Medieval Russian Coins with Arabic Inscriptions a Book by Dr. Fomenko

[Janusstark]

It would be reductive to limit the scientific heritage of the Muslim world to the Greco-Syriac legacy alone. Muslim culture flourished in a vast ecosystem of knowledge circulation across Eurasia, where trade, religious and intellectual routes wove a network of uninterrupted exchanges.

From India, the Arabs inherited the decimal positional numbering system and the concept of zero (śūnya). These innovations enabled the development of algebra (al-jabr), trigonometry and precise architectural calculations, paving the way for a conception of the continuous and the infinite. The Indian zero, integrated into the Arabic scientific language, enabled the modular subdivisions and harmonic ratios that form the basis of the science of proportions.

From China, the Muslim world received not only products (silk, porcelain), but also techniques and measuring instruments. The introduction of Chinese paper to Samarkand transformed the dissemination of knowledge, allowing scientific manuscripts, geometry treatises and architectural diagrams to circulate widely. Sino-Islamic exchanges also transmitted notions of urban planning, optics and astronomical instruments (gnomons, clepsydras, armillary spheres).

Added to these contributions were Persian and Mesopotamian influences: cosmic palace design, elliptical vaults, quadripartite gardens, the art of measuring time and hydraulic knowledge.

The science of proportions and architectural harmony in classical Islam were therefore not the product of a closed tradition, but rather the creative synthesis of a prior global heritage. Muslim scholars gathered the seeds of older civilisations and brought them to fruition in a coherent, spiritually grounded and scientifically rigorous system.

 

[Janusstark]

The East did not merely receive; it then radiated. Through Andalusian Spain, Norman Sicily and translation centres such as Toledo and Palermo, Latin Europe reacquired mathematical, medical and philosophical knowledge enriched by the East. Gothic geometry, medieval perspective, modal music and even Renaissance algebra owe much to this circulation of ideas. Christian builders, often trained in contact with Eastern craftsmen, transposed the symbolism of proportion and number inherited from the Muslim world into their cathedrals, by the way Ms Darke utterly demonstrates.

But this influence was not limited to the Mediterranean: some alternative, albeit controversial, theories show that Muslim-Christian contacts extended deep into Eastern Europe. Anatoly Fomenko, in his book on medieval coins, points to archaeological evidence of convergence between Muslim and Christian cultures in Russia, where some Orthodox princes used Koranic suras on coins or seals. This phenomenon, which is unique and documented in material form, escapes classical academic historiography. Nevertheless, it illustrates that Muslim civilisation, far from being isolated, participated in cultural and scientific exchange on a Eurasian scale, traces of which can be seen even in the Russian Orthodox world, as Fomenko masterfully demonstrates — and yes, we must also review the entire chronology, because even what I am presenting here is still bound by the definitions and dates imposed by a narrative that the Russian scholar is right to dismantle.

 

[MaziarMohajer]

Mss Darke does not, at anytime, refer to militarized Islam

Correct. I do not think any scholar in the West dares to talk about it.
On origin of Islam I recommend " Revisionist school of Islamic studies" link Fomenko Ideas are too Russian-centric.
By sect, I mean political and militarized Islam. Those who believe in this version of Islam practice a sectarian system.

Muhammad's time

This person did not exist. His birth narrative is a copy of Jesus's. I have addressed it here. The story of rest of his life is contradictory and fake.

The Hegira (622

This system of dating is fake too.

mudflow

I do not believe such a thing happened.

you should not be so quick to dismiss what Fomenko has developed at length

I have been reading the NC theory for years. His ideas and perspectives on every religion are materialistic. He and his team do not believe in any form of organized religion. You should not limit your view to just a few pages of his works on weapons with Arabic inscriptions.

The Qur'ān is not a technical manual on architecture

Happy you checked and rejected your old friend's claims.

I bring you this :

Good article but having some Quranic verses at the beginning of an article does not prove your previous claims on Quran;

‘No!’ The Holy Qur'an, my son! The Holy Qur'an! What? Do you really think that after coming all this way, the Arab architects stopped in Poitiers? Not at all! The proportions, the measurements, all of that comes from the Holy Qur'an, and Arab architects went all over Europe to build these... naves, as you say. "

I am sure you do not have even a basic knowledge of that book.

