It seems that at last our dear iam gets it

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 4, 2010 at 17:54

For the readers: You will notice that our dear iam just did not address the most important part of my post and that is the Quranic evidence (eg: al-ayka or layka) we have in the text about other texts that pre-date the Qur'an by hundreds of years and these texts do not exist because they could have been destroyed or they are in a cave waiting to be discovered

And this was our dear iam's answer

># The Quran does not impact here at all -

Hello: The Qur'an is an Arabic language text that has a history too! and I can assure you that it did not drop from the sky and how many times do I have to tell you that?

># If the Quran contains pre-existing material,

Right

>it is hardly proof this came from the Quran.

Very true but they were inculded in the Qur'an

>E.g. The Quran contains descriptions of Abraham - this info is not available any place outside the Hebrew bible.

Sure

>You cannot say that one day in the future, that which is now contained in the Quran will be found - come back when it is found.

who knows and who would have imagined that the Nag Hammadi library or the Qumran library would be discovered.

In the case of the Nag Hammadi library we have the only extant copy of the Gospel of Thomas and we know that Athanathius of Alexandria (3rd century CE) told Christians to destroy heretic books and included here would be the Gospel of Thomas. But human nature what it is we are lucky that a Copt back then did not want to destroy a book and this is why we have it today. But what does this have to do with this little chat? Well the Qur'an tells us about little stories (eg: Jesus breathing life in clay birds) the sources of which is the Gospel of Thomas. This means that those that collected the Qur'an either had a copy of the Gospel of Thomas or it was transmitted orally which means that the Qur'an contains texts that are lost to us now but we were lucky enough that a copy of the Gospel of Thomas was discovered

Now do you get it? Let me guess you did not

> Nor can you call me a demagogue here - we are pursueing truth and accuracy, and the whole world knows that Muslims parade 1000's of falsehoods openly [Blood Libels, Protocols, Jewish temple is a myth, etc] - and not a single Muslim stands up to negate these falsehoods. I am not a demagogue here.

This is not about Jews it is about Arabic and the history of a language and it does not mean that I do not understand what Islam did to dhimmis but the truth has to be told or we would all be like them

And did you think for a minute how can the Arabs that did not have any literary tradition have a book like the Qur'an composed as we are told just like that?

The answer to this: Muslims tell us that the Qur'an dropped from the sky. So did the Qur'an drop from the sky?

># No, it did not drop from the sky -

Right and it is a text that has a history too

>it was taken from pre-existing material.

Right now you are getting smart at last

>Here, revelation or magic cannot apply, because that signifies something new - not what is already pre-existing. E.g. Christians follows the Hebrew bible - where do you think they got it from - the sky?

And where did the Hebrews got it from? Let me see the P tradition right? No books drop from the sky and they are all man made

Logic as well as texual criticism of the Qur'an reveal that the Qur'an is really a mish mash of older texts (eg: the Bible, the secular literature of the Syrians and the Greeks and the Jewish tradition or al-Isra'iliyat and it is even difficult at times to define what is really Arabic in the Qur'an) nontheless we have it written IN ARABIC or in Garshouni (and for this see: Q72:18 where the word ALMSJD was read by the ulama as masaajid and it must be from Syriac mesgod and in Q72:19 there is no Arabic word called LBDA and it must be the Syriac 3abada as the letter lam and 3ayn in Syriac can be misread and for this see Luxenberg) or oral texts and in the case of al-ayak layka it must have been several hundreds of years and some of it could be from al-shi3r al-jahili (and for this see Surat al-Nijm) and yes much of al-shi3r al-jahili was made up in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of islam during the Muslim masora) nonetheless these were oral texts

># There is no logic in that statement. Pre-dating writing styles does not prove your case. Being so recent as the 6th Century, there is blatant logic this would be taken from the Hebrew or Christian bible.

Any book has a history the Qur'an included and this is what the historian has to work on

And here is another example: in the case of let us say the story of ahl al-kahf (The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus) it must have been 100 years prior to the date of Muhammad's mab3ath in 610CE as the story was written by a Syrian in Syriac who died about 515CE and more evidence that the ulama were dealing with a text and in this case the case the word al-raqeem (the name of the dog) that it must have been a misreading of the Syriac name of the Emperor Decuis which in Syriac would be DQS (DiQiS) and in this case there was a disconnect between the text of the story that must have been in Garshouni and the time the Qur'an was canonized and by then the Ulama had no clue what the word DQS really meansLet me guess: You did not get it right?

># This is absurd.

What is absurd?

>If a document already exists 100 years pre-Quran, it proves my point: it is pre-existing material and cannot be allocated to the Quran.

Not really it only means that those that wrote the Qur'an included such story for what ever reason but they did not even get it because they were reading a text that we do not have anymore and they did not even know what it means. And the reality here is that with such example we can detach the Qur'an from Muhammad! Did you get it?

