LOGICAL HISTORY DISPROVES YOU.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), May 12, 2010 at 21:48

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 12, 2010 at 06:35

Our dear iam ...?

>You are saying that ancient Egyptian arabic, which you call EA, is proof of Arabs pre-500 BCE,

Where did I say that EA is "ancient Egyptian Arabic" and what on earth is Ancient Egyptian Arabic? and what does this have to do with the fact that the literary sources tell us that there were Arabs 900BCE?

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

You used the term EA [Egyptian Arabic] as evidence that Arabic existed before 400 CE and that the Arab race existed pre-500 BCE. This is a total illogic and anti-history. You admt that the Arabs invaded Egypt 642 CE - which means Egypt was not Arab before this date. The issue of EA cannot account for Arabic - except that the Arabs, who had no writings at this time, accumulated words and language from the land they invaded. But there was no Arabic writings here till 400 CE - which is a period of over 1,100 years: where are the Arabic books within that 1,100 year period - as we see with the Hebrew books? Where are the Arabic manuscripts, parchments, papyrus - which we see in the Hebrew, Greek, Indian and all other ancient writings? Are you saying that Egyptian became Arabic - and this occured 1,100 years later - around 400 CE?

This is illogical - not only are there no graduating imprints, but the Coptic language, which is closer to the ancient Egypt - is different from Arabic - which says that the Egyptian and the later, recent Arabic are different. In fact, the only logical premise is that around 400 CE, the pre-islamic Arabs formed a new writings from an admix of various already existing and well established writings - like the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc. The various evidenced tended by you have all been responded to, and are also all bogus without exception: not a single one of them contains the word Arab, shows no Arab kings, manuments, relics, cities, wars or any imprints which denotes an identifable Arab group. Here, all that you are doing is manipilating words like Arvi and Arabian as Arab - which is impossible even if you post a bogus reference of 900 BCE - because the Hebrew predates this date, there was no 'V' alphabet in any other language but the Hebrew, and unlike the Hebrew - we see no imprints of Arab till post 500 BCE.

The Hebrew clearly includes words which are never termed as ARAB - Arvi has no chance of any relationship with Arabic - because of the V and because Arvi is a hebrew word which is predates 900 BCE, meaning that it is clearly directed to references which predate the Arab race.

The questions you must now answer are these:

Q. Do you agree that the word ARAB [spelt correctly] - does not appear anywhere pre-500 BCE?

Q. Do you agree that Egypt was not Arab before it was invaded in the 7th Centuary?

Q. Do you agree that there were no Arabic books pre-400 CE?

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".