Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
-
Contradictions (plural) you say? Odd, considering the first time you've used the word "contradiction" in this thread was in your last post only.
Oh you've been contradicting yourself since you started using the phrase 'quranic grammar' etc. This is simply one of the contradictions.
Firstly, you specifically asked about "Quranic grammar".
Secondly, I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms.
Thirdly, your questions imply you are equating the terms "Quranic" and "intra-Quran comparison".Why can't you? If the work of Aidid and Simple PERTAINS to the Quran then by your own definition, these are Quranic works. Aidid wrote a book about Quranic concepts and Simple posts in this forum about clearly Quranic topics. Surely their works are Quranic?
Are your works 'quranic'? If so, why?
-
You've now asked 13 follow-up questions. I have given some leeway and allowed multiple follow-ups, but 13 is too much.
However, in your last "follow-up" question, you brought up something we haven't discussed, so I will take that as your next question (your third). I will answer shortly.
Are your works 'quranic'? If so, why?
-
Why are any number of follow up questions 'too much'? Are we going on a point scoring system now? The objective is the discussion of your philosophy of tafseer. One would think any number of questions would be acceptable for such an important issue.
Also note, while you complain a lot, you have hardly answered any of my inquiries. My next question is about what you consider as 'evidence', based on your statement in my group. You told the 'nisa arent women' camp to band together and write an article. Once the 'quranic grammar' issue is resolved, I would like to explore how you will evaluate that 'evidence'
-
I dont mind answering any number of questions, but our agreed upon format was one Q&A at a time, back and forth, not one Q then many follow-up Qs.... which prevents the other side from moving onto their next Q.
In any case, please clarify what is your next question. Thanks.
-
I'm not through with the second question yet, sorry. I have asked you, given that Aidid and Simple opine view PERTAINING to the Quran, would you call their views Quranic?
-
Your original question was
How does one measure grammatical correctness?And now you ask
I have asked you, given that Aidid and Simple opine view PERTAINING to the Quran, would you call their views Quranic?Any lay reader can tell they are different questions addressing different things. So, once again, I request you to state your 3rd question. If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question. And if you feel that is unfair, feel free to do the same to me after I ask you 9 follow-up questions ;D
-
Wakas are you playing some kind of game? The question is very simple and yet you refuse to answer. This is an adult conversation about what you (hopefully) consider a sacred act - writing about a divine text. I am now probing your view about what is QURANIC. You have given a definition using PERTINENCE as an indicator. Both Aidid and Simple write PERTAINING to the Quran.
Are their writings Quranic or not?
Call it whatever number you want. If you're afraid to answer, just let me know. I can see we're very close to undermining your pretence of authority by how you keep avoiding the question. Let me know so I can stop wasting my time. Thanks.
-
Amusingly you claim I am refusing to answer yet I clearly said "If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question." clearly implying I am happy to answer it. I am simply objecting to your 2nd question dragging on for seemingly endless follow-ups.
Finally, the 3rd question
Farouk asks
Are their (i.e. Aidid and Simple) writings Quranic or not?I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms. However, if you require more elaboration, I would say sometimes what they state could be regarded as "Quranic" but sometimes not.
-
Amusingly you claim I am refusing to answer yet I clearly said "If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question." clearly implying I am happy to answer it. I am simply objecting to your 2nd question dragging on for seemingly endless follow-ups.
You can ask me thousands of questions if you want as long as you address my questions. As I said, I have lots more thought experiments to run.
I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms. However, if you require more elaboration, I would say sometimes what they state could be regarded as "Quranic" but sometimes not
.So even though their writings PERTAINS to the Quran (we're not talking about their sports commentaries, right?) , 'sometimes' their writings are NOT Quranic. Ok. When are their writings 'Quranic' ?
-
So even though their writings PERTAINS to the Quran (we're not talking about their sports commentaries, right?) , 'sometimes' their writings are NOT Quranic. Ok. When are their writings 'Quranic' ?
Unfortunately your question assumes their writings pertain to the Quran. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
They are "Quranic" when they are "of/from or pertaining to The Quran".
And before you ask another follow-up, let me help you out by way of example, if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 434 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran.
Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.
-
Unfortunately your question assumes their writings pertain to the Quran. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
They are "Quranic" when they are "of/from or pertaining to The Quran".
Lovely. Aidid says 'salat' means 'commitments'. This is a 'QURANIC view', correct?
And before you ask another follow-up, let me help you out by way of example, if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 434 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran.
Contradiction.
Only two seconds ago, the definition was about pertinence, now it's about YOUR agreement of the interpretation of darb.
Is your view on 4/34 'Quranic' ? Please substantiate why?
Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.
That would be akin to slaving all day preparing a gourmet meal and when it's dinner time, to chuck it in the trash.
