5.4. Reign of Abd al-Malik: Who was "the
praised" / "the praised one" (the word "muhamad")?
The inscription in the Dome of the Rock
[[During]] Abd al-Malik worshiped [[the population]] a
"muhamad," [[in Syro-Aramaic]] a "praised." [S.86]
[The indication in the Dome of the Rock about the
"who has to be praised" ("muhamad") - the
translation by linguist Luxenberg]
But who was the "muhamad" to be praised? The answer
can be found, among other things, in a building in
which no one would suspect: in the Dome of the Rock in
Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina the third holiest place of
Muslims, built according to their tradition over the
place, from which Muhammad is said having risen to the
sky (ascended to heaven) with a gray horse called
Buraq which had wings and a human face.
[Supplement: Of course this "gray horse"
is a spaceship, the wings are only a symbol for the
capacity to fly, and the human head is the symbol
that there was a voice from this spaceship].
Abd al-Malik completed the Dome of the Rock according
to his inscription in the year 72 of the Arabs, that
is, in the year of 694 of our era. Construction and
layout correspond to a Byzantine-Syrian church,
equipped with Roman columns and a dome, the typical
element of Roman-Byzantine big buildings. The
innermost remains are largely conserved in original,
especially the writing, which extends twice around the
octagon on a length of 240 meters.
The Islamic doctrin states that in this inscription
would be given the Islamic basic formulas, although
reading just this text - without indoctrination -
should come doubts. But it seems that for a long time,
nobody was reading this text without indoctrination.
The linguist Mr. Christoph Luxenberg triggered a
tsunami in Islamic research when he read the
inscriptions in the language of those times [[in
Syro-Aramaic]], and when he thus found out the
meanings of words of those times. In the language of
the founder, including Syro-Aramaic, he came to a
reading that differs in central points from the
traditional translation.
[The
inscription of Abd al-Malik in the Dome of
the Rock (694 AD) according to the Muslim
"traditional fairy tale doctrine"]
Here is the traditional doctrine
translation:
"In the name of the gracious and merciful
God. There is no god but God alone, he has
no partner, he owns the rule and he deserves
the praise. He brings back to life and lets
die. He has power over all things.
Muhammad, son of Abd Allah, is his
Messenger. God and his angels are giving
blessings over the prophet. You, the
believers, are asking for blessings for
[p.86] him and you greet him dignified.
Blessing and peace of God be upon him and
God have mercy on him.
You, the people of the book, do not
exaggerate in your faith and speak of God
only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, Son of
Mary, is only the Messenger of God and of
his Word, which he laid in Mary, and a
Spirit of him.
So [[you, the people of the book, have to]]
believe in God and His Messenger and do not
say Three. Stop it, it's better for you. God
is only one God, His supernatural Majesty
does not need a son. He owns all in heaven
and on Earth, and God is enough as a
protector.
The Messiah is not too proud to be a servant
of God, nor are the close-by angels. And he
who is too hilarious and proud, he will take
him gatherin him in his group.
God, bless your Messenger and servant Jesus,
the son of Mary. Peace be upon him on the
day of his birth, his death and his
resurrection. This is Jesus, son of Mary,
that is the truth that you doubt. It is not
up to the greatness of God to create a son,
praise him! When he decides to do something,
so he only speaks to him: Let it be! And it
is.
God is my Lord and your Lord. So, serve him,
that's the right way.
God has testified that there is no god but
him. And the angels and wise men can testify
that. He provides justice, he is the only
powerful and wise God.
Look, the religion of Allah is Islam. And
those who received the Scripture developped
different traditions by disobedience after
the knowledge came to them. And who denies
the signs of God, God is acting fast with a
payoff."
|
[Archeology: Facts about the inscription in the
Dome of the Rock]
The inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock are older
than any of the Quran editions known to us. The
writing is an early form of the Arabic script and
therefore has only a minimal set of reading aids. The
reading of even the traditional version arouses
amazement. The speech is essentially about Mary, Jesus
and the one God. If there were not, for once, the word
"Muhammad" and "Islam" - one would not even remotely
think [S.87] of the idea of having an Islamic creed
here.
[Linguist Luxenberg with Syro-Aramaic in the Dome
of the Rock]
Now Mr. Christoph Luxenberg comes on the scene. He
does nothing more than translating the words finding
the meaning that they had in those times of the
construction [[of the dome]]. Again, as we have
already seen in some Quran passages, his translation
suddenly gives a coherent sense.
