Les premières traces de l'écriture arabe, telle qu'on la connaît de nos jours, remontent au IIIe siècle comme l'ont attesté Healey et Smith par les Inscriptions de Raqush (Jaussen-Savignac 17): Les plus anciennes inscriptions Arabes Préislamiques (date 267). .
Sounds like you're referring to classical Arabic. The video explicitly references proto-Arabic. Yes, the 3rd century AD for classical Arabic is much more recent than 7th or 8th century BC for proto-Arabic.
In the ancient records the Arabia was known under the name of "Kush", which was extended throughout the entire region between Southern Mesopotamia in the north and the White Nile Basin in the south, that is, including both sides of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. There has been a distinction between Northern and Southern Arabia since early times, distinction that endured for centuries. So, Arabs are the result of the fusion of both entities developed over the original Kushite background.
I disagree. Kush referred to a northeast African area.
The northern/southern Arab distinction goes no further back than the rise of Islam for the simple reason that the southern "Arabians" didn't consider themselves Arab until after Islam. In fact there's no record of the word "Arab" in their lexicon until sometime AD, and it was in reference to foreign subject tribes.
i agree with this...i am 1/4 Assyrian, but clearly akkadian peoples and the semitic languages of their assyro-babylonian descendents is far older than arabic, and the question is which direction did the spread of the languages go...Kaufmann has an academic book on the matter
And another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities are closely related to Syrians and Palestinians[4
Close. The Jews are rather closely related to the Lebanese, and less so but somewhat with the Syrians. The Palestine Arabs are much more closely related to Bedouin and Saudis.
B- There are Arabs, particularly from the second group who exhibit a remarkable light features and resemble the Assyrians. Indeed, the physical description of Muhammed PBUH reflect an individual of a light complexion.
You're quite mistaken. The Assyrians and the Arabs of the Nejd and Hijaz are of different types. See Kappers, C. U. Ariens, The Anthropology of the Near East.
Yes, given that the earliest attestation of proto-Arabic is about the 8th c. BC, two thousand and eight hundred years ago, it would follow that "Arabic" existed for thousands of years.
Among the Semitic languages, Arabic is one of the youngest.
If you have to ask that question, then you obviously did not watch the presentation and aren't responding to the claims of the presentation itself. Please do not waste my time by commenting on a video you didn't bother to watch.
And yes, Assyrians exist today. Which you would know had you watched the video.
No, you really didn't. Otherwise you'd respond to the video on its own terms, addressing the claims and evidences presented, rather than asking questions specifically and repeatedly answered and addressed such as "[aren't] the beduin the true semite[s]?" Don't waste my time.
prophet mohammed pbuh is a desendant of ishmael pbuh who is a desendant of abraham pbuh. where was abraham pbuh from? I think the land of cannan? am i not correct?
I'm not really interested in debating people who accept literalist presuppositions about the Bible or Quran, however I suggest you watch what the presentation says about Muhammad and Ishmael.
this video doesnt make sense? The most probable cradle of the semtic family the arabian penisula nursed those people who later migrated into the fertile cresent and subsequantly become the babylonians, the assyrians, the phonecians and the hebrews of history. Why is it called "arab"ia?
I'm sorry, but there's really no evidence for any of that. In fact, the evidence shows a northern origin of the Semites. Perhaps you're having trouble understanding the video due to English not being, I assume, your native language.
You have overlooked a major element in the discussion:
A- The Arabs of the Arabian peninsula do not share the exact same lineage or phenotype. There are two major categories of Arabs: one that is called "Aarebah" and their origin is believed to be in Yemen and the other one is referred to as "Mostaarebah" which are the desendant of Ishmail and from which prophet Muhammed PBUH was genetically derived).
Actually, no, the claimed Qahtanite versus Adnani lineal distinction was discussed in the video. More likely the problem is that you failed to watch it.
The problem is, of course, that just because Muslim genealogists say that the so-called northern Arabs are really just must'arib doesn't make it so. The so called southern or Yemenite/Qahtanite Arabs never called themselves Arab before the Islamic Expansion. And of course there remains the problem of the contradictory lineages offered.
The reasons which make the the arabian arabs particularly the nomads, the best representation of the semetic family biologically, psychologically, socially and linguistically should be sought in their geographical isolation and in the monotonous uniformity of desert life. the arabians call arabia jaziratul arab(island of arabs) because it is surronded by water on 3 sides and a sand on the 4th. The island furnishes an almost unique example of uniterruoted relationshio between man and soil.
I need only show it's a faulty inference. None of the stated premises say anything about Semites, and yet your conclusion makes a statement about Semites. Thus it's an invalid inference.
How is arabic early when the nomad is older than any of them?? what language did the nomad speak? arabic is only the newest in point of literature! as a spoken language it predates the others.
by the way, archiologists who depended on sculpters and carvs founded in arabic penesula did not mind that arabs where not writers or readers ever..apart from Hemyar they were saving their history in narratied poetry and that is why they were depending completly on narrating not writing
even Quraan recording was depending on narrating and was not written until the last days of prophet mohammad
narrating was an arabic tradition that holded history and language more then writing
actually the thing that make me convinced that u did'nt make ur presentation depending on enough resources
if u wanna speak about arabs+quran+ibrahimic lgacy u should read in pre islamic poetry and discover about the oregons of arabs+oregions of arabic language+oregions of traditions over the arabic penesula espicially Makka
Don't tell me that arabs were mistaken as ibrahimic(semitic)over1400years tell western discovered they r not :)
Alright, pumpkin, I believe you watched it. However, you're mistaken in your allocation of the burden of proof given the positive claim is being made by you.
If you feel that there is pre-Quranic Arabian attestations of an Arab Abrahamic lineage that I overlooked, feel free to give the citations and I'll modify the information in the video if necessary.
they are all references in arabic, you might look into 'the idols book' written by the arbic narrater'almufaddal aldhabby'after nearly90years of the prophet death,he recorded most of the poems that r reltive to the intellectual condition up to 2000years before islam, he even mentioned many poems about the history of christianity and judaism in arabia.
the arabic philologists were so concern about poems like thess that is why they recorded poetry in a very early time of the arabic history==
the books of(tabaqat)where the narraters were ctogrized mentinoning every ones records by the date of death,these books were the first arabic datas collected to be used in Quranic interpetation and establishing arabic gramatic system,and they contained a massive infos about the history of arabic penensula
i can also recomond u the first books of the arabic philoligY,Althaleby(philology and the secret of arabic)written in 1030AD
but notheless darling im not sure if there is any refernce in english, but I believe if you try to look over german orentailsts like:Blashyr-leobold, u might find useful knowledge depite the fact that these oreintalist were looking over arabic legacy to refute it
:)
this case took over 200years ago of oreintalism and the oreintaist finally were criticized by the post modern exports and historians
it is a very huge affair darling, hundreds of books written about it over 1400year.
So, in other words, there are no pre-Quranic Arabian attestations alluding to an Abrahamic heritage--precisely what the presentation stated. You sure take a lot of time to write nothing of relevance or substance, but evasion won't help your case.
The fact that so many names like Ismail, Issa, Elias, Yahya, etc. are utterly meaningless in Arabic demonstrates the fabricated nature of the Muslim claims.
have u read any thing in the pre islamic arabic poetry?
u generlized many(post quraanic)results depending on suggestion of archilogists?
i don't see any evidence in your video
how can you though define the Kaaba traditions which belonge to over 2000 years before mohammad PBOH and the arabic poetry regesters the intelectual conditions for arabs before mohammad?
as a an arabic specialest i suggest you do some reading over the pre islamic arabic poetry and you will discover your self
im not sure what do you mean, but in the presentation u were generlizing results denying the ibrahimic oregion of the arabs according to archilogist assumptions which are not totally convicing
I refer to the pre islamic poetry as a main source for the ibrahimic legacy which oreintailists are trying to deny
if you can speak arabic i might discuss this with you clearly cuz my english can not help
if you don't, please be pateint with me, ask me what u wish and i will answer
OK, you didn't mention the relevance previously. I'm not a mind reader. Are you saying that there exists an Arabian attestation pre-dating the Quran that describes an Abrahamic genealogy of the Arabs? What is it called? Where was it found? Was it carbon-dated?
the think you are saying that maker that proofs who is Semitic and who isnt i just found out actually hat beduin arabs have it to plus some of your sources and books that you said you made you research from are wrong no one had the time to go and chek but this video annoyed me enough to go and ask professors and every one said no one can doubt that arab are Semitic i mean where is the point you are trying to get from saying no they arnt even a non arabs said your wrong and thy are with phd's
The childishness of some of these comments amazes me. Did it ever occur to you when writing, "some of your sources and books . . . are wrong" that you'd actually bother to list the wrong ones and describe in what respect they're wrong? Do you really think this is a productive comment?
