Hello,
I didn't watch the video itself because I don't like watching videos, so I'll be basing on your notes and transcripts below.
Basically, the guy has a couple of good points as well as flawed arguments.
Quote from: centi50 on October 31, 2024, 01:08:03 AMThe etymology and meaning of the name Muhammad
The name Muhammad has a Christian root, meaning "bless," but in Arabic, it has a different implication, with the name having four consonants (mimim) and originally no vowels in the 7th century
04:28.
What is a "Christian root" ?
I mean, we are mixing language discussion, here Arabic, with religious discussion, here "Christian".
Does not make sense to me.
If he meant "Syriac" instead of "Christian", then the root HMD in Syriac points to "to desire", check "xmd" here
https://cal.huc.edu/ (the CAL).
So MHMD in Syriac would mean something like "the one that is desired".
Nothing related to blessing.
On the other hand, oldest Syriac writings in the 7th CE testifying the raise of the Arabs mention "MHMT", not "MHMD", and the CAL does not give something meaningful for "xmT".
It can also be shown (an article of Ian David Morris that was online at a time but is not anymore, unfortunately) that the Syriac accent would likely pronounce the Arabic MHMD as MHMT, with an emphatic T.
A different mechanism, also mentionned by Ian D. Morris, would also lead Persians to pronounce MHMT instead of MHMD, and in the 7th CE Persian-Arab coins, it is written MHMT in Persian.
QuoteThe earliest manuscripts of the Quran are only consonantal texts, with 16 letters and no dots, which were added later to change the meaning of words
06:50.
Baseless assertion.
QuoteThe name Muhammad, when written without vowels, is left with the four consonants "mhmd," which would be pronounced as "Mamed" or "Memed" in English, rather than the commonly used "Muhammad"
07:12.
English pronounciation is irrelevant in this discussion.
QuoteDiscussion on the historical basis of Islamic characters and Muhammad's identity
The question of Muhammad's identity and the historical basis of Islamic characters is a topic of discussion, with some arguing that these characters have no historical antecedence
06:02.
There are some historical theories that Muhammad never existed, but the consensus is that a character bearing this name did exist.
However, it is fairly obvious that his life was certainly different than the narrative in the Sirat.
Note: my personal theory is that Muhammad in the 7th CE, who was the first Arab ruler over Arabia, did certainly exist, but not only he wasn't the Messenger of Qur'an, but also Qur'an was written against him, or maybe agains Abu Bakr.
Only later, under Abd al-Malik, the figure of Muhammad and the anonymous one of the Qur'an messenger were merged and four verses added to Qur'an bearing the name Muhammad, at a time when Qur'an was not frozen yet.
This is my personal theory, based on my reading of Qur'an crossed with old chronicles.
QuoteThe meaning and origins of "Mahmed" in different languages and its connection to the Messiah
The word "Mahmed" is mentioned 11 times in the Old Testament in Hebrew, with the same four letters used in Arabic, Syriac, and Aramaic, meaning "the praised one" or "the worthy of praise"
07:51.
There is no "Mahmed" in Old Testament, see
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2530.htm and
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_2531.htmAlso the meaning in Hebrew and Aramaic / Syriac (Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic) is to desire, not to praise as in Arabic.
QuoteThe word "Mahmed" is found in the Ugaritic language, dating back to 1400 BC, and is also mentioned in the Song of Solomon 5:16, referring to someone who is "altogether lovely"
08:18.
Ugaritic is too old and had disappeared since long to be meaningful in this discussion.
QuoteIn the 4th century, St. Ambrose referred to the "Mahmed" as the anointed one, the Messiah, who was yet to come, while Christians were waiting for the Messiah to return, and his name is Jesus Christ
08:45.
Reference would be welcome.
QuoteThe "Mahmed" was always associated with the Messiah, and by the 7th century, it was believed that the Mahmed would be the Messiah, who is Jesus Christ
09:21.
Reference would be welcome, otherwise it's baseless.
QuoteMuawiyah's Christian affiliation and the evidence from coins and inscriptions
Muawiyah, the first Caliph, issued a coin in 663 with his image, holding a cross and with a cross above his head, indicating that he was a Trinitarian Christian
09:33.
The inscription on the dam of Th, written in Greek, refers to Muawiyah as the leader of the Believers, with a cross in the upper left-hand corner, further indicating that he was a Christian
10:41.
