The “Hebrew” Deception

by vazir, Wednesday, October 30, 2013, 00:16 (1391 days ago) @ vazir

The proof that Yūsuf’s brothers were no more than Bedouins (livestock herders) is found in the following (the word is left un-translated, so Arabic readers can verify for themselves):

And he raised his parents upon the ‘arsh and they fell in prostration to Him. And he said: "My father, this is the interpretation of my vision from before. My Rabb has made it true, and He has been good to me that he took me out of prison and brought you out of the badou after the shaytan had made bitterness between me and my brothers. My Rabb is kind to whom He wills. He is the Knowledgeable, the Wise}...[12:100]

The “Hebrew” Deception

“Language is the nation. And the nation is the language. And there is no life for the nation without a language”.

These were the words of Eliezar bin-Yehuda, the man who is credited as the “reviver” of the so-called “Hebrew” language. Bin-Yehuda understood, ever since the beginning of the Zionist project, the importance and necessity of this matter for the continuity of the Jewish “nationality”. In fact, there were many common means used by both the Nazis of Germany and the Zionist movement to achieve their goals. One of those means was: "Lie, lie, lie and keep on lying, until eventually, the people will believe you". The Zionists kept on claiming, since the beginning of their colonial project, that there was once, a long time ago, a divine language called “Hebrew”, and that it was the language of God’s Chosen People, that was eventually lost or became “dormant” when the “Hebrews” were scattered and exiled from their alleged “Promised Land”.

David Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, once said: “The Hebrew language died out, because it hasn’t been a spoken language for over 2000 years”. This statement and many others along its line; were used to explain why the “language” is mysteriously not found in any ancient dictionary or glossary, and is not mentioned in any historic document the world has ever known. The fact is that there was never any language in the entire region but Arabic and the various dialects that derived from it: Aramaic, Syriac, Old Yemeni, Amorite, Phoenician, etc…

Encyclopedia Britannica
states that: “The original authors of the Old Testament are unknown; furthermore, it is not certain whether those who compiled it were individuals or groups. The Old Testament was originally recorded almost exclusively in Hebrew, with the exception of very few passages which were recorded in Aramaic. The first Jewish community eventually translated the entire text of the Torah (the Five Books) to Aramaic”.

Isn’t it strange that it has never occurred to anyone to ask the following questions?
1- Why was it translated to Aramaic?
2- Who was this “first” Jewish group or community responsible for this translation?
3- If the language had been dead for 2000 years, how did it suddenly “pop up”, alive and well, in Palestine, in the 20th Century, and coinciding with the return to the alleged “Promised Land"?

Did this “Hebrew” language even exist in the first place? An article written by Professor G.A. Driver, who taught Modern Hebrew at Oxford University, UK, stated: “The Term ‘Hebrew’ is actually a creation of the Jewish Rabbis in Palestine, which came at a much later time. This is proven by the fact that the word was not known or used to refer to the Jews in Russia, until after the 15th Century”.

The Zionist movement commissioned prominent Russian literary figure Eliezar bin-Yehuda, who was among the first immigrants to Palestine, to write a linguistic glossary based on an ancient Arabian tongue, mixed with the Yiddish dialect of the German Jews. Bin-Yehuda wrote the entire framework for this new language, and sought to spread it among the new Jewish community in Palestine. Giant French scholar and thinker Pierre Rossi, in his outstanding book entitled (lit): The City of Isis – the True History of the Arabs (pages 28,29) says: “Modern Hebrew is an invention of the Russian Eliazar, who published a literary and linguistic glossary in the period from 1910 until 1922, as was required by the global Zionist movement, and proposed it as a kind of ‘Esperanto’ for the Jews in all corners of the world, who had been promised a new home in Palestine. It was nothing but a political tool”. (In other words, a lie created for political manipulation).

The invention of this “Modern Hebrew” language was a very crucial condition for the success of the colonial Zionist movement. This language, of which there is not a single mention in any document, text, or archeological trace, in the entire literary history of the ancient world, suddenly became a living reality! “No mention of it is found in any of the thousands of cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts….nor even in any ancient Aramaic document was ever a single reference to a Hebrew language” (Rossi, page 25).

Eliazar called for making “Hebrew” the language of the age for the new Jewish settlers, to be spoken by the youngsters in their homes, in their schools, and on the streets. The goal was to artificially create all the elements needed for a new “racial nationality”. In his excellent study entitled (lit): Zionist Racism and the Philosophy of Jewish Upbringing, Professor ‘Abdulqāder Fāris says: “And so Hebrew became the official language; so much so, that the elderly generations who had immigrated to Palestine were forced to learn it from their children! This is because the fathers, who had left their original homelands in Europe, had never heard of such a language, so they had to learn it from the younger generations”.

