Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
-
I never said "deleted", I said "blocked". Please read carefully. All I know is, I posted it to your site but it never appeared. Funny that.
If you are implying my critique would not be blocked from being posted on your site, then please state here clearly and it will be posted on your site for all to see.
If you're talking about quranists.net (which is my SITE), then I don't see where the critique would fit in. If you're talking about quranology.name (which is my BLOG) , then of course. Please post it there. I do believe in free discussion.
Because in my view it fulfils the dictionary definitions of detailed/comprehensive, by incorporating certain things, e.g.
it analyses all occurrences of AMAH (a rather obvious requirement)
it attempts to explain all occurrences
it uses significant Quran cross-reference
it weighs up multiple options, discussing pros/cons for each
it is more in-depth than any other study I have seen on AMAH
it is built upon analyses of sjd and masjidThe very fact you could not link to any work that you'd consider more detailed/comprehensive is telling in my view. Whether one agrees with it or not is another matter.
Just because I can't show a more detailed work, THAT make your work detailed and comprehensive? What kind of logic is that? It's utter nonsense. If you said 'its the most comprehensive view in existece', then maybe but even that is arguable.
Your work analyses WORDS but not SENTENCES let alone PASSAGES. In the opening argument itself, you failed to account for the implications of masjid al-haram and aqsa being in one sentence and why they are there. Why are nuh and musa mentioned immediately after that? what links the two masjids in 17/1 with the masjid 17/7?
What's the point of analysing words if you fail to analyse where the words are and the point of the chapter? Does the Quran speak in words? No it does not. It speaks in AYAT and you don't analyse ayat but rather ripped out phrases at best. 'Comprehensive' is not a fit description for your work notwithstanding the fact that it's the longest there is. Maybe there's an award for that?
-
Repeat question WHO decides what is Quranic?
-
If you're talking about quranists.net (which is my SITE), then I don't see where the critique would fit in. If you're talking about quranology.name (which is my BLOG) , then of course. Please post it there. I do believe in free discussion.
You know fine well what site I'm referring to. It is obviously your blog wherein you made the post on 2196, and the one I link to in my critique
http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/critique/quranology-2196.htmlJust because I can't show a more detailed work, does it make your work detailed and comprehensive? What kind of logic is that? It's utter nonsense.
I never said it does, I said its "telling". Please read carefully (PRC).
If you said 'its the most comprehensive view in existece', then maybe but even that is arguable.
Fine, we can agree on it is the most comprehensive view in existence. Sounds good to me.
Your work analyses WORDS but not SENTENCES let alone PASSAGES. In the opening argument itself, you failed to account for the implications of masjid al-haram and aqsa being in one sentence and why they are there. Why are nuh and musa mentioned immediately after that? what links the two masjids in 17/1 with the masjid 17/7?
Your above claim is laughable (and I actually did laugh a little).
You claim I did not analyse the ayat and/or take into account AMAH being in the same verse as AMAA, when this is clearly and blatantly analysed in the article. PRC. I discuss Moses, but not Nuh as he is mentioned in passing.
what links the two masjids in 17/1 with the masjid 17/7?
I have to ask, are you just wasting my time with your so-called objections/questions to my method/works? Anyone can read what I wrote and see I discuss what you asked, in fact, very clearly
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.htmlInterestingly, the context for 177 is established by the dual mention of "masjid" in 171, and it just so happens to mention "enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time", implying a minimum of two "masjid" are of relevance - coincidence?
I then go onto explain it.
If you cant accept something as simple as that I discuss the link, then there is very little you will accept.
-
You know fine well what site I'm referring to. It is obviously your blog wherein you made the post on 2196, and the one I link to in my critique
http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/critique/quranology-2196.htmlSorry I didn't but sure, if you send it to my blog I will approve it.
I never said it does, I said its "telling". Please read carefully (PRC).
Ah, what was it telling exactly?
Fine, we can agree on it is the most comprehensive view in existence. Sounds good to me.
PRCAIC (Please Read Carefully And In Context). The last phrase reads 'even that is arguable'. Why don't we just say its the most pretentious one?
Your above claim is laughable (and I actually did laugh a little).
Good for you. It shows your level of awareness.
You claim I did not analyse the ayat and/or take into account AMAH being in the same verse as AMAA, when this is clearly and blatantly analysed in the article. PRC. I discuss Moses, but not Nuh as he is mentioned in passing.
I asked you WHY (PRCAIC) AMAH and AMAA in the same aya. Paste the answer here please cuz I can't see it.
You don't discuss musa, you simply asked whether he or Muhammad is the 3abd in 17/1. I am asking you WHY musa is mentioned at all? Show me your answer for that because I can't even smell it, let alone read it.
