The Assyrian Storm
-
Dear all;
The fourth e-book of the series Arabia The Untold Story can now be downloaded through the links posted below.
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Cover4_zps7eff4223.jpg
Where exactly did the Assyrian and Babylonian enslavement which befell the Biblical Israelites take place?
Book 4 attempts to reconstruct the details surrounding the massive event known as the ?Babylonian Exile?, by means of a precise, scientific and non-biased reading of the actual Biblical and Mesopotamian texts, and comparing their contents with the old Arabian chronicles often ignored and overlooked by contemporary commentators. The classical reports of Tabari, Mas?udi, Ibn Habeeb, al-Hamadani, and others are adamant in their stance that the Mesopotamian enslavement was in fact a series of catastrophic campaigns whose theater was none other than the lands of Yemen, as well as parts of Nejd and the ijz, and that its victims were not solely the ancient Israelites, but a large number of Arabian tribes.
The aim of this book is twofold
First To break the monopoly held by the Judeo-Christian Biblical interpretation regarding Palestine?s history, by presenting an alternative version of the story which seeks to place the events surrounding the Babylonian enslavement in their correct geographical theater.
The Biblical scholars have, for centuries, painted a picture in the minds of the masses which depicts the Exile as an event that was concerned only with the Jews; whereas nothing can be further from the truth. The fact is that the Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns were directed at the rebellious Arabian tribes in general (not just the Israelites or the Jews). This is what the Mesopotamian scriptures and tablets, unearthed from the ruins of Iraq, clearly tell us. The Children of Israel where but one of the many Arabian tribes who were victims of the chastisement. These ancient scriptures, carved in stone, speak of at least eight campaigns, two of which (namely the conquests lead by kings Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar) were so devastating, that they shook the mountains of Arabia, and ended up changing the very demographic foundations of the Peninsula, forever.
Apparently, a league of arrogant, imperialist crooks want us to believe that the Assyrians and Babylonians launched these successive campaigns, spanning nearly two centuries, mobilizing enormous resources and hundreds of thousands of troops, against a tiny stretch of pastoral land that was little more than a backwater area already fully under their control. And the modern Arab academics have chosen to ignore the reports of the classical historians as delusions, while continuing to believe the Orientalist garbage associating the Babylonian Exile with Palestine.
Second To expose one of the goals of the Orientalist monopoly, namely the portrayal of the Western Jews ? throughout history ? as the sole and exclusive targets of persecution. This is part of the political propaganda which relies on the manipulation of base human emotions, by painting the picture of the solitary and racially separate victims, who must always suffer under persecution as a consequence of their beliefs. A historical and parallel reminder of this phenomenon can be seen in the account of Hitler?s persecution of the various European peoples during World War II, wherein this oppression was marketed to the world as being solely directed at the Jews (what is referred to as ?The Holocaust?).
There is no denying that the Nazis perpetrated grave offenses against their opponents during that era. The point is that monopolizing this event for political gain and painting it as the plight of a single and particular group, while forgetting the forty million Christians who were victims of oppression during the War (at the hands of Nazis and non-Nazis, alike) constitutes a shameful prostitution of history.
The Orientalist scholars and clergymen ? Western and Arabs alike ? have torn living pieces from the flesh of Arabia?s memory, glued them haphazardly and fraudulently onto Palestine?s historical territory, and falsely presented them to the world as part of the ?Legacy of the Jews?. As a result of their shortcomings, the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns of the 8th and 7th Centuries BC were portrayed as extending and continuing, down through the ages, to claim the Khazar (East European) Jews of the 20th Century AD. Thus, the victims who fell to the blades of Nebuchadnezzar where imagined to be the very ancestors of the victims of the Nazi bullets and gas chambers of the 1940s! As for the other casualties of these events (the remaining Arabian tribes and the millions of non-Jews who suffered and died during WWII), their story must never be heard, and their fate must remain buried in oblivion (it is considered ?anti-Semitic? to even mention them). This phenomenon is referred to by social engineers and propagandists as "monopolizing the tragedy".
This fact was summed up by Zionist author Moshe Leshem, who wrote "(Israelis) and American Jews fully agree that the memory of the Holocaust is an indispensable weapon - one that must be used relentlessly against their common enemy. Jewish organizations and individuals thus labor continuously to remind the world of it. In America, the perpetuation of the Holocaust memory is now a $100 million a year enterprise, part of which is government-funded".
