2018-06-27T18:13:00-07:00
Who are the Arabs? Perhaps this question is one of the most frequently asked questions on the table of cultural and historical discussions and dialogues in the region, and it is a logical result of the organized Western Zionist project that has been moving in the region for many decades. The truth is that they are not decades. I may be exaggerating in the eyes of some if I say that this project was designed by the West many centuries ago, and was operated over time periods of history, but it faced resistance and defeats. Then this project finally returned to us with a new idea, which is the establishment of an entity. The occupation of Israel as a state belongs to the Al-Yahoud, the owners of the Old Testament. Israel is this entity that has a major role today, in creating identity chaos in the consciousness of the peoples of the region, because Israel is merely a Western project founded on a very old, false and baseless historical and religious idea, and it gained legitimacy for existence from the Western powers that designed it. It made the world believe in the legitimacy of its existence and in the legitimacy of the fake, fake history found in the Old Testament. The entity of Israel, which is based on a fictitious and false historical idea, is nothing but a Western project to establish the Zionist era upon which the West was founded since ancient times. One of the most important goals of this project is to create a general political and cultural intellectual wave sweeping the region that makes history a legitimacy to prove the political existential right, because the project The Western Zionist has complete confidence that the mind in the region is completely incapable of deciphering the mystery of the Zionist era that the West has created since the time of Rome, and is also incapable of a logical and true reading of history, and therefore the mind in the region must reach great chaos in identity. In addition to the Zionist entity based on the legitimacy of an imaginary, false history, there is a global Western trend in bringing the issue of identities and minorities to the table of cultural and political discussions as a basis and starting point for modernity. All of this has enhanced the historical reading sweeping the region. And this matter… has made those most interested in discussing the answer to this question, the liberal groups that raise identity slogans and carry separatist and hostile political projects towards anything related to Arabs.● One day I was in a conversation with a dear friend from Iraq on Facebook who is an Iraqi Christian. Assyrians, and I was impressed by his diverse experience and knowledge, given his old age and his authentic Eastern Christian culture, which I loved to learn about. In addition, he had a strong hostility to Israel and his constant focus on refuting Zionist readings of history. One day, when he realized that I was from Yemen, he said to me. Did you know that the oldest Christian church on the island was located in Yemen, specifically in Najran, and the oldest church in Iraq was named after Najran? Then he told me that Yemen was a civilization founded by the Assyrians, and that their civilization extended to Yemen, and Yemen was the result of the migrations of the Assyrians from Iraq. I did not oppose the idea of my Iraqi friend at that time, because I do not take history seriously or have populist fanaticism when reading history. On the contrary, I felt relieved from reading this Christian friend. Because it is different from the rest of the other extremist readings adopted by some Arab Al-Nasarah in the East, in which you do not find any link linking it to its surroundings. Rather, you find that it adopts a truncated and separate history that has no connection to the surroundings around it, while this friend’s reading at least provides answers. A logical explanation that explains ambiguous and thorny questions in history, even if we assume that it is an incorrect reading.● The truth is that many Arab Al-Nasarah at the present time are among the people who discuss this question the most, and most of their historical discussions revolve around aspects related to this question, and through my simple observation On social media sites, I find that in the first place they are the Al-Nasarah of Misr, followed by the Al-Nasarah of the Levant and Iraq, and I believe that it is related to the religious situation. The Al-Nasarah of Misr carry an ancient religious heritage. Their church is one of the oldest churches in the world, and this gives them a historical specificity that makes them keen on preserving this heritage. The same situation applies to the Eastern churches in the region in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, as they are not only a religion, but a historical legacy linked to them. In general… many Arab Al-Nasarah have the idea that they are not Arabs… I am not saying that all Arab Al-Nasarah have this idea, but a large percentage of them do. According to my reading of the discussions taking place on social networking sites, I found that a large percentage of