ARAB IS NEW; ARABIAN IS OLD.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), May 14, 2010 at 23:03

>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

Delusions! Let me ask you again: Where did I write anything about EA being ancient Egyptian Arabic?

# Why are you even applying the term ARABIC to Egypt when Arabic is not post-400 CE? Egypt was not Arab nor was its language and writings Arab or Arabic.

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

>and that the Arab race existed pre-500 BCE.

What does the fact that the existence of the Arabs is attested in the literay sources as early as 900BCE has to do with the question of this thread that is EA a lugha or lahja? You are clueless

# You have certainly not shown any references of ARAB 900 BCE - the word ARAB des not exist there, nor any imprints of ths word before or since that date till 500 BCE. You are clinging to a stray word appearing once which you are manipulating as ARAB.

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

>You admt that the Arabs invaded Egypt 642 CE -

Admit what? It is a fact

> which means Egypt was not Arab before this date.

Sure it was not but what does this have to do with the question posed in this thread and is EA a lugha or a lahja? Surpise me with an answer

# The issue is not about lugha or lahja. It is that Arabic writings did not exist before 400 CE - which makes it the most recent writings in Arabia. It is also the reason for grotesque discrepencies of Islamic scriptures as given in the Hebrew and other writings such as the NT and Roman and Greek archives - these writings prove the Hebrew as credible. This is because the Hebrew did exist in those periods but the Arabic writings and the Arab race are recent. EA and lugha do not change these facts on the ground.

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

>The issue of EA cannot account for Arabic -

gobbledygook what on earth are you talking about?

>except that the Arabs, who had no writings at this time,

What time? in 642CE? Hello: we have EXTANT papyri in Arabic from 642CE that come from Egypt

# Fine. 642 CE is not disputed at all - the Quran was already written around this time. This does not alter the fact Arabic writings only emerged 400 CE. It aso eplains that Egypt was not Arab before this date, and that the Egyptian language and writings are not Arabic.

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

>accumulated words and language from the land they invaded.

So?

# Arabic is a new writing, adapted from an admix of earlier, established writings.

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

>But there was no Arabic writings here till 400 CE -

Hypocrite

# Please produce an Arabic book or manuscript containing the word ARAB pre-400 CE? Your references tended thus far did NOT contain the word ARAB and show no surrounding imprints that ARVI can be connected to Arab or Arabic. The charge of hypocrit cannot apply in these circumstances - your historical proof is non-existent.

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

>which is a period of over 1,100 years: where are the Arabic books within that 1,100 year period -

Hypocrite

# There is no reasn that Arabic books are non-existent pre-400 CE - if you claim this writings is older.

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

>as we see with the Hebrew books?

What do Hebrew books have to do with EA? Surpise me with an answer

# They have much to do in proving the vacuum of Arabic books, and that the term EA is bogus and has no impact.

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

>Where are the Arabic manuscripts, parchments, papyrus - which we see in the Hebrew, Greek, Indian and all other ancient writings?

Hello: argument from silence is a poor argument and you do not even get it

# I do not get is correct. There are no Arabic writings before 400 CE, and we see a big historical anomaly here when compared to the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Indian, Chinese and a host of ancient writings. This anomaly says the premise of Arab being as ancient is bogus, and aligns with my remise the Arab race is post-500 BCE. The claim of the Arab race being from time immemorial is thus bgus. The Jews, the Kurds, the Copts, the Greeks, the pre-Islamic ebanese - all predate the Arab race in Arabia.

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

>Are you saying that Egyptian became Arabic - and this occured 1,100 years later - around 400 CE?

Never said that. You are a careless reader

# Then what are you saying? Make a precise statement about the datings of the Arab race as an identfiable ethnic group and the Arabic writings - when do you say this emerged?

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

>This is illogical -

What is poor and illogical is poor education

>not only are there no graduating imprints,

"graduating imprints"? tsk...tsk...tsk you need to work on your English among other things

# If you claim the 900 BCE reference applies to Arabs - which I dispute - then the need for graduating imprints of the Arab race from that time upto 500 CE, a period of 400 years - is fully encumbent. E.g.: we have proof of King David being 3000 years old - this means we should see imprints from that time - and we do.

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

>but the Coptic language,

Hello: Coptic is an alphabet

# It is a language and it predates the Arab race.

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

> which is closer to the ancient Egypt -

"closer" really? It is the language of Egypt or Egyptian

How dare you judge a language (Egyptian/Coptic) that you cannot read speak or write? Oh let me guess your delusional answer would be: How do I know that? right?

# I don't need to know every language to assert a language existed if we see proof of relics of that language. If you cannot speak Hebrew, it does not mean you cannot agree a Hebrew relic is not proof of Hebrew. There are grotesque falsehoods being spread in the Muslim world today, including the denial of Jews of their historical homeland and the Temple in Jerusalem.

The truth is that the Muslims went around dumping Mosques on all places they conquered, and massacred the inhabitants - including in Jerusalem and in India, and then they deny the history they destroyed. The truth is most Islamic states are built on robbery all over the world, and the so-called sacred Islamic soil of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, all the Gulf states, Pakistan, Bangladesh - are all less than 150 years old. Anyone can check this for themselves. In total contrast, the Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being dispersed in all those countries even before the Arab race existed. E.g. Jews lived in Medina in 500 BCE, and in N.W. India in 2000 BCE - they never stole the lands where they lived.

---

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".