discussion on PRL
-
To me, another question is Are lexicons and grammar devoid of subjective bias?
Have a look at WAKAS'S OWN Project Root List, entry for 'sittah' (seen ta ta) or commonly translated as 'six'. EVEN Lane's whose page is linked to it has other meanings which Wakas's entry OMITS. Why? Ostensibly because Wakas did not believe in those meanings. THis is how meanings get lost. And that's just Lanes. Take a look at Raghib or Ibn Faris, there are TONS of meanings.
Same case with PRL's 'arba3' or 'four' (ra ayn ba). Lanes has TONS of meanings, PRL only notes down the 4-related ones. Obvious bias.
Lexicons and grammar are the new Sunnism but touted by quranists. They are no different from using hadith the way Sunnis do.
-
I will nor try to change your mind or try to get you to see it the way that I see it. The suggestion I had made in my last post is aimed at those people who do make use of the lexicons/dictionaries and grammar rules. If this sort of thing isn't the way you approach your Quranic studies then I guess you should just ignore my suggestion.
Lexicons and grammar are the new Sunnism but touted by quranists. They are no different from using hadith the way Sunnis do.
While I agree that there are some people who are guilty of this, I personally would not make a sweeping statement and accuse ALL QURANISTS of operating this way. I prefer to observe INDIVIDUALS and base it on that.
-
I don't see dictionaries and grammar as useless, Damon. Just highly subjective. What concerns is when people say 'quranic evidence OR evidence from dictionaries' as if they are equal. They are not and if people read up the history of Arabic lexicology interweaved with socio-political history, they might feel that these sources are highly suspicious.
-
Farouk,
(emphasis in bold mine)
Have a look at WAKAS'S OWN Project Root List, entry for 'sittah' (seen ta ta) or commonly translated as 'six'. EVEN Lane's whose page is linked to it has other meanings which Wakas's entry OMITS. Why? Ostensibly because Wakas did not believe in those meanings. THis is how meanings get lost. And that's just Lanes. Take a look at Raghib or Ibn Faris, there are TONS of meanings.
Same case with PRL's 'arba3' or 'four' (ra ayn ba). Lanes has TONS of meanings, PRL only notes down the 4-related ones. Obvious bias.
Slander.
Please provide evidence for
- it was I who compiled the meanings for the roots you mentioned "seen ta ta" and "ra ayn ba"
- and that I omit meanings from roots based on my own opinion/bias
From http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0
Please see free-minds.org forum rule 3
Quote
"3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member."It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your slanderous/false statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise.
As you know you are already on a formal warning for making slanderous statements. Depending on how you reply here your case may be referred to admin for decision.
-
LOL , slander. How on earth is this slander?! Lets examine the facts
Fact 1 the other meanings FROM THE VERY SOURCE you're quoting (the legendary Lanes) from has meanings which you DID NOT INCLUDE. How then are you being 'objective' and NOT biased?
Fact 2 you PROMOTE this site which you initiated and contributed to so assuming that you follow Quranic principles, you must have checked all information. Are you saying you promote works WHICH YOU NEVER CHECKED? Kindly be forthright with your customers D
So I don't see how this is slander. You DELIBERATELY OMITTED meanings from your own source, thus it must have been BIAS and nothing else. Unless you simply wrote the first meaning that came to you and never checked. I await your explanation for your this.
Accusation of slander is simply your tactic to hide the flaws in your pretence of authority. No worries Wakas, it's all becoming very apparent )
-
Farouk,
I'm not surprised you do not see it as slander. Perhaps if I explain it very simply to you
You said (emphasis mine)
Have a look at WAKAS'S OWN Project Root List, entry for 'sittah' (seen ta ta) or commonly translated as 'six'. EVEN Lane's whose page is linked to it has other meanings which Wakas's entry OMITS. Why? Ostensibly because Wakas did not believe in those meanings. THis is how meanings get lost. And that's just Lanes. Take a look at Raghib or Ibn Faris, there are TONS of meanings.
Same case with PRL's 'arba3' or 'four' (ra ayn ba). Lanes has TONS of meanings, PRL only notes down the 4-related ones. Obvious bias.
I replied
Please provide evidence for
- it was I who compiled the meanings for the roots you mentioned "seen ta ta" and "ra ayn ba"
- and that I omit meanings from roots based on my own opinion/bias
Instead of answering the above, you replied with
(emphasis mine)
Fact 1 the other meanings FROM THE VERY SOURCE you're quoting (the legendary Lanes) from has meanings which you DID NOT INCLUDE. How then are you being 'objective' and NOT biased?
