What is Al Asar?
-
Ancient North Arabian, you know, some theories believe the Quranic script originated from the North, in the Persian or Jordan region, which makes sense given the state of technological advancement in the North and stagnation of the South in the pre-Islamic period.
Copies like the Yemeni Saana Manuscript could be left there to make it look like it originated from Yemen though. Just like they did when they left the copies of Mo's "diolomatic letters" in the countries that they counquered, it seems to be their historical deception tactics, but they could not identify the leaders of those days.
Salam Makaveli i recommend reading these then
Salam/Peace, the only evidence i can't think of right now is Sanaa Manuscript that was found in Yemen, yes i know it's whole but hear me out.
There is a 4-part E-Books named Arabia The Untold Story and you wonder what does it involve in this topic? Well the books involve Quran heavily and exposing the Zionist & Orientalist corruption involving the geography in the Quran. And i recommend checking them out
Book 1 Search for Pharaoh
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/1st-E-Book_Search-for-Pharaoh.pdfBook 2 Road of the Patriarch
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/2nd-E-Book_Road-of-the-Patriarch.pdfBook 3 Israel and Sheba
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/3rd-E-Book_Israel-and-Sheba.pdfBook 4 The Assyrian Storm
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/4th-E-Book_The-Assyrian-Storm.pdfAlso there is these verses
8521
Bal huwa qur'?nun maj?dun
No,it is a glorious Qur'an.
8522
F? lawHin maHf?Zin
In a tablet, preserved.Once you read all of the books and the 2 verses i have shown, you may get a conclusion the Original Quran may be in Yemen. I can help but notice that the Sanaa Manuscript was found in Yemen.
Salamun Aleykum/Peace be upon you. group
P.S Just letting you know i am not a skilled debater '(
-
It looks like it is the Yemeni theory, but does the author explains how did a wild unlettered Arabic/Yemeni tribe acquired the most powerful world's religion now called Judaism?
This is the only thing which is interesting to me in the anti-Egypt thesis, so if he explains it please, if you can, provide pages where he outlines his thesis regarding this.
-
It looks like it is the Yemeni theory, but does the author explains how did a wild Arabic/Yemeni tribe acquired the most powerful world's religion now called Judaism?
This is the only thing which is interesting to me in the anti-Egypt thesis, so if he explains it please, if you can, provide pages where he outlines his thesis regarding this.
He does in Book 1 Search for Pharoah
-
He does in Book 1 Search for Pharoah
But I am not browsing 170 pages long of the Muslim traditional propaganda, so if he does, please point at specific pages. As for now I only see one traditional deception attack the other traditional deception. An example is on pp. 51-52
There is very solid and eye-opening evidence that Farawn was indeed the personal
name of the tyrannical figure who persecuted Msa (P) and the Israelites. Had the term
been a title, it would have been mentioned in the form of al-Farawn, (meaning the
Pharaoh”. The fact is, nowhere in the Qurn does it appear with the prefix al-. Lets
look at the following examples
{And the wife of Farawn said A pleasure to my eye and yours, so do not
kill him, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son while they
did not perceive}
52
The phrase wife of Farawn is no different than wife of N (Noah), or wife of L
(Lot), as can be seen in the following passage
{Allah puts forth as examples of those who have covered the truth, the wife
of Nh and the wife of Lt. They were married to two of Our righteous
servants, but they betrayed them and, consequently, they could not help
them at all against Allah. And it was said Enter the Fire, both of you, with
those who will enter it * And Allah puts forth as an example of those who
believed the wife of Farawn. She said My Rabb, build a home for me near
You in the Paradise, and save me from Farawn and his works; and save me
from the transgressing people}No, it is not at all a "very solid and eye-opening evidence", unless of course Al-Lah is a title or a personal name, not an ancient root depicting something, but then he would have to prove it.
I can also see an overall poor study with little to no references
Furthermore, the builders of the pyramids were not slaves. They lived in good housing
conditions at the foot of the pyramids, and when they died, they received honored burials
in stone tombs near royal cemeteries, as a reward for their contribution. This information
is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was discovered only in 1990. They
ate well, received the best medical care, and were exempt from taxes. Unlike slaves, they
were also well paid. The pyramid builders were recruited from poor communities and
worked shifts of three months (including farmers, who worked during the months when
the Nile flooded their farms), distributing the kings wealth out to where it was needed
most. Virtually every fact about the workers that archaeology has revealed rules out the
use of slave labor in the construction of the pyramids. Furthermore, there is zero mention
of Israelites or Jews taking part in the project. Try convincing the Zionists of this
fact.Reference?