Nowhere in the video does it state that any marker "proofs" which individuals are Semitic. However the relative frequency of haplogroups and haplotypes in POPULATIONS can indicate the likelihood that one population is biologically derived from another.
The substantial difference in relative frequency of markers in Phoenicians, Samaritans, Jews, Assyrians, etc. on the one hand and ethnic Arabs on the other indicates a high improbability that one population group is derivative of the other.
I am not an arab but Abraham had 2 sons they were Isaac and Ishmail(ismail). Ismail was arabize by the local arab community in mecca city and adopted the arab culture.Ismail started the quraish tribes, the tribe of Prophet Mohamed(P.B.U.H). Quraish tribe is not the original arabs but they are arabize. The true arabs are assyrians and arabs who lived in palestine orsyria region.Assyrians are the childrensofshem which havelong linage.The children of Shem were Elam, Asshur,Aram,Arpachshad and Lud.
You've managed to creatively synthesize the traditional post-Quranic distinction of Adnani versus Qahtani Arabs and the Ismaili legends with something I assume you've imagined yourself. Can you cite to a single ancient Assyrian text where they describe themselves as Arab?
I did not imagine myself to write quraish are infact arabize but its true.Your question was are arabs semite? Yes, you dont have agree assyrian being arabs but all of them are descesdent of shem.
So you're defining "Arab" as synonymous with "descendant of Shem," which is an absurd definition.
Yes, post-Quranic Muslim genealogists describe the so-called "Adnani" Arabs as having been Arabized. However, there is no pre-Quranic Arabian evidence supporting that anyone held to this distinction. In fact, prior to Islam the Yemenites never referred to themselves as Arabs.
the palestinians are not as dark as the saudis and they have very much as what you describe as semetic features, dont forget that they may have been at one time ancient hebrews who conformed and mixed with canaans and sected off or after the rise of christianity became christians then after of course muslims. thats explains why their are to this day muslim, chritian and yes even some jewish palestinians.
The Palestinian Christians and certain Muslim fellaheen tribes and clans of mountain regions are of Jewish descent, however the Palestinian Arabs of the cities and deserts are of Arab descent.
p.s. not many jews very few actaully are even semetic today yo could almost say they are extinct, because many jews today are ashkenazi,perhaps the sephardic and mazrahi closer but not by muc.
Again, you'll have to provide evidence (from a scholarly source) that contradicts the genetic, historical, and ethnological evidence that's accepted today. This isn't a forum for unsubstantiated claims.
i think it is safe to say that most arabs today are not really of arab decent but instead are a product of arabization caused by the spread of islam. this goes for groups such as the palestinians (who trace back to the philistines and even the cannanites) the lebanese(phonecians). these two groups are deffinatly semitic in nature because they have lived among and bred with semetic people of the Levant.
I don't know about "most" absolutely, but the religious minority Lebanese and Syrians are Arabicized, as well as the must'arib Muslims of the mountainous regions of those countries.
Please provide evidence that the Palestinian Arabs trace back to the Canaanites or Philistines (who were Greek). You'll find that impossible as Canaanite culture disappeared about a millennium before the Islamic Expansion. The only cultures in the area at the time were Jewish, Samaritan, and Byzantine.
In fact, you'll find that Palestinian Arabs are most closely related to the bedouin outside of the Arabian peninsula (see "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J", Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:1023--1034, 2004).
OK, you have watched the entire video, but instead of rebutting any particular point regarding genetics made in the video, you merely assert "genetic researches proved that arabs are pure semitic people," which is in fact an absurd allegation on its face as no geneticist would countenance the concept of ethnic purity.
This video is not about religion, it is about ethnic history and only uses religious tradition and scripture insofar as they illuminate ethnic history.
Actually genetics appears to establish that ethnic Arabs are not Semitic, as discussed in the video. Please watch the entire video before commenting, I cannot emphasize this enough.
well, I do not see the point out of tracing back the origins of every kind of people than to differentiate them in this particular present, which is absolutly rejected.
Would you otherwise explaine what is the motivation behind that work?
i was waiting that you say no because that shows you never read properly if you read any book in the world about arabs it will tell you they are suns of shem
isnt ibraham semetic ismael is the sun of ibraham and mohamad the prophet of arabs is from his desenders
so why dont you believe that i mean not every thing you dont like is not true
I'm going to repeat what's stated in the video about this. The Arab connection to Ishmael appears to be a creation of either post-Quranic Muslim genealogists, or possibly post-2nd temple rabbis. There is no pre-Quranic Arabian evidence for such a genealogy. The name "Ishmael" does not exist in any pre-Quranic Arabian sources.
now after 1000s of years of civilization and history you simply put a video on youtube an youtube clip and think you will change facts (jewish theme selfs know that and thats why we call each other cousins) or is it some kind of new zonist trying to say that arabs are not semtic so they can use the anti sematic phrases alone and properly ??
sorry to say that but the video is full of lies and there are no bases few question arent the arabs suns of shem if they arent then they are not semites the problem is every one knows they are suns of shem i guess that only proves that this video is wrong
Which claim is a lie? All you're doing is denying the conclusion. I'm sorry, but if you want to continue commenting on my forum, you have to be specific and provide substantiation.
how could the arabic be one on the smalles and yougest simetic languages if its the only major one tell now plus the hebrew now is all built up on arabic grammer man its just like you are saying the earth is flat by saying arabs are not semetic
I don't know where you get "smalles" [sic] from, but that Arabic is among the youngest of Semitic languages is confirmed by archeology and linguistics. Please review the video (the whole video) again before commenting.
believe me i watch your video every single day since i saw it all what it say that arabs are not semtes because the since says so but i just want you to answer one question aren the arabs desenders of shem if they arent then ill believe this video
Speaking of a literal figure named Shem assumes biblical literalism, which I do not accept. However, if you choose to take that route, you should review the parts on Ishmael.
The question the video answers is whether ethnic Arabs is a derivative type of the original speakers of a hypothetical proto-Semitic language. The answer concluded is 'no.'
you mentioned that there is no evidance from the quran supporting that Ishmael was in arabia, what about the Mcca, and building the house of God there (Kaba). you seemed to neglect the kngdom of Sheeba in yemen. another thing, the lineage of prophet mohammed or his family (the Hashmites) was not established after aslam, but this fact was known even before the birth of the Prophet. i suggest to look at the pre-islamic arabic poetry. the Adnani (adnan the desendent of Ishmael) is before islam
Where in the video does it say Ishmael was not in Arabia? The video doesn't state that, but in fact it's true: in the Bible, the Ishmaelite tribes are described as inhabiting the peripheries of the land of Israel.
Second, the Quran doesn't say Ishmael was in Arabia. You must be confusing the Quran with the hadiths.
If there is pre-Quran Arabian evidence of an Ishmaelite lineage, go ahead and source it. You'll find that there is none.
as for the pre-islamic poetry i have tons of references, but the problem they are all in Arabic language. in the video you mentioned that Yemenis are not descendant of joktan. from where you get you information??? why don't you search in the internet and look for the remaining architecture and temples.
The burden of proof is not on me. If you have pre-Quran evidence, source it.
If there are pre-Quran inscriptions or manuscripts from Arabia referencing Ishmael, they would most definitely be published in academic journals or books. Go ahead and source them, but of course we both know you can't, because there are none.
# Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins * Gindibu's Arabs 9th c. BC * Lihyanites — 6th to 1st c. BC * Thamud people — 2nd to 5th c. AD * Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th c. AD * Nabataeans — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD.
Thats taken straight forward from wikipedia.
Please if you think arabs are not semite show them some scientific evidence and dis-proven them.
The video in fact states that the earliest mention of Arabs was about the 9th c. BC, a period much later than the earliest evidence for Semitic, and that's a major problem for proponents of the view that Arabs are the "earliest" examples of Semites.
As for the last request, I provided a bibliography of works. You've provided...wikipedia, and haven't explained how it contradicts the video.
Of course, modern Assyrians are then the truest of Semites... their ancient language (Aramaic) was then spread on to the nomadic Jews and Arabs. Hence the story in the Bible where God supposedly punishes the great empire of Babylon by making everyone speak different tongues... my interpetation is that many of the languages of the world derived directly from Babylon, the very first civilization, the first people that developed written language.