So if nuh is mentioned in 'passing' (your opinion again), that doesn't make him relevant? Was Allah trying to please nuh by 'simply mentioning him in passing'?
I have to ask, are you just wasting my time with your so-called objections/questions to my method/works? Anyone can read what I wrote and see I discuss what you asked, in fact, very clearly
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
I then go onto explain it.If you feel I am, then feel free to stop answering. There will not be any harassment or attacks from me.
For the record, I think your questions in thread 1 are a remarkable waste of time but for as long as I need you to answer my questions, I will subject myself to answering them.
Interestingly, the context for 177 is established by the dual mention of "masjid" in 171, and it just so happens to mention "enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time", implying a minimum of two "masjid" are of relevance - coincidence?
This is NOT what I asked. I asked why these two are in the SAME aya? PRCAIC.
If you cant accept something as simple as that I discuss the link, then there is very little you will accept.
Simplicity is the disguise you give for passing off your subjective analysis as comprehensive and quranic. It's only 'simple' if one fails to interrogate your method and assumptions effectively. The fact is, you overlooked SEVERAL factors at the very outset.
How you answer my three questions above will show how 'simple' things are
-
WHY are AMAH and AMAA mentioned in the same aya. This only happens ONCE in the Q. Why here?
-
Why is musa mentioned immediately after? I'm not interested if it was him or muhammad. I am asking WHY HE IS MENTIONED. PRCAIC.
-
Why is nuh mentioned there, however in passing?
How can your analysis be comprehensive unless you analyse the whole passage with every constituent of that passage? And that's the only the START, Wakas. I have TONS more points to make about your AMAH work. We're gonna be here a long time indeed
-
-
Repeat question WHO decides what is Quranic?
-
Generally speaking, the person whom you are asking the question to.
Fantastic. Bear that relativity in mind when people disagree with you.
Next question I have now written a critique of your AMAH views. Will you extend the same courtesy and link to my critique since you have posted your critique on my post on 2/196?
-
Next question I have now written a critique of your AMAH views. Will you extend the same courtesy and link to my critique since you have posted your critique on my post on 2/196?
By "extend the same courtesy" do you mean ignore your critique, then block it being posted for months, then once posted make a false statement about it in response? In other words, do what you did?
-
By "extend the same courtesy" do you mean ignore your critique, then block it being posted for months, then once posted make a false statement about it in response? In other words, do what you did
NOT ONCE did I delete your posts in the places you answered your my group. I have a right to ignore anything I wish though, I didn't like your attitude (still don't) and guessed quite correctly that discussion with you would be negatively charged. However, I need to test my ideas somewhere so here I am
However, I NEVER suppressed your posts. See the difference? I'm sure you have your own ethics on the matter. It probably goes something like this
I have a right to harass and force people to answer me and force my way into their blogs.
People have no right to ask their critiques to be linked to me since my works are (lol) comprehensive and therefore no further word on it needs to be said.
Brilliant.
I never blocked your critique in my blog. As soon as you mentioned it I said 'ok', you posted it, I approved'. If you say it was blocked, kindly speak with EVIDENCE or it will be deemed as SLANDER and I will complain to the biased moderators because I like doing pointless things.
My statement isn't false. Your critiques HAVE been answered and also are being answered. They're not really problematic critiques. In fact, tell you what, why not post the whole thing at once? Get it over and done with. Then we can talk about (as you suggested) discussion on verifiability and meaning? I am waiting for that philosophical discussion with great eagerness.
So what say you, Wakas? Will your ego allow for your views to be challenged? Surely my poor, unfounded research cannot threaten YOU, the man whose contribution to Quranic studies is unparelled (Allahumma salli alaik) and whose work is so comprehensive that guys in the Quran who are mentioned in passing are ignored (maybe cuz they're not needed anymore, lol). Didn't see the 'abd' link there though, did you? hehe...
-
correction the first sentence should read 'NOT ONCE did I delete your posts which critique my blog posts.
-
...and guessed quite correctly that discussion with you would be negatively charged.
That usually happens when you fill it with false/misleading/baseless/derogatory/slanderous statements.
However, I NEVER suppressed your posts. See the difference? I'm sure you have your own ethics on the matter. It probably goes something like this
I have a right to harass and force people to answer me and force my way into their blogs.
People have no right to ask their critiques to be linked to me since my works are (lol) comprehensive and therefore no further word on it needs to be said.
Brilliant.
I never blocked your critique in my blog. As soon as you mentioned it I said 'ok', you posted it, I approved'. If you say it was blocked, kindly speak with EVIDENCE or it will be deemed as SLANDER and I will complain to the biased moderators because I like doing pointless things.