This puts the date of their completion some nine hundred years before the
time of Ysuf (P)! This information can be found quite easily on the internet, or in books
dealing with Egyptology.Why not properly cite it?
Finally, we find the terms Qrn and Hmn, both of which are obviously personal
names mentioned alongside Farawn {And We had sent Moses with Our signs,
and a clear authority * To Farawn, Hmn, and Qrn. But they said A
lying deceiver} Mentioning two proper nouns in the same sentence,
53
and in the same context, alongside a title, is both logically and linguistically unsound. For
example, if we say Joe, Mack, and King are walking in the castle garden, it would
seem that King is a proper noun. If it was a title, the sentence would have to be stated
as such Joe, Mack and the king are walking in the castle garden. By the same logic, if
Farawn was a title, it would not appear in the same sentence with two proper nouns
(Hmn and Qrn) without the prefix al- (the).And who are Human and Qar'un? Why the Qur'an mentions them? Keep in mind that the Sura 40 starts with letters Ha-Miim, maybe it wants to point at something?
4024 may as well speak of That which is to/to Uncover/Loose (Firawn, root Fa-Ra-Ayn) Concealed/Taken (Haman, root ha-Miim-Nun) Glory/Power (Qarun, root Qaf-Ra-Nun) indicate to the journey/travel/caravan /lasting deception.
The authors of this diatribe are agressively focused at particular subject of their narrow interest, yet do not even bother uncovering the deception of their personal object of worship. How can this be regarded as objective? Needless to say only conspirological flat earth freaks like Sam Gerrans will spread stuff like that.
-
But I am not browsing 170 pages long of the Muslim traditional propaganda, so if he does, please point at specific pages. As for now I only see one traditional deception attack the other traditional deception.
But he is against "Muslim" tradition, didn't you check the preface? Also check for references in page 121.
-
But he is against "Muslim" tradition, didn't you check the preface?
I do not make a wide distinction between the Quran alone and traditional Muslims as of late. For me the term means something unrelated to one's ideology. Given the fact that he adds (P) after the traditional names like Yusuf or Mo is enough for me to conclude on his stance.
He is against traditional History, yet he adhers to the traditional research background, whih makes him accept some portion of the history in order to mock the other, which is hypocrisy.
-
Also check for references in page 121.
It is a bs list of reference
- Books
The Qur?n
The Old Testament
Call of the Sart Hijacking the Geography of the Prophets - The Tajdeed Society of Bahrain (2005)
La Cite D?Isis - Histoire Vraie des Arabes - Pierre Rossi (1976)
Palestine is not the Promised Land - Jameel Effarah (2002)
The Invention of the Jewish People - Shlomo Sand (2009)
The Old Testament is an abstract definition. Which books of the OT is he speaking of? Just Exodus or some other? What is the exact timeframe of Musa, Ibrahim and the Exodus timeline?
The rest of the books could be cited for specific pages in them. Futher he gives a long list of websites of dubious information and research.
- Books
-
I do not make a wide distinction between the Quran alone and traditional Muslims as of late. For me the term means something unrelated to one's ideology. Given the fact that he adds (P) after the traditional names like Yusuf or Mo is enough for me to conclude on his stance.
He is against traditional History, yet he has the traditional background, whih makes him accept some portion of the history in order to mock the other, which is hypocricy.
Wait hold on, just because the author added (P) on the names of Yusuf & Muhammad, you assumed that he has traditional background? Sorry if i made a mistake but that is bit odd to do that.
-
It is a bs list of reference
The Old Testament is an abstract definition. Which books of the OT is he speaking of? Just Exodus or some other? What is the exact timeframe of Musa, Ibrahim and the Exodus timeline?
The rest of the books could be cited for specific pages in them. Futher he gives a long list of websites of dubious information and research.
If you read the entire 122 pages of the book, you may have your answer.
-
Wait hold on, just because the author added (P) on the names of Yusuf & Muhammad, you assumed that he has traditional background? Sorry if i made a mistake but that is bit odd to do that.
Well, yes, and it is quite objective, but I also made an error while typing fast. What I meant, and I've already edited my post, is "he adhers to the traditional research background", what I mean is that in order to refute the Egypt-Palestinian thesis, he has to adher to another even more dubious one, which I suppose is Yemeni theory.