You'll have to provide substantiation for your claims. There is no such thing as the "truest" of any ethnic group. Aramaic is certainly not the oldest language, let alone the oldest Semitic language, nor were the Jews nomads.
This has got to be one of the most biased videos on Youtube. It is simply based on outdated and erroneous historical accounts.
1. The Author depends on the Bible in many parts of the video. Well, newsflash, the Bible is not an authentic history book at all. It is filled with historical and scientific howlers.
2. Archaeology and anthropolgy DOES NOT support this video. There has never been any kind of archaeology in the Arabian peninsula. Modern Archaeology does not support the Bible at all.
No, in fact the video does not treat the Bible as a literal retelling of history. It treats it as one among many pieces of historical writings that can, together with other evidence, help illuminate history. More specifically, the Bible is treated merely as a source for "the ancestral significance of the northern Fertile Crescent to the Semitic people."
All of about 45 seconds of the video invokes biblical writings. Did you watch the video at all?
There has been more archaeological work done in the middle east than perhaps any other region on Earth.
If you want to post comments, I'm going to have to insist that you provide substantiation. I don't want my comment board flooded with wild fabricated claims.
dude please make sense in ur videos. first of all the leveant people ( palestinian, lebanese, syrian, and some jordanian) are a mix of semetic ( hebrew, phoenician , arabs, etc) and little of greek romanian influence, and hitties which settled the leveant and mixed with the semites .....
I agree that most of the Syrians and Lebanese are of Semitic lineage. This would explain why the Syrians, Lebanese, Jews, and Assyrians cluster together genetically and phenotypically and do not cluster as closely to the non-Semitic Arab Bedouin and Saudis.
Go fuck yourself you asshole.. there are millions of light arabs in Arabia.. since you are idiot ignorant.. no need to waist time with you to aprove..
Yes. And what is the relative frequency of that phenotypic trait and others in the Arabian population compared to the populations in the Levant, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia? I'm sorry you're confused, but none of this is personal opinion. This is fact agreed upon by ethnologists.
The peoples of most "arab" countries in the middle east are mostly descendent of the indigenous inhabitants of their countries (Irak, Syria, Lebanon) and not from the people of Arabia, aren't they?
What about egyptians? They are supposed to be mostly of indigenous Egyptian origin, do they share their background with the "semites"? An what about the berbers?
It depends on the geographical location and population group. For Syria and Lebanon, the religious minorities and people of mountainous areas would be the most direct descendants of the indigenous inhabitants. Iraq is a little different. Because Baghdad was the seat of the Caliphate there was a heavy influx of Arab migration and settlement in Iraq, but the same principle would apply.
What about Egypt? They are supposed to be hamitic or camitic, according to the Bible and to the linguistic clasification. Are they related to the semites at least more than the Arabs?
Is there some reason not to? Genetically and phenotypically they cluster near Sephardim, Mizrahim, Lebanese, Syrians, Assyrians. Nor is there any historical reason not to.
Do you actually know that Aramaeans themselves were nomads like Bedouins who overran the Levant and Mesopotamia from the 9th century BC. onwards with the result that they imposed their Aramaic language on the Middle East? Which is by the way related to Arabic.
Actually they were pastoralists, and their origins are from the north ("Aram" is often placed somewhere in northern Mesopotamnia"). The invasion hypothesis is only one, and its accuracy is dubious (see Schwartz's "The Origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia"), and Aramaic is older than Arabic. So they are very much unlike the Bedouin and their history helps substantiate the genesis of the Semites.
I'm afraid your world view of "South Semitic" is different from the world view of the scholarly community. Although you treat it as a language, it is in fact a grouping of groupings of languages, all of which except one have their earliest attestations around the same time or later than proto-Arabic.
Your world view also seems to be premised on a non-existent or outdated genetic classification of Semitic languages. South Semitic languages are of a different branch than that of Arabic, which belongs to "Central Semitic"--meaning South Semitic languages spread at different times from different people to different people than Central Semitic languages.
Moral of the story: don't take an animated arrow in a general-consumption informational video too literally.
A another poster informed my about something interesting. Semitic is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family tree and should be viewed as a African language which is connected with the evolution of Haplogroup e3b.
Yes, wabe28 has spammed my email box on that as well. Unfortunately, the hypothesis of a common origin of Semitic and "Hamitic" languages is rejected by some linguists. You can see Giovanni Garbini on that point. In short: there are no firm phonetic correlations between the two that are of the type supporting, eg., Indo-European classifications. Also, phonetically-based classification is a bit outdated--see Robert Hetzron on that point.
And most importantly, he failed to grasp the obvious implication of the claim (which hopefully you won't): if E3b is predominant in the Semitic genetic profile, then it still follows that the Arab ethnotype isn't Semitic. In other words, you're arguing that Arabs aren't Semites, but you're just providing different evidence.
I understand you're position but it can not be ignored that every scholar classifies Semitic as part of the Afro-Asiatic branch. Ultamily it would mean that all people caring Haplogroups that originated outside of Africa were of non Afro-Asiatic tongue in the Fertile Crescent.
"it can not be ignored that every scholar classifies Semitic as part of the Afro-Asiatic branch."
Yes, that can be ignored because it's false. It's an incorrect statement. I just named a linguist who does not classify Semitic as such. Are you at all reading any of these responses? I don't really have time to play games with you.
The presence of non Semitic languages in the Fertile Crescent like Hurro-Urartian,Sumerian and Indo-European and the later diffusion of Semitic and the displacement of other languages really produces more questions than answers.
This situation reminds me of discussions surrounding the original homeland of Proto-Indo-European and the displacement of native tongues in Europe which is linked to the spread of Indo-European see Basque language.
What is the hell of your point?? Saudi Arabians are not semitic? because they are darker? please wash your asshole. for your information, half of saudis are white and light skin specially in Qasim and northen part. and half of iraqis today are dark.
How many Bedouin are white? Yes, many or most Iraqis today are descendants of the Arab invaders during the Islamic Expansions since Baghdad became a capitol of the Caliphate. The phenotypic evidence is just one piece, and encompasses about a minute or two of the presentation, so I'd refer you to the rest of the evidence if you're truly interested in the subject.
with all respect i happen to cretically analyez your clip. good information, but i am more future orientated person,,,, what count this day not your background but your knowledage and skills, although i think since
Arab nd jaw are cousin , go and make peace guys,,:)and listen to some bob marley that might help, be what ever you wannat to be but be Cool humanbeing ,,,,,,so goodluck
There is no such word as "semite" this was made up by man. If u are from the line of Shem then that would make u a "Shemite" even in the bible there is no "Shemite" OR "semite" in the bible they were called the sons of Shem. Rev 12:9
hehe good job man :) , but for me i dont care if i am semites or not , this will not change anything , my informations is arabs r 2 parts , the old arabs in Saba'= yemen and the descendant of the son of prophet Ismael , in reality what i know that my origin is from Adnan the 2nd arab Group....Lol i am Semite :) but what this will change :) , they gives Money for Semites or what , byeeeee All Semites and not Semites haha
Cephalic index is thought to be a function of both environment and genetics.
Yes, many Syrians and Lebanese still have Semitic ancestry and so typify those Semitic traits, unlike the Bedouin, who are the most direct descendants of ancient Arabs and typify non-Semitic traits.
Also another thing about phenotypes , head-size doesn't matter since head-size vary depending on the enviroment you were born and lived in. F.ex ive seen dolciocephalic arabs , mesocephalic and bracheyheplic of the same phenotype.
Also on assyrians ive seen dolciocephalic assyrians also who were unadmixed.
The sources are the Torah and the Orally Torah which explains the Torah. In Genesis chapter 1 it's written that G-d created the world by saying words in Hebrew. I want to remind you that the Torah is written in Hebrew. Later on other nations translated it to their languages. But it's written in Hebrew and G-d spoke the commandments in the revelation in mt. Sinai in Hebrew.
5. Also you shouldin't forget that semitic is a linguastic group not a race or a groups of people. Just like the term indo-european is. Not all europeans are indo-europeans , some are actually descendents of pre indo-europeans. But most europeans are just mixtures of the two.
Yes, originally "Semitic" referred to a linguistic family, as mentioned in the video. I suggest you review the video again as to why the discussion doesn't stop there.
3. Phenotypicly , arabs are arabid which is brother phenotype of the "assyrid" phenotype. The only diffrence is that assyrid is influenced by armenoid and belong to another bloodgroup.
