discussion on PRL
-
Slander. You have no evidence, as per usual.
You admitted it yourself, to separate the WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF. Your words not mine. You suppressed the information which YOU think is suitable.
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.I have never seen anyone quote from Lanes but always from PRL. That is very telling.
I cant recall the above, can you provide a quote?
It was part of the attacks for which I gave you a warning. The interpretation of 9/36 which doesn't allow for the numbers 12 and 4.
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.
Impossible if you're into 'credibility' as you once said 'my work loses credibility' by rejecting your dictionaries. I'm not. I believe in a whole other theory of language. You can keep your cut and paste jobs.
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.Yes, as I said, this is the START. PRCAIC. I have been studying quranist fundamentalism for a while so I see how these things start.
And yes, thanks for making available all these resources. Your magnanimity for Quranic studies will be greater felt once you show tolerance for other people's work as well.
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 don't know anyone who has done more than you.
Where would you like the temple to be built for us to worship you? I suggest London because then when your devotees make the 'hajj' to kiss your gravestone, they can at least take in some tourist sites as well.
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.If you DO factor in Lane's subjectivity, then where are the linguistic principles which talk about Lane's language? Don't worry about an essay. I want to see a SENTENCE about Lane in any of your work. I see NONE AT ALL.
Here's an example of uncritical cut and paste nonsense
From the Lane's Lexicon entry
Synonymous with Kha-Daad-Ayn which means lowly/humble/submissive.
"The SuJuD of inanimate things to God we understand, in the Kuran, as denoting obedience to that whereto they are made subservient"
"the ship SJD/bends/inclines by the influence of the wind".
For 556 says "the herbs and the trees humbly submit to His will".Where is your criticism of this? YOU please don't be absurd, Wakas. You have NEVER offered a criticism of Lanes in any of your work. Lanes is your furqan rather than the Quran itself.
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.
VERY GOOD. That's actually what I came here for. Your admission of pure subjectivity. Tell me then, why did you not accept that Heer Saleti's view may be simply out of your reach (since you're a subjective being) when you derided her work? (Proof is in our correspondence, since you'll require proof).
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
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.
Straw man / Aunt Sally - an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
WAKAS did say that it was impractical for him to compile all possible meanings, but what you ridiculed ( LOSE some meanings) is the straw man that you made up, not his statement. Not to mention that WAKAS did refer to it as
The feedback from almost every user of PRL, has been positive, and it is a work in progress, so I readily welcome corrections etc.
A Sunni mulla couldn't have said it better than this, really.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Dont get me wrong, I am not defending Wakas. I am merely pointing out the fallacies in your posts. I am of the opinion that the PRL should be more detailed and should not be subject to bias. However, I prefer to present my case against the PRL without attacking people based on my beliefs.
Now, as far as what I understood, Wakas is trying to say that it really does take "A LOT" of work to add every possible meaning to the database. If I had a problem with that, I would offer him my help and try to contribute. I do have a problem with that, but I am in no position to contribute at the moment. The only time I might question Wakas's motives is when he refuses to let others contribute by adding content to the database.
Oh, another thing - "separate the WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF", well, we all do that. Its just wrong when you do that in a way to promote your view and on a site/book/record you claim you made for everyone.
Peace
--------------- Student of Allah -
Student of Allah, I fear you're taking my statements too literally (like you took the word 'customers' yesterday). For this reason, I will leave you to your opinions. Just one more thing
Oh, another thing - "separate the WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF", well, we all do that. Its just wrong when you do that in a way to promote your view and on a site/book/record you claim you made for everyone.
Indeed, we do. However, not all of us HARASS and ATTACK those who don't use our sources of information. THIS is the source of contention - AUTHORITARIANISM in reading. Please ask the PRL Master about his antics and you will see what I mean.
Also note, I am not telling people NOT to use PRL. Rather I am discussing with Wakas about the absurdity of using PRL as a source of authority. Wakas insinuates that one cannot have credibility unless one refers to his Arabic resources which I find a laughable claim.
Have fun )
-
Shalom Aleikhem Faruk,
Student of Allah, I fear you're taking my statements too literally (like you took the word 'customers' yesterday). For this reason, I will leave you to your opinions.
I am sorry, I see how that is a possibility. However, the only reason I am pointing this out is because it is important in the context of this discussion. How so ? Ok, would you deny the fact that at least recently both of you are having heated discussions ? Based on human psychology, a person is likely to be less forgiving for your choice of words when they don't see you as a friend but a foe. I hope and I believe that you understand that already.
By the way, dont take the "friend or foe" thing literally.
Just one more thing
Indeed, we do. However, not all of us HARASS and ATTACK those who don't use our sources of information. THIS is the source of contention - AUTHORITARIANISM in reading. Please ask the PRL Master about his antics and you will see what I mean. Have fun
Forgive me ya Faruk, but I just can't help it Thats yet another Ad Hominem attack
Take it easy and keep making those responses to critics videos. And for the love of God, get a HD cam.
