The Trap of False History

The flight of Mohammed

In the 4th century after the birth of Christ biggest challenge for the Christian world church still in formation were the different heretical movements. Among these the biggest and thus the most threatening was the so-called Arian heresy. Its founder was an Alexandrian priest, Arius by name, who was born around 256 in Libya and died 336 in Constantinople. He started to propagate the teachings of his heresy, the most important element of which was the denial of Christ’s divinity. In the eyes of the Christian church this was a serious danger indeed, for the Arian teachings started to spread like wildfire. The Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, Vandals and Burgundians had all accepted the Arian teachings and the many adherents of this movement were to be found also in Antioch and Alexandria. Swift action was needed to stop this progress as soon as possible. The very reason for the famous first council of Nicaea was what course of action was to be taken against the Arian heresy. At this synod convened in 325 AD Arius was denounced as a heretic and severe measures were taken against the Arian heresy.

We still hear about Arianism in the middle of the 5th century, however the issue was by then in decline and during the following 2-3 centuries no heretical movement was known that would have questioned the divinity of Christ. However, in the beginning of the 7th century starts another important religious movement, namely Islam, which accepts in essence the Jewish and Christian holy books but denies the divinity of Jesus Christ exactly like the Arians three hundred years earlier. We know that Islam actually started with the prophet Mohammed’s flight from the Arabian city of Mekka to Medina. This event is called the Hidjra, which means to flee or run. According to conventional historiography this took place in 622 AD and this also constitutes the start of Muslim chronology.

In his recently published book “The Great Calendar Forgery”1 Uwe Topper formulates a most unusual hypothesis: he claims nothing less than that Islam is in actual fact the direct continuation of one of the secondary branches of the Arian heresy! Until now no one has drawn a parallel between these two movements, which is fully understandable considering the rift of three hundred years between them. But if we examine their main tenets then the correlation becomes obvious indeed. The correlation becomes even more obvious, if we deduct the 297 years from the date of 622 of the Hidjra – that is, the flight of Mohammed from Mekka to Media – which Heribert Illig considers to be fictitious. Hence we get back to the year 325, the very year of the first council of Nicaea, which is a significant realisation indeed!

While studying the Great Illustrated Encyclopaedia of World History in recent weeks, I have come to an interesting conclusion. The work notes, that the ‘hidjra’ (flight) expression might perhaps not be appropriate, maybe the words ‘passage’ or ‘departure’ would have been more accurate. For some strange reason, though, it was still the ‘hidjra’ expression – that is, the concept of flight – that became conventionally used. So the issue becomes instantly understandable if we place the event of the Hidjra 297 years earlier, that is, not in 622 but instead in 325! For if it can be proven that the flight of Mohammed took place in 325, that is, at the time of the council of Nicaea, then it becomes perfectly clear why he had to resort to fleeing! Namely, it was exactly in 325 at the council of Nicaea the Arian heresy was banned and it was exactly then that severe measures were enacted against the movements that denied the divinity of Jesus. Nothing would have motivated the flight as late as 622. In 325 on the other hand, in view of the harsh measures decided upon by the Nicaean Council, there was all the more reason for it!

But why did the timing of the Hidjra end up exactly 297 years later, that is from 325 to 622? In his recently published book mentioned earlier Uwe Topper discusses also that lesser known chronological system which is based on the calendar reform of Caesar the starting year of which is the year of introduction of the Julian calendar, that is the year 45 BC. This was the Julian (or Provincial) Aera (or Era) which initially was in use mainly in Spain but later on became widely used also in western France, North Africa as well as the Mediterranean islands. According to Topper the Era was that kind of chronological system which suited itself very well to support the power ambitions of the Church and was introduced at a time when the chronological system based on the birth date of Christ was not yet widely accepted. Being aware of the existence of the Era system makes us understand easier why exactly 297 years were inserted into our chronology:

In order to underline its contempt for the heretical movements denying the divinity of Christ even more; and to prevent if possible its adherents to follow such false teachings, the Church authorised itself to date the event of the birth of Islam to the year 666, that is, the number identified with the Antichrist! But let us see according to which chronological system it did all this: well, according to that chronological system which was widely used in those days by the Church, namely, the Julian Era! Later though, as we know, they started referring to the years as being from the birth of Christ and therefore the previously agreed upon dates according to the Julian Era were relabelled into dates according to the birth of Christ. If we want to convert the dates derived according to the Julian Era into (correct) dates counted from the birth of Christ it is only possible if appropriately subtracting 44 years, and hence out of the previously agreed Julian Era 666 date for the Hidjra became, with said subtraction of 44 years, the year 622 AD! Officially accepted historical science dates to this very day the event of the flight of Mohammed to 622 AD. So the reason for adding exactly 297 years to the calendar was to be able to place the Hidjra, that is, the birth of Islam – a movement grown out of the Arian heresy – on the Julian Era year of 666, the year of the number of the Antichrist.

