Our dear Zzazz and it is about Arabic

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Mar 9, 2008 at 08:59

Our dear zzazz the linguist wrote

>Dhimmi, your English is obviously poor, otherwise you would have comprehended my points.

Really? oh the blame the dog defense!

"ROTFL. What on earth are you talking about? Do you really know anything about the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls? this is really insane! as for complete and extant translations of the Bible into Arabic they exist from about the year 1000CE ."

You obviously didn't understand my point. Perhaps if you had a better command of English, you would have understood what I said? I was not making any claims about the bible in General, I was merely pointing to extant ARABIC manuscript copies. There's nothing terribly insane about that. Poor thing! You really should improve your English before responding like that; it only makes you look bad.

It is not about English our dear zzazz it is about why do Christian Arabs call their God Allah!

"So you can find the word Allah in the Arabic translations of the Bible then what is really your point? I can also find the word Dieu is the French translations of the Qur'an. And how many times do I have to tell you that more likely than not the Arabic word Allah is a loan word from Syriac Alaha/Allaha arabized as Allah"

Responding to my point in a manner alludes something that I never intended is called a "straw man", which is a type of "red herring" logical fallacy, Dhimmi. Have you ever taken a deductive logic course? Obviously not.

Oh the qash wa tibn excuse again and his little course of falsfa wa tafkeer 3aqli so let me ask you the question again: So why do Christian Arabs call their God, Jesus that is, Allah?

>I can find the French translation of the Bible uses the word "Dieu" as well.

>My point? that Arabic speaking Christians as well as Muslims use the word "Allah" when referring to God, and that the term is not SOLELY Islamic.

At last he got it. Our dear zzazz got it

>I agree that it may have been borrowed from Syriac (although I do think that one should not discount Nabatean).

Do not get into something that you do not know

>Of course, if you really knew English, then you would understand what I was wrote.

This is the blame the dog excuse again. This bogus (oh I love the word bogus) debate of yours have nothing to do with the English language our dear linguist. It is about your half knowedge and it is about you "borrowing" other peoples ideas and it is about your bogus claims that you know Arabic when you do not

>"Did you ever read Taha Husein or Wansbrough? Surpirse surprise but most of the so called al-shi3r al-jahili (oh I forgot that you ain't no Arab well may be you can ask your Mullah to tell you what this means) was made up by the 3Ulama in the 3rd century of islam to tackle issues of garmmar and syntax in the Qur'an that were at variance with good Arabic grammar. And the rule is; this poeptry is anachronistic and suspect unless proven otherwise just like the hadith and the sira in other words; Bogus. How come you did not know that?"

>WOW! You're English is HORRIBLE!!

It is not about the English language our dear zzazz this is another qash wa tibn excuse

>Who can understand you? You really make very little sense, if any whatsoever.

About what?

>Are you an expert in "Jahili" poetry? Or do you just parrot the argument you prefer to listen to? (obviously the latter, I'm afraid). As a matter of fact, I am familiar with Taha Hussein's work Fi'l-shi`r al-Jahili, in which he simply regurgitated the arguments of Margoliouth in his article "The Origins Of Arabic Poetry"(Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1925). You should also know that no less than AJ Arberry fully discredited these arguments.

No i'm not really interested in debating you about the so called pre-islamic poetry. You do not know any Arabic you said that yourself

>"The sophistry - I hesitate to say dishonesty - of certain of Professor Margoliouth's arguments is only too apparent, quite unworthy of a man who was undoubtedly one of the greatest erudites of his generation."

>Furthermore he adds:

"It can be conceded readily enough that the foregoing arguments make up an impressive case against the authenticity of the pre-Islamic poetry; it is only when the reasons advanced are examined one by one that their combined weight comes to appear less than at first encounter. To enumerate the points in rebuttal or mitigation made on the Arab side by writers such as Muhammad Farid Wajdi, Muhammad Lutfi Jum'a, Muhammad Sadiq al-Rafi'i, Muhammad Ahmad al-Ghamrawi and Muhammad al-Khidri, and on the European side by E Bräunlich, T Andrae, G von Grunebaum, F Gabrieli and R Blachère would expand this brief epilogue into the dimensions of a full-length dissertation."
The Seven Odes: The First Chapter In Arabic Literature, p. 238.

Arberry's view has only been further burnished by more recent scholarship, namely that of Professor Michael Zwettler:

"For, though the critics from Abu 'Amr b. al-Ala' and Ibn Sallam al-Jumahi to Ahlwardt, Margoliouth, and Taha Husayn have cast doubt both on the reliability of many transmitters of the ancient poetry, their criticisms have generally failed to consider certain important facts that have since been brought out in a decisive fashion. One may, I think, grant that these doubts, at least in their extreme form as expressed by Margoliouth, and Taha Husayn, have been laid to rest through the efforts of later scholars."

M. Zwettler, The Oral Tradition Of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its Character & Implications, p. 12.

Do you know Arabic? and did you study history? if the answer is no to both questions then say no more

>The only "bogus " thing in here the view that you hold of the level of your own expertise. If you were really knowledgeable, you wouldn't pepper your posts with ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, and incendiary comments.

Ah the qash wa tibn and al-rinja al-hamra excuses. You are not even original

>Real scholars never stoop so low as you. BTW, sarcasm in and of itself does not constitute cogent logical discourse. Only cogent, logical arguments can do that.

Then you tell us again: why do Christian Arabs call their God Allah?

>"Oh yeah and there is no historical evidence that Jewish communities existed in the Hijaz (see Hoyland) the Rabbinical sources are silent as well as the Syriac sources are silent about such communities. So let me tell you: there is no evidence that such communities ever existed"

Wow,! another bogus "straw man" from Dhimmi! How predictable! Maybe if you improved your English it would help you understand my points BEFORE stoop to you making fallacious allegations? Oh, taking a logic class would help you to avoid those pesky fallacies.

Ah another qash wa tibn excuse from our dear zzazz and let me repeat it one more time, there is no historical evidence that there were any Jewish communities residing in the Hijaz!

If you could fully comprehend my original post, you would notice that I NEVER claimed that the Jews lived in Hijaz, but in "Arabia"- meaning the peninsula, as is quite commonly broadly defined.

Had you bothered to do so, you would comprehend that the very source you mentioned (Hoyland) does in fact make frequent mention of Jews in the region, especially in Yemen, just to the South of the Hijaz, and if I am not mistaken, the caravan routes are very old indeed (oh, but like everything, you think it's bogus"- what roof do you have? NONE!) . You do know that people moved around before the advent of modern transportation, don't you? Hoyland also mentions Christian missionaries sent to Arabia to convert the pagan Arabs to Christianity. See Hoyland pp 146-9. Obviously, in such exchanges, there would have been translators, would there not?

careless reader. I was talking about Jews in the Hijaz

As far as the Meccan Trade having been "bogus" (your repetitive use of this adjective was endearing at first, but is now nothing short of stupefying) -

Do you want to share with us why is this short of stupefying?

>where's your proof?

About what?

>The "Frankincense Route has only been written about since Roman times, and once again, Hoyland, and many many other scholars provide plenty of info to back that up. If you were a real scholar, who was capable of being even slightly objective, you would know that. Since you're nothing more than a hack with an ax to grind, who is inclined to post a litany of fallacies in a highly immature if not truly banal tone, instead of engaging in mature discourse like an adult, who cares?

Then write a book and refute Crone's "Meccan Trade"

And where did you borrow your little bibliography from? Let me guess: islamicawareness.org?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".