The Muslim contribution therefore lies not in any isolated invention

they were/ are proto-Muslims not believers of terror.

I have read the Quran in Arabic and Farsi translation with looking to Al-mizan tafsir. link

You promised to dismantle the nonsense of everything Fomenko writes in his voluminous work

No, I didn't. I said that his reading of the coins with Hijri dates is incorrect. But on this case you are right, I didn't address it further. I feel that the members of the forum are not very interested in such discussions. Most of them don't have knowledge on the Arabic alphabet, which makes a proper discussion pointless.

There is a very good book on the Quran ( in French , so I have read it using online translations / summarization) : Le Coran des historiens

on incomprehensiveness of some Quranic verses ( not absurdity ) :

Introduction ​

This academic exploration focuses on the textual, linguistic, and structural reasons why certain verses and passages of the Qur'an are often described by modern historical critics as "opaque," "enigmatic," or "incomprehensible" when approached outside the framework of later Muslim exegesis.


The difficulties scholars encounter stem primarily from four overlapping causes inherent to the text’s formation and style: compositional fragmentation, lexical and grammatical anomalies, an allusive narrative style, and inherent textual ambiguity concerning referents.

Textual and Compositional Fragmentation ​

One of the most frequently cited reasons for the perceived incoherence or incomprehensibility of many verses is the heterogeneous and composite nature of the Qur'anic material, suggesting a complex and non-linear compilation process.

• Disjointed and Unstructured Style: Many parts of the Qur'an, especially the longer Surahs, are noted for their lack of rigorous editorial unification. Surah 4 (Al-Nisā'), for instance, is described as having a "heterogeneous" structure and is likened to a "stream of consciousness" or a "disjointed discourse". Demonstrating the coherence of large sections, let alone the entire Surah, is difficult.
• Abrupt Transitions and Lack of Logical Connection: The text often moves abruptly between subjects. Scholars like Richard Bell and Régis Blachère noted the frequent and sometimes abrupt transitions and the composite nature of many Surahs. In Surah 5 (Al-Mā'ida), certain sections, like the passage concerning witnesses, appear to have "very little logical connection with what precedes or what follows," suggesting the Surah is a collection of prophet sayings (logia) edited together. Similarly, the arrangement of verses in Surah 8 often lacks a "logical whole".
• Signs of Alteration and Interpolation: The historical genesis of many Surahs appears complicated, containing indications of doublets, redundancies, and thematic ruptures. For example, the latter part of Surah 32 (Al-Sajda) gives such a confused impression that the text is thought to be "altered and corrupted," possibly composed of scraps used in earlier drafts gathered by a later redactor. In Surah 5, repetitions are preferred to be seen as evidence of a literary composition process involving the insertion of certain formulas rather than repetitions by the Prophet himself.

Linguistic and Lexical Obscurity ​

The meaning of many verses is rendered obscure due to the ambiguous nature of certain key terms, the presence of unexplained unique words, and difficulties stemming from the original script.

• Ambiguity of Metatextual Terms: The Qur'an frequently uses technical terms to describe the revelation itself, but their precise meaning remains difficult to determine, leading to interpretive problems:
  • The relationship between the terms kītāb ("book," "writing," or "decret") and qur’ān ("reading" or "recitation") is complex, creating tensions, if not contradictions, within the corpus regarding the definition of the revelation. The concrete referent of kītāb in a given verse is often unclear.
  • The exact meaning of furqān (often translated as "criterion") remains elusive (insaisissable).
  • The term sūra is disputed, with its meaning in certain verses (Q 11:13) suggesting a broader sense like a "section," a "phrase," or a "fragment" rather than the later canonical meaning of "chapter".
• Unexplained Hapax Legomena (Unique Terms): Several crucial terms appear only once (hapax legomena) or in limited, obscure contexts, baffling even early exegetes:
  • The term ṣamad (Q 112:2) is cited as one of the most complex and mysterious terms in the Qur'an. Muslim exegetes offered no fewer than eighteen different meanings for it, indicating that its original sense was already escaping them.
  • The term tafsīr (Q 25:33) is a hapax whose meaning in that context has no relation to its later classical usage describing Qur'anic interpretation.
  • The term ma‘ūn (Q 107:7) is an hapax whose meaning is uncertain.
  • Aṣḥāb al-Rass (Q 25:38) is an obscure expression whose exact significance is highly debated.
• Mysterious Letters (al-Ḥurūf al-Muqaṭṭaʿāt): The combinations of single letters (like alif lām rā’ or ṭā’ hā’) placed at the start of 29 Surahs are known as "mysterious letters". Their reason for being is unclear, and no scientific consensus has been reached regarding their sense, function, or origin.
• Grammatical Anomalies and Loanwords: Grammatical difficulties, such as in Q 20:63, where the expression ’inna hādhāni la-sāḥirāni does not follow standard Arabic case assignment rules, suggest either textual variance or a "grammatical mistake". Furthermore, the unusual grammatical behavior of loanwords, like fulk ("boat," Q 10) which remains systematically invariable despite changes in related words, adds linguistic difficulty.