However, the Julian (or Spanish) Era makes possible further revelations. Many times one cannot show an exact difference of 297 years between events and dates on either side of the time rift that, nevertheless, essentially belong together and the reason for this is that one of either date is given either according to the Julian Era or Christ. Let me immediately give an example:

The famous Library in Alexandria was the priceless collection of the Ancient World. 700 000 scrolls were kept there, according to Roman sources. Allegedly, this library was destroyed in 642 AD as a result of the Arab conquests when Amr ibn el-As, the commander of khalif Omar, conquered Egypt. At that moment the commander asked the khalif for instructions as to the future fate of the library. The answer of the khalif was this: If the books contain the same as the Quran they are superfluous, if not, then they are dangerous. Thus in either case they have to be burned! So these priceless scrolls were utilised not exactly according for what they were meant: they served as fuel for heating of the water in the bath houses of the city! All this then happened in 642 AD.

However, we know that the 642 destruction was not the only terrible destruction in the history of the Alexandrian library. Namely, in 389 this priceless collection was seriously damaged by fanatic Christians, maybe even Arian Christians. The Pallas Great Lexicon expresses it very laconically:

“The Serapeion Library fell victim to the Christian impatience in 389.”

Thus, we are presented with two years in which very similar events occurred. These two years are 642 and 389. In both the famous Alexandrian Library is destroyed. Let us examine the connection between these two dates. If we interpret this 389 date according to the Julian Era, and then, by subtracting 44 years, convert it into a date according to Christian chronology, we end up in the year 345. (389 – 44 = 345) The difference between the year 345 and the year 642 is exactly 297 years. (345 + 297 = 642) It is thus interesting to observe how the fanatical Christians (maybe even Arians) who destroyed the Alexandrian Library in 389 turn into an Islamic army 297 years later. This shows clearly how the origins of Islam in actual fact lead back to a certain Christian heretical movement, namely the Arian heresy.

In the volume titled “The Birth of Europe” from the informational series of books titled “Illustrated History”, in the chapter about the age of the khalifs I found a very interesting section about the rapid spreading of Islam:

“Damaskus was played into the hands of the Muslims by its Christian bishop himself. He sent a message to the besiegers through which gate they could climb at night. The city gates of Antioch though, opened without a struggle. The patriarch there, Job, joined the Arab troops and he encouraged the population of other cities under siege, shouting at the top of his voice over the city walls: ‘It is better if you submit and pay your levies to our lord, than to be killed or dragged into captivity!’ Even the patriarch of Alexandria, ‘the pope of Egypt’, Benjamin, greeted ceremoniously the entering Arab troops at the head of the leaders of the city, instead of encouraging his followers to defend themselves. The conquerors met tougher resistance only in the Greek cities of Asia Minor, but there the overrunning of far away lands was also soon stopped.”2

Let us note: where did the advancing Muslim troops encounter the most feeble resistance? Well, firstly in Antioch, the gates of which “opened without any struggle”, where even the patriarch there, Job, encouraged the population of the city to submit. Secondly, in Alexandria, where Benjamin, the Alexandrian Christian bishop, “the pope of Egypt”, greeted ceremoniously the Muslim army. … Does this not remind us of something? Where did Arius, the founder of the Arian heresy, previously have a prominent position in the Church? In Alexandria, no less! Antioch was likewise the seat of Arianism.
Let us read the Pallas Great Lexicon:

“The Arians – also called Eusebians named after the lead character Eusebius from Nikomedia – favoured by the court nevertheless endeavoured to oust the bishops of the true faith and replace them with Arian partisans. Thus it came to pass, that Eusthatius, the high priest of Antioch, was deprived of his seat. In a short period of time they removed many bishops from their positions and replaced them with Arian partisans. Due to this of course uprisings broke out in many parishes, but the Arians continued undeterred on their initiated course.”

