Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
-
The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal) and so I chose to lift the metaphorical process projected by the word and apply it to my interpretation of the verse.
Rather than stating something unevidenced, what I asked for was actual evidence either something from Quran or classical arabic dictionaries.
Please try again.
-
Are you denying 'raas' is used metaphorically? Does your wealth have literal heads?
Oh, to keep up your record of answering all my questions, I'm still waiting for proof of 'Form 8'.
-
Perhaps you do not understand what the word "evidence" means. Please see
ev?i?dence
noun/evdns/
evidences, pluralThe available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
You said "The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal)"
I didn't see any reference cited there, only what seems like an opinion.
Definition
o?pin?ion
noun/pinyn/
opinions, pluralA view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
I am not saying what you said is not stated anywhere, what I am asking for is evidence. So readers of the forum can see where you get your understandings from. Let's see if they are Quran based or not. Please cite the reference.
Oh, to keep up your record of answering all my questions, I'm still waiting for proof of 'Form 8'.
My reference was cited. If you disregard the grammar information on corpus.quran.com then simply state so for all to see.
Once again, let me ask my very simple question
Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?
-
You said "The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal)"
I didn't see any reference cited there, only what seems like an opinion.
Oh sorry, you keep on about your 'comprehensive' study of 2/196 in facebook so I assumed it would include the word 'raas'. 'Ru'uus amwalikum' is mentioned in 2/279 and when I said 'raas al-amwaal' above, I thought you'd know about it.
I guess your study wasn't comprehensive after all and therefore nor were your translations 'Quranic' huh? Oh except that it PERTAINS to the Quran, of course.
My reference was cited. If you disregard the grammar information on corpus.quran.com then simply state so for all to see.
I asked you for QURANIC evidence that the yafta3ala means what you say it means. I guess your grammar doesn't REALLY come from the Quran. You use the word Quranic grammar to pass off your opinions as authoritative but really they are simply OPINIONS (glad you defined it for me above, btw) about Quranic words.
Yes, if you cared to read my respose to corpus above, I said
Maybe for those who uncritically accept this form stuff (and STILL claim the Quran is their furqan, lol) . I DON'T.
So I will repeat my question for you - WHERE IS THE QURANIC EVIDENCE FOR THIS? Does the Quran support your view or not? If not, be HONEST and say it's opinion ABOUT the form, one of MANY opinions. Have you actually studied morphology or what?
Also, don't forget my thread. Still waiting for your response there about 'quranic grammar' (or pertaining to, hehe)....
-
Let me repeat my question for the nth time
Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?
I assume you are not visually impaired, and can thus see that there are two parts to the above question. In case you have difficulty, I will colour code it for you
Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?
Please note I will not repeat my question any further.
-
No, raas is SINGULAR. In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness) , the plural version 'ru'us' is given.
Now I will repeat my question where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?
-
No, raas is SINGULAR. In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness) , the plural version 'ru'us' is given.
Thanks for actually making some mention with regard to the singular/plural issue. It only took asking you multiple times.
Unfortunately, your answer seems to be confused. Let me refresh your memory in response to your blog post on 2196 I wrote a critique, and in this critique I wrote
- Translates ?raas? as ?thought? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
Again, choosing an unusual word choice is fine if it can be backed up with some sort of reasoning/evidence, but you present none. Furthermore, it is plural, not singular.
Thus my question of "Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural..." is in regard to your reference of "thought" in 2196.
"thought" is singular. In 2196 "raas" is plural, i.e. "ru'us".
Dont worry, you have taken so long to answer you probably forgot what I was originally referring to. That is understandable.
A future tip when engaging in discussion try not to stall so long that you actually forget what the original question was.
;D
- Translates ?raas? as ?thought? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
-
So, to clarify for readers, you seemingly based your view on a metaphorical use of the word in Quran, and this magically allowed you to understand the word in another metaphorical way not referenced in Quran.
flim?sy
adjective/flimz/
flimsier, comparative;flimsiest, superlativeComparatively light and insubstantial; easily damaged, weak and unconvincing
In any case, thanks for clarifying. Now, let's finally move onto what you said...