Peace
----------- Student of Allah -
I am sorry, I see how that is a possibility. However, the only reason I am pointing this out is because it is important in the context of this discussion. How so ? Ok, would you deny the fact that at least recently both of you are having heated discussions ? Based on human psychology, a person is likely to be less forgiving for your choice of words when they don't see you as a friend but a foe. I hope and I believe that you understand that already.
Sure it's heated but as I said, there is a prior history to this. I am out to oppose the fundamentalist position I believe Wakas occupies. It's not likely to be a pally pally thing. I believe this position is detrimental to the progress of quranist islam and so it needs to be deconstructed so people can decide for themselves.
What I suggest is you look at the thread 'methodology in reading the quran part 2' where Wakas deems some other readings as 'interpretations' and his own as 'quranic'. To do this, he has devised artificial criterias about what is 'quranic'. This is nothing less than a fundamentalist position.
Forgive me ya Faruk, but I just can't help it Thats yet another Ad Hominem attack P P P
Again, this is the tone of discussion. Wakas has called me names as well which I have no problem with. I was told by the admin anyway that I will never be told about the outcome of my complaint so they have a mafia thing going on here.
So I wouldn't worry about it, it's simply the tone of the discussion. PRL Master is hardly an insult. Wakas is the initiator of the PRL project and he considers works to lack credibility unless they refer to his sources. Sunnis have this exact same mentality.
Take it easy and keep making those responses to critics videos. And for the love of God, get a HD cam.
I am taking it VERY easy actually. These discussions have shown me the pretence of authority has absolutely zero basis and yet is evolving into the new quranist orthodoxy. I believe the Submitters and IIPC followed the same route.
There will be some new videos in the coming months, against Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari and Yusuf Estes. One kind soul also donated a HD cam as well and we'll use it to record the conference in December.
-
You admitted it yourself, to separate the WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF. Your words not mine. You suppressed the information which YOU think is suitable.
LIE.
That is not what I said at all.If you dont believe me, read SofA's post wherein he highlights your slander.
I have never seen anyone quote from Lanes but always from PRL. That is very telling.
I agree, it is telling. It could mean they find PRL accurate enough to quote from, or simply quoting from a PDF difficult, hence quoting from PRL, although text version of Lane is now available online which is linked to from StudyQuran.
It was part of the attacks for which I gave you a warning. The interpretation of 9/36 which doesn't allow for the numbers 12 and 4.
As we already established, and admitted by yourself, you did not give me a "warning" on anything, you asked me (once I think) about a comment I made.
And I assume you mean understandings of 936 involving other than 12 and 4?
Impossible if you're into 'credibility' as you once said 'my work loses credibility' by rejecting your dictionaries.
LIE.
Rather than misquoting, why not actually provide a quote with context. I thought you were a fan of context.I'm not. I believe in a whole other theory of language.
I know, one that is seemingly impossible to verify. But dont worry, we will get to that once your finished on 2196. I hope you refrain from slander until then, so we can get to it.
Yes, as I said, this is the START. PRCAIC. I have been studying quranist fundamentalism for a while so I see how these things start.
Ahhh, so they start by flooding the world with many many Quran tools/resources, more than anyone you know, then erm.... controlling info...hmmm ok.
I'd like to see you star in one of those American dramas, like 24
Farouk (analyst) We've got a lead on a terrorist, who is planning something big.
Jack Bauer What's the intel?
Farouk Well, he is doing the exact opposite of what one might expect of a terrorist. A total giveaway.
Jack Bauer What do you mean?
Farouk Well, he is giving talks/information against terrorism in everything he does, it's the perfect smokescreen.
Jack Bauer But that could be said of many people, why do you think he is any different?
Farouk It's a theory I've been working on.
Jack Bauer What's the source? Do you have a plant inside his administration, or a wire tap?
Farouk No, the evidence is in my head only.
Jack Bauer You're fired. Someone get me Chloe.;D
And yes, thanks for making available all these resources. Your magnanimity for Quranic studies will be greater felt once you show tolerance for other people's work as well.
I have tolerance for works on Quran, but primarily for evidenced works. I'm not into unevidenced works.
I don't know anyone who has done more than you.
Where would you like the temple to be built for us to worship you? I suggest London because then when your devotees make the 'hajj' to kiss your gravestone, they can at least take in some tourist sites as well.
No need for worship, all I request is evidence-based discussion, not baseless statements, slander etc. Perhaps I'm asking too much. In that case, feel free to build a temple. But make sure you have a solid foundation to build on, I dont want it turning out like your other works.
If you DO factor in Lane's subjectivity, then where are the linguistic principles which talk about Lane's language? Don't worry about an essay. I want to see a SENTENCE about Lane in any of your work. I see NONE AT ALL.
Ahh, so to consider someone subjective you need to discuss "linguistic principles". I never realised that was encompassed in the dictionary definition of "subjective".
Here's an example of uncritical cut and paste nonsense
From the Lane's Lexicon entry
Synonymous with Kha-Daad-Ayn which means lowly/humble/submissive.
"The SuJuD of inanimate things to God we understand, in the Kuran, as denoting obedience to that whereto they are made subservient"
"the ship SJD/bends/inclines by the influence of the wind".
