Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
-
Peace All.
What is it that makes us, humans, repeat the same mistakes our ancestors ( past generations) did?
God keeps sending " One unifying message"
2352
Such is your congregation - one congregation - and I am your Lord; you shall reverence Me.And what do we do
2353
But they tore themselves into disputing factions; each party happy with what they have.Are we ever going to learn?
Qoranists, hadithers, 19 ers, mish mash... all sects are divisive!
God has one name for His people " Believers". What I quoted was from a sura called " Al -Muminun", this is no coicidence.
Are you ever going to " repent" from idolising individuals/ groups....
Unite behind the message your Creator sent GOD ALONE!
Peace.
-
This thread was interesting before it turned into a debate about the personalities of Farouk/Wakas, and who insulted whom.
Like I wrote in some other thread; people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, and they do.
People do not have the right to make demonstrably false or unsupported claims to truth without constructive criticism from those who know better.Lots of self-proclaimed "muslims" have very strong personal opinions about truth/morality, and go to great lengths to re-interpret the Quran until it seemingly supports these opinions, rather than honestly asking themselves if their own personal views on morality/truth have any actual merit according to God. In my opinion it matters little whether Quranic re-interpretation happens with the help of hadith, numerology, using only selected verses as justification, or by taking large liberties with the structure and words of the Arabic language itself - none of these approaches are submissive in nature, and are driven by man's desire to feel "in the right" rather than finding truth.
In the meantime, truth and morality remain what they are, despite man's best efforts to the contrary. Anything believed in that is not objective reality is delusion, no matter how popular or newfangled these delusions are.
-
Whilst I appreciate members offering their input on this thread etc, it was requested not to reply in this thread.
In any case, I want to pick up on one point
However, I find Wakas's latest article on Sujud and Al Masjid Al Haram to be seriously lacking in evidence to support his conclusions. And his translations of the Arabic verses border on the ridiculous.
My article on "sujud" has been publicly online for almost 2 years, yet you have never said anything to the contrary about it. Threads were created for both the sujud and AMAH articles, thus if you have evidence for your above claims, then please post them on those threads, thanks. I'd be very interested to read your evidence, if you have any.
-
Farouk,
It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous / false statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise. Same for any misleading / derogatory remarks.
You did not do the above. In fact, you simply added more to the list.
Interestingly you claim "I did not lie about anything nor mislead. If you feel I did, let us debate each point." - when there is no need to debate slander etc, all that is required is to request evidence of the slander. Very simple.
Your case has now been referred to FM admin for group decision. A decision that I will not participate in, contrary to your, yet more, slanderous statement of "You will then be judge, jury and executioner and remove me from repeating my questions to you.".
This thread has been temporarily locked, pending decision.
-
Here are the three questions filtered from my previous 6.
-
How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is a 'noun' and a 'verb'? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.
-
How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is the function of Form 8 or any other form at all? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.
-
Wakas said 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. WHY is it fallacious?
Also, kindly don't forget the other thread where we are now measuring
quranic grammar. That is only my second question and I have already answered three of yours.I hope we can continue this now but if we can't, that's perfectly understandable as well.
-
-
Farouk,
Forum rules http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0
We may now continue.
Here are the three questions filtered from my previous 6.
- How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is a 'noun' and a 'verb'? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.
You asked similar in your own thread, see my reply #8
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604460.0
If you need to further define the words/parameters of your question, please do so there.- How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is the function of Form 8 or any other form at all? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.
If you wish to ask this as a question in your own thread, please do so. Nowhere did I state what my position/view was on this.
WHY is it fallacious?
Dictionary
fal?la?cious
adjective/flSHs/Based on a mistaken belief
- fallacious arguments
Web definitions
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"
based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information
(fallacy) a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning
In other words, what your mate said may or may not be correct. Further, your choice of source for this information is rather poor, as simply being able to speak Arabic does not indicate anything about accuracy with regards to the question posed, e.g. method they used to determine singular/plural, comparison of Quran occurrences, testable/falsifiable method (if any) etc.
You used what your mate said as a basis from which to work from. -
You asked similar in your own thread, see my reply #8
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604460.0
If you need to further define the words/parameters of your question, please do so there.Great. Please attend to my thread when you have the time please.
If you wish to ask this as a question in your own thread, please do so. Nowhere did I state what my position/view was on this
Good. However, you did relate this to the 'quality' of my analysis. What were you insinuating by this please?
In other words, what your mate said may or may not be correct. Further, your choice of source for this information is rather poor, as simply being able to speak Arabic does not indicate anything about accuracy with regards to the question posed, e.g. method they used to determine singular/plural, comparison of Quran occurrences, testable/falsifiable method (if any) etc.