4. You're video is subjective and is only there to alienate arabs from hebrews.
I don't know where you get your info from, but most anthropologists who engaged in those classifications did not distinguish between what you call "assyrid" and "armenoid"--they are one and the same people. The only distinction is one where assyrid is treated as a sub-category of armenoid
1. Arabs and hebrews share a common ancestry according to the book of jasher:
Arphaxad "I shall fail" (sons were Shelach, Anar and Ashcol[3]) - (Chaldeans, Southern Mesopotamia, Israelites, #Arabians, Bedouins# Moabites, Amonites, Sabaeans, and related groups);
3. Arabic populations contain a high amount of j1, which is a brother to the neolithic anatolian gene, j1 is marked by M267 marker, and exist in "all" semitic populations , jews as well as assyrians.
Again, you help prove the video. The Arab ethnotype, as evidenced by the Bedouin, the most direct descendants of ancient Arabs, is predominated by the M267 marker.
However, the populations of the northern Fertile Crescent, where the original Semites are from, are characterized by a predominance of M172. This includes orginally Semitic "Arabized" populations in Syria and Lebanon. Thus the Arab ethnotype is not a derivative of the original Semite ethnotype.
Nothing about what you've said about the genetics contradicts anything said in the video, and yet only backs it up. I suggest you review the last portion again.
If the Arab ethnotype is a derivative of the Semitic ethnotype, one would expect the Bedouin's genetic profile to have a predominance of M172, and yet it doesn't.
Think of it this way if it will help: Arabs and Ethiopians share many genetic markers in common due to their neolithic ancestors and so they are related. But neither ethnotype is a derivative of the other, therefore it would be incorrect to say the Ethiopian ethnotype is Arabic, or that the Arab ethnotype is Ethiopian.
Thankyou for proving my point. The Bedouin, the most direct descendants of the ancient Arabs, are characterized by an utter predominance of J1, unlike Semitic populations.
Could that be due to the fact they are also related tot he Egyptians...Wgyptians are not semitic...anyway it seems to be that Arabia as we call it is a mix.
"Arabia Deserta" is a phrase that refers to the central deserts of the Arabian peninsula, and is thought to be where the bedouin were mainly concentrated, although there were of course eventually trade routes that brought them to the levant and syria. I believe the earliest mention of Arabs in the bible is in the book of Chronicles, which is thought to have been written in the 5th c BC, I believe.
and every one knows Arabs will go to any length to pervert the meaning of language in attmpt to make pretend they are so benevolent to Jews>>>>> LIARS and revisionists
Very interesting research. My only question is how can you say the Bible does not says Arabs were of the line of Ishmael? It clearly does say Ishamel and his sons dwelt in Arabia along with the Keturites...and alter some of the Cushites & Dedanites and Sabeans along with Edom. If these ones are not related in some way then where did they go?
MysteryMoe: Thanks for the questions. The Hebrew word for "Arab" (ayin resh beth yod) appears in about 13 verses in the bible, and in none of those verses does it suggest that the people referred to are related to Ishmael.
The Ishmaelite territory described in the bible essentially encompasses areas surrounding biblical Israel, such as the Negev, northern Levant, etc., but not really Arabia Deserta, although all these areas are obviously close to each other
OKay I understand it said in Genesis that Ishmael dwelt in the plain/land of Havilah bordering Egypt and Israel---that would be part of the Arabian desert.
I stopped watching in 2:32 minute. Funny how this video didn't mention even one time the Hebrew language which is the oldest language in the world, it's the language that G-d created the world with and spoke to Adam and Eve. In the building of the tower of Babel G-d confused it and each nation separated with it's own language. Eber who didn't take part in the building work, his Hebrew language wasn't confused but remained. It's also written in Wikipedia (Eber).
There is no evidence that Hebrew was first ever language that I know of that is simply common belief among Jews. Evedence suggests Hebrew is a form of Canaanitish dialect? But yes Eber was brother of Peleg in the bible...I am assuming Eber may refer to where the name Iberia came from.
Of course there is an evidence. It's written in the Torah which is a juridical document that G-d spoke its context to a whole nation in the revelation of mt. Sinai. The Canaanites weren't one nation. Many nations were living in Canaan, Jacob and his family among them before they went to Egypt.
boni: then you weren't paying very close attention since Hebrew was mentioned 9 seconds in. The topic of the video is whether Arabs are Semites, and language is discussed insofar as it's pertinent to that question.
Grandfather eh? He must've been born sooner than the Muslim genealogists thought! :)
And whose talking about Germans, "Aryans"? You sound confused.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Arab do NOT belong to the Middle East. The only place they belong with is Arabian Peninsula and Saudi Arabia is particular.
DISCOnnected90 3 years ago
Arabs mean "Beduin" in arabic language
kawaienvy123 3 years ago
"Arab" means "Arab" and "bedouin" means "bedouin" in Arabic.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
7 or 8 century?
You are wrong
Les premières traces de l'écriture arabe, telle qu'on la connaît de nos jours, remontent au IIIe siècle comme l'ont attesté Healey et Smith par les Inscriptions de Raqush (Jaussen-Savignac 17): Les plus anciennes inscriptions Arabes Préislamiques (date 267). .
kawaienvy123 3 years ago
Sounds like you're referring to classical Arabic. The video explicitly references proto-Arabic. Yes, the 3rd century AD for classical Arabic is much more recent than 7th or 8th century BC for proto-Arabic.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
arabs are the real semites, where are u getting ur info from
skabudaw1 3 years ago
There is no Semitic race. There are Semitic languages.
There are no Umma lands fr Arabs. There is no genetic reserves on Planet Earth.
kreplach2 3 years ago
In the ancient records the Arabia was known under the name of "Kush", which was extended throughout the entire region between Southern Mesopotamia in the north and the White Nile Basin in the south, that is, including both sides of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. There has been a distinction between Northern and Southern Arabia since early times, distinction that endured for centuries. So, Arabs are the result of the fusion of both entities developed over the original Kushite background.
BulanKhazar 3 years ago
I disagree. Kush referred to a northeast African area.
The northern/southern Arab distinction goes no further back than the rise of Islam for the simple reason that the southern "Arabians" didn't consider themselves Arab until after Islam. In fact there's no record of the word "Arab" in their lexicon until sometime AD, and it was in reference to foreign subject tribes.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
I believe that many Arabs had ancestors that originated from ethnic groups that don't exist anymore as a culture.
Hillel08 3 years ago
alhadichannel you are a sorry person quit trying to bring division.
Highnoblebenlutfi 3 years ago
i agree with this...i am 1/4 Assyrian, but clearly akkadian peoples and the semitic languages of their assyro-babylonian descendents is far older than arabic, and the question is which direction did the spread of the languages go...Kaufmann has an academic book on the matter
equimanthorn88 3 years ago
And another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities are closely related to Syrians and Palestinians[4
jimiydoorshamelech 3 years ago
Close. The Jews are rather closely related to the Lebanese, and less so but somewhat with the Syrians. The Palestine Arabs are much more closely related to Bedouin and Saudis.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
ok then what are they? i mean really if arabs were not Semites then what are they?
TripleA3 3 years ago
if the Han Chinese are not really Indian then what are they? if the Germans are not really Berbers then what are they?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Arabic people have a habit of invading places and then claiming they have always belonged to them.
po3a8 3 years ago
FREE ASSYRIA!!!!!!!!!!!!
YonanBarkho 3 years ago
arabs are not semites!
they are hamites - negroes from africa !
putinkaaa 3 years ago
EXACTLY!
samysamy25 3 years ago
B- There are Arabs, particularly from the second group who exhibit a remarkable light features and resemble the Assyrians. Indeed, the physical description of Muhammed PBUH reflect an individual of a light complexion.
Firewall2153 3 years ago
You're quite mistaken. The Assyrians and the Arabs of the Nejd and Hijaz are of different types. See Kappers, C. U. Ariens, The Anthropology of the Near East.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
wat race was noah pbuh then?
mrgahtani 3 years ago
If Noah is based on a historical figure, that figure was probably Sumerian.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
u know u got a point
mrgahtani 3 years ago
Arabic is only the newest in the point of literature, it has existed for 1000s as an oral language.
mrgahtani 3 years ago
Yes, given that the earliest attestation of proto-Arabic is about the 8th c. BC, two thousand and eight hundred years ago, it would follow that "Arabic" existed for thousands of years.
Among the Semitic languages, Arabic is one of the youngest.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
isnt the beduin the true semite? assyrians, sumarians, babylonians dont exist anymore. The beduin still exists today.
mrgahtani 3 years ago
If you have to ask that question, then you obviously did not watch the presentation and aren't responding to the claims of the presentation itself. Please do not waste my time by commenting on a video you didn't bother to watch.
