Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
-
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.
-
I do add 'please comment and criticise' when I remember but yeah, not always.
You did block my critique commentary from being posted on your blog though. Is this an example of you deliberately manipulating the information readers of your blog view? Yes/No. ;D
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.
I assume the author of Quran wants us to read all of it, ergo, every occurrence of a word, ergo, analyse its every occurrence. Are you implying otherwise?
And once again, I am using the dictionary definitions of "detailed" and "comprehensive".
On 4/34 and even more specifically, idribuhunna.
Yes, because I based my answer on Quran and provided evidence from it for the case I put forward. However, that does not mean you or others will also consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.
In the example you gave from Aidid's work he did not provide any evidence whatsoever from Quran that "salat" is "commitments" (plural). However, that does not mean you or others cant consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.
-
You did block my critique commentary from being posted on your blog though. Is this an example of you deliberately manipulating the information readers of your blog view? Yes/No. ;D
What? I don't know what you're talking about. None of your posts have been deleted from anywhere.
I assume the author of Quran wants us to read all of it, ergo, every occurrence of a word, ergo, analyse its every occurrence. Are you implying otherwise?
No, I'm not implying otherwise. Kindly read the question carefully. I asked you, does analysing every occurence of a word makes one's analysis comprehensive?
Lets try this another way Your AMAH analysis is detailed and comprehensive. Why do you deem it so?
Yes, because I based my answer on Quran and provided evidence from it for the case I put forward. However, that does not mean you or others will also consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.
Well Aidid based his answer on the Quran too, its on a quranic word according to his understanding JUST LIKE YOU. So by that definition, he is as quranic as you are.
In the example you gave from Aidid's work he did not provide any evidence whatsoever from Quran that "salat" is "commitments" (plural). However, that does not mean you or others cant consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.
Great, so now we get to the heart of the matter - who decides what is Quranic?
-
What? I don't know what you're talking about. None of your posts have been deleted from anywhere.
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.
Lets try this another way Your AMAH analysis is detailed and comprehensive. Why do you deem it so?
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.
-
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.
