[Abd_von_Mumit]

First and most important: for me there is no point to continue discussion with a person that treats the Bible as source of facts. We don't share the same basis, so our discussion would be pointless. For me the Bible is a source of historical material that is sometimes reliable, sometimes not. As any other historical source. It's main concern is religion, and I'm not one to treat religious issues seriously. I'd rather call them superstitions.

So let's focus only on facts, skipping biblical quotes.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

"And all the kings of Arabia (Hebrew: "Malchei Arav") and all the kings of the allies who dwell in the desert."[/i]
- Jeremiah, 25:24

As you probably know, the phrase 'malchei araw' could be as well translated as "kings of Arabs" or even "Kings of the desert" (malchei erev) (as noone can be sure that the punctuation is right). And even if it's "Arabs", that's not any proof. Even Romans didn't know, how unbelievably big is the Pensinsula. They divided it on their maps into three parts (Petrea, Deserta, Felix) and have hardly managed to conquer a small part of it. The term 'Arabia' referred usually to only one part, the closest one, Petrea. No thinking man would like to invade the rest of the Pensinsula, where you could find only stones. So "malchei erev" can refer to kings of Petrea, some two or thre more kingdoms, skipping 90% of the rest of Pensisula. The very Pensisula, we should say.

There is an arguement among the Semitologists, what do " 'ivri", " 'aravi" mean in the Bible. As you know, there are numerous theories, none of them is sure.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.

The law you refer to comes from much, much later times (when the Talmud was written, about V-VI century Christian era). But it has no relation to the issue.

I refer to scientifical research, supported by linguistic, archeological, genetical and other research. You refer to the Bible text. No common base for us, sorry.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Not directly. At least I know that. The point of the signature is that we will not tolerate Islam's intended subjugation of us non-Islamic infidels. A clear and elementary message.

That's what I said - if you want the phrase to refer to Islam, use the proper word for it. "Astaslama" is not a proper word, "aslama" is, as the first has no relation to Islam (almost) at all. The founder of this action (I forgot her name) doesn't know Arabic and she messed up the words a bit. As you know, proper wording is extremely importnat in Jewish tradition, as if you know a proper name of a thing, you got a rule over it. Thus you don't call a melech (king) a mal'ach (angel) and reverse, as these are not proper words.