And yes, Assyrians exist today. Which you would know had you watched the video.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
i swear to God i watched the whole video
mrgahtani 3 years ago
No, you really didn't. Otherwise you'd respond to the video on its own terms, addressing the claims and evidences presented, rather than asking questions specifically and repeatedly answered and addressed such as "[aren't] the beduin the true semite[s]?" Don't waste my time.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
prophet mohammed pbuh is a desendant of ishmael pbuh who is a desendant of abraham pbuh. where was abraham pbuh from? I think the land of cannan? am i not correct?
mrgahtani 3 years ago
I'm not really interested in debating people who accept literalist presuppositions about the Bible or Quran, however I suggest you watch what the presentation says about Muhammad and Ishmael.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
this video doesnt make sense? The most probable cradle of the semtic family the arabian penisula nursed those people who later migrated into the fertile cresent and subsequantly become the babylonians, the assyrians, the phonecians and the hebrews of history. Why is it called "arab"ia?
mrgahtani 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but there's really no evidence for any of that. In fact, the evidence shows a northern origin of the Semites. Perhaps you're having trouble understanding the video due to English not being, I assume, your native language.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
You have overlooked a major element in the discussion:
A- The Arabs of the Arabian peninsula do not share the exact same lineage or phenotype. There are two major categories of Arabs: one that is called "Aarebah" and their origin is believed to be in Yemen and the other one is referred to as "Mostaarebah" which are the desendant of Ishmail and from which prophet Muhammed PBUH was genetically derived).
Firewall2153 3 years ago
Actually, no, the claimed Qahtanite versus Adnani lineal distinction was discussed in the video. More likely the problem is that you failed to watch it.
The problem is, of course, that just because Muslim genealogists say that the so-called northern Arabs are really just must'arib doesn't make it so. The so called southern or Yemenite/Qahtanite Arabs never called themselves Arab before the Islamic Expansion. And of course there remains the problem of the contradictory lineages offered.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
The reasons which make the the arabian arabs particularly the nomads, the best representation of the semetic family biologically, psychologically, socially and linguistically should be sought in their geographical isolation and in the monotonous uniformity of desert life. the arabians call arabia jaziratul arab(island of arabs) because it is surronded by water on 3 sides and a sand on the 4th. The island furnishes an almost unique example of uniterruoted relationshio between man and soil.
mrgahtani 3 years ago
That doesn't follow at all. It would make the Arabian Arabs the best representation of Arabs.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
show me where it doesnt follow? you can't just say it doesnt follow, you need to show evidence.
mrgahtani 3 years ago
I need only show it's a faulty inference. None of the stated premises say anything about Semites, and yet your conclusion makes a statement about Semites. Thus it's an invalid inference.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Arabs are the true semites, where are u getting your infromation from? if it is a book can u give me the title pls thank you
mrgahtani 3 years ago
And this proves you didn't bother watching the video, or else you would know there's a full reading list at the end of the video. Blocked.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
How is arabic early when the nomad is older than any of them?? what language did the nomad speak? arabic is only the newest in point of literature! as a spoken language it predates the others.
mrgahtani 3 years ago
The linguists say Arabic is among the youngest of the Semitic languages. I think I'll defer to their expertise.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
I am a desendant of qahtan.
mrgahtani 3 years ago
by the way, archiologists who depended on sculpters and carvs founded in arabic penesula did not mind that arabs where not writers or readers ever..apart from Hemyar they were saving their history in narratied poetry and that is why they were depending completly on narrating not writing
even Quraan recording was depending on narrating and was not written until the last days of prophet mohammad
narrating was an arabic tradition that holded history and language more then writing
badr177 3 years ago
I get the impression that you've accidentally commented on the wrong video. What exactly is the relevance of any of these statements to the video?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
no darling
i saw presentation,it's very relevant
actually the thing that make me convinced that u did'nt make ur presentation depending on enough resources
if u wanna speak about arabs+quran+ibrahimic lgacy u should read in pre islamic poetry and discover about the oregons of arabs+oregions of arabic language+oregions of traditions over the arabic penesula espicially Makka
Don't tell me that arabs were mistaken as ibrahimic(semitic)over1400years tell western discovered they r not :)
badr177 3 years ago
Alright, pumpkin, I believe you watched it. However, you're mistaken in your allocation of the burden of proof given the positive claim is being made by you.
If you feel that there is pre-Quranic Arabian attestations of an Arab Abrahamic lineage that I overlooked, feel free to give the citations and I'll modify the information in the video if necessary.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
they are all references in arabic, you might look into 'the idols book' written by the arbic narrater'almufaddal aldhabby'after nearly90years of the prophet death,he recorded most of the poems that r reltive to the intellectual condition up to 2000years before islam, he even mentioned many poems about the history of christianity and judaism in arabia.
the arabic philologists were so concern about poems like thess that is why they recorded poetry in a very early time of the arabic history==
badr177 3 years ago
i can also recomond u:
the books of(tabaqat)where the narraters were ctogrized mentinoning every ones records by the date of death,these books were the first arabic datas collected to be used in Quranic interpetation and establishing arabic gramatic system,and they contained a massive infos about the history of arabic penensula
i can also recomond u the first books of the arabic philoligY,Althaleby(philology and the secret of arabic)written in 1030AD
of course Alfarahedy dictionary719AD
badr177 3 years ago
but notheless darling im not sure if there is any refernce in english, but I believe if you try to look over german orentailsts like:Blashyr-leobold, u might find useful knowledge depite the fact that these oreintalist were looking over arabic legacy to refute it
:)
this case took over 200years ago of oreintalism and the oreintaist finally were criticized by the post modern exports and historians
it is a very huge affair darling, hundreds of books written about it over 1400year.
badr177 3 years ago
So, in other words, there are no pre-Quranic Arabian attestations alluding to an Abrahamic heritage--precisely what the presentation stated. You sure take a lot of time to write nothing of relevance or substance, but evasion won't help your case.
The fact that so many names like Ismail, Issa, Elias, Yahya, etc. are utterly meaningless in Arabic demonstrates the fabricated nature of the Muslim claims.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
have u read any thing in the pre islamic arabic poetry?
u generlized many(post quraanic)results depending on suggestion of archilogists?
i don't see any evidence in your video
how can you though define the Kaaba traditions which belonge to over 2000 years before mohammad PBOH and the arabic poetry regesters the intelectual conditions for arabs before mohammad?
as a an arabic specialest i suggest you do some reading over the pre islamic arabic poetry and you will discover your self
badr177 3 years ago
Would you care to share precisely what it is about pre-Islamic Arabic poetry that is relevant to the presentation?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
im not sure what do you mean, but in the presentation u were generlizing results denying the ibrahimic oregion of the arabs according to archilogist assumptions which are not totally convicing
I refer to the pre islamic poetry as a main source for the ibrahimic legacy which oreintailists are trying to deny
if you can speak arabic i might discuss this with you clearly cuz my english can not help
if you don't, please be pateint with me, ask me what u wish and i will answer
badr177 3 years ago
OK, you didn't mention the relevance previously. I'm not a mind reader. Are you saying that there exists an Arabian attestation pre-dating the Quran that describes an Abrahamic genealogy of the Arabs? What is it called? Where was it found? Was it carbon-dated?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
the think you are saying that maker that proofs who is Semitic and who isnt i just found out actually hat beduin arabs have it to plus some of your sources and books that you said you made you research from are wrong no one had the time to go and chek but this video annoyed me enough to go and ask professors and every one said no one can doubt that arab are Semitic i mean where is the point you are trying to get from saying no they arnt even a non arabs said your wrong and thy are with phd's
youliosco 3 years ago
The childishness of some of these comments amazes me. Did it ever occur to you when writing, "some of your sources and books . . . are wrong" that you'd actually bother to list the wrong ones and describe in what respect they're wrong? Do you really think this is a productive comment?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Nowhere in the video does it state that any marker "proofs" which individuals are Semitic. However the relative frequency of haplogroups and haplotypes in POPULATIONS can indicate the likelihood that one population is biologically derived from another.