No, raas is SINGULAR. In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness) , the plural version 'ru'us' is given.
Now I will repeat my question where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?
As I said, if you wish to ask me questions, you have your thread. It is one question at a time each, as per agreed format. I was waiting for you to answer my 3rd question, not me answer your nth question.
However, you seem to persist with this one, so let us test it...
Firstly, you incorrectly state my article on 2196 claimed "comprehensiveness". Please supply evidence with quote. I will even help you out, here is the link
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html
If you cannot provide evidence please correct your statement, if you are humble enough of course.Secondly, you persist and ask "Now I will repeat my question where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?"
Even though I already cited corpus.quran.com, one can use intra-Quran comparison and study all words and all forms, to determine if a pattern is found in their form usage etc. This is what corpus attempts to do. In the other thread, you seem to reject this intra-Quran comparison, but here is the bombshell...
YOU clearly and unequivocally stated "hadiy" is singular, and "ru'us" is plural - but tell us Farouk, how did you determine this?
Please note, since you reject intra-Quran comparison you cannot use that. Do tell us.
This should be interesting.
-
It takes time because your use of language is far too rigid. You have been reading far too many grammar books without actually contemplating the ontology of grammar, that is to say, how it exists and what processes go into its construction. It's literally a grammar school approach to grammar.
Take for example this 'thought' thing. If I said 'philosophical thought', will you think of it as a single thought? I hope not but I'm not so sure.
There is so much more to language than simply cutting and pasting from dictionaries and grammar books.
-
So, to clarify for readers, you seemingly based your view on a metaphorical use of the word in Quran, and this magically allowed you to understand the word in another metaphorical way not referenced in Quran.
What magically? If a word is used metaphorically in one verse, then it could easily be ALL metaphorical. It depends on the thing which you (by your own admission in QRAC) cannot comprehend CONTEXT.
My contextual analysis of the passage tells me that to interpret as literally 'head' there makes no applicational sense and thats what I'm here for, application not conformity to Arabic.
Given your allergy to context, why would I bother about you think? Your unsolicited evaluation has no effect on my opinion. If I needed your evaluation, I would check a dictionary, bury my head in the sand about how dictionaries are formulated, and accept that to be the truth.
No thanks though, you can have that for your work and claim its 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' and accuse people of 'spreading falsehood'. That's what you do best, pretense of objectivity. A few questions and that facade becomes unravelled very easily. The very fact that you accept synonyms shows you don't know how language works so there's no point in worrying about what you think.
Your work is good for one thing though, shaking Traditionalist opinion. I thank you very much for that.
In any case, thanks for clarifying. Now, let's finally move onto what you said...
As I said, if you wish to ask me questions, you have your thread. It is one question at a time each, as per agreed format. I was waiting for you to answer my 3rd question, not me answer your nth question.
If you cant speak clearly and academically, you will face requests for clarification. I suggest you actually study logic instead of quoting logical terms at people. Especially study 'burden of proof'.
However, you seem to persist with this one, so let us test it...
Firstly, you incorrectly state my article on 2196 claimed "comprehensiveness". Please supply evidence with quote. I will even help you out, here is the link
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html
If you cannot provide evidence please correct your statement, if you are humble enough of course.No , this is from facebook. Facebook threads get buried. However, here's one which I can see https//www.facebook.com/groups/quranology/permalink/475643049142838/
Here you claimed a 'detailed analysis' of AMAH. Another absurd description.
Secondly, you persist and ask "Now I will repeat my question where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?"
Even though I already cited corpus.quran.com, one can use intra-Quran comparison and study all words and all forms, to determine if a pattern is found in their form usage etc. This is what corpus attempts to do. In the other thread, you seem to reject this intra-Quran comparison, but here is the bombshell...
BOMBSHELL LOL, oh boy. We do love this drama crap don't we. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. To answer your 'bombshell'
I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles. However, since YOU stand by the meaning given by corpus ABOUT Form 8, YOU must provide Quranic ayat which show that this form unequivocally means what you say. Don't tell me corpus did that. It didn't provide any Quranic proof at all. What it did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.
