ARAB-ISLAMIC MYTHS

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), May 17, 2010 at 20:01

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 14, 2010 at 06:34

Our dear iam has been provided not just one time but in several posts that Arabs are attested in the literary sources as early as 900BCE and we have Arabic language texts as early as 100-300BCE and I even suggested that on his next visit to Israel that he should stop at the Arabic and Islamic Studies Dept at Hebrew University and tell them about his cockamamie theories about the "Arab race" and they will laugh at him. I even suggested that he can write a book but he will be the laughing stock of those that study the history of the Arabs

>Please produce a single reference anywhere, anyplace of the word ARAB pre-500 BCE. Please produce a single Arabic book pre-400 CE. Do you even understand the question?

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

The 900 BCE reference contains no words relating to ARAB or anything whatsoever pertaining to ARAB or Arabic. There was no Arab race 900 BCE, nor has anyone found any Arab imprints before 500 BCE, including no Arab kings, cities, relics or monuments pre-500 BCE ever found to date. This is an anomaly when compared to any other nation. This is also true of all references provided by this poster - every one was based on imposed connections by manipulating similar word soundings - but which are vacuous when any real follow-up imprints are called for. The facts remain undented:

There is not a single reference to the word ARAB in any reference provided by this poster, and no follow-up imprints pre-500 BCE can be seen. Further, all the manipulated references provided are antithetical of the assumptions made: the Arabs never followed any Abrahamic or Mosaic beliefs till the 7th century CE when Islam emerged, nor did they have any interaction with ancient Egypt. The Arabic writings emerged recently from an admix of established older writings and cannot account for any ancient history correctly.

This poster tried to make up for this vacuum by manipulating EA as Arabic [Egyptian Arabic]; then via a novel premise called diagtoliss; then by substituting Arabian and Arvi as Arab, and by quoting propaganidst stray writers and neglecting all other bonafide descrptions of history. This is evident because such ancient history cannot be recalled orally with no writings and archives: the Hebrew bible lists 1000's of datings and fractionised numbers, geneologies, cities, nations, kings, wars and laws, all accomanied by follow-up writings, inter-nation back-up writings, and scientifically verified relics and monuments - despite that the Jews being of a far more ancient period and despite being a nation subjected to wonderings and dispersals. None of these traits are seen with Arab or Arabic writings. We have a Greek translation of the older Hebrew bible called the Septuagint [300 BCE] - there was no Arabic writings in this time; and then a later Latin one - there was no Arabic version till 600 years after Rome invaded the sovereign Jewish homeland of Judea in 70 CE, which the Arabs robbed and desecrated when Islam emerged.

The Arabs learnt about Monotheism from the Jews post 500 BCE, when they had interactions with exiled Jews in Babylon, and took over Judaism when Rome destroyed Judea. They also robbed the Jewish homeland and dumped a Mosque there, now denied by most Muslims. The same was done with non-Arab Egypt, which the Arabs invaded when Islam emerged. The Jews, the Kurds, the Coptics, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Indians, the Chinese and a host of other nations all pre-date the Arab race.

But for the imposed manipulations of the term ARVI and AVDOT - there is totally nothing throughout pre-500 BCE of any reference to ARABS. This is also seen in all references provided by this poster.

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".