AlFathia

bkanwar2

Bold 1 Well on this forum i haven't seen anyone asked that. Bold 2 One that i agree, in fact i never denied of our ancestors mistakes. I agree that Islam is not a religion and made up rituals. However i have not seen a verse saying anything against religion although Allah does criticizes ancestral tradition.

The meanings of vary word Allah, denies all gods and religions. Only if there is one to accept it, after due contemplation of various linguistic rules presented, overcoming ones traditional ancestral beliefs.

The_Sardar

The meanings of vary word Allah, denies all gods and religions. Only if there is one to accept it, after due contemplation of various linguistic rules presented, overcoming ones traditional ancestral beliefs.

But i am not sure about that, i have check the root word and it says different from your research, (Not saying multiple gods, only one.) you have seen my previous replies about the root word of Allah have you? If not then please check them out because i do not wish to over-repeat myself.

bkanwar2

But i am not sure about that, i have check the root word and it says different from your research, (Not saying multiple gods, only one.) you have seen my previous replies about the root word of Allah have you? If not then please check them out because i do not wish to over-repeat myself.

There is no one root that can explain written text of word Allah. There is never ever a plausible linguistic explanation given by any traditionalists that can explain all orthographic structure of Allah. Hence, please ponder upon the explanation that I have shared. Take your time.

The_Sardar

There is no one root that can explain written text of word Allah. There is never ever a plausible linguistic explanation given by any traditionalists that can explain all orthographic structure of Allah. Hence, please ponder upon the explanation that I have shared. Take your time.

Actually i share non-traditionalists explanation like Lughaat-Al-Quran (Parvez) & Al-Maany. Lane's Lexicon i am not sure if his lexical meanings are 100% non-traditional but it is very detailed.

bkanwar2

Yet you're trying to understand the word Allah by root definitions.

You are provided with full detailed explanation that you are unable to refute even at one step with linguistic rules, except with your counter explanation that you can't defend even at one step linguistically. Yet you keep arguing. It seems like a lost cause that Muslims will ever be able to perceive correct knowledge.

bkanwar2

I've defended everything I've said. But we enter circular reasoning because there's no more to add.

Your so-called detailed explanation doesn't even contain any comprehensible information and it does absolutely not make any sense linguistically at all. This is nothing I consider "correct knowledge". What kind of intelligent information is "not an object of worship" based on some word which isn't even there. I've refuted you ten times over.

However, (Al-Laheh) is perfectly plausible linguistically and this I've defended linguistically and it's based on how Arabic grammar works. I've said the word is an anomaly within Arabic linguistics and it is a remarkable phenomenon and probably made as an exaggeration of the plain to show a point.

It is only you who is doing circular argument. One final time please give straight answers to following simple question.

What is the root for ?
What is the meaning of or its root?

Please don't keep going in circles and waste mutual time. I have asked you these questions repeatedly and you keep dogging every-time.

The_Sardar

What is the root for ?
What is the meaning of or its root?

Salam/Peace Manny is not here but i think i have unknowingly showed the answer in page 8 in this discussion topic, check my 77th reply.

bkanwar2

Are you stupid, bkanwar2? Because I'm seriously beginning to wonder.

I said is not a root but a grammatical compound based on Lam and Heh, occurs in Arabic relatively frequently and it's something you can observe. Place on this and you get and the meaning together brings "the (like) to him/her/it". Of course this isn't standard knowledge because it's digging into linguistics and morphology.

is basically the only distinguishable root word in it to find the meaning for.

Please cite a reference from an accepted Grammar book for this construct of . Nothing in any language that is said is meaningless. What is the meaning of ? Also cite another reference from Quran for ?
what is the meaning of this root. What is the meaning of all these alphabet together as written? How do you get to these meanings. Give linguistically explanation without using a reference to hearsay, either be of Hadith/history or any other traditional accounts?