The substantial difference in relative frequency of markers in Phoenicians, Samaritans, Jews, Assyrians, etc. on the one hand and ethnic Arabs on the other indicates a high improbability that one population group is derivative of the other.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
I am not an arab but Abraham had 2 sons they were Isaac and Ishmail(ismail). Ismail was arabize by the local arab community in mecca city and adopted the arab culture.Ismail started the quraish tribes, the tribe of Prophet Mohamed(P.B.U.H). Quraish tribe is not the original arabs but they are arabize. The true arabs are assyrians and arabs who lived in palestine orsyria region.Assyrians are the childrensofshem which havelong linage.The children of Shem were Elam, Asshur,Aram,Arpachshad and Lud.
Chromegrillz 3 years ago
You've managed to creatively synthesize the traditional post-Quranic distinction of Adnani versus Qahtani Arabs and the Ismaili legends with something I assume you've imagined yourself. Can you cite to a single ancient Assyrian text where they describe themselves as Arab?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
I did not imagine myself to write quraish are infact arabize but its true.Your question was are arabs semite? Yes, you dont have agree assyrian being arabs but all of them are descesdent of shem.
Chromegrillz 3 years ago
So you're defining "Arab" as synonymous with "descendant of Shem," which is an absurd definition.
Yes, post-Quranic Muslim genealogists describe the so-called "Adnani" Arabs as having been Arabized. However, there is no pre-Quranic Arabian evidence supporting that anyone held to this distinction. In fact, prior to Islam the Yemenites never referred to themselves as Arabs.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
All of them are semites, which is shem children.
Chromegrillz 3 years ago
Not the Arabs
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
lol we all watched it i dont know if you did that or not ??
its against facts and reality the video stats what you wish not what is true
youliosco 3 years ago
Which specific fact stated is incorrect? A specific fact other than the overall conclusion, please
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Perhaps the most educational video piece I have seen on You-Tube to-date. Clear and wise.
AssyrianAmerican100 3 years ago
LOL, BS! all Arabs go back to Qahtan, Adnan, and both are Semites, so cut the crap buddy!
a6lagshanab 3 years ago
I get the sense that most of those commenting didn't actually watch the video.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
the palestinians are not as dark as the saudis and they have very much as what you describe as semetic features, dont forget that they may have been at one time ancient hebrews who conformed and mixed with canaans and sected off or after the rise of christianity became christians then after of course muslims. thats explains why their are to this day muslim, chritian and yes even some jewish palestinians.
slickpapa2002 3 years ago
The Palestinian Christians and certain Muslim fellaheen tribes and clans of mountain regions are of Jewish descent, however the Palestinian Arabs of the cities and deserts are of Arab descent.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
p.s. not many jews very few actaully are even semetic today yo could almost say they are extinct, because many jews today are ashkenazi,perhaps the sephardic and mazrahi closer but not by muc.
slickpapa2002 3 years ago
Again, you'll have to provide evidence (from a scholarly source) that contradicts the genetic, historical, and ethnological evidence that's accepted today. This isn't a forum for unsubstantiated claims.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
i think it is safe to say that most arabs today are not really of arab decent but instead are a product of arabization caused by the spread of islam. this goes for groups such as the palestinians (who trace back to the philistines and even the cannanites) the lebanese(phonecians). these two groups are deffinatly semitic in nature because they have lived among and bred with semetic people of the Levant.
slickpapa2002 3 years ago
I don't know about "most" absolutely, but the religious minority Lebanese and Syrians are Arabicized, as well as the must'arib Muslims of the mountainous regions of those countries.
Please provide evidence that the Palestinian Arabs trace back to the Canaanites or Philistines (who were Greek). You'll find that impossible as Canaanite culture disappeared about a millennium before the Islamic Expansion. The only cultures in the area at the time were Jewish, Samaritan, and Byzantine.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
In fact, you'll find that Palestinian Arabs are most closely related to the bedouin outside of the Arabian peninsula (see "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J", Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:1023--1034, 2004).
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
If you want to comment on my forum please stay on topic.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
OK, you have watched the entire video, but instead of rebutting any particular point regarding genetics made in the video, you merely assert "genetic researches proved that arabs are pure semitic people," which is in fact an absurd allegation on its face as no geneticist would countenance the concept of ethnic purity.
This video is not about religion, it is about ethnic history and only uses religious tradition and scripture insofar as they illuminate ethnic history.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Actually genetics appears to establish that ethnic Arabs are not Semitic, as discussed in the video. Please watch the entire video before commenting, I cannot emphasize this enough.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
well, I do not see the point out of tracing back the origins of every kind of people than to differentiate them in this particular present, which is absolutly rejected.
Would you otherwise explaine what is the motivation behind that work?
tanbori 3 years ago
I'm sorry that the point of studying history eludes you.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
i was waiting that you say no because that shows you never read properly if you read any book in the world about arabs it will tell you they are suns of shem
isnt ibraham semetic ismael is the sun of ibraham and mohamad the prophet of arabs is from his desenders
so why dont you believe that i mean not every thing you dont like is not true
youliosco 3 years ago
I'm going to repeat what's stated in the video about this. The Arab connection to Ishmael appears to be a creation of either post-Quranic Muslim genealogists, or possibly post-2nd temple rabbis. There is no pre-Quranic Arabian evidence for such a genealogy. The name "Ishmael" does not exist in any pre-Quranic Arabian sources.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
now after 1000s of years of civilization and history you simply put a video on youtube an youtube clip and think you will change facts (jewish theme selfs know that and thats why we call each other cousins) or is it some kind of new zonist trying to say that arabs are not semtic so they can use the anti sematic phrases alone and properly ??
youliosco 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but your comment is a little incoherent. Is there a specific claim in the video that you're troubled with?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
sorry to say that but the video is full of lies and there are no bases few question arent the arabs suns of shem if they arent then they are not semites the problem is every one knows they are suns of shem i guess that only proves that this video is wrong
youliosco 3 years ago
Which claim is a lie? All you're doing is denying the conclusion. I'm sorry, but if you want to continue commenting on my forum, you have to be specific and provide substantiation.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
how could the arabic be one on the smalles and yougest simetic languages if its the only major one tell now plus the hebrew now is all built up on arabic grammer man its just like you are saying the earth is flat by saying arabs are not semetic
youliosco 3 years ago
I don't know where you get "smalles" [sic] from, but that Arabic is among the youngest of Semitic languages is confirmed by archeology and linguistics. Please review the video (the whole video) again before commenting.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
believe me i watch your video every single day since i saw it all what it say that arabs are not semtes because the since says so but i just want you to answer one question aren the arabs desenders of shem if they arent then ill believe this video
youliosco 3 years ago
Speaking of a literal figure named Shem assumes biblical literalism, which I do not accept. However, if you choose to take that route, you should review the parts on Ishmael.
The question the video answers is whether ethnic Arabs is a derivative type of the original speakers of a hypothetical proto-Semitic language. The answer concluded is 'no.'
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
you mentioned that there is no evidance from the quran supporting that Ishmael was in arabia, what about the Mcca, and building the house of God there (Kaba). you seemed to neglect the kngdom of Sheeba in yemen. another thing, the lineage of prophet mohammed or his family (the Hashmites) was not established after aslam, but this fact was known even before the birth of the Prophet. i suggest to look at the pre-islamic arabic poetry. the Adnani (adnan the desendent of Ishmael) is before islam
NAlkhawlani13 3 years ago
Where in the video does it say Ishmael was not in Arabia? The video doesn't state that, but in fact it's true: in the Bible, the Ishmaelite tribes are described as inhabiting the peripheries of the land of Israel.
Second, the Quran doesn't say Ishmael was in Arabia. You must be confusing the Quran with the hadiths.
If there is pre-Quran Arabian evidence of an Ishmaelite lineage, go ahead and source it. You'll find that there is none.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
as for the pre-islamic poetry i have tons of references, but the problem they are all in Arabic language. in the video you mentioned that Yemenis are not descendant of joktan. from where you get you information??? why don't you search in the internet and look for the remaining architecture and temples.
NAlkhawlani13 3 years ago
The burden of proof is not on me. If you have pre-Quran evidence, source it.
If there are pre-Quran inscriptions or manuscripts from Arabia referencing Ishmael, they would most definitely be published in academic journals or books. Go ahead and source them, but of course we both know you can't, because there are none.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
- Ancient Semitic peoples -
# Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins * Gindibu's Arabs 9th c. BC * Lihyanites — 6th to 1st c. BC * Thamud people — 2nd to 5th c. AD * Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th c. AD * Nabataeans — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD.
Thats taken straight forward from wikipedia.
Please if you think arabs are not semite show them some scientific evidence and dis-proven them.
Arabs was and always will be Semitec.
hellboysjd2 3 years ago
The video in fact states that the earliest mention of Arabs was about the 9th c. BC, a period much later than the earliest evidence for Semitic, and that's a major problem for proponents of the view that Arabs are the "earliest" examples of Semites.