>it was written around 600 CE.

This is what Muslims tell us but the Islamic Historical Tradition is the biggest literary fraud in the history of mankind

># ? I've no idea what you refer to. What part is the fraud?

All of the Islamic historical tradition is fraud as it is late and tendentious and it is no more than salvation history

You need to take a class in Islamic history 101

>If something in it is claimed as pre-dating the Quran, and you claim it is subject to a yet to be discovered relic, then you should wait till that discovery occurs.

No you do not get it. It is what the study of history is all about. History is never black and white it is grey except in the mind of dogmatic people like you and argument from silence is a poor argument now do you get it?

But you know what? The islamic tradition tells us that Uthman the 3rd khalifa and the one that is credited for the copy of the Qur'an that we have now (Mushaf Uthman or the codex of Uthman) DESTROYED all copies of the "variant readings" of the Qur'an so how do we know that he did not destory the written literary sources of the Qu'ran and we will never know and some of such sources could be hiding in some cave waiting to be discovred just like the Qurman library or waiting in a clay jar like the Nag Hammadi library now do you get it mr dogma?

># This also is not a logical premise.

Why?

>There is no reason an original, contemporary copy does not exist -

Hello: copies can be destroyed or lost or they can be hidden in a cave or a jar some place

>other than it was changed and the original destroyed. In any case, this has no relevence in showing the material was new - in both cases we see no new, original material.

You got it at last

>It is hardly a proof now that Arabic writings predate 400 CE or thereabout.

But you told us that it 300CE too right? So what changed? or is it ya3ni bel taqrib

># No changes any place from my original premise. 328 CE and 400 CE is the same time span of 70 years,

Oh ya3ni bel taqrib right?

>given also that your reference does not even contain words ARAB,

Which reference?

>etc. My point is even if we consider the 328 CE item as connected to the Quran,

What connection to the Qur'an?

>it is too close to 400 CE and you have no imprints of Arabic in between or earlier than 300 CE. No hypocrisy here, just facts before us.

>We had no proof of King david till the Tel Dan find - why is there no proof from you till now, when the Arabs were not exiled and their lands not plundered as of the Jews?

You are not very focused are you?

>This says that even in the future we cannot expect the proof you wait for.

No you do not as this is what the study of history is all about

And if we are to follow his bogus logic then I can see his likes telling the world prior to the discovery of let us say The Gospel of Thomas (which historians knew that is existed but there was no copy) in the mid 1940's; There is no such thing as the Gospel of Thomas but we have it extant in Coptic. And as for the argument from silence" god forbid as he has no clue what it really means

Now do you get it?

># The Gospels does not impact here.

Hello: this is what argument from silence is all about!

Also notice that this thread is about what is really Egyptian Arabic? And is it a language or a dialect? You will not hear a logical answer from him. I study history You? you are a demagogue now do you get it?

># Then please show some historical proof of any Arabic writings pre-400 CE like a historican should - without deflecting to EA.

What does this date of 400CE have to do with EA?

> Note that the Hebrew and Greek do not have to look at Egyptian hybrids common to many other Arabian writings, so why do you?

Why do I what?

> If there is no evidence of an Arab race pre-500 BCE -

And what does this have to do with EA?

>how can there be Arabic writings or Egyptian-Arab writings before this time? There is no evidence, which is why you deflect and won't

Hello: EA starting point was 642CE the year of the Arab invasion of Egypt like it or not

Go and tell them at Hebrew University which has one of the best Arabic language and islamic studies centers in the whole world about your little theories and they will laugh at you I promise you

>Your reponses are not logical at all - you just repeat the same things even after responding to them numerously. The fact remains there is no proof of Arabs pre-500 BCE

Then write a book and prove that Resto and Hoyland and Versteegh are wrong

> and no Arabic writings pre-300-400 CE.

Hypocrite

>You should have 1000's of proof.

Hello: this is history and if you tell them this at Hebrew University they will laugh at you. History is grey

>There is no proof the pre-Islamic arabs ever followed the Abrahamic or Mosaic belief - there is proof of the reverse being the case: so how can Jews be infidels when thet did follow the Abrahamic and Mosaic Monotheism and the Arabs did not?

Gobbeldygook

> You have no Arab kings, queens, wars, cities, monuments or relics pre-500 BCE,

So? that does not that they did not exist

>and no books, scrolls, etchings, papyrus, etc pre-300 CE.

>The artificial and manipulated connections inferred with pre-dating references are all bogus - with no hard proof of it - and no transitory imprints of it any place.

Then write a book and you will be the laughing stock of those that study the history of the Arabs

>I rest my case till you come up with some real hard proof. The debate has become circular because of your denials.

No you are thinking and that is good and even if you changed your poor information and now you realize that there were indeed Arabs and Arabic language before your bogus 400CE then I did my job

Shalom

---

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".