5. During 200 years not
present: historic Muhammad: 5a. Fictional
caliphs Muawiya / Maavia and Abd al-Malik
"Among the
religious people, archeology has no
friends."
Volker Popp, Islam researcher and
numismatist.
|
5.1. Muawiya / Maavia was a Christian
ruler - Muslims invented that he was a "caliph"
[Fantasy fairy tale: Caliph Muawiya from 641 and
the spread of Islam in a few decades]
Muawiya is the first [[fantasy]] caliph of the famous
Omayad Dynasty. He began his government in 641, nine
years after the death of [[fantasy]] Muhammad, and
belonged to the generation of glorious Islamic
conquerors, who are said having occupied in the whole
Middle East within some decades forming an Islamic
Empire. This is the traditional Islamic [[fantasy]]
report.
[Muslim fairy tale: inscription of Muawiya in Taif]
In Taif, southeast of Mecca, there is an inscription
of Muawiya. In this inscription he calls himself as
"Amir al-Muminin". In the Islamic tradition this title
was used by Ali already, the Prophet's son-in-law and
Muawiya's predecessor. This title is traditionally
translated as the "Prince of the Believers". Of
cource, "Believers" count only as believers when they
are Muslims. [[Thus, the Muslim authorities always
claim that Muawiyas would be a "prince of Muslims"]].
[[Other inscriptions and coins make it clear that
Muawiya resp. Maavia is a "protector of the
protectors"]]:
[Archeology: Greek inscription on Maavia in Hamat
Gader (today IL) with the sign of the cross]
There is another inscription from Muawiya in the Baths
of Hamat Gader (Israel), in a Greek writing [p.79].
"In the days of the God's servant Maavia, the head of
the protectors, the baths were saved and renovated ...
in the sixth year of the indication, in the year 726
of founding the city, in the 42nd year after the
Arabs, for the healing of the sick, under the
supervision of [[Saint and probably gay]] John, the
magistrate of Gadara. "
[[God's servant is the
general phrase for pious ruler.
Ruler Muawiya / Maavia was
"head of the protector".
The baths are located in
Hamat Gader in today's Israel.
Gadara was a city east of the
Jordan south of the Sea of Galilee -
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadara_(Umm_Qais)
(31.8.2015)
The Magistrate of Gadara had
his seat in Damascus]].
The text begins with a sign of the cross. Religious
phrases for introduction were common, often replaced
by a symbol, in this case a cross.
[Archeology: There is NO Lord of the Muslims]
First this symbol of a cross is not traditional for
Muslims but it's more irritating. Second there is the
striking fact to historians that in the Greek version
this Mr. Amir al-Muminin, the "Prince of the
Believers," is a "head of the protectors" - and there
is no trace of a Muslim prince.
And "leader of the protector" is a special matter in
the ancient Orient. All powerful governors of this
time could lead their justification as a ruler back to
a function of being a "protector". Of course the
personality of a governor had to be that powerful to
guarantee safety for the subjects and their
possessions. But there was more with it: In connection
with this position granting protection there was a
holy place, too, which also had to be protected. The
protection of a sanctuary was the legitimation for
exercising power. This count for the whole Middle
East, not important if it was Byzantine, Persian or
Arab - without guarantee of protection no legitimate
rule [33].
[33] In our days the Saudi dynasty
presents itself also as the "protector and guardian
of holy places" meaning Mecca and Medina.
[Muslim dogma against archeology: pilgrimage and
pilgrimage profits - Damascus with the grave of
[fantasy] John the Baptist]
Sanctuaries were always spots for pilgrimage in
Arabia, and this was also an important economic factor
[p.80].
Muawiya had a holy site? It was his residence city of
Damascus with the grave of [fantasy] John the Baptist.
The attraction in those times was the head of the
Baptist being stored in the crypt of St. John's
Basilica as a precious relic. In those times of
Muawiya Damascus and Jerusalem were the most important
pilgrimage destinations, as we know from numerous
sources.
[Archeology: Muawiya with it's seat in Damascus]
Why Caliph Muawiya ruled in Damascus and not Mecca
which was the navel of the Islamic world? That may
have practical reasons. But why he does not protect
the sanctuaries in Mecca - the Kaaba - which would be
the function of protection for his prestige and which
would be the highest possible justification for a
Muslim caliph? Why he is in the town of the sanctuary
of [fantasy] John the Baptist?
[Archeology: coins of Muawiya in today's Iran]
From caliph Muawiya coins were found, from the town of
Darabgerd, from the Iranian province of Fars which was
also in his sphere of power. Scriptures on these coins
are following the Persian tradition. Caliph Muawiya
does not sign here in Arab, but he signs with his
Syriac-Aramaic original name Maavia, as, note this
well, also in the inscription of Gadara. His title in
[Persian writing of] Pahlavi is "Amir-i Wlwyshnyk'n",
which means "head of the protectors".
[Muslim dogma: Muawiya as "prince of Muslims" is a
lie - and more Islam research is blocked]
That's his official title in Persian, Greek and
Aramaic. The interpretation as "Prince of Muslims" is
nowhere proven and is wandering like a ghost unchecked
in the books.