For 556 says "the herbs and the trees humbly submit to His will".Where is your criticism of this? YOU please don't be absurd, Wakas. You have NEVER offered a criticism of Lanes in any of your work.
Amusingly, you quote from PRL then want me to critique what Lane said, in other words, put my own bias/subjectivity into what Lane said, yet before you were complaining of my alleged bias in PRL. Which is it you want me to insert my bias or not?
Damned if you do, damned if you dont eh?
Lanes is your furqan rather than the Quran itself.
You're the only one who has ever said that about my works. I wonder why that is. You never said that about my works before I posted a damaging critique of your blog entry. Maybe just a coincidence. ;D
VERY GOOD. That's actually what I came here for. Your admission of pure subjectivity. Tell me then, why did you not accept that Heer Saleti's view may be simply out of your reach (since you're a subjective being) when you derided her work? (Proof is in our correspondence, since you'll require proof).
It seems me stating the obvious is big news to you. Ever since I have written articles and posted on free-minds forum, I have put a disclaimer on them, clearly telling everyone "information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify". If I thought I was objective and correct, I'd never write that. This is basic logic.
This is further proven by me never, anywhere, claiming I am objective. I even said so in my last post. This absurd idea is only in your own head.
And with regards to Heer or anyone, of course they may be correct, someone saying salat is reading Quran while spinning in a circle may theoretically be correct, but I'm only interested in evidence for such a position. If a person comes up with X and presents little to no evidence, or conflicting, illogical/impractical evidence etc then yeah I might say something.
I am noticing a pattern however, you seem to include much baseless information into what you write, which is similar to your Quran understandings, so there is a consistency there.
-
LIE.
That is not what I said at all.If you dont believe me, read SofA's post wherein he highlights your slander.
Here's what you said from this post (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604564.msg311475#msg311475)
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
See that? You admitted it's for PRACTICALITY. It's so strange that 'practicality' only includes meanings which YOU approve of. For the sitta AND arba3a entries, there are TONS of other possible meanings but since they're chaff (to you, of course) they didn't survive the selection process.
This is how dictionaries get censored and meanings get LOST.
I agree, it is telling. It could mean they find PRL accurate enough to quote from, or simply quoting from a PDF difficult, hence quoting from PRL, although text version of Lane is now available online which is linked to from StudyQuran.
Yeah and if PRL doesn't actually capture Lanes, the meanings get lost for lack of ability to be pasted. How convenient.
As we already established, and admitted by yourself, you did not give me a "warning" on anything, you asked me (once I think) about a comment I made.
BIG LIE. The warning was given. It's only not in the threatening language you guys use here. I prefer to be nice when I think I'm talking to nice people.
And I assume you mean understandings of 936 involving other than 12 and 4?
Yes, you were tremendously hostile to those meanings in my group and PRL 'coincidentally' doesn't have the meanings for arba3a which you were hostile against. 'Coincidence' obviously .
LIE.
Rather than misquoting, why not actually provide a quote with context. I thought you were a fan of context.I'm a big fan, wish you were too. Then you wouldn't leave out elements which were mentioned 'in passing' when YOU can't make sense of it. Anyway here's your statement
I have already explained "NCADR". If a person comes up with a new meaning and cites no evidence, not even from Quran, then I will point out the lack of evidence. CAD are simply one reference you could have used. If you do not care about CAD, fine. Just make it clear for all to see, e.g.you dont mind if you come up with a new Arabic word meaning and its unheard of in any Classical Arabic Dictionary (or any non-Quran source).....and you consider it unnecessary to cite Quran reference or reasoning for your new word choice also. As you regularly did this throughout your 2196 interpretation.
Of course, if you were openly say such a thing, your credibility would be non-existent. You even admitted to me in private message about showing how you arrive at word meanings and said that will come later. Clearly implying the current info you presented is lacking. To what degree it is lacking is open to interpretation. In my view it was woeful.
from https//www.facebook.com/groups/181724025200188/permalink/427396597299595/?comment_id=433644953341426&offset=50&total_comments=126
So lets see how it works, Wakas owns the CAD facilities (no one contributed more than him, Radhiullahu anhu). Anyone who DARES question HIS RESOURCES, must firmly 'make it clear for all to see'. Then, that person's credibility would then be NON-EXISTENT and his work deemed WOEFUL.
Wakas owns, Wakas dispenses, Wakas removes credibility, Wakas JUDGES.
Wakas...the 'subjective being'.
Lovely, compare this with the Wahabis. They OWN the right hadith. They PURVEY the right meanings. Anyone who doesn't like them are not TRUE FOLLOWERS of the sunnah.
When you gonna trim your trouser cuffs, Wakas. If it drags below the ankles, that's bid'ah P
I know, one that is seemingly impossible to verify. But dont worry, we will get to that once your finished on 2196. I hope you refrain from slander until then, so we can get to it.
Sure we can, I love nothing more than a good philosophical discussion. Start another thread for it NOW and we'll do it in tandem. In fact, I'll glad leave my own thread in favour of starting on Quran and philosophy of language. You can even have first dibs on question. What say you?
Ahhh, so they start by flooding the world with many many Quran tools/resources, more than anyone you know, then erm.... controlling info...hmmm ok.