If you believe corpus used the Quran to justify the use of this form, then it is YOUR DUTY to discover which ayat was used to clearly show how this form works.
So where are the ayat? Don't tell me the process please. DEMONSTRATE the process for 'yahtadoon' to show it means what you say it means.
YOU clearly and unequivocally stated "hadiy" is singular, and "ru'us" is plural - but tell us Farouk, how did you determine this?
Please note, since you reject intra-Quran comparison you cannot use that. Do tell us.
This should be interesting.
I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you do. You analyse one verse without even eliciting WHERE the verse is or what OTHER words could have been used. Your 4/34 analysis goes a long way to show your REAL furqan are the dictionaries and grammar books. There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.
You ignore occurences of words which don't suit you and proclaim the big joke that your work is 'detailed' and 'comprehensive'. Then you actually can't recognise a quranic phrase like raas al-amwal. How on earth were you comprehensive then?! It's all a big joke and I would be content to let sleeping dogs lie but then I needed to test out my theory of language so here we are...
As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine. I have no problem with it. It is of course my subjective reading but no worries, I won't be accusing people who disagree with anything. My reading is for sharing and application, not to gain false authority.
Can we move on to my thread please? I'm gathering some good data here but I do have some very specific questions to ask.
-
Thanks for clarifying. Here is how it went for all to see
From http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604460.0
Farouk "How does one measure grammatical correctness?"
Wakas Intra-Quran comparison.
Farouk What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison?
Wakas It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.
Farouk How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?
When cornered into being exposed as contradictory/hypocritical, he now says
Farouk I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles.
Exposed.
But you dont stop there, you go further
Farouk I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you (Wakas) do.
Thanks for telling me what I accept/reject Mr "I'm against authoritarianism". ;D
But it's not so bad, you can redeem yourself, maybe the above example of hypocrisy/contradiction was a one off. Let's see how you went about checking singular/plural
Farouk As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine.
Earlier
Farouk What it (corpus) did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.Just like you "UNCRITICALLY swallowed" what those Arab speakers told you.
But maybe the above 2nd example of hypocrisy/contradiction is another coincidence, surely there is no icing on the cake?
Farouk There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.
Just like your singular/plural was validated by Arab speakers and their linguistics.
Multiple Double standard / hypocrisy / contradiction.
Oh dear.
After only asking 3 questions. I had 14 more. Oh well.
-
What magically? If a word is used metaphorically in one verse, then it could easily be ALL metaphorical. It depends on the thing which you (by your own admission in QRAC) cannot comprehend CONTEXT.
My contextual analysis of the passage tells me that to interpret as literally 'head' there makes no applicational sense and thats what I'm here for, application not conformity to Arabic.
Given your allergy to context, why would I bother about you think? Your unsolicited evaluation has no effect on my opinion. If I needed your evaluation, I would check a dictionary, bury my head in the sand about how dictionaries are formulated, and accept that to be the truth.
No thanks though, you can have that for your work and claim its 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' and accuse people of 'spreading falsehood'. That's what you do best, pretense of objectivity. A few questions and that facade becomes unravelled very easily. The very fact that you accept synonyms shows you don't know how language works so there's no point in worrying about what you think.
Your work is good for one thing though, shaking Traditionalist opinion. I thank you very much for that.
If you cant speak clearly and academically, you will face requests for clarification. I suggest you actually study logic instead of quoting logical terms at people. Especially study 'burden of proof'.
No , this is from facebook. Facebook threads get buried. However, here's one which I can see https//www.facebook.com/groups/quranology/permalink/475643049142838/
Here you claimed a 'detailed analysis' of AMAH. Another absurd description.
BOMBSHELL LOL, oh boy. We do love this drama crap don't we. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. To answer your 'bombshell'
I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles. However, since YOU stand by the meaning given by corpus ABOUT Form 8, YOU must provide Quranic ayat which show that this form unequivocally means what you say. Don't tell me corpus did that. It didn't provide any Quranic proof at all. What it did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.
