NO PROOF ANYWHERE IN YOUR POSTS.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), May 1, 2010 at 23:31

And this is our dear iam's answer

># Everything there relates to the Arab race being post-500 BCE,

Our dear iam told us many posts ago that there were no Arabs before 400CE.

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

You are exposing your own corruption of what I said. My position was and is, affirmed by the posts and your own words above, that I said there was no Arab race pre-500 BCE, and no Arabic writings before 400 CE. In response you keep repeating variances of my position, and submitting references which have no alignment with the proof required. For the Arab race, you submitted 3 references dating 700 & 900 BCE, which I responded have nothing whatsoever to do with the Arab race, nor are there any transit imprints favoring those references. With regard the Arabic writings, you submitted a reference of 328 CE, already too close to 400 CE to have any meaningful impact - and still that reference did not contain the name or any reference to Arab or Arabic writings. However, even if the 328 CE date is accepted, it is still too close to 400 CE, and proves only my case - there is no Arabic writings before 300 CE.

Thus it is not feasable to claim that the Arab race is ancient or in alignment with ancient Egypt, or that Egyptian writings [EA] has any connection with Arabic writings which first emerged 300 BCE. This blatant anomaly is only seen with the Arab race and Arabic writings.

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

then when he was told about Herodotus and the Periplus Arabs he changed it to 500BCE! What a hypocrite!

# I have already responded to these bogus references.

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

Then when he was reminded that the Arabs are mentioned in literary sources that can be dated to 900BCE he told us that this is really conspiracy and when told to write a book and refute such claim I never got an answer.

# I said that there is no word ARAB in any of those references - the word ARVI or AVDAT cannot possibly be Arab because it contains a 'V'. Further, I said that there was no transit imprints as its follow-up, which is a blatant anomaly when compared to any other ancient group or writings. I stand by that, and reject your false quotings what I said.

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

Then he told us that the 400CE date is really about the Arabic language.

# Totally false. In fact I even gave examples why the Arab race emerged 500 BCE, citing the Greeks and the Persian wars, and the Arab take-over of the Egyptian Coptics in their land - which was around 500 BCE.

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

And when he was reminded that texts do not have to be written and they can be transmitted oraly

# Orally is fine, if you wish to be so desperate. But this only affirms my position: there is no Arabic 'WRITINGS' - you have finally admitted this by default - by retreating to oral transmission, which is not a provable factor any which way.

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

and that there is evidence in the Quranic text that some of the material can be hundreds of years before the time of Muhammad

# Of course it can have old texts - but that says it was copied from those who were around 100's of years before. E.g. the Hebrew bible, which pre-dates the Quran by at least 1,500 years, and is followed up with 55 Hebrew books. How can it be possible for Arabs not to have copied this, when the Jews were exiled in Babylon since 586 BCE? The Quran also mentions the pre-dating Jews, that Jerusalem is Jewish and that the Jews will surely return back. Your responses do not impact - it is not a proof of ancient Arabs or Arabic writings, nor even that there is any form of Revelation here - a term which signifies something new.

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

and that the Arabs used Garshouni (they wrote texts using Syriac) and more damaging to his case are the inscriptions that we have in Arabic from Qarayat al-Faw dated BCE and from 'En 'Avadat in Israel dated from 85CE to 150CE his answer was it is all made up! What a hypocrite

# No hypocrit. Those references were also responded to. They are totally bogus when applied to Arabs and Arabic writings. Nor is your claim the Arabic was written in Syriac impacting here - this was not seen before 400 BCE.

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

>and Arabic writings emerging around 400 CE. Read again.

But you also told us it is 300CE or did you forget?

What a hypocrite

# No hypocrit. You presented a reference dated 328 CE, which I said was not Arabic, but even if this is allowed, it is too close to 400 CE, indicating only a development prototype of the 400 CE date.

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

>That was the premise of the debate.

No this is not a debate this is "I dhimmi no more telling you so" ... and it is about EA or did you forget?

# Yes, it was about EA, and I responded that the EA is bogus and has no relation to Arabic writings. How can you claim EA when Arabic writings emerged only in 400 CE? That Arabic looks like an ancient writings only proves it was copied from an admix and first appeared in 400 CE. We have no Arabic writings which tell us about Arabs or anything connected to Arabs.

You need to come up with some hard copy proof as with the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Indian and Chinese - otherwise it means Arabs are not in the same threshold as those groups. You also have to show a continuous thread of imprints in hard copy writings and relics. You have done none of these, claiming only alignment with those ancient groups with no proof independently. The Muslim claim to Jerusalem & Hebron is also a forgery and bogus – they robbed it and dumped a mosque in another peoples' land.

---

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".