-
Contradiction.
Only two seconds ago, the definition was about pertinence, now it's about YOUR agreement of the interpretation of darb.Perhaps you are unclear as to the meaning of "pertaining", see below, the first three definitions given by google
pertain
verb/prtn/
pertained, past participle;pertained, past tense;pertaining, present participle;pertains, 3rd person singular presentBe appropriate, related, or applicable
- matters pertaining to the organization of government
Belong to something as a part, appendage, or accessory
- the premises, stock, and all assets pertaining to the business
Be in effect or existence in a specified place or at a specified time
Amusingly, according to how you are interpreting what I said, if someone said "Quran allows you to do handstands and cartwheels on your wife, and cites 434" you'd imply that's "Quranic" in my view, for the mere fact they happened to cite a Quran verse. As I said, it's not actually from Quran, hence cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.
Is this your next question?
Is your view on 4/34 'Quranic' ? Please substantiate why?
-
Be appropriate, RELATED or applicable
Did you actually read this definition or what? What Aidid and Simple talk about RELATE to the Quran. It's about a word IN the Quran. 'Salah' is a word in the Quran and Aidid says it means 'commitments', so since it RELATES to the Quran and is APPROPRIATE in a Quranic discussion and APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah, then it IS a Quranic view, correct?
Amusingly, according to how you are interpreting what I said, if someone said "Quran allows you to do handstands and cartwheels on your wife, and cites 434" you'd imply that's "Quranic" in my view, for the mere fact they happened to cite a Quran verse. As I said, it's not actually from Quran, hence cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.
Simplicity is a trick some people use to hide their reasons for authoritarian readings so I don't buy 'simple' as an explanation, sorry. The matter is a FAR MORE COMPLICATED than cut and paste style use of language.
What do you mean 'not ACTUALLY from Quran'? What is 'FROM Quran'? Are your views FROM Quran?
Please DESCRIBE the process to show how somethng can be FROM QURAN and thus Quranic.Is this your next question?
Whatever you like, if my credit runs out, just stop answering. Lets play childish games instead of engaging in adult discussions.
-
What a surprise..... yet more follow-up Qs.
Did you actually read this definition or what? What Aidid and Simple talk about RELATE to the Quran. It's about a word IN the Quran. 'Salah' is a word in the Quran and Aidid says it means 'commitments', so since it RELATES to the Quran and is APPROPRIATE in a Quranic discussion and APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah, then it IS a Quranic view, correct?
Your own above wording exposes the problem. Note how you insert explanations to justify how "relate", "appropriate" and "applicable" work in this situation, e.g. "APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah". Who said anything about it being dependent on if someone asks opinions about something?
I simply said "Quranic" means "of/from or pertaining to Quran". If we substitute "pertain" for the dictionary meanings, we have
"of/from or appropriate/related/applicable to Quran".Then gave examples, e.g. " if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 434 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran."
Since I said it is not possible to comment on Aidid/Simple in such general terms, you now ask about a specific. You've made some progress. ;D You state
"Aidid says 'salat' means 'commitments'. This is a 'QURANIC view', correct?
Unlikely, because "salat" seems to be the singular thus cannot mean "commitments". "salawat" is the plural. I have not seen evidence from Quran to the contrary, nor did Aidid supply any. If a person does not supply any evidence from Quran for their chosen meaning then it cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.
You then seem to ask about the meaning of "from", see here.
Next question?
-
What a surprise..... yet more follow-up Qs.
Of course. This is an academic discussion, not Sesame Street.
Your own above wording exposes the problem. Note how you insert explanations to justify how "relate", "appropriate" and "applicable" work in this situation, e.g. "APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah". Who said anything about it being dependent on if someone asks opinions about something?
THANK YOU. You're absolutely right. Who INDEED DID SAY that one has to ask the question? In other words, who articulates how we derive the information? YOU? Why should we trust you? You run and promote PRL, a project which LEAVES OUT meanings from the VERY SOURCE it links its readers to showing OBVIOUS BIAS.
What Aidid opines about salah relates, and is appropriate AND is applicable. Of course it won't be applicable if you deliberately shut him out using YOUR CRITERIA but then who can trust your criteria? Definitely not anyone who expects you to represent Lanes, right?
I simply said "Quranic" means "of/from or pertaining to Quran". If we substitute "pertain" for the dictionary meanings, we have
"of/from or appropriate/related/applicable to Quran".Oh lovely, now we're back to the question you avoided in my group. So we have your definition '"of/from or appropriate/related/applicable to Quran'. Next question (let me know if I need to put in another coin) - ACCORDING TO WHOM?
Then gave examples, e.g. " if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 434 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran."
