Road of the Patriarch
-
The posterity of Abraham is mentioned along with Israel, so the question is who is this person Israel; was he alive at the same time as Ibrahim(as)? And what about Lot; he migrated to another place so could Israel be from Lot's side?
However in 333 The family of Imran is mentioned, in the context of prophets, as the one chosen above all so was Israel perhaps from the family of Imran?I am not sure who this Israel was, either. But yes, it seems he lived after the age of Abraham.
The family of Imran appeared on the scene later on. Imran was a person (a man), and he had a daughter named Maryam. The Old Testament mentions he had 3 children Moses, Aaron, and Maryam. The Quran says that when Moses went to confont Far3oun, he brought Aaron along with him, because he was a more convincing speaker. Also, Maryam is referred to as "sister of Aaron". So, Maryam, Moses and Aaron were contemporaries. These people were all descendants of Abraham, but of a later generation.
We learn from the Torah that Jacob is the son of Isaq, and was later named Israel, thus only the children of Jacob are considered 'chosen', but the Quran does not confirm that.
This is because the Jews wanted to attribute to themselves "purity of race". This will become evident later on in the thread. OF course, the Quran does not confirm it.
Now this is getting me confused...
I thought Jacob was the son of Isaac...
It seems from 1171 that they were brothers?
But what about 2133 ?
{Or were you present when death came to Jacob and he said to his sons "Who shall you serve from after me?" They said "Your god, and the god of your fathers Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac; One god and to Him we submit."}....
So, according to this verse, Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac where predecessors (ancestors) of Jacob. To compromise between 2133 and 1171, we would have to say that in 1171, Abraham's wife was given tidings of a lineage to come. It does not mean that Jacob and Isaac were brothers (because that would then contradict with 2133).
The question is who is Israel , and where does he fit in? The Quran does not say for certain, that Israel and Jacob were the same person. So until now, this is a mystery. But I will definately look into the matter eventually.
Peace...
-
But what about 2133 ?
{Or were you present when death came to Jacob and he said to his sons "Who shall you serve from after me?" They said "Your god, and the god of your fathers Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac; One god and to Him we submit."}....
Salaam Pazuzu
Thank you for reminding 2;133 this sliped my mind.
Jazakallah Khair -
-Salam
It seems you guys are missing 2132
And Abraham enjoined his sons and Jacob "O my sons, God has selected the system for you, so do not die except as ones who have submitted."
The above translation is FM translation, I believe it should be translated like this
And Abraham enjoined his sons and likewise did Jacob "O my sons, God has selected the system for you, so do not die except as ones who have submitted."
Salaam Pazuzu
Thank you for reminding 2;133 this sliped my mind.
Jazakallah Khair -
-
Bro pazuzu, Salam
now 2133 seems to encourage the interpretation that Ismail is the father of Isaac...Salaam
Abrahim(as) already has Ismail, it was his wife who was given the good new news of son followed by grandson ;{And his wife was standing, so she laughed when We gave her the good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob}...[1171 -
- The Jealous Wife
Going back to the Quran, we find that Abraham and Lot left their original homeland and made their way towards a land that Allah described as ?blessed to the worlds?. And in that land, somewhere, was a secluded and previously UNSETTLED (uncultivated) vale where Abraham SETTLED his progeny.
{Our Rabb, I have resided part of my progeny in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Rabb, so that they may uphold the salat. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks}...
Had those who claim to be the followers of Muhamad?s message paid close attention to the word ?settled? (askantu) which appears in the above verse, they would have abandoned the Jewish myth that they have embraced for centuries, which tells them that Abraham ?expelled? his ?wench? Hagar and her infant son. The truth is that the word ?settled? used in the FM translation does not even come close to doing justice to the original Arabic word which appears in the text ?askantu? . Abraham is saying ?My Rabb, I have askantu from my progeny in an uncultivated valley?. The word is derived from the root ?sakan? which carries the meaning of peaceful habitation.
Does this sound to you like someone who leaves his infant son and his mother all alone in a desert land so they can die of thirst, on the whims of a jealous wife? Or does it sound more like he migrated and settled WITH THEM, and provided them with all the means of a peaceful habitation?
While you ponder over this issue, I will move on and tell you where the Muslims get their beliefs from
Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, "See now, the LORD has restrained me from bearing Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her." And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. 3 Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. 4 So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, "My wrong upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The LORD judge between you and me." 6 So Abram said to Sarai, "Indeed your maid in your hand; do to her as you please." And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence. 7 Now the Angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And He said, "Hagar, Sarai's maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai." 9 The Angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand." 10 Then the Angel of the LORD said to her, "I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude." 11 And the Angel of the LORD said to her "Behold, you with child, And you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has heard your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild man; His hand against every man, And every man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." (Genesis 16 1-12)
This is how the Jews distort Abraham?s personality, by picturing him as a weak old man, who is easily swayed by his wife?s emotion, and by picturing his son Ismael as the ?savage son?, who is the descendent of ?savages? (the Arabs, sons of the ?servant wench?). And what is even stranger is the translation of ?Msri? to ?Egyptian?, concerning Hagar?s nationality. So the Arabs, technically, are a bastard hybrid race of half Mesopotamian half Egyptian....
Let?s read on a bit more to see what other half-truths we find in the Torah
She also said, "Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne a son in his old age." 8 So the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned. 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. 10 Therefore she said to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac." 11 And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham's sight because of his son. 12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. 13 "Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he your seed." 14 So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting on her shoulder, he gave and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. 15 And the water in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs. 16 Then she went and sat down across from at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, "Let me not see the death of the boy." So she sat opposite and lifted her voice and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad. Then the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, "What ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he 18 "Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation." 19 Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. (Genesis 21 7-19)
And so here we see the source of this delusion the Muslims believe in, which claims that Abraham ?kicked out? his ?Egyptian servant wench? Hagar, and left her to become lost in the wilderness with her infant son. Of course, the Quran does not mention Sarah, nor Hagar, nor a ?miraculous spring? by the name of Zamzam. Although we concur that is IS possible Abraham had two wives (the Quranic verses are not clear on this issue) ? to say that the second was a ?servant wench? is marketing of racist Jewish allegations, which insists on attributing ?purity? to the Israelites, while picturing the Arabs as bastard half-breeds, descendants of a savage race. And the Muslims are not even aware where their beliefs have come from (they insist that their creed has not been contaminated by Jewish corruption?Oh No! Allah forbid it! They are above such allegations!).
The Quran says that Abraham migrated WITH his wife, to the blessed land. His first child was born in that land. He did not make the initial trip with them. Abraham provided his family with the means of peaceful habitation. He did NOT expulse anyone. There is a HUGE difference between the words ?askan? and ?tarada? . But because of their blindness, they cannot see it.
The Torah also tells us that he left Hagar and her infant son to wander alone in the wilderness of a place called "Beersheba", which they believe is in Palestine. And this of course is the natural result of hijacking the geography of the prophets of Allah, and projecting it onto the Levant. And soon, I will show you where this Beersheba was.
Of course, the Muslims decided to change the details of the story a little bit, to make it fit more with their culture. They claimed that it was ALLAH who commanded Abraham to travel 1200 kilometers from the Levant, drop his ?wench? and infant son in a deserted valley in the middle of the Hijaz region, and travel back to the Jerusalem (al-Quds) which didn?t even exist (Applause and drums, please!)
Do you believe this story ladies and gentlemen? Would Allah command such a thing? Of course, they must have found a problem with the Jewish version of the story, which speaks of Sarah?s jealousy. They must have said to themselves ?Well if he wanted to keep Hagar away from Sarah, he could have moved her to some other place in the Levant, not far from his home. So why go all the way to the heart of Arabia, over 1200 kilometers away ? a trip that would take several weeks? It must be because ALLAH SAID SO!!?.
This is the tyrannical expression that shackles the intellectual mind, and prevents anyone from questioning the story.
And I?m telling you now with 100% confidence Abraham was NOT in the Levant, and he did not send his second wife ? assuming he had 2 wives in the first place - and infant child far, and no spring was ?miraculously? dug by the wings of angels (as the Muslims claim); but in all probability it was Abraham HIMSELF who dug it (I will soon show you how the Torah contradicts itself in this matter). Furthermore, Abraham travelled with them and STAYED with them, providing them with the means of a peaceful habitation ? hence the meaning of ?askantu? - in their new land of migration, as will soon be made clear. And the location of the valley (the Bayt) was not far at all from his tents.
Now, going back to the previous passage in (Genesis 21), we recall the following
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting on her shoulder, he gave and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. 15 And the water in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs.