Once again, clearly implying it was I who compiled the meanings for the entries in question. Where is your evidence for this? You have none, and opt for conjecture.
As clearly stated on Project Root List homepage, it is compiled by "contributors" (i.e. plural)
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htmDisclaimer All information contained within this document is correct to the best of our (the contributors) knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always verify information and seek knowledge when possible. This approach is recommended by The Reading (al quran) itself.
In an attempt to back-up what you said, you follow-up with
Fact 2 you PROMOTE this site which you initiated and contributed to so assuming that you follow Quranic principles, you must have checked all information. Are you saying you promote works WHICH YOU NEVER CHECKED? Kindly be forthright with your customers
I check almost all information in PRL submitted by contributors, but since when did checking contributions morph into 'I MUST include EVERY meaning stated in Classical Arabic Dictionaries and if I dont it is because I am rejecting them because I dont believe in them'? This is insinuating a deliberate attempt to manipulate PRL, i.e. an allegation without evidence, i.e. slander.
Firstly, nowhere does it state PRL lists every meaning we can find in Classical Arabic dictionaries, let alone Lane's Lexicon.
Secondly, if by "checking" I meant I check Classical Arabic dictionaries and list every meaning I find, then I wouldn't bother having contributions as I'd still have to check every Classical Arabic dictionary and include every meaning I find, to avoid being accused of deliberate omission, according to you.
Thirdly, if I were trying to do what you imply, why would I bother linking it to Lane's Lexicon so everyone can check what it says themselves. Note, linking to Lane was my idea and something added to the original format.
Fourthly, the disclaimer in PRL says it all. Very clear emphasis on content should not be taken as fact and encourage verification.
And last, but by no means least, a while back on facebook you mentioned "Mecca" (as in city of) was not listed under MKK and insinuated pretty much the same as what you insinuate here, and back then I told you it was not me who compiled the meanings for MKK , it was taken from Bro Anwar's work, and I then added "Mecca" (as in city of) shortly after to PRL, even though PRL is to do with root meanings.So, in other words, your accusation is better said like this...
Even though you clearly put a disclaimer in PRL, and state its done by contributors, and link to Lane's Lexicon so users can read up on entries..... in my view since you do not include every meaning from Classical Arabic dictionaries this shows deliberate omission and bias, even though PRL does not claim anywhere that it lists all meanings, and even though you promptly add meanings when it is pointed out to you, erm.... you still omit meanings, erm sometimes, and are still biased, sometimes.
That's more accurate. ;D
No worries Wakas, it's all becoming very apparent
I agree. I recommend readers to read what I have wrote, and what you have wrote.
-
Farouk,
I'm not surprised you do not see it as slander. Perhaps if I explain it very simply to youOh, 'explain it SIMPLY' thus insulting my intelligence. I will complain about this- not that it will do any good P
Once again, clearly implying it was I who compiled the meanings for the entries in question. Where is your evidence for this? You have none, and opt for conjecture.
If you promote it , you are RESPONSIBLE for it. If you repudiate responsibility for it, please don't promote it ever again since you DON'T know what it contains, right?
I check almost all information in PRL submitted by contributors, but since when did checking contributions morph into 'I MUST include EVERY meaning stated in Classical Arabic Dictionaries and if I dont it is because I am rejecting them because I dont believe in them'? This is insinuating a deliberate attempt to manipulate PRL, i.e. an allegation without evidence, i.e. slander.
Oh is that what 17/36 tells you? Check ALMOST ALL information?
So why wasn't the meanings from Lanes included? Kindly explain yourself.
Firstly, nowhere does it state PRL lists every meaning we can find in Classical Arabic dictionaries, let alone Lane's Lexicon.
Secondly, if by "checking" I meant I check Classical Arabic dictionaries and list every meaning I find, then I wouldn't bother having contributions as I'd still have to check every Classical Arabic dictionary and include every meaning I find, to avoid being accused of deliberate omission, according to you.Brilliant. OF COURSE it doesn't. It's a highly biased and subjective work. Thanks for telling us that
Question on what basis does it SELECT meanings to include?
Thirdly, if I were trying to do what you imply, why would I bother linking it to Lane's Lexicon so everyone can check what it says themselves. Note, linking to Lane was my idea and something added to the original format.
Yeah, PRETENCE of objectivity, since you asked. Fortunately some of us actually do check.
Fourthly, the disclaimer in PRL says it all. Very clear emphasis on content should not be taken as fact and encourage verification.
And last, but by no means least, a while back on facebook you mentioned "Mecca" (as in city of) was not listed under MKK and insinuated pretty much the same as what you insinuate here, and back then I told you it was not me who compiled the meanings for MKK , it was taken from Bro Anwar's work, and I then added "Mecca" (as in city of) shortly after to PRL, even though PRL is to do with root meanings.Good, so your work is a work in progress and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when you claim to be 'comprehensive'.
So, in other words, your accusation is better said like this...
Even though you clearly put a disclaimer in PRL, and state its done by contributors, and link to Lane's Lexicon so users can read up on entries..... in my view since you do not include every meaning from Classical Arabic dictionaries this shows deliberate omission and bias, even though PRL does not claim anywhere that it lists all meanings, and even though you promptly add meanings when it is pointed out to you, erm.... you still omit meanings, erm sometimes, and are still biased, sometimes.
That's more accurate. ;D
My objective is to show dictionaries are nothing more than the biased opinions of people who infer meanings. THey have zero authority on Quranic meanings. We will come to that shortly in my thread, no worries.
-
Oh please don't forget my initial question are all men in charge of all women as per 4/34?
-
Oh, 'explain it SIMPLY' thus insulting my intelligence. I will complain about this- not that it will do any good
An insult is often subjective, unless it is clear, e.g. calling someone a Wahabi. Slander is something even easier to differentiate. I recommend using a dictionary if unsure.
If you promote it , you are RESPONSIBLE for it. If you repudiate responsibility for it, please don't promote it ever again since you DON'T know what it contains, right?
Oh is that what 17/36 tells you? Check ALMOST ALL information?
So why wasn't the meanings from Lanes included? Kindly explain yourself.
Users of PRL can easily contact us to suggest inclusions etc, as you did, which you conveniently didn't mention. And people have did that from time to time. As I said, I check almost all information, and the info is there for users to further check it for themselves if they wish etc.
As previously said, nowhere do we state we type up all meanings we find in CAD.
Here is a sample set of instructions I have sent to contributors (including several forum members here)
All you need to do is look up (whatever CAD they have, e.g. Lane's Lexicon).....
And type up the most common/repeated/relevant meanings from the Lane's Lexicon pages, for each root word. If unsure, you can use the occurrences of the root in The Quran which are listed as a guide, or just type up most meanings. Please follow the same layout as shown in the pages, see below
Root A-B-C = meaning 1, meaning 2, meaning 3, etc.
Root D-E-F = meaning 1, meaning 2, meaning 3, etc.
To instruct contributors to type up all meanings would be very time-consuming and in fact increase inaccuracy because they would end up including meanings for many word forms not found in Quran. In other words, putting in a lot of chaff amongst the wheat, so to speak. A bit like the content in your Quranology group.
Brilliant. OF COURSE it doesn't. It's a highly biased and subjective work. Thanks for telling us that
Ironically, you making the above claim is highly biased/subjective.
I never claimed PRL was objective. It is a human effort so will inevitably be imperfect. This is the blatant implication in the disclaimer that comes with it.
Based on feedback however, vast majority consider it an excellent resource, including in terms of accuracy.The slanderous statement of yours was to do with deliberate omission because I didn't believe in certain meanings, clearly implying a deliberate manipulation of PRL on my part. A slanderous statement you have provided no evidence for. Only conjecture. This is typical of your slander.
In fact, bro Damon, whom you seem to be positive about, was a significant contributor, feel free to ask him if he ever got any impression of deliberate manipulation on my part.Good, so your work is a work in progress and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when you claim to be 'comprehensive'.
PRL states on its homepage it is incomplete and a work in progress. And you seem to be confusing my writings with PRL. I suggest you read more carefully.
As I said, your accusation is better said like this...
Even though you clearly put a disclaimer in PRL, and state its done by contributors, it is incomplete, and link to Lane's Lexicon so users can read up on entries..... in my view since you do not include every meaning from Classical Arabic dictionaries this shows deliberate omission and bias, even though PRL does not claim anywhere that it lists all meanings, and even though you promptly add meanings when it is pointed out to you, erm.... you still omit meanings, erm sometimes, and are still biased, sometimes.
That is more accurate.
And if that's the best criticism you have, I'll take it ;D
-
An insult is often subjective, unless it is clear, e.g. calling someone a Wahabi. Slander is something even easier to differentiate. I recommend using a dictionary if unsure.
Why is it clear when calling someone a 'Wahabi'? Wahabis are pretty well versed in tawheed. Have you read kitab at-tawheed by Ibn Abdul Wahab? What you really mean is 'it's an insult when I say it is'. Be candid, Wakas.
Of course YOUR insults are subjective here. This is the only place on the internet where you can pull your antics with no fear of banning. No worries though, you're welcome to it. I came to test your views and I think I pretty much see what I need.