If you believe corpus used the Quran to justify the use of this form, then it is YOUR DUTY to discover which ayat was used to clearly show how this form works.
So where are the ayat? Don't tell me the process please. DEMONSTRATE the process for 'yahtadoon' to show it means what you say it means.
I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you do. You analyse one verse without even eliciting WHERE the verse is or what OTHER words could have been used. Your 4/34 analysis goes a long way to show your REAL furqan are the dictionaries and grammar books. There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.
You ignore occurences of words which don't suit you and proclaim the big joke that your work is 'detailed' and 'comprehensive'. Then you actually can't recognise a quranic phrase like raas al-amwal. How on earth were you comprehensive then?! It's all a big joke and I would be content to let sleeping dogs lie but then I needed to test out my theory of language so here we are...
As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine. I have no problem with it. It is of course my subjective reading but no worries, I won't be accusing people who disagree with anything. My reading is for sharing and application, not to gain false authority.
Can we move on to my thread please? I'm gathering some good data here but I do have some very specific questions to ask.
I thought I'd quote it for posterity. It's a classic.
I forgot to say with regard to your "comprehensiveness" claim, I thought you meant my article on 2196. Seems like you slotted in a subject we weren't even discussing. How convenient. But in any case, yes, that is a comprehensive study. If you disagree, please provide a link to an even more comprehensive study on 'al masjid al haram', as I'd like to read it.
-
Wow, you're using this as an argument....REALLY? rotfl I must say, I didn't expect this.
Farouk "How does one measure grammatical correctness?"
Wakas Intra-Quran comparison.
Farouk What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison?
Wakas It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.
Farouk How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?
LOL again you ignore CONTEXT. In the link you quoted, I was speaking of showing words to be nouns or verbs! No intra-Quranic comparison can help you determine noun or verbs because the the Quran DOES NOT MENTION nouns or verbs. Do you understand that because that's a very crucial point - it is LINGUISTS who tel you about nouns and verbs. See the difference - one is THE QURAN, the other is NOT the Quran. It's amazing I need to point out the difference. You have CONFLATED the Quran with linguistic resources....wowwww
About 'yahtadoon', you can easily show me a VERSE in which the meaning you inferred is obvious or even a yafta3ala wazn for another root which infers that. See the difference between the two? One s about ABSENT ideas , the other is NOT.
My god, it's amazing you even failed to understand THIS simple thing! See , this is why I asked you for a face to face debate. In a face to face, these pathetic 'misunderstandings' wont happen. We'll be able to immediately see the issue at hand.
And before you run away from the question again WHERE IS THE QURANIC PROOF OF FORM 8'S FUNCTION? Dont LIE about corpus again please. I asked for an AYA which clearly shows the function of the form. Hope you can actually find it this time.
-
Farouk I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you (Wakas) do.
Thanks for telling me what I accept/reject Mr "I'm against authoritarianism".
But it's not so bad, you can redeem yourself, maybe the above example of hypocrisy/contradiction was a one off. Let's see how you went about checking singular/plural
Wow, you don't even know what authoritariansm is. I can disagree with your views and have a perception of it as you do mine or not but I am no authoritarian. I don't want to suppress your views at all. I even invited you to be part of the Quranist matrix but you want to pretend objectivity even there.
In my group, I allow every kind of quranist opinion whilst you BLOCK people who disagree with you. So get it right , Wakas.
You see, the fact that your furqan is Arabic lingustics doesn't mean I would call you a speader of falsehood like you accused me of or wish to have your works deleted from the internet or applaud that no one reads your work. I believe there is room for people to disagree. I see some measure of correctness of what you do although I find it largely inadequate. You on other hand ATTACK those who refuse to talk to you.
Even if your work is perfect, your fundamentalist attitude would be bad but your work is far from it. It's not even comprehensive.
REDEEM myself? With who? You? I didn't know you were the President of the Tafseer Club. In any case, I didn't expect to reconcile my views with you nor do I care to with anyone. My understanding is for appliction. If you don't like it, move on. No skin off my nose at all. I'm getting exactly what I need from these discussions and my theory is forming well. You can keep your redemption.
