Fase connections are not proofs.

Submitted by IAMjoseph (Australia), May 6, 2010 at 21:39

This is what our dear iam wrote

.> Please give this forum a direct proof of ARAB pre-500 BCE and Arabic writings pre-300 CE.

And this was my response

>I urge the readers to check all extant pre-Islamic Arabic langauge inscriptions athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabetNow you will find the inscription from 3ayn abdot dated 88-150CE and your bonus for today is from Qaryat al-Faw dated BCE (100-300 BCE)How come you did not google this too?

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

# Your own link negates your false premise:

Wiki quote: Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions

The first recorded text in the Arabic alphabet was written in AD 512. It is a trilingual dedication in Greek, Syriac and Arabic found at Zabad in Syria. This version of the Arabic alphabet used includes only 22 letters, of which only 15 are different, being used to note 28 phonemes:

# You see that date - 512 AD? Your false connecting with other pre-dating languages is not serving your premise: how come this is not the case with the Hebrew? The fact remains, we have no Arabic pre-400 CE, as affirmed by your own links:

Wiki Quote: The Arabic alphabet evolved either from the Nabataean, or (less widely believed) from the Syriac.

That Nabatean and Syrian existed is not the issue - we have proof of that. If you now say Arabic was influenced by those languages - it is proof the Arabic is recent and not an independent language.

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

For the readers: Our dear iam is not aware that a language can have different alphabets over a very long period of time and it can also be written in a foreign alphabet and in the case of the Jews in Egypt in the late antique period they used Hebrew alphabet to write khotoba papyri that were written in Aramaic and in our dear iam bizarre world this could mean that there was really no Aramaic now do you get it our dear iam? Let me guess you did not right?

# No, sir. If there are Arabic alphabeticals, we would see such imprints - we do not. If this takes a long time, it has no impact other than the long period is aligned with 400 CE and that is was an admix of pre-dating writings and alphabeticals. The fact is, we have no Arabic writings pre-400 CE - but we do have writings from a hiost of other nations and peoples. This vacuum of Arabic cannot be ratified or justified by your explanation - it is against the normative trends of all ancient nation's languages.

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

>Quote: "The Arabic alphabet evolved either from the Nabataean, or (less widely believed) from the Syriac.:

Very true so what?

# Your own link says this is less widely believed, and instead agrees the date is 512 AD as the factual evidence of it. You are quoting verses from your links selectively and disregarding its most applicable statements. Your links agree with my premise - not yours.

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

>The abive says it is not an original writings,

So?

# SO: This is not the case with the Hebrew, the Greek, the Indian, the Chinese, which existed for 1000's of years - but NO ARABIC here.

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

>and never existed before this date,

So?

# Nothing more. You are the one denying this and submitting bogus justifications of it.

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

>namely:Quote: In the 2nd century AD^{[citation needed]}, the first known records of the Nabataean alphabet

And?

# So why did you present this as proof of Arabic, when that language itself is new? It does not ffer any application that Arabic writings is pre-400 CE - we have no Arabic, we have Nabaetean. This anomaly is not seen with the Hebrew - why so?

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

>were written, in the Aramaic language (which was the language of communication and trade), but including some Arabic language features:

So?

# It means there was aramaic, but no Arabic. The former is provable as ancient, the latter Arabic is not.

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

>the Nabataeans did not write the language which they spoke.

And?

>They wrote in a form of the Aramaic alphabet, which continued to evolve; it separated into two forms: one intended for inscriptions (known as "monumental Nabataean") and the other, more cursive and hurriedly written and with joined letters, for writing on papyrus. This cursive form influenced the monumental form more and more and gradually changed into the Arabic alphabet.

# No sir. If we do not have Arabic writings pre-400 CE, it means only that there was no Arabic writings before that date. This fact does not alter if you see the Arabic evolving from Nabetean - it in fact proves my premise: Arabic is new, derived from an admix of writings predating the 400 CE date. If it is an admix, it had to come from somewhere, and it did - but this is a recent phenomenon.

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

>The above says even the Nabetean was recent, itself derived from Aramaic.

And your point is?

# Arabic writings are recent. 400 CE.

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

>Quote: In the 6th and 5th centuries BC, north-Semitic tribes immigrated and founded a kingdom centered around Petra, in what is now Jordan. These people (now named Nabataeans from the name of one of the tribes, Naba?u), probably spoke a form of Arabic.

Then there was Arabic spoken that is before your bogus 500BCE right mr fake?so who was speaking that Arabic let me guess Martians right?