And where did the Arab troops encounter the most fierce resistance? Where were “the overrunning of far away lands stopped”? In Asia Minor, where the Arian teachings never could take firm root. What a coincidence! Let us also note, that in said three cities, Damaskus, Antioch and Alexandria, who was the first to submit to the Muslim hordes? In all three instances the Christian patriarch of the city! … Under normal circumstances we would expect that it would be those very Christian patriarchs who would encourage the citizens of the cities to a resistance to the bitter end against the adherents of the foreign faith. But no! Indeed it is they who encourage as fast a submission as possible. How can this be? Well, the answer is very simple: These cities were the seat of Arian Christianity and these patriarchs were the followers of the Arian teachings. They greeted the “Muslim” troops as their own awaited fellow Arian brothers in faith. All this lead us to conclude, that there is no time gap of 297 years between the Arian heresy at the beginning of the 4th century and the emerging Islam at the beginning of the 7th century and that these two movements have indeed a lot in common with each other.

  1. Published in Hungarian. Original title of the German edition: “Erfundene Geschichte“ []
  2. The overrunning that is, of conquering Muslim armies. []
, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metahistory. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

One Comment

  1. simone said:

    I would like to point out some weak points of this thesis.
    First, Islam was not started with the flight of the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace and benedictions) to Medina, but 13 years earlier in Mecca. This is well established in the history of Islam.
    Second, and this is well established as well, the reason for the Prophet’s flight (peace and blessings be upon him) was not fear of christian persecution, as indeed christian presence in Arabia was quite limited, although it existed, but rather the necessity to preserve Islam and its followers from the persecution of the polytheists in Mecca, who disbelieved the monotheism taught by Islam, as it also went against their economical interest: the Meccans gained much profit from the fact that their city was the centre of pilgrimage for all Arabia, and in its sacred precinct there were 360 idols, which were adored by the different Arab tribes. Go back to the One God preached by Abraham and Ismael (peace be upon them), and you will lose the money gained from the pilgrims.
    Third, the fact that Arianism and Islam share part of their beliefs, even if they are important tenets, does not necessarily indicate borrowings: similarities between religions can have two explanations: 1) borrowings and influence between cultures: this explains well the similarities, not so well the differences between religions;
    2) that these religions have a common source (God), so they share what is true in them, while their differences are because of men who have corrupted and altered the original teachings.
    They are both possible explanations, but I incline more to the second: it is stronger from my point of view, and this would entail that the Arian “heresy” is not a heresy at all, rather it is closer to a correct understanding of Jesus’ (peace be on him) teachings, confirmed by the later revelation of the Quran from God. There are studies pointing to this, based even on the Bible, and I suggest the book “Muhammad in the Bible” from Prof. Abdu ‘L-Ahad Dawud, former Bishop of Uramiah. It can be found on the web and downloaded.
    Fourth, the theory of the different ways of counting the years (Julian/Christian era) looks quite improbable (although not impossible) but it has two main limits:
    1) it adopts different counting systems according to what suits the theory of the 297 years gap. It should at least demonstrated, for this to be accepted, that the different sources used were actually following the counting attributed to each of them. It is obvious that a single source (for example any historical document from ancient times, like ancient Annals) would always use the same counting method UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE;
    2) it is not strong enough if it is not corroborated by numerous other proofs for the validity of the general theory “Islam comes from Arianism”.
    Lastly, the fact that the Patriarchs of the various cities opened their doors to the muslim invaders can have different explanations. Here I suggest a couple:
    1) the Patriarchs knew that under Islamic law christians are protected and can keep their freedom to worship in the Christian way, on condition of paying a certain tax (which is actually linked to the fact that they do not have to fight for the protection of the community, but rather are protected by the muslim army from foreign invaders). Therefore the Patriarch understood this was not like Roman persecution, and it was better for the christians to live and remain christians rather than to die (as this would not necessarily be martyrdom: they were not being persecuted for religious reasons, but rather were free to be christians). This would be attested by the words of the Patriarch of Antioch: ‘It is better if you submit and pay your levies to our lord, than to be killed or dragged into captivity!’
    2) many early converts to islam were Christians and Jews who saw in the Bible prophecies confirming the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, it could be said that one of the firsts to know that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was a Prophet was a Christian monk called Bahira, who based his deduction on what he found in the Scriptures. This probably goes back to the book I mentioned earlier, “Muhammad in the Bible”. It is possible that the Patriarchs had the same conviction. There are muslim sources attesting that the Emperor Eraclius believed in Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him) prophecy.
    I pray that God guide us all to what pleases Him the most, gives clarity to our minds and hearts and show us the Truth whatever it may be, making us gladly accept it. And may He forgive me for any wrong thing I said.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

  • Men of little ability, too, by depending upon the great, may prosper; A drop of water is a little thing, but when will it dry away if united to a lake?

     

    - Subhashita Ratna Nidhi, stanza 173