In this fourth book of the series, you will see how the modern Biblical scholars inserted, into the history of the Levant that is being taught in the schools and universities of the world, wars that never actually happened, and introduced fictional heroes and kings who never set foot in Syria, Jordan or Palestine, and whose names are not mentioned in any of the documents or records of the ancient empires which occupied that region. The book casts a new perspective on the deception they successfully passed onto the generations, through their interpretation of the dirges and lamentations of the Old Testament as pertaining to an imaginary land that did not exist anywhere except in their diseased fantasies.
You are invited to this deep historical contemplation, which will allow you, bit by bit, to unravel the true history of the Prophets, and ultimately the puzzle of Muhammad?s identity and the origins of the Qur?an, which have always been perceived by contemporary Western scholars as being shrouded in mystery.
The correction of Palestine?s history is an endeavor which must be continued by future generations. This correction will ultimately lead not only to the vindication of Arabian history from the false presets and nonsense preconceptions which have marred its true image, but also to the condemnation of such fraudulent concepts as the ?Promised Land? and the ?Divine Right of Return?, by exposing them as no more than racist, political tools used by scheming imperialists throughout history.
Links
Mediafire (runs best with Google Chrome browser) https//www.mediafire.com/folder/eab27iyes4grx/Book_4
Mega - NZ (also requires newer browsers) https//mega.co.nz/#F!tJQVyYbb!hPtnS5WuP2d8hLqOP0f1YA
Dropbox (works with older browsers)
Book https//www.dropbox.com/s/e6b4k91eyc2cnd8/Assyrian%20Storm.pdf?dl=0
Cover https//www.dropbox.com/s/kptjfne9hq4w1ku/Cover%204.pdf?dl=0
Peace.
-
For the research and for sharing this .
Do the brother come across a village called Al-Qaryatayen in the old arabic geographical and historical books , as you know from the Qur'aan the rejectors were debating by asking "why this Qur'aan wasn't sent upon a great man from the Al-Qaryatayen ?."
the old Tafassir explained the word literally by saying it is referring to two villages ( mecca and al-madinah ) , but in a opinion it is more likely that the word Al-Qaryatayen is about one place if not read literally , knowing we're it was will give another geographical place/ name about the area were the events took place .
Another question brother where in Assir and Today's Yemen in general someone can find field of olives ?
-
Peace, Alkitab.
I don't think it's a proper noun. The singular term "qariyah" (ة / plural "qura" (ى appears several times in the scripture, and simply denotes an urban settlement. So why should the dual form "qaryatayn" suddenly denote a name? Unless you wish to completely ignore the grammar rules (and that's understandable), I think if it was a proper noun, it would have appeared as Qaryatn (ن, not Qaryatayn (ن.
To answer your question, there is indeed a place called Qaryatn, near Basra (Iraq). I found it in al-Bakri's Glossary. But I seriously doubt it's the place the Quran is talking about.
I am okay with the traditional rendering of qaryatayn as meaning the "two towns". It's the actual geography of these towns that I don't agree with.
Regarding zaytoun (ن, to this day I have yet to find convincing evidence that the Quran is talking about the agricultural olive tree. If you check the context of Tuur Sina, in , it is very obviously describing a form of wild tree, which has been historically known to grow naturally in that place. It is not something that they cultivated. If the Quran is truly speaking about the olive tree here (which is again mentioned in relation to the Tuur in ), then it is the wild variety of such. And indeed, wild olives have grown in those regions of Arabia for thousands of years, and they are called locally . Their glue-like extract has been proven to have therapeutic properties.
As for the fig tree, look up the ficus arabicus plant, and you will see where it originated. Agricultural plants are mostly derived from their wild counterparts.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_sycomorus (look at the map closely)
And please read this, regarding the wild origins of the fig tree http//www.californiafigs.com/about_figs.php?page=5
The mountainous land described by the Greeks as Arabia Eudaemon, and in the Bible as flowing with milk (livestock grazing grounds) and honey (bee hives), and where myrrh and frankincense grows, cannot be Palestine. It is South Arabia. And it's truly a mind-boggling prospect, when you think of how easy it was to deceive humanity regarding this issue
Regards.