"At this point already", according to researcher Mr.
Volker Popp, "it becomes clear how much the Islamic
use of this title blocks the access to the
specifically Arabic elements of the early history of
Islam."
Islam labels on purely Arab issues run through the
entire Islamic historiography, as we will often see.
[Archeology: The Kingdom of Muawiya / Maavia with
Aramaic, Persian and Greek in today's Syria, Iraq
and Iran]
Maavia obviously had no problem manifesting in
Aramaic, Persian and Greek. After all, he lived in a
Greco-Persian environment, he was a born Syrian so his
native language was Aramaic, but he will also have
spoken Greek and Persian as well. His empire included
the today's states of Syria, Iraq and Iran [p.81].
[Archeology: Muawiya / Maavia is mentioned as a
"servant of God" and "protector" - never as a
"caliph"]
In Islamic tradition, he is the first Omayaden caliph,
just a Muslim.
Maavia evidently called himself according to his
inscriptions on monuments and coins "servant of God"
and "protector", but never a caliph, as he is
presented today. And he had the sign of the cross on
several of his archaeological remains.
[Archeology: The date of the inscription of Hamat
Gader of 622 - the Hijra is not mentioned in the
inscription]
The date is given just three times in the inscription
of Hamat Gader [[the bath in today's IL]]:
1. there is the Byzantine tax year
2. there is the time after the foundation of the city
3. there is the time after the Arabs.
The dating is therefore clear because it's secured
three times. Special attention was provoked to the
researchers, however, the 42nd year of "Kata Araba",
"after the Arabs", which is mentioned by Maavia.
Year 1 of the Arabian era would be the year 622 of our
era.
As a reminder: With this year also begins the Islamic
era, the time after the Hijra, that is the flight of
the prophet 622 from Mecca to Medina. So, there is the
question: why Maavia does not Maavia refer to this
Islamic Hijrah date - which would be normal for a
Muslim caliph?
[Archeology: The victory of Heraclius against
Persia 622 - Syrian and Egyptian areas are left as
fiefs to Arab emirs]
The year 622 is a significant year in the history of
Arabia. It is the year in which the Byzantine emperor
Heraclius devastated the Persian army. In the
following dictated peace, Persia lost its western
provinces with the extent of Mesopotamia to Egypt. But
at the same time, Heraclius continued the complete
restructuring of the empire, which had already begun
in the "Thematic Conference". This meant that
Byzantium gave up positions in Syria and Egypt. These
territories were left to Arab emirs as tributary
lords.
[Archeology: Muawiya / Maavia was governor in
Damascus]
From Maavia we know that in the first half of his
reign he had a very close relationship with Byzantium,
he was a governor [p.82].
[Archeology: since 622 Byzantium used Arab emirs as
a protection against Persia]
Already in 614, the Persians occupied Jerusalem, in
618 they occupied Egypt. As governors, they had
installed Arab allies. But tese Arab vassals in the
West, in Syria, Egypt and in Palestine, not only
survived the Persian catastrophe of 622 without
damage, but they became practically from one day to
the next warlords on their own account. Due to the
Persian invasions, Byzantium had retreated to about
the northern border of modern-day Syria from an area
that was never really mastered. The "Limes Arabicus",
the old southern Roman border, had already been given
up in the 5th century. Even after the big but actually
surprising victory against the Persians [622], and
considering the permanent strain on the northern
border, Byzantium was forced to limit itself to the
basic interests. This Byzantine retreat also freed the
Arabs from the second of the millstones between which
they had been. All they had to do was filling the
vacuum of power which was left by the Persian collapse
and the Byzantine retreat. They did so, and it began a
great Arab era, which should end only by the Mongols
in the 13th century.
["Christian" theology condemns the Persians as
"Antichrist" - and Byzantium is the savior
"Katechon"]
That is the political side, but it is incomplete
without the theological component: the Persians had
taken away from the Christian byzantine Empire
Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and even Cilicia
eliminating the cross of [[fantasy]] Jesus from
Jerusalem. No doubt, Persia was [[interpreted now by
the Christian propaganda as]] the Antichrist, and when
there would be a total Persian triumph this would
provoke the end of the world - this was the mentality
and logic of those times [[by Christian fantasy
propaganda]]. But according to the prophecies there
should be also the coming of "Katechon" as last
chance, he is presented as the "blocker of the
antichrist". After the glorious victory of 622 this
blocker only could be Byzantium.
[Archeology: 622 is the beginning of the rescue of
Byzantium against Persia and is the beginning of the
Arab expansion with fief of Byzantium]
This victory had turned everything upside down: the
downfall was averted, the coming of the biblical Gog
and Magog (in the Quran Ya'dschudsch and Ma'dschudsch)
was hindered, which would have been the last plague of
humanity, which had been locked away up ot the last
end of times by the "Dhul I-Qarnain", (Alexander the
Great of the Quran, sura 18: 83-93). Moreover, Christ
would return and create justice. The year of 622
opened the beginning of a new era in the time of the
deepest depression, even for the Christian-Arab
allies, without whom this victory would not have been
possible. This is the "Year of the Arabs" in the
inscription of Hamat Gader [p.83].