-
Farouk As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine.
Earlier
Farouk What it (corpus) did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.Just like you "UNCRITICALLY swallowed" what those Arab speakers told you.
But maybe the above 2nd example of hypocrisy/contradiction is another coincidence, surely there is no icing on the cake?
Nope, I CHECKED it with the context and it works. I stated it in my response which you quoted but could not process. Should I write in smaller sentences, perhaps? It's a shame you need to be DISHONEST to make your point. I learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers but whenever I found their Arabic to against quranic norms, I would reject it - dictionary or grammar book or not.
Arabic is a living language whose effectiveness happens within reality. That's how the Arab world functions. It's not trapped within dead texts which you read (well you don't really, you read TRANSLATIONS of the real CADS dont you, hehe) and from that cut and paste job, you think you got the meaning. Are you seriously this naive, Wakas?
In philosophy of language, that is QUADRUPLE subjectivity. From the subjectivity of the lexicographer who have 700 years after jahiliya hence alienated from their frame of experience (1st subjectivity) to the subjectivity of the socio-political milleu of the post Abbasaid period (2nd) to the subjectivity of Lanes who learnt Arabic within his own personal world-view (3rd) to you coming 150 years plus AFTER Lanes (4th subjectivty). And you consider CADs' authoritative? How superficial can you get? Study some philosophy of language and maybe you'll see the FLIMSY approach you're pushing here.
Remember your slogan evidence from quran OR CADS. It's not 'cads VALIDATED by Quran'. It's 'Quran OR CADS'. Quite amazing...
-
I forgot to say with regard to your "comprehensiveness" claim, I thought you meant my article on 2196. Seems like you slotted in a subject we weren't even discussing. How convenient. But in any case, yes, that is a comprehensive study. If you disagree, please provide a link to an even more comprehensive study on 'al masjid al haram', as I'd like to read it.
LOL, ok brilliant. This is your 'comprehensive study' . Mate, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about going Wahabi on people all the time. Work on your 'comprehensive studies'. Try to look at what IS objective - the text itself. You give so little credence to the text it's appalling that you say your view is 'from the Quran'. It should be 'from the dictionaries and grammar books'. I'd forget 'comprehensive' and work towards 'quranic' unless you're stick t 'pertaining to Quran', of course lol.
I will say one thing though your work is the LONGEST i've encountered. Would you like a prize for that at least? However, the comprehensiveness fails at point one even.
-
I have now already answered your raas issue, however you like the answer or not. I am waiting for my answer about 'quranic grammar' in the other thread. Kindly keep your word )
-
You seem to ramble much, spout ad hominens, but evidence little. I dont mind "ad hominens", as it shows you have no credible argument hence resort to fallacious argument. ;D
When asked for evidence to back up what you said, you've got none. A bit like your Quran understandings. I'm sensing a pattern.
When asked to back-up your claim that I said my article was "comprehensive", you cited another article, not about 2196. Then when asked for a link to something more comprehensive than that, you cited nothing.LOL again you ignore CONTEXT. In the link you quoted, I was speaking of showing words to be nouns or verbs! No intra-Quranic comparison can help you determine noun or verbs because the the Quran DOES NOT MENTION nouns or verbs. Do you understand that because that's a very crucial point - it is LINGUISTS who tel you about nouns and verbs. See the difference - one is THE QURAN, the other is NOT the Quran. It's amazing I need to point out the difference. You have CONFLATED the Quran with linguistic resources....wowwww
Thanks for clarifying what I use "intra-Quran comparison" for is invalid, and when you use it its valid, and you decide what is and is not valid, Mr "I'm against authoritarianism".
I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true". rotfl Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.
I note you did not make mention of my other points where I highlighted your double standards / hypocrisy / contradiction. Telling.
But it's ok, in your hurry to respond, you gave us another example
Farouk I learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers but whenever I found their Arabic to against quranic norms, I would reject it - dictionary or grammar book or not.
Tell us Farouk, how did you determine "Quranic norms"? And remember you cannot use "intra-Quran comparison".
