Four for the price of one: Arabs and their language, their kings, Syro-Arabic all in one in the namara inscription part deux

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Apr 20, 2010 at 07:19

Our dear iamjospeh is realizing that his claims are bogus

For the readers: I will let you judge our dear iam's reply

This is what you wrote our dear iamjoseph wrote. Right ?>The reason we have no Arabic writing pre-400 CEOur dear iamjoseph does not seem to know or care to admit that many Arabs lived in the Syrian desert and Mesopotamia "from time immemorial" and i inlcude here the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids and the likes of the kingdom of the Hira and how come you did not know that our dear iam?Well let us check the first line iin epigraphy that was found in Namara and in Arabic and it is dated 328CE right mr fake? And here is the first lineli nafs amr' al-qays br 3amru malik al-3arab kuluh dhu asr al-tajOr : this is for the soul (read this as the tomb) of Amru al-qays the son of Amr king of the Arabs who assumed the crownDo you know what this means?1. It means that we have Arabic language before your bogus year 400C# No sir - it does NOT mean you have Arabic pre-400 CE. An epitaph on a tomb stone does not constitute or equate you had Arabic writings, books or kings. It means the writings came after the Arabs begat arabic writings - but the epitaph itself is not in Arabic writings! It is a common known fact that Arabic is new - around the 400 CE mark.2. The arabs had kings as this is the tomb of a king# Fine - I never said there were no Arabs; only that there were no Arabs before 500 BCE. Get focused.3. Arabs lived in the Syrian desert# Fine. No arguements of your undated statement.4. The word br is Syriac for Arabic bin or ibn which also means that there was always garshouni in Arabic texts just like the Jews of Egypt in late antiquity using Aramaic for khotoba papyri so you think that we should say that there were no jews back then because these papyri were not in Hebrew? now do you see why all you claims seem to be bogus and dogmatic# You have no Arabic writings pre-400 CE; no Arabs pre-500 BCE. If the word BR or GRRR is Syrian for Arabic - then you would have Arabic writings. You do not. Unlike the Hebrew.

I will leave the above remarks to be judged by the readrs and to judge you and judge your ignorance

>Now you have 4 for the price of one# I have nothing from you which helps anything you said.

I will also leave this pathetic remark for the readers to judge you

For the readers: the namara epigraphy is dated 328CE and it is the tomb of an Arab king (something that our dear iam told us that there were no Arab kings) and it is written in Arabic with one Syriac word and notice that our dear iam the demagogue told us that there were really no Arabs before 400CE and when he was reminded of Herodotus and Periplus Arabs (he had no clue that is really the periplus) he told us that he meant that there were no Arabs before 500BCE and that there was no Arabic language texts before 400CE!

>Now you either put up or you must pardon me shut up# I did put up. You must put up. Please put up any Arabic books pre-400 CE or any Arab king pre-500 BCE. Easy for those claiming TIME IMMOMORIAL - an Arafat term no less!

No this comes from a poor book by an ignorant woman whose name is Joan Peters!!

And let me repeat: you either put up or shut up

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".