-
If you read the entire 122 pages of the book, you may have your answer.
I am sure I won't simply judging from the brief 30-minute analysis of the content I made above. If you have read the entire 122 pages of the book, then please cite me speicific pages where he proves what I requested, i.e. how a wild Arabic tribe (later titled as bani Yisraeli) acquired such a powerful religion. He might also want to speculate on how the wild South Arabians acquired Islam..
-
Well, yes, and it is quite objective, but I also made an error while typing fast. What I meant, and I've already edited my post, is "he adhers to the traditional research background", what I mean is that in order to refute the Egypt-Palestinian thesis, he has to adher to another even mroe dubious one, which I suppose is Yemeni.
But how is it dubious if you have not read the entire e-books? Heck i haven't yet done because i am on page 26 on the "hebrew" deception.
-
But how is it dubious if you have not read the entire e-books? Heck i haven't yet done because i am on page 26 on the "hebrew" deception.
Because I am familiar with primary outlines of this thesis, without reading the book. I know a person who introduced me some of the concepts of this theory before. Again, question "when?" and "where?" are of lesser imporance, what is of primary imporance to me is "how?"
-
Because I am familiar with primary outlines of this thesis, without reading the book. I know a person who introduced me some of the concepts of this theory before. Again, question "when?" and "where?" are of lesser imporance, what is of primary imporance to me is "how?"
Primary outlines? What do you mean by that exactly? And about "when", "where" & "how, well they are important to me.
-
But if you are not interested in reading the e-books then that is fine by me. Salam/Peace group
-
Primary outlines? What do you mean by that exactly? And about "when", "where" & "how, well they are important to me.
What I want from the alternative thesis is to show, based on observable facts and not speculation based on the dubious translation of the book called the Quran, how the Arabic tribe, later titled as banu Yisraeli acquired such a powerful religious tool now known as rabbinic Judaism, if the Egypt-Palestinian thesis is a false one. Unless he properly addresses this question there is no use in all of the books he wrote, they are simply worthless.
He also likes to use term 'zionism' quite a lot as if zionism has anything to do with Jewish history. Zionism is a product of social movements of the 19th century, and back then it was actually quite a great ideology. Why it became fascistic is another story, but simply parroting this term as something negative makes him unobjective and dogmatic, with an absent of critical thinking.
-
He also likes to use term 'zionism' quite a lot as if zionism has anything to do with Jewish history. Zionism is a product of social movements of the 19th century, and back then it was actually quite a great ideology. Why it became fascistic is another story, but simply parroting this term as something negative makes him unobjective and dogmatic, with an absent of critical thinking.
It's been awhile i read Book 1 of the E-Books but i don't remember the author saying Zionism is connected to Judaism. And also how do you exactly that it was a great ideology?
-
It's been awhile i read Book 1 of the E-Books but i don't remember the author saying Zionism is connected to Judaism. And also how do you exactly that it was a great ideology?
It becomes evident if you open a book, and use the Ctrl F combination and search for zion.
Early Zionism was an ideology of Jewish people to inherit what they believe is their land, similarly how modern Palestinians strive for freedom and believe in their land. Jewish people back then were under the Muslim rule and it was their movement for freedom, how is it not great or any different from any other freedom-seeking movements?
-
It becomes evident if you open a book, and use the Ctrl F combination and search for zion.
Early Zionism was an ideology of Jewish people to inherit what they believe is their land, similarly how modern Palestinians strive for freedom and believe in their land. Jewish people back then were under the Muslim rule and it was their movement for freedom, how is it not great or any different from any other freedom-seeking movements?
Actually Zionism was started by Theodor Herzl who many say that he was not jewish but actually atheist
Note This is from Yahoo answers and i found this like a year ago so i am not sure if this is best way to this
https//answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090112145039AASaL1e
Yes. Theodor Herzl was a self proclaimed atheist. In fact, he hated Judaism and religious Jews. Below is a list of his quotes along with information on him
WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders
Theodor HertzlThe term "Zionism" was first introduced in 1893 by Nathan Birmbaum, but Theodor Hertzel, an Austrian Jew born to a prosperous, emancipated Budapest family, is recognized as the founder of the Zionist idealogy when he published his book in 1896, "The Jewish State", where he declared that the cure for anti-semitism was the establishment of a Jewish state. As he saw it, the best place to establish this state was in Palestine.