The core passages in comparison:
Traditional translation: "In the name of the gracious
and merciful God ..."
Scientific translation - here Luxenberg makes it only
more precise: "In the name of the loving and beloved
God"
But then comes the first key point.
Traditional translation: "Muhammad, son of Abd Allah,
is his Messenger ..."
Scientific translation: "Blessed be the servant of God
and his Messenger ..."
[Luxenberg: "muhamad" = Syro-Aramaic = gerundiv
verb form = ruler title - nobody is called "Mohamed"
at this time]
Luxenberg is proving in details [36]
[36] Christoph Luxenberg: New
interpretation of the Arabic inscription in the Dome
of the Rock at Jerusalem (original German:
Neudeutung der arabischen Inschrift im Felsendom zu
Jerusalem); In: The dark beginnings (original
German: Die dunklen Anfänge); Berlin 2005
that "muhamad" is a gerund and not a first personal
name, that would be a grammatical impossibility. The
semantic impossibility of the name Muhammad is also
supported by historians of other disciplines, stating
clearlty that this proper name cannot be found
anywhere in those times. Although numerous coin are
proving the title, but not the name of "Muhammad". The
same counts for "abd Allah", the "servant of God".
This was an attribute, but not a name. And there are
also numerous references to [[fantasy]] Jesus with
this attribute dating back to early Christianity.
[Jesus in the Quran also uses the title "abd
Allah"]
A very clear assignment is made in the sura 19:30, in
which the [[fantasy]] baby Jesus in the cradle says
about himself: "I am the servant of God ["abd Allah"],
he has given me the scriptures and made me a prophet."
No one will suppose that [[fantasy]] Jesus said of
himself that his name was Abh Allah [p.88].
"Muhamad abdallah" was at the time of putting down
this text nor the [[Fantasy]] "Muhamad, son of the abd
Allah" - that came much later - but [[he was]] "the
praising servant of God".
[Who is the "who should be praised"?]
But who is the "servant of God who shoud be praised"?
The explanation is immediately given in the
inscription: It is [[fantasy]] "Isda bin Maryam",
[[fantasy]]Jesus, the [[fantasy]] son of [[fantasy]]
Mary.
"The Messiah called Jesus, Son of Mary, is the
Messenger of God."
According to Luxenberg, the traditional translation
(namely: "The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was only an
Messenger of God") is not only an absolute misreading,
it is a linguistically unjustifiable manipulation. A
wrong sentence!
Of particular interest is the continuation of the
sentence in the inscription:
"So believe in God and His messengers and do not say
Three ... because God is the only one ... How should
he have a child, since everything belongs to him in
heaven and on earth."
Here, the author Malik is turning against the Trinity
("Three"), and because of this also Jesus is only
considered as a messenger, but not as a son of God.
[The word of "Din" comes from Persian "Den" = "the
true, the right" and not "religion"]
The second key passage of the inscription is the
following sentence word by word:
"in (na) d-din (a) llah (i) l-islam ..."
In the traditional Islamic translation, the sentence
reads:
"See here, the religion of Allah is Islam ..."
"Din" is interpreted as "religion" and "Islam" as the
name of this religion.
Now Luxenberg and many others say that this
translation is considered a typical misinterpretaiton
of the latter centuries. The Arabic "din" derives
formally and meaningfully from the Persian "den". And
this "din" means in the understanding of those times
the "true, the right", in contrast to the Latin
"religio", the religion. While the "religio" describes
a formal relationship with God, "din" is the spirit of
faith which makes it possible to recognize the right,
even the right [p.89] religion. Therefore this "Din"
is not religion itself, but religion is a function of
the "din".
[The word "Islam" means "conformity" - there is no
religion of "Islam" at that time]
"Islam" did not exist in Malik's time as the name of a
religion as we know it today. Nowhere in contemporary
accounts, of whatever origin, can be found "islam"
identifiable as a denomination of religion. In Malik's
time, "Islam" meant the "conformity": that is, the
conformity of scriptures, and with these the Old
Testament and the Gospels are meant. In order to work
out the conformity with the Holy Scriptures, that is,
"to recognize the right and don't permit to be
confused," the "din" is needed. The "religio" is
forming only as a consequence of this.
When the singular scriptures were composed to an Arab
gospel forming an independent Quran provoking an own
religion, only then one can speak of "islam" when it
was Islam. But in the times of Malik this is not the
case yet.
