanding of 19 as a reference to potassium the substance covering hell and the biggest remainder in human ashes?  Did it land in the bin?  Well, I only recently discovered the Dead Sea itself is a huge natural resource of potassium (potassium chloride).  It is still to this day being industrially exploited ( and is the  world's fourth largest producer and supplier of potash products.

Archeology & History / Sodom and Gomorrah
« on: October 06, 2015, 11:02:44 AM »
I want to share this excellent BBC documentary on Sodom and Gomorrah.  These cities of the plains are also mentioned in Quran in the story of Lot.  The documentary researches the hypothesis whether this apocalyptic could have actually taken place at the borders of the Dead Sea while using modern scientific tools and they come to an astonishing conclusion which will require much more future research to be done:

The great secret of Islam
The hidden history of Islam revealed by historical research

The Great Secret of Islam is freely available in French (read and download) from the site  The reader will also find a synthesis in two parts as free download (synthesis in 8 pages, main sources and bibliography 10 pages). 
The Great Secret of Islam
Written by Olaf, is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

Strange thing this uncomfortable feeling towards Islam that is gradually rising among non-Muslims.  With the press repeating this message  (and even more so on the Internet), with almost three quarters of the French acknowledging in a recent survey [1], that there is something disturbing in Islam. Why such terrible fratricidal struggles between Muslims that never end?  Why this doctrinal intolerance of Islam towards other religions?  Why this desire to dominate everything? Why these problems of integration in the modern world, this while they are by definition incompatible?  Why these attacks on freedom and human dignity?  Why is there so little reaction of the vast majority of Muslims themselves in face of  all this? And in particular, why so little reaction to the violence that continues to occur since this religion has become established about 1400 years ago and the great epic of Muhammad, His Prophet? But above all, why is it so difficult or even entirely forbidden to Muslims to address these issues, ask these questions and to engage in critical interpretations?  So what is there to hide in Islam?

The observer can certainly try to characterize some flaws of Islam as a religion and as a political system, which it is both.  Already noted in its normative and social dimension, as the code and law, it struggles to build the ideal society that it aspires to establish in the entire world - this failure was cruelly manifested in the Islamist regimes based on the law of Allah. We can then try to explain and understand by these faults in the light of some contradictions intrinsic to the doctrine, the Muslim dogma by showing that they can believe in paradoxical injunctions of revealed truths little fit to human nature or even common sense. But beyond that, the key to understanding Islam also falls within the scientific work, historical research work on its actual origins. For it is in establishing the truth about its origins, without ideological or religious bias, that we can understand what it really is, and therefore the reason for its flaws, its failures, and also of its qualities and success.  It is a very long work started, but continued in relative indifference, ignored or fought by Muslims, understandably, but also by the media, journalists, scientists, historians, teachers, legal authorities and even by some non-Muslim religious authorities . And for good reason!  They believe almost without question what Islam says about itself - even about its own origins and its own history.  They accept it as historical truth, they print it in textbooks, they teach it to children, and in doing so they legitimize it.

Thus the history of Islam and its revelation are known to most.  A story that is even more interesting since it already disclosed against itself, in its logic and its apparent resorts, a remainder of the historical truth about its origins and its taking shape as a religion and as a political system. This truth is not spoken upon. The true story is hidden, encrypted, secret, forbidden, taboo. Also, in an attempt to retrace the course of true history, one must, a priori, become familiar with this story which Islam tells about itself.  It will allow us to see and understand later what this great secret is, which Islam is trying to conceal so well, this secret that is gradually unveiled by historical research, which we will see in the last part found in traces of Muslim texts themselves.

[1] Ipsos-Le Monde survey in January 2013: "74% of those asked by Ipsos believe that Islam is an "intolerant" religion incompatible with the values of French society