-
Thank you so very much for the download link and congratulations again for the forth book.
group
-
Peace, Alkitab.
I don't think it's a proper noun. The singular term "qariyah" (ة / plural "qura" (ى appears several times in the scripture, and simply denotes an urban settlement. So why should the dual form "qaryatayn" suddenly denote a name?
Salam "Pazuzu" ,
Do you remember once a three years ago you mentioned that people when debating meanings and understanding regarding verses they should look into Parsing ?
See your post n*23
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603850.20
Well this is very very true and important indeed , there was a huge corruption in that too but it doesn't mean that all the studies in that field is incorrect , and I come to find magnificent studies and illustration regarding many debated concept that all has their solution in knowing the Arabic tongue structure , like why this form or this preposition was used in this verse and not in the other even-though both talk about same event , why a same event is described with different form or wording in different places in the Qur'aan , why the Quraan use different preposition between actions or events , what is the purpose of thestructures or forms below and when and why they are used differently in the Qur'aan
...etc I am sure brother Mazhar can give more accurate English translation for the term above .
Back to Al-quaryatayin (ن and Al-Qaryatn (ن
The preposition ( from ) in the verse transliteration ("why this Qur'aan wasn't sent upon a great man from of Al-quaryatayin " ) , linguistically indicate ( س mean That the preposition ( from ) includ or cover or absorb in and all the Al-quaryatayin if we consider Al-quaryatayin as two Town then the preposition (from ) indicate that the object who is a one great man should be (included) in both Town wich is not possible because he is either in one Town or the other .
So to solve this from a Arabic linguistic point of view if the sentence was pointing To a dual form not to a proper name The sentence should be as so
"why this Qur'aan wasn't sent upon a great man from one of Al-quaryatayin " " "
Meaning a great man from one of the two town , as we see this sentence is different linguistically from the first one . The word (one of ) is referring to the slecetion or split and applying a distinguish (ن and direction to the preposition (from ن who cover and includ the whole of the two town .
There is another linguistic form to solve this so That the word Al-quaryatayin would mean two Town , That is if the sentence used the form of ( The Preference name ل , so it read like this
"why this Qur'aan wasn't sent upon the greatest man from of Al-quaryatayin " " "
In this form (the preference name ) play the same role of the word (one of ى in the second sentence , because by this form we can distinguish and make the selection as the sentence is pointing to the greatest man then there can only be one who is the greatest from the tow town .
Unless you wish to completely ignore the grammar rules (and that's understandable), I think if it was a proper noun, it would have appeared as Qaryatn (ن, not Qaryatayn (ن.
Yes true that the prefix (n ن is commonly used in names , as it indicate fullness and regeneration like Najrn , Quahtn , Adnan , Marjn , Furqn , Qur'n . And names linguistically in arabic are more powerfull then Verbes , also names indicate stability .
From a Parsing point of view The two form Qaryatn (ن And Qaryatayn (ن denote duality or dual form the difference is That
Qaryatayn (ن in the verse above is broken or genitive feminine noun by the preposition (from ن
- ( A great man from Al- Qaryatayn (the two town ) /
Any word in dual form in Arabic would follow that rule , same as if the dual form is in a Accusative form
- He built Al- Qaryatayn (the two town ) /
or if it is under a genitive case
- He Passed by Al- Qaryatayn (the two town ) /
or possessive case
- I saw the people of Al- Qaryatayn (the two town ) /
In the other hand the other dual form with the prefix n at the end Al-Qaryatn ( ) is used when it is in the position of
A Dual form in Active participle
- Al-Qaryatn (the two Town ) stood up /
A Dual form as subject in nominal sentence
- Al-Qaryatn (the two Town ) are great /
A Dual form as Predict nominal conditional sentence playing the role of result or answer
An ex from the Qur'aan for that
2282 {.....And bring to witness Shahidayn (two witnesses ) from among your men. And if there are not Rajulayn (two men ) then a man and 'mra'tayn (two women ) from those whom you accept as witnesses....}
{ }
Notice Shahidayn (two witnesses ) is a dual form in genetive form because it is accusative , same as Rajulayn (two men ) it's in genitive form because it is conjoined to Shahidayn (two witnesses ) by the preposition ( then ) who is in ( then a ) , we know this by the rule that the conjoined name follow the same form of the conjoined to . But when it come to the word 'mra'tayn (two women ) wich is also in dual form suddenly it is written in the other dual form with the prefix n at the end having subjunctive mood or accusative case , so why is that ? Why the dual form changed in same sentence ? Because the word 'mra'tayn (two women ) is a predict conjoined to the word Rajul (a man) who is the first subject . So both are a predict nominal sentence set as a answer for the conditioned first sentence see here in shortcut the conditioned sentence with the condition preposition ( if ) and it response {...And if there are not Rajulayn (two men )...then a man and two women's 'mra'tayn...}
So because the dual form is in the position of Predict nominal sentence then the rule is that it has to be in the form of 'Imra'atn not Imra'atayn .