In the message of Malik the current understanding of
"religion" and "Islam" is not included, so the
sentence is translated correctly according to the
understanding of that time like this:
"As the right is rated with God the conformity with
the Scripture ..."
And further:
"... because those who were given the Scriptures have
first come into contradictions with the revealed
knowledge - by discussing..."
This expresses the rejection of the numerous
interpretations and constructions on the councils,
which had watered down the original message - whereby
[[on these councils]] the doctrine of the imperial
church was always dominating.
[The word "Three" - does God need a son to reach
people? - Abd al-Malik means: No]
"So don't three" - this is the big topic of the time
[37]:
[37] The basic question was: Is
[[fantasy]] Jesus a human, a god, or both?
[[Supplement: The curriculum vitae of
the Fantasy Jesus corresponds to that of the
Horus of Egypt
The curriculum vitae of the Fantasy Jesus is
almost exactly the same like the one of Horus of
Egypt. Any Jewish patriarchal group (mostly gays)
have stolen the curriculum vitae of Horus
replacing the name for presenting a "great story"
to reinforce their own power over the illiterate
population. According to Pressburg the Church
itself does not precisely know who this fantasy
Jesus was]].
The Monophysites ([[stating that Jesus had only]]
"one nature") saw in Jesus a person who had only
one, namely a divine nature. This is the position of
the Coptic Church. While the Dyophysimus (Dyo = two)
attributed two natures to Jesus, one divine and one
human, Monotheletism limited the human nature of
Christ insofar as his will was completely governed
by God. The monarchists, however, saw in Jesus a
person [p.90] who, although close to God, is not
divine. This is the concept of a prophet (rasul) and
herald for God (kalifat Allah). This, however, in
the view of most of them, described the nearness of
Jesus to God too little, and was therefore rejected
as heresy. Greek Orthodoxy and others also saw in
Jesus a divine and a human nature, but as mediators
between the divine and the human realm, they
postulated a spiritual force, the "Holy Spirit".
This "Trinity", a construction that was possible
from an ancient point of view, solved logical
problems and at the same time conserved the One God.
The whole discussion was essentially about semantic
issues, where the content was blurred and was taken
out from a precise definition. These differences
scarcely play a role in contemporary theology, but
over the centuries they determined the theological
discussion.
What is the nature of Jesus? Was he the son of God? Or
only ambassador? Was he [p.90] man or god? Or was he
both? How could the "logos", the divine Word, get into
a human body? Questions about questions! In this way
the construction of Trinity was born which was in the
Greek way of thinking logical and progressive. Several
councils [38]
[38] Nicaea (325), Constantinople
(381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451)
argued about it and split the oriental Christianity.
The Byzantine imperial church as well as the Roman
church took over this dogma, but not the Arab and the
Egyptian church. Therefore, Abd al-Malik warns in his
confession from the "Three". God does not need a son
nor any mediating spirit for reaching people.
The following sentence completes the creed of Abd
al-Malik with the well-known [[fantasy]] depiction of
Jesus of birth, death, and resurrection:
"Lord, bless your [[fantasy]] Messenger and
[[fantasy]] servant Jesus, son of [[fantasy]] Mary,
salvation for him on the day he was born, the day he
dies, and the day he is raised to life ..."
Completely this confession of Abd al-Malik from the
year 694 reads now [[in Aramaic translation]] like
this:
[[Supplement: fantasy Jesus with an age
of 33, home straight etc.
With all this has to be considered that this fantasy
Jesus with his Freemasonry age of 33 and his home
straight in Jerusalem was fixed as a Freemasonry
fairy tale even BEFORE Jerusalem was built -
therefore this is all a Luzifer fantasy of the
Freemasons betraying the masses, nothing more]].
[The
inscription of Abd al-Malik in the Dome of
the Rock (694 AD) according to the
translation of Luxenberg with Aramaic
knowledge]
"In the name of the loving and beloved God.
There is no God but God alone, he has no
partner, he owns the rule and he deserves
praise, he gives life and he lets die, he is
almighty.
Blessed be the servant of God and his
messenger. God and his angels speak
blessings on the prophet. You, the
believers, speak blessings and salvation to
him. God bless him, salvation over him and
God's love [p.91].