Users of PRL can easily contact us to suggest inclusions etc, as you did, which you conveniently didn't mention. And people have did that from time to time. As I said, I check almost all information, and the info is there for users to further check it for themselves if they wish etc.
Good, ALMOST all is exactly what 17/36 says...ooops.
Anyway, slander or not, the fact remains dictionaries are SUBJECTIVE WORKS with DELIBERATE omissions. They can never be used as AUTHORITIES, only REFERENCES if at all.
As previously said, nowhere do we state we type up all meanings we find in CAD.
ronically, you making the above claim is highly biased/subjective.I never claimed PRL was objective. It is a human effort so will inevitably be imperfect. This is the blatant implication in the disclaimer that comes with it.
Based on feedback however, vast majority consider it an excellent resource, including in terms of accuracy.Wonderful, then don't use it as a source of authority of language. If how anyone understands something is outside PRL, because PRL is DEFICIENT, you shouldn't use it as a means of criticism.
Either PRL is comprehensive or its not. Since you admit its not, it's not a yardstick of measurement.
The slanderous statement of yours was to do with deliberate omission because I didn't believe in certain meanings, clearly implying a deliberate manipulation of PRL on my part. A slanderous statement you have provided no evidence for. Only conjecture. This is typical of your slander.
In fact, bro Damon, whom you seem to be positive about, was a significant contributor, feel free to ask him if he ever got any impression of deliberate manipulation on my part.Yes,I did assume that since you actively promote the site that you did check all the occurences. I definitely would if it was my project because even omissions can mislead people into thinking the meanings are limited when they're clearly not.
It's good to see you admit that the site is UNCHECKED and also HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE. Brilliant. This effectively undermines any kind of use of PRL as a measure for accuracy.
PRL states on its homepage it is incomplete and a work in progress. And you seem to be confusing my writings with PRL. I suggest you read more carefully.
No, I wasn't. You see, stating something isn't worth tuppence, like your disclaimer. It's not worth anything because you have dsplayed behaviour contrary to one who is still learning. You deem other people like Aidid's views as 'unquranic' yet you cannot seem to provide a complete resource. How do you know, maybe as per your disclaimer, you're simply not good enough to see Aidid's meaning?
And if that's the best criticism you have, I'll take it ;D
My criticism is your use objectivity and subjectivity to leverage authority which I consider nothing less than fundamentalism. I came back to FM to test your 'quranic' views only to find that they are indefensible. Essentially, your attitude is this
Quranic is whatever I deem to be 'quranic' and 'comprehensive must mean X because I say so'. Anyone who disagrees will be subject to a certain kind of treatment.
In other words Nothing but Circular Authority.
However, as we're slowly discovering, there are TONS of areas where your research falls short. I have asked you about your 4/34 'all men' with no answer. I have asked you to dialogue about your 'comprehensive' AMAH research with also no response. The fact is, you are where everyone is - a subjective reader who is looking into the text. The only difference is your pretense.
-
Third time asking Oh please don't forget my initial question are all men in charge of all women as per 4/34?
-
Farouk,
Why is it clear when calling someone a 'Wahabi'? Wahabis are pretty well versed in tawheed. Have you read kitab at-tawheed by Ibn Abdul Wahab? What you really mean is 'it's an insult when I say it is'. Be candid, Wakas.
You heard it here first people, according to Farouk calling someone a Wahabi who is not is not an insult, and Farouk seems to have no clue as to how it could be an insult.
You will say anything to get out of your derogatory remarks. Note, how you conveniently do not mention anything about slander. ;D
Good, ALMOST all is exactly what 17/36 says...ooops.
I cannot be certain I have checked all of it, hence "almost all". Simple.
Anyway, slander or not, the fact remains
"Anyway, slander or not...." ? Interesting how you don't even deny the slander this time around.
Wonderful, then don't use it (PRL) as a source of authority of language. If how anyone understands something is outside PRL, because PRL is DEFICIENT, you shouldn't use it as a means of criticism.
Either PRL is comprehensive or its not. Since you admit its not, it's not a yardstick of measurement.
You now seem to claim I say PRL is an authority, or it's some sort of standard to measure with. Please quote me where I have said such a thing. This should be easy with my over 8000 posts here and several hundred on facebook. ;D
I hope this is not another case of you making up in your own head what I say/do then criticising it. This is a logical fallacy known as strawman argument.
Do tell Farouk.
However, as we're slowly discovering, there are TONS of areas where your research falls short.
The only "tons" we are discovering is your mountain of baseless/unevidenced claims about my research. A prime example of this was when you claimed I was uncritical of "Arabic terms and grammar" then when I replied and demolished your claim with ample evidence you never said anything about it nor made the same claim again. Another case in point
I have asked you about your 4/34 'all men' with no answer.