You used what your mate said as a basis from which to work from.How did you jump from fallacious to 'may or may not be correct'? Even your own definition doesn't say that. Presumably you know what 'fallacious' means or are you confusing it with 'fallible'?
'Basis' is a very strong word. I prefer to call it 'raw material'. Arabic is a living language and Arabs, in my experience, understand the vast majority of Quranic words although I believe their understanding is rooted erroneously. Nevertheless, their use of those words is effective, it is a living experience. So how is it fallacious? If it was fallacious, their own communication system would collapse.
Since you deem it fallacious, please propose an alternative method in detail. Thanks.
-
What were you insinuating by this please?
No more than what I said previously.
How did you jump from fallacious to 'may or may not be correct'? Even your own definition doesn't say that. Presumably you know what 'fallacious' means or are you confusing it with 'fallible'?
'Basis' is a very strong word. I prefer to call it 'raw material'. Arabic is a living language and Arabs, in my experience, understand the vast majority of Quranic words although I believe their understanding is rooted erroneously. Nevertheless, their use of those words is effective, it is a living experience. So how is it fallacious? If it was fallacious, their own communication system would collapse.
Since you deem it fallacious, please propose an alternative method in detail. Thanks.
See my previous reply. If you wish to ask me for an alternative or whatever, please do so on your own thread.
And lastly, if you wish to use "raw material" that is fine. It would then seem you are using something else to determine if this "raw material" (grammar singular/plural) is correct or not, and that would be intra-Quran comparison.
In other words, what I use.
-
No more than what I said previously.
Sorry, is this an answer? You said that it shows 'quality' of my work. What does this mean exactly? Does conformity to this show my work to be of a high or low quality? Kindly be explicit please.
See my previous reply. If you wish to ask me for an alternative or whatever, please do so on your own thread.
Will do, a list of questions grows there. Thanks for answering it.
And lastly, if you wish to use "raw material" that is fine. It would then seem you are using something else to determine if this "raw material" (grammar singular/plural) is correct or not, and that would be intra-Quran comparison.
In other words, what I use.
It's not what you use at all. What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar which you then back up by selective quotations of the Quran, if I am ALLOWED to opine, that is. The Quran is not the criteria here at all. If it was, you would look at more than just verses but passages and indeed whole chapters.
-
Kindly be explicit please.
And as for 2, you said "The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16)." To which I said "As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves". Feel free to actually read what I said. My point in highlighting this was you seem to be taking it other than what corpus says, which is fine, but I like to point it out for the reader so they know exactly the "quality" of evidence you bring.
It's not what you use at all. What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar which you then back up by selective quotations of the Quran, if I am ALLOWED to opine, that is. The Quran is not the criteria here at all. If it was, you would look at more than just verses but passages and indeed whole chapters.
Once you define your words, we shall test what you claim about my work/method...
What do you mean by "UNCRITICAL"? Please elaborate with regards to "Arabic terms and grammar".
Please define what you mean by "passages".
Thanks.
-
Once you define your words, we shall test what you claim about my work/method...
What do you mean by "UNCRITICAL"? Please elaborate with regards to "Arabic terms and grammar".
Please define what you mean by "passages".
Thanks.
Sure, your works display a disregard for the contextual 'feel' of the text. They are simply throwing words in from the dictionary to see what fits. They assume objectivity on the part of the lexicographer. In that way, they are UNCRITICAL.
A 'passage' in this context refers to a collection of verses which gives a coherent meaning.
-
When one reads the context, there is an emerging theme which concords with the flow the ayat. This is something missing from your analysis.
-
Thanks for clarifying.
You said
What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar which you then back up by selective quotations of the Quran, if I am ALLOWED to opine, that is. The Quran is not the criteria here at all. If it was, you would look at more than just verses but passages and indeed whole chapters.
You then clarified
Sure, your works display a disregard for the contextual 'feel' of the text. They are simply throwing words in from the dictionary to see what fits. They assume objectivity on the part of the lexicographer. In that way, they are UNCRITICAL.
A 'passage' in this context refers to a collection of verses which gives a coherent meaning.
When one reads the context, there is an emerging theme which concords with the flow the ayat. This is something missing from your analysis.
So let's address them one by one
You said "What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar..."
Firstly, I use multiple sources for my grammar information. This allows me to check what one source states with other sources. If I was uncritical I'd simply adopt what was said without cross-referencing. But let's say they all or most agree on something, The Quran is my ultimate criterion, and I have demonstrated this with regards to "Arabic terms and grammar" multiple times, e.g.
