Our dear iam and some of the Quranic material pre-dates Muhammad by hundreds of years and "argument from silence"

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Apr 24, 2010 at 09:39

Our dear iam who has no clue that "argument from silence" is a very weak argument

>The simple means of deciphering the Arab race and Islam is not so difficult. Comparing this with any other race or religion, whether Hinduism, Greeks, the Kurds, the Coptics, or that of Jews and Judaism's historical record, there is the following striking differences:

Elighten ya ayuha al-falyasoof al-kabeer!

>1. There is a historical thread of ancient Hebrew writings -

So?

>all in advanced alphabetical mode, 55 books some 50 years apart,

So?

>detailing its continuous history with specific examples of names, kings, wars, monuments, nations, diets, distances, inter-nation back-ups, and scientifically evidenced relics accounting for over 70% of all Hebrew writings dating back to 3000 years [King David],

Hello: Most if not all of it is not real history but what historians call "salvation history'" or what the pious believed happened but it is not really "what really happened" and only fools can believe this version of history! Oh the Exodus? There is no evidence that it reall happened. The story of creation in the Bible is a interesting story but not for real as in real history. You did not get this one did you?

And the Arabs also have their own version of salvation history called al-sira al-nabawiyya and al-magahzi and al-ahadith and tarikh

> and 3,400 years [The Egyptian Stelle].

Oh you mean "etching"? But if you do not believe your own Bible or King Sarong or the sage Ahiqar telling us about the Arabs then why would you believe a single "etching" by Egyptians that there were indeed people in Egypt called the jews some 3400 years ago? Enlighten us ya ayuha al-ghalabawi al-kabeer

> In contrast, we have ZERO writings or any form of evidences of Arabs as an identifiable, ethnic group or race existing pre-500 BCE,

Now you changed your mind as you realized that we have Arabic inscription dated 300BCE from Qarayat al-Faw! ...

... we know that texts can be transmitted either orally as in let us say the case of the Upanishads and the Avesta for hundreds of years or they can be in written form but much of the written form does not survive (unless the text is canonized) and in the case of the Arabs we have the same. And here is a case from the Qur'an and this is beyond your poor dogmatic education (see Gerd Puin):

1. The Qur'an tells us about ahl al-ayka or layka

2. The Muslim Ulama had no clue what this means. But this is very strange for abook that claims to be a kitab mubeen or clear book. This very simple example means one of two things; That the Qur'an pre-dates Muhammad and by the time of his mab3ath in 610CE no one had a clue that this text transmitted in oral oral form and written texts really mean or that the Qur'an was not canonized until the 3rd century of islam (the time of the masoritic activity) and by then no one had a clue what this all means. But in this case it is ,as you shall see below, because some of the Quranic material pre-dates Muahmamd.

We know that the word ahl means the people but the word layka or al-ayka (I will leave the question of the Muslim masora's difficulties with the words because it is far beyond your poor education) have no clear meaning and they came up with tangle wood as a meaning for the word ayka or al-layka

3. Now if you read the Periplus (let me guess you did not read Periplus right?) you realize that there was a city in the Nabataean Kingdom called Leuke Kome which is Greek for The white city and it was a port but it lost its importance and just disappered from the sources by the first century CE

4. If you check a map of 7th century Arabia and Nabataea there really was no Leuke Kome but we find al-Hawra

5. Now in Aramaic the word white means hawar (in Arabic the word white means abyad) and al-Hawra must be the Arabized Aramaic word hawar and what is most amazing is that the name of the city later on in Greek sources became Laura or Luara which means that even the Greek words Leuke Kome were lost to the later Greeks

6. Now we found lost Leuke Kome and it is al-Hawra and it is a real place

7. Now do you know what this means? It means that the Qur'an, which is really a mish mash of texts, contains and in the words of Puin "the Quranic text contains material that is older than the oral tradition of the text" and in this case by hundreds of years. Now this material could have been transmitted either orally or by texts either written in defective Arabic (and case in point is the word layka as it is a very defecitve Arabic as the correct Arabic must be al-Ayka) ) or garshouni or even Aramaic and these texts were lost or destroyed by the most destructive tradition and that is the islamic historical tradition

8. And here is your bonus for today: the word here in two forms al-ayka and you will find it in two Quranic verses and layka which you will find in also 2 Quranic verses (Puin believs that layka is the older form) this means that we have a case of what John Wansbrough called "Variant Traditions" which means that the Qur'an (gasp!) must have multiple authors!

So did you get it? Let me guess: you did not

>and no Arabic writings pre-400 CE.

Hypocrite!

>The false, manipulated premise of 'EGYOTIAN ARABIC' just does not impact here - it is a manipulation which tries to obscure the blatant fact there is no Arabic writings by making any ancient writings as connected with Arabic, as opposed generic Arabian writings.

Gobbledygook again

EA is a fact that only fools can deny ...

>These shocking anomolies persists despite that the Arabs have at no time experienced exiles and displacement from Arabia - while the Jews did continuously - yet still display hard copy proof of their history.

What is shocking is your ignorance

>2. The links and references of two or three nominated by 'Dhimmi no more' have given no proof

Did you read them? let me guess you did not right ?

>whatsoever, and these only make personal, subjective views using generic terms such as Arabian, and that such subjective inputs are indicators of certain words deemed as similar - as proof of the total absence of proof by way of relics and continueing imprints of any Arab groups re-500 BCE. These examples given us only refer to two singular items applying to the date of 700 and 900 BCE, with no imprints between those points, and by assuming the similar names are its sole proof. One can manufacture such fiction by manipulating words, with no other proofs, and show that the Arabs are also Chinese or Norwegians - if one wants to.

So how many do you want? You have one "etching" (ROTFL) that attest to the Jews being in Egypt some 3400 years ago right?big deal

>3. Today, we see the Arab-Islamic world emersed in spreading of totally false teachings in its education systems, media and sermons, including that the Jewish temple of Jerusalem was a Zionist myth; that Moses was a Muslim; that Jews never had a sovereign homeland; etc. Such blatant falsehoods are again multiplied by teachings that the now fully known false European charges of blood libels and the Protocols of Zion are actual historical factors. Here, we see no Muslims standing up to negate such false teachings, while they embrace these same false teachings to negate actual historical facts of the Jews. Clearly, these are valid indicators of the past falsehoods claimed by the Arabs, exposing unclean hands [a judicary term]. If a Muslim honestly accepts that the Jewish temple was a myth and the Protocols of Zion are facts - how can one argue with them about similar distortions of their own historical claims about Moses, Abraham and the total vacancy of their proofs?

Ya habibi what does this have to do with EA and is it a lahja or lugha?

>I have also debated here that, respectfully, the Quran could not have come from Revelation but from the Jews themselves, between the period of 500 BCE and the 6th Century when there was a continuous and close interaction of the Arabs and the Jews: the life and history of Abraham and Moses is nowhere else seen but the Hebrew bible exclusively - and it predates the Quran by more than a 1000 years. Nor does the hatred seen by Islamists today stem from the Quran: this hatred predated the emergence of Islam, when the Romans made paid mercenaries of the pre-Islamic Arabs - precisely because of their then hatred of the Jews - which is 600 years pre-Islam [historical archives state these facts]. This in fact should cast a re-consderation for Muslims, not to associate their hatred as having anything to do with religion and Godliness, and thereby to alter their views and to cease believing falsehoods.

No the Qur'an is a mish mash of texts and yes the layer called al-Isra'iliyat is significant but it got into the text more likely than not via Syrian Christianity as we have lots of evidence that the Umayyads were Christian Arabs

>"A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER"

Whatever

---

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".