As for the last request, I provided a bibliography of works. You've provided...wikipedia, and haven't explained how it contradicts the video.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Of course, modern Assyrians are then the truest of Semites... their ancient language (Aramaic) was then spread on to the nomadic Jews and Arabs. Hence the story in the Bible where God supposedly punishes the great empire of Babylon by making everyone speak different tongues... my interpetation is that many of the languages of the world derived directly from Babylon, the very first civilization, the first people that developed written language.
nenva 3 years ago
You'll have to provide substantiation for your claims. There is no such thing as the "truest" of any ethnic group. Aramaic is certainly not the oldest language, let alone the oldest Semitic language, nor were the Jews nomads.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
This has got to be one of the most biased videos on Youtube. It is simply based on outdated and erroneous historical accounts.
1. The Author depends on the Bible in many parts of the video. Well, newsflash, the Bible is not an authentic history book at all. It is filled with historical and scientific howlers.
2. Archaeology and anthropolgy DOES NOT support this video. There has never been any kind of archaeology in the Arabian peninsula. Modern Archaeology does not support the Bible at all.
ExChristian2716 3 years ago
This is a fascinating comment.
No, in fact the video does not treat the Bible as a literal retelling of history. It treats it as one among many pieces of historical writings that can, together with other evidence, help illuminate history. More specifically, the Bible is treated merely as a source for "the ancestral significance of the northern Fertile Crescent to the Semitic people."
All of about 45 seconds of the video invokes biblical writings. Did you watch the video at all?
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
There has been more archaeological work done in the middle east than perhaps any other region on Earth.
If you want to post comments, I'm going to have to insist that you provide substantiation. I don't want my comment board flooded with wild fabricated claims.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
In the song the guy sings: Beth Nahrin athrewat. It means: Between the rivers you were our land in Assyrian.
This is the forgotten land of assyrians Beth Nahrin it will rise again.
CTazza 3 years ago
dude please make sense in ur videos. first of all the leveant people ( palestinian, lebanese, syrian, and some jordanian) are a mix of semetic ( hebrew, phoenician , arabs, etc) and little of greek romanian influence, and hitties which settled the leveant and mixed with the semites .....
palestine48 3 years ago
I agree that most of the Syrians and Lebanese are of Semitic lineage. This would explain why the Syrians, Lebanese, Jews, and Assyrians cluster together genetically and phenotypically and do not cluster as closely to the non-Semitic Arab Bedouin and Saudis.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Go fuck yourself you asshole.. there are millions of light arabs in Arabia.. since you are idiot ignorant.. no need to waist time with you to aprove..
MiddleEastinfol 3 years ago
Yes. And what is the relative frequency of that phenotypic trait and others in the Arabian population compared to the populations in the Levant, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia? I'm sorry you're confused, but none of this is personal opinion. This is fact agreed upon by ethnologists.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
The peoples of most "arab" countries in the middle east are mostly descendent of the indigenous inhabitants of their countries (Irak, Syria, Lebanon) and not from the people of Arabia, aren't they?
What about egyptians? They are supposed to be mostly of indigenous Egyptian origin, do they share their background with the "semites"? An what about the berbers?
89maf 3 years ago
It depends on the geographical location and population group. For Syria and Lebanon, the religious minorities and people of mountainous areas would be the most direct descendants of the indigenous inhabitants. Iraq is a little different. Because Baghdad was the seat of the Caliphate there was a heavy influx of Arab migration and settlement in Iraq, but the same principle would apply.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
What about Egypt? They are supposed to be hamitic or camitic, according to the Bible and to the linguistic clasification. Are they related to the semites at least more than the Arabs?
89maf 3 years ago
The Copts and fellahin would be the direct descendants of the original Egyptians, who were not Semitic.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Wow the Assyrians are the best looking people!
GermanWarrior22 3 years ago
yes arabs are semites!
Nadiine3 3 years ago
Hopefully your retort is as extensive and thorough as was that of Alhadichannel. But I already know it won't be.
neftalireyes8 3 years ago
Wonderful. Information that is derived through truthful resources, not the opinions and doubts of others.
ashur08 3 years ago
the haematologists have the tag on all this,,,
they can trace us all back to our bloodline mother groups
blood groups, there's the key. forget languages, there are distinctive markers in the genetic/bloodgroup analysis.
many in the arab peninsula are white genes, because their forebear mothers are not ^^^^^^^^ - not of the bloodline we may say...
as i said in another post, look to the folani, tuareg, they are the real deal... the fatimid zahra peoples...
bonnydayz 3 years ago
I'm interested to know, AlHadiChannel: do you think Ashkenazi Jews are Semites?
Ueberschallgeschwind 3 years ago
Is there some reason not to? Genetically and phenotypically they cluster near Sephardim, Mizrahim, Lebanese, Syrians, Assyrians. Nor is there any historical reason not to.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Thanks for your answer.
Ueberschallgeschwind 3 years ago
very interesting
Bacchant33rd 3 years ago
beau travail
un vrai travail des experts
enfin tu as trouver la bonne explication sur la nature de la race arabe qui est un vrai mélange de peuple
bravo
samysamy25 3 years ago
Do you actually know that Aramaeans themselves were nomads like Bedouins who overran the Levant and Mesopotamia from the 9th century BC. onwards with the result that they imposed their Aramaic language on the Middle East? Which is by the way related to Arabic.
Teaicetea 3 years ago
Actually they were pastoralists, and their origins are from the north ("Aram" is often placed somewhere in northern Mesopotamnia"). The invasion hypothesis is only one, and its accuracy is dubious (see Schwartz's "The Origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia"), and Aramaic is older than Arabic. So they are very much unlike the Bedouin and their history helps substantiate the genesis of the Semites.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Sure how does South Semitic fit in your world view? Which is older than Arabic and Aramaic?
Teaicetea 3 years ago
I'm afraid your world view of "South Semitic" is different from the world view of the scholarly community. Although you treat it as a language, it is in fact a grouping of groupings of languages, all of which except one have their earliest attestations around the same time or later than proto-Arabic.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
Your world view also seems to be premised on a non-existent or outdated genetic classification of Semitic languages. South Semitic languages are of a different branch than that of Arabic, which belongs to "Central Semitic"--meaning South Semitic languages spread at different times from different people to different people than Central Semitic languages.
Moral of the story: don't take an animated arrow in a general-consumption informational video too literally.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
A another poster informed my about something interesting. Semitic is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family tree and should be viewed as a African language which is connected with the evolution of Haplogroup e3b.
Chadic
Egyptian
Semitic
Cushitic
Omotic
Teaicetea 3 years ago
Yes, wabe28 has spammed my email box on that as well. Unfortunately, the hypothesis of a common origin of Semitic and "Hamitic" languages is rejected by some linguists. You can see Giovanni Garbini on that point. In short: there are no firm phonetic correlations between the two that are of the type supporting, eg., Indo-European classifications. Also, phonetically-based classification is a bit outdated--see Robert Hetzron on that point.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
And most importantly, he failed to grasp the obvious implication of the claim (which hopefully you won't): if E3b is predominant in the Semitic genetic profile, then it still follows that the Arab ethnotype isn't Semitic. In other words, you're arguing that Arabs aren't Semites, but you're just providing different evidence.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
I understand you're position but it can not be ignored that every scholar classifies Semitic as part of the Afro-Asiatic branch. Ultamily it would mean that all people caring Haplogroups that originated outside of Africa were of non Afro-Asiatic tongue in the Fertile Crescent.
Teaicetea 3 years ago
"it can not be ignored that every scholar classifies Semitic as part of the Afro-Asiatic branch."
Yes, that can be ignored because it's false. It's an incorrect statement. I just named a linguist who does not classify Semitic as such. Are you at all reading any of these responses? I don't really have time to play games with you.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
The presence of non Semitic languages in the Fertile Crescent like Hurro-Urartian,Sumerian and Indo-European and the later diffusion of Semitic and the displacement of other languages really produces more questions than answers.
This situation reminds me of discussions surrounding the original homeland of Proto-Indo-European and the displacement of native tongues in Europe which is linked to the spread of Indo-European see Basque language.
Teaicetea 3 years ago
What a non sequitur :)
Sometimes no response is better than a non-response.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
What is the hell of your point?? Saudi Arabians are not semitic? because they are darker? please wash your asshole. for your information, half of saudis are white and light skin specially in Qasim and northen part. and half of iraqis today are dark.