Of course the Muslims, again, changed the details a bit, and replaced the ?loaf of bread and water skin? with ?knapsack of dates and water skin?, to make the story fit better with their culture (Apparently, they believe dates are "Holy". But what about the glaring geographical absurdness itself? How did they go about solving that?
Let?s contemplate the story a little bit
It has become a part of the Muslim creed that Abraham expulsed Hagar and her son from the Levant to the heart of Arabia. And what did Abraham equip Hagar with for her trip, which was 1200 kilometers long? A single water skin and a knapsack of dates.... And so Hagar became lost in the wilderness, the distance required to consume a single water skin, and lo and behold! She found herself in one of Tahama?s valleys, in the south of Hijaz!!
And now I ask you this Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hagar made the trip all by herself; how far can a woman travel, while carrying her infant son in her arms, and equipped with a single water skin? I will say anywhere between 5 and 20 kilometers. So how far was the distance between Abraham?s tents and the valley (location of the Bayt)?
Is it 5-20 kilometers as logic dictates, or 1200 kilometers as the diseased traditions of the Muslims tell us?
In fact, this very question was asked by the ancient Muslim historians, who found themselves giving various outrageous explanations for it. Some claimed that Abraham travelled with Hagar from the Levant, left her near "Mecca" with the waterskin and dates, then went back to the Levant. Or, if you want something even better, listen to what Al-Suhaily says in his book ?Al-Rawd al Anf? (page 55)
.
Here is the exposition of Al-Suhaily is saying (with our comments in brackets)
And the reason for transporting Hagar and her son Ismael from the Levant and dropping them of in Mecca (as if ?Mecca? even existed back then), was that a heated argument had taken place between Sarah, Abraham?s cousin (they made him marry his cousin in order to maintain Israelite ?purity? without being aware of it) and Hagar, and so Abraham was ordered (note how he leaves the source of this order unknown) to carry her on the back of the Pegasus (al-Buraq) to the location of the Bayt, then return from whence he came (i.e. to Palestine).
These people are completely insane. There is no other explanation how a story with that many holes in it can be adopted as the truth.
What we will say here is this
This Pegasus (the winged horse), which pops up every now and then in the Islamic books of tradition, is NOT a means of transportation, but a means of FORGERY and an insult to the intelligence of the average mind; and its goal is to patch up a glaring geographical puzzle, to seperate between Abraham and his family, and to cover up a scandalous traditional belief that no sane mind can accept.
But under the cloak of ?Allah Said So?, anything is possible.
The sane and logical conclusion tells us the following Abraham left his original homeland, the land of his fathers which was somewhere in Arabia (and I will show you exactly where before this thread ends), with his wife and nephew, and migrated to the ?blessed land? of Asir, where he was bestowed, by Allah, two sons at an advanced age Ismael and Isaac. He set up his tents no more than 20 kilometers from the Bayt. He was accompanied by Lot at first, but then they parted ways shortly after they reached their new home. It is possible that Abraham had two wives. But the second was also HIS WIFE, not his servant wench. And she was NOT Egyptian, as we will soon see.
Open your eyes please, and read, from the Quran, the truth that kills their belief. Ismael and Isaac were in the SAME LOCATION
{And Abraham said "My Rabb, make this a peaceful land, and keep me and my sons away from serving idols * "My Rabb, they have misguided many from among the people. So, whoever follows me, then he is of me, and whoever disobeys me, then You are Forgiving, Merciful." * Our Rabb, I have resided part of my progeny in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Rabb, so that they may uphold the salat. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks * "Our Rabb, you know what we hide and what we declare. And nothing at all is hidden from Allah on the Earth or in the heavens * Praise be to Allah who has granted me at my old age Ishmael and Isaac; my Rabb is Hearer of the prayer}...
The criminal LIARS wanted to seperate Isaac the Pure (in Palestine), from Ismael the Bastard (in Arabia). And the misguided Muslims, who have made the Quran of no account, have been applauding and playing the drums for this forgery for centuries untold. All they know how to do is vehemently retaliate, like barbarians, when some Christian priest in the West threatens to burn a copy of the Quran. The truth is they are more proptective of the paper the Quran is printed on, than what it actually says.
They expect Muhamad's intercession on Judgement Day.. But the truth is Muhamad will do no such thing. On Judgement Day, he will complain to Allah and say {My Rabb, my people have deserted this Qur'an}
And he will disown them all.
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Buraq.jpg
The Pegasus solves the geographical discrepency.
And since the Quran tells us clearly that Allah rescued both Abraham AND Lot to this blessed land, we should take this opportunity to remind you all, briefly for now ? but in more detail later on, when we study the volcanoes of Arabia ? of a glaring truth concerning the location of Lot?s town. The Quranic verses make it very clear that this town was not far at all from the location where Muhamad preached the Quran
{And Lot was one of the messengers * When We saved him and all his family * Except an old woman who remained * Then, We destroyed the rest * And you pass by their ruins in the morning * And in the night. Do you not comprehend?}...
This means that Muhamad and his people passed by it day and night as they went about their business. This means it could not have been more than a 24 hour trip from the Mother of Towns. And the last phrase in the above verses says {Do you not comprehend?} which shows that they were to reflect on what happened to its inhabitants.
Not only this, but Allah tells us that He left its ruins as a CLEAR SIGN for those who would reflect
{And when Our messengers came to Lot, they were mistreated, and he was embarrassed towards them. And they said "Do not fear, and do not be saddened. We will save you and your family, except for your wife; she is of those doomed * "We will send down upon the people of this town an affliction from the heaven for what wickedness they were in." * And We left remains of it as a clear sign for a people who comprehend}...Furthermore, the ruins of the town are located on an often-travelled trade route which Muhamad and his people knew very well
{And it is on an established path * In that is a sign for the faithful}...
And the reason they have not found Lot?s town until now is because of a rampant Jewish and Orientalist culture which has projected the events of the Old Testament from its original theater in Arabia, onto the Levant. And this is what we read in the Islamic books of ?tafseer?, where the commentators are nearly unanimous that the location of this town is near the Dead Sea. And when archeologists combed every inch of that area and didn?t find it, they said ?Oh it must be buried UNDER the sea bed?.
And it never occurred to the Muslims to ask how it can be buried under the sea bed, when their Quran says the town was left as a CLEAR SIGN?
- Geographic Projections and ?Coincidences?.
Coinsidence #1 Beersheba
Let?s now go back to this controversial name ?Beersheba?. In the Orientalist Arabic translations of the Torah, the name is rendered as ?Bi?ir Sab3? which can literally mean either ?Well of the Wild Beast?, or ?Well of the Seven?. As a result of the diabolical geographic projections, this area is believed to be in Palestine. The problem, however, which has left the archeologists of the East and West dumbfounded, is the total absence of a well or underground water source there, or any evidence that a man named ?Abraham? ever settled in the area. The name ?Beersheba? is mentioned over 30 times in the Torah, the first of which is encountered in Genesis 21, which we have previously seen. Here's a reminder
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting on her shoulder, he gave and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba.
As for the second instance this name appears in, it tells us the story of a dispute that took place over a water source (a spring) which was discovered by a strange, alien family, composed of an old man, his wife, and his infant son, who had just settled as migrants in the heart of some valley somewhere. The Torah relates to us what happened in a logical and acceptable account, through a conversation which took place between Abraham, and an Arab man by the name of ?Abimelech? (Abi Malek), right after the spring was discovered. Here is what it says, word for word
22 And it came to pass at that time that Abimelech and Phichol, the commander of his army, spoke to Abraham, saying, "God with you in all that you do. 23 "Now therefore, swear to me by God that you will not deal falsely with me, with my offspring, or with my posterity; but that according to the kindness that I have done to you, you will do to me and to the land in which you have dwelt." 24 And Abraham said, "I will swear." 25 Then Abraham rebuked Abimelech because of a well of water which Abimelech's servants had seized. 26 And Abimelech said, "I do not know who has done this thing; you did not tell me, nor had I heard until today." 27 So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two of them made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 Then Abimelech asked Abraham, "What these seven ewe lambs which you have set by themselves?" 30 And he said, "You will take seven ewe lambs from my hand, that they may be my witness that I have dug this well." 31 Therefore he called that place Beersheba, because the two of them swore an oath there. (Genesis 21 22-31)
Regardless of the reason given for the naming of the well, it is clear that Abraham had discovered the spring himself. This supports the Quran, which says that he ?provided habitation for his family?, not that he "expulsed" them, and that he migrated to the new land WITH THEM. The contradiction in the Torah becomes evident at this point (have you realized it by now?)
More importantly, is this 'Beersheba" really in Palestine, as they say?
First of all, we need to be aware that the modern Arab linguists and commentators who have studied the Aramaic language, have pointed out that the Arabic translation of the word, which renders it as ?Bi?r al- Saba?a? (literally Well of THE Seven) is not accurate, and this for two reasons
1- because in the original and silent Aramaic text, the letter which appears in the word is ?sh?, not ?s?.
2- That the pronoun "al" (meaning "the" is NOT found in the original so-called "Hebrew" text. The Torah calls the place Bir Sheb3 (it's actually TWO seperate words), not Bir - ha - Sheb3 (the Hebrew pronoun article "ha" is equivalent to "al" in Arabic).
This has been made evident by academic linguists of the caliber of Ziad Minah, Kamal Salibi, Fadhel al- Rubay'i, and others. They have pointed out that the more logical explanation is that the name "Beer Sheb3a" (obviosly a feminine name) actually means "Well of Fullness" not "Well of the Seven" (This explains the absence of the pronoun article "the" in the word). Moreover, the lack of any archeological evidence of a well or spring in the Palestinian location, shows that the "Beersheba" of the Torah was never there.
The "Hebrew" name is a mistranslation of the Arabic name "Bi'r Shab3a", and the further incorrect Orientalist translation into Arabic may in fact have been influenced by an ancient Greek rendering of the word. In his book ?The Torah Came from Arabia? , Kamal Salibi brings to our attention the following facts
In his account of the return of the Roman general Aelius Gallus from his military campaign in Arabia Felix, in the year 24 BC, the Greek geographer Strabo (16424) describes, with pinpoint accuracy, the locations that Gallus crossed on his return journey from ?Negrana? (the city of Najran, on the Saudi-Yemeni border), to Negra (which is al-Nujayra, near the port city of Umm Lujj in current day Saudi Arabia, on the Red Sea coast), where Gallus rode his ships which carried him back to Egypt (which was under Roman rule at the time). Strabo reports that 10 days after his departure from Negrana, Gallus reached a place called "The Well of Seven"?This is obviously a failed attempt by Strabo at translating the name "Bi'r sheb3a?". Then, the Greek geographer gives a detailed description of the town of Negra, and ancient port where ships would dock. And on his way from the "Well of Seven" to Negra, Strabo reports that Gallus passed by two fortified towns called "Kala" and "Malathos"(...) The truth is that road which Gallus took was actually a dry river basin that passed through the area known as "Rijal Almu3" , in the far south of Saudi Arabia, which led all the way to the Tahama coastline, and where two ancient towns still exist today, and are known locally as ?Al-Qal3a? - (Kala) and ?Al-Malatha? ? (Malathos). This road continued North along the coastal plain, until it reached the port town of Nujayra, which is today a southern suburb of Umm Lujj (or Umm Lajj), on the Red Sea coast.
Take a look at the map below
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Gallus.jpg
A map showing the actual path taken by the Roman army, from Najran (in the orange circle) to al-Nujayra (in the blue circle). The green circle shows the geographical location of "Bi'r Sheb3a".
So I ask you now Is the existence of a location called ?Well of Seven? (as Strabo ? who tried to translate the word under the limitations of the Greek language, and its different vocal structure from Aramaic) in the far south of Saudi Arabia, a coincidence?
What if I told you now that Al-Hamadani (the great Arab geographer who was a native of the Hamadan region of northern Yemen) happens to mention the same area in his book ?Description of Arabia? ?
Take a look at the following (DoA, page 14
. (...) (...) .
Exposition Here, Al-Hamadani mentions two areas. The first is called ?Masna3a? (the name indicates water canals), and the second is ?Shab3a?. He also describes the entire surrounding region as located among ruins of ancient fortifications, and water wells. He also describes a stairway, carved from the natural rock, which comes down from one ancient military keep, to the Masna3a ? Shab3a wells, where one could have easy access to the water.
So what we have now is the following A description of an area called ?Well of Seven (Saba3)?, by an ancient Greek geographer, which ?happens? to coincide with a mesmerizing description by AL-Hamadani, over 1,000 years later, who called it ?Shab3a? (the correct pronunciation), and finally verified by an Arab historian who visited the place PERSONALLY in 1983 (Kamal Salibi), and verified its existence on the outskirts of the Suadi city of "Khamees Msheit" (which is shown on the map) as well as the existence of Himyaritic fortifications and the river canyon that the Roman general Gallus had crossed in the year 24 B.C, the several water springs there, and the fortified towns near it, exactly as the Greek geographer Strabo described them.
There, ladies and gentlemen is the "Bi'r Shab3a" (Beersheba) of the Torah.
And you can dismiss it as a coincidence if you like.
- Coincidence #2 Kinanah
It is hardly possible to read any passage about Abraham in the OT, without at least some passing mention of a people known as the "Canaanites". Ever since we embarked on our journey to search for the true location of Muhamad (P), we have been seeing proof after proof that the prophets mentioned in the Quran were all based in the south west of Arabia. So this means that the Canaanites must have been there as well, since we are stipulating that Abraham migrated to their land.
Then Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people whom they had acquired in Haran, and they departed to go to the land of Canaan. So they came to the land of Canaan. (Genesis 12 5,6]
So who are these people? And what role did they play in the life and times of Abraham?
The origin of the word "Canaan" can be found in the silent, three-letter Aramaic word ?knn?. This is how the word was spelled in the original, vowel-less text, before the Masorite Priests of Turkey decided to accentuate the Aramaic letters, starting from the 6th Century A.D. In his book entitltled ?The Search for Jesus? (page 132), Kamal Salibi verifies this by saying
The name Canaanites pertains to a place called ?Cnn? or ?Knn? ? without vowels.
The rampant geography of the Torah has made people believe that there was once an ancient land in the Levant area called ?Canaan?. The shattering conclusion that the historians and archeologists have reached is that there is not ONE trace of such a name in the Levant itself!
Prepare yourselves for a big shock.
Arab historian and religious researcher Ahmad Dawood, in his famous book entitled ?Arabs, Semitics, Hebrews, Bani Israel, and the Jews?, throws some light on this centuries-old puzzle. Listen to what he says
How did the identity of the Syrian people, who have inhabited the region since before 5000 B.C, be simply ?erased? and replaced with the tribal population called ?Canaanites?, of whom there is not a single mention in any historical document other than the Torah, and when all who ever lived in the region, Arabs or non-Arabs alike, admit that this title was never known by any nation or group of people in the entire history of ancient Syria??
Another researcher, Dr. Ali Abou Assaf (who is Syrian, by the way), verifies Dawood?s claims in his book ?Ruins of the Ancient Kingdoms of Syria?, where he says
?None of these states ever called themselves by the name ?Canaanite? or ?Amorite? (...) And at the time when Herodotus (the famous Greek historian of the 6th Century B.C) travelled over extensive areas of the Levant region, he mentioned ?Syrians? and ?Phoenicians?. Not once did he mention ?Canaanites? anywhere.
This is of course the same Herodotus who verified that the Phoenicians originally came from along the Red Sea coast of Arabia. Here is a quote from Herodotus
According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began the quarrel. These people, who had formerly dwelt on the shores of the Erythraean Sea (the southern part of the Arabian peninsula-Yemen), having migrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the parts which they now inhabit, began at once, they say, to adventure on long voyages, freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria?
Not once did Herodotus label the region as "Canaan".
Likewise, Greek geographer, historian, and philosopher Strabo mentioned that the Phoenicians originally came from the Arabian peninsula, where they had similar gods, cemeteries and temples as they have in Palestine.
Not once does Strabo label them ?Canaanites?.
These scholars (Dawwod and Abou Assaf) are actually onto something. But there is one small issue which I feel must be clarified Dawood calims that besides the Torah, there is not a single historic document in the Levant that mentions ?Canaanites?. The fact is, there are some documents, but NOT originally from the Levant region. Some very old Mesopotamian inscriptions (from as early as 1800 BC) mention a people by the name ?Kinanhu? (this is EXACTLY how it is pronounced according to the vocal glossary of the Babylonian cuneiform), who were causing trouble by infiltrating into the regions of the Levant (they were described as bandits and thieves). Also, the name appears as ?ki-na-ah-na? in the Amarna tablets (14th Century B.C), which were written in Acadian cuneiform.
Please pay attention the Semitic name is KINANAH, not "Canaan".
And these people were NOT orginally from the Levant. So where the Hell did they come from?
Consider this
1- There is is absolutely ZERO archeological evidence that the peoples mentioned in the Amarna and Mesopotamian tablets were in Palestine.
2- There is ZERO physical evidence that the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians ever vied for control of Palestine, which every evidence has shown was a periferal land of very few resources, and very little strategic importance.
On the contrary, ALL the evidence indicates that they vied for the Red Sea coast of Arabia, and control of the trade routes. ANd I will soon show you the presence of ancient Egyotian ruins and fortifications deep inside Arabia (I will post a link to a video).
