The mother of all gems revisited

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 15, 2010 at 07:38

I cannot help it but this must be the mother of all gems and I'm revisting this little gem

Our dear iam you told us that the Greeks invaded Arabia right our dear iam? But you still did not tell us the readers:

1. When did the Greeks invade Arabia?

And this is his answer

># The Greeks invaded the Persian empire in 500 bce in a war which last about 50 years. This gave the Greeks their foothold in Arabia.

Which part of Arabia? let me guess: you have no clue right?

2. Why did the Greeks invade Arabia?

># That is far removed from the context of this discussion and you have not indicated the purpose of the question. More applicable is that the Greeks were seen as feigner invaders, and groups started to offer protection of the peoples' assets - eventually, these groups became know as Arabs, a term coined by the Greeks, but which was not representative of all Arabians. E.g. the Egyptians were not Arab, nor were the Jews - the term Arab Jews only came when Jews exiled in later Arab controlled lands learnt arabic.

I read this as you have no answer right?

3. Which part of Arabia was invaded by the Greeks

Hints

1. Egypt ain't Arabia

2. No Musa wa Ibrahim please

3. Stay focused

And this is his answer

># Almost all parts of Arabia

Really? Could you provide us with references that attest to the fact that the Greeks invaded Arabia all of it 500BCE and you know how to google so it is your chance to shine our dear iam and we readers can watch you maknig a fool of yourself again

>and even onto India,

Oh and al-hind too? wa minkum nastafeed

> including Egypt -

The Greeks invaded Egypt 500BCE really?

>which was Arabian but not Arab at this time.

Oh so what is an Arab and what is an Arabian? Hint: dictionary

>You asked 3 deflectiong questions.

What is "deflectiong questions"? Enlighten us ya ayuha al-ghalabwi al-kabeer

I gave you the approx. known date when Greece invaded Arabia.

You wrote 500BCE right?

>You have not denied this,

Hello: Your claim is bogus and you fell in the trap

>but went on to ask a notoriously unrealistic and subjective question: 'WHY' DID THEY INVADE ARABIA?

So what is your answer? Let me guess; google is not helping you because the Greeks never invaded "all of Arabia" as you claim

>I correctly responded and do so again,

Hypocrite

>that this is a subjective question and one can subject it to anything one likes, as well as numerous issues can apply - like the need to conquer unknown lands - or to defend against this from Persia, which had the same notion of conquering lands.

I read this as: you did some googling and you discovered that your claim that the Greeks invaded Arabia is bogus and now you come back with more BS. Shame on you

>Maybe you can instead tell us 'WHY' the Muslims invaded Jerusalem and dump a Mosque there? But this would be a deflecting issue.

Hello: The Arabs invaded Urshaleem because they were imperialists and no more. As for al-masjad al-aqsa as I wrote before religious nuts build more shrines on the top of shrines of previous religious nuts and it is as simple as that

And what is amazing about such mosque is that it looks like a Byzantine Church and it could have ended by being the cultic center of islam as Abd al-Malik would have wanted it to be

So can you imagine if you would be visiting the Western Wall and next to thousands of Muslims doing their haj at al-masjad al-aqsa? Scary indeed. Oh Mecca? It could very well have ended by being no more than a miserable place in the middle of the Hijazi desert

>Then you asked me 'WHAT PART OF ARABIA?'.

Oh but you did give us an answer and it is : All of it right? See i read all your drivel

>This has no bearing again when ARABS emerged.

But in your bizarre world the "Arab race" would have dropped from the sky in 500BCE et voila we have them in Arabia

>The Greek wars were with the Persians, an empire which began around 700 BCE and who predate the Arab race - but not the Hebrew race. The Greek wars with the Nabateans, for example, are post-invasion. Egypt was conquered by the Greeks - but Egypt was not Arab.

Stop the drivel. So "what really happened" as in tell us more about the Arab invasion of Arabia all of it that is and you will be making a fool of yourself

>The term Arab appeared only when these gangs took over the Coptics and the Greeks for the first time

But this did happen in 642CE for the Copts and 633CE for the Greek empire in bilad al-sham so now you are saying that the "arab race" appeared (this is your word) in 633CE or 642CE? So it is not your bogus 500BCE anymore? alhamdulilalh

>called them ARABS, a term generic for an ethnic race or group,

Hello: the etymology of the word Arab is not known. I do believe that Rosenthal is correct that the word 3rb (Arab) is from the Semitic root 3BR or to cross as in crossing the desert and and it is also the source of the word 3ibri or Hebrew. The literary sources describe them as 3Aribi or 3Arabi or he who belongs to the Arabs.

>which was aligned with Arabia and all Arabian groups -

Hello: If you tell a Copt that hs is not an Arab then he will agree with you but if you tell him that he is Arabian he will laugh laugh at you and will tell you that an Arabian as an adjective means Arab and as a noun it means an Arab and he ain't an Arab and that your command of the English is poor

> many who predate the Arabs, such as the Jews, the Copts, the Kurds, the Assyrians, the Lebanese, the Egyptians, the Canaanites, the Moabites, the Midianites, etc - all of these are varied and predating of the ARAB race.

So? And stop this ugle "Arab race"

>This is the reason you cannot produce a single reference to ARAB pre-500 BCE;

And I will leave this remark to the readers to judge you

>it never existed. What you have been doing here is - manipulating words like Arvi, which appears once or twice in Hebrew writings -

Oh you mean the Hebrew Bible? then write those that translate it into English and tell them that their translations are not correct but you know what? you are the last one to pontificate about the English language

>and fixing this as your proof of ARAB. A word containing the 'V' cannot apply to Arabs - they never possessed this alphabet. Nor will we find any imprints between Arvi and Arab.

So go and tell them that and they will laugh at you

>Guess why can't you show us the word ARAB pre-500 BCE - or any Arabic writings re-400 CE?

shame on you for uttering this nonsense

You need to get your money back from your madrassa

---

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".