Mu'awiya certainly wasn't Muslim in the today's meaning of "Muslim" and had a faith closer to Christianity than Islam. This is evidenced from the Maronite Chronicle.
But he wasn't Trinitarian. We have administrative papyrii written under his rule, some in Arabic and Greek, and never the Trinitarian credo is mentioned.
Also he is never mentioned in the acts of the Constantinople Council in 680, while he fought the Byzantines two years before.
If he were a Trinitarian Christian, surely he would have been mentioned there.
Also, Mu'awiya wasn't "Caliph", he was "Amir al-Muminin", Commender of the Faithfuls. The title Caliph came later with Abd al-Malik.
QuoteThere is no evidence of a person named Muhammad or Muhmed in the south, but there are many references to "Mmads" in coins and inscriptions, suggesting that the name "Muhammad" may not have existed at that time
10:12.
Again, historical consensus is that Muhammad did exist.
QuoteA coin from around 30 years after Muhammad's death features three crosses on the front and the letter M, which is worth 40, on the back, along with the letters "mimim" and "dog," which are believed to refer to "Mahmed Y Jesus Christ"
11:03.
Either incorrect or a misinterpretation of some coins. Evidence welcome.
QuoteThe coin was minted during the rule of Muawiya, a Christian who was in power from 660 to 680, and the inscriptions on the coin reflect his anti-trinitarian Christian beliefs
11:28.
So, according to the video, Mu'awiya was Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian ? Or maybe a typo in your notes ?
QuoteAbd al-Malik's anti-trinitarian beliefs and the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock
Abd al-Malik, who succeeded Muawiya, was also an anti-trinitarian Christian and built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which features inscriptions attacking the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity
12:03.
Abd al-Malik didn't directly succeed to Mu'awiya.
QuoteThe inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, which date back to the 7th century, include phrases such as "Say not three, for God is one and he has no son" and "God does not beget nor is he begotten," which are similar to verses in the Quran
12:28.
Yes.
QuoteThe inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock are believed to be an attack on Byzantine Christianity and trinitarianism, and the reference to "the praised one" is thought to refer to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad
12:54.
If Muhammad did exist, as most historians believe, this inscription refers to him, not Jesus.
QuoteThe pronunciation of "Muhammad" and its possible connection to Jesus Christ
In some Islamic prayers, the name "Muhammad" is pronounced in a way that is similar to the way it was pronounced in the 7th century, and some common Islamic names, such as Mahmud, are derived from the same structure as the name "Muhammad"
13:36.
Arabs in the beginning of the 8th CE, and likely before, did not pronounce the name MU-HAM-MAD, as Muslims do today.
At that time, it was pronounced Maamet.
How do we know that ?
From Arab-Greek papyrii, like this one
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/enlp11Here we can see that in Greek, the name was transliterated into MAAMET.
It is not because of Greek alphabet vs. Arabic alphabet, because Greeks today do not name him MAAMET but name him after something close to today's Muslim pronounciation Μωάμεθ
So really, the Arabs in the 7th CE and 8th CE said MAAMET, or maybe MA'AMET.
QuoteThe idea that the name "Muhammad" may actually refer to Jesus Christ, rather than the prophet of Islam, is seen as a possible explanation for the defensive and offensive nature of some Islamic apologetics, which often focus on criticizing Christianity
14:27.
I would say it's primarily because both religions compete for the souls of mankind, not because of some lost narratives.
QuoteThe nature of Islamic apologetics and its focus on criticizing Christianity
Many Muslims do not understand the foundations of their own religion and instead focus on attacking Christianity, which may be due to the fact that Islam is based on a series of lies twisted from the original scriptures
14:55.
There is some truth behind this.
QuoteThe creation of Islam can be seen as another lie of the enemy to pervert the truth of the word of God, and it should be considered a cult of Christianity rather than a world religion
15:48.
Purely apologetics.
QuoteThe creation of Islam as a cult of Christianity and John of Damascus's writings on the Ishmaelites
John of Damascus wrote a book called "The Christian Heresy" in which he discussed the heresy of the Ishmaelites, who were the Arabs that controlled the Umayyad Empire
16:07.
It's a misunderstanding of John of Damascus from the author of the video, but there is some truth behind this.
[/quote]
The Ishmaelites did not have a prophet or a revelation, unlike the Jews and Christians who had both, and they controlled a vast amount of land from Spain to India
16:56.
[/quote]
We don't know if the Arabs at that time claimed themselves to be "Ishmaelites".
It is only the Christians chroniclers who used this word and often in contempt.
Later on, Muslims claimed to descend from Ishmael, but it might also be an apologetic claim.
QuoteThe Umayyad Empire was in contention with the Byzantine Empire, which was a trinitarian Christian power, and the trinitarians were waiting for the Messiah to reappear
17:21.
Not only the trinitarians, but all sects.
QuoteThe Umayyad Empire's conflict with the Byzantine Empire and the introduction of the Shahada
The antitrinitarians, led by Abd al-Malik, built the Dome of the Rock in 691, which featured inscriptions without dots or vowels, and introduced the Shahada as an attack against the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity
17:57.
Well, as a matter of fact, Abd al-Malik surely cared little of the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire wasn't a threat to him at that time.
On the other hand, Abd al-Malik had to face a lot of revolts, that of Ibn Zubayr, that of the Kharijites, and so on.
So it's more likely for internal reasons that the Dome of the Rock was built.
QuoteThe Shahada was also introduced on coins by Abd al-Malik, and John of Damascus wrote "The Heresy of the Ishmaelites" in response to the growing threat of Islam
18:14.
The Heresy of the Ishmaelites in the book of John of Damascus is only a chapter among many ones dedicated to the heresies.
We focus on it because it's intriguing nature about early Islam but it certainly wasn't the core of the book.
QuoteMuhammad's identity and its connection to the concept of "mahmad"
Muhammad's identity is tied to the concept of the "mahmad," a prophetic figure expected by the people of Abraham, and this is why Muslims claim that Muhammad is the fulfillment of this expectation
18:59.
References about this "mahmad" outside would be welcome.
Otherwise it's baseless.
QuoteThe name "Muhammad" is in contradistinction to "mmed," with the latter referring to the anointed one, and the former referring to a prophet
19:09.
Unclear
QuoteThe concept of "jah" and its evolution
The concept of "jah" originally referred to a state of ignorance in one's own heart, but it was later reformed to refer to a people called "jahia"
19:29.
Unclear.
QuoteThe composition of the Quran and its borrowing from other sources
The Quran is composed of stories and writings borrowed from Jewish fables, apocryphal writings, lectionaries, homilies, and hymns to Jesus Christ, with the name "Jesus Christ" replaced by "Nabi" and "Ras"
19:55.
Based on an overall misunderstanding of Qur'an and greatly helped by the fact that Islam does not understand what Qur'an actually says.
QuoteThe development of Muhammad's biography and the later documentation of Islamic saints
The backstory of Muhammad's biography took 70 years to create, and it was first written down by Ibn Hisham in 833
20:22.
It is likely that Ibn Hisham, who based himself on his master Ibn Ishaq, did not create all the biography out of the box.
There were likely oral narratives circulating among religious scholars.
QuoteThe saints of Islam were not written down until 40 years after Muhammad's biography was established
20:32.
Same as above.
QuoteThe lack of early biographical sources for Muhammad and the origins of the Hadith
There is no biography of Muhammad from the 9th century, and the Hadith from Sahih Muslim, Ibn Majah, or Sahih Bukhari do not exist from that time period
20:40.
Well, it is unlikely that all hadiths were composed after 9th CE.
There surely have been a core of them that were already in use in the 7th CE.
There is some consensus about this fact among historians.
QuoteThe origins of these documents are now known, and they do not come from the 9th century, but this information will be discussed at a later
Without clear references, this is baseless.
Now some general remarks on my side.
There are indeed concerns regarding the name Muhammad.
First of all, there is the issue of its early pronunciation, Maamet, that doesn't fully match the written form.
And there is the issue of its meaning: from litteral Arabic, "the praiseworthy" or "whom is praised", this is completely meaningless if we accept to face the reality.
Even its cognate meanings in Syriac, like "the one who is desired" are also meaningless.
I have another hypothesis that better explains the early pronunciation, the earliest coins, and also bears a more meaningful signification.
Another remark is that the Christians, every time they see something that looks like a bit like a Messiah, they cry out "Jesus !", while Jews also are waiting for a Messiah, although not like Jesus.
It's remarkable that the pitch of the video is motivated by the desire to drag Muslims to Christianity, and especially evangelical Christianity, rather than by mere historical truth.