Is it possible, dear reader, that all those scholars were delusional? Or is it the Zionist propaganda machine that has played the public for fools? The fact is that the term “Hebrew” was never known - by the European Jewish communities - as a term designating a language, until the 1920’s, when the Zionist project began taking shape.

We will show you now, dear reader, a glimpse of the truth that what we have always thought were independent “Semitic” languages, are in fact nothing but various dialects originating from one mother language or proto-tongue, so to speak. This fact has been declared time and time again by anthropologists and linguists since the end of the 19th Century, among them: William Wright, Paul Edward Dhorme, Sabatino Moscati, Kamāl Ṣaleebi, Pierre Rossi, and many others, all of whom have successfully demonstrated that the so-called “Semitic” languages did indeed have one common origin. (Think of it as somewhat like French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian all being offshoots of the original Latin tongue).

These academics have conducted extensive research on the dialects of Arabia and Mesopotamia, and found glaring similarities between them, notably: the presence of three-letter verb roots for the words, the presence of two tenses (past and present) for those verbs, as well as very similar conjugation structures between them. In all these dialects, there are obvious resemblances among the pronouns, the words that indicate sibling relationships, the names of body parts, numbers, and natural phenomena, among others. This led to only one possible conclusion: the original community from which sprang all the so-called “Semitic” people must have spoken a language that was most similar to Arabic. In this regard, Sabatino Moscati says: “In light of all the information that we, as anthropologists have been able to gather, there is now undeniable evidence which indicates that the wilderness of the Arabian Peninsula is the point of origin for all Semitic migrations".

Moscati’s observation is in line with that of other academics and scholars of the modern age, notably Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975), and William J. Durant, both of whom have pointed out that the Arabian Peninsula, specifically its southern part, may well have been the cradle of human civilization.

What we can say for now, with a great degree of certainty, is that what is popularly known as the “Semitic” race most probably originated in the Arabian Peninsula. This is in fact in line with observations made by the ancient Greek historians, notably Herodotus, who stated that the inhabitants of Phoenicia were originally immigrants from the Red Sea coast. It was the ancient migrates from Arabia, starting from the 15th millennium BC, who eventually established civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant.In the heading entitled “Arabia”, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, we read the following:

“Arabia is the cradle of Islam and, in all probability, the primitive home of the Semitic race”.

Late Lebanese historian and linguist Kamāl Ṣaleebi, who specialized in what is known as “Hebrew” until it became a second language to him, reiterated Moscati’s observation that the so-called “Semitic” languages were originally dialectic offshoots of an original and older proto-tongue, and that the common ancestor of those dialects was most probably closer to Arabic. In his famous book The Bible Came from Arabia (published in 1985), Ṣaleebi states: “All this leads us to the conclusion that the three languages in question (Phoenician, Aramaic and Arabic) actually existed side by side, from Yemen to the Levant...There is nothing strange in the fact that Arabic coexisted with Aramaic as far back as the Biblical times. This is because Arabic, from a purely Phonetic and morphological perspective, is the oldest of the three languages”.

How did the experts reach the conclusion that Arabic is the oldest of the “Semitic” languages? The answer lies in the vast phonetic roots of Arabic. The fact is that Arabic has a far greater variety of consonantal sounds than any of the other languages, including what is falsely referred to as “Hebrew”. From a purely linguistic perspective, sounds that were originally independent phonemes in the proto-tongue (common ancestor language) of the region combined to form allophones in all the dialects, except for Arabic, where they remained discrete phonemes. This means that the so-called “Semitic” dialects (Aramaic, Syriac, Phoenician, Old Yemeni*, etc. could not possibly have pre-existed Arabic. This is because Arabic is the only language that has preserved all the features of the ancestor tongue, whereas those features are absent in the other dialects. Consequently, it is not possible for Arabic to have been a descendant of those dialects, as is commonly believed. A whole does not come out of a part. What this means, ultimately, is that the common ancestor of all the so-called “Semitic” languages was much closer to Arabic than to any of the other offshoot dialects. ( * The term “Old Yemeni” indicates the ancient South-Arabian dialects, notably Thamūdic, Sheban, and Ḥimyaritic.)

