TRUTHFULNESS IS GREATER THAN TRUTH.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), Apr 25, 2010 at 22:45

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

So?

# Where is the Arabic?! That's what.

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

So?

Means there is transit writings in a continuous, constant flow by Jews of their history. Where is yours - what happened?

>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.

There is evidence: over 70% has been proven via hard copy scrolls and 3000 year relics and coins with Hebrew writings. Where is yours?

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?

There is no scientific or historical alternative to the Hebrew bible's creationism. But this is a deflection of providing proof of ARABS pre-500 BCE. While you reject the Hebrew ancient writings - you have NOTHING in comparison.

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

Oh you mean "etching"?

# Ethings are hard copy proof. Where is your ethchings?

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

I will of course believe any etching or writings or any form of proof of Arabs pre-500 BCE. But you have not provided this, while trying to negate factual Hebrew proof. I have responded to every false proof you submitted here - not a single one contained anything identifiable as ARAB.

> 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! ...

# I did not change my mind, but have maintained my premise constantly.

... we know that texts can be transmitted either orally

# Yes, oral transmission can be legitimate for certain things, like 'TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS AND CULTURES - but not so when it is not also backed by proof or when the proof contradicts. There is no contemporaneous proof of anything stated by Arab Muslims, nor any relics to back their claims. They should be.

>and no Arabic writings pre-400 CE.

Hypocrite!

# Why? There is no Arabic writings pre-400 BCE. You provided a few words on a tomb stone, which is too close to when Arabic writings emegered, and the proof you gave is hardly Arabic writings and does not contain the term ARAB.

>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 ...

# EA is not Arabic. Why do you reduce your position to another language, when we see Hebrew and Greek as inpendent writings of nations which predate you? If Arabic has similar words as other ancient languages, it is clear proof the Arabic is a derivitive of mixes of other ancient languages and is a recent phenomenon. Nothing more. Its merely exploitation to hide the facts.

>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 ?

# I read and responded to each of your links. Check again.

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

# Very big deal: no other nation can evidence such claims dating back over 3000 years. Its unique.

>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?

# What does blatant falsehoods made as historical truth? The question is notorious. It means NO CLEAN HANDS.

>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

# The Hebrew, in contrast, is not a mish mash. It is the world's most believed and reliable writings. In fact, I know of no other historical, alphabetical books older than the Hebrew, nor even any some 500 years after the Hebrew emerged. So how can Arab Muslims tell Jews where they belong and which is their homeland? Even the Quran backs Jews concerning Jerusalem, declaring this is the Jewish homeland and that one day they will return, and that Jerusalem is not Islamic but Jewish.

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

Whatever

# Yes, there can be no truth without truthfullness. No belief without truthfullness. Obey your Quran and move your Mosque to a more sacred Islamic soil, and let Jews live on their miniscule land which cannot be seen on the map. This is a test for all Muslims and Christians. Babylon, Egypt and Mighty Rome were each greater than Christianity and Islam combined. Learn from the Jews: they have never stolen anyone's land in all their 4000 year history. Think why Europe is becoming Eurostan and Muslims, despite occupying more land than they can measure - are reduced to the most un-productive peoples in Geo-History starting when Jews left Islamic lands. It cannot be seen as a co-incidence. Jerusalem spits out robbers and liars:

" I SHALL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS" [Yea olde Hebrew mythical prophesy?]

---

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".