Contextual Gaps and Allusive Narrative Style​

A fundamental reason for opacity is that the Qur'an frequently presupposes that the audience possesses prior knowledge of the narratives it references, a characteristic that makes it highly opaque to those lacking that context.

• Allusive and Elliptical Narratives: The Qur'anic narrative style is concise, allusive, and elliptical. The omission of necessary information is quasi-systematic.
  • The text is often "incomprehensible" to anyone who does not have the biblical and parabiblical narrations in mind.
  • The account of Noah (Q 10) is so allusive that it is "unintelligible" without parallel passages from other Surahs.
  • Verses recounting the punishment of the thief in the Joseph story (Q 12:74-75) are so laconically expressed that they become "almost incomprehensible" without a prior knowledge of the biblical episode.
  • Narratives concerning Moses (Q 18) contain details and allusions that are never explained or elaborated upon.
• Vague Historical Referents: References to events are often vague or obscure. For instance, the phrase in Q 13:41 (reiterated in Q 21:44), "do they not see that We strike the earth, reducing it from all sides?", is obscure; while traditionally linked to military successes, Western scholars highlight the difficulties of comprehension raised by the formula.
• Ambiguous Referents of Persons and Voices: Determining the actors and recipients of the divine discourse is frequently challenging:
  • There is a lack of explicit markers (like "thus says the Lord" in the Bible) to indicate when the speech switches from the human messenger to the divine voice.
  • The "particularly obscure" use of personal pronouns makes it hard to identify the speaker (God, the messenger, or someone else) or the person being addressed. This issue is noted in passages like Q 75:1-19, which is "incredibly ambiguous" if stripped of its literary context.
  • The referent of the pronoun -ka ("you") in Q 95:7, if addressed to the prophet, raises the difficulty of interpreting whether the prophet himself questioned the Judgment.

Early Textual Instability and Writing Conventions ​

The physical state of the earliest textual witnesses adds a layer of difficulty, suggesting fundamental volatility in the text's precise linguistic form.

• Scriptio Defectiva: The oldest Qur'anic manuscripts were written solely using the consonantal skeleton (rasm) in scriptio defectiva (lacking many vowels). They also lacked diacritical dots necessary to distinguish between consonants. This limited graphical representation left open "diverse possibilities of readings", which means the written text itself was intrinsically ambiguous and insufficient to resolve divergences in recitation.
• Contradictions in Self-Description: Q 3:7 explicitly states that the Scripture contains verses that are "clear" (muḥkamāt) and others that are "ambiguous" (mutashābihāt), acknowledging that a portion of the text is intentionally equivocal or difficult to interpret clearly.

 

[Janusstark]

1. Founding a state is not enough to make a religion secular

Yes, Muhammad founded an ummah in Medina, a community of believers with a political organisation, social rules and a judicial system.
But this does not make Islam a “political” religion in the modern sense, for two main reasons:

Power is not an end, but a means.
The Prophet's primary goal was never territorial domination, but the preservation of the revealed message and the protection of believers.
The Medinan state was instrumental, not doctrinal: it guaranteed freedom of worship, community cohesion and justice between tribes.
→ In other words, the political tool is used to serve a spiritual purpose, not the other way around.