Proving that Arabic is the closet language to the proto-tongue and common ancestor of all the known dialects is certainly possible, but requires a separate study of its own. The observations made by Ṣaleebi, as supported by other contemporary academics, as well as the latest anthropological findings concerning the early human civilizations and the trends in human migration, must be taken very seriously. What we can say now, with a great degree of certainty, is that the southern quarter of the Arabian Peninsula was indeed the cradle of human civilization, and the true - albeit forgotten - theater of the stories and legends of Allah’s messengers, from Nūḥ (P), down the line to Muḥammad (P). The presence of towering mountains and badlands in the Arabian Peninsula, not to mention the primitive means of communication in those bygone eras, must have given rise to different dialects; original offshoots that derived from the proto-tongue. These dialects were spoken by tribes and clans that, at first, lived together in the same general geographical setting, before eventually wandering out of the Peninsula in successive and continuous migrations; whether for reasons related to climate, competition for fertile land, or because of invasions or wars. This of course assumes various phenomena in line with these anthropological facts, notably that the spread of people in mass exoduses from Arabia, over thousands of years, led to further evolution of those offshoot dialects, until they eventually became separate languages, as people strayed further away from their point of origin. On the other hand, this necessitates that the original, or common ancestor of all those dialects be preserved, at least in its spoken form (if not in alphabet) by a small group or class of people who remained around the point of origin, and thus preserved most of the characteristics of the proto-tongue. And it was precisely that group of people to whom Ibraheem (P) had migrated in the distant past (around 1600 BC).

The implication of these facts is that the classical division of the so-called “Semitic Languages” into a Northern branch comprising Aramaic, Syriac and Phoenician and a Southern branch comprising Arabic, Old Yemeni, and Ethiopian is a complete fallacy. Whether this division was a result of ignorance, or a deliberate manipulation to conceal the truth remains to be seen. These dialects, in their oral form, must have existed side by side all over Arabia, even during the Biblical times. Their written form however (the various alphabets), is another matter entirely. For example, the cursive Arabic alphabet that we use today was an ingenious development of the Nabateans, around 200 AD. The Arabic language however, is immeasurably older than the Nabatean civilization, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it originated in Yemen. It is therefore more correct to classify the alphabets into northern and southern branches, not the languages.

It might be difficult to accept this truth at this point, but eventually, the sheer amount of evidence that we will present will lead to only one conclusion: that the language of the Qur’ān is a sample of what may very well be the oldest dialect in existence. And it was precisely in this language that Allah revealed His final message to mankind. Arabic is a language whose alphabet was developed long after it was first spoken, and whose origins have always been shrouded in mystery.

During the time of Muḥammad (P), there were groups of people who spoke Aramaic, Syriac, and even Old Yemeni, living alongside speakers of Arabic. Until we accept this truth, we will never understand the true history of Muḥammad (P), and where he actually lived and preached. The Qur’ān describes all those other dialects as being a‘jami, to distinguish them from the ‘arabi tongue. Strictly speaking, the term a‘jami, as is evident from various lexicons, means: “something incomplete, imperfect, lacking, or something that struggles or makes an effort to convey a meaning; something that struggles to be complete or perfect but fails to achieve either quality”. The consequences of this are quite staggering to say the least, and necessitate a complete revaluation of what the term ‘arabi actually means. It will not be long before you realize, dear reader, that the term “Arabic” (written with a capital ‘A’, by convention) is not the name of a particular language or nationality, but rather a description of a dialect. It is imperative that you keep this point in mind throughout our quest to recover the lost geography of the prophets.

The question still stands: Where does the so-called “Hebrew” language fit in? Let’s go back to what Encyclopedia Britannica says:

“The original authors of the Old Testament are unknown; furthermore, it is not certain whether those who compiled it were individuals or groups. The Old Testament was originally recorded almost exclusively in Hebrew, with the exception of very few passages which were recorded in Aramaic. The first Jewish community eventually translated the entire text of the Torah (the Five Books) to Aramaic”.

Do you believe this joke? Has anyone on this planet ever conclusively proved the existence of a language called “Hebrew” – a language which they claim had become “dormant” for 2,000 years before it was “revived” in the Promised Land?

Here follows is the truth of this so-called “Hebrew”:

Linguists estimate that the letters of Old Aramaic (also called “Paleo Aramaic”) were used as early as the 11th Century BC. Noting the 22 letters of this alphabet, it is obvious that they are the same letters as those of the Arabic alphabet; with the exception of 6 letters that are not found in Aramaic.