OF COURSE they do. Actually a good frontrunner to compete with you on this endeavour (and to win that mausoleum in London) are the WAHABIS. Check out kalamullah.com. They did the tremendous job there with actual VIDEOS on learning Arabic. Of course they'll control information. You think they're gonna tell us salah DOESN'T mean prayers?!
When you facilitate, you control. How on earth are you gonna control anything if you're NOT in charge of the project? Jeez, even this rudimentary logic needs explaining???
I'd like to see you star in one of those American dramas, like 24
Farouk (analyst) We've got a lead on a terrorist, who is planning something big.
Jack Bauer What's the intel?
Farouk Well, he is doing the exact opposite of what one might expect of a terrorist. A total giveaway.
Jack Bauer What do you mean?
Farouk Well, he is giving talks/information against terrorism in everything he does, it's the perfect smokescreen.
Jack Bauer But that could be said of many people, why do you think he is any different?
Farouk It's a theory I've been working on.
Jack Bauer What's the source? Do you have a plant inside his administration, or a wire tap?
Farouk No, the evidence is in my head only.
Jack Bauer You're fired. Someone get me Chloe.;D
It's interesting that you use one of the most Islamophobic series aired on TV, one that was lauded by the like of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. This and your FB meme really tells us your sense of justice and authoriy.
Your use of this satire also shows your utter lack of comprehension about the transitional nature of language. Of course if you work in a particular organisation (not just fascist ones which you support like the above) , you have to adopt their contingent objectivities. This includes their epistemology. If I worked for this racist, fascist monster you depicted as the righteous boss, I would have to adopt HIS semiotic system.
Who is the Jack Bauer in this exercise, Wakas? In other words, with the Quran, whose objectivity would I have to adopt? YOURS? Please dont ignore this question ok? You have been avoiding it in the other thread as it undermines your authoritarian pretensions.
I have tolerance for works on Quran, but primarily for evidenced works. I'm not into unevidenced works.
WHO DETERMINES what constitutes 'evidence'?
No need for worship, all I request is evidence-based discussion, not baseless statements, slander etc. Perhaps I'm asking too much. In that case, feel free to build a temple. But make sure you have a solid foundation to build on, I dont want it turning out like your other works.
Nah, don't delude yourself. What you ask for is YOUR FORM of evidence. I.e. from 'the Quran' (rubbish, it's actually from YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Quran OR from CADS which have been UNCRITICALLY ACCEPTED). Even when the evidence WAS in Lanes, PRL CENSORED it.
Nice comeback with the comment about my works, hehe. My works work for me at present. If it doesn't for anyone else, move on. No attacks, no accusations, no spreaders of falsehood comments, nothing. I'm just a traveller sharing notes.
Ahh, so to consider someone subjective you need to discuss "linguistic principles". I never realised that was encompassed in the dictionary definition of "subjective".
Yeah, hence you should stop being a dictionary cut and paster.
If you use Lanes, you must know how Lanes thought. Words are not used with the same semantic networks from person to person. When a Christian uses the word 'religion' , he may understand it in a whole other way than the semantic networks of the Q. When Nietzsche wrote 'the gay science' , this wasn't an explanation on how to be a homosexual. Please try and think a little bit. These aren't difficult ideas to grasp.
Amusingly, you quote from PRL then want me to critique what Lane said, in other words, put my own bias/subjectivity into what Lane said, yet before you were complaining of my alleged bias in PRL. Which is it you want me to insert my bias or not?
I actually quoted from YOUR ARTICLE (http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html) in which YOU said 'From the Lane's Lexicon entry' then gave that the khad3 quote.
So where is YOUR criticism of this entry??? The Quran is your furqan right? HOW does it act as your furqan here? Unless it was all a load of hooey, of course.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont eh?
damned? One would think you WELCOME criticism given your magnum opus, the disclaimer...wink wink.
You're the only one who has ever said that about my works. I wonder why that is. You never said that about my works before I posted a damaging critique of your blog entry. Maybe just a coincidence. ;D
Damaging critique? Yes, the 'Quranist Commission' called me about it the other day and asked me to take it off the web. I told them to think of it as a 'passing comment', much like poor old Nuh in 17/3.
It wasn't a coincidence actually. After your actions in my group, I sought to understand the language of objectivities and authoritarianism which you and a few others use. I then detected the same mechanisms Islamofascists use in their rhetoric. There are two separate issues here. One the issue of authority of interpretation which you and some others seek to have. Two is the issue of linguistic method where some claim they have the original meanings of Quranic words without even looking into the historicity of Arabic, let alone into semantic networks, philosophy of the lexicologist or anything.
No worries, we will be talking about this the philosophy thread if you really mean what you say
It seems me stating the obvious is big news to you. Ever since I have written articles and posted on free-minds forum, I have put a disclaimer on them, clearly telling everyone "information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify". If I thought I was objective and correct, I'd never write that. This is basic logic.
No, it's not basic logic. It's a rather a deception, maybe self-deception. If you're NOT objective, then what gives you the right to deride other people's views? As a subjective being, it's very possible you simply haven't arrived at that conclusion yet. So lets dispense with the pretences.