No answer eh? I had assumed you had read my article, this is clearly discussed in part 2
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part2"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic qawwamoon, root Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in
4135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
58 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).M. Asad The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 45 and 597.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4135, 58 and 45, 597 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses , and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" , "tashaawar" , which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation , then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2231, 419.
If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 434 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female."...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison.
However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional.I have asked you to dialogue about your 'comprehensive' AMAH research with also no response.
Please link and quote where you said the above? I hope this is not yet another baseless/unevidenced claim. I am more than happy to discuss any of my works, as long as it is an evidence based discussion, not a grudge-driven personal attack.
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
Can we please take our fights elsewhere ? It is not respectful to go off-topic like this and write posts after posts bashing each other. No, I do not have the forum rules memorized, neither do i intend to memorize them, I am only requesting that by using my common sense. And my senses tell me that when someone lands on this thread, they deserve to go through pages after pages of relevant posts, not irrelevant ones.
Now, not to become a part of the fight, here is an observation
@Wakas, I am actually surprised to know that PRL excludes certain meanings. If its due to lack of resources, I understand. But if its because of someone disagreeing with it, hmm...that kinda makes me wonder.
@Faruk, You stated the following
Have a look at WAKAS'S OWN Project Root List, entry for 'sittah' (seen ta ta) or commonly translated as 'six'. EVEN Lane's whose page is linked to it has other meanings which Wakas's entry OMITS. Why? Ostensibly because Wakas did not believe in those meanings. THis is how meanings get lost. And that's just Lanes. Take a look at Raghib or Ibn Faris, there are TONS of meanings.
Same case with PRL's 'arba3' or 'four' (ra ayn ba). Lanes has TONS of meanings, PRL only notes down the 4-related ones. Obvious bias.
You claimed that Wakas is intentionally manipulating the PRL. Therefore, you must provide evidence for the following
- Wakas's entry OMITS what you said it omits. (this should be easy)
- Since you asked the rhetoric question "Why?" and gave the anwer yourself that its because Wakas does not believe in that, the burden of proof is on you. You have to demonstrate it. If I claimed that you are only posting on this website to convert people to your ways of thinking, I must be able to demonstrate it with evidence.
And the reason I highlighted in RED "obvious bias" is so that you don't get to use the use of the word "Ostensibly" as a defense and say that you did not assert anything. By ending with "obvious bias" , you ultimately ended up claiming certainty for your assertion.
Your defense so far
LOL , slander. How on earth is this slander?! Lets examine the facts
Fact 1 the other meanings FROM THE VERY SOURCE you're quoting (the legendary Lanes) from has meanings which you DID NOT INCLUDE. How then are you being 'objective' and NOT biased?
I seriously have no clue as to what is true. But, what you assert there is that WAKAS had gone through the part of the PRL in discussion and knowing manipulated them to reflect only his view via willful censoring of information. Those are 2 independent charges you brought against him. And for your claim to hold any ground, you have to provide evidence.
Fact 2 you PROMOTE this site which you initiated and contributed to so assuming that you follow Quranic principles, you must have checked all information. Are you saying you promote works WHICH YOU NEVER CHECKED? Kindly be forthright with your customers
RED PART I never had to pay a dime for using the PRL. Given that its a FREE website as I believe, your statement is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
Ofcourse WAKAS must amend the content provided that one points out mistakes or wrong things in the PRL. That is his responsibility. However, in no way whatsoever does anyone get to use his designation as "evidence" for an allegation against him (like the one you did). If we find wrong things stated on lecture notes in universities, we can ultimately hold the head of the department or curriculum responsible for that. But what we dont get to do is accuse him/her of "manipulation of lecture slides in order to promote a favored agenda". Because that my dear is a claim independent of whether the lecture notes contain mistakes or not.
So I don't see how this is slander. You DELIBERATELY OMITTED meanings from your own source, thus it must have been BIAS and nothing else. Unless you simply wrote the first meaning that came to you and never checked. I await your explanation for your this.
Argument from Ignorance
You did X , thus it must have been for Y and NOTHING ELSE.
Your claim is another argument from ignorance. Simply because you can't think of other reasons for that does not automatically make your "hypothesis" a valid one. Its like saying " I saw an unidentified flying object in the sky today, I don't know what it is , therefore it must be an Alien Spacecraft. " No, if you don't "know", then you don't get to continue your statement with your assumed conclusion. Now, please realize that if you claim to "know", you have to demonstrate it, otherwise its kinda like your belief. You state as fact that which is not evidently true. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, if you can't provide evidence and keep on asserting your "belief", I don't know about others, but I would understand it as dishonesty.