- To be continued -

Archeology & History / Chronology of the Judeo-Nazarene origins of Islam
« on: September 04, 2015, 01:02:43 PM »
End of the 5th centuryCoreshites (Quraysh) mentioned on tombstones in Iraq
6th centuryThe Coreshites become peaceful caravan traders, based at Latakia, a port associated with the silk route. (see map below)
+- 585Beginning of their indoctrination by Judeo-Nazarenes " to "their cause" (among which a certain Waraqa)
614Persian Invasion implicating Arabs
621Beginning of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius' reconquest
622Exodus to the desert (from Syria to Medina) - Hegira
627The Persians are defeated, but the Byzantines are exhausted
end of 629First expedition from Medina to Jerusalem: defeat at Mu'ta
632 or 634Death of Muhammad or second expedition to Palestine (occupation of the land) before his death; 634 Battle of Yarmouk and gathering of the Arabs of Syria.  Occupation of Damascus (635)
End 637 - 638Conquest of Jerusalem and construction of the "Cube"
640-641Crisis because of the Judeo-Nazarene leadership: turning of the Arabs against their Nazarene superiors.  Progressive change of their judaic prerogatives to Arab ones.
644Assassination of Umar.  Drafts of a compilation of a Book before the justification of power and prerogatives for Arabs.
654Assassination of Uthman.  Change of the first Book and the exercise of power.
660Mu'?wiyah (660-680), 1st Caliph of Damascus.
+- 670creation of Mecca as an Arab town "of Abraham"; 670 & 673 & 678 - sieges of Constantinople
683-685New intra-muslim conflict: Muhammad is rescued from oblivion as a figure of opposition to the Caliph of Damascus
692'Abd Al-Malik restores this figure of war chief to make him the prophet of the Book.
696First "arab" money (coins) ; Muhammad rasuks Uah ; start of the fabrication of the hadiths
after 700new destructions and changes to the Quran by Hajjaj ; he says "the prophet messenger  is inferior to the caliph". Namegiving of "Islam"
717New siege of Constantinople
743Muhammad is said to have received the Qur'an during sleep (John of Damascus ) - not even by the dictation of an angel
VIII-IX century" Muhammadisation " of Mecca, making the " Biography of the Prophet " and the development of the current Quran and stories of the "revelation" ( night journey to Jerusalem , dictated by the Angel Gabriel , etc.)

Among the finds in Qumran was this text identified as (4Q535, Manuscript B) also referred to as the Testament of Amram.  It is a pretty remarkable text in Aramaic, describing from Amram's point of view.  The manuscript is dated to the 2nd century BC and describes a vision.  Translation:

I saw Watchers in my vision, the dream-vision. Two men were fighting over me...holding a great contest over me. I asked them, 'Who are you, that you are thus empowered over me?' They answered, 'We have been empowered and rule over all mankind.' They said to me, 'Which of us do you choose to rule you?' I raised my eyes and looked. One of them was terrifying in his appearance, like a serpent, his cloak, many-colored yet very dark....And I looked again, and in his appearance, his visage like a viper....I replied to him, 'This Watcher, who is he?' He answered, 'This Watcher...his three names are Belial and Prince of Darkness and King of Evil.' I said (to the other Watcher), 'My lord, what dominion (have you?)' He answered, 'You saw (the viper), and he is empowered over all Darkness, while I (am empowered over all Light.)...My three names are Michael, Prince of Light and King of Righteousness

The watchers (grigori) referred to in this text are a reference to the second book of Enoch:

Chapter 29, referring to the second day of creation, before the creation of human beings, says that "one from out the order of angels" or, according to other versions of 2 Enoch, "one of the order of archangels" or "one of the ranks of the archangels" "conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to [the Lord's] power. And [the Lord] threw him out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless." Although in this chapter the name "Satanail" is mentioned only in a heading added in one manuscript, this chapter too is often understood to refer to Satanail and his angels, the Grigori.

The Quran speaks of Amram:

God did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Amram above all people,-

?Qur'an, sura 3 (The House of Imran), ayah 33

Traditonalists explain Amram to be the father of Moses and Aaron, or as the father of Mary, mother of Jesus.  What is striking about the dead scroll text imho is the dualistic view: light vs darkness.  But this could be caused by the interpolation made in the translation: (am empowered over all Light) is an interpolation by the translator.

In Quran the visual map of the concept of Michael is revealing:

I think the visual map is incorrect.  The branch of Angels should include Iblis (Belial).  The oldest source we have about Amram seems to suggest so as it mentions Iblis (belial) next to Michael, both being Angels.  Belial/Iblis is referred to as Watcher to denote he is a Fallen Angel (as per Enoch 2).

The Quranic identification of Amram seems still ambiguous.  All we know is the Qumran is clearly referring to Amram, father of Moses and Aaron.  I can't possibly refer to father of Mary because in the Judaic texts he is referred to as Joachim not as Amram.

This makes Amram a patriarch in the Abrahamic faith that is often overlooked.


Hadith Discussions / Do you reject hadith and to which degree?
« on: August 26, 2015, 03:50:34 AM »
I'm interested to know which hadith users on this forum reject:

I share with most I think that I reject the hadith that tell us how to pray, how to do zakaat etc.

But I also reject the hadith that tell us about Islams origins (Hejaz, Mecca etc)

I reject the hadith that introduced the current hijra-calendar or uses the hijra calendar to date events mentioned in Quran.

I reject the hadith the current Uthman codex of Quran is authorized by God and is the version of Quran that was known to Muhammad.