Al-Nasarah believe that the Arabs are a purely Islamic state that appeared with Islam, and that Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Misr are recent arrivals from the Arabian Peninsula, or as invaders who came during a period. Islamic conquests, and they are not indigenous to Iraq, the Levant, Misr or Lebanon. This idea, which some of our Arab Christian brothers believe in, has caused some of them to confuse it with a kind of sensitivity towards anything related to the Arabs, causing them a state of alienation, and the question of identity began to arise in them. —————● I have a personal perception about the unaddressed time within our culture, and I have worked on it for a long time, and therefore I believe that the current time of the region, which everyone believes in, is the basis. In the disaster of the region for centuries and to this day, through my knowledge of our problem of time, which I will present in a separate article, I believe that this idea among Arab Al-Nasarah came from basic radical points related to time: 1- The first reason… because Al-Nasarah They have the narrative of Islam itself, which is the official narrative that exists among Muslims, and it is the narrative of Islamic conquests that explains the reason for the presence and spread of Islam in the region. Despite the belief of Arab Al-Nasarah in the narrative of Islamic conquests that exists among Muslims… the Al-Nasarah themselves do not have a comprehensive official narrative about the beginnings of Islam. Indeed, the Al-Yahoud do not even have a complete official narrative about the beginnings of Islam. Indeed, there is no official narrative in the archives. Rome in ancient times is a complete novel about the beginnings of Islam, even if some try to present some texts excerpted from books, it does not rise to be a complete novel, just a few lines, five lines, or seven lines, with strange names and is arbitrarily attached to the beginnings of Islam and with a name. A group or tribe believed to be Arabs, and there is no mention of personalities, events, regions, or anything. 2- The second reason… is because Arab Al-Nasarah have a religious narrative older than that of Islam, and this makes them have a temporal precedence in existence. In the countries of the region (Misr, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq…). ● The third reason………… Because the Arab Al-Nasarah have a special language for religious worship (Syriac and Coptic), and this language logically poses a question: Why do they speak two languages: Arabic and Syriac or Coptic?, and Their usual answer is…because their religious language was the dominant one before Islam, and upon the entry of Islam, the Arabic language took over their original language and their tongue changed and they began to speak Arabic and their language declined in religious matters, despite the great similarity between the Syriac language and the Arabic language. Arabic. Because, according to what linguists say, the Arabic language was born from the Syriac language. Logically, it is natural for Al-Nasarah to reach this perception, because Muslims have an official narrative that explains the reason for the spread of Islam and Muslims recognize it, and because the narrative of the Christian religion is older than the narrative of Islam, and this thing gives our brothers In their temporal imagination, Al-Nasarah have seniority and a temporal context that is older than the temporal context that exists in the mind of the Muslims who live next to them, which makes our Christian brothers believe that the matter is related to the story of an original and a newcomer, according to the rule of who has the oldest temporal context, and in addition to the fact that they have a language in which it is written. Their religious book. But if we temporarily exclude the narrative of Islam, which we will discuss later, and build our perception from the previous rule, which is (the rule of an expatriate and an original), this will make us ask several important questions: ■ Suppose that the Al-Yahoud are still present in the countries of the region and there has not been a conspiracy to deport them to the occupying Zionist entity. Then the Al-Yahoud will have an older religious narrative that explains the reason for their presence in the countries of the region, and it will represent a temporal precedence and a temporal context in the imagination that is older than what everyone has. Will the Al-Yahoud then be the original, while the Al-Nasarah and Muslims are the newcomers?! If we assume that the Christian believes that his ancestors before Christianity had a religion different from the Ibrahim religion and worshiped ancient gods and did not convert to Judaism, this makes us put forward the official story that the Al-Nasarah have. Al-Nasarah believe that the Old Testament promise of the appearance of a savior to the children of Israel was fulfilled by the appearance of Yasouaa (Jesus), who was united in the person of a prophet, a king, and a priest, and was crucified to save people from their sins. This means that the Al-Nasarah believed