So we can say that the claims of Dawood and Abou Assaf are, in a sense, correct. And the Mesopotamian tablets indicate that the Ki-na-nah were NOT originally from the region, but were causing trouble by infiltrating it gradually, and pepetrating lots of looting in the process.
Kinanah?The name rings one very big bell?
Have you ever heard of Bani Kinanah? In case you haven?t, let me tell you who, and more importantly WHERE they were
The name Bani Kinanah pertains to a south Arabian mega-tribe whose domain was vast regions of the Tahama and mountainous regions of Asir and Yemen. These are the SAME "Cannanites" that are mentioned in the Torah, always with curses and damnations, because they had vast control of the coastal areas and trade routes, and, during the time of King David, their pagan clans (among them the ?Filist?) fought many bloody wars with the monotheistic Israelites. These are the SAME Kananites, the legendary Arabian tribe, to whose land Abraham had migrated, some 800 years before the time of David.
What do you think of that?
Below is an old map taken from a Saudi gazeteer, showing exactly where the coast of Kinanah was, and where this legendary mega-tribe lived. If you can read Arabic, try googling or , and see for yourselves.
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Kinanah.jpg
The original land of "Canaan"
Al-Hamadani, who is a native of Northern Yemen, is no doubt very qualified to tell us where they lived. Here is what he says in DoA (page 231)
(...) (...) (...) (...) .
Exposition He is mentioning various areas along the coast of south-west Arabia, stretching from Jasan (Jazan) in the north (in Asir), all the way down and past the ?elbow? of Arabia, near the city of Aden, in Yemen?These places were the domains of several tribes, most prominent of which were Bani Majeed (the "Meggido" of the Torah), the Tribe of Haram, and the volcanic plains and slopes of BANI KINANAH.
Another passage from DoA (page 85) mentioning Kinanah
? ? (...) .
Exposition Here, Al-Hamadani is talking about the Surat of Yemen, The greatest and most renowned mountains in all of Arabia, and their expanse which reaches the red sea, and the domain of the tribes of Ash3ar, Akk, Hakam, and KINANAH.
These were tribes - among many - who at first began infiltrating north towards the Levant, causing a headache to the Mesopotamian colonies in Syria (NOT PALESTINE), then started to migrate in huge numbers after the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns laid waste to their lands in Asir and Yemen, starting from 700 BC.
Finally, one last word must be said about Bani Kinanah, before we move on to the next ?coincidence?.
The orientalists, in their commentaries, are always quick to mention that the so-called ?Canaanites?, the masters of the Palestinian coast of the Mediterranean, were famous for their dark reddish purple garments. What very few people are aware of is that in the forgotten books of the Arab historians, most notably ?Al-Mas3oudi? and ?Yaqoot al-Hamwi?, there is mention of Bani Kinanah, the ancient Arabian tribe ? composed of several clans - who were masters of the Red Sea coast, and were famous for building red domes. In fact, there are many Arabian legends that have recorded these structures in Yemen, and Asir, and very few such structures remain after the "science-loving" Saudis bulldozed the entire region in the 1980?s.
So we have Canaanites of Palestine, masters of the Mediterranean coast, and makers of reddish-purple garments.
And we have Bani Kinanah, located on the Asir and Yemen coast, and builders of red domes.Is this a coincidence too? Or did someone hijack the entire history and geography of south Arabia, and project it onto the Levant?
To Be Continued
-
- The Jealous Wife
{Our Rabb, I have resided part of my progeny in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Rabb, so that they may uphold the salat. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks}...
Salaam alaikum brother Pazuzu
Thank you again for a very informative post. I never did not get around to reading the Bible, nor much of hadith, so I was surprised to learn how Jews see Hagar and Sarah feuding. But what I find really unbeleivable is that most Muslims followed the people of the book, rather than the Qur'an, which clearly gives the reason why Ibrahim(as) left his home to settle his progeny in an uncultivated valley near the Restricted Sanctuary. The next verse gives the reason;'so that they may uphold the salat. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them'This shows the love of Ibrahim for Allah and his desire to make his sons serve Allah from a very early age ... simply to dedicate himself and his family to serve Allah.On the subject of Ibrahim's wife I think, from the evidence in the Qur'an that he had only one wife, namely she who was given the news of the birth of Isaac and Jacob. Ismail(as) could be either from a first wife, who was no longer alive, or from a slave girl (concubine).
Jazzakh Allahu Khair - The Jealous Wife
-
@ Pazuzu
You mentioned that archeologists were dumfounded at finding no wells or water sources in Beersheba Palestine. Can you please provide link to the article that says this becasue this is plainly wrong in my view there are plenty of wells and their is underground water available.
Secondly If your going to use the lack of archeology findings in the Levant to substantiate your Yemen hypothesis, why not use archeology to substantiate it !!. Now based on your same reasoning to debunk the status qou it seems rather contradictory when you don't have a shred of archeological evidence to back it up.
below is an excerp I found for Beersheba in Palestine.
Archeological finds indicate that the site was inhabited from the Chalcolithic period, around 4000 BCE, through to the sixteenth century CE. This was probably due to the abundance of underground water, as evidenced by the numerous wells in the area. The settlement itself dates from the early Israelite period, around the tenth century BCE.
-
The case for Cannan
Pazuzu mentioned that there is not a trace outside the Torah for a people called the Cannanites. I thought I would correct this mistake for other readers
Mesopotamian references
Certain scholars of the Eblaite material (dated 2350 BC) from the archive of Tell Mardikh see the oldest reference to Canaanites in the ethnic name ga-na-na which provides a third millennium reference to the name Canaan.
Canaan is mentioned in a document from the 18th century BC found in the ruins of Mari, a former Sumerian outpost in Syria, located along the Middle Euphrates. Apparently Canaan at this time existed as a distinct political entity (probably a loose confederation of city-states). A letter from this time complains about certain "thieves and Canaanites (i.e. Kinahhu)" causing trouble in the town of Rahisum.
Tablets found in the Mesopotamian city of Nuzi use the term Kinahnu ("Canaan" as a synonym for red or purple dye, laboriously produced by the Kassites from murex shells as early as 1600 BC and on the Mediterranean coast by the Phoenicians from a byproduct of glassmaking. Purple cloth became a renowned Canaanite export commodity which is mentioned in Exodus. The dyes may have been named after their place of origin. The name 'Phoenicia' is connected with the Greek word for "purple", apparently referring to the same product, but it is difficult to state with certainty whether the Greek word came from the name, or vice versa. The purple cloth of Tyre in Phoenicia was well known far and wide and was associated by the Romans with nobility and royalty.
Anne Killebrew has shown that cities such as Jerusalem were large and important walled settlements in the Middle Bronze IIB and Iron Age IIC periods (ca. 1800?1550 and 720?586 BCE), but that during the intervening Late Bronze (LB) and Iron Age I and IIA/B Ages sites like Jerusalem were small and relatively insignificant and unfortified towns.
References to Canaanites are also found throughout the Amarna letters of Pharaoh Akenaton circa 1350 BC, and a reference to the "land of Canaan" is found on the statue of Idrimi of Alalakh in modern Syria. After a popular uprising against his rule, Idrimi was forced into exile with his mother's relatives to seek refuge in "the land of Canaan", where he prepared for an eventual attack to recover his city. Texts from Ugarit also refer to an individual Canaanite (*kn'ny), suggesting that the people of Ugarit, contrary to much modern opinion, considered themselves to be non-Canaanite.
Archaeological excavations of a number of sites, later identified as Canaanite, show that prosperity of the region reached its apogee during this Middle Bronze Age period, under leadership of the city of Hazor, at least nominally tributary to Egypt for much of the period. In the north, the cities of Yamkhad and Qatna were hegemons of important confederacies, and it would appear that Biblical Hazor was the chief city of another important coalition in the south. In the early Late Bronze Age, Canaanite confederacies were centered on Megiddo and Kadesh, before again being brought into the Egyptian Empire."
If the Bani Kinanah were famous for building red domes, how does this relate to the Cannanites who were famous for making reddish purple garments ???... Ones seems to be a building and the other is something you wear ?
-
Pazuzu mentioned that there is not a trace outside the Torah for a people called the Cannanites. I thought I would correct this mistake for other readers
It seems you didn't properly read what I wrote on the previous page. Let me quote for you, word for word, what I said
Quote from Pazuzu
These scholars (Dawwod and Abou Assaf) are actually onto something. But there is one small issue which I feel must be clarified Dawood calims that besides the Torah, there is not a single historic document in the Levant that mentions ?Canaanites?. The fact is, there are some documents, but NOT originally from the Levant region. Some very old Mesopotamian inscriptions (from as early as 1800 BC) mention a people by the name ?Kinanhu? (this is EXACTLY how it is pronounced according to the vocal glossary of the Babylonian cuneiform), who were causing trouble by infiltrating into the regions of the Levant (they were described as bandits and thieves). Also, the name appears as ?ki-na-ah-na? in the Amarna tablets (14th Century B.C), which were written in Acadian cuneiform
So, as the other readers can see, you are wrong.