The_Sardar

Please cite a reference from an accepted Grammar book for this construct of . Nothing in any language that is said is meaningless. What is the meaning of ? Also cite another reference from Quran for ?
what is the meaning of this root. What is the meaning of all these alphabet together as written? How do you get to these meanings. Give linguistically explanation without using a reference to hearsay, either be of Hadith/history or any other traditional accounts?

You did check out my last comment did you?

Salam/Peace Manny is not here but i think i have unknowingly showed the answer in page 8 in this discussion topic, check my 77th reply.

bkanwar2

You did check out my last comment did you?

You mean to say this
https//www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D9%84%D9%87/?c=Islamic

So I should accept Manny and his website as an authority? Where explanation ignores all linguistic rules establish centuries ago by Arab linguists. This is clearly an apologetic response and explanation to defend tradition. This is what really is a circular logic and an appeal to a faulty authority fallacy in arguments.

Why can't he answer my questions in simple English here?

The_Sardar

You mean to say this
https//www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D9%84%D9%87/?c=Islamic

So I should accept Manny and his website as an authority? Where explanation ignores all linguistic rules establish centuries ago by Arab linguists. This is clearly an apologetic response and explanation to defend tradition. This is what really is a circular logic and an appeal to a faulty authority fallacy in arguments.

Why can't he answer my questions in simple English here?

Where did i say to accept Manny & the website as an authority? My point was to hopefully answer your question.

The_Sardar

So I should accept Manny and his website as an authority? Where explanation ignores all linguistic rules establish centuries ago by Arab linguists. This is clearly an apologetic response and explanation to defend tradition. This is what really is a circular logic and an appeal to a faulty authority fallacy in arguments.

Why can't he answer my questions in simple English here?

Which Arab linguists? If i recall correctly, most of the linguists of Arabic language is Persian. If i made a mistake then please correct me.

bkanwar2

Which Arab linguists? If i recall correctly, most of the linguists of Arabic language is Persian. If i made a mistake then please correct me.

First of all, does one need to be born in a given lineage to be able to become and expert in the language of that lineage?

Please try to read about History of Arabic linguistic tradition.

The_Sardar

First of all, does one need to be born in a given lineage to be able to become and expert in the language of that lineage?

Please try to read about History of Arabic linguistic tradition.

Any books of PDF that you know? Make sure it's non biased of course.

The_Sardar

First of all, does one need to be born in a given lineage to be able to become and expert in the language of that lineage?

Actually no but that wasn't my point. You said Arab linguists, i thought you were referring to the linguistics experts in Arabic language who were of Arab descent.

bkanwar2

Any books of PDF that you know? Make sure it's non biased of course.

For starter look through following.

https//eprints.soas.ac.uk/5814/1/Shah.pdf

bkanwar2

Bring me evidence of your illogical "not an object of worship".

is very common in Arabic, I don't require to cite evidence for something which is common Arabic knowledge.

I common knowledge should be even easier to cite a reference, shouldn't it?

The_Sardar

For starter look through following.

https//eprints.soas.ac.uk/5814/1/Shah.pdf

There is also this

chrome-extension//oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https//www.alislam.org/topics/arabic/The%20source%20of%20all%20the%20languages.pdf

chrome-extension//oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https//www.alislam.org/topics/arabic/English%20traced%20to%20Arabic.pdf

Keep in mind this was made by an Ahmadiyyan sectarian but you can ignore his pages on the Ahmadiyya sect and move on to linguistic pages.

bkanwar2

Open the writing called Quran and look yourself. It doesn't require any presentation, if you master Arabic. I don't do any work for you with your attitude.

Please remember when one present an argument about a claim. One should be ready to back it up with evidence to support ones claim. As without evidence it just a claim. With good evidence it might get to the level of knowledge.

Thanks for interacting anyways. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

The_Sardar

Please remember when one present an argument about a claim. One should be ready to back it up with evidence to support ones claim. As without evidence it just a claim. With good evidence it might get to the level of knowledge.

Thanks for interacting anyways. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

Not being rude but you should check The Quran to for yourself. Because there are fellow muslims saying that The Quran has its own dictionary within. Again not being rude.