Members of the Scripture, do not make a
fales judgment and say about God only the
right thing. Because [[fantasy]] Jesus
Christ, Son of [[fantasy]] Mary, is the
[[fantasy]] Messenger of God and his Word,
which he has given to [[fantasy]] Mary and
his [[fantasy]] Spirit from him. So believe
in God and His [[fantasy]] Messenger and do
not say Three, stop it, it would be better
for you. Because God is the only one - he
shall be blessed - how could he have a
child, since everything belongs to him in
heaven and on earth. And God alone is enough
as a help.
Lord, bless your [[fantasy]] Messenger and
[[fantasy]] Servant Jesus, Son of
[[fantasy]] Mary, Word of [[fantasy]] Truth
that you quarrel about. God does not deserve
to adopt a [[fantasy]] child, he is praised:
if he decides anything, all he has to do is
to say: Be, and it will. God is my Lord and
is your Lord, so serve Him, that is a
straight line.
God has warned that there is no God but Him
and the angels, as the Scripture scholars
affirm truthfully: There is no God except
Him, the mighty and wise.
As the right with God counts the conformity
with the Scripture: because those who have
been given the Scriptures developped only
contradictions to it by disputing among
themselves. But [[people]] who denies the
words of God will be quickly brought to
justice by God."
|
[The Creed of Abd al-Malik in the Dome of the Rock
in Jerusalem counters the creed of Heraclius in
Byzantium]
This inscription is the creed of Abd al-Malik - namely
the typical monarchical, that is, strictly
monotheistic creed of the Christian-Arab Church. It
turns against the creed of the Byzantine state church.
Heraclius had made and installed his confession of the
Trinity in his basilica, the Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople. Abd al-Malik now fixed his profession
of faith in his basilica, in the church on the Temple
Mount in Jerusalem.
[Abd al-Malik was an Arab Christian - NEVER a
caliph]
Abd al-Malik was an Arab Christian, no caliph and no
"Omayade" [p.92].
[The correct translation of "muhamad abd Allah" =
"praised servant of God"]
Alone the proof that the word of "muhamad" is a gerund
and not a proper name, which can also be proved by
coins and other texts, is a recognition with enormous
consequences.
"Muhamad the Praised" is nothing but the Arabic
version of the Greek "Krästos" and the Latin "Christ
the Anointed":
"Krestos, Christ, muhamad": the same thing, the same
person, namely a [[fantasy]] Jesus.
"muhamad abd Allah" is the "blessed servant of God".
The reading "Muhammad is the servant of God" would be
as erroneous as the reading "benedictus qui venit in
nomine domini" ("Blessed is who came in the name of
the Lord") as "Benedict who came in the name of the
Lord."
["Narrative tradition" with Islam fantasy: The
inscription in the Dome of the Rock are said to be
Quran verses]
According to the Islamic doctrine these inscriptions
are verses from the Quran. Right is just the opposite.
They are older than any previously known Quran or
fragment of it. They were taken as verses into the
Quran - unless one assumes with Luxenberg the
existence of an Aramaic original Quran, in which these
texts were already included.
[Archeology: Muhammad does NOT exist in the 7th
century]
This chapter is actually dedicated to the historical
Muhammad, but so far there has been nothing to tell of
his person. The reason is that he is historically not
existing in this time. We don't know absolutely
anything about him.
["Narrative fairy tale" with Islam Fantasy:
Muhammad fills complete libraries since the 9th
century AD]
On the other hand, there are complete libraries of
religious scriptures in the sense of the chapter "The
Prophet Mohamed according to traditional accounts".
The earliest mentions of Muhammad appear 150 years
after the rumored death, most of them 200-300 years
later. The base are oral traditions. Even if one has
to be content with evidences rather than proofs with
persons who lived long ago, oral tradition coming from
the religios sector is too little for being an
evidence. In the Quran, Muhammad is practically
nonexistent. It counts the doctrine that the hadiths
and the sira (the life story) based on them are rated
as authentic sources almost withou any discussion
permitted.
[Archeology: Muhammad is missing in the sources -
Heraclios never mentions any Muhammad nor Islam - no
monuments, no papyri, no inscriptions, no original
books]
We have numerous archaeological remains of this epoch.
There are coins, inscriptions, buildings, literature.
But nowhere [p.93] a little trace of a prophet
Muhammad from Mecca can be found. Muhammad's troops
take Heraclius away his holy Jerusalem during his
lifetime yet. But he does not notice it. His
successors, of whom Muhammad takes away Syria and
Egypt, obviously do not know who they are dealing
with, nor do the Spaniards and all the others later.