This is further proven by me never, anywhere, claiming I am objective. I even said so in my last post. This absurd idea is only in your own head.
Good, if you're not objective, then you won't have a problem linking my future critiques of your works on your website (mypercept one), right?
And with regards to Heer or anyone, of course they may be correct, someone saying salat is reading Quran while spinning in a circle may theoretically be correct, but I'm only interested in evidence for such a position. If a person comes up with X and presents little to no evidence, or conflicting, illogical/impractical evidence etc then yeah I might say something.
Oh really? WHY should this person adhere to your judgements or stand your negative statements?
I am noticing a pattern however, you seem to include much baseless information into what you write, which is similar to your Quran understandings, so there is a consistency there.
If I was baseless, you wouldn't even know WHO Heer was. As such, you have tacitly admitted 'saying something' so I don't think I'm being baseless. As for my Quranic understanding (insofar as they pertain to the Quran), the fact that you don't understand how 'hadha mughtasal' works shows your lack of familiarity with NON-Lanes related Arabic literature (yes, they actually do exist).
But hey, people have different frames of experience. The Quran isn't here for 'who's the cleverest mufassir contest', i's here for application. If you find something you're happy with, no one can tell you anything, not even Jack Bauer P
-
Sorry, can i please resurrect this question are all men in charge of all women as per 4/34?
You pointed me to a section in your article but I cannot see the answer. Which bit is relevant to the question please?
-
Firstly, thanks for quoting what I actually said and the context. From now on, please do that.
It's so strange that 'practicality' only includes meanings which YOU approve of. For the sitta AND arba3a entries, there are TONS of other possible meanings but since they're chaff (to you, of course) they didn't survive the selection process.
I recommend re-reading the instructions I gave to contributors.
There are many meanings in PRL I do not agree with, e.g. salat=prayer, sujud=prostration etc. You simply ignore these examples because they do not fit with your unevidenced allegation. Nice try.
BIG LIE. The warning was given. It's only not in the threatening language you guys use here. I prefer to be nice when I think I'm talking to nice people.
Dude, no warning was given, end of. If you were being accurate you'd say "technically, no warning was given, but what I said to you was meant as a message from admin and a warning". Speaking accurately is not your thing perhaps.
Yes, you were tremendously hostile to those meanings in my group
Did my so-called "hostility" include slander? Do tell Farouk.
So lets see how it works, Wakas owns the CAD facilities (no one contributed more than him, Radhiullahu anhu). Anyone who DARES question HIS RESOURCES, must firmly 'make it clear for all to see'. Then, that person's credibility would then be NON-EXISTENT and his work deemed WOEFUL.
Wakas owns, Wakas dispenses, Wakas removes credibility, Wakas JUDGES.
I own the CAD facilities? That's odd considering I only host Lane's Lexicon (which is now hosted on several sites), I dont host other CAD, and even if I did they are available on multiple sites. I think you must be referring to PRL. Even you confuse PRL with CAD, oh dear.
As I said, if you think you can do it better, feel free to create a PRL-like resource. After all, you do work/study at an institution which has some of the greatest Islam/Quran resources in the UK......but, erm..... you have made available... er..... none is it?
Wakas ---> made available many resources/tools
Farouk has access to great Quran/Islam works ---> made available nothing?I'm confused, who is controlling information again?
Lovely, compare this with the Wahabis. They OWN the right hadith. They PURVEY the right meanings. Anyone who doesn't like them are not TRUE FOLLOWERS of the sunnah.
Once again, you compare apples with oranges. I am providing tools/resources which can be used to check and even refute what I write.
Sure we can, I love nothing more than a good philosophical discussion. Start another thread for it NOW and we'll do it in tandem. In fact, I'll glad leave my own thread in favour of starting on Quran and philosophy of language. You can even have first dibs on question. What say you?
Can you clarify if you are saying I can still finish asking my Qs on 2196, and discuss your method on another thread (replacing the one you are asking me Qs on)? If so, sounds fine, BUT I request it is evidence-based*, not based on baseless statements.
*see dictionary definition
OF COURSE they do. Actually a good frontrunner to compete with you on this endeavour (and to win that mausoleum in London) are the WAHABIS. Check out kalamullah.com. They did the tremendous job there with actual VIDEOS on learning Arabic. Of course they'll control information. You think they're gonna tell us salah DOESN'T mean prayers?!
I told you apples and oranges. I am providing tools/resources which can be used to check and even refute what I write. And with regards to salah, as I said, PRL has meanings for it I do not agree with.
When you facilitate, you control. How on earth are you gonna control anything if you're NOT in charge of the project? Jeez, even this rudimentary logic needs explaining???
Oooh, 3 question marks, you must be serious. ;D You seem to miss the point that anyone can check what's in PRL via Lane links and the other CAD linked on StudyQuran, and even suggest contributions, as you did. Can you recall how quickly I edited it after your suggestion? Dont worry, I shall remind you within 24 hours.
It's interesting that you use one of the most Islamophobic series aired on TV, one that was lauded by the like of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. This and your FB meme really tells us your sense of justice and authoriy.