By the way, I like your videos on youtube. I am waiting for more episodes of "Response to Critics". For those that did not see the videos, here is the channel http//www.youtube.com/user/QuranistsNetworkTv
And it will do mercy to this thread if we take this discussion elsewhere, for example the TRASH section of the forum or any other relevant sub forums where PRL is in discussion. )
@Edip Thanks for the video. Liked it. There is another similar video where this topic is discussed. I guess it was by the author of the Sublime Qur'an or something.
Peace be with you all
-------------------------------- Student of Allah
-
You heard it here first people, according to Farouk calling someone a Wahabi who is not is not an insult, and Farouk seems to have no clue as to how it could be an insult.
Again it depends on one's subjective perception. In this forum, YOUR subjective perception is considered objective, hence I get a warning for insulting you but you get none for insulting me. No worries though, I'm not concerned with such trivial matters. I'm here to deconstruct your pretence of authority, nothing more.
You will say anything to get out of your derogatory remarks. Note, how you conveniently do not mention anything about slander. ;D
Nah, not bothered. Complain away. Do whatever you like. If I get banned, the discussion stops. We both know that's the objective anyway so critiques against work are silenced.
I cannot be certain I have checked all of it, hence "almost all". Simple.
You cannot be certain if you've checked all of it? THIS is your excuse? You can't make a list of what you've checked and what you haven't? Is that too complicated or something?
"Anyway, slander or not...." ? Interesting how you don't even deny the slander this time around.
Oh, is that what 'or not' means? I thought 'or not' means there's a possibility it's NOT slander. But as I said, I don't really care how any of you define it. That's quite your business. If you won't continue the discussion, I can see why.
You now seem to claim I say PRL is an authority, or it's some sort of standard to measure with. Please quote me where I have said such a thing. This should be easy with my over 8000 posts here and several hundred on facebook. ;D
Again , literalist one dimensional thinking. Your VERY CRITIQUES have the acronym NCADs. How are CADS accessible for you, a guy who cannot read Arabic dictionaries in their original form? Obviously you use PRL or Lanes and so they MUST be an authority for you.
Have you even CRITICALLY ANALYSED Lanes? If so, tell me please, what are your conclusions?
I hope this is not another case of you making up in your own head what I say/do then criticising it. This is a logical fallacy known as strawman argument.
Do tell Farouk.
No it's a case of what we call 'logical deduction', it's when two and two together, metaphorically speaing. Use it sometime and you won't be saying 'salat' translated as a plural meaning is problematic.
The only "tons" we are discovering is your mountain of baseless/unevidenced claims about my research. A prime example of this was when you claimed I was uncritical of "Arabic terms and grammar" then when I replied and demolished your claim with ample evidence you never said anything about it nor made the same claim again. Another case in point
Huh? Please point this out. I stand by my claim. Your use of Arabic lexicology and grammar is nothing more than blind cut and paste added with a dose of pretence of authority. There is no way you let Quran speak. Rather you speak on its behalf, cut it off when it uses terms that don't agree with you. So yes, very clearly you UNCRITICALLY use Arabic lexicology and grammar.
I didn't see any demolishing of my claim but I tell you what, lets discuss your AMAH analysis in a separate thread shall we? From the very outset the Quran is silenced while your deficient sources speak.
No answer eh? I had assumed you had read my article, this is clearly discussed in part 2
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part2Please link and quote where you said the above? I hope this is not yet another baseless/unevidenced claim. I am more than happy to discuss any of my works, as long as it is an evidence based discussion, not a grudge-driven personal attack.
I've read your entire essay but I have not seen any explaination nor answer to the question if 'all men are in charge of all women'. Kindly point me out to it, if it's there.
Grudge? This is SLANDER. Kindly prove it or I'll be forced to waste 2 minutes of my time complaining to admins who will ignore it because the system is biased.
Why would I begrudge you? I recommend your PRL and invited you to contribute my matrix project but you refused because you wanted to pretend objectivity even there. I am here to deconstruct your OBJECTIVITY claims shown by your attitudes in my forum. Now, we have seen that even PRL is highly biased and cannot be trusted to give full information. And you MAY have checked it. Brilliant. So much for authoritarian readings.
You haven't answered if your work is 'quranic' and what makes it 'quranic' as per the Quran itself. That's in the other thread which is conveniently on hiatus now.
-
Student of Allah,
I don't see this as a 'fight' but rather an attempt to discuss the authoritarian readings Wakas implicitly claims through his words. He has projected this in my forum in facebook and I have recieved complaints about how he handles other members as if he has all the answers (despite his benevolent disclaimer, lol).
