HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
…
Excuse me.
Planten, I am a Linguist! What on earth makes you think that you can make such claims, ESPECIALLY to someone who studies language for a living? Firstly, NO, Arabic is not the oldest language, nor the mother of all other languages. That is just plain false. I have never met anyone who has claimed such a thing, Arab or Muslim or otherwise. It is DEMONSTRATABLY false with basically no research needed. Please see
this page for an answer written by a linguist. I agree with the opinion expressed therein: there is no way to definitively know what the “first” language was. In another source that I quoted in the reply that is above you, the date given for the first inscriptions in Arabic is c.5th century BC. This figure is from the
Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics (Oxford Univ. Press, 1997) by P.H. Matthews (yes, I do actually look things up in reliable books before I post them; you should try it sometime!). In this same dictionary, on the same page as the entry for Arabic, under the entry for Aramaic, we see that Aramaic is attested to from the 10th century BC onwards. Hopefully this closes the issue for you, but if it doesn’t I can provide other resources that address the earliest attested language, Akkadian, which is also definitely older than Arabic.
Secondly, NO, German, French, etc. cannot be “traced back” to Arabic. Any particular cognates that you can come up with do not establish a genetic relationship between unrelated languages. If that were the case, then Spanish would be genetically related to Arabic, as there are many, many words in it that are ultimately derived from Arabic or from Persian via Arabic (~20%). But this is not the case. Spanish, French, and German are all Indo-European languages, related to each other (though Spanish and French are Romance languages,while German is Germanic) but not to Arabic, which is Afro-Asiatic (the name for the family of languages that includes the Semitic languages like Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya, Maltese, etc.)
“Islam” does not mean “peace”; “Salaam” means “peace”. I have posted about this at least half a dozen times by now. I suspect you already know that this is the case and are just repeating it because you don’t expect me to know what I’m talking about. I’m taking Arabic classes, by the way, so you might not want to spend too much time providing me with false translations that I can easily debunk by looking in my dictionary, textbook, or asking any one of the 250+ Arabs that I see every single day while on my way to said Arabic classes, all of whom apparently know Arabic much better than you do.
I don’t like lies, Planten. That’s what you tell, and I don’t like it, and I won’t stand for it.
The word for “peace” in Aramaic is either “shlama” or “shlomo”, depending on dialect. Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we can assume that he would have used one of those words, which is a cognate for the Arabic “Salaam”. Again, I don’t see your point. Aramaic (and, of course, the modern Assyrian languages/dialects, usually refered to in literature as “Neo-Aramaic”) is a Semitic language, and indeed of older vintage than Arabic, so of course the words in it are related to the Arabic forms which developed from the same proto-Semitic forms.
What is your point, exactly? I don’t recall anyone debating Islam’s universiality in this thread. Obviously there are Muslims among virtually every people on Earth.