[Archeology: Muslim inventors invent 622 as "Hijra"
of an invented prophet]
Also on coins of that time, we can detect this date.
For centuries, this date was used as the year of the
Arabs as an element of the solar calendar, before
being reinterpreted as the legendary Hijra of a
Prophet Muhammad. However, the resulting Islamic
calendar is a lunar calendar: the subsequent
conversion from the sun to the moon led to a crazy
chaos of historical dates which is present in the
Islamic tradition until today. Practically none of the
dates of the first centuries of the Hijrah is
therefore correct.
[Archeology: Muawiya / Maavia was not a Muslim -
and Muhammad is NOWHERE mentioned]
Maavia is an Islamic caliph in Islamic tradition. But
nothing we know about him has an Islamic connection.
He paid his dues to the emperor in Byzantium, his
interest in the renovation of Roman baths shows him as
a member of Syrian-Byzantine Mediterranean culture, he
was obviously not a Bedouin from the Arabian desert.
He knew nothing about an Islamic prophet named
Muhammad, who had lived a few decades before him in
his empire and in whose alleged mission he was
installing an Islamic empire. He would have reported
us about it on his inscriptions or coins.
[Archeology: titles and symbols of Muawiya / Maavia
are Christian-Jewish symbols - "Caliph" does not
occur - Muawiya / Maavia was a "Christian" ruler]
Maavia mentiones his titles to us: But not one single
time the Islamic titles of "caliph" is mentioned with
it. He tells us a year, but this numer does not
correspond to the times of Hijra. He tells us about
his sanctuary, but this is not the Kaaba in Mecca, but
it's the Basilica in Damascus where the head of John
the Baptist is stored and saved as a relic. The coins
of his time have Christian-Jewish symbols such as the
cross, the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), the head reliquary
of [[Saint and probably gay and impotent]] John the
Baptist, and there mentioned the Rock of Jacob or the
word of "Zion". Thus there is the question how to
connect all these Christian Jewish symbols with an
Islamic caliph in a reasonable way, and this is the
secret of traditional interpreters.
Archeology has no doubt: the Aramaean Maavia was a
Christian ruler, not a caliph nor an "Omayade".
Besides, we do not know his real name, Maavia is just
his name as a ruler.
5.2. Abd al-Malik was a Christian ruler -
Muslims invented that he was "Caliph"
[Abd al-Malik: coins with Christian symbols]
Around the year 60 of the Arab calendar, thus in 682
AD, Abd al-Malik was beginning his reign. He was an
Arab Emir from Marw [p. 84] in present-day
Turkmenistan, then Persian province, residing first at
his ancestral site. As a result of the collapse of the
Sassanid dynasty, the Marwanids, the emirs from Marw,
came to power in the East. By this replacement the
Zoroastrianism also fell behind. The dominant
religions [34] were now Syrian and Nestorian
Christianity. Consequently, the coins from those times
of Abd al-Malik carry Christian symbols [35]. But, of
course, following the traditional doctrine also Abd
al-Malik a caliph.
[34] In the east of the Persian Empire,
there were also Buddhist influences, which date back
to the Buddha statues of Bamiyan, Afghanistan, which
were blown up by the Taliban in 2001.
[35] According to the numismatist Volker Popp, the
dominance of Christian symbols and references on the
coins of the 7th and 8th centuriy can only astonish
people who describe Arab history with the literary
secondary sources of the 9th century.
[Archeology: Coins with "muhamad" - Syro-Aramaic:
"the praised"]
On Malik's coins can be found frequently the word
"muhamad". Traditional doctrine says that this word
would refer to a prophet "Muhamad". But the facts show
us other connections.
As Christoph Luxenberg, specialist in ancient oriental
languages, convincingly explains, "muhamad" cannot be
read as a proper name in those times. In the Arab
language as also in Syro-Aramaic (the main language in
this region of these times) it's a gerund with the
meaning "the praised". "Muhammad" was a title and not
a name. The same counts for the word "abd Allah" which
can be often found, which means "servant of God" in
the sense of an attribute, and cannot be read as a
name in this context. With Arab Christs the term of
"God" is translated in those times as today with the
word of "Allah" and has nothing to do with a specific
Islamic Allah.
The word "muhammad" can be proved often. It originated
in Persia and spread from there to the Arab world.
5.3. Similarities between Muawiya / Maavia
and Abd al-Malik
[Archeology: both are "heads of the protectors"]
As an interim conclusion we can state what we have
collected about the "Islamic caliphs" Maavia and Abd
al-Malik with hard facts: Both had the title of "head
of the protectors" as their most important title. They
saw themselves just in a right Byzantine tradition as
"servus dei", "abd Allah" in Arabic, as "servant of
God".
[Archeology: Both have coins with Christian
symbols]
Their coins and inscriptions were marked with symbols
of the cross and other Christian symbols [p.85].
[Archeology: both counted for the year 622]
And they were counting on the "Year of the Arabs,"
which followed the solar year and began in the year of
622, the year of Arab independence.