This is the precursor to the discussion here today. I am not here to change his mind, that's his problem not mine. Rather I am here to deconstruct his authority in reading. Slowly we are seeing that his 'comprehensive' claim is false. He can't even defend simple facts about his research and his tagging of his own work as 'quranic' is based on unevinced principles at all.
@Wakas, I am actually surprised to know that PRL excludes certain meanings. If its due to lack of resources, I understand. But if its because of someone disagreeing with it, hmm...that kinda makes me wonder.
WHAT lack of resources? The omitted meanings are IN Lanes Lexicon whose link is RIGHT THERE below the entry itself!! From how Wakas has attacked and harassed members of my fb group, I do believe the omission was deliberate in order to control meanings.
-
w/salaam SofA,
Thanks for succinctly highlighting and explaining Farouk's slanderous statements. I have tried to point this out to him but he doesn't seem to get it. Perhaps this time.
And I agree we should split this discussion off, perhaps title it "discussion on PRL" or something. I will split it shortly.
And with regards to PRL not containing all meanings found in CAD, this is for the reasons I said before. It's just not practical - more time consuming, and would end up with more chaff in with the wheat. You can also read the instructions I gave to contributors. As I said, it is a human effort, thus will inevitably be imperfect. The Lane's Lexicon pages are provided for users for further reading. Ideally, I'd like to link multiple CAD for each root but this is even more time-consuming and finding permanent online links to other CAD for individual roots was not easy in the past, but perhaps it has become better now, I haven't checked in a while.
The feedback from almost every user of PRL, has been positive, and it is a work in progress, so I readily welcome corrections etc.
-
WakasAnd with regards to PRL not containing all meanings found in CAD, this is for the reasons I said before. It's just not practical - more time consuming, and would end up with more chaff in with the wheat.
It's just not practical?! So for the sake of being PRACTICAL, lets LOSE some of the possible meanings? The audacity of it is amazing. Why put it ANY meanings then? That's also not practical when you could be just taking a nap.
You gotta love the last bit as well - 'wheat with the chaff'. Instead of letting readers decide what meanings are possible, WAKAS DECIDES for us what is wheat and what is chaff.
A Sunni mulla couldn't have said it better than this, really.
This is EXACTLY how Arabic was manipulated, through authoritarian regimes. I highly suggest Heidegger's 'On Way to Language' to show how languages evolve and how time-bound attempt to capture meanings inevitably fail. Wakas fails to account Lane's own subjectivities when interacting with Arabic and English while these gaps could prove fatal in getting to the right meaning.
-
It's just not practical?! So for the sake of being PRACTICAL, lets LOSE some of the possible meanings? The audacity of it is amazing. Why put it ANY meanings then? That's also not practical when you could be just taking a nap.
Perhaps practicality does not factor into the world you live in, but it does in mine. You claim meanings are lost, yet the Lane pages are linked for all to see. Lost but linked... erm, ok.
Amusingly, you now imply why bother to put any meanings then........... unlike you perhaps, I generally think it is better to do some good than no good. As I said, almost all PRL users praise it, and ultimately the proof is in the tasting of the pudding. In fact, many of your Quranology group use it and praise it.
You gotta love the last bit as well - 'wheat with the chaff'. Instead of letting readers decide what meanings are possible, WAKAS DECIDES for us what is wheat and what is chaff.
It is actually contributors who primarily decide what goes in. See the instruction I gave above. Perhaps your approach would be "list every meaning you find for a root, no matter the form, put it all in". Tell you what Farouk, why not create a PRL-like resource and use this approach, and then we can see which users prefer ;D To give you an idea of how much work that would be, try it for the Alif roots and see what happens ;D Then report back several hundred hours of work later ;D
Go on Farouk, show us how its done.
I know how many hours has gone into PRL and it is probably about a thousand. If we included every meaning, it would easily be several thousand hours.
But not to worry eh, the practicalities of it are no big deal in your book. Go on, show us how its done.
A Sunni mulla couldn't have said it better than this, really.
This is EXACTLY how Arabic was manipulated, through authoritarian regimes.
And do these "Sunni mullas" also provide ample tools/resources to verify what they state, disclaimers, transparency, the opportunity to submit corrections etc?
;D
Another classic example from Farouk, comparing apples with oranges.
Wakas fails to account Lane's own subjectivities when interacting with Arabic and English while these gaps could prove fatal in getting to the right meaning.
And how does Wakas fail to account for such? Do tell.