I reject the hadith the Quran we know today is still original and has never been changed.

I reject the hadith the Quran was revealed first to Arabs.

I reject the hadith concerning the change of qibla.

I reject the hadith Quran does not contain any foreign words (aramaic, akkadian, hebrew, persian).

Current studies seem to point out the Uthmanic Quran is missing many verses even entire pages...  Let's hope research like that will reveal some more interesting sura that have been surpressed by the early rulers of Islam.  See:


Questions/Comments on the Quran / The Word ?MUSLIM?: A Christian Term?
« on: August 21, 2015, 02:21:56 PM »
    We have often wondered how the term Muslim, which means subjected, could possibly come from a root such as SALAM (Hebrew: Shalom), which means peace.
   The answer lies in a tradition in which the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic plays a central role.

The fact that the Gospel of Saint Matthew proved a major reference for the Koranic text to draw from has too often eluded the attention of those who took interest in it. This being said, a few scholars have had the right hunch from the simple fact that this Gospel ? in Aramaic ? provided its material to that of the ?Nazarenes? (as reported in several accounts from Antiquity), also known as the injil (literally, the gospel, in the singular form), which the Koranic text refers back to [1].

The question raised here regards the designation ?Muslim? [root slm, like in the word salam + prefix mu-]. Since the beginning of Islam, it has literally meant ?he who is submitted? just like the word islam means ?submission? ? certainly not ? peace ? as we hear claimed here and there in deceiving articles directed to a misguided European readership. Let us recall that Muslims did not refer to themselves as ?Muslims? before the end of the 7th century, early 8th century. Prior to that time, they referred to themselves as Mu-hajirun, literally: ?Those who made the Hijra, or Hegira (i.e. the travel to Medina).?

The difficulty [2] raised by a number of scholars concerns the origin of such a signification as ?submission.?  No equivalent form of this root with this signification is to be found in Hebrew. Moreover, it is in itself surprising: how could the meaning of salam (basic form) ? in Hebrew: ?alom, peace, wholeness, well-being ? slide to islam (4th Arabic form), meaning to submit (to slavishly yield to the power of) to God? Considering the matter from a grammatically logic point of view, the expected meaning can hardly fail to semantically agree with the following: preserving in good shape, as an intact whole.

The case for a bookish explanation was made following with the view of several scholars, most notably Patricia CRONE, Michael COOK, and Kurt HRUBY. It relied upon two earlier (Aramaic) texts in which the root slm is found to be used with the following meaning: to commit or hand [oneself] over [to God], which is to say, to submit [oneself] [3]. Fair enough. But, what living connection can there be made between these two texts and the use of this meaning in the Koran? The Arabs did not know how to read (except for monks and nuns) and their culture was essentially oral, untouched by the methods and ways of literate milieus.

It is therefore in the direction of a popular use that it seems pertinent to turn. In other words, necessarily to the communal and colloquial milieu in which the root slm was actually used to take on the unexpected meaning of to submit to God ? with the result that such a meaning be so understood when the propaganda accounted for in the primitive Koranic folios began. Unmistakably, if one goes on to assume that such a milieu was that of the Meccan community, it becomes increasingly difficult to answer the question, given the fact that Koranic Arabic was not the language they spoke.

It is through Aramaic (the cultural setting of which places us over a thousand kilometers away from Mecca), wherein all the forms of the root slm turn out to match up with occurrences in the Koran, that the question finds its answer. For instance, the 3rd form, also known in Hebrew and expressing the idea of being whole or perfect (see in sura 2:71: to be without blemish in reference to the cow, which gives its title to the sura). There remains the 4th form.
The Aramaic Gospel of Matthew (of which Syriacs and Chaldeans possess an accurate text originating from the Aramaic Peshitta written in the original language of the New Testament) is more enlightening than a grammar. The root slm appears under a variety of forms therein (58 times in total), taking on multiple meanings, beginning with the most evident of all, peace:

                  ?And when you enter into a house, greet the household. And if the household is worthy, let your peace (?lama) come upon it.
                    But if the household is not worthy, let your peace return to you.? (Mt 10:12-13)

The notion of perfection or completion follows from it, as in:

                  ?Again you have heard that it was said to those before you: ?You shall not swear falsely, but you shall bring to completion (t?alem) your oaths to the Lord.?? (Mt 5:33)
                    ?[parall.]? And so it was, when Jesus had completed (?alem) these sayings, that the crowds were astonished at His teaching [4] (Mt 7:28) ?[parall.]?
                   Jesus answered and said to them: Elijah is coming first to bring to completion all things.? (Mt 17:11)

Or again that of transmitted perfection:

                   ?Why do your disciples transgress the tradition (ma?lmanouta?) of the elders and do not wash their hands when they eat bread?? (Mt 15:2)

Next, a semantic variation appears with the sense of delivering. What is perfect, completed, is so made to be transmitted (this meaning of handing down or passing over to, is unknown in Hebrew [5]):

  ?And it came to pass that when Jesus had completed (me?tlem or delivered in the sense of handed down) all these sayings, He said to His disciples:
  ?You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up to be crucified.? (Mt 26:1-2) [?]
  And he [Judas] said to them: ?What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?? And they promised him thirty (pieces) of silver.
  And from that time, he sought opportunity to deliver Him. (Mt 26:15-16) [?]
 Judas the ? deliverer ? (ma?lmana?) answered and said: ?Rabbi, is it I? Jesus said to him: ?You have said so.? (Mt 26:25)
 ?Then they will deliver (= submit) you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for my Name?s sake.
  And then many will be offended, and they will hate one another, and will deliver each other up.? (Mt 24:9-10)

We thus end up with the equivalent of the 4th Arabic form against which emerges the religious connotation of to commit or hand oneself over (or again to submit) to God, which Jesus uses in reference to Himself:

                  ?Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is handing Himself over to the chief priest and to the scribes.
                   And they will condemn Him to death, and deliver (hand over) Him up to the Gentiles.? (Mt 20:18-19a)

This form has systematically been rendered in Greek by use of the verb paradidomi. The same connotation of to commit or hand oneself over to, is found occurring in that section of the First Epistle of Peter which precisely refers to the Passion of Jesus: 

                  ?He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth; reviled, He did not revile in return;
                    when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself (entrusted or again handed Himself over) to the righteous Judge.? (1P 2:22-23)

It must be emphasized, against the usual meaning associated with the term submission [6], that to commit oneself to God does not stand for bringing oneself down before God (= subordinating oneself to an All-Powerful Tyrant). This negative meaning clearly is a distortion Judeo-Nazarenes first introduced, and which the Koran inherited.

In a way, the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic is the living semantic source of the expression ? submitted to God, ? at least before it took on the connotation of subservient abasement of man before his Creator. By the time the Judeo-Nazarenes began to indoctrinate them, it still resounded with the noble sense of ? he who trusts in God, ? ? who commits himself to Him ? to the ears of Arabic Christians. It is the concealment and distortion of the real history of the origins of Islam which have created a lot of confusion, in particular regarding the origin of the meaning of the word muslim ? not only confusion, but also a good deal of absurdity. Consider, for example, the passage we find in a verse of the Koran (5:116), and which is read in such a way as to place Mary in the Trinity, while it is well-known that what is behind points to a common way, among Aramaic people to this day, of referring to the Holy Spirit as ? Mother of Jesus. ? Once again, we see that the Koran can only be properly understood in an Aramaic cultural milieu, as Christof Luxenberg has shown, following in the footsteps of other conclusive research. Scholars knowledgeable in Syriac or Aramaic suspect it and see it for themselves as soon as they start reading the Koran in Arabic. However, the subject is still very taboo. 

[1] The Koranic text abundantly and implicitly refers to the Gospel of Matthew (and to no other!), see Le Messie et son proph?te, in particular in tome II ? The Index des auteurs et ouvrages antiques ou patristiques (page 549) gives some sense as to the number and frequency of the references. A systematic study of the whole Koranic text would probably double the number.
[2] See tome II, p. 102 to 104.
[3] Respectively in Memar Marqah, a Samaritan text, and the Acts of Saint Thomas, produced in the (Chaldean) Church of the Eastern. We read in the latter that some young people ?were convinced by Our Lord and put their faith in him [= they submitted themselves to him, root slm],? see p. 103.
[4] See Mgr. Alichoran, L??vangile en aram?en. Traduction de la Peshitta et commentaire (Abbaye de Bellefontaine: COLL. Spiritualit? Orientale n? 80, 2002) p. 130.197.
[5] That is one of the key objections against the idea of a Hebrew original of the Gospels rather than Aramaic. Here J.-M. van Cangh and A. Toumpsin, who both posit the hypothesis of an original Hebrew version of the Gospels to justify their alleged retroversion of Marc, are obliged to assume an Aramaic Semitism that would have passed in Hebrew. The whole enterprise amounts to too many suppositions ? see L??vangile de Marc. Un original h?breu ? (Bruxelles: Safran Editions, 2005).
[6] It is another verb that expresses the meaning of submission-subordination, and which corresponds to the Greek upotasso precisely found in 1P 2:13.18 and 3:1, and elsewhere as well.


Pages: [1] 2 ... 4