# No, it does not mean what you conclude. It means the Nabateans were pre-Arabic, and that the Arabic took on its imprints and then went on to develop the Arabic language - which first emerged as a new writings only in 400 CE. The arabic also took on words and designs from the Hebrew, the Latin, the Greek, the Coptics and the Aramiac. It had to come from somewhere, but it does not mean the Arabic is also as old. You keep resregarding we have no 'ARABIC' writings pre-400 CE, which is the only applicable factor here. E.g. the English language is an admix of numerous old languages which exsted for 1000's of years - yet the English is comparatively new - about 600 years old. The same principle applies to the Arabic writings.

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

> The people of Jordan were the Moabites before this time [Hebrew bible].

Oh not the Bible and Musa and Ibrahim again spare me this one

# Why spare you this one: all scholars agree this is a historical fact. The Moabites are first introduced to us in the Hebrew bible - it is not a myth, as inferred. I will not spare you or your ridiculing of this fact. Please admit you are wring here.

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

>Quote: The first recorded text in the Arabic alphabet was written in AD 512. It is a trilingual dedication in Greek, Syriac and Arabic found at Zabad in Syria. This version of the Arabic alphabet used includes only 22 letters, of which only 15 are different, being used to note 28 phonemes:-

You fell in the trap and it does not surpise me

And here is your lesson for today in the case of Egypt the Egyptians their language was

1. Egyptian

2. The alphabet used over a period of 3000 years was as follows

A. Hieroglyphics

B. Hieratic

C. Demotic

# Thise are not ALPHABETICALS. Nor des it have any connection with Arabs or Arabic. The Arab race, by your own links, says the Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7 C. I am not denying there are ancient Egyptian writings, even seen on the Pyramids - I am rejecting this has any connection with Arabs or Arabic writings.

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

D. And then Coptic was introduced in the late 3rd century CE so this would mean in your bizarre world that the Copts did not exist in Egypt from time immemorial in Egypt and as a matter of fact a Copt would not be able to read his own language in one of the older alphabets now do you get it?

# No, your conclusion is way out. There was a Coptic language, even when there was no Coptic alphabetical writings. The Coptic language is varied from Arabic, is older than the Arabic, and this people were in Egypt before the Arab race emerged - their land and rights were stolen, as was the case with Palestine. Your own links affirm this.

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

As a matter of fact some ignorant Muslims in Egypt claim that Copts must be the decendants of the Greek settlers in Egypt because Coptic used Greek letters! Did you get it?

# No, this is also incorrect. The Greeks are not Arabian, the Coptics are. We cannot take the statements of Arab Muslims as credible because we see a host of falsehoods displayed there as historical fact - and no Muslims stand up and rejects them.

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

Do you know what this means? It means that a language can be written in different alphabets but it is the same language and in the case of Arabic it also did not drop from the sky and it also has a history behind it now do you get it mr demagogue?

# All things have a history else they cannot exist. The dates are the only factor we are disputing. The actual emergence of Arabic writings is 400 CE - regardless of its history. The first emergence of Arabs as an identifiable race is 500 BCE - regardless taht all Arabians are Arabians. The lands now occupied as islamic soil - are in fact stolen Islamic soil, and this is varied from Israel's history. Jerusalem and Hebron were stolen by Arab Muslims in the 7th Century, and these were the property of the Jews, not of the Arab Muslims. The Jews have never stolen anyone's land in all their 4000 year history - while the Arabs did the reverse.

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

And here is History 101 so here is a one line text that is supposed to have been uttered by Jesus and here is the text in Syriac

Eli Eli lama sabachtani

And in Arabic it would be

Elahi Elahi lema sabaqtani

Suppose such text existed some 2000 years ago in the above forms we have. A poor historian will tell us that such text is an English language text and therefore there was neither Arabic no Syriac back then but a good historian will tell us

1. The first text is in Western Syriac and is written using Latin alphabet

2. The second text contains the same words as the first text but it is in Arabic language and it is written in Latin alphabet!

Now do you get it?

# No sir, I did not get it. There is no Arabic in the NT. Any resemblence only means the Arabic is an admix of older writings: the Arabic writings first emerged 600 years after the NT. The Arabic spells AVraham the latin way - but the Latin does not spell ABraham as Ibrahim!

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

Oh and do not foget to tell them at Hebrew Universtiy that 3Ayn Abdot inscription cannot be in Arabic because there was no Arabic language before your bogus 400CE and I can assure you they will laugh at you

# No, I answered this fully. The term Avdot has no connection with Arabic, nor are those archives mentioning Arab or Arabic. It does not in any way dent the fact Arabic emerged 400 CE.

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

And you are a careless reader as I told you not only once but several times that the Arabs used garshouni or Syriac when writing their texts and indeed garshouni was used in the early Islamic period because the Arabic alphabet was still not stable. The spoken Arabic language? It was there from time immemorial

# They also used other older writings: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. We know that the English contains many French words - what do you think that means?

---

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".