Furthermore, the name which appears on the Amarna and Mesopotamian tablets is "KI-NA-NHU" and "KI-NA-AH-NA". Nowhere is the word "Canaan" mentioned. The name "Cannan" is a corruption of the real name. You need to get it out of your system completely. Futhermore, the KINANAH are a people who did not originate in the Levant. They came from somewhere else. And when they started migrating to the Levant, in substantial numbers (no earlier than the 8th Century B.C), they were simply ONE, from among many peoples, who made this migration. Also, Mesopotamian and Amarna tablets do not mention "Palestine" at all. Not once does the word "Palestine" appear anywhere.
You mentioned that archeologists were dumfounded at finding no wells or water sources in Beersheba Palestine. Can you please provide link to the article that says this becasue this is plainly wrong in my view there are plenty of wells and their is underground water available.
Absolutely. Try these for now
http//www.essaymart.com/essay/45a8018d2ad5f.html
http//www.bibleorigins.net/abrahamphilistines.htmlFurthermore, I will quote archeologyst Israel Finkelstein, whom they label "the Doctor of Disbelief", when he talks about "Anachronisms". Listen to what he said
Anachronisms are out of place words or phrases. For example, a story from the 18th century AD would not talk about computers, atomic power, or airplanes because they were not invented yet.
In Genesis there is the repeated use of camels. Camels were not widely used until around 1000 BC. In the Joseph story there is a camel caravan carrying "gum, balm, and myrrh" which best fits the Arabian trade of the 8-7th centuries BC. Assyrian texts describe the use of camels in caravans in the 7th century. There is a large increase of camel bones in the archaeological record at this same time.
Was Egypt or Palestine ever known for producing gum, balm and myrrh? Or was it Arabia?
Concerning the well they found in Beersheba (Palestine). I don't know where you get your sources from, but when you read those links I gave you (and I will post more later on), you will see that the well did not reach any underground source, and the digging was abandoned at 130 feet. (40 meters). More importantly there is not a chance in Hell that Abraham dug it, because the tools they used belonged to the IRON AGE, This is another anachronism. Could a goat herder from 1800 B.C dig a well that is 40 meters deep? Furthermore, they found ONE well in Beersheba, in the middle of a courtyard. They did not find WELLS. The other WELLS you speak of were clustered in an area 30-40 kilometers from Beersheba. Just thought I'd point that out. There is ZERO proof that Abraham (P) dug that well.
You can follow Zionist conjectures and sources all you want. But I have already made up my mind as to who the Bani Israel were, and WHERE their original homeland was.
Concerning the lack of archeological evidence in Arabia, this is because the SAUDIS will not let anyone near the sites. But common knowledge says that the sites DO exist. And the 200+ names of locations and places in south west Arabia, matching to the letter, names of tribes and places mentioned in the OT cannot be coincidence in my book.
Bani Kinanah were a legendary Arabian mega-tribe. Their name is mentioned, to the letter, in Mesopotmian and Egyptian tablets. Ki-Na-Nah.
The name "Canaan" never existed.
Peace...
P.S I recommend you stop using Wikipedia.com as a source of "knowledge".
-
Concerning the well they found in Beersheba (Palestine). I don't know where you get your sources from, but when you read those links I gave you (and I will post more later on), you will see that the well did not reach any underground source, and the digging was abandoned at 130 feet. (40 meters). More importantly there is not a chance in Hell that Abraham dug it, because the tools they used belonged to the IRON AGE, This is another anachronism. Could a goat herder from 1800 B.C dig a well that is 40 meters deep? Furthermore, they found ONE well in Beersheba, in the middle of a courtyard. They did not find WELLS. The other WELLS you speak of were clustered in an area 30-40 kilometers from Beersheba. Just thought I'd point that out. There is ZERO proof that Abraham (P) dug that well.
Pazuzu
Peace to you
It appears you are playing with presentism rather than historisism here. Your links clearly qoutes that there have been settlements as far back as the 34th to 32nd B.C, and thats what archeology has found thus far !!. This evidence in your link clearly shows a sustained settlement over an extremely long period including a fortress, dwellings right down to the Roman era.
Now since your link shows obvious habitation dating back 5000 odd years do you really think that there was no water there at some stage throughout this time?. It would have been a fortress housing soldiers or civilians ???. In places like this, if there is no water there is no human habitation...it's as simple as that !!
At least you are now saying that that there is a well there which is not evident in your post. But now your saying it's dry (which by the way is rather normal for ancient wells as water tables rise and sink) maybe it was put there for appearances reasons only ?? but not likely.
You can follow Zionist conjectures and sources all you want. But I have already made up my mind as to who the Bani Israel were, and WHERE their original homeland was.
Again you are playing with presentism. Zionism is a recent phenomenon, not an ancient one (I hope this isn't to much of a surprise to you). Your entitled to speak your mind on who you think Bani Israel are or were, but saying that, I am entitled to have an opinion as well which is to say that your evidence is poor and utterly unsubstantiated in every aspect. As I said in my earlier posts, you use archeology to try and debunk history, but use the excuse that the Saudi's don't want to dig up the Asir region to prove your point...can you see how hypocritical this is ??.
As for your mentor (Mr Salibi) here's a few gems
Salibi admits that place names are repeated several times in Arabia (There are 5 Hebrons in this area.)
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area (who probably being nostalgic named these places after their homeland, after all there are 5 Hebrons).
Then what about the Moabites and the Noabite stone found exactly where it should be ???. Salibi has an answer dor this as well. He says you see, the stone used to live down in Arabia as well, but they were defeated badly by the Israelites so they moved to Palestine and planted the stone there detailing the whole sorry affair.And not to mention Salibi's counterparts who were so embarrased about his "hypothetical" thesis of his !!!.
P.S I recommend you stop using Wikipedia.com as a source of "knowledge".
I recommend you stop using material that is 110% unsubstantiated in every aspect which is based on what if's. At least Wiki shows evidence where one can expand further.
Peace to you brother Pazuzu.
-
It appears you are playing with presentism rather than historisism here. Your links clearly qoutes that there have been settlements as far back as the 34th to 32nd B.C, and thats what archeology has found thus far !!.
So what? Yes, there were people living there as early as 4000 B.C.
But were these people Jews? Was Abraham among them? Furthermore, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ORIGINALLY? That's the question we are trying to answer. And the well they found in Beersheba was dug in the Iron Age. So it has nothing to do with Abraham.
Again you are playing with presentism. Zionism is a recent phenomenon, not an ancient one
Yes I know that. But it's the Zionists who have been claiming that ancient Israel was in Palestine. And it wasn't until the 1970's when archeology started proving them wrong.
I am entitled to have an opinion as well which is to say that your evidence is poor and utterly unsubstantiated in every aspect.
You are free to say what you want. But I can say also that the "Israel in Palestine" claim has not been substantiated either.
So I propose you wait until I finish my threads, then, gather all the evidences for both theories, and let the readers decide for themselves which one is more convincing.
As for your mentor (Mr Salibi) here's a few gems
Salibi admits that place names are repeated several times in Arabia (There are 5 Hebrons in this area.)
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area (who probably being nostalgic named these places after their homeland, after all there are 5 Hebrons).Salibi is not my mentor, nor is he the only source for my threads. Furthermore, I do not agree 100% with him, because although he did find many names of locations in Asir matching names in the OT, he also used some rather outrageous twisting of words (switching the order of letters around) to make some other names fit. He arrived at a conclusion similar to Bernard Leeman's, that the kingdom of David and Solomon extended from Asir and up to the borders of northern Hijaz.
For your information I do not agree with his theory. All the evidence points to YEMEN as the location of Solomon's kingdom, which shared borders with Sheba and Hadramawt. So the proper location is further south than Salibi claims. (This is validated by the Quranic verses, which clearly show that the two domains of Solomon and Sheba were right next to each other).
The Hebron that you mention was rendered as "Kharban" by Salibi. When he found several towns by that name, he claimed that "Kharban" = "Hebron". But there was in fact a location called "Hebron" (spelled exactly as it is, without playing on phonetics), that Salibi was not aware of. And I will show you where it was as the list of "coincidences" becomes longer and longer.
Anyway, I am in no position to judge Salibi. The man passed away recently, and he is with Allah now. But we have to give him credit as a pioneer in the search for the truth. To me, I consider the "Sundial of Ahaz" experiment (which was NOT done by Salibi) to be the most damning scientific proof which completely destroys the Zionist argument as to the location of ancient Israel.
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area
Yes. And Abraham was not Jewish. Judaism has nothing to do with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor the 12 Clans whatsoever. Judaism was invented somewhere around 600 BC, by the Israelite clergy, shortly after the Israelites were released from Babylon.
As for the presence of Jews in Palestine, it can be traced back to no earlier than 400 B.C. It wasn't until then that Jerusalem began to have any semblance of a "city". And it was the migrating tribes from south-west Arabia who eventually named it so (in the Psalms, it is referred to as the "Daughter of Jerusalem" ), in remembrance of the orginal "Ur-Salem" in Yemen.
And Abraham was never in Palestine.
Then what about the Moabites and the Noabite stone found exactly where it should be . Salibi has an answer dor this as well. He says you see, the stone used to live down in Arabia as well, but they were defeated badly by the Israelites so they moved to Palestine and planted the stone there detailing the whole sorry affair.
They didn't move the stone anywhere. They wrote it there from the start. But that does not mean the stone recorded events that took place in the Levant.
There is a famous stone in the temple of Karnak in Egypt which describes the excursion of an ancient Egyptian king deep into Arabia, and his conquering of the trade routes there. The stone lists the names of geographical locations (in ancient Hieroglyphs) matching exactly their counterparts in Yemen. Does that mean the events recorded on the Karnak stone took place in Egypt?
Just because they found the Moabite stone detaling a victory/defeat of a certain people; does that automatically mean that the events took place where the stone was?
Peace...
-
Coincidence # 3 Mudhar
In the thread entitled ?Who was the Pharoah of Moses?, I showed you how the Septuagint priests, who ?translated? the Aramaic text of the Old Testament to Greek replaced the word ?Msrim?, which appears in the original text, with ?Aegypto?, thus creating the illusion that the events surrounding the Israelites had taken place in the Nile country. And the later generations of the world have all fallen victims to this delusion, including the Muslims, who happen to think that the word ?Msr? is the Semitic name for Egypt, when every evidence suggests that the Arabic name for that land is ?Qobt? or ?Qibt? (derived from Koptos, a name mentioned in the Isis legend dating as far back as 5000 BC), while the Egyptians themselves called their land "Keme - Kheme - Kemet".
We also showed that the term ?msr? appears in the Quran as the common name for a central town, or trade station (destination), more precisely a walled citadel with several gates that stood on the trade route, somewhere in the Asir region of Arabia.
In the thread entitled ?Hebrew, the Children of Israel and the Semitic Migrations? we indicated how the Septuagint forgers failed to notice one instance in the Torah which mentions Egypt in its true context, as a family or clan (Clan of Egypt). This appears in (Zechariah 141
Also, if you remember, I provided you with a link to a Christian website which verified this conclusion That Msrim is NOT Egypt. In case you missed it, here is excerpt which interests us from the passage
THE NORTH-ARABIAN MUSRI AND THE OLD TESTAMENT MISRAIM.?The cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria have thrown considerable light on various geographical localities in North Arabia, having important bearing on the history of the ancient Hebrews and on the critical study of the Old Testament. The importance of these new facts and researches has of late assumed very bewildering proportions, the credit for which unmistakably belongs to Winckler, Hommel, and Cheyne. It is needless to say that however ingenious these hypotheses may appear to be they are not as yet entitled to be received without caution and hesitation. Were we to believe, in fact, the elaborate theories of these eminent scholars, a great part of the historical events of the Old Testament should be transferred from Egypt and Chanaan into Arabia; for, according to the latest speculations of these scholars, many of the passages in the Old Testament which, until recently, were supposed to refer to Egypt (in Hebrew Misraim) and to Ethiopia (in Hebrew, Kush) do not really apply to them but to two regions of similar names in North Arabia, called in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions Musri or Musrim, and Chush, respectively. They hold that partly by means of editorial manipulation and partly by reason of corruption in the text, and in consequence of the faded memory of long-forgotten events and countries, these two archaic North-Arabian geographical names became transformed into names of similar sound, but better known, belonging to a different geographical area, namely, the Egyptian Misraim and the African Chush, or Ethiopia.
According to this theory, Agar, Sarai's handmaid (Gen., xvi, 1), was not Misrite or Egyptian, but Musrite, i.e. from Musri, in northern Arabia. Abraham (Gen., xii, 10) did not go down into Misraim, or Egypt, where he is said to have received from the Pharaoh a gift of menservants and handmaids, but into Misrim, or Musri, in northern Arabia. Joseph, when bought by the Ismaelites, or Madianites, i.e. Arabs, was not brought into Egypt (Misraim), but to Musri, or Misrim, in north Arabia, which was the home of the Madianites. In I Kings (A. V., I Sam.), xxx, 13, we should not read "I am a young man of Egypt , slave of an Amalecite", but of Musri in north Arabia.
Source http//oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Arabia
And now finally, we come to it at last Who were the ?Msrim?, and what relation did they have to the life and times of Abraham?
We have already established the following facts
1- The so-called ?Hebrew? tongue uses the suffix ?im? to denote the plural form. Hence, ?Msrim? is the plural of ?Msr?.
2- The Arabic tongue (the proto-Semitic tongue) has 28 letters in its alphabet; whereas the Aramaic alphabet (which is in fact the same as the Hebrew alphabet) contains only 22. This means there 6 letters found in Arabic which are NOT found in Aramaic/Hebrew. One of these letters is the heavy ?d? sound (as in the word ?ramadan?), which is spelled . This is why the Quran describes these other Semitic dialects as being ?a3jami? (meaning ineloquent, imperfect, lacking, unable to properly convey). As a result, the ?Hebrew? dialect replaces the letter (heavy ?d? sound), with the letter (the heavy ?s? sound). The only thing distinguishing those two letters is the dot.
3- Just as I showed you how the Ke-na-nah mentioned in the Mesopotamian scriptures where in fact the Arab tribe of Kinanah, so it must be that the ?Msrim? are also an Arabic tribe, located further north (geographically) with respect to Kinanah.
Taking into account what we mentioned in points 1 and 2, and taking into account also what the very accurate observation made in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which comes very close to the truth when it points out that the word is pronounced ?Musri?, not ?Misri?, we can at last solve this confusing puzzle.
Here follows is the truth that has been hidden from us
The word ?Msrim?, which the Septuagint forgers replaced with ?Egypt?, is actually the Aramaic spelling of the name of the Arabian tribe of ?Mudhar?. The Arabic spelling of the word is ??.
Hence Msrim = Mudhariyyin (in the plural) while Msr (unaccentuated / vowel-less singular) = Mudhar.
There, brothers and sisters is the source of this illusion. That single dot, separating from is the answer to this age-old dilemma.
So who were these poeple?
The legendary Bani Mudhar need no introduction. In the entire history of Arabia, there is no legacy more prominent than the bitter rivalry between the Adnanis of Central and North Arabia vs. the Qahtanis of South Arabia (Yemen). And the mega-tribe of Mudhar was none other than one of the two main branches of Adnan (the other being the Tribe of Rabi'ya).
Since many of you people tend to rely on Wikipedia so much, you can look it up there
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudhar
(There are plenty of other sources, but most are in Arabic, which the majority of FM members can?t read).
Due to the shortcomings of the Aramaic / Hebrew dialects, the letter ?dh? (ض is always replaced with the heavy ?sad? (ص. We will encounter this PHENOMENON many times later on. The modern ?Hebrew?, also incapable of pronouncing the this letter, rendered it as ?z? or ?tz??hence ?Mtzrim?.
The territory of Mudhar extended from the Asir region (bordering Kinanah) all the way north to the Hijaz, and all along the coastal areas. The map below gives a geographic approximation as to their location
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Saudi.jpg
Red circle Domain of Kinanah (the so-called "Canaanites"
Blue circle Domain of Mudhar (the "Msr" of the Old Testament).
Green circle The contested region of Asir, with areas common to both tribes.So now at last we understand just who Hagar was. Assuming this woman even existed, it seems that the Torah turned a Mudhary (Musri) princess into an Egyptian servant girl! And you wonder why the hatred toward Egypt? This confusion must be cleared once and for all. The land of ?Mudhar? (Msr - as it is denoted in Hebrew) was falsely translated as ?Egypt? by the Septuagints, somewhere around 300 BC.
The struggle between Bani Israel on one side and Mudhar and Kinanah on the other, and their hatred of each other does have a historical basis, because the Israelites, whose ancestor Abraham the Hebrew ( meaning ?he who crossed over? - 3abar) were not originally from their lands. Also, it was these Msrim (the Mudharis) who persecuted Moses. And the so-called ?Pharoah(s) of Egypt?, who pops up every now and then in the Old Testament, was none other than the "Far3oun of Bani Mudhar", a villainous tribal chief who had control of a walled citadel and caravan station somewhere along the trade routes of Asir. I will show you later how the Bani Mudhar, despite their ancient and deep-rooted hatred for the Hebrew tribes, actually allied themselves with them at one point, in order to face a common enemy - the Babylonians (rather than to suffer the destruction of their domain at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar?s brutal army).
There are other passages in the Old Testament which expose the Septuagint forgery, and we will eventually look into the details of these, when I show you, later on, where the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns really took place, and which land was actually their target. But for now, take a look at the following passage from the Book of Isaiah (as it appears in the modern translations of the OT)
The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They have also deluded Egypt, those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 1913)
The above passage is speaking of the madness and deception of the tribal leaders of two regions or towns which no human being on the face of this planet has been able to locate any trace of in the Nile Valley Zoan and Noph. It says that the leaders of these two communities - who were the cornerstone of the land of ?Egypt? - deceived all the ?Tribes of Egypt? ????
Has anyone ever heard of Egypt being composed of tribes? Has anyone ever heard of a place called Zoan and Noph in Egypt? Ancient Egypt was a powerful, unified kingdom ruled by a centralized monarchy, and which rivaled the might (if not the brutality) of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was not composed of tribes or clans. Neither was Mesopotamia.
The only spot in the ancient world which did not know any form of central authority during that era was Arabia. It was a land composed of large clans, brought together under tribal customs, often feuding and warring against each other. (This was the state that the region was left in ever since the dissolution of Solomon's united kingdom). It was a lawless, rebellious region that had control of strategic trade routes, and its tribes where a thorn in the side of the Assyrians and the Egyptians.
The truth is that Isaiah was not talking about Egypt. It was the criminal Septuagints who replaced the term ?Msrim? with ?Aegypto?, thus deluding the entire world for many generations to come.
Isaiah was talking about the tribe of Mudhar, the mother of all clans in the region of Northern Asir and Hijaz, and the tribal leaders of two areas which al-Hamadani mentioned very clearly in his book ?Description of Arabia? Su3un and Yanof (Yanoph) .
Isaiah was talking about the madness and foolishness of the Mudhari tribal leaders of Asir and Hijaz, who were under the delusion that they could stand against the might of the Babylonian army. This is made very clear by the context of the book of Isaiah, which, from beginning to end talks about nothing but the Babylonian storm which shook the mountains of Arabia
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts "O My people, who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Egypt (Isaiah 1024)
It seems, that the modern so-called ?Hebrew? also has trouble pronouncing the heavy ?s? (?sad?) sound (ص so it renders it as ?z? or ?tz?. Thus, ?Msrim? became ?Mtzrim?, while mount Sayyoun (ن, which 9 out of every 10 Yemenis today will tell you is not far from the capital city of Sana?a, became ?Zion?. (This is the same mountain that the Arab poet, Al-A3sha of Hamadan, mentioned in his poetic warning to the Christian Grand Cardinal of Najran, and from whose slopes the mad Yemeni Jewish Himyarite king Zhu-Nawwas descended upon the city of Najran some 50 years before the advent of Muhamad, where he burned the Nestorian Christians in the Trench). Also, Su3un became Zoan, while Yanof (or Yanoph) became Noph. This is because the prefix ?ya? is sometimes added to the proper names of ancient tribes or locations in Arabia. Here are a few examples of this phenomenon
Tharb - Yathrb -
Karb - Yakrb -
3arb - Ya3rb -
3arm - Ya3rm -
Noph - Yanoph -
Naboo3 - Yanboo3 -
Boos - Yaboos (the Jebusites of the Torah) -In fact, Jeremiah also mentions Noph, in the context of a warning that it would be laid to waste, and its inhabitants taken captives by Nebuchadnezzar. Again, we see the word ?Egypt? appearing in the modern translations of the text - a relic of the ancient Septuagint forgery.
O you daughter dwelling in Egypt, Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant (Jeremiah 4619)
What does Egypt have to do with Noph??? Is there any trace of a city called ?Noph? in Egypt? Some mad orientalists, in their obsession with Egypt, rendered ?Noph? as ?Memphis?, an ancient city just south of the Nile Delta!! This can be seen in the commentaries they wrote about the OT. When they failed miserably to find any trace of Noph in the Nile Country, they claimed ?Oh, Jeremiah and Isaiah must have meant Memphis!?
Now, assuming that the Mesopotamian campaigns were against Palestine (where the forgers of history claim ancient Israel was located), why would Jeremiah and Isaiah send warnings to the city of Memphis in Egypt? What did Memphis have to do with the Babylonian march on Palestine?
The fact is that the description of the Babylonian campaign in the Old Testament mentions gepgraphical features (MOUNTAINS) and names of over 100 tribes of which no trace has ever been found in Palestine.
On the other hand, the rendering of ?Noph? as ?Memphis? is truly one of the most spectacular products of the diseased Orientalist imagination, whose sole purpose is to lay claim on all the land from Iraq to Egypt, as ancient theaters of ?Israelite? holiness, gradually paving the way for the Zionists to annex all Arab lands in the Levant.
And while their plans are slowly coming to fruition, the Arabs have been asleep in their cave for 14 centuries, and are more concerned with wether or not the water should reach their elbows when performing ablution.
Here is what al-Hamadani says about Yanoph - Noph (DoA, page 294)
... (...)
He is mentioning the highlands of Najd, a vast plateau at the foot of the Surat mountains, which begins where the city of Najran lies, and extends northwards, comprising many regions, including the highlands of Yanoph - Noph, which lay within the domain of Bani Mudhar.
And you can dismiss all this as coincidence as well.
Here is our final rendering of those passages from the Old Testament
The princes of Zoan (Su3un) have become mad; The princes of Noph (Yanoph) are deceived; They have also deluded Mudhar those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 1913)
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts "O My people, who dwell in Zion (Sayoun) do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Mudhar (Isaiah 1024)
O you daughter dwelling in the land of Mudhar! Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph (Yanoph) shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant (Jeremiah 4619)
This is further proof that the events of the Old Testament have nothing to do with Egypt nor Palestine whatsoever.
Finally, a note to brother/sister Zenith Kamal Salibi did not reach this same conclusion concerning ?Msr?. Salibi claimed that the ?Msrim? mentioned in the Aramaic Bible was none other than the town of Al-Misrama which still exists today in the region of Asir in Saudi Arabia. So as you can see, what we are proposing here is radically different from Salibi?s view.
To Be Continued...
-
Thak you Pazuzu! bravo bravo bravo
-
I do not know how it works out for people of Arabia, of how much of their own history and culture is familiar to them in the same way that people in the west are more or less knowledgeable with "Sacred History" as given in the Bible.
For someone who became a muslim or who read the Qur'an with interest, or noticing things, even without being conscious of it and not being rought up as a muslim of whatever denomination, there is something weird in the whole affair. There is a mixture of things that as presented in translations or foot notes or interpretations sound pretty familiar from the bible, and then there other pieces which are seemingly "out of place" the mentions of the people of the Elephant, Aad, thamud, Ismael as keeping with his father Ibrahim more in touch than would be warranted according to the bible... as if on the one hand there was some floklore and on the other the Qur'an rested wholy on the Bible in order to acquire legitimacy or sound s on "prophetical" basis.
There is also the strange thing about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba and one wonders how is it that in the bible and in the biblical understanding of the Qur'an, they get together but there is no mention of anything in between the Kingdon of Solomon in Palestine nd the Kingdom of Saby at the other end. ?The magical powers of Solomon or his trmendous non magical knowledge? I have always had trouble taking that for a fact.
But if we understand that every single prophet or history mentioned or narrated in the Qur'an comes from the tradition and common knowledge of the people amongst which preached the Prophet Muhammad, then everything falls into place, and one is no more troubled by the question of why would the Prophet be made to refer constinuously to outside traditions, history and knowledge to preach to his own people, and later on to other peoples who had nothing to do with the biblical narrations.
Without the need to undertake a thorough scrutiny of everything posted here by Pazuzu, no, I have no trouble at all assumming that the whole of the narrations in the Qur'an refer to events in the near physical, cultural and traditional environment of the Prophet Muhammad.
On the other hand the material and logical proofs of the bible are far for impressive and I do not see in them anything that should push the balance in their favour as against those presented by Pazuzu.
As far as I am concerned, biblical narrations as history are buried, not that I ever made much of them, anyway.
Also I have always had a strange feeling reading the hisories of the Qur'an purportedly happenning in Egypt, like that of Yusuf and Musa. I have always found something unsettling in them and the thing is that even now I do not know how to explain or diagnose it exactly that feeling, which is the sensation that there is something amiss.
Salaam
-
Dear huruf
But if we understand that every single prophet or history mentioned or narrated in the Qur'an comes from the tradition and common knowledge of the people amongst which preached the Prophet Muhammad, then everything falls into place, and one is no more troubled by the question of why would the Prophet be made to refer constinuously to outside traditions, history and knowledge to preach to his own people, and later on to other peoples who had nothing to do with the biblical narrations.
This is what I have been trying to prove all along. The Quran is basically recounting to us the CORRECT and uncorrupted version of the story of the nations and peoples who came before Muhamad, including the Bani Israel. This is why Allah tells us
{This Qur'an tells to the Children of Israel most of that which they are in dispute over}...
The Quran tells us the correct story of Bani Israel and their messengers. It tells the correct story of the Patriarch Abraham and the correct story of the creation (Genesis). It also clears the name of the past messengers from teh slander and falsehoods that were attributed to them at the hands of some of the Jewish Clergy.
For instance, since the topic here is Abraham's journey, let me give you a sample of their hands wrote about him
And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, "Indeed I know that you a woman of beautiful countenance. 12 "Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, 'This his wife'; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 "Please say you my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you." 14 So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she very beautiful. 15 The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh's house. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels. 17 But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she your wife? 19 "Why did you say, 'She my sister'? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take and go your way." 20 So Pharaoh commanded men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had (Genesis 12 11 - 20).
Not only do they insist that he went to Egypt, but they made Abraham (P) into a cuckold who claimed that his wife was really his sister, so that the Tyrant of a land he sought sanctuary in would spare his life, take his "sister", and repay him with a royal dowry! Is this something that the Patriarch would do? Or is it something that could be attributed to a weak and cowardly man?
These are the same people who wrote the following about Allah's messengers
-
Noah got himself drunk senseless and while he slept, his private parts were exposed to his sons. One of those sons was unfortunate enough to cover his father's dignity, only to incur Noah's wrath and damnation when the latter woke up.
-
Lot was made drunk by his own daughters, who then proceeded to perpetrate incest with him.
-
David slept with 99 women, among them the wife of the commander of his Royal Guard.
-
Maryam, daughter of Amran, danced like a drunken maiden when Pharoah and his chariots were drowned. Later, she became jealous of Mose's prophecy, and so God became mad at her and struck her blind. The Quran recounts these lies they made up about her
{And for their rejection and their saying about Maryam a great falsehood}...
I believe that the original text of what they call "the Torah" was, at some point, an accurate record detailing the comings and goings and trials of the tribe of Bani Israel in south west Arabia. But somewhere along the line, this record became contaminated by the hands of corruption and deceit. And if you look into it, you will come to the conclusion that it is always the CLERGY who commit these forgeries. The corruption began during or shortly after the Babylonian exile (the Israleite clergy wanted to get revenge on the whole region - a kind of payback for what happened to them - so they started inventing stories about a "promised land", and giving themselves a "title deed" of ownership over it). Then came the catastrophic Septuagint translation which expanded this "promised land" even further, and invented stories about the Israelite messengers that were slanderous and untrue. Then came the Masoritic articulation of the Torah's text, and the addition of dialectic marks to "animate" its originally silent and vowel-less letters. And there also, were perpetrated some very serious mistakes, whether intentionally or not.
By the time Muhamad was sent to deliver Allah's final message to mankind, the Bani Israel had, in their hands, corrupted versions of their original scriptures. So although the Quran was the final scripture (the Last Testament, so to speak), it contained the original and pristine version of those accounts, as they were before the clergy corrupted them.
Although it's true that the Quran does not mention many geographical details, but concentrates more on the morale of the story, it does not shy away from mentioning the proper names of some places, notably Yathrib - Bakka - Iram (or Aram) of the Pillars - Badr. Furthermore, as you have pointed out, these stories would not make any sense if they spoke of places completely detached from Muhamad and his people, or of cultures alien to them. This is why I have always doubted that the events of the Old Testament had anything to do with Palestine and Egypt.
Finally, Orientalist translations of the Old Testament into the modern languages of the world (including Arabic) have brought to us a competely imaginary theater for the events of the Old Testament, by projecting the geography and history of the Messengers of Allah from their original theaters in Arabia, onto the Levant. And this is why the modern (neo-scholars) and archeologists have dismissed the OT accounts as no more then fantasies, when they failed to unearth any convincing and physical proofs of those stories in the Levant.
Let me ask you something Why would the Old Testament mention Aden and Hadharamaveth as being children of Noah, if the Great Flood took place in Iraq? Everyone knows that Aden and Hadharamaveth (Hadaramaut) are cities in YEMEN!.
Why would the Old Testament mention the Amalekites and the Zamzumim? Do you know who these people where?
This is actually the subject of the next "coincidence". But it wouldn't hurt to introduce them now.
The Amalekites where a Mudhari clan, who resided in the Faran mountains of teh Hijaz, not far from the current location of Mecca. Their name in Arabic is pronounced al- Amaleeq (3amaleeq), spelled . The term "Zamzumim" (plural of Zamzum) is a derogatory nickname given to another Mudhari clan (which I will tell you about later), who WORSHIPPED WATER SPRINGS.Does the name Zamzum sound familiar to you? It is mentioned TO THE LETTER in the Old Testament!!!
Now tell me What the HELL does this name have to do with Palestine?
I am 1000% convinced that the history of Arabia has been hidden and shrouded ON PURPOSE, by some evil, scheming will. If you read the history of all the ancient empires, from the Mesopotamia, to Persia, to Greece, even up to the Mongol Empire, and look up the maps which show from where to where those empires extended, you will see that Arabia was never included in any of them!! Try it now. Go and look at the Map of Alexander's Empire, for example. You will see it strecthed from Macedonia (his birthplace) all the way to the borders of India in the east. Arabia was never a part of it. Look up the Mongol Empire, the largest empire the world has ever known (from China to central Europe). Arabia was never a part of it. The Arabian pennisula is always shown as a shadowy area on those maps. This proves what I have been saying that - with the exception of the very brief period of David and Solomon's kingdom - Arabia has never known a centralized state or power. It was not until the Bani Saud (rulers of Saudi Arabia) came along, that a centralized state - in the true sense of the word - was formed there.
Here, I will quote Caetani and Winkler
"Until we can dig for history in Arabia, as we have dug in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, the early centuries of Arabia will remain obscure, and the searchers in the field will have to pick their way warily among the debris of half-erected and half-demolished hypotheses which the historians, with the scanty equipment of fact that they now possess, can neither complete nor raze to the ground".
Peace...
-
-
Yes, that is what it feels like with the bible, like hadith. The probolem with both is that the sublime us bundled up together with the most revolting stuff and put a single name on it. It is a stab on the back on the sublime and a licence to kill for the revolting. But in spite of that, it is carried on and on without ever bothering to split one thing from the other. Although in the case of hadith that is not exactly true, because there have been classifications and gradations and all that, but in spite of it, people or "Anonymous" continue the onslaught of hadith outside all criticism and as if it was what it is not and outside human judgement.
I am surprised that peole here who discard hadith wholly and regardless of the fact that some of them are indeed sublime, when it comes to the bible they lower the guard as if the bible could not bite and scepticism was unwarranted.
From God, undoubtedly, of what I know, only the Qur'an. The rest in quarantine, if it is congruent with the Qur'an and sound judgement, fine, if not, leave for folklore, passtime or wahtever.
On material specific roof of every single statement, I guess that archeology in Arabia should come with many findings. Unless the imerial hords have already ravaged it while us people were looking the other way, which is always.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Salaam Pazuz
Thank you again for your lastest informative posts; not that I much enjoy reading biblical conjectures, but I understand you need to mention them to refute the lies established by bible.
Now you have quoted Ibrahim's biblical narrative (also one of the hediths), which alleges that he introduced his wife as his sister; this is like those early immigrants to UK, who brought their sisters into UK as their wives, and vice versaI am surprised that peole here who discard hadith wholly and regardless of the fact that some of them are indeed sublime, when it comes to the bible they lower the guard as if the bible could not bite and scepticism was unwarranted.
SalaamSalaam
I see many on this forum trying to be prophets in their own right, as they interpret the Qur'an to fit their own understanding. They have their own theories on Ramadan and Hajj, but when it comes to the prophet they do not want to hear anything, even if it has no adverse effect on their private understanding of the Qur'an; for them prophet should be -X
Jazzakhallahu khair to all in pursuit of the truth. group