While Hertzel claimed that the establishment of a "Jewish" state would cure anti-Semitism, he also promoted anti-Semitism to further his cause.
Quotes from Hertzel and other Zionists demonstrate their philosophy and the lengths to which they are willing to go to accomplish their goals
In the diary of Hertzel, page 14, he writes a way to solve the problem of anti-Semitism was to speak to the head priest of Vienna to get an appointment with the Pope, to make a mass conversion of all the Jews of Austria to Catholicism. He continues "It should be done on a Sunday, in the middle of the day, with music, and pride, publicly. We are the last generation that held on to the faith of our for-fathers. The conversion would be in St. Stephen's Cathedral." (How could you honor a Jew that wanted to abolish Judaism?)
In the bi-weekly diary, "Temurah", no.2, pg. 12-13, "I didn't circumsize my son Hans, and this will bring the Geula closer."
Ibid. "Simple goyim are better than Rabbis, and the highest are the goyish priests."
In his article "Deutche Tsytung newspaper" Hertzel writes "The Jews make countries fight each other and when they want, make peace. But whatever happens, they get rich from this." (Hitler said this also).
Diary, page 16 "Antisemitism helps to build this kind of jew, Education that will bring to assimilation."
Diary, page 68 "An idea rose on my heart to bring on anti-Semitism and to obliterate Jewish wealth.
In the book "Hertzel", this is a quote "I bless every jew that converts to Christianity and my son, the sooner the better, to save him from anti-Semitism.
After the Dreyfus affair, Hertzel saw the engraned jew hatred and that the goyim would not accept the jews with open arms, then he came up with Zionism, after being convinced by the British goyim on the land of Israel. He himself originally wanted other lands, one of them being Argentina.
In his book, "Altnoyland", "its understood that I have to remember (or mention) to discard negative Jewish things, like the Yiddish language and observing mitzvos."
Doctor Amnun Raz Kavkotzikin -- historian at the University of Ben Gurion says "The country of Hertzel is a western European anti-eastern (Sephardic) and anti-religious."
Chaim Chassas, in the newspaper of the Zionist's, Ha'Arutz, 1943, "Zionism and Judaismm is not one thing but two different things. And of course two contradicting one another. Zionism starts at the place where Judaism is destroyed...one thing is certain, Zionism is not a continuation or healing of wounded Judaism, but rather an uprooting."
Doctor Tom Shagav, historian and newspaper writer, "Zionism saw itself as competition as to religion, to define a jew without torah. A Zionist could be a jew without any faith, even a Kofer."
Doctor Faul Shaul Landau, the personal secretary of Hertzel, saw to it that all of Hertzel's writings were published against the will of the other Zionists who feared the open anti-Semitic element of his writings.
Zev Japotinsky in his article "Outside the camp", in the newspaper "Chadashot HaAretz" 22/10/1919 "In the national home we will announce that those Jews who have on themselves the rust of Gulles, and deny to shave off their beards and payos will be 2nd class citizens and will not have the right to vote."
Ben Gurion, in his book "Yehudi ve' od", "The disapora is ending and everyone is coming, this still does not make a nation but a mixed multitude and dust of man, without a language and education, without roots. To change dust of man to a cultured nation is not an easy job."
Ben Gurion "If I could save all the children of Germany by bringing them to England and only half to Israel, I would choose the second."
Yoel Bronde/Eichman offered him a deal to save a million jews for money and the Sochnute decided not to, and they were murdered.
Wusshishkin, head of the Jewish National Fund in the 1920's (there is a street named after him in Jerusalem), "What's the difference between Jews getting killed in the diaspora and the land of israel? They are sacrifices of a dying nation. There was no purpose in their death, just like there was no purpose in their life. Not so with the sacrifices in our land, we look at them with pride."
Yitzchak Greenbaum, Zionist responsible for
Source(s)
http//www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/Herzl_quotes.cfm -
Actually Zionism was started by Theodor Herzl who many say that he was not jewish but actually atheist
Does term 'national' movement tells you something? You can be culturally Jewish yet atheistic in ideology, you can be culturally from a Muslim family yet agnostic. Cultural and religious terminology often interrelate if we speak of 'cultural background'.
I never said Zionism is a religious ideology, I said it is cultural/national movement of the Jewish people, who used the term and history of banu Yisraely as their primary narrative and medium. I am not saying it is not falsified, any history is deeply rooted under the garbage of falsifications, but simply refering to the 'zionists' to refute their claim is non-sense.