This should be interesting.
-
You seem to ramble much, spout ad hominens, but evidence little. I dont mind "ad hominens", as it shows you have no credible argument hence resort to fallacious argument. ;D
I wouldn't expect you to appreciate the evidence Wakas. Perhaps if I wrote a dictionary and called it 'Classical Arabic Dictionary' then you would blindly accept anything I say. It's laughable really but again, I'm here to gather information about how NOT to do it. By explicating your method , I am slowly beginning to see how the Q transcends historical gaps in order to preserve meaning. So really, keep going. Do what you do best )
When asked for evidence to back up what you said, you've got none. A bit like your Quran understandings. I'm sensing a pattern.
When asked to back-up your claim that I said my article was "comprehensive", you cited another article, not about 2196. Then when asked for a link to something more comprehensive than that, you cited nothing.Yeah, sadly facebook threads get buried as I said. I know what I saw though, you called your 2/196 thing as 'comprehensive'. But look, lets call it what you call it 'a lesson in CRITICAL thinking'. Is is that? I don't think so because if it was, you would know what raas al-maal is. You didn't though so how critical were you? Not at all, I reckon.
Or perhaps you could discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. That was another amusing claim. Choose which you prefer. I don't mind either way.
Thanks for clarifying what I use "intra-Quran comparison" for is invalid, and when you use it its valid, and you decide what is and is not valid, Mr "I'm against authoritarianism".
You can disagree if you like, I won't call you a 'spreader of falsehood' like you do anyone who refuses to talk to you. However, if you had the guts, you would proceed with the demonstration of both
- demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows what's a NOUN and what's a VERB.
- demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows how a yafta3la form is used.
You won't be able to do either (despite your LIE about the corpus) but at least number 2 has a possibility. Number 1 is a non-starter.
Prove me wrong if you can.
I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true". rotfl Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.
BRILLIANT. I'm glad you said that. WHY is it fallacious?
I note you did not make mention of my other points where I highlighted your double standards / hypocrisy / contradiction. Telling.
I did. I answered every single one of your points across five posts. Kindly show me what I didn't answer.
But it's ok, in your hurry to respond, you gave us another example
Tell us Farouk, how did you determine "Quranic norms"? And remember you cannot use "intra-Quran comparison".
Once again, intra-quranic comparison works fine for me. What doesn't work is when you project your artificial classifications ONTO the text. The text doesn't agree what's a noun or what isn't. It does however use words in repetition and that similarity is for us to explore and gain insight from. We build the norms from clear meanings relative to us.
So I await SIX things now
- any accusation I failed to answer
- the demonstration of how to discern nouns and verbs from the Quran
- the demonstration of how to discern yafta3la form from the Quran
- the reason my approach is fallacious
- the answer to the question 'did you check all occurences of raas'. If you did , how did you not know about raas al-maal? If you did not, how did you call your 2/196 write up as 'critical thinking'.
- whether or not you wish to discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. To me it failed to be detailed in point one itself.
I'm gonna keep listing these down because you keep 'forgetting' them. And please don't forget my thread. I have A LOT MORE than 17 points so we're in it for the long haul. Oh I also answered your challenge in the sajda issue where you banged on to Youseff about answering you. We will see if your sajda article holds up to scrutiny as well.
-
As an afterthought, Wakas - I highly recommend you study philosophy of language. It seems you're unable to appreciate the ONTOLOGY of grammar. How grammar come to be and WHY grammar exists. What you're doing is a kindergarten approach. Simply a sing-a-long to whatever grammarians say despite the fact they contradict each other. You simply took whatever the corpus guy told you and deem that's true without ever checking the Quran itself. He is YOUR Dave though I doubt he's ginger.
Another thing is literary theory. This discipline helps us understand the differences between the text and interpretation. Perhaps you'll come to understand the difference between the voice of the author and the reader and how the two interact.
Also the study of Arabic lexicography or in fact, any lexicography. It will help you understand the processes of what makes a dictionary. Perhaps then you won't be a blind follower of what they say without even checking with the underlying theme and purpose of the text.