in Christ as the savior of the people of Israel, while the Al-Yahoud refused to consider Christ as the savior of the children of Israel. This means that they easily followed the faith of other people. Can Muslims in the countries of the region be considered to be the same state as Al-Nasarah? They are indigenous people in the countries of the region, but they believed in the faith of other people? But if the Christian believes that his ancestors embraced Judaism, and this may be logical because Christianity still keeps the book of the Old Testament within their Holy Book, despite the fact that the Old Testament is the book of the Al-Yahoud who disbelieve in Christ as the Savior while they believe in Christ as the Savior of the children of Israel, then this will lead us to A deeper question, about the origin of the Al-Yahoud, and then the same Muslim narrative will be repeated, because according to the official Jewish and Christian narrative……. the Al-Yahoud came from Palestine after they were taken captive and their temple was destroyed, so they were dispersed throughout the land, and this means that the Christian is nothing but a Jew. But he believed that Christ was the Savior that the children of Israel were waiting for, and this also means that the Christian, like the Jew, is an arrival to that land and coming from Palestine.■ If we assume that we are in the time before Islam and Christianity. The Christian today believes that the language of his country at that time was the Syriac language, and he also believes that the Syriac language was born from the womb of the Aramaic language. But the question is… If Syriac was born from the womb of Aramaic, and as we know that the language of the Old Testament was Aramaic, then it is logical that Aramaic was dominant and Judaism was dominant. Does this mean that Syriac also erased the identity of that region and changed its language from Aramaic to Syriac? If the language of Christ was Aramaic… then the important question is: Why did this language not continue and the language of the Bible not be written in it? . Does this mean that they also erased the identity and changed the people’s language from Aramaic to Syriac?! And because the Al-Nasarah preserved their language until today (Syriac), and this long period in which they preserved the language, raises an important question: Why was the Aramaic language not preserved? And the Bible is written in it?! ….Is it possible that a language would split from another language and separate from it within 400 years, which is the approximate period with the increase between the first copy of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ, peace be upon him? Is it reasonable that the first language (Aramaic) was not preserved as a language? Officially for 400 years, while Al-Nasarah were able to preserve their Syriac language until today for such a long period?! If this makes sense… then it is natural that it makes sense, that Arabic also split from Syriac within a very short period, and the matter is not related to the story of Arabization or the imposition of a language on them other than their own. ■ If we assume for the sake of argument that the words of the linguists who say Arabic took a lot from Syriac and Aramaic, so much so that the Qur’an must be read from Syriac to understand it better. Al-Nasarah call their language the Syriac Aramaic language. They are a Syriac Aramaic people, not Arabs. But why do they call their language Syriac Aramaic, and not just call it the Syriac language only, because the Syriac language is a different language and Aramaic is another different language? The Al-Nasarah’ answer to the previous question… about the reason for giving their language a double name… is that the Syriac language emerged from the womb of the Aramaic language… and its name is the Syriac-Aramaic language… and this is the answer. An indirect expression of a scientific fact that says that language is a living organism that evolves. But if the Syriac language split from Aramaic within a short period of time, which is approximately 400 years, do we have the right to say that Arabic also split from Syriac during the same period, and do we have the right to call the Arabic language, which is similar to the Syriac language, (the Aramaic Syriac-Arabic language)? ?! . And if the Syriacs call themselves (Syriac-Arameans), do we have the right to say that the Arabs are Arameans and Syriacs as well?!■ The most important question remains…. Is it possible that there is no complete historical narrative among Al-Nasarah about the beginnings of Islam and about the personalities of Islam and They do not even have a complete official account of the conquests according to their belief in them, nor do they exist among the Al-Yahoud or Roman sources. It does not make sense at all… no matter how much some people try to provide answers and explanations… the matter does not make sense at all… and The illogicality of the matter is further confirmed by the fact that the Al-Yahoud also do not have a complete historical narrative about Jesus Christ at all. Doesn’t this raise questions? Doesn’t it seem that there is some historical mistake and we did not notice it, or perhaps there is a historical hoax?! Why not ?! Everything is permissible. The issue can be further defined among our Christian brothers on three fundamental foundations: the historical narrative, time, and language.● But the truth is that Al-Nasarah are not the only ones who have this view, as there are other religious sects that believe this because of the connection between the concept of Islam and the Arabs.● And there are also ……Those who are from an Islamic background or other personalities, groups and parties that adopt secular and liberal thought, and who raise the slogan of identities as a basis for reforming the reality of the state and present the issue of minorities as a modern discourse that is compatible with history and reality. They believe that the reason for the current situation is the abandonment of the original identity. They believe that they had a great and great history, as witnessed by the inscriptions. They had a different identity and a different belief that was linked to the geography in which they were located, until the Arabs came with Islam and were deceived. Their ancestors were religious, or they imposed a religion on them by force of arms, and most of these people are researchers and those interested in ancient history and enthusiasts of reading and reading the inscriptions of ancient civilizations. This group may be correct in what they say, but this logic forces us to raise important points: ■ If we assume that the inscriptions of the region It is a measure of the search for identity. This makes us demand that everyone burn all existing history books and start again from scratch. Because all of the current, ancient history of the region was written by an official enemy, which is the West, and was not written by anyone from the region. It is the truth.. We have not yet written our history… The West has written our history. We did not write anything about the history of our countries. Our ancient inscriptions were deciphered by the West, and the historical theories were either written by the French, the British, or the Americans, and they sent them to us to translate them here, incorrectly or correctly. We memorized them by heart and considered them our national history and the history of our region. And when it is… Those who talk about the ancient identity are responsible for themselves well, and they deciphered the inscriptions of the region themselves, and wrote their own true history, their countries, and at that time they will have every right to speak with complete confidence and raise the issue of identity, because we want to separate the issue once and for all and be precise in the issue and We do not do injustice to anyone, because the West is not a safe hand at all, and is subject to great suspicion, and we must start from the beginning… in deciphering the region’s inscriptions ourselves, and then the talk will make very sense. ● As for the case of some of our Amazigh brothers, it is somewhat different from the previous approaches because it is linked more to the language and not to religion. They have a language that they say is separate from Arabic and is not an Arabic dialect, and they hold the same previous idea that they are not Arabs and that the Arabs are newcomers and invaders and they are the ones who Arabized their countries. In this case, the matter makes us see the concept of Arabic as linked to language. They say that their language is separate and is not Arabic, as evidenced by the fact that they do not understand Arabic except in schools, and if you spoke an Arabic language in their regions, no one would understand them, and this indicates that they are a different people, unlike the other peoples of the region. Those who understand Arabic, and these are the starting points adopted by some, whereby they view the Arabs from the standpoint of language as a sign that distinguishes them from the rest of the peoples, and not religion, as in the Christian case. If we assume that language is the measure of knowledge of the Arabs, this makes us ask logical questions, and search for logical answers to them. So we can adopt the language as a standard for Arabs.■ What is meant by the Arabic language? Is it classical? If we adopt the classical language as a standard for the Arabs, there are no people in the region that speak a classical language. They are all dialects, and these dialects from the perspective of linguistics can be considered authentic languages. There is, for example, the Maltese language, which some consider to be an Arabic dialect close to the dialects in the region, while it is an official language and has rules. This Maltese language is understood by Arab tourists who visit Malta. The truth is…….. There are no people who speak fluent Arabic except in writing and official transactions, and perhaps if you try to speak that fluent language in isolated areas in front of the elderly, they will find it difficult to understand. Like the Maltese language, which you can understand, but the Maltese himself