-
in my works, I very frequently cite roots of words so they can be looked up in Quran and even provide links to look up these roots in Quran. In fact, I do this more than any author who writes works on Quran, that I know of at least.
-
I very rarely cite resources for readers to check which are by Traditional grammarians. Sure, I discuss them from time to time, but since I cite Quran resources most frequently for verification, it is rather obvious what I'm placing emphasis on.
-
I have often went against or proposed something most, and sometimes all, grammarians/resources do not say, e.g. in Quran434.com I point out whenever DRB is used with preposition "bi" it means a physical hit/strike. AFAIK no grammarian or resource says that.
Similarly, in my masjid study, I concluded it means "time of sjd" and whilst grammarians may cite that as a possibility, none seem to advocate that.
In my al masjid al haram study, I cite MKK to mean "crowding" and not a proper noun as all Traditional grammarians take it as, and I cite links to free-minds discussions showing why I did so, which critique the traditional grammarian views.
You said I do not consider chapter themes, contexts, and passages (i..e collection of verses).
In my study method
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html
I state "Does my understanding conflict with another part of its message?
If so, it must be rejected. This includes the meaning of words, specific rulings, its general principles and limits. Cross-reference of words and subjects becomes a must.6114, 12111, 1590-91, 1789, 1689, 1854, 3927 - try to utilise and appreciate its complete system of concepts.
734-5 - in order to receive a weighty or profound word or saying, we need to arrange the likenesses in The Quran, e.g. cross-reference concepts/words/topics.
123, 1854, 1789, 7176, 12111 - look to its internal examples, stories within it give us lessons, it is a clarification for all things.
In my series on sujud I cite contexts of almost all occurrences.
In my latest article I even discuss chapter theme, quote
This would serve to explain the whole content of chapter 17, which is a series of stories about messengership, and warnings, reasons for rejection, destruction of rejecting/deviant communities, paradigm shifts and God's will coming to pass. Hence likely why 172 uses "Choose no guardian/protector besides Me".
Some recurrent themes of the surrounding context in chapter 2 are that it is not the mere profession of a creed but righteous conduct that is proper, and the repeated exemplars of Abraham and to follow his creed, is something the believers had in common with the people of the book, placing an emphasis on unity. The believers utilising what Abraham followed and did as the blueprint for their future direction and ultimately success. These themes could explain the placement of these verses.
Even though each chapter containing a theme is an assumption, I tend to agree that seems to be the case.
So, to conclude, your assertions about my method/works is actually baseless. Please see above evidence.
What you could say is that perhaps I do not do it to the extent you'd like or I should do more often etc but that is different.
-
-
My next question for you
Re your blog post on 2196
I stated Translates ?mahilla? as ?place of effectiveness? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.Abbreviations
NQCR = no Quran cross-reference
NQE = no Quranic evidence
NCADR = no classical Arabic dictionary referenceQuestion
Can you provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice? -
I see 'uhilla' (5/1) as 'made available' and 'wahlul uqdatan min lisaani' as to remove impediments and to make speech effective. Therefor a 'mahilla' is a place where the hadya becomes effective.
-
I see 'uhilla' (5/1) as 'made available' and 'wahlul uqdatan min lisaani' as to remove impediments and to make speech effective. Therefor a 'mahilla' is a place where the hadya becomes effective.
"uhilla" ---> made available
"hlul" ---> to remove
"mahilla" ---> place where X becomes effectiveThanks for providing something, but I dont see much logic/reason behind the above, but that could be me. Interestingly you imply "hlul" in "wahlul uqdatan min lisaani" means "to remove", then for "mahilla" it is "place where X becomes effective" when "effective" seems to be the result of "hlul" in your example not the actual meaning of the word. A bit like using "Jim punched Bob and rendered him unconscious" then saying a derivative of punched, i.e. mahilla, means "place where X becomes unconscious". Bit of a leap if you ask me.
But as I said, could just be me. At the end of the day, it is all about putting evidence on the table, to allow others to weigh and consider.
-
Yes, this is what comes from a monodimensional logic. Instead of absorbing 'ahlul UQDAT', you simply disgested 'ahlul'. It's like doing a jigsaw puzzle and putting pieces of a colour together and saying 'this is the picture'.
-
I should clarify what I said earlier
"....when "effective" seems to be the result of "hlul" in your example not the actual meaning of the word. .."
should be
""....when "effective" seems to be a result of "hlul" in your example not the actual meaning of the word. .."Of course, this renders what you said even more of a leap, as you simply chose to focus on one possible result of the word. There could be others "flowing/eloquent/pleasant-sounding/articulate/accurate" etc.