There another exemple from the Qur'n about the two dual form and their usage , see for exemple
He used the dual form with the prefix Rajuln in 523 but in 1676 and 2445 and 2815 he used the other form Rajulayn .
Another exemple is 'ithnn used in 5106 but in 6143 and 940 and 1651 he used 'ithnayn .All these diffrent dual form usage follow the '3rab Structure mentioned above , but what I mentioned are not the only explanation and not the only justification , as there are levels of justification in that matter . But they must not contradict each other or get in confusion with other constructions .
From another level of perspective notably you can see it used in the Maq'ayiss Alugha dictionary , this level of understanding examine and go deep analysing the movements directions and the forms of the roots and names in Arabic tongue , from this perspective the difference between the two dual form and Al-Qaryatn ( ) and Al-Qaryatayn (ن is that the first one is more powerful due to the prefix (n ن at the end of the word . the duality in it is very full , when this form of duality is used it indicate this concepts , mainly highlighting To the speech receptors , audience , the importance of that thing or object who is in duality . The second dual form is having broke or crack it is more likely to be with less importance as being wither in accusative form , or genitive form , or possessive form , as we see all this forms are a secondary level not like the first form who is to be used in the form of the active form , or the subject or the predict of the the subject .
Ex from this perspective
{ }
5546 {But for him who feareth the standing before his Lord there are two Janatn (Gardens) }
5547 {...}
5548 {...}
5549 {...}
5550 {...}
5551 {...}
5552 {...}
5553 {...}
5554 {Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both Al-Janatayn (the gardens ) near to hand}
{ }Notice in 5546 it says (Janatn ) then in 5554 it says (Al-Janatayn ) , both verse spoke about the same two gardens , but with two different dual form , notice that in 5546 the speech is about the two gardens itself , but in 5554 the speech is about the fruit of the two gardens . When the speech was about the gardens itself it used the dual form with the prefix (nن Janatn , and this is to show the importance , the fullness , the regeneration of the tow gardens , but in 5554 the speech is not about the two gardens but their fruits so he used the broken dual form Janatayn
Another ex
5550 {Wherein are aynn (two fountains ) flowing}
{ }The word "aynn who is in dual form mean two fountains or spring
9008 {Have We not made for him "aynayn (two eyes?)}
{ }The word "aynayn who is in dual form mean two eyes .
Notice how the "aynn who has the prefix n at the end is referring to tow fountains , wich is like a big eyes fully running with water unlike the aynayn who is referring to two eyes , They are two like two fountains as tears (water) come out from them but they are small in size and fullness . In the Qur'n when he refers to humain eyes in dual form he only use the borken form aynayan not the full dual form with prefix n at the end .
I give diffrent exemple and That is from the concept of analysing th? enlargement and vastness of th? meanings , but it dosn' mean That diffrent opposit or contradict meaning what is known , th? analysis is still inside lingustic aspect not interpretations or ghnostic , the two last branches are diffrent livel of understanding and studios .
To answer your question, there is indeed a place called Qaryatn, near Basra (Iraq). I found it in al-Bakri's Glossary. But I seriously doubt it's the place the Quran is talking about.
Probably not the only place called so .
It's the actual geography of these towns that I don't agree with.
I come to the same understanding especially what is done there is a huge corruption and twisting the words from it's meaning and their linked object or subject .