cannot understand classical Arabic…so they said in the old proverb…..like the muezzin in Malta. The Maltese does not understand the call to prayer even though he speaks Arabic. ■ But why do the people of the region understand the dialects of the region? Such as the case of the Egyptian dialect, which many find easy to understand, but we believe that the reason is the strength of the Egyptian media at the present time, and it applies to other dialects of the region, such as Syrian and others, the media that provides listening skills to the public, and if it were not for the media Many people find it difficult to understand dialects, and if you ask an old man in an isolated village to listen to the Egyptian dialect, he will not understand it, and you have the Maltese case in which you can understand his accent, but the Maltese cannot understand yours. The Maltese case makes us ask an important question… Can we? To say about the Maltese that they are Arabs, because we cannot say that religion is the reason for the Arabization of the Maltese because they are not Muslims?!■ If we assume that the logic of the Amazigh movement group is correct, then the question is: Is there any archaeological or material evidence confirming the Amazigh language before Islam? There is no… On the contrary, what is known as the Phoenix in Western writings has very many traces in North Africa, even though, according to the logic of the Amazighs… the Phoenix are also newcomers like the Arabs, so you are surprised and it makes you ask a question…… .. How come the expatriates always write texts and have traces they leave behind, while the owners of the land remain in suspicious silence and have no trace like the Berbers? I think there is something wrong….and perhaps there is a historical hoax. The case study of the Amazighs makes us understand that the perception of the Arabs is essentially linked to the language. Language is what made them ask the question of who the Arabs are. It is what gave them a feeling of difference, and therefore the difference. They are forced to believe that their language is a primary language and that Arabic is foreign to them and imposed on them. The conquests will confirm their conviction and the historical imagination will begin to work in finding everything that confirms their logic. ———–From the previous models, I think it is very natural for them to reach these perceptions. But if we assume that there is no will of an external organization, represented by the Western Zionist project, that stands behind these issues and tries to raise them to dismantle societies so that there is no sensitivity to considering the issue as external projects, then this makes us ask a question: Are their perceptions legitimate and must be raised? Yes, it is legitimate, but there must be one table that brings everyone together in the country and the issue is put up for discussion in a frank, fraternal manner, and everyone starts from the beginning, from the first point, and we search and search for history ourselves, and we must accept all the hidden history and hidden facts that exist. Politics had a role in concealing it, no matter how painful it was, and we come up with an agreed-upon narrative that is a national narrative… and this is a reform mission and internal arrangement in the nation. Why do I say that? Because talking about this issue is not enough to solve the problem at all, as there are false historical narratives. It is an unsound matter carried by many parties, and falsity and myth are intertwined in it, and it must be addressed, corrected, and a sound, agreed-upon narrative come up… because the issue being raised may be related to rights, but it is more closely related to the existence of a kind of rift in the historical imagination within One homeland and it must be reformed. There is an artificial hatred in the hearts as a result of a wrong imagination.—————————————————- -So who are the Arabs? I am not on a reform mission, I am looking for an accurate scientific answer, and I have been occupied for a long time by the story of the Arabs and who the Arabs are, and why this topic is being raised so much nowadays, and I thought that there might be something logical. And it is true that this question is seriously asked, but after a while I was able to get rid of many influences in understanding the issue well, especially the political influences that operate on the basis of externally supported projects, and I tried to classify those who raise the issue as a helpful factor for me in answering the question, and the starting points from which they proceed. And I thought about research, and I did not want to search for a compromise formula to answer the question of who are the Arabs. This is not a scientific mission, but rather a reform mission. I wanted to search for a scientific, accurate, and logical answer to the question. I wanted a conclusive truth. The three previous definitions of Arabs that we obtained from Discussing the starting points of the previous groups makes us believe that there is a mistaken idea that causes a misunderstanding of the name Arabs, and