The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> another one of them

another one of them
Posted by AssyrianMuslim (Guest) - Saturday, January 30 2010, 9:37:46 (CET)
from 74.136.162.189 - 74-136-162-189.dhcp.insightbb.com Commercial - Windows Codename Longhorn - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

This one is a reply to a comment I made about the modern Assyrian name, and someone replied with the usual. He is telling me to read something but I guess he is not aware that I already been there and done that. Here is his sincere suggestion and reply:

"AssyrianMuslim,
read: "Narrative of a visit to the Syrian Church of Mesopotamia" written by Dr. Horatio Southgate in 1856. In it the writer specifically uses the name Assyrian to describe the people.
There is one name one always encounters when reading these old books, however, it is : Sūryōyō / Sūrāyā, which is an abbreviation of Aššūrāyu (look it up.)
The term "Chaldean" was born out of ignorance of the past; an Assyrian without Nationalism."

What this person fails to realize is that this is a westerner describing certain people as Assyrians and this happened after the discoveries by Layard. Horatio Southgate was a Christian missionary and a priest who visited the nestorian, Chaldean and jacobites in the mid to late 1850s. Him describing certain people as something does not indicate much because it could be his opinion or what he may have learned from other Euros who had made the discoveries and labeled the Nestorians as the remains of the ancient Assyrians. Since the Muslims must have been Arabs and not Christian, this leaves the Nestorians as the candidates. It is clear from those authors who visited the and spent years with these communities that the Nestorians were calling themselves "suraye" "chaldean" and some even claimed to have been of Jewish heritage. There are no records prior to the discoveries of any people claiming to be "Assyrians".

I now understand that "suraya" is not equivalent to "aturaya" but it implies "aramean" or "syrian". Even if the two are derived from the same and let's agree for a moment, the people were not calling themselves descendants of Ashur Banipal and of those they were reading about in their Bibles. They knew nothing about the ancients except what was available to everyone at the time and these Nestorians never ones compared themselves nor relate themselves to the men mentioned in the Bible. They jumped on the Chaldean bandwagon at first, they were calling themselves "suraye" and at times even admitted openly that they were Jewish converts to Christianity but what they didn't say is that "we are Assyrians" or "we are the sons of Ashur Banipal". Our nationalists think they can fool people by quickly trying to learn everything, yet in most cases twisting things around and try to become experts, authors and historians. Anything contrary to what they have been taught must be propaganda.

This same gimmick has been played by archeologists in Egypt and wherever else. In most cases these people are Christians and then try to label the local Christians as the original while Muslims are the outsiders. They do this in Israel too where they treat the Muslims as if they were all from Saudi Arabia. What these people don't realize is that not every Muslim if of Arab origin. The majority of Arabs did not leave Arabia and settle in Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc. It was few thousand men and it was the locals who converted to Islam who later adopted Arabic or forgot their own language. In some cases, conversions happened over time while in other cases it happened quickly and in masses. India is a perfect example of how Ibn Qasim came with an army of few thousand men and conquered most of India(northern parts). The Muslim Indians aren't Arabs but ex Hindus and whatever else who converted. Interestingly, the majority of Indian Muslims are from the south and were never part of Islamic rule. This debunks the common Christian myth that islam was forced wherever it went.

It is not new for Christian missionaries and archeologists to work together and try to fool people. If there are any remains of the ancient Egyptians, they come in many faiths and even colors. Contrary to Christian ideas, the ancient Egyptians were Black people so the modern Greek looking Copts can definitely not be related to the ancients in that case.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 4529
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Keep-alive: 300
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.48fv.
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9