NO EVIDENCES PRODUCED HERE.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), Apr 22, 2010 at 21:07

This is what I wrote

>Well let us see and this is from Hoyland's "Arabia and the arabs from the bronze age to the coming of islam":"Yet through Arabia was a country of diverse peoples and traditions it is the Arabs whom we hear of most and who rise to increasing prominence in the course of Arabian history. They are first mentioned in Biblical and Assyrian texts of the ninth century to the 5th century BC where they appear as nomadic pasroralists inhabiting the Syrian desert. The fact that the name begins to be used by both cultures during the same period suggest that 'Arab' was how these pastoralists designated themselves. What its original significance was we do not know but it came to be synonymous with desert dweller and a nomadic way of life in the texts of settled peoples."So you tell us ya ayuha al-falyasoof al-kabeer did Hoyland make this up?

And this is our dear iam's answer

># You are highlighting the wrong statements - they become negated as you read on:Quote: they appear as nomadic pasroralists inhabiting the Syrian desert.This is a reference to generic nomadic peoples - not any group of ARABS! The Israelites were also nomadic pastoralist peoples – and they have written proof of their history, including cities, kings and monuments. You do not. The term 'APPEAR' is also indicative this is mere conjecture – most probably incurred by Arab propaganda.

You wanted proof and you have it! And what does this have to do with the jews?

-------------------------------------

# I stand by my response, and you have not even addressed it. The reference you quote speaks about post 500 BCE Arabs - it is hardly relevent to a predating scenario. You have no proof of Arabs pre-500 BCE. Period.

>And then he provides the following as references from your Bible and Assyrian texts that attest to the existence of the Arabs1. "You waited by the roadside for lovers like an Arab in the desert' Jermiah 3.2# No sir. You have distorted the Hebrew bible. The word used is ARABIAN - not ARAB:

Oh and you can write Hoyland and tell him that you iam the demagogue believe that the word is Arabian and not Arab! And you will be making a fool of yourself again

# Aboslutely and totally, Arab does not include Arabian. All nations, peoples and races are Arabian in Arabia, not just later arriving Arabs. This is proven by Jews, Kurds, Coptics, Egyptians, Moabites and others having a clear thread of history in Arabia pre-500 BCE - but those calling themselves Arabs today have nothing: how come? You have openly misquoted the Hebrew bible in a public forum, replacing the term Arabian with Arab - a lie; and further, you quoted a text which is post-500 BCE. You cannot put up of ARAB pre-500 BCE. No Gobbledygook.

>2. "Babylon.... will be overthrown by god " Isaiah 13.19So did Hoyland make this up too? And how come you did not know that?# You got that from the Hebrew writings - nothing in it of Arabs.

Let me repeat: So did Hoyland make this up?

# No word 'ARAB' there. Yes, if Holyland presented this as Arab he is in error - because he showed no proof to back his subjectiive views.

>And here is a sage who opined in 7th century BCE and his name was Ahiqar'never again will the Arab pitch his tent there or the shepherds make their folds' and 'do not show to an Arab the sea or to a Sidonian the desert for their occupations are different'So did the sage Ahiqar make this up too?# This is has nothing to do with Arabs. It is dated 450 BCE, denoting an Egyptian ship trading with Pheonecieans with no mention of Arabs or Arabic writings: Andhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/596622 the Assyrian king Sargon II (721-705BCE) speaks of "The Arabs who live far away in the desert and who know neither overseers nor officials'And did King Sargon make this up too?# Nothiung whatsoever to do with Arabs. This refers to the Persian empire and Mesopotamia - a war whereby the Persian conquered Babylon, when the Jews were exiled there. Arab emerged after this time and there is no reference of Arabs before this time or during this time: http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/m/mesopotamian.html

Let me repeat: so did King Saragon and Ahiqar make this up too?

-------------------------

# There is no reference to ARAB in all of the texts you quote. I already responded to this previously to you. Nor do you have even a thread of continuity - which should have alerted you those references made with subjective input are false. There is also no Arab belief in Abraham or Mosaic laws till Islam emerged: their beliefs were antithetical to the Mosaic from 500 BCE till the 6th C. The Arab race first emerged in 500 BCE as gangs offering protection to Arabians from foreign invaders [Greeks], then they took over by force and deciet those Arabian countries via the sword and massacres, as with the Egyptian Coptics. The Arabs learnt of the Hebrew bible in Babylon, where the Jews were exiled and already a religion for a 1000 years, with completed Hebrew books and observances. The Arabs were pagan from 500 BCE to the time Islam emerged, and all their belief is based on the Hebrew peoples and Hebrew books. Where else?

>Then Hoyland wrote"Arabs do feature in one very early south Arabian inscription most probably from the 7/6 century BCE"# Not true. The term ARAB does NOT appear here.

And you reference? And you know what we kuffar say: If you have a claim it is you that have to provide us with the evidence and the readers can watch you making a fool of yourself again

# There is no reference to ARABS 700 BCE, nor between 700 and 500 BCE. There is only Hebrew/Jewish evidences of this period. The sole person nominated by you as infering Arabs existed pre-500 BCE are based on grotesque and subjective input - not on any hard proof. Where is your Arabic/Islamic dead sea scrolls - were you exiled away and not able to show us?! Which monument did you build in Arabia pre-500 BCE? Name an Arab [not Arvi or Arabian] king, war, country pre-500 BCE?

---

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".