INCULCATED DENIAL IS SEEN THROUGHOUT THIS DEBATE.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), Apr 28, 2010 at 21:38

>English is my first language.

No it is not and there is nothing wrong with that but you need to work on your ideas, your syntax and your poor logic . And you are not very focused

> That most of the world says Arab and Arabian are the same does not mean this is also historically true. The Greek invaders dumped the term ARAB on gangs who started to dominate other Arabian peoples in this region by sword, conquering and stealing their lands, and forced conversion, and that is how this name stuck.The Greeks used the generic term Arabian and called everyone in Arabia as Arab. We know that Jews & Coptics predate the Arabs and are 100% Arabian peoples - but Jews and coptics can be Arabian but not Arab. Egypt was not Arab, though the Arabs rule this country by robbery and persecuting the original Coptics here.This is why no one can produce any ARABS pre-500 BCE. They corrupt words like Aramean, arvi and Arabian - but there are no imprints of Arabs, Arabic kings, cities, nations, monuments of Arabs pre-500 BCE. We find only corrupted translations of calling other Arabian peoples as ARAB. Of course, we find transit imprints of Jews, Greeks, Kurds, Coptics and pre-Islamic Druze well before 500 BCE dating back 3000 years, with transit historical imprints - but nothing of the ARABS: guess why! This is true despite that the Jews were in constant dispersal while the Arabs were not despersed.

Now you tell me what does this have to do with: "what does the word Arab mean and what does the word Arabian mean" and this is a question of language the English language that is. So how can you prove me wrong? Hint: Dictionary!! Is this asking for much?

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

# Everything there relates to the Arab race being post-500 BCE, and Arabic writings emerging around 400 CE. Read again. That was the premise of the debate. You are also again wrong in assuming English is not my first language. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension, and grammar is subject to some abbreviation and liberty in PC debate texts.

You have shown no counter proof of your denials of Arab and Arabic datings, and the examples you provided are either incorrect or they prove only against your premise. There is also no acceptable reason for the lack of Arab evidence as with the Hebrew - the former was never subjected to exiles and dispersal and the later was. There should be 1000's of irrefutable proof of Arabs and Islam - there is 'NOTHING' whatsoever - why so?

The facts say that far from being an ancient race, the Arab and Islamic sector has a history of invading other peoples' ancient lands, enforcing conversions and negation of those peoples' history and rights: when Islam invaded India, it massacred over 50 Million innocent Indians, forced conversion by the sword, made women as concubines, purposefully dumped mosques on the most sacred sites of that county, and stole a third of India's land. The same is now seen across Arabia, and highlighted with the Jews and their rights - now corrupted by the use of terms such as Zionists and Muslim Pretend Palestineans.

I also say that the antisemitism of the Islamic sector is not from the Quran - this predated the Quran and was inserted into the Quran by the pre-Islamic Arabs who had a big hatred of Jews, and exploied this as REVELATION.

It is a fact that the Jews have never stolen or occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history, displaying the reverse of Islamists. Of note is we see no mention of the rights of the Jews, which is their homeland and what is their history in Arabia.

MOSES WAS THE FIRST ZIONIST.

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".