The ‘political’ in Islam is not separate from the sacred — but neither does it absorb it.
The Christian West invented the radical distinction between ‘spiritual power’ and ‘temporal power’ (pope vs emperor).
In Islam, this dichotomy does not exist in this form: the whole world is perceived as God's domain (dār Allāh).
→ This means that all human action, including politics, is part of a global spiritual order, but without religion being reduced to the management of power.

In short, the Prophet acts as a legislator and guide, not as a conqueror in the imperial sense of the term.
The Medinan state is a moral theocracy, not a secular machine.

 

[Janusstark]

2. Islam does not sanctify power: it subordinates it to divine law

Sharia is not a civil code in the Roman sense: it is above all an ideal of transcendent justice.
Political power (caliph, sultan, emir) is legitimate only to the extent that it submits to this divine law.
The message is therefore the opposite of secular logic:

In the secular world, the state establishes the law.

In Islam, the Law establishes the State, and the State disappears if it deviates from it.

→ This is why we cannot speak of a ‘State religion’, but rather of a State of religion, i.e. a framework designed to guarantee the moral order desired by God.

 

[Janusstark]

3. Jihad: a defensive and ethical concept before being a military one

The term jihād does not primarily mean ‘holy war’, but rather effort in the way of God (al-jihād fī sabīl Allāh).
This concept has several degrees:

jihād al-nafs (struggle against oneself, inner purification);

jihād al-lisān (struggle through speech, teaching, truth);

and finally jihād al-sayf (armed struggle, strictly defensive, governed by ethical rules).

In Muhammad's life, the battles (Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, etc.) were defensive, not expansionist.
The goal was not conquest, but the protection of the message and the community.
Imperial expansion would come much later, under the Umayyads and Abbasids, that is, after the Prophet, in a new political and geostrategic context.

 

[Janusstark]

4. The prophetic model: spiritual unity, not secular fusion

Muhammad's model is that of the prophet-lawgiver in the Platonic sense, comparable to Moses:
he receives a revealed Law and founds a human community called to live by it.
But he does not establish himself as king or emperor, does not found a dynasty, does not proclaim himself a divine leader.
→ This absence of dynastic succession shows that political power is not sacralised.

It was from this vacancy of prophetic power that the great debate over the caliphate arose: proof that there was no fixed conception of power in the Qur'anic text itself.

 

[MaziarMohajer]

In Muhammad's life,

Not a real person.

 

[MaziarMohajer]

Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, etc.

Laughable stuff. No war in the middle of nowhere. How did they get water to fill the Khandagh?!

 

[Janusstark]

5. Islam is a religion that is non-secular in essence

What radically distinguishes Islam from a secular system is its unified vision of reality:

God is not relegated outside the world (as in modernity),

but is present throughout creation, including in human affairs.

Thus, politics is not a ‘public matter’ detached from the sacred (as in modern secularism), but a field in which divine morality is exercised.
This does not make it a ‘political religion’, but a total religion, where the temporal is never cut off from the spiritual.

 

[MaziarMohajer]

the caliphate arose

Any coins minted by first four Khalifas ? Fake history.

 

[MaziarMohajer]

5. Islam is a religion that is non-secular in essence

What radically distinguishes Islam from a secular system is its unified vision of reality:

God is not relegated outside the world (as in modernity),

but is present throughout creation, including in human affairs.

Thus, politics is not a ‘public matter’ detached from the sacred (as in modern secularism), but a field in which divine morality is exercised.
This does not make it a ‘political religion’, but a total religion, where the temporal is never cut off from the spiritual.

Sorry but such discussions go nowhere.

 

[Janusstark]

Laughable stuff. No war in the middle of nowhere. How did they get water to fill the Khandagh?!

Laurghable yourself. You reallly bring nothing but laugh and despise, anyway. I could ask you to prove your says about higiri. I mean hard proof. I'm aware of your " Le Coran des historiens" (really laughable stuff) and of the usual method for the disqualification of large panels of history that don't coorborate the european supremacy or the dominant ideology of the moment. This is really your fondation ? Well at that count you could as well cite the master piece of an AI, then you would be the fool in your beliefs.

No, Islam was not a militarized sect. It is your view that is politicised.

You confuse faith with power, revelation with administration, prophet with head of state.
Muhammad did not seek a throne: he founded a community to protect a message — not to dominate a people.
The battles of early Islam were defensive, never imperial.
It was not about conquering the world, but about preserving the divine word in a hostile desert.