Good. what makes YOUR VIEW from Quran, if indeed it is?
Since I said it is not possible to comment on Aidid/Simple in such general terms, you now ask about a specific. You've made some progress. ;D
Thank you so much for your compliment, I'm always looking to progress further. That's why my view is never 'comprehensive' or 'detailed' as some people claim theirs are (although those claims are nothing more than pretexts for authority and can easily fall like a house of cards).
You state
Unlikely, because "salat" seems to be the singular thus cannot mean "commitments". "salawat" is the plural. I have not seen evidence from Quran to the contrary, nor did Aidid supply any. If a person does not supply any evidence from Quran for their chosen meaning then it cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.Are you saying that singular words cannot represent a plural quantity of the signified? What then is a unit of 'zakat' please?
Next question?
Will never come until we fully expose the REAL meanings behind your position )
-
That's why my view is never 'comprehensive' or 'detailed'...
I think that's the most accurate thing you've said so far. ;D I've noticed that about your writings. In fact, I have never read anything written by you which has tackled any subject in the Quran in detail*. Interesting. If you have such works, let us know.
*e.g. discusses every occurrence of a word in Quran.
Since your 3rd question, you have asked 19 follow-up questions! Quite a feat.
Since you stated "You can ask me thousands of questions if you want as long as you address my questions." and seem very keen to ask me many follow-up questions, how about we even things out, e.g. every follow-up Q counts towards our Q&A. That way I can finally move onto asking you Qs without having to wait for you to move on after asking many follow-ups - what say you?
-
I think that's the most accurate thing you've said so far. ;D I've noticed that about your writings. In fact, I have never read anything written by you which has tackled any subject in the Quran in detail*. Interesting. If you have such works, let us know. [
*e.g. discusses every occurrence of a word in Quran.Thanks. My works are notes. I make them with the meaning to return to them to enrich them in the future.
Please show proof that discussing every occurence of a WORD shows a detailed or comprehensive study.
Since your 3rd question, you have asked 19 follow-up questions! Quite a feat.
As I said, this is not Sesame Street. If you don't want to continue, I fully understand.
Since you stated "You can ask me thousands of questions if you want as long as you address my questions." and seem very keen to ask me many follow-up questions, how about we even things out, e.g. every follow-up Q counts towards our Q&A. That way I can finally move onto asking you Qs without having to wait for you to move on after asking many follow-ups - what say you?
Sure, ask as many as you like. I am here for this thread here and I will gladly indulge you in discussion in return. Fire away as many as you like.
-
So question still remaining Is your view from the Quran or Quranic and if so, why?
-
I make them with the meaning to return to them to enrich them in the future.
Sounds a bit like what I often write in my articles, e.g.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
This work reflects my personal understanding, as of X date. Seeking knowledge is a continual process and I will try to improve my understanding of the signs within 'the reading' (al quran) and out with it, unless The God wills otherwise. All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible 1736, 20114, 3528, 496, 5811.
I like to add disclaimers such as the above in my works. Some dont add such things to their writings, e.g. you.
Please show proof that discussing every occurence of a WORD shows a detailed or comprehensive study.
It's simple really, I'm using the standard dictionary definitions of the words "detailed" and "comprehensive". If you are of the view not analysing all occurrences of a word in Quran is "comprehensive"/"detailed" that's fine.
But thanks for clarifying you have never written anything that could be classed as detailed/comprehensive on any subject in the entire Quran in your many years of studying it.
So question still remaining Is your view from the Quran or Quranic and if so, why?
I need a specific.
-
Sounds a bit like what I often write in my articles, e.g.
I like to add disclaimers such as the above in my works. Some dont add such things to their writings, e.g. you.
I do add 'please comment and criticise' when I remember but yeah, not always. At the same time, I also don't attack and harass people if they fail to respond to me. Some people do, they shall remain nameless of course as my lawyers have advised me D
It's simple really, I'm using the standard dictionary definitions of the words "detailed" and "comprehensive". If you are of the view not analysing all occurrences of a word in Quran is "comprehensive"/"detailed" that's fine.
No it's not simple, really. I asked you for PROOF that studying a particular WORD (lets say 'darb' in ALL occurences makes a study detailed or comprehensive. Proof here means from the Quran.
But thanks for clarifying you have never written anything that could be classed as detailed/comprehensive on any subject in the entire Quran in your many years of studying it.
Of course, anyone who thinks they CAN write in detail and comprehensively about the Quran are delusional and often prone to assert themselves as authorities. I am no authority. I drink from the Quranic fountain from my own subjective bias as you do as well.
Please don't forget about the quranic proof that studying a WORD in all occurences makes a comprehensive study. I await your evidence.
I need a specific.
On 4/34 and even more specifically, idribuhunna.
