How coins explain what happened to Christianity in the East.

[Norbert L]

Odon Lafontaine has been researching the coins being dug up from that place just prior to the advent of Islam. Coins use words and iconography that relay messages of the rulers who minted them. Hard evidence of how they thought of themselves.

From my understanding the message is simple. That geographical area was looking for the Christ/Messiah to return soon like many do today. Centuries already past and the people were getting impatient. Along comes the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, who has a big taxation beef with Justinian. Separates from the Christianized Roman empire, denies the Trinity and has the influence and power to build the Dome of the Rock and make himself "the Muhammad" of God's kingdom on Earth.

The information is available on his website, what do you make of it?

https://thegreatsecretofislam.com/

 

[SuperCow]

I don't know if this is a great secret. I even remember a history channel documentary giving a passing reference to the fact that Islam is an offshoot of the eastern gnostic sects of Christianity, and read other information about the Zoroastrian influences into the Islamic doctrines.

 

[dzheremi]

Odon Lafontaine has been researching the coins being dug up from that place just prior to the advent of Islam. Coins use words and iconography that relay messages of the rulers who minted them. Hard evidence of how they thought of themselves.

From my understanding the message is simple. That geographical area was looking for the Christ/Messiah to return soon like many do today. Centuries already past and the people were getting impatient. Along comes the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, who has a big taxation beef with Justinian. Separates from the Christianized Roman empire, denies the Trinity and has the influence and power to build the Dome of the Rock and make himself "the Muhammad" of God's kingdom on Earth.

The information is available on his website, what do you make of it?

https://thegreatsecretofislam.com/

Doesn't seem very likely to me. Abd al-Malik's enemies were more internally-focused than that (the Umayyads being established in the first place in the wake of the first Islamic civil war), and he arguably spent a large amount of time dealing with the Persians in Mesopotamia, as well. Furthermore, there'd be no reason to 'separate' from the Christian Byzantine Empire to begin with, as Abd al-Malik's neck of the woods (Mesopotamia, or even before that, if we want to take it all the way back to his early years in the Hejaz region of what is now Saudi Arabia) was outside of the Byzantine Empire already long before even the traditional date of Muhammad's birth (570). The Byzantines never controlled as far south as the Hejaz (in fact, the nearest Christian power would've probably been the Ethiopians, who controlled a fair bit of the southern Arabian peninsula -- including parts of KSA proper -- following their defeat of the Himyarites in the 540s), and Mesopotamia was Persian (Sassanid) territory by 226 AD and would remain so until it was conquered by the Rashidun caliphate in 637. Abd al-Malik was not even born until 644 at the earliest.

Also, a fair bit of Mesopotamia itself was Christianized long before the establishment of Islam anywhere. Look up the histories of places like Al Hira (the capital of the Lakhmid kingdom, est. circa 300 AD) in central Iraq, or Qaraqosh/Bakhdida (which is still Christian even now) in the north. Again, this is notable because it's entirely outside of (and, since it belonged to the Persians by the time of the invention of Islam, adversarial to) the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Norbert L]

the Hejaz region of what is now Saudi Arabia) was outside of the Byzantine Empire.. Byzantines never controlled as far south as the Hejaz (in fact, the nearest Christian power would've probably been the Ethiopians, who controlled a fair bit of the southern Arabian peninsula

Interesting, where is this information found and what sources does it use to reach these conclusions?

Everyone can look at the coins and see they changed from having Byzantine symbols during that time, the crosses give that away. Then switched to just using words.

Add to that, there is nothing being dug up in Mecca that indicates the events that have been traditionally accepted ever occurred in that region. The earliest Mosques all point to Petra, so do graphical markers found in Islamic writings like trees and water better fit Petra than Mecca. The major thoroughfare for a trade route by sea was on the African side not SA. Things don't add up archeologically.

Basically the archeology is telling a different story than what is has been traditionally accepted. In my view it's about time that the traditional narrative produced much later is being questioned. The way I think what went on is a re-writing of history much later when the actual events occurred.