History News

Islam is under the protection of Western powers

 Period painting showing the Berber king of Marrakech besieged by the Spanish Jews and Arian Christians.

I am free to express myself after a month of arrest imposed by face book for denouncing in comments a year ago a new form of terrorism practiced by Muslim activists, the stabbing of innocent bystanders .
Any reference to Islam, the crimes committed by its adherents and its founding texts, is seen by the West as a threat to the welfare of Western citizens. A universe that amputates the key value of vaulting its progress on the rest of humanity, they say: Freedom of expression!
It is clear that Islam is under the protection of Europe today and we can trace this protection to the very foundation of this religion, which carries the germ of the violence of the barbarian goths of the east and the west, vandals and francs.
Islam is a European affair first and foremost. It is the only ones to take advantage of this religion that they imposed on the rest of the humanity, first by the violence of the canons, then by the imposition of a single quran by the printing press, originally invented by the Chinese, that they turned into a bomb against humanity and then by the media hype on a pseudo Arab-Muslim civilization to trick the poor victims of this machination to have soothing dreams.

They lied to us and continued to deceive us with our consent.They erased the whole history of the centuries and made us believe that a  superman arab was fanatising by a prophet, who did not exist yet, riding a flying horse and annihilating all resistance on his way to impose a god whose name does not exist, and was yet to be spoken about. But who in good spirits could ever imagine the existence of a horse in the Arabian desert, an animal that needs several tens of liters of water a day. Who could honestly believe that the small water points of this region concealed cities that were supercitys which were as important as Paris or London, two cities of which we find a rich history, dating from centuries before the time of supposed Mohamed.

It was Napoleon who said that history is a series of lies on which we agreed. He knew what he was saying, the guy!
Here is a piece of history that they have hidden about centuries ago whose history has been erased and replaced by fantasy stories that have given birth to Islam.

At the time of the birth of the supposed Mohammed, the sixth century, the religious conflicts were numerous in all the Mediterranean rim, two Christian sects (Not to mention the Jews blowing on the embers between the two), the Trinitarians and the Unitarians. The advantage was on the side of the Unitarian Arianists.
Apart from the Byzantine state, which was a trentary Catholic Orthodox, it would seem that the majority was Unitarian around the mediterranean counties, South, North, East and West.
The Germanic tribes, especially the Goths (East and West), with their states in Ravenna and Spain were Unitarian, like the Langobardes and the Vandals in North Africa. The Franks were Arianists too.
The region of Damascus and Jerusalem was only « officially » a part of the Byzantine empire. The real power was already in the hands of the Unitarians, the Judaeo-Arameo-Christians were in the Unitarian majority of a long tradition.
Egypt, the base of Arianus, founder of the Arianism doctrine, as well as North Africa, were also predominantly Unitarian.
Even later, in the 7th century after the death of the supposed Mohamed, things are not clear. The first Umayyad caliphs, do not seem to have been « Muslims ». Some archaeological data confirms the Unitarianism of the time:
– The Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem does not have a qibla. Unitarians in Jerusalem did not need a qibla. In addition, the mosaics at Al-Aqsa are interpretable as pure Arianism, especially if we consider that the language spoken and written in Jerusalem was not Arabic, a language that did not exist yet, but Arameen .
– The old mosque in Kairouan and the great mosque in Cordoba have a qibla ….. in the direction of Jerusalem and not towards Mecca! A city that contains no trace of life of that time.


There were two big lies on which millions of others were built.

The first is that of the false birth of Islam in Arabia. The second is the perception of the « Arab / Sarazins » by the Catholic Church and the role they wanted to give them. The term « Arabic » only first appeared when modern Europe was interested in the Ottoman Empire, at least officially.

A few bands of nomadic villains scattered in a huge desert does not make a people capable of suddenly creating a religion and imposing it by force on nations, which were more powerfull in all areas; social, military, technical, cultural, etc. whereas some were located thousands of kilometers from the Hejaz desert.

According to the official history of Islam written by Catholic and Muslim fanatics, the Sarazens were those who were cited as the conquerors who spread the Islamic faith in the 700 hundreds. A faith whose sacred book would only exist a century later.
Let’s see whom the sarazins were in the middle ages.

In his book « The Sarazins were from the area » (Les Sarazins étaient du coin), the French historian Joseph Henriet demonstrates that those whom history has named Sarazens were not Arabs. They would be, more generally, pagans, peoples who had not converted to Christianity, and assimilated to Muslims by a confusion due to the idea, formerly believed, that Islam adapted certain traits estimated prior to Christianity. Heresy was generally regarded as a superficial garment given to old beliefs; this was also the case of Arianism, which had been adopted by the Burgundians. In the heart of the Alps, according to Henriet, different heretics and pagans could live side by side, but at the end of the day, they were no stranger to the area: it was a native people, settled in places since the beginning. They are those whom we today call Ligures, whose language was no doubt close to Basque. In opposite from the Allobroges, they remained at the top of the mountains or in the depths of the valleys.