Your use of this satire also shows your utter lack of comprehension about the transitional nature of language. Of course if you work in a particular organisation (not just fascist ones which you support like the above) , you have to adopt their contingent objectivities. This includes their epistemology. If I worked for this racist, fascist monster you depicted as the righteous boss, I would have to adopt HIS semiotic system.
Oh dear, I now support fascist organisations? Can you provide me with "Farouk's weird and wonderful logical deductions" handbook before I post, as I might find it handy in avoiding such pitfalls in future.
Please ask your questions in a clear and concise manner, and number them in future, and dont mix them in with a diatribe. Perhaps if you stuck to an evidence based discussion you might actually realise a discussion can be constructive.
I actually quoted from YOUR ARTICLE (http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html) in which YOU said 'From the Lane's Lexicon entry' then gave that the khad3 quote.
Ahh, I thought it was from PRL. Firstly, if you have read the article, you will note I do not adopt what Lane wrote in my conclusion. For example, I do not opt for humble/obedience/lowly. Secondly, it is not necessary to critique Lane or any source on the spot or every time you mention a source. For example when you were asked how to determine meanings of Quranic words, you did not critique the lexicons, which your answer was based.
I have already told you what I thought of Lane and CAD etc.
Good, if you're not objective, then you won't have a problem linking my future critiques of your works on your website (mypercept one), right?
What critiques?
WHY should this person adhere to your judgements or stand your negative statements?
Did I say anywhere they should adhere to my judgements? This is yet another example of your baseless statements.
-
Firstly, thanks for quoting what I actually said and the context. From now on, please do that
Oh hey, it was and is my pleasure )
I recommend re-reading the instructions I gave to contributors.
There are many meanings in PRL I do not agree with, e.g. salat=prayer, sujud=prostration etc. You simply ignore these examples because they do not fit with your unevidenced allegation. Nice try.
Well to prove PRL is biased, all I need is ONE example. Obviously if you messed up the entire set of meanings, it would be so clear but then not many people checked meanings of sitta and arba3a. Hence why it's only discovered after a few years.
Dude, no warning was given, end of. If you were being accurate you'd say "technically, no warning was given, but what I said to you was meant as a message from admin and a warning". Speaking accurately is not your thing perhaps.
That's your way of doing things. Your way is not the only way. In fact, I think your way isn't effective at all. I much rather do it my way and lets not forget, you are STILL in the group. Despite our disagreements, your view is WELCOME.
Did my so-called "hostility" include slander? Do tell Farouk.
Not slander no, but rudeness and negativity which , coming from a subjective being like yourself, is inappropriate. Remember, you are subjective and therefore limited. All these guys you attacked may know a hell of a lot more than you do.
I own the CAD facilities? That's odd considering I only host Lane's Lexicon (which is now hosted on several sites), I dont host other CAD, and even if I did they are available on multiple sites. I think you must be referring to PRL. Even you confuse PRL with CAD, oh dear.
Lanes is THE CAD facility for English speakers and PRL is the access point so you own the access points. Don't forget, you are THE main contributor of all these facilities. That's why we're gonna build the mausoleum for you, remember?
As I said, if you think you can do it better, feel free to create a PRL-like resource. After all, you do work/study at an institution which has some of the greatest Islam/Quran resources in the UK......but, erm..... you have made available... er..... none is it?
Wakas ---> made available many resources/tools
Farouk has access to great Quran/Islam works ---> made available nothing?What I do for the cause is between me and Allah. I'd rather not announce it to the world like you do. People can think what they like )
Can you clarify if you are saying I can still finish asking my Qs on 2196, and discuss your method on another thread (replacing the one you are asking me Qs on)? If so, sounds fine, BUT I request it is evidence-based*, not based on baseless statements.
*see dictionary definition
Sure IF the discussion on my method includes MY counter-questioning of YOUR method. It's essentially a conversation on method. We will be discussing the Quran and philosophy of language.
In that case, then yes. You're not attending to my thread much anyway. I'd much rather forgo it in favour of a full philosophical discussion but kindly remember...it's a question / counter question format. I fully expect to deconstruct your method in this conversation.
I told you apples and oranges. I am providing tools/resources which can be used to check and even refute what I write. And with regards to salah, as I said, PRL has meanings for it I do not agree with.
Yeah, that was too obvious for you to hide. For sitta and arba3a, how many years did it take? I wouldn't even have mentioned it if I didn't return to FM even though I've known it for a while. I simply thought it was your business what meanings you wanted to censor.
Oooh, 3 question marks, you must be serious. ;D You seem to miss the point that anyone can check what's in PRL via Lane links and the other CAD linked on StudyQuran, and even suggest contributions, as you did. Can you recall how quickly I edited it after your suggestion? Dont worry, I shall remind you within 24 hours.
Good for you, getting caught tends to move one rather quickly.
Oh dear, I now support fascist organisations? Can you provide me with "Farouk's weird and wonderful logical deductions" handbook before I post, as I might find it handy in avoiding such pitfalls in future.