MiddleEastinfol 4 years ago
How many Bedouin are white? Yes, many or most Iraqis today are descendants of the Arab invaders during the Islamic Expansions since Baghdad became a capitol of the Caliphate. The phenotypic evidence is just one piece, and encompasses about a minute or two of the presentation, so I'd refer you to the rest of the evidence if you're truly interested in the subject.
AlHadiChannel 3 years ago
with all respect i happen to cretically analyez your clip. good information, but i am more future orientated person,,,, what count this day not your background but your knowledage and skills, although i think since
Arab nd jaw are cousin , go and make peace guys,,:)and listen to some bob marley that might help, be what ever you wannat to be but be Cool humanbeing ,,,,,,so goodluck
2keenan 4 years ago
There is no such word as "semite" this was made up by man. If u are from the line of Shem then that would make u a "Shemite" even in the bible there is no "Shemite" OR "semite" in the bible they were called the sons of Shem. Rev 12:9
Bagawould 4 years ago
Even the old tastment proved that
saowd 4 years ago
All of the gentic resarch proved that Arabs pure semtic Race
saowd 4 years ago
jewish and and arabs are cousins
hayatmer 4 years ago
jewish are nephews to Assyrians :)
AkMasterAk 4 years ago
what about ethiopians??
rahash12 4 years ago
hehe good job man :) , but for me i dont care if i am semites or not , this will not change anything , my informations is arabs r 2 parts , the old arabs in Saba'= yemen and the descendant of the son of prophet Ismael , in reality what i know that my origin is from Adnan the 2nd arab Group....Lol i am Semite :) but what this will change :) , they gives Money for Semites or what , byeeeee All Semites and not Semites haha
khodrov 4 years ago
Thank you. 5/5 & fav'd
xdhimmi 4 years ago
Cephalic index is thought to be a function of both environment and genetics.
Yes, many Syrians and Lebanese still have Semitic ancestry and so typify those Semitic traits, unlike the Bedouin, who are the most direct descendants of ancient Arabs and typify non-Semitic traits.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
Also another thing about phenotypes , head-size doesn't matter since head-size vary depending on the enviroment you were born and lived in. F.ex ive seen dolciocephalic arabs , mesocephalic and bracheyheplic of the same phenotype.
Also on assyrians ive seen dolciocephalic assyrians also who were unadmixed.
KurdishKlansman 4 years ago
The sources are the Torah and the Orally Torah which explains the Torah. In Genesis chapter 1 it's written that G-d created the world by saying words in Hebrew. I want to remind you that the Torah is written in Hebrew. Later on other nations translated it to their languages. But it's written in Hebrew and G-d spoke the commandments in the revelation in mt. Sinai in Hebrew.
boni123 4 years ago
The Oral Torah(Mishnah & Gemarah) was written from 200-600bc hardly an authentic source on anything sorry.
MysteryMoe 4 years ago
5. Also you shouldin't forget that semitic is a linguastic group not a race or a groups of people. Just like the term indo-european is. Not all europeans are indo-europeans , some are actually descendents of pre indo-europeans. But most europeans are just mixtures of the two.
KurdishKlansman 4 years ago
Yes, originally "Semitic" referred to a linguistic family, as mentioned in the video. I suggest you review the video again as to why the discussion doesn't stop there.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
3. Phenotypicly , arabs are arabid which is brother phenotype of the "assyrid" phenotype. The only diffrence is that assyrid is influenced by armenoid and belong to another bloodgroup.
4. You're video is subjective and is only there to alienate arabs from hebrews.
KurdishKlansman 4 years ago
I don't know where you get your info from, but most anthropologists who engaged in those classifications did not distinguish between what you call "assyrid" and "armenoid"--they are one and the same people. The only distinction is one where assyrid is treated as a sub-category of armenoid
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
1. Arabs and hebrews share a common ancestry according to the book of jasher:
Arphaxad "I shall fail" (sons were Shelach, Anar and Ashcol[3]) - (Chaldeans, Southern Mesopotamia, Israelites, #Arabians, Bedouins# Moabites, Amonites, Sabaeans, and related groups);
3. Arabic populations contain a high amount of j1, which is a brother to the neolithic anatolian gene, j1 is marked by M267 marker, and exist in "all" semitic populations , jews as well as assyrians.
KurdishKlansman 4 years ago
Again, you help prove the video. The Arab ethnotype, as evidenced by the Bedouin, the most direct descendants of ancient Arabs, is predominated by the M267 marker.
However, the populations of the northern Fertile Crescent, where the original Semites are from, are characterized by a predominance of M172. This includes orginally Semitic "Arabized" populations in Syria and Lebanon. Thus the Arab ethnotype is not a derivative of the original Semite ethnotype.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
Nothing about what you've said about the genetics contradicts anything said in the video, and yet only backs it up. I suggest you review the last portion again.
If the Arab ethnotype is a derivative of the Semitic ethnotype, one would expect the Bedouin's genetic profile to have a predominance of M172, and yet it doesn't.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
Think of it this way if it will help: Arabs and Ethiopians share many genetic markers in common due to their neolithic ancestors and so they are related. But neither ethnotype is a derivative of the other, therefore it would be incorrect to say the Ethiopian ethnotype is Arabic, or that the Arab ethnotype is Ethiopian.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
1. Arabs contain high amounts of J1
KurdishKlansman 4 years ago
Thankyou for proving my point. The Bedouin, the most direct descendants of the ancient Arabs, are characterized by an utter predominance of J1, unlike Semitic populations.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
Could that be due to the fact they are also related tot he Egyptians...Wgyptians are not semitic...anyway it seems to be that Arabia as we call it is a mix.
MysteryMoe 4 years ago
"Arabia Deserta" is a phrase that refers to the central deserts of the Arabian peninsula, and is thought to be where the bedouin were mainly concentrated, although there were of course eventually trade routes that brought them to the levant and syria. I believe the earliest mention of Arabs in the bible is in the book of Chronicles, which is thought to have been written in the 5th c BC, I believe.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
Okay that clears up some confusion I had thanks for the research into this.
MysteryMoe 4 years ago
it's irrelevant to today's use of the word
everyone knows it means jews NOWADAYS
and every one knows Arabs will go to any length to pervert the meaning of language in attmpt to make pretend they are so benevolent to Jews>>>>> LIARS and revisionists
JoliePrincessKatana 4 years ago
Very interesting research. My only question is how can you say the Bible does not says Arabs were of the line of Ishmael? It clearly does say Ishamel and his sons dwelt in Arabia along with the Keturites...and alter some of the Cushites & Dedanites and Sabeans along with Edom. If these ones are not related in some way then where did they go?
MysteryMoe 4 years ago
MysteryMoe: Thanks for the questions. The Hebrew word for "Arab" (ayin resh beth yod) appears in about 13 verses in the bible, and in none of those verses does it suggest that the people referred to are related to Ishmael.
The Ishmaelite territory described in the bible essentially encompasses areas surrounding biblical Israel, such as the Negev, northern Levant, etc., but not really Arabia Deserta, although all these areas are obviously close to each other
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
OKay I understand it said in Genesis that Ishmael dwelt in the plain/land of Havilah bordering Egypt and Israel---that would be part of the Arabian desert.
MysteryMoe 4 years ago
I stopped watching in 2:32 minute. Funny how this video didn't mention even one time the Hebrew language which is the oldest language in the world, it's the language that G-d created the world with and spoke to Adam and Eve. In the building of the tower of Babel G-d confused it and each nation separated with it's own language. Eber who didn't take part in the building work, his Hebrew language wasn't confused but remained. It's also written in Wikipedia (Eber).
boni123 4 years ago
There is no evidence that Hebrew was first ever language that I know of that is simply common belief among Jews. Evedence suggests Hebrew is a form of Canaanitish dialect? But yes Eber was brother of Peleg in the bible...I am assuming Eber may refer to where the name Iberia came from.
MysteryMoe 4 years ago
Of course there is an evidence. It's written in the Torah which is a juridical document that G-d spoke its context to a whole nation in the revelation of mt. Sinai. The Canaanites weren't one nation. Many nations were living in Canaan, Jacob and his family among them before they went to Egypt.
boni123 4 years ago
boni: then you weren't paying very close attention since Hebrew was mentioned 9 seconds in. The topic of the video is whether Arabs are Semites, and language is discussed insofar as it's pertinent to that question.
AlHadiChannel 4 years ago
Okay thanks, I'll watch it again.
boni123 4 years ago
Awesome research! thanks.
gunnyranger2 4 years ago