And you talk about a ‘militarised religion’?
Then say the same about the Christianity of the Crusades, of Rome and its armies.
But you don't, because your frame of reference is secular — and Islam is not.
It does not separate the spiritual from the temporal, not out of fanaticism, but because it considers that all human action, even government, is a matter of morality.

The original Islamic State never sanctified power: it subjected it to divine law.
It was not religion that became political — it was politics that, for once, had to bow to spirituality.

So no, Islam is not a militarised sect.
It is a civilisation of the Word, which has made justice the heart of power and faith the measure of man.
It is not an ideology: it is a verticality.
And this is precisely what the modern world, trapped in its materialism, can no longer bear to see.

 

[Janusstark]

Not a real person.

Prove it.

 

[Janusstark]

Any coins minted by first four Khalifas ? Fake history.

Prove it.

 

[Janusstark]

Good article but having some Quranic verses at the beginning of an article does not prove your previous claims on Quran;

The burden of the prove is all yours, as I said earlier.

 

[Janusstark]

Laughable stuff. No war in the middle of nowhere. How did they get water to fill the Khandagh?!

Prove it.

 

[Janusstark]

Any coins minted by first four Khalifas ? Fake history.

You would say anything to appear correct: an ingrained habit of sophists. And I can prove it.
To say that the Caliphate did not exist because the first four caliphs did not mint their own coins is to confuse political reality with administrative practicalities. It is the reasoning of an archivist with no memory.

The absence of its own currency in no way invalidates the existence of a state.

The first caliphs initially ruled over a territory inherited from the Byzantine and Sassanid empires, where established currencies were already in circulation.

The Umayyad power only minted its own dinars and dirhams from the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik (late 7th century) onwards, for one simple reason: the administration was in transition, and the minting infrastructure was still that of the previous kingdoms.

But that does not mean that the state did not exist; only that it was in the process of being formed – like Rome before its own mints.

The Caliphate was a spiritual function before it was a bureaucratic machine.

The word khalīfa literally means ‘successor’, i.e. successor to the Prophet in the moral and spiritual mission of guiding the community (umma).

Coinage was not a religious attribute, but an instrument of administrative power, which the early Muslim rulers had not yet institutionalised.

Their legitimacy did not come from a metal symbol, but from community consensus and recognised moral authority.

The argument ‘no coins = fake history’ is a Western absurdity.

It is a colonial reading of history: believing that a civilisation only exists when it materialises according to the standards of a modern state — archives, seals, coins, armies, bureaucracy. Completely inept!

Yet early Islam was not an administrative empire: it was a spiritual revolution, a community movement based on the word, prayer and moral law.
The sword, charters and currency came later — as instruments, not as foundations.

 

[MaziarMohajer]

Prove it.

Not interested in discussing anything with you. Please do not continue posting below my posts, specially on your religious views. I have reported you because you insulted me. I am a very tolerant person but for a half a century I know guys like you .In this forum - which differs from your world of delusional violence - be respectful and do not continue.

 

[Janusstark]

How did they get water to fill the Khandagh?!

And I am indeed about to respond by exposing your obvious ignorance of the fact that the trench (khandaq) was not a canal filled with water like those in medieval Europe.

It was a dry ditch, a defensive trench dug into the rocky ground of Medina, inspired by a Persian strategy suggested by Salman al-Fârisi, a companion of the Prophet who came from Iran.

Its effectiveness was due to its depth and steep profile, not the presence of water.

Your mistake stems from your European projection: you imagine a ‘moat’ as seen in Western medieval castles, with a flooded ditch around the walls.
However, “khandaq” literally means ‘ditch’ — not ‘water moat’.
Nowhere in 7th-century Arabic sources is there any indication that it was filled with water. You must have read this fantasy in “The Historians” Qur'an'. Clearly, not everyone can be a strategist, architect or sapper.

Geographical conditions confirm this:
Medina, located in the Hijaz region, is a semi-arid environment with no large-scale water table or piping at the time. The ditch was therefore never designed to hold water, but to slow down enemy cavalry — which worked.

I repeat (tell it to your historains) the Khandaq was not a moat, but a dry trench. Your question and irony assume a Western anachronism: you are imagining a European castle in the Arabian desert. Nonsensical.