This was no accident. The fact that you made THIS GUY be the authority in question and the fact the organisation uses totalitarian methods to get what it wants. No coincidences there...
Please ask your questions in a clear and concise manner, and number them in future, and dont mix them in with a diatribe. Perhaps if you stuck to an evidence based discussion you might actually realise a discussion can be constructive.
Lets start with a very simple question Who is the Jack Bauer in this scenario?
Ahh, I thought it was from PRL. Firstly, if you have read the article, you will note I do not adopt what Lane wrote in my conclusion. For example, I do not opt for humble/obedience/lowly.
So why quote Lanes at all then? Your meaning isn't far from Lanes. I would even say it's inspired by Lanes. Why bother having Lanes there at all unless his view was consequential in some way?
Secondly, it is not necessary to critique Lane or any source on the spot or every time you mention a source.
Of course not, because Lanes is your furqan. You just swallowed what he said and at best, reworded it.
For example when you were asked how to determine meanings of Quranic words, you did not critique the lexicons, which your answer was based.
LOL you must be kidding. IF the lexicon IS used, it would ALREADY be critiqued by context, themes, chapter breakdowns etc. I hope I never ever do that because given the transitional nature of language, it would be a very detrimental thing to do.
What critiques?
They will be coming very soon as part of my 'dialogues' series. Since I accomodated your criticism, I fully expect you to accomodate mine.
-
Well to prove PRL is biased, all I need is ONE example.
If you claim you can "prove" it, then please cite the example with evidence.
Lanes is THE CAD facility for English speakers and PRL is the access point so you own the access points. Don't forget, you are THE main contributor of all these facilities.
PRL is ONE access point for Lane. There are multiple access points.
I'd rather not announce it to the world like you do. People can think what they like
I never announced anything until you made yet another slanderous statement against me. There is plenty I dont discuss.
You have provided nothing, as I suspected. Interestingly, almost all of what you do provide is your own views. Self-promotion? Surely not.
Sure IF the discussion on my method includes MY counter-questioning of YOUR method. It's essentially a conversation on method. We will be discussing the Quran and philosophy of language.
In other words, no different to your thread.
Lets start with a very simple question Who is the Jack Bauer in this scenario?
Jack Bauer is Jack Bauer from 24.
So why quote Lanes at all then? Your meaning isn't far from Lanes. I would even say it's inspired by Lanes. Why bother having Lanes there at all unless his view was consequential in some way?
Ahh, so now its my meaning isn't far from Lanes. Now we are getting some accuracy from Farouk. Finally.
I quote Lane so readers can verify via PRL which I link to. Simple.Of course not, because Lanes is your furqan. You just swallowed what he said and at best, reworded it.
Ahh, so rewording includes not agreeing with what he said? lol
Try again. -
If you claim you can "prove" it, then please cite the example with evidence.
Are you dreaming or something? What do you think the sitta and arba3a examples are? That's proof that PRL is biased towards YOUR views. Despite 'practical considerations' and 'wheat/chaff' considerations, SOMEONE decided the other meanings weren't as strong. That is the BIAS.
PRL is ONE access point for Lane. There are multiple access points.
Great and since you're the unparellled contributor bar none, you have the main access point.
I never announced anything until you made yet another slanderous statement against me. There is plenty I dont discuss.
Ah so the solution to the 'slander' is the Wakasian tawheed (la musahim mithla Waqas)? So instead of saying 'I try to be unbiased', you have to trumpet your horn to say 'no one else contributes like me?'. How is this even RELEVANT to the 'slander'? How PATHETIC. You should consider it a PRIVILEGE to serve God and make it as ANONYMOUS as possible.
You have provided nothing, as I suspected. Interestingly, almost all of what you do provide is your own views. Self-promotion? Surely not.
'
As I said, I am accountable to none but Allah, when you reach the delusional level of being Allah (very imminent I reckon) , let me know.Why is noting down my thoughts SELF-promotion? That's a bit of projection there, I think. My notes if anything should simply show my fallibility. That's why I have no problem with people saying whatever they like. It's not useful to them, so be it.
You on the other hand expect me to conform your rules when writing against you yet have no problem BULLDOZING your way into my blog. If you don't care about self-promotion, why not allow viewpoints from other methods against your own works?
Anyone who sees his works as self-promotion would tag his work 'comprehensive' even when it leaves out 'passing elements'....oops P
In other words, no different to your thread.
One difference you get to ask questions (so you have TWO threads now). Come on, philosophy is so much more interesting. Lets get to it. It's your suggestion after all and I think it would be worth my time here. This thread is boring now. Lets discuss lexicology for a change, I really want you to explain why you recoursed to dictionaries. Even better, what IS a dictionary. I'm sure you have some very interesting answers ) Shall we proceed?
Jack Bauer is Jack Bauer from 24.
I didn't think he was Jack Bauer from Eastenders. Who does he REPRESENT in you satire. Who 'plays' him in this satire? Lets be frank, ok Wakas ) ?
Ahh, so now its my meaning isn't far from Lanes. Now we are getting some accuracy from Farouk. Finally.
