DENIAL OF HISTORY.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), Apr 28, 2010 at 20:35

It seems that our dear iam seems to be changing his mind as we go

I wrote:

>Hello: Are you also aware that in some Arabic language dialects ani also means I !!! Oh let me guess: they stole it too right?

And this is his reply

>Yes, I know that ana and ani, the male/female gender applies here,

Wrong. ana is both masculine and feminine so if you our dear iam is a man you would say: ana ghalabawi kabeer and if you are a she iam then it would be: ana ghalabawiya kabeera

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

I have not changed my mind in any way whatsoever. I said that Ani and Ana is 'I' and in some cases male/female gender can impact. But ANO is different and represents ancient Egyptian, its first recorded example being the Hebrew bible. Further, I said that and staill maintain, there was no Arabic writings before 400 CE but there was Hebrew and Aramaic. You then argued about EA [Egyptian Arabic] being a proof of Arabic - which I rejected: there are no imprints of this from Ancient Egypt to Arabic from 4000 years ago to 400 CE [which is a period of 2,600 years].

The Arabic came from an admix of many ancient languages, including the Latin [B is used for AVraham], which occured well after the 3rd Century - which is relatively recent. The use of EA is itself an admission by default that Arabic is not an original independent language, claiming another, ancient one as its predessor. Egypt was not Arab - it only became called as such after Islam emerged, and when the Greeks called this new religion as Arab. Arab and Arabian are not the same - the latter predates Arab by 1000's of years - unlike the Hebrew and Aramaic. This also says that Arab Muslims are engaged in negating all ancient races in Arabia, accusing them of being aliens, that they never possessed a homeland in Arabia, such as the Jews, the Coptics and the Kurds who predate both Islam and the Arab race per se.

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

If you were from pakistan I would have said to you to stick to Urdu!!

FYI, the Urdu does not come from Arabic, as is mistakenly assumed in India. It comes from the Hebrew: the Hebrew predates the Arabic, and the Jews landed in India well before Islam emerged. If one checks the writings of Urdu, they will see it is 99% the same as the Hebrew, in style, grammar and ancient word meanings. E.g. ADAM [Hebrew] is ADMI [Urdu]; YED [Hebrew] is YAD [Urdu]; etc.

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

>and that ani is also I in Arabic.

You changed your mind did you?

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

No. The variance of ANI/ANA does not signify Arabic is EA because the similarity is not backed by any transit imprints. Arabic is new; Egyptian and Hebrew are ancient.

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

> But the relavent factor is ANO does not apply as Arabic. While both Hebrew and Arabic have a similar word to the ancient Egyptian -

Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac have nothing in common with the language of Egypt get over it!

And did you ever take a class in Linguistics? Let me guess you did not right?

>the stand out factor here is that we have ancient Hebrew independently as ANI adjacent to ancient Egyptian - but no Arabic. This says the Arabic writings, which emerged only in 400 CE [at least after 300 CE], is not an original language but an admix of many ancient dialecs.

Oh so it is 300CE now. ...

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

Why hypocrite - when it in fact proves my case? The difference of 70 years, and your assumption of a set of alphabets dated 328 CE as denoting Arabic - when that word does not appear in your example - has no impact. Usually, if a language emerged first in 400 CE, it may have a precedent imprint 100 years prior, showing its development stages, which does not change the fact Arabic writings first appeared in 400 CE. You are in denial.

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

Well when you visit the Dept of Arabic and islamic studies at Hebrew University ask them about 'En 'Avadat inscription that was discovered in Israel and it is in Arabic and Aramaic and is dated 88CE to 150CE and do you think that it was also made up? Oh and ask them about Qaryat al-Faw inscription dated BCE? But remember no cockamamie stuff or they will laugh at you I promise you

# I don't have to ask those questions of anyone - they don't impact.. The first thing you must understand is that Arabic never possessed the 'V', nor are those relics mentioning anything which is Arab or Arabic:

Avdat (Hebrew: עבדת‎, from Arabic: عبدات‎, Abdat), also known as Ovdat or Obodat was the most important historic city on the Incense Route after Petra between the 7th century BCE and the 1st century BCE. It was inhabited by Nabataeans, Romans and Byzantines.^[1] It was a seasonal camping ground for Nabataean caravans travelling along the early Petra - Gaza road (Darb es-Sultan) in the 3rd - late 2nd century BCE. Avdat was named for Nabataean King Obodas I who was revered as a deity and, according to tradition, was buried there. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avdat].

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

>We know also that the original Egyptians are not Arab and never spoke Arabic

So?

# It means there is no connectivity and no transit imprints with Arabic or Arab. The Arabs invaded Egypt when Islam emerged.. Egypt was not Arab, just like Arab Muslims are not PALESTINEAN - these were Greek kins from another land, and this name was dumped on Judea - a Jewish land, not an Arab or Islamic one. This is not my opinion but a fact. It is why we can never see a Muslim PALESTINEAN pre-1960.

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

> - which clearly explains why Arab and Arabian are two different phenomenons.

Hello: you need to work on your command of the English language

> The Greeks, when they invaded Arabia,

The Greeks invaded Arabia? when was that?

# You claim to be a Historian? Greece invaded Arabia 100 years after it conquered Persia:

The Thirtieth Dynasty was the last native ruling dynasty during the Pharaonic epoch. It fell to the Persians in 343 BC; in AD 639, Egypt was absorbed into the Islamic Empire by the Muslim Arabs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Persian.2C_Greek_and_Roman_occupation]. Note the term 'MUSLIM ARABS' - there were no Arabs before 500 BCE.

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

>The Coptics, kurds, Jews - who predate the Arab grouping, all became Arab - which is dis-historical.

Not only the Copts but 92% of today's Egyptians (Muslims and Copts) are of Cotpic stock but in the Middle East evryone has multiple layers so you can have an Egyptian who is Muslim and who regards himself as a true Egyptian but also an Arab and a Sunni and this is what Milad Hanna's book is all about remember? But if you put yourself in one compartment then you have conflicts and this is what is going on now

# The Arab race is new; the Coptic race is old. Your own statement proves my case: the Coptic heritage was ururped, same is the case with the ursurping in Palestine [Jewish/Hebrew] and Pakistan [Indian; Hindhu]. Robbery and omissions does not change facts and history.

>This is the true reason we find no Arabic writings before 300-400 CE, a relatively recent date, while all other true ancient writngs can be seen.

Hello: How about 'En 'Avadat? and how about Qaryat al-Faw? What a hypocrite

>It is also the reason we find no kings, cities, wars, monuments of ARABS in Arabia pre-500 BCE. The 3 examples given in this forum, as claims for ARABS pre-500 BCE are falsified and incorrect - they do not mention ARAB nor do they display a clear thread of imprints since those dates -

Then write a book and tell the world that Resto and Hoyland and Vesrteegh are all wrong and I promise you you will be making a fool of yourself

>most scholars agree these claims cannot be verified and are assumptions only.

Could you name a name or two? And if you tell them this as Hebrew University they will laugh at you

# Yes. But how will that help when you refute all the facts already given you?

---

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".