The millions of subjugated people of different
religions don't us tell anything either about a
prophet Muhammad. There is one single mention of a
"Mamahd" which date is uncertain - that's all what we
know about the prophet.
All this is too little and incomprehensible for a
personality who in a few years should have changed the
entire existing order of the Orient politically and
religiously. How do you want to explain that to me
please?
[Muhammad as a personal name is common only since
the 9th century AD]
The personified Muhammad emerges only in the
literature of the 9th century. According to Dr.
Abdullah Moussa of the Sorbonne University [[in
Paris]] the name of Muhammad is nowhere to be found as
a proper name before Islamization. He considers the
existence of a proper name of Muhammad until then as
unlikely [39].
[39] Claude Gilliot: On the Origin of the
Prophets' Prophets (original German: Zur Herkunft
der Gewährsmänner des Propheten); In: The dark
beginnings (original German: Die dunklen Anfänge);
Berlin 2005
5.5. The origin of the word "Muhammad"
since the 13th century BC. - the word transformation
[Archeology: the word Muhammad in consonant
writing: Already in the 13th century BC: pure,
chosen, praised - words "muhamad" and "ahmad"]
The root MHMD is already found on clay tablets from
the 13th century BC in Ugarit. "Muhamad (un)"
signified the highest purity for gold. Then was
derived the meaning "chosen, praised" from it, which
thus remained valid for centuries. Also "Ahmad" goes
back to the same root. The Quran also uses "muhamad"
and "ahmad" synonymously.
[Archeology: The word Muhammad as "the praised
one": In Persia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan - not in
Arabia]
The first religious manifestation of the title can be
seen in the east of the Persian Empire, where around
the year of 660 coins with a "muhamad" logo appear.
There, in today's Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, the
person being called "muhamad" was the "praised one",
the "servant of God" (abd Allah) and the "spokesman of
God" (kalifat Allah). And there is no trace at all of
a presence of a person called "Muhamad" on the Arabian
Peninsula at the same time. We can say with great
certainty that the "muhamad", the "praised one", had
been created far in the east of the Persian Empire.
[Archeology: The word "the praised" was for
[[fantasy]] Jesus]
And [p.94] according to the overwhelming evidence this
"praised" was [[fantasy]] Jesus. Abd al-Malik brought
this "muhamad abd Allahi", the praised servant of God,
to the west of his kingdom and built him a monument in
Jerusalem on the Temple Mount, where the rumor was
spread that he should come back there as a "mahdi",
savior, on the Last Day for having justice. There are
many coins with depictions of this (more about this
will be told in a later chapter).
"Muhamad" was a title - before it became a name, and
Islamic scriptures reflect this awareness. According
to Ibn Saad [40]
[40] Ibn Saad (died 845):
Annals
the original name of the Prophet was Qutham. Later he
had 6 different nicknames: Muhammad (the praised one),
Ahmad (the praised one), Kahtim (the seal), Hashir
(the awakener), Akib (the last of the prophets),
Machiy (the redeemer of sins). This is a very clear
title concept. Mr. Alois Sprenger already writes in
1869 [41]:
[41] Alois Sprenger: The Life and Teaching of Muhammad
According to Hitherto Mostly Unused Sources (original
German: Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed nach
bisher grösstenteils unbenutzten Quellen); Berlin 1869
"In these traditions, 'Muhamad' just
appears as the other nicknames as an epithet
[attribute] of the Prophet and not as a proper
name." [text01]
[Thesis: MHMD becomes [[fantasy]]
"Muhamad"]
According to Mr. Volker Popp, the attribute concept
also includes the [[prophet replacer being called a]]
"Paraclete" of the New Testament. This is the
"comforter", derived from the Greek "Parakletos".
[[Fantasy, probably gay]] Jesus had repeatedly
promised his [[fantasy, probably gay]] disciples a
paraclete as a consolation for his temporary absence.
The Paraclete in Aramaic in the language of
[[fantasy]] Jesus means the "mhamda". Based on the
same consonant root MHMD, the Aramaic "mhamda" in
Arabic is easily read as "muhamad". The "muhamad"
could also be personified and have integrated without
problems into Gospels and be understood as a prophecy.
That would be like this:
John 14:16. "... and he (my father) will send you
another "Muhamad"..."