The Aramaic dialect is nothing but one of the practically extinct a‘jami dialects that originated in South Arabia, then spread northwards on the waves of the ancient migrations. Eventually, several alphabets were developed as written vessels for Aramaic, and the one shown here is believed to be the oldest.

Now, if you take a close look at “Squared Aramaic” letters, you will be surprised to know that these are the same letters which they call “Hebrew”; every one of them! These squared Aramaic letters are estimated to have first appeared in Mesopotamia around the 7th or 6th Century BC, which coincided with the era of the Babylonian Exile. This is the truth that the Zionists have been hiding all along. And whenever anyone comes close to exposing their deception, they quickly rush to the claim: “Hebrew does use the squared Aramaic letters, but it is an independent language”. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single document in the entire history of the ancient world that mentions anything about a “Hebrew” language. Not even in the Old Testament itself do we find any indication or reference that the Biblical Israelites spoke “Hebrew”! Their explanation of the absence of any mention of this language is simply that it was “dormant” for many centuries. As for the presence of hundreds of Arabic words in this so-called “Hebrew”, their allegation is that, for the purpose of its “revival”, it made use of many Arabic terms that were incorporated into it.

The time has come to expose this global deception once and for all. What they call “Hebrew” is nothing but a mixture of Aramaic and Arabic that was injected with one of the rural dialects of Germany, known as the "Yiddish". The Zionists invented this language from scratch and came out to the world with claims of “holiness” and “originality”. Aramaic, in turn, is nothing but an almost extinct dialect that originated in South Arabia, and is spoken today only in certain areas of Syria and Iraq. Being that “Hebrew” had no written form of its own; the Zionists simply hijacked the squared Aramaic alphabet and used it as a vessel for their invention.

The fact that “Hebrew” is derived from an ancient Yemeni tongue is not a new discovery. English Orientalist David Margoliouth, who taught Arabic at the University of Oxford from 1890 until 1937, once stated: “We find, in the (Hebrew) language, especially in proper nouns, very old manifestations that match, to the letter, the scriptures of South Arabia”. In his book entitled (lit): Imagined Palestine - Land of the Torah in Ancient Yemen, (published in 2008), Iraqi scholar Fāḍel al-Rubay‘i made the same observation concerning the alarming similarities between what is called “Modern Hebrew” and the phonetic patterns of the ancient South Arabian dialects. To give you an idea of what we mean, the Old Yemeni dialects, at one point, used the letter h (as in hair), as a definite article to mean “the”. This was equivalent to the Arabic prefix article al. Hence, for example, “the year” in English is equivalent to al-sanah in Arabic, and ha-shana in Old Yemeni (the s and sh sounds often replaced each other in the old dialects). The name Rosh Hashanah, which designates a Jewish religious holiday, would be equivalent to rash ha-shanah in ancient Yemeni, which means “New Year”. This term is simply an a’jami version of the Arabic ra’s al-sanah. Let’s take, as another example, “Haaretz”, the name of the famous newspaper issued in the Zionist state. The term “aretz” is simply a corruption of arṣ, which is the ancient Yemeni term for “earth” or “land”. This is because the Yemeni dialect did not have the letter ḍ (ḍād) that we find in Arabic (as in Ramaḍān), so it was replaced it with the letter ṣ (ṣād). Since the Europeans could not properly pronounce the sound, they in turn rendered it as tz (tzad). Hence, ha-aretz is simply “the earth” (or “the land”), a corruption of the ancient Yemeni pronunciation ha-arṣ, which corresponds to al-arḍ in Arabic. These are but a few examples of their so-called “divine tongue” that was taught exclusively to their “superior race”.

Now, the question is: If “Hebrew" was never a language to begin with, then what does the word actually mean?

“Hebrew” - A Name or a Description?

Whenever the word “Hebrew” is mentioned today, it immediately brings to our minds a particular “nation” of people who identify themselves as being Jewish, descendants of the Children of Israel, and who consider the Old Testament to be their sacred scripture. But is this what the word really means? Or was the term given - for ideological reasons - a meaning that was different from its original context, in order to create the illusion of a “chosen people” racially superior to all others?

In fact the “Hebrew” never existed as a language in the first place, but was created from scratch by the Zionist movement in the early 20th Century. In fact, the elderly generations of European Jews who migrated to their alleged "Promised Land” in Palestine had never even heard of this language, and were forced to learn it from their younger generations.

The truth we are about to reveal, which only a handful of people are aware of, is that the word “Hebrew” is the a‘jami equivalent of the Arabic word ‘ibri (singular), whose plural form is ‘ibrān. This word is actually an adjective, used to describe those people who often cross over, or travel from one place to another, rarely settling down in one location. In fact, the word ‘ubūr (crossing a street, river, valley, etc…) is a derivative of this word.