"force" their way into blogs do I? I never realised clicking "post a comment" button on a blog was forcing my way in, unless there is something else to it. But you are right, I cannot prove you blocked it, since I do not routinely keep screenshot evidence of blog posts I make, so I will retract that statement.
Amusingly, you claim slander then in the same sentence make a slanderous statement about moderators. At least you are consistent, that's one thing you've got going for you.
My statement isn't false.
It is.
In fact, tell you what, why not post the whole thing at once? Get it over and done with. Then we can talk about (as you suggested) discussion on verifiability and meaning? I am waiting for that philosophical discussion with great eagerness.
So what say you, Wakas?
I dont know why you pretend you are not aware of the critique questions when you have known about them all for months. If you wish to answer them in one go, feel free.
If you are indeed eager to begin that discussion, simply keep your statements accurate, this would waste less time and move on the discussion more quickly. Simple.
-
That usually happens when you fill it with false/misleading/baseless/derogatory/slanderous statements.
I am referring to my ORIGINAL post on 2/196 on which you HARASSED me to answer in two separate fb groups till I had to warn you privately. In this original post, I didn't mention anyone so 'derogatory/slanderous' do not apply. Only ' false/misleading/baseless' is left. So you're basically saying if a person writes ' false/misleading/baseless' stuff, you're allowed to harass them till they answer you??????
Wow...seriously, WOW. I'm glad you're not in charge otherwise the stock of piano wires would go sky high. I tell you what though, your kind of approach is seriously detrimental to quranist islam. It's sad you choose this route.
And dude, you can't even cover all the angles in ONE passage in your analysis of AMAH. And I have only BARELY BEGUN to criticise it. I suggest you fix this unquranic attitude of yours and focus on your own work. Be critical all you want but be NICE about it. If people don't want to talk to you, don't force them. That's the stuff Islamofascists do.
"force" their way into blogs do I? I never realised clicking "post a comment" button on a blog was forcing my way in, unless there is something else to it. But you are right, I cannot prove you blocked it, since I do not routinely keep screenshot evidence of blog posts I make, so I will retract that statement.
The harassment implies the force.
Amusingly, you claim slander then in the same sentence make a slanderous statement about moderators. At least you are consistent, that's one thing you've got going for you.
I have PMs from a moderator who told me straight out, I have no right to ask about the effect of my complaint. What more needs to be said?
It is.
One way to solve it. Field all your other questions in one go.
I dont know why you pretend you are not aware of the critique questions when you have known about them all for months. If you wish to answer them in one go, feel free.
Sure, I await your next questions.
If you are indeed eager to begin that discussion, simply keep your statements accurate, this would waste less time and move on the discussion more quickly. Simple.
Great. Lets do it. Remember the format please.
Repeat question Will you allow my critiques to be linked in your pages? If you won't its ok, lets just hear it so everyone can see what kind of game you're playing
-
I am referring to my ORIGINAL post on 2/196 on which you HARASSED me to answer in two separate fb groups till I had to warn you privately. In this original post, I didn't mention anyone so 'derogatory/slanderous' do not apply. Only ' false/misleading/baseless' is left. So you're basically saying if a person writes ' false/misleading/baseless' stuff, you're allowed to harass them till they answer you??????
Wow...seriously, WOW. I'm glad you're not in charge otherwise the stock of piano wires would go sky high. I tell you what though, your kind of approach is seriously detrimental to quranist islam. It's sad you choose this route.
And dude, you can't even cover all the angles in ONE passage in your analysis of AMAH. And I have only BARELY BEGUN to criticise it. I suggest you fix this unquranic attitude of yours and focus on your own work. Be critical all you want but be NICE about it. If people don't want to talk to you, don't force them. That's the stuff Islamofascists do.
fomob
I have PMs from a moderator who told me straight out, I have no right to ask about the effect of my complaint. What more needs to be said?
Your slanderous statement said "biased" not about not being given information. They are different. I recommend looking up a dictionary.
Next question I have now written a critique of your AMAH views. Will you extend the same courtesy and link to my critique since you have posted your critique on my post on 2/196?
As I said I will extend the same "courtesy" as you did me. However, my site is not a blog where people can post comments. However, I frequently create threads for my articles here. You can post your critique there. I have already told you about such critique, it is up to you to avoid slander, fomob content therein. Generally, I do not promote fomob content.
-
fomob
Which parts are 'f' , 'm' and 'b' ? Show me please.
Your slanderous statement said "biased" not about not being given information. They are different. I recommend looking up a dictionary
.Dictionary huh? Typical.....