Regarding zaytoun (ن, to this day I have yet to find convincing evidence that the Quran is talking about the agricultural olive tree. If you check the context of Tuur Sina, in , it is very obviously describing a form of wild tree, which has been historically known to grow naturally in that place. It is not something that they cultivated. If the Quran is truly speaking about the olive tree here (which is again mentioned in relation to the Tuur in ), then it is the wild variety of such. And indeed, wild olives have grown in those regions of Arabia for thousands of years, and they are called locally . Their glue-like extract has been proven to have therapeutic properties.
To mention that the Duhn who is mentioned in the Qur'an as something grows From that tree is something that people eat .
In my opinon it is no other then the oil itself not the glue , as it's something people eat , not sure what is the purpose of the glue ofSo I more likely thinking that the Duhn is oil , so it should be a tree that their fruit generate oil . I am not 100% of that but I will re-search about it . Why I said that ? Its because the arabic word for oil is Zayet so the word Duhn can not be a synonym of the word Zayt simply because there is no (Sequence ) in Arabic names or verbs or letters . But the Duhn can be a description for the word Zayt , giving description to one of it entities or naming it from another perception , the second name is not a explication of the first name but a description from other concepts , and that is known and used in Qur'an .
Another concept in Arabic is that one thing can called differently when it transform from something to something else .
Or when describing an event from different angle see 260 for exemple it says , same event and same action it's says in 7160
Another ex
The day of judgement is named by different names , but they are not synonyms but descriptions of that day ,In fact the tree mentioned in relation to the Tur is very important we should the connection between al-duhn and al-Zayt and al-sibgh . I will Incha' ALaah come back to this .
Tahyah Tayibah .
-
Thank you everyone for your inputs.
Al-Kitaab
I understand fully what you are trying to say regarding the difference between "Qaryatayn" as and "Qaryatn" as .
But you have to remember that proper nouns are exempt from this grammatical rule. For example, Bahrayn refers to the name of a country. It is a proper noun, in the dual form, meaning "two seas". Wherever the name appears in a sentence, it is always Bahrayn. It never becomes Bahrn . I think they have a rule for this. They call it .
Unless you are implying that the actual name of the place is Qaryatayn (like Bahrayn), then that's a different possibility. And I welcome your search for such a place.
Regarding the Duhn and the Zayt
Do you think it's possible that the Koran is speaking of the Myrrh tree, whose branches secrete a viscous resin used as a syrup?
See this
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrrh.
(Note how they extract oil from it, by means of a chemical reaction)
Who knows? Just because we are used to zaytoun as meaning "olive", doesn't mean the Koran meant that. Any tree that produces "oil" can be called shajara zaytoun. But my impression is that the tree being mentioned is a wild variety that grows on its own, and is native to that country. And it has to be a specific type of tree, with peculiar qualities. Isn't that so?
As for figs, pomegranates and grapes, there are plenty of such trees in the fertile regions of Arabia.
Peace...
-
Bro Pazuzu,
As always, very nicely presented! I am still a bit fuzzy on the Umayyad connection and the constant statements in the Quran about the prescription of "fighting"... perhaps it will be clearer with your upcoming works on what you feel about how much older or newer the Quran is compared to what is traditionally thought (my guess is you hypothesize it being the former case - as I would too.)Let me know!
MaxQ -
The Babylonian Chronicle records
"In the seventh month (of Nebuchadnezzar-599 BC.) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid seige to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adara ( 16th of March) he conquered the city and took the king (Jehoiachin) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent (them) forth to Babylon."
Jehoiakin Inscription
This is one of the clay tablets that reveal the presence of the Judean royal house as prisoners in Babylon. They were excavated from an arched building near the Ishtar Gate of ancient Babylon. The cuneiform texts, which are dated between 595 and 570 B.C., contain lists of rations of barley and oil issued to the captive princes and artisans, including "Yaukin, king of the land of Yahud." This is a direct reference to Jehoiachin, and some of the other tablets also mentioned his 5 sons who accompanied him to Babylon. (Staatliche Museum, Berlin).
Gedaliah Seal
This seal was found at Lachish and bears the inscription "Gedaliah, who is over the house." Gedaliah was the name of the man who the Babylonians had appointed as governor of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Not in Palestine you say?
Peace