14:26, "The spirit, the "Muhamad", which my Father
will send in my name, will teach you everything ..."
John 16:13: "... It is good that I go, because if I
won't go, the "Muhamad" will not come to you. But as
soon as I have gone I will send you the "Muhamad"."
[p.95]
Although in Christian theology the paraclete refers to
the Holy Spirit, but in a "heretical" environment the
step from "mhamda" to "muhamad" is rapidly performed.
Especially in a time that was waiting for the
predicted Arab prophet.
[Archeology: There was NEVER a Prophet Muhammad -
but the word conversion is well possible]
The question about the historical [[fantasy]] prophet
"Muhammad" has answered itself in the detour via the
"muhamad". The hadiths and the life of the Prophet
[[described in the Quran]] cannot be considered as a
historical source nor as a proof of a [[fantasy]]
Muhammad. There is big conformity about this topic in
the search outside of the religion. The Quran says
almost nothing about the Prophet. But to cite the
Quran as a proof of [[fantasy]] Muhammad is against
any scientific, logical, and methodological method.
[Archeology: Islam leader [[fantasy]]
Muhammad cannot be found nowhere - is just a symbol
of a false historical fantasy]
There are no non-religious sources about Muhammad. And
this with a personality who should have changed the
religious and political order of half the world in a
period of only a few years. Millions of affected and
contemporary witnesses tell us nothing about it? How
do you imagine that? Believing this, one has to adore
wonders as do Islam historians just normally. And that
brings us back to hadith qualities. [[ALL is fantasy
in Islam - as in the Bible and in Talmud]]. .
We have no evidence for the existence of a prophet
named Muhammad, who lived from 570 to 632 (or similar)
and proclaimed the Quran. In contrast, the concept of
a "muhamad Jesus" [[substitute]] can be proved in many
ways.
It can be that there was a religious personality, a
preacher, in the Arabian desert. But he simply was not
[[fantasy]] Muhammad, and had not the invented life of
the Prophet. It's well possible that he shows his
handwriting from time to time, for example in the
suras of Medina, but we do not get to know this person
despite of all. Therefore it could also be a team,
even a sect presenting texts under the label of
[[fantasy]] "Muhammad", or it could be simply an
invented symbolic figure.
Rejecting the physical existence of the [[fantasy]]
Prophet of Muhammad can provoke the effect of a shock
first. But this shock is relativating fast [p.96]
considering the historry of creation of the Quran: One
single person is the exclusive presentator and just
this persons fails. Without any doubt this Quran had a
manifold history of development over a long time, and
thus there are "many fathers".
Of course we can not prove a person's nonexistence.
But we can test the evidence of a person's existence.
And in the case of Muhammad this test is negative.
Also today we have nothing of him in our hands which
could be fixed by scientests - from Weil passing
Goldziher and Blachere ending with Luxenberg. In the
non-religious documents not the slightest trace of the
real life of this [[fantasy]] Prophet can be seen.
The prophet is not failing with an axe as some are
meaning, but the [[fantasy]] Prophet is failing when
the chaos of Jewish, Christian and Islamic cultures -
short: semitic cultures - is analyzed for a savior,
about a redeemer, about a judge or prophet. It's
always the same waiting scenery - being camouflaged in
different names and traditions.
The person of [[fantasy]] "Muhammad" is not at all
essencial for the creation of a book or doctrine.
Manay (very) old and modern Muslims see this
proceedure also like this.
First ofa all the development of Islam has to be
considered as a process and not being triggered by a
person, although in the course of religious formation
people seem to be unavoidable as message carriers and
identification figures.
5.6. The longing of the Arab
Christians for their own prophet - [[fantasy]] "Muhammad" was invented
[Mohammed is "born" 200 years after his [[fantasy]]
birth]
The yearning of the Arab Christians for having their
own scripture developed the long creation history of
Quran. At the same time there was the transformation
from "muhamad" [[as a gerund] to the person of
"Muhammad". This was a necessity because there were
own revelations which had to be justified. And
additionally there was the prophecy that there will be
an own Arab prophet from the family tree of Abraham,
that means, it was affirmed from the top. the entire
tradition being connected with this was shifting with
it's fairy tales to the desert of Arabia, Muhammad,
the [[phantasy]] prophet of the Arabs from the tribe
of Quraish was born - but only 200 years after his
[[fantasy]] "birth" [p.97].