The bias is IN not being given information. You complain, results happen. I complain, zip happens. THAT is bias. You guys run a mafia here where people who don't conform get whacked. I've seen this set up being tried in my fb group but it wont happen. You can take your elitist crap elsewhere.
As I said I will extend the same "courtesy" as you did me. However, my site is not a blog where people can post comments. However, I frequently create threads for my articles here. You can post your critique there. I have already told you about such critique, it is up to you to avoid slander, fomob content therein. Generally, I do not promote fomob content.
It's nothing to do with fomob, it's to do with your unwillingness to be exposed. I figure you'd use very excuse in the book to get out of it and I don't blame you either. You've built such a sentinel like persona for yourself that having your 'comprehensive' thing shown to be utter nonsense can't be fun. I never expected you to extend anything, Wakas. No worries. Thanks for exposing yourself though.
And no worries, I hope I'm not sad enough to have to chase you across cyberspace just to show what a sham you are. If people find it on my blog, good for them. If not, no skin off my nose.
-
You seem not to understand what is written, either by yourself or others.
You apparently cannot see fomob in what you write till I (and SofA one time) have to waste time and point it out to you.
Well, how about we make it beneficial rather than it being a waste of my time - how about for each fomob you have written, as I will highlight, you donate a certain ? to charity, e.g. ?25. Proof can be sent to my pm, e.g. screenshot proof of donation confirmation page.
If you claim it is not about fomob, which in my view you have drenched your posts in, this proposal should be no problem.
-
I think its YOU who fails to understand. If you claim it's fomob lets debate every single point again.
That's why I told you long ago, lets have a FACE TO FACE debate. In a face to face, people who are evasive and deceptive automatically get exposed and shown for what they really are. Behind the screen, people can pretend not to understand, forget or overlook the question. In person, their body language will show their true selves.
Whatever little ihsaan I do, it's not for the benefit of YOUR ego,Wakas. I don't submit to your judgement of fomob. Fortunately, your sphere of control ends when one leaves this forum. Otherwise it'd be the age of the 4th Reich.
-
I think its YOU who fails to understand. If you claim it's fomob lets debate every single point again.
If you are confident there is very little fomob in what you have written, you'd have no problem accepting my proposal.
Generally, I find when people have to "put your money where your mouth is" (as the saying goes) their true colours show, and in your case, you ran away. Exposed.
That's why I told you long ago, lets have a FACE TO FACE debate. In a face to face, people who are evasive and deceptive automatically get exposed and shown for what they really are. Behind the screen, people can pretend not to understand, forget or overlook the question. In person, their body language will show their true selves.
You seem to think face to face is the pinnacle of information exchange or debate. It's not, go ask any peer reviewed journal or academics on where they get their reliable information from face to face debates or other sources. Face to face is more of a show, whilst careful and reasoned discussion is much more accurate. Cheaper too.
-
If you are confident there is very little fomob in what you have written, you'd have no problem accepting my proposal.
Generally, I find when people have to "put your money where your mouth is" (as the saying goes) their true colours show, and in your case, you ran away. Exposed.
So the way for me to prove myself is to submit to YOUR judgements of fomob.
You, the guy who ACCUSES me of fomob wants me to be JUDGED by you. Spoken like a TRUE SUNNI MULLAH. They accuse you of blasphemy by THEIR laws and they put you in THEIR COURTROOM with THIER judge. Grow a beard, trim your trouser cuffs but don't worry, at least your quran-ripping skills can't be improved further. They don't read full ayat either.
Can you see how ludicrous your suggestion is or do I need to type in one word sentences for you to get it?
You seem to think face to face is the pinnacle of information exchange or debate. It's not, go ask any peer reviewed journal or academics on where they get their reliable information from face to face debates or other sources. Face to face is more of a show, whilst careful and reasoned discussion is much more accurate. Cheaper too.
Of course, this is where your tricks wont wash. If you pretend to not understand like you do here, the audience will explain it to you. Here behind the screen whatever doesn't suit you, you'll just ignore. And it will show as well from physical cues. But its ok keep hiding here and suppress whatever information doesn't suit you. It's what you do best.
You may consider yourself free from the responsibility of answering my questions about your AMAH analysis. We both know it won't come anyway. Intellectual cowardice works better behind the screen. Just keep up your shambolic claims of being 'comprehensive' and 'quranic' and pretend like you're an authority. I'm done here. I'm going back to place you're unable to get to - positive quranic discussion.
-
In terms of proving fomob it's simple. I am using the standard dictionary definition of "evidence". Here is a simple example you might understand
Farouk says Wakas says X
Wakas asks please provide evidence I said X.
Farouk either provides evidence via quote or does not.
If not ---> fomob
It's really simple.