I quote Lane so readers can verify via PRL which I link to. Simple.So why didn't you critique Lanes if my statement accurate? Even that tiny quote you pasted so clearly goes against the Quran yet you didn't say a word.
Ahh, so rewording includes not agreeing with what he said? lol
Try again.It does but it does NOT include critiquing him. Don't run away from this fact you UNCRITICALLY used Lanes. As I said, you haven't factored in ANYTHING of Lane's subjectivities. It's essentially a cut and paste job, that's all.
Repeat question 4/34 - are all men in charge of all women? Why is there a problem in answering this?
-
fomob = false or misleading or baseless
Are you dreaming or something? What do you think the sitta and arba3a examples are? That's proof that PRL is biased towards YOUR views. Despite 'practical considerations' and 'wheat/chaff' considerations, SOMEONE decided the other meanings weren't as strong. That is the BIAS.
"SOMEONE" as in not me?
When I requested evidence, I did not mean statements based on logical fallacies. See SofA's post. fomob
Great and since you're the unparellled contributor bar none, you have the main access point.
You went from I "own the access points" to "the main access point", which may not even be true. fomob
Ah so the solution to the 'slander' is the Wakasian tawheed (la musahim mithla Waqas)? So instead of saying 'I try to be unbiased', you have to trumpet your horn to say 'no one else contributes like me?'. How is this even RELEVANT to the 'slander'? How PATHETIC. You should consider it a PRIVILEGE to serve God and make it as ANONYMOUS as possible.
Since you make slanderous statements often, perhaps you have forgotten. YOU implied I was suppressing/controlling information, hence my relevant reply, citing evidence against your baseless claim. fomob
Part of serving God is not lying about others, take note.
Why is noting down my thoughts SELF-promotion? That's a bit of projection there, I think. My notes if anything should simply show my fallibility. That's why I have no problem with people saying whatever they like. It's not useful to them, so be it.
"bit of projection". Glad its not all projection. As is clear, you have made available nothing except your own views.
You on the other hand expect me to conform your rules when writing against you yet have no problem BULLDOZING your way into my blog. If you don't care about self-promotion, why not allow viewpoints from other methods against your own works?
I create threads for my articles, and anyone can see that on them, some disagree with me. fomob
One difference you get to ask questions (so you have TWO threads now). Come on, philosophy is so much more interesting. Lets get to it. It's your suggestion after all and I think it would be worth my time here. This thread is boring now.
Yes, reading and responding to your fomob statements is boring.
So why didn't you critique Lanes if my statement accurate? Even that tiny quote you pasted so clearly goes against the Quran yet you didn't say a word.
fomob
It does but it does NOT include critiquing him. Don't run away from this fact you UNCRITICALLY used Lanes. As I said, you haven't factored in ANYTHING of Lane's subjectivities. It's essentially a cut and paste job, that's all.
critiquing him? ad-hominen is more your style, I'll leave that to you. Readers can read what I wrote and what Lane wrote, and see they do not entirely agree.
Repeat question 4/34 - are all men in charge of all women? Why is there a problem in answering this?
already answered. To claim otherwise is fomob.
-
I have now written a 4 part critique of your AMAH view. Will you extend the SAME courtesy you DEMANDED (and recieved) from me? If not, why not?
-
Farouk Repeat question 4/34 - are all men in charge of all women? Why is there a problem in answering this?
Wakas already answered. To claim otherwise is fomob.
WHAT A JOKE. Mr 'I produce Evidence' for the first time points vaguely to a section of his essay. Come on Wakas, if it's there, point it out. Paste it for all to see. The truthis you never answered this question because it strips your position of the most important point - that it does talk about marital relation. Of course, if you paste the answer here, I'd be happy to retract )
-
Lastly, I'm waiting for you to comment on my thread. When will that happen please?
-
WHAT A JOKE. Mr 'I produce Evidence' for the first time points vaguely to a section of his essay. Come on Wakas, if it's there, point it out. Paste it for all to see. The truthis you never answered this question because it strips your position of the most important point - that it does talk about marital relation. Of course, if you paste the answer here, I'd be happy to retract
Once again, I did answer, but it seems you did not read properly, so here it is again, with highlighting this time
From 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.Clear.
The above is not a Q on PRL. If you wish me to reply on your thread, you should stop asking Qs in mine and other threads which I answer.
-
Clear, thank you and apologies )
The above is not a Q on PRL. If you wish me to reply on your thread, you should stop asking Qs in mine and other threads which I answer.
Why would I do that? Are you telling me your article is not open to be questioned elsewhere?
Next question Since you admit that not all men are in charge of all women but rather it is conditional, a man can spend on another man's wife and it would then earn them the right of obedience. Is this correct? )
Repeat question I have now written a 4 part critique of your AMAH view. Will you extend the SAME courtesy you DEMANDED (and recieved) from me? If not, why not?
-
Why would I do that? Are you telling me your article is not open to be questioned elsewhere?
Not to someone who sneaks in Qs in other threads going off-topic, when he has his very own thread for asking me Qs.
Next question Since you admit that not all men are in charge of all women but rather it is conditional, a man can spend on another man's wife and it would then earn them the right of obedience. Is this correct? )
Please use your own thread.
