THERE IS NO PROOF WHEN THEY SHOULD BE 1000's OF PROOF.

Submitted by IamJoseph' (Australia), May 1, 2010 at 21:42

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

And this was his strange answer

>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 said some languages have ana and some have ani. The impacting factor you keep deflecting is that there is no Arabic ana pre-300 to 400 CE, but there is Hebrew. The EA hybrid deflection also has no impact here. You do not have any Arabic writings before 300 CE - why not? How come we dont have to worry about this with the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Indian or any other ancient language?

Usually, an ancient language has ancient marks, and then a thread of imprints till today. You do not possess this basic requirement. The same applies to the existence of any Arab group pre-500 BCE. These are the blatant facts before us - and you are in denial.

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

>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.

Your English is poor. Oh let me guess; PC English! How pathetic! the word I or ana in Arabic has no gender! Stop debating a languge that you cannot speak read or write! ...

And did you understand a single word of what I wrote? Let me guess; you did not right?

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

I changed nothing from what I always said. I have been constant. You cannot put up any proof to counter anything I said.

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

>But ANO is different and represents ancient Egyptian,

Hello: The word I in Egyptian is Anok or Ang and not your bogus Ano!

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

It is also ANO. This is the prefix for ANOK. And CHI is AM. The Hebrew bible marks the first reference to ancient Egypt, detailing a host of stats not seen before, from location, kings, diets, wars, towns, distances from other places and correct datings. The Arabic giave us NOTHING about Egypt. This is a fact, not my opinion. You do not even admit this.

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

>its first recorded example being the Hebrew bible.

Hello: why would your Hebrew Allah use an Egyptian word in a Hebrew text? Any guesses? Surpise me with one

# What are you talking about - gibberish? There is no Hebrew allah - that is a newIslamic term from the 6th C. The Hebrew does not use that term for describing Egypt.

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

> Further, I said that and staill maintain, there was no Arabic writings before 400 CE

Hypocrite

# Why? Did you present any proof, relics, manuscripts, Arabic books - which museum are they hidden in? Why do we have 1000's of such examples in the Hebrew, and nothing from the Arab Muslims pre500 BCE? Were they exiled and dispersed to far away lands?

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

>but there was Hebrew and Aramaic.

So?and there was no English either

# So deal with it!

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

>You then argued about EA [Egyptian Arabic] being a proof of Arabic -

Hello: EA is not a proof of Arabic it is a fact that only fools can deny

>which I rejected:

Who cares if you reject it what ever the it is?

# Fool! The Hebrew, aramiac, greek, Indian writings do not have to rely on other ancient writings - they have proof of their writings in parallel. Understand the backruptsy of your arguements. If you had Egyptian Arabic, you would have those in 100's of books from ancient Egypt to 400 CE. You have nothing of the sort. In fact your arguement proves my case, not yours: you are admitting there is no Arabic pre-400 CE, but there is Egyptian and t resembles or can be twisted to show it is Arabic. Then how come there is not a single mention of arab, or an arab king, war, city between those dates? If you say Arabs are from Egyptian times, which is over 5000 years ago - where is your euivalence with any other ancient writings and language? You would be better off saying there is Aramaic or Hebrew arabic - there is more admix here than with Egyptian.

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

>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].

gobbledygook

# Deal with it!

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

>The Arabic came from an admix of many ancient languages,

And so is Hebrew and so is all other languages so what is your point? Oh I forgot Hebrew dropped from the sky right?

# No. Other languages, whether they came from somewhere else or not, are measured by their imprints in history. And we have no Arabic imprints in ancient times. Hebrew introduced the V alphabet, not seen in Phoenecian, and also the first alphabetical books. There is no comparison with Arabic and Hebrew.

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

>including the Latin [B is used for AVraham], which occured well after the 3rd Century - which is relatively recent.

So?

# Rocket science says Arabic is new, an admix taken from the Latin Abraham to derive Ibrahim - because both those languages never possessed the 'V'. The original name is spelled with a V. Check the dead sea scrolls if in doubt.

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

>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.

More gobbledygook

# Deal with it instead of parroting the same nonsense word. Egypt was not Arab and saying that today's Arabs are Egyptian is real gobbledygook: the Coptics, who predate the Arabs and are closer to Egptians, have a different language from the Arabic. Rocket science!

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

> Arab and Arabian are not the same -

Hello: Dictionary check!

# Jews are Arabian - they came from Arabia. So are Coptics, Kurds, Drews - they are Arabian also. And they all have different languages, with imprints from ancient times, and none have to deflect to hybrids. Hebrew and Aramaic are ancient and do not rely on EA.

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

>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.

More gobbledygook

# So you dent dumping Mosques in Palestine and India? You deny that Jordan, an Islamic new state, destroyed all the Synagagoes in East Jerusalem? You deny that Jordan barred Jews in Jerusalem and made toilet tiles of ancient Hebrew tombstones? You deny that Egypt destroyed many ancient Synagogies? You deny that Muslims did the same in India with the bakri mosque? You deny that Jews had a temple in Jerusalem? You deny that Jews had a sovereign homeland in Palestine? You deny that Jerusalem was established by Jews and is a Hebrew name and city? You deny that Hebrew was the birthplace of Judaism? But can you deny the ground spitting proof?

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

>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.

You did not get it did you? ...

# Urdu is new. Most of its ancient words and alphabets come from the Hebrew and mix of indian. Not the Arabic!

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

>and that ani is also I in Arabic.

You changed your mind did you?

# No, there is ana and ani. This does not mean ANO is not Egyptian. Most ancient words with I ending was changed to AA ending in arabic. We see 90% of Arabic words are derived from Hebrew and Aramaic, and many spelled in latin or Greek. This proves Arabic is not an ancient or original language. The same goes for Muslim beliefs - nothing is new - all is predated in the Hebrew. Islam did not give humanity a single new law. All it has is from ursurpings and name changes.

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

>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.

I will leave this to the readers to judge you and judge your dogmatic and poor education

# That is also not required, because this is so blatant. You leave it to others because you have no proof to counter it. There is no transit imprints between Egytpian and Arabic for a period of over 3000 years of transit history between Egypt and Arabic writings. This is a fact.

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

> 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?

# That is not why you have no proof!

---

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".