Lord of the universes! Rab ilAlamin !

shuaib

apple pie,

What a shame. It's clear from your last post that you have no interest in pursuing an intellectual discussion regarding this matter. But then I dont blame you; you've reached a dead-end and have nothing better to say now.

Thus, if you want to lambaste Omar, then you are also lambasting the very source that you are quoting for your ?position??

No actually, I've read Lisaan and I have no problem with it. I've also read some of QD however, like the examples I quoted, which has grave MISTAKES. It is NOT FAITHFULLY representing Lisaan or other lexicons, and its author appears to be ignorant of basic Arabic grammar.

Lanes tells us that he utilized the Ta?j el-?Aroos as his main medium.

This displays the depth of your ignorance, Let me ask you, do you think Lane ENTIRELY ignored Lