Road of the Patriarch
-
Peace huruf,
http//oi42.tinypic.com/1z64owp.jpg
This topic has a dozen sub topics and is all over the place like the rest of Pazuzu's threads. Unless people learn to focus, resolve one issue at-a-time, it's pointless to plaster the boards with numerous speculations and hearsay which all it does is create confusion and clutter. Then we have all the cheerleaders who contribute nothing to the discussion except spam/noise their every other post.
Agree with you Noon.. even 'human linguistic' alone is a complex subject to discuss.
And most definitely Pazuzu hypothesis is wrong.
There's no such thing as 'fitri language' and 'arabic is not the origin of all languages'.But again, I don't see much use on debating this issue.. as I see Pazuzu's main intention and objective is more towards "Yemen/Southern Arabia Hegemonism"..
Which doesn't have anything to do with being a "Good" or "Bad"..
Anybody has the right to believe in whatever they want... as truth stands out clear from error..Salam / Peace
-
Seems that nobody has said anything abour protosemitic for the momento, I have been seeing around a little and what seems to be certain concerning the proto semitic lady is that it is a hypothesis -not to harp on the thing, but it being a fact- just as much a hypothesis as the one put forward by Pazuzu and others.
I mean, to put a diagram with the hypothetical chronological appearance of languages given names and sorted out hypothetically is a working insturment is not a proof of anything. Just as good to suppose that as to suppose that in fact if there is a protosemitic, that protosemitic might have been in fact the a earliest version of Arabic.
Salaam
-
I mean, to put a diagram with the hypothetical chronological appearance of languages given names and sorted out hypothetically is a working insturment is not a proof of anything. Just as good to suppose that as to suppose that in fact if there is a protosemitic, that protosemitic might have been in fact the a earliest version of Arabic.
Your statement of "Proto semitic is an earliest version of Arabic" is TRUE.
As TRUE as "Proto semitic is an earliest version of Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician, Amharic, Assyrian and Babylonian language".
And "Pre Proto Semitic" is an earliest version of "Proto Semitic".Like I said; Human migration pattern and biological + cultural evolution is a complex issue..
Yet the evolution pattern should go from Simpler -> More Complex..
All semitic languages can be categorized as "Complex" languages, there are genders, declension, cases etc..
As thus it's not an 'early language'.There are far more simpler languages in the world today which are genderless and with far more simpler cases and no declension. (Such as polynesians) Those simpler languages is a stronger candidate than 'any semitic language' for 'earlier languages' the language that all of our early ancestor spoke...
But again I think "tracing the root of all languages" is not the main objective of Pazuzu or anybody else in this matter.
The objective is more towards to show "Yemen / Southern Arabia hegemony above all cultures/languages"..Salam / Peace
-
I have not seen that Pazuzu has spoken or purported or promoted any hegemony of any kind. He has put forward some explanations of matters dealt with in the Qur'an which some people reject while assuming other hegemonic ideas. But for someone who has a signature like yours I guess that to take anything Arab without denigrating it might be outrageous challenge.
As to linguistic theories, there are many indeed and none has been proven true, more true than others. You are not revealing anything saying that there are many kinds of languages of many types and structures, we are well aware of that.
Concerning semitic languages, my impression is that the likeliest candidate to being the prototype is Arabic, notwithstanding your contention that languages should go from simpler to more complex. It may be so or not, there are many examples of the opposite. At any rate that would also be a hypothesis and you have not brought anything about protosemitic that enlightens the question any more.
Salaam
-
But for someone who has a signature like yours I guess that to take anything Arab without denigrating it might be outrageous challenge.
Another unproven hypothesis.. rotfl rotfl rotfl
And how does 'my signature' got to do with our discussion?By the way; by blood I'm an "Iraqi".. whether Iraqi is an arab.. that's left for 'politics' to answer.. I can be an arab by modern nationalistic definition or babylonian / assyrian as well..
Concerning semitic languages, my impression is that the likeliest candidate to being the prototype is Arabic
Again you're not being 'objective' here.. perhaps due to your 'arabic' blood?? Which clouded your judgement?
I can say with the same confident level that Assyrian language is the prototype of semitic language.notwithstanding your contention that languages should go from simpler to more complex. It may be so or not, there are many examples of the opposite.
It's less likely.. as many other of human cultural element..
An example on 'clothing'... how would 'earlier people' dress?
Like This?
http//4.bp.blogspot.com/_gCn9Jo-iOCU/SuWMMb-f5lI/AAAAAAAAAFk/Dlg0YVY7y0I/s400/arabs.jpgOr like this?
http//images.travelpod.com/tripwow/photos/ta-00b6-0e60-cb13/papua-women-indonesia-indonesia+12902385220-tpfil02aw-24681.jpg
Again this strengthen the simple->complex evolution path, the polynesians/papuan languages are genderless, no declension or cases. much more simpler than any semitic languages.
This will be my last post on this topic.. as this discussion has nothing to do with being 'good' or 'bad'.
Adam, Abraham, Moses etc.. can be in Antarctic or Mars for all I care..You're free to believe whatever you want, yet truth stands out clear from error...
Salam / Peace
-
Yet the evolution pattern should go from Simpler -> More Complex..
We are talking about language here, not living organisms. And many linguists, starting from the 1960's, as well as experts in the field of phonetics, do not agree with your stance.
You need to broaden your perspective and stop relying on wikipedia.com (or other "wikis" of its ilk), as a source of knowledge, because the people who post on those sites are simply reiterating what they have been taught since their school days. These people can't grasp the difference between oral speech and written alphabet. When I say Arabic is the oldest language, I do NOT mean its alphabet in any way, shape or form. I mean the oral arabic speech, which contains easlily 100x more phonemes than Hebrew, and a vocabulary that is easily 100x that of the former, could not possibly have evolved from Hebrew. The oral speech can exist thousands of years before its written, alphabetical form. This is what they fail to grasp.
You need to read the works of scholars like
- Sabatino Moscati
- Sigrid Hunke
- Pierre Rossi (IF you can find an English translation of his works)
- Ahmad Dawood
- Kamal Salibi (to whom Hebrew was almost like a native language, alongside Arabic)
- G.R.Driver (professor of Modern Hebrew at Oxford University).
Finally, I urge you to check these out
http//www.alislam.org/topics/arabic/The%20source%20of%20all%20the%20languages.pdf
http//www.alislam.org/topics/arabic/English%20traced%20to%20Arabic.pdf
Before you dismiss these as the ramblings of a misguided Ahmadiyya Muslim, you need to know that the TRUTH can be told by the tongue of anyone. And what this "misguided" person from Pakistan is saying happens to also ring a bell with many other scholars from all regions of the world.
These scholars have all confirmed that the spoken (ORAL) Arabic of the Quran existed side by side with Aramaic, Phoenician, Thamudic, and Sabean, even during the "biblical" times. Of course this will come as a shock to you, and to all others who have taken conventional and inherited beliefs as the authority over the truth, and choose to live in arrogance and denial.
They have also confirmed that ALL the so-called "Semitic" languages were in fact more accurately DIALECTS which evolved from one mother tongue. And that the absolute closest to that original proto-tongue is Arabic. This origianal speech, in its pure, oral form, was spoken in SW Arabia, a region that has been proven to be the origin of all Semitic migrations. WIKIPEDIA admits this now.
And even laymen like you and I as well
Try this
http//www.nidokidos.org/threads/28832-The-Arabic-Language-the-Root-of-all-Languages
Did you know, for instance, that the name "Europa", given to that continent, was derived from a legend of a south Arabian princess called "3arruba"?
Did you know that the ancient name of Sana'a (capital of Yemen) was UZAL , a name which appears in the OT, and that the traditions of the region labeled it as city of Shem, son of Noah? And that it is the oldest human settlement on Earth, established by the son of Noah himself, right after the Great Flood? Why is there no trace of this cutlture in Palestine? Can you answer that? Why is it that the Quran mentions the MOTHER of TOWNS, and it just so happens that the oldest Quranic manuscript in history was found stashed in a mosque in Sana'a, while there hasn't been a single relic of Muhammad (P) in their alleged "holy" city of Mecca?
Did you know that among the descendends of Noah, whose names are Shem, Uzal, Hazaramaveth, Shibam, are all names of ancient Yemeni cities, and that all these names appear to the letter in the Old Testament? Call me crazy, but why don't you go look up this information? And why are the names of the 125+ tribes returning from the Exile, who appear on the Persian roster of king Cyrus, all happen to be "by coincidence" names of ancient Yemeni tribes?
The objective is more towards to show "Yemen / Southern Arabia hegemony above all cultures/languages"
Wrong.
The purpose is to show you where the origin of the divine messages mentioned in the Quran where, and where the TRUE and FORGOTTEN land of the prophets was, as opposed to the FAKE land of prophets which has been repeatedly fed to usand marketed as Palestine. I am not proving hegemony, nor am I "obssessed" with Yemen. What I am "obssessed" with is finding the TRUTH. You show me a shred of proof that Palestine, Ethiopia, Venezuela or Tazmania was the land of the Prophets, and I will discard Yemen like an old shoe. But until then, I suggest you refrain from making baseless slander.
The ancient peoples who lived in Mesopotamia and Phoenicia did not magically drop from the sky, as many here on this forum believe. They came from South Arabia, carrying with them their cultures, religious beliefs, and legends. And among these legends was a Great Flood that has been told and retold in several versions, since before 3000 BC.
And there is more proof coming your way...
Peace..
-
Did you know that among the descendends of Noah, whose names are Shem, Uzal, Hazaramaveth, Shibam, are all names of ancient Yemeni cities, and that all these names appear to the letter in the Old Testament?
Peace..But I think you are assuming that this is actual historical documentation in the same way we look at historical documentation. What if people who settled in those places CHOSE names based on legends, or if the author(s) of the accounts in Genesis wrote the names of existing people INTO the stories? Meshech and Tubal are also listed as descendants of Noah, and some argue that the etymology of the name Meshech evolved into "Moschi", and the city of Moscow is named for him. The same for Tubal, for whom the city of Tobolsk was named for.
http//bible-library.com/Meshech
I gotta be honest, I think you are assuming too much here.
-Joel
-
Another unproven hypothesis.. rotfl rotfl rotfl
And how does 'my signature' got to do with our discussion?By the way; by blood I'm an "Iraqi".. whether Iraqi is an arab.. that's left for 'politics' to answer.. I can be an arab by modern nationalistic definition or babylonian / assyrian as well..
Again you're not being 'objective' here.. perhaps due to your 'arabic' blood?? Which clouded your judgement?
I can say with the same confident level that Assyrian language is the prototype of semitic language.It's less likely.. as many other of human cultural element..
An example on 'clothing'... how would 'earlier people' dress?
Like This?
http//4.bp.blogspot.com/_gCn9Jo-iOCU/SuWMMb-f5lI/AAAAAAAAAFk/Dlg0YVY7y0I/s400/arabs.jpgOr like this?
http//images.travelpod.com/tripwow/photos/ta-00b6-0e60-cb13/papua-women-indonesia-indonesia+12902385220-tpfil02aw-24681.jpg
Again this strengthen the simple->complex evolution path, the polynesians/papuan languages are genderless, no declension or cases. much more simpler than any semitic languages.
This will be my last post on this topic.. as this discussion has nothing to do with being 'good' or 'bad'.
Adam, Abraham, Moses etc.. can be in Antarctic or Mars for all I care..You're free to believe whatever you want, yet truth stands out clear from error...
Salam / Peace
I couldn't care less about what you are or are not and how often it changes, nor do I about what you think I am (you should get a better crystal ball) nor am I interested in your speculations or lessons.
I pointed out that you adscribe to Pazuzu something like Arab hegemonism, while you have in your own signature something which is boisterously bigotted. Just that. And I am not against your doing it nor your being bigotted -each one is free to be as childish as one pleases-, but do not expect to do that and at the same time be taken seriously.
As to the content of Pazuzu's writings in this thread, his is an opinion, and yours is another one. Yours is not better recommended that Pazuzu's and, given your signature, guaranteed biased.
As to the pretty pictures, in this matter of languages, one image, I am afraid, is not worth a thousand words, rather the opposite would be true.
Salaam
-
Try this
http//www.nidokidos.org/threads/28832-The-Arabic-Language-the-Root-of-all-Languages
And there is more proof coming your way...
Peace..
Parents and people in charge of education are asked to put Arabic back to the place it deserves that is at the top of all languages. It?s the language of people of Paradise.
nice try though.. rotfl
next "proof" please.. wow
-
This is excellent.. bravo
-
In the Footsteps of Abraham
Ziad Minah (1991)
Preface
He appears suddenly in the center of Arabia, to settle his ?concubine? Hagar and his infant son Ismael in the heart of some desolate valley. Then he leaves them there and travels back, at the ripe old age of 80, to the Levant, over 1200 kilometers away, on foot or on the back of a donkey ?? Then he returns again to Arabia, crossing another 1200+ kilometers, to check up on Hagar and his son. And again, and again, repeating the trip no less than 6 times, as the Islamic books of tradition tell us, and as Ibn Katheer reports
"... ( ز ..."
Translation ?? and Abraham would travel repeatedly to visit his son and the mother of his son in the Faran country (another name they gave to the Hijaz mountains) to check up on them.?
This is what they have been teaching us for centuries about Abraham?s multiple and mysterious journeys between Hijaz and Palestine. And if we ever use our reason and contemplate these claims, we will come to the conclusion that Abraham traveled a distance totaling ? in the least ? 15,000 kilometers on foot, or on his donkey; and that?s NOT including his original journey from Mesopotamia and his several alleged forays into Egypt, which we have left out of the equation to make the calculation more simple. This means that Abraham?s trips to and from the Hijaz totaled a distance exceeding the entire circumference of the planet, which measures about 12,800 KM at the equator. And when any person with a single brain cell still functioning in his head asks the question of how an 80 year old goat-herder could travel such distances across desolate wastelands and scorching deserts, and what was the purpose of repeating the trip no less than 6 times, that person would find the age-old answer also in the books of tradition, as Ibn Katheer puts it
" "
Translation ?And it was reported that he (Abraham) would ride the Pegasus (al-Buraq) to there, and Allah knows best?
Allah knows best, indeed?
The fact is that this strange explanation puts the mind at a fork in the road. The first branch takes the reader towards accepting the story as it is, without questioning, because its source is considered ?divine? and not to be doubted (Allah Said So!). And this is the road that 99.99% of Muslims, who have completely discarded their brains and logic, have taken.
Or, the reader can take the second road, refuse the story outright, and sound the warning buzzard to the nations, that a great forgery was perpetrated in the account of the Patriarch Abraham. And very few people have chosen to walk this road, despite the dozens of warnings in the Quran that the Jewish priests had tampered with the previous messages and corrupted the biographies of the prophets ? warnings which have gone unheeded for ages.
So where do we begin? And what is the solution to this puzzle?
I think the best place would be to ask the following question, which I am sure most Muslims have asked at some point in their lives
Why don?t the Jews and the Christians recognize Abraham?s association with Arabia?
Both creeds agree on the details of the Patriarch?s life, from the time he was born (allegedly in Mesopotamia), to his migration to ancient Palestine (the alleged ?Promised Land?), to his forays into Egypt, to the identity of his two sons (Ismael and Isaac), to the story of the expulsion of his ?servant wench? Hagar and her infant son (Ismael) at the whim of his wife Sarah, etc?
Even the Muslims themselves agree with the Jews and Christians on 90% of these ?facts?, with the exception of small details that are really only minor issues. But there are two important episodes in the life of Abraham which are not commonly agreed upon by the followers of the three creeds ? episodes that ONLY the Muslims recognize
1- The religious debate that Abraham had with the rejecters from among his native people, and his destruction of their idols. NOWHERE is this mentioned in the Old Testament. The Torah claims that Abraham left his homeland simply because God wanted to direct him to the ?Promised Land flowing with milk and honey?. It doesn?t mention anything about the debate he had with the elders of his people, and the threats they made against him. (This is VERY important, and we will get back to it later on).
2- That the heart of Arabia, and precisely the coastal region of the Tahama of southern Hijaz, was an important station in Abraham?s life.
According to the rampant Muslim creed, Abraham (whom they too believe was born in Mesopotamia), made no more than a ?passing visit? to the heart of Arabia, where he ?dropped off? his expulsed ?wench? Hagar, and his infant son Ismael, in the middle of a desolate valley, left them there ALONE, and then went back to ancient Palestine, over 1200 KM away. Afterwards, he made repeated visits to them, year after year, to check up on them, until Ismael became of age, at which time he and his father (who was over 90 years old by that time) built a cubic structure in the precise spot where the city of Mecca lies today, and this cube became the House of Allah. Finally, Abraham said goodbye to his son Ismael, who eventually became the ?father of the Arabs?, and went back to Palestine (crossing another 1200 KM), to his ?real? family, Sarah and Isaac (from whose descendants came the Israelites) and died there, and his tomb is still found today in the city of Hebron.
This is the story that we must accept as the unquestionable truth, because ?Allah Said So?. Even a Muslim scientist, who has doctorate degree in nuclear physics, believes in this story, because ?religion? ? as he calls it ? is not a domain for logic (such is their schizophrenia).
Well, with all due respect to your beliefs, dear brothers and sisters, here is what I think This story is nothing but a pile of bull excrement. And it reeks of Jewish LIES, and a conspiracy to hide the history of ancient Arabia, to put a big void in its place, and to project the events that took place in it onto the surrounding lands, for reasons that are purely selfish and imperialistic.
The next question is Does the Old Testament really not mention Abraham?s association with Arabia? Or is there something we are missing?
Let?s now analyze some of the passages in the Torah and see what hidden truths can still be found underneath the pile of forgeries.
- The Migration of Abraham
The Septuagint Torah details the voyage of Abraham (P) from the time he left the land of his fathers, which it claims was in Mesopotamia, during the Chaldean era (in the city of Ur, precisely).
And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there (Genesis 1131)
Then He said to him, "I the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." (Genesis 157)
The above passages are among all that the Septuagint priests needed to transfer Abraham?s name to Mesopotamia (the present Iraq), and make him an ?Iraqi? of the Chaldean era.
So let us now ponder over this information and see if it is true, or another of their forgeries which they perpetrated on some moonless night, and passed onto the world.
Scholars place Abraham to have lived anywhere between 2000 BC and 1700BC. So let?s take the latest limit and say he lived around 1700 BC. This seems more logical because it is in line with the number of generations which passed between Abraham and Moses. And it is here that the first warning buzzard must be sounded. We said before, that when someone forges a text, he is bound to leave a clue somewhere, or to make a mistake which eventually exposes him.
The question here is What on Earth does the era of the Chaldeans have to do with the life of Abraham? It appears that Allah made the corruptors forget that the Chaldean dynasty began somewhere around 630 B.C, after the death of the last Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal, and was ended around 539 B.C, when the Persians conquered Mesopotamia. This information is known to first year university students of ancient history.
What this means is that the Chaldean period started and ended over 1,000 years after Abraham?s time, and some 600 years after Moses? time.
So just how the Hell did the Torah ? which is supposed to have been ?revealed? to Moses, as they claim ? know about the Chaldean period?
Believing in this glaring anachronism is like believing the claim that Napoleon Bonaparte was a member of King Herod?s court. And they want us to applaud and play the drums to this blatant forgery as unquestionable truth. The evidence is so clear that only an imbecile would fail to see it. The Septuagints lived in the 3rd and 4th century BC. They knew very well of the Chaldean kingdom, which was a world superpower barely 200 years before them. This scandalous claim which we read in the Greek Torah, which was eventually translated into all the languages of the modern West, has always baffled scholars and commentators, who tried to find some kind of excuse ? anything ? to vindicate the mention of ?Chaldeans? associated with the era of Abraham. The only thing they could say was that the Jewish priests had perpetrated this forgery on purpose, in order for the future generations to lay claim to Mesopotamia, since Abraham ? according to them ? was born there.
In his book ?Myths of the Bible How ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History? (page 115,116), Biblical scholar Gary Greenberg says
It was indeed the Jews who had assisted the Persians in their conquest of Mesopotamia, and in their toppling of the Chaldean reign. Consequently, Cyrus the Great allowed them to return to their ancient homeland in Ur-Salem of YEMEN and rebuild their temple there, in the Heights of Himyar. (All this took place when the Jerusalem of Palestine was no more than an insignificant hamlet).
Unfortunately, the discovery of this ?Biblical Scandal? only increased the stubbornness and pride of those who wanted to defend the Jewish forgery, until eventually, through their devious means of manipulation, they passed the LIE that Abraham was born in Mesopotamia to all the generations of the world, until it became a matter of unquestionable belief.
To follow the steps of how this forgery was perpetrated, we will take the same approach that we took before, when we showed you how the Septuagint LIARS replaced the word ?Msrim? in the so-called ?Hebrew? Torah with ?Aegyptus? in their Greek translation, thus creating the illusionary association between prophets Moses and Joseph on one hand and Egypt on the other, in order for the later generations of Jews (the self-proclaimed ?descendants? of the Israelites) to lay claim to the land of the Nile, as part of their ?Promised Land? (Remember From the Euphrates to the Nile is your land, Oh Israel!).
So let us go back to the Septuagint Torah, and compare its text with the so-called ?Hebrew? version, to see what their black hands wrote to the world
The original Torah, written in Squared Aramaic, mentions a name for Abraham?s original home town which has absolutely no relation whatsoever with ?Chaldea?. Let?s see what the text says, taking Genesis 1128 as an example
" "
Going back the glossary of ?Hebrew? we can see that the last two words on the left are pronounced as such ?Ur ? Kasdim? (or ?Kashdim?, since the ?s? and ?sh? are interchangeable in the Hebrew alphabet, which by the way is the exact same phenomenon as in the ancient Yemeni dialects).
So how did the Septuagints translate this term in the Greek Torah, which became the new source of knowledge for the whole world at the time?
Take a look at the translation
.
Again, looking up the last two words on the right, in any Greek vocal glossary, we get ?Ur ? Kaledon?.
I will leave this translation for you, dear readers, to judge its accuracy for your self.?Ur ? Kasdim? became ?Ur ? Kaledon?.
What do you think? Do you see any relation whatsoever between these two words, which are supposed to be the PROPER NOUN of a location (and hence untranslatable in the first place)? Furthermore, the word ?Kasdim? is the plural form of ?Kasd?. I showed you before how the ancient Yemeni dialects like Saba?ean and Thamudic used the suffix ?im? to denote the plural. This is the same rule in the so-called ?Hebrew? (eloh ? elohim / cherub ? cherubim / katub ? katubim / Msr ? Msrim / KASD ? KASDIM / etc?). In fact, the similarities between what they call ?Hebrew? and those ancient Yemeni dialects are so spectacular so as to be mind-boggling. This alone is worth dedicating an entire thread, just to show you these similarities. So they changed a plural noun, which indicates the name of a forgotten or unknown tribe or clan, and replaced it with the well-known and popular name of a city that was the capital of a recently toppled superpower, Chaldea.
And so it was that the news of Abraham being born in Iraq spread throughout the entire world like wildfire, carried on the wings of the Greek language, and eventually infiltrated the beliefs of the Muslims, who have been propagating this forgery and teaching it to the generations of their children for over 2000 years.
Because the claim of Abraham?s birthplace is so hard to digest, we can see its confusing effects well documented in the books of the Arab historians of old, who found themselves having to go to extreme lengths to vindicate and defend the ancient Jewish scribes against this scandalous forgery, by claiming the following ?Perhaps they meant Ur of Babylon!?. Now this of course, made sense, since the Babylonians preceded the Chaldeans by many centuries, and coincided with the time of Abraham. Instead of pointing out the forgery, the Arab historians and commentators ? except for a very small minority - sought to ?patch it up? and defend it!
In order not to prolong this thread, I will not include actual examples of what the Arab historians wrote. But if you can read Arabic, you can go and look up the following books, and see the conjectures and confusion that they were caught in concerning the birthplace of Abraham, all of which are pretty much summed up by the allegation of ?Oh, they must have meant the Ur of Babylon!?.
?Al-Muntazhim?, by Abou Faraj (volume 1, page 259)
?Al Bidaya wal Nihaya?, by Ibn Katheer (volume 1, page 140)
?Al Anas al Jaleel?, by al 3ulaymi (volume 1, page 27).What is even stranger than all this is the alleged road which Abraham and his family initially took to get to Palestine. The Torah states that they had a short ?transit? stop in the city of Haran. To get a clearer picture of the geographical implications of this trip, let?s look at the map below
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/haran_map.jpg
Map Explanation A description of Abraham?s imaginary journey from Ur-Chaledonia (which didn?t even exist in his time), to ancient Palestine, passing through Haran on the way (the red arrow). The map also shows his venture into Egypt, where they claimed he reached the city of Memphis, just south of the Nile Delta - distances that no sane mind could accept. The green arrow shows the ?extra episode? added by the Muslims exclusively, which indicates his repeated voyages deep into Arabia, to the current location of Mecca (which is further south beyond the border of the map).
The city of Ur lies at the southern end of Mesopotamia (what is today called ?Iraq?), near the north eastern border of Arabia; while Palestine, which they call ?the Land of Caanan? (and I will prove to you the fallacy of this name soon), lies to the west, with the only thing separating the two regions being the southern part of the Levant wilderness. As you can see from the map, the path from Ur to Palestine is very simple and straightforward (it?s a straight, and almost horizontal line). Whereas Haran, their alleged transit stop, lies far far to the north of this straight path, along the ancient Syrian-Armenian border. It is completely out of their way.
In fact, the presence of Haran as a stop along Abraham?s way caused a huge problem to both Biblical scholars as well as the ancient Arab commentators. Aside from the fact that the Torah seems to be confusing the city of ?Haran? in ancient Armenia with ?Haran? the brother of Abraham, there is something blatantly illogical about the geography of the entire voyage. After Tareh, the father of the family, left Ur along with his son Abraham, Sarah (Abraham?s wife), and Lot (Abraham?s nephew), they didn?t travel straight westwards toward Palestine, despite the fact that the road was clear and straightforward. No! Instead, they struck forth far to the north, until they reached the border of Armenia!
Here is what the Torah says, word for word
Now the LORD had said to Abram "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 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 121-5)
The strange thing is that the Torah does not give any logical reason as to why Tareh would take his family on such a long trek. Some scholars, in their explanations, went as far as claiming that Haran was Tareh?s original hometown, and that he originally migrated south-east to Ur, so that his son, Abraham, could be born there, before striking out again in the opposite direction! In fact the only significant thing that happened in their transit stop at Haran was that Tareh died there (maybe he couldn?t bear the exhaustion from the trip anymore?), and Abraham then took the reins of the family, until he eventually received the ?divine promise? that his progeny would inherit the land ?from the Euphrates to the Nile?.
Is there any logical reason for inserting Haran as a stop along Abraham?s journey in the first place?
Better yet, is there even a single record, in the land of Mesopotamia, from all the thousands of the Babylonian inscriptions that have been unearthed, mentioning a man named ?Tareh?, or his son ?Abraham?, or the name ?Lot?, or anything about the escape of a small clan of goat-herders from Ur to a ?Promised Land? far to the west?
None at all.
- The Location of the ?Blessed Land? - Muslim Confusion
Let?s see what the Quran says about this issue
{They said "Did you do this to our gods O Abraham?" * He said "It was the biggest one of them here who did it, so ask them, if they do speak!" * So they turned and said to themselves "It is indeed ourselves who have been wicked!" * Then they returned to their old ideas "You know that they do not speak!" * He said "Do you serve besides Allah that which does not benefit you at all nor harm you?" * I am fed-up of you and to what you serve besides Allah! Do you not comprehend?" * They said "If you are to do anything, then burn him, and give victory to your gods." * We said "O fire, be cool and safe upon Abraham." * And they wanted to plot against him, but We made them the losers. * And We rescued him and Lot to the land which We have blessed for the worlds}?
It is clear that Abraham, after a serious of religious debates with the Imams of misguidance from among his people, was forced to migrate from there, at an old age. And the Quran tells us that Lot (a close relative of his) traveled with him initially. They left their original home and moved to a land that Allah described as ?blessed for the worlds?.
Which land was that, and how did the commentators explain it?
If you go an open the books of history and ?tafseer?, you will not believe your eyes at the heap of conjecture concerning this issue. The best summary of this can be seen in the writings of Al-Tabari, notably his famous ?Tafseer ul-Kabeer?.
Here is what he tells us (volume 17, page 47)" " . " ". " " . " ". . .
To summarize what is said by Al-Tabari in the above passage, It seems that there were two feuding opinions as to where this blessed land was. One party said it was to ?Mecca? that Abraham and Lot were rescued by Allah, while the second claimed that Abraham and Lot migrated to Al-Sham (the Levant), and that ?Mecca? was not their permanent residence, but was only a passing stop where Abraham settled his son Ismael and Ismael?s mother Hagar.
What do we conclude from the above?
1- That the ancient memory of the Arabs did in fact record that Abraham migrated to the heart of Arabia; however, this memory was contaminated with certain alien traditions that did not come from Arabia, which claimed that the Patriarch migrated from Mesopotamia to the Levant (Palestine). And that these traditions are what caused the confusion concerning this matter.
2- That Al-Tabari, who is considered to be the ?Superman of the Imams of History? could not even make up his mind, or substantiate one opinion over the other. He left the issue open to debate.
3- We read again the tyrannical expression ?There is no debate among the people of knowledge that Abraham and Lot migrated to the Levant?. This is the same poisonous expression (?There is no debate among the people of knowledge that so and so and bla..bla..bla..?), which appears hundreds of times in many of the books of tradition, claiming the so-called ?Ijma?a? (consensus) of the so-called ?people of knowledge?. And its aim is to simply shut the mouths of all those who seek to doubt, enquire and ask. It is used to denote the opinion not of those who bring the PROOFS, but of those whose opinion was supported by the tyrants of the age. As for those ?misguided ignorants? who don't agree, their opinions are usually restricted to old books that sit gathering dust on the shelves of old libraries, and very few bother to read them. And it is not until hundreds or thousands of years later, when the rampant belief is proven to be false, that these old books are brought out into the light again.
4- Personally, we are not supporting either of the two parties, because we can say, with 100% confidence and certainty, that Abraham was NOT born in Mesopotamia, and he migrated neither to Palestine nor to Mecca. We can also say that the ?Bakka? mentioned in the Quran is neither Jerusalem NOR Mecca, as we will later see. In fact, the so-called city of Mecca did not even exist at the time of Abraham. (We must be completely objective here, when searching for the truth. Just as we accept that the Chaldean state didn?t exist during Abraham?s time, neither in fact did Mecca). So in effect, they are both WRONG. However, we do respect the opinion of those ?misguided ignorants? who have defied the tyrannical ?Ijma?a? by claiming that Abraham migrated to the heart of Arabia, NOT to the Levant. In reality, they are closer to the truth than they know. The question is where exactly was Abraham in the first place, and where exactly did he migrate to? This is what we will eventually answer.
5- What is the purpose of this strange story that the Muslims believe in, which separates between Abraham and his family in this way? It's as if Islamic creed requires us to believe that Abraham placed his original wife Sarah and his son Isaac in the ?Blessed Land? of Palestine, then migrated, on foot, a distance of over 1200 KM, across scorching deserts, to place his ?concubine? Hagar and his other son Ismael in some desolate valley in the ?non-blessed? land in the south of Hijaz?
Is this another case of ?Allah Said So?? Or is it due to the ancient memory and culture of Arabia being contaminated by false Jewish beliefs that have gone unchecked for ages?
It seems that the classical commentators failed to pay attention to the very important clue given in the Torah itself, which completely denies such a separation between Abraham?s progeny, when it clearly tells us that BOTH his sons buried Abraham when he died
And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Macphelah, which before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite (Genesis 259)
So did Ismael also travel on the back of the Pegasus (the winged horse) from ?Mecca? to Palestine, upon hearing of his father?s death?
Why all this confusion?
If you contemplate the story of Abraham?s migration from Mesopotamia to the Levant, you will find holes in it that are so large, you wonder how it even got by the classical commentators themselves. To sum up the reasons they gave as to why the Levant is ?blessed?, we can state the following example from Al-Tussi?s book entitled ?Al-Tibyan? (volume 7, page 263)
. "" . ...
It seems that the opinion in support for the Levant as the candidate for ?blessedness? relied on two arguments to validate itself
1- Because the Levant had an abundance of trees and resources.
2- Because it was the land where Allah had sent all the prophets to.And here I feel I must comment briefly on this conjecture
The first reason, which states that the Levant was the land of many trees and riches (resourses) was not only proven false by modern archeology (the same archeology that failed miserably to find a single trace of Solomon's temple in Palestine) but would also have us believe the ridiculous claim that Mesopotamia, which was the cradle of one of Asia?s earliest civilizations dating back 5000 years, from the Sumerians, to the Babylonians, to the Assyrians, to the Acadians, to the Chaldeans (in that exact order), and whose land rivaled the Nile Valley in terms of its fertility, suddenly had no trees, and no resources to speak of! Do you believe this crap, dear readers?
As for the second reason given, which claims that the Levant was the land of the prophets, this is nowhere mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned only in the orientalist and colonial modern translations of the corrupted Jewish and Christian scriptures, which the Muslims have followed blindly. And by continuing to uphold this false belief, that the Levant was the Blessed Land, and the cradle of the prophets, the Muslims have been marketing this Jewish merchandise for ages, without being aware of it, and without even being aware that it constitutes a screaming contradiction to their own beliefs. How the Hell can the Levant be the land of prophets, when the Quran says half a dozen times that Muhamad (P) emerged from the Mother of Towns ( which they believe to be Mecca), and says that all the prophets sent before Muhamad lived and preached in the towns surrounding it?
There is something so WRONG in this story that it simply boggles the mind just how far the Muslims have gone astray on this issue.
Here is the resounding truth which we repeat. And this is for the MUSLIMS to hear, before anyone else
There is not one spot of land that Allah, in His Quran, described as ?blessed to the worlds?, in the ancient times, except the region of Asir in Arabia. And ALL the prophets mentioned in the Quran, from Noah (P) to Muhamad (P) lived and died in Arabia and nowhere else. PERIOD.
But the Muslims have failed to grasp this truth, as they continue their hypocritical claim that they follow the Quran, when the fact is that they read it like zombies, and are more content with ?chanting it? eloquently, while swearing an oath to the shaytan not to ever contemplate its meaning. Instead, 99% of what they believe in comes from man-made sources which blatantly contradict Allah?s Book.
As a result, they have allowed OTHERS to write their history for them, and dictate to them who they are and where they came from. And as the famous saying goes He who does not know his past has no future to speak of.
To Be Continued?
SLM,
Thank you for your "Time" & "Work",
So interesting.
You wrote many Times, "Palestine", by th? way,
What are th? years of "existante" of Palestine, and Where in th? "quran" could we read about this "land" ?
You "Right" if th? jew (not th? "Christian" had "corrupted th? "history" ... Th?n "Others" youngest coming after with ? new "religion" are in bad "posture" !
Do you think, that it could be ? bad " translation" or "code" ... !?
Peace & Truth on Earth & above our "heads" -
Salam,
would it be possible that Isaac and Ismail are true brothers with the mother the same?
or better, and that will be truly mind exploding, Isaac and Ismail being the same person? after all, we hear Israel and Jacob being the same person too...
and the Israelites want Isaac to have been the object of a potential sacrifice... whereas the Quran tafseer tells us it is Ismail, even though the Quran does not mention him by name...
or more mind boggling, in a deep trance, Ismail is the father of Isaac?...
again I might be hallucinating... hypno
SLM,
Th? "quran" does not "mention" isma'il !?
...
Peace & Truth on Earth & above our "heads" -
Salaam brother Pazuzu
Thank you for addressing our concern. There are two more issues I would like to discuss;
- 3;33 Allah did choose Adam and Noah the family of Abraham, and
the family of Imran above all people.
19;58 Those were some of the prophets on whom Allah did bestow His Grace of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried (in the Ark) with Noah, and of the posterity of Abraham and Israel of those whom We guided and chose; whenever the Signs of (Allah) Most Gracious were rehearsed to them, they would fall down in prostrate adoration and in tearsThe 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? hmm
{And his wife was standing, so she laughed when We gave her the good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob}...
- 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. It seems to me that the verse above could be interpreted to mean that the good news of two sons was given to Ibrahim(AS) and his wife (Sarah). In contrast to the Bible version, where Sarah is shown to be a jealous wife she could have been a kind and paticent wife who accepted Ismael, thus Allah(swt) who rewards patience may have rewarded her with two sons despite her old age.
As they were both old it seems unlikely, if this news indeed referred to a son and a grandson, that they would have lived to see the son of Isaac. Allah knows best.
Jazakallah Khair
peace
SLM,
I dont "understand" why Abraham & Ibrahim !?
Could you "help" me !! Thank you
Peace & Truth on Earth & above our "heads" - 3;33 Allah did choose Adam and Noah the family of Abraham, and
-
Peace Bro IMHO
What makes things complicated is that Allah points us in the Quran to the Scholars of the Jews to clarify some points from what was revealed to them..
Another point is that there is another huge body of religious books the Jews follow and that is the Talmud, in fact the Talmud was their Hadith, plus notes and edicts "fatwas" of later scholars/rabbis, and still now it is being added to...
It is possible the Jews / Israelites in Yemen might be more reliable than the ones who migrated up north? and info from them might be useful... as if pazuzu is right, they were the ones Allah was addressing and speaking about in the Quran...
SLM,
PAZUZU, "said" that "allah", was adressing to th? "jew" !?
Peace & Truth on Earth & above our "heads" -
Salam IMHO, pazuzu,
Now this is getting me confused...
I thought Jacob was the son of Isaac...
It seems from 1171 that they were brothers? brickwall
Unless that means that the glad tidings are of a son and a grandson...
which could mean that Ismail might then be the father of Isaac after all? elektro
SLM,
"sounds" like, "something" is WRONG !!!
Lets Keep "studying" ...
Peace & Truth on Earth & above our "heads" -
- 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
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 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
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
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
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
SLM,
"FANTASTIK".
Thank you for your "Time" & "Work", so interesting.
But do you mean, that, what is on th? book of jew is "most l'y" true !?
Not about th? east-west, north-south .. "Locations" .. Like an "History" book ??
Maybe, i missed your "point", cause its ? big one to read & compr?hend !!!
Peace & Truth on Earth & above our "heads"