I hope this is not another unevidenced/baseless claim of yours. -
Perhaps practicality does not factor into the world you live in, but it does in mine. You claim meanings are lost, yet the Lane pages are linked for all to see. Lost but linked... erm, ok.
Practicality is just the excuse. The real reason is suppression. Lanes page is linked sure but how many actually check it out? Tell me, in the new app, is Lanes linked?
Amusingly, you now imply why bother to put any meanings then........... unlike you perhaps, I generally think it is better to do some good than no good. As I said, almost all PRL users praise it, and ultimately the proof is in the tasting of the pudding. In fact, many of your Quranology group use it and praise it.
Try to read for once IN CONTEXT. I said IF practicality is the consideration then why bother with anything at all. Selectivity shows that the meanings which DO make it into PRL fit certain people's view. You have been critical with those who say arba3a doesn't mean four and funnily in YOUR project, other meanings DON'T appear. Coincidence? Don't think so.
It is actually contributors who primarily decide what goes in. See the instruction I gave above. Perhaps your approach would be "list every meaning you find for a root, no matter the form, put it all in". Tell you what Farouk, why not create a PRL-like resource and use this approach, and then we can see which users prefer ;D To give you an idea of how much work that would be, try it for the Alif roots and see what happens ;D Then report back several hundred hours of work later ;D
Go on Farouk, show us how its done.I don't believe in that approach at all. I don't believe in roots, I believe in APPLICATION. If you think you can cut and paste meanings into the Quran, then you go ahead.
I know how many hours has gone into PRL and it is probably about a thousand. If we included every meaning, it would easily be several thousand hours.
But not to worry eh, the practicalities of it are no big deal in your book. Go on, show us how its done.Right, so just include the 'wheat' and leave the 'chaff' out and thus select the meanings which suits YOU. Nice.
And do these "Sunni mullas" also provide ample tools/resources to verify what they state, disclaimers, transparency, the opportunity to submit corrections etc?
;D
Another classic example from Farouk, comparing apples with oranges.
How do you think the Sunni mullas started out? Do you think they just came on to the scene one day and said 'thinking is haram, apostasy is death'? No. Sunnism was a creeping plant on the house of Islam that took over completely. It's all about information control and I think you got a lot of talent for that, disclaimers notwthistanding.
And how does Wakas fail to account for such? Do tell.
I hope this is not another unevidenced/baseless claim of yours.Oh please do point me to your commentary on Lane's biography and strategies on bridging the gap between his language and yours. I must have missed this 'comprehensive' world-class analysis P
-
Practicality is just the excuse. The real reason is suppression.
Slander. You have no evidence, as per usual.
Lanes page is linked sure but how many actually check it out? Tell me, in the new app, is Lanes linked?
I dont know how many check the pages as a %, but I know it is in the region of hundreds of page views.
A link to Lane is given and the page references given also. The app usage is likely 1% of users at the moment.You have been critical with those who say arba3a doesn't mean four and funnily in YOUR project, other meanings DON'T appear. Coincidence? Don't think so.
I cant recall the above, can you provide a quote?
Thanks for clarifying you do not believe in roots. The amusing thing about your method is it actually makes verifying anything in Quran almost impossible, but dont worry, I will get to that once you answer all my Qs on 2196.
It's all about information control and I think you got a lot of talent for that, disclaimers notwthistanding.
Information control?
Let's see........ as you know Farouk, I have made available many many resources for studying Quran, e.g. many books and articles about Quran that were previously unavailable online, PRL (free grammar/dictionary/concordance to the world, which many people use and praise), Lane's Lexicon (considered the greatest Classical Arabic-English lexicon in existence), StudyQuran.org wherein some of the best Quran tools on the internet are found (used by thousands) etc.So tell us, who has made available more Quran resources/tools than I? Name 5. (feel free to name anyone in the world and link to what they have put forth)
Please note, I am not referring to authors making available their own works, I am referring to resources and tools used to study Quran better.Dont be shy now.
I hope this is not yet another case of you saying anything and everything to make a point, regardless if it is true or not.
Oh please do point me to your commentary on Lane's biography and strategies on bridging the gap between his language and yours. I must have missed this 'comprehensive' world-class analysis P
So you are implying since I never wrote an essay on Lane's subjectivity, I failed to take it into account? Absurd.
By that logic, you have never written an article on my subjectivity, so you have failed to take it into account, oh but wait, you claim you do know of my subjectivity. Oh dear.Please try again.
Let me state it clear, since you seemingly like to make things up Lane like every human being in the entire world, including myself, is subjective, it just depends to what degree. Some are more subjective than others. I have never claimed anywhere I am objective. My method is all about maximising the chances of being accurate, i.e. stacking the odds in one's favour. Simple.