this idea will cause us difficulty in finding the correct answer to this question. Certainly it is an idea coming from the preconceived notions that we inherited, but where did we inherit it from?! Is it the religious historical narrative that created a different historical imagination for us? For example… all the previous sects have one point in common, which is the story of the Islamic conquests as a true and established official narrative from which they proceed to explain and interpret many questions running through their minds that led them to this perception. ….Would the questions have been asked if this novel had not existed?! We will try to put aside the idea of Islamic conquests and postpone them for another time, and let us assume that they did not happen to simplify the matter, because I am not in the search for genealogies to find the most suitable people for the Arabs. I want to search for the Arabs alone. If we try to search for an answer to the previous question: – There is the official narrative of Islam, which talks about Mecca and, more generally, Hijaz, by virtue of it being the country of the Arab Prophet. – And there is the official Arab historical narrative that talks about Yemen being the true origin of the Arabs. – But new readings began to doubt these official narratives. There are those who say that Arabs are Arabs in the north of the peninsula and Arabs are Arabs in the south of the peninsula. There are narrations of the Chaldean Prophet, which match the Islamic narration that talks about the Jarham tribes who taught Ismail Arabic. There is a narration that talks about the region between the Levant and Iraq, which are the Arabs, and there are narrations about Sinai, etc. But you cannot find a definitive and final answer, as most of them are based on preconceived notions, linguistic fossils, and their conformity with the Islamic narration, early Arabic sources, and others. I think that the mistake that many people make when answering the question goes back to a basic point from which two problems branch out: The basic point is in the language . The problem lies in the names of the peoples that are mentioned, and there is no precise definition of who they are, who they are, or who gave them the name so that we believe that they are a different people. They are just names in the imagination, the product of historical reading, and do not know any clear concept about who they are. It creates crowding and chaos in the imagination. Who are the Nabataeans, Assyrians, Syriacs, Arabs, Hebrews, etc. Where were they specifically and where did they come from in the beginning?! The evidence is the attempts of some people to find a reconciliatory formula for the names of the peoples as a reform mission. There are those who say that the name of the Syriacs is the Syriacs of the Arameans, and the name of the Arabs is the Adnanis or the Ismailis, and there are those who call the Babylonians the name (the Babylonians of the Elamites). This is strong evidence that our perceptions are still unclear. For example, almost a century ago…no one knew the name of Fenqi, until recently after reading Western writings…And after reading Western history books, a new name for a new people was formed in the imagination. His name is Phoenix. This happens with every new reading of history and the imposition of names of peoples and peoples. The problem of answering the question of who are the Arabs lies in two points: ◆ The first problem is that many search for the name of the Arabs specifically in ancient times in the names of tribes and peoples in the archives of the Romans and Greeks and documents. Judaism, Christianity, and in the texts of ancient inscriptions, but you do not find the name of the Arabs clearly defined, but rather attempts to attach labels and believe in them. ◆ The second problem is that many people search for a people or a tribe and assume that they are the Arabs, so the Arabs have many names in history. They are the Nabataeans, the Sinaiites, the Caidarins, the Ismailis, and the Saracens (although it is an ugly description and not a name). And here lies the mistake, because The research did not focus on the origin of the name Arab, where it came from, so that the answer could be understood. ———————- The origin of the name Arab cannot be understood, except by referring to the first sources that mentioned the name. We have the Qur’an as a primary source and we rely on the Qur’an because we believe that it is the first basic text that preserves historical memory, and then the first Arab historical narratives about the Arabs. Then the Greek sources, but with great caution. I have a special approach that I follow in research, and based on this approach I believe that the influence of religion was the basis on human perceptions, terminology, and names. Therefore, we believe that the word Arabs came from a religious standpoint and not from any other standpoint. Another thing, and what reinforces our belief is that we find confirmation of this is that religious scholars were and still are interested in genealogy and consider it to fall within