According to Henriet, the description of « Sarazins » by medieval authors refers to indigenous peoples, not Eastern invaders.

The history of Islam is a series of lies that can not be retold in one single article. For almost three centuries the religious have erased the history of the spread of Islam and have imagined a story that saves the honor of the three monotheistic sisters, Judaism, Catholicism and Islam.

The last word will be given to the historian Charles Andre Julien.
The specialist in the history of islam and North Africa, Charles Andre Julien, wrote about the islamization of berberes: « No archives, no foreign travelers’ stories, no European chronicles. To supply the punishment of epigraphs, the absence of reliable texts, we must to fall back on Arab historians very posterior to the events. And what historians!
Of their congested relations of legends and details of a picturesque suspect, where the important facts are drowned in a jumble of idle digressions, it is difficult to extract accurate and reliable information. »

–  Muhammad Sven Kalisch  professor of Islamic Religion :The prophet Muhammad never existed.
– Karl-Heinz Ohlig: The Hidden Origins Of Islam
– Patricia Crone: Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam
-Ignaco Olague:  Los árabes no invadieron jamás España (The Arabs never invaded Spain)
-Joseph Henriet: Nos ancêtres les Sarrasins des Alpes



  • Interview with Karl-Heinz Ohlig
    Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title
    In his book « The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History, » the theologian Karl-Heinz Ohlig has come to the conclusion that Islam was not originally conceived as an independent religion. Alfred Hackensberger has talked with the author
    Your book bears the title « The Hidden Origins. » What is hidden about the origins of Islam?

    Karl-Heinz Ohlig: All the information we posses on the origins of Islam is taken from later texts – « biographies » that were written in the 9th and 10th centuries. One of these texts, the Annals of at-Tabari (10th century), is also the source of further histories. As such, we lack any corroborating contemporary texts for the first two centuries.

    Can these later documents still be regarded as accurate? From a scholarly point of view, are they not something akin to falsifications?

    Ohlig: To categorize these texts, or similarly the books of Moses or the Romulus and Remus tale, as falsifications would be entirely wrong, as one has to take into consideration this specific literary genre. Religious-political foundation myths are not history texts and nor were they meant to be.

    You advocate the thesis that Islam was not conceived as an independent religion. What proof do you have for this claim?

    Ohlig: According to the evidence of Christian literature under Arab rule from the 7th and 8th centuries, as well as from Arab coinage and inscriptions from this period, such as that on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the new rulers adhered to a Syrian-Persian form of Christianity that rejected the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. Instead, it regarded Jesus as the messenger, the prophet, the servant of God, but not the physical son of God, who is a strictly unitary being not « adjoined » to any person. The fathers of the Church, for instance, regarded John of Damascus (d. around 750) as a heretic, because his Greek understanding of Christianity did not correspond to their views. There is no mention of a new, independent religion of the Arabs before the 9th century.

    Does this mean that Islam was only made into an independent religion at a later date?

    Ohlig: This formulation sounds somewhat arbitrary or like a conscious decision. It is much more the case that religions often arise in that a new assessment is made of the inherited religious conceptions of a tradition. These are then interpreted differently, solidified, and systematized in a specific manner.

    You have also engaged in historical-critical research with respect to the Prophet Mohammed. What can be said about his person?

    Ohlig: It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass (« praise be to he that comes… »).

    ​​Here, muhammad means « revered » and « praiseworthy » or « He who is revered » and « He who is praised. » This also corresponds to the inscribed text on the Dome of the Rock, where the title muhammad refers to the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, and the servant of God. It also fits in with the polemics of John of Damascus against statements he considered heretical.

    Later, it seems as if this Christological predicate lost its reference, so that it appears in the Koran as a frequently mentioned, nameless prophet, which could then be historicized into the form of an Arab prophet. The earliest source of this historicization is to be found in writings of John of Damascus, who speaks of the pseudo-prophet Mamed. Only later could the wealth of stories of this Mohammed fill out the historical deficit.

    So what you are saying is that the term muhammad could possibly be referring to Christ?

    Ohlig: It is entirely possible – even when previously historically improvable – that an important preacher was present at the beginning or at another point in the history of the Koran movement. However, according to the evidence of Arab coins and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock, it must be assumed that the term muhammad, the revered or the praiseworthy, was originally a Christological honorific title.

