Sunday, February 22, 2026

Prophet Abraham by Muazzez İlmiye Çığ: Book Review

Prophet Abraham by Muazzez İlmiye Çığ: Book Review

I have just finished reading my first book of 2026, and I must say, it was a great start to the year. The book is “Prophet Abraham” by the late, expert Sumerologist Muazzez İlmiye Çığ. In this research work, she compiles existing knowledge and legends about Abraham, tracing their origins from ancient Sumerian tablets all the way to the holy books of today.

I had previously read her other seminal work, “The Sumerian Origins of the Quran, the Bible, and the Torah.” Although quite some time has passed since I read that one, I felt a strong pull to begin this new year with the wisdom of “Muazzez Hoca” to refresh my perspective on history.

Reading Çığ’s work is like being a detective in history. It forces you to look at familiar religious narratives through the lens of archaeology. In this blog, I want to share how the cuneiform scripts of the Sumerians might actually be the ancestors of the stories we know about Prophet Abraham today.

However, I must note that the book is not entirely objective. Rather than presenting a neutral historical account, Çığ interprets the archaeological findings through a very specific lens. She is fiercely dedicated to proving the Sumerian influence on monotheism, and at times, this passion overshadows a purely academic neutrality. Readers should approach it as a bold thesis rather than a definitive textbook.

While the book emphasizes Abraham's importance for every religion, the author herself struggles to remain impartial. I was expecting a detailed historical analysis rooted in research. Instead, I found the book heavily saturated with chapters and citations from the Torah (Old Testament) regarding Abraham and other prophets. Surprisingly, the narrative even carries strong "breezes" of Zecharia Sitchin leaning at times towards speculative alternative history rather than strict academic archaeology.

The Theological Disconnect: Monotheism vs. Polytheism

The book’s primary thesis rests on the idea that the holy books (The Torah, The Bible, and The Quran) are essentially derivations of Sumerian tablets. However, this leads to a significant logical contradiction regarding the timeline of faith.

In the Abrahamic tradition, the lineage of prophets starting from Adam and Noah represents a strictly monotheistic message. Historically, the Sumerians appear after these early figures but before the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Yet, the Sumerian culture was abruptly and vividly polytheistic.

If the holy books were simply "copy-pasted" from Sumerian texts as the author suggests, why do they vehemently reject polytheism?

It feels as though Çığ is attempting to sever the link between the ancient monotheistic tradition (Adam/Noah) and the later Abrahamic faiths by inserting Sumerian writings as the sole origin. To me, finding a similar story in a Sumerian tablet does not prove that a holy book is a fabrication. It simply shows that narratives, like people, travel across geographies and generations.

Conclusion

To sum up, "Prophet Abraham" by Muazzez İlmiye Çığ is a book that provokes thought, but it failed to alter my fundamental convictions.

While I respect the author’s vast knowledge of Sumerian cuneiform, her conclusion that the holy books are essentially Sumerian folklore felt like a forced theory rather than a natural historical progression.

The book attempts to bridge the gap between mythology and theology, but for me, the bridge collapsed under the weight of its own ideological bias. It did not convince me that monotheism is merely a rebranded polytheism. Read it to understand the richness of Sumerian culture, but take its theological claims with a grain of salt.

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Paris Peace Conference (January 18, 1919)

The World at the Dawn of the 20th Century

The Paris Peace Conference: Peace or Imposition?

The Paris Peace Conference (January 18, 1919) gathered to determine the future of the defeated countries after World War I. The official goal was to ensure "permanent peace." However, was it really peace?

In reality, the winners dictated their terms to the losers. 32 countries attended the conference, but the decisions were made by the USA, Britain, France, and Italy. The defeated countries, like Germany and the Ottoman Empire, were not even invited to the table. They only waited to sign the heavy treaties prepared for them.

Paris Peace Conference 18 January 1919
Generated by AI

The New Name of Colonialism: The Mandate System

As a Turkish person, looking at this page of history is painful because the Ottoman Empire was being dismantled. The Allied Powers wanted to bypass President Wilson’s principle that said, "Colonialism is forbidden." So, they invented a new system called the "Mandate System."

The Result: They claimed that nations in the Middle East could not govern themselves. Therefore, Ottoman territories like Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula were placed under the "protection" (control) of Britain and France.

Eastern Anatolia: The idea of establishing an Armenian State in Eastern Anatolia was also officially decided here for the first time.

Discussing Middle East and İzmir.
Generated by AI

The Biggest Betrayal at the Table: İzmir

One of the most critical decisions of the conference was about İzmir. Before the war, İzmir was promised to Italy through secret agreements. However, Britain (Lloyd George) changed the plan at the last minute.

Britain did not want a strong Italy in the Mediterranean. Instead, they preferred a weaker Greece that they could control easily. Consequently, İzmir was given to Greece.

This historical decision created a foundation for the tensions we see today. The militarization of the Aegean islands and the political conflicts between Greece and Türkiye are the long-term results of this decision made in Paris.

Tension between Italy and UK to colonize İzmir.
Generated by AI

The US Withdrawal and the Monroe Doctrine

While the European powers were sharing the Ottoman lands (especially oil regions and the Straits), the USA felt disappointed. President Wilson saw that his principles for a "fair world" were ignored by the European leaders.

As a result, the USA suspended its relations with Europe. They returned to the Monroe Doctrine (Policy of Isolation) and withdrew from European politics. The stage was left to Britain and France until World War II.

Historical Note: Peace Treaties After WWI

Country

Treaty Name

Date

Germany

Treaty of Versailles

June 28, 1919

Austria

Treaty of Saint-Germain

September 10, 1919

Bulgaria

Treaty of Neuilly

November 27, 1919

Hungary

Treaty of Trianon

June 4, 1920

Ottoman Empire

Treaty of Sèvres

August 10, 1920

(Note: The Treaty of Sèvres was never fully implemented thanks to the Turkish War of Independence.)


USA leaves the Conference. 
Generated by AI

In this series, my goal is to give you a clear idea about historical turning points in 500-750 words. In the next blog, we will turn our route to the north. We will discuss the rise of a new power: The Establishment of the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik Revolution.