the field of religion, and the same is the case with the Al-Yahoud in the Torah, which contains chapters that focus on lineages and peoples. It is not surprising that some people believe that Islam is a sect. Jewish, and as we said previously in our approach that we have adopted in research and thinking, we are facing a single religious situation that is not separate and is not limited to Judaism and Islam, but rather to Christianity as well, and religious historical perceptions cannot disappear, but rather develop, carrying with them their new religious language, and Because we are facing three religious novels, so I believe that we will not be able to understand the word Arabs except by comparing it to another previous religious novel, so that we can notice the changes that occurred to the novel in order to understand the origin of the word Arabs. Assuming the correctness of the chronological order of the emergence of religions according to Roman times… Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam, then I believe that the Jewish situation is largely identical with the Arab situation, even in the problems that accompanied awareness in understanding the meaning of Hebrew and the Jewish situation…… except awareness Al-Yahoud themselves or non-Al-Yahoud, which are the same problems that accompanied awareness in understanding who the Arabs are… awareness among Muslims and non-Muslims. Therefore, we believe that in the Islamic case we are facing a modern account of an older account found among the Al-Yahoud, and based on the assumption that the order in which religions appeared according to Roman time is correct: In the Jewish case… there is the Jew, there is the Hebrew, and there is the Hebrew language, and it is identical to the situation. In the Islamic world, there is the Muslim, there is the Arab, and there is the Arabic language. Rather, the conformity reaches its climax with the story of origin… The Al-Yahoud, according to the Zionist narrative, are not the sons of those countries, but rather immigrants coming from Palestine, and the Muslims, according to the logic of some, are not of the origin of those countries. Rather, they are immigrants from the Arabian Peninsula. At this point, I will rely on the Western approaches to the human sciences, despite their corruption and catastrophic errors……… until we reach the discovery that the root of the problem was created by the Western approach. Isn’t it possible for the Hebrew to be the Arabic, but after If the language developed and took on a new pronunciation?!, especially since everyone’s religious narrative says that the Hebrews are cousins of the Arabs. For me…I do not believe that the Arabs are cousins of the Hebrews, because the Hebrew is the same as the Arab, but Judaism preserved the ancient language in which the religious text was written and they adhered to it, then we moved to a more recent era, During a period in which it carried a new language, the spelling of the word “Hebrew” became “Arabs.” In this era, a new religion came out that owned the new language and imposed its spoken language on the believers, and it became the correct, official, inherited word. Many will find it difficult to understand this point. I believe that this difficulty is due to our cultural perception of the concept of language in general. We have a culture that believes that language is a process of summoning independent, external entities. For example…when we pronounce the name of something, we are in the subconscious carrying out a process… Conjuring the same thing and believing in its existence as an independent entity outside the self, but when the pronunciation of the name differs slightly, we believe that we are faced with two independent and different entities….. So everyone believed that the word (Arab) is a name for a people and the word (Arabs) is a name for a different people. last . I think we are starting to get very close to the answer. But there is a truly strange and striking phenomenon, and not many people pay attention to it when looking at the vocabulary of the Hebrew and Syriac languages on the one hand and the vocabulary of the Arabic language on the other. When you search ……….. you will find that there is a lot of vocabulary between these languages that is almost similar, but they differ in the arrangement of the letters, so you will clearly find a constant process of substitution between two letters between the Hebrew language and the Arabic language. You also find reversed letters between the Syriac language and the Arabic language. Is it a coincidence? …But it is repeated often… Are they really different dialects or languages as they told us, or is the matter not as they told us?! ……Is the matter related to ancient and sacred religious texts and they were distorted as a result of poor translation of the texts, resulting in new religious languages?! Everything is possible and not excluded… especially since the process of codifying the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament It came under political orders from a Greek and Roman ruler who did not belong to the