The implications of this matter lie in the concept of nomadic life in general. The question is: How and when did this adjective become a term used exclusively to identify the Jews? This is another of the many forgeries which they perpetrated to hide the true identity of the Israelites. The truth of the matter is that Ibraheem (P) was described as being a “Hebrew” in certain passages of the Old Testament. At the same time, the Bible tells us that he was a wandering Aramean (meaning that he was looking for a place to settle). This is because Ibraheem migrated from his homeland and settled in the mountainous Sarāt Country. Interestingly, the Bible never uses the term “Hebrew” to describe his sons, Isma‘eel and Isḥāq. Why is that so? Could it be because they didn’t “cross over” with their father? Could it be because they were born in the Sarāt Country? Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read about “Isma‘eel the Hebrew” or “Isḥāq the Hebrew” or even “Ya‘qūb the Hebrew”, for that matter. But we do read about “Yūsuf the Hebrew”, for reasons that we will discuss very soon. This is a very important issue that needs to be looked into. The descendants of Ibraheem did not migrate across the Arabian wilderness to the coastal mountainous region. So, technically, they were descendants of a Hebrew, but were not Hebrews themselves. They were simply "Israelites".

The proof that the word “Hebrew” does not indicate a language or a particular national or racial identity is found within the passages of the Old Testament, for those who can read between the lines, so to speak. Take a look at the following excerpt from the Old Testament, which talks about a particular law that Mūsa (P) is claimed to have taught his people:

Now these [are] the judgments which you [O Moses] shall set before them: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. "If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he [comes in] married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21: 2-6)

These regulations given by Mūsa to the Israelites clearly distinguish between the Israelites themselves and the slaves, among whom were the Hebrews who migrated to the region. The Hebrews were bought and sold as slaves; something that was absolutely forbidden to the Israelites to do among themselves. Has anyone ever heard of an Israelite (a member of “God’s Chosen People”) buying or selling another Israelite as a slave?

But then, why is Yusūf (P) described as being a “Hebrew” in the Bible? Wasn’t he also born in the Sarāt region? This is because the inhabitants of the mountainous regions of Arabia, who had control of the entire coastal strip (including the trade routes), still considered the later generations of Israelites as being somewhat “beneath them”, and looked upon them with some kind of disdain. As such, Yusūf in particular was still considered “Hebrew”, even though he was born in the land that his ancestor Ibraheem had migrated to. This explains the following passage in the Old Testament:

So they set him [Joseph] a place by himself, and them by themselves, and the (Egyptians) who ate with him by themselves; because the (Egyptians) could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that [is] an abomination to the (Egyptians). (Genesis 43:32)

Pay attention to the context of the term “Egyptians” in the above text. In the original so-called “Hebrew” Bible, the word we see is Msrim. What the passage is telling us is that the Msrim could not eat food at the same table with the Hebrews. (They found the prospect repugnant because the Hebrews were looked upon as being of lower social status). The Septuagint criminals, however, perpetrated a blatant forgery by replacing the word Msrim (or msrm, as it appears in the original, silent, Aramaic text), with “Aegypto". However, that still doesn’t change the context of the passage in terms of what the term “Hebrew” really means. It is clearly indicating a nomadic lifestyle, not any particular group or racial identity and certainly not designate one specific language or dialect.

The Children of Israel were thus descendants of Ibraheem the Hebrew (‘ibri) who had crossed the wilderness of Arabia and settled in the fertile region of the Sarāt Mountains, the hub of the ancient trade routes. This region was described by Allah as being mubārakah to the inhabitants of the ancient world, because of its rich natural resources, and many fresh water streams and rivers. Ibraheem was not the only Hebrew, and certainly not the first. Anyone who migrated in this same manner was given the label of “Hebrew” by the inhabitants of the region in question. In fact, the term ‘ibran is still used even today in some Arab countries, to describe the inhabitants of the rural areas (or small villages) who make the trip to the capital to conduct their business, having crossed the wilderness towards the large urban centers. It is a word that is deeply imbedded in the culture of Arabia, and provides further evidence as to where the events of the Bible took place.

Source: ARABIA: The Untold Story, Book 2: Road of the Patriarch, Page 26-36
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132844965/ARABIA-The-Untold-Story-Book-2-Road-of-the-Patriarch


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

salaatforum.com | design and hosted by Beach Life Marketing Inc