Well St Ignatius was and now he's gone!

guess arabic wont work on the new site (i guess thats what the numbers are that are appearing under my post are)

Your crocodilian representative disavows any knowledge or understanding of whatever words ‘confederate catholic’ was attempting to convey with his experiment using HTML-entities (i.e., the ugly-syntax strings beginning "&#" and ending ";") to present Arabic:

قَامت مريم بنتُ دادوحِذا العود

It might turn out that you'll need to confine your exercises in Arabic to whatever you're willing to edit using SMF BB-Code.  I was able to produce letters in the Semitic infidel abjad [×] above by copy-&-pasting the HTML-entities posted by ‘confederate catholic’ into the BB-Code editor.  Maybe it'll work to use the BB-Code editor to perform the conversion, then copy-&-paste the result into the WYSIWIG editor.

The drawback of using the BB-Code editor is that in each cycle of "Previews" in that editor, it seems that the HTML-entities are (possibly irreversibly) converted and stored as UTF-8 byte-sequences, instead of leaving the HTML-entities alone, and letting each user's browser properly render whatever HTML-entities are in text that's posted.[†]

-------
Note †:
I already pointed out (Mar 19, 2017 at 03:22:11 PM) this difference in editing-&-preview behavior from the familiar MercuryBoard C.I., in another of Matthew's new topics: "Report any bugs or problems with new site here!", as its "Reply #11": <http://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/report-any-bugs-or-problems-with-new-site-here!/msg544462/#msg544462>.  To be plain about it: I request that owner-moderator-webmaster Matthew disable automatic conversion of HTML-entities into UTF-8 byte-sequences.

Note ×: I suppose I should spare you and other readers my especially, um, unflattering opinion about the letters of the Arabic abjad compared to their origin in Aramaic.  But with you being an Eastern Catholic, why wouldn't you be using the Unicode characters for Syriac (Unicode ver. 3.0 & 4.0: 1999 & 2003), or late-arriving Imperial Aramaic (5.2: 2009), or even Hebrew (1.0.0: 1991) as a common scholarly substitute for Syriac, instead of writing in Arabic (1.0.0: 1991)?

Note ×: I suppose I should spare you and other readers my especially, um, unflattering opinion about the letters of the Arabic abjad compared to their origin in Aramaic.  But with you being an Eastern Catholic, why wouldn't you be using the Unicode characters for Syriac (Unicode ver. 3.0 & 4.0: 1999 & 2003), or late-arriving Imperial Aramaic (5.2: 2009), or even Hebrew (1.0.0: 1991) as a common scholarly substitute for Syriac, instead of writing in Arabic (1.0.0: 1991)?

actually the signature got posted last pasca week while I put up for 'arubto d-hasho (Good Friday) hymn in arabic.