region. Suppose, according to the current Western approach, which is not opposed by everyone, that the languages of the region are related to each other, and that Arabic developed from Aramaic and Syriac, and suppose that there was a mutation in the tongue between the period of Judaism until the emergence of Islam, as we know that according to the Jewish narrative, the Hebrews were given this name because they They crossed the Yarden River. Based on our previous observation about the existence of a constant process of substitution between two letters between the Hebrew language and the Arabic language, if the “Hebrews” were the ones who crossed the “Yarden” River (which is said to be the Jordan River according to the Western Zionist narrative), then were the “Arabs” the ones who crossed the River “Jordan”? (Rayden) too? Consider the constant substitution of two letters between the two languages: Abr = Arbirdun = Raydan. Doesn’t the name Raiden remind you of anything? If we search in ancient history, we will find that Raiden is written like this in the Musnad inscriptions and is pronounced Raydan.. and it was the official headquarters of the Himyar Kingdom, which ruled Among them are the Himyarites, who adopted Judaism as an official religion, according to the conventional narrative mentioned in history books and recorded in Syriac texts, as in the account of the Himyarite Christian martyrs. What is the great importance behind crossing the Yarden or Raydan River and for which the Hebrews gave it this name? . It must be, for example, a major work on which they were called Hebrews, for they are the ones who called themselves Hebrews. Is there a river in Yemen called the Raydan River, or a valley in which a large torrent of water flows and its name is Raydan? Could it not be that what is meant by the river is the sea?! The word Raiden appears to be similar to the word Red in the English language, which means the color red, and this is the region from which the Himyarites (of the color red) ruled?! Were the “Hebrews” or “Arabs” the ones who crossed the Red River? Or, more precisely, were they the ones who crossed the Red Sea? What does the Red Sea remind you of in history? Doesn’t the Red Sea remind you of the Greek novel (which the Phoenicians in the region are passionate about), which talks about the origins of the Phoenicians and that they came from beyond the Red Sea? Phoenix in Greek = color Red Isn’t the sentence…the Phoenicians who came from beyond the Phoenician Sea, the same as the sentence….the Himyarites who came from the Red Sea?! Is it a coincidence that the Red Sea is next to the Arabian Sea? So …………….. Were the Himyarites (red color) the ones who came from across the Red Sea (red color), and were the Arabs the ones who came from across the Arabian Sea? It was as if he described Different for one crossing, one incident, and one idea…… The difference is due to naming and language. Can it not be said that this disputed historical narrative is nothing but an old, general narrative, known since ancient times, and it talks about the beginnings of the first human migration only? Which emerged from Yemen and spread throughout the region, and has nothing to do with the Al-Yahoud specifically, but rather it is the narration of everyone, all the peoples of the region, but Judaism confined it to a language whose pronunciation is different from the pronunciation of other languages, and monopolized it in a closed religion, and then thought it was its own narration. Especially for a different religious or ethnic group, a special tribe, or a specific people. And I think others do as well, because of the Roman era, which created the chronological order for the emergence of religions and placed the Jewish religion in first place?! Yes, this is the beginning of the region’s history, the beginning of the region’s time.. A story. The ancient exodus of the people of Sheba recorded in history books. The people of Saba, whom Allah separated between them and their travels. From Wadi Al-Ahmar or Wadi Arayb (Arabized according to history books)… in the place called Bakkah. This is the place depicted in all the inscriptions of the ancient region. But no one pays attention to him…because the West has tainted the minds of the peoples of the region with its false interpretations of the region’s inscriptions. Do you want to see the region’s inscriptions that talk about this place? In this article I will give you an Egyptian inscription, and in another article I will give you another inscription from Iraq. Look at the Egyptian inscription in the picture. It is not a picture of the Nile River at all, as many believe, by virtue of it being one of the inscriptions and antiquities of Misr, because this picture is of the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea… an approximate map that clearly shows the geography of Yemen. The place where the Egyptian king (Ahmose) is located in the picture is the nakka from which the area emerged. These are the Arabs, the Himyarites, and the Phoenicians… who crossed the Red or Arabian Sea… who came from beyond the Red Sea or the Arabian Sea.