    Why is it that these links haven’t previously been made?

    Ohlig: Such inquiries are forbidden in Muslim theology, which hasn’t yet passed through its Enlightenment. Western Islamic studies remains preoccupied with philology without employing the established methods of historical scholarship. Similarly, there is little religious-historical or Christian theological investigation into the extremely varied cultural traditions of the Middle East. As such, the roots and motives of these traditions are not recognized.

    In your book « Early Islam, » you write that you do not wish to harm this religion. Many Muslims will see the exact opposite in your work.

    Ohlig: Since the 18th century, many Christians, even to this day, regard the Enlightenment as an attack and an attempt to destroy their religion. In reality, however, it has allowed Christianity to survive in the modern world and also be applicable to the lives of modern man. This is a phase that Islam still has to go through, but it is unavoidable if it doesn’t want to exist in the future only in ghetto-like, closed communities.

    Alfred Hackensberger

    © Qantara.de 2008

    Karl-Heinz Ohlig is professor of Religious Studies and the History of Christianity at the University of the Saarland, Germany.

    Islamic Studies
    Liberate the Prophet from the Stranglehold of Religion!
    In his long and detailed plea for a secular Islamic Studies, Tilman Nagel calls on the discipline to emancipate itself from the Muslim understanding of Mohammed if it wants to get closer to historical reality

    The Emergence of Islam
    No Prophet Named Muhammad?
    « To shed light on the dark beginnings of Islam » is the call of Karl-Heinz Ohlig, editor of the volume « Early Islam ». Its authors claim to be able to trace the actual emergence of Islam through recourse to « contemporary sources ». Daniel Birnstiel has read the book

    Islamic Science
    On Christian Strophes in the Koran
    In his life’s work, German theologian Günter Lüling challenges Islam to a Reformation. Wolfgang Günter Lerch read his book « A Challenge to Islam for Reformation ».

  • Ils sont ceux qui n’ont encore rien compris…. que sont les juifs et les arabes? Les « dits juifs » que l’on associent au hébreux du judaïsme établi par les descendants atlantes nords africains fondateurs de l’Égypte,Grèce ,Syrie etc…ne sont que la création des sionistes dont l’Allemagne et le pivot de plusieurs manipulations de l’histoire dont les origines de l’islam avec l’aide des chrétiens nords africains plus nombreux jusqu’au 12 eme siècle au moins. Les anglais et les français ,eux ont finalisé la création arabe (terme punique) de l’arianisme de « ARIUS l’africain » véhiculés par les vandales arianistes qui feront avec l’aide les sarrasins africains l’origine de qui deviendra après la colonisation de l’arabe par une usurpation et construction historique écrite par les occidentaux faussaires créateurs de l’Orient qui sera habillé du patrimoine plurimillénaire des atlantes et leurs descendants africains civilisateurs de l’occident dont la république Romaine du punique » taromit.aromi. Qui veut comprendre l’histoire falsifiée par l’occident et amputé de plus de 20.000 ans doit connaitre la langue punique à l’origine des autres langues écrites crée par les atalntes et leurs lignée. Les hébreux ne sont pas juifs et Judaïsme est une création africaine dont les traces sont détruites pour faire croire à la création orientale tardive. https://www.google.fr/search?q=comment+fut+invent%C3%A9+le+peuple+juif&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=Wmm6WtHeDa3L8gfWkbj4Ag

    Les arabes ,une invention française …pour isoler et détruire de l’intérieur avec sa création ce qui restent des anciennes civilisations numides amazighs chrétiennes rendus musulmanes avec l’aide consciente ou inconscientes des indigènes au fil des 1400 ans.
    Les chiffres ,le cheval ,le dogme des sarrasins ,la grammaire ,l’alphabet ,les descendants de Fatima ,les abbassides… ont tous pour origines le monde punique africains y compris les phéniciens « iphlissen  » que l’on FAIT passer pour des orientaux civilisateurs des nords africains,alors que le moyen orient crée à l’époque du partage du monde au 20 em siècle par l’Angleterre la France qui était déjà peuplé par des nords africains atlantes et numides en leur temps.

    La belle création des cifilisateurs..coloniaux grands criminels et fossoyeurs


  • si l’occident met en avant ce qui est arabe c’est pour mieux cacher la vérité nord africaine.
    On peut admettre des faux rois français arabes mais pas les vrais amazigh qui ôteraient toute légitimité savante et supériorité occidentale supposée.
    VOYEZ …
    Comment on fait le rois de France pour origine arabe alors que la vérité serait de dires les numides chrétiens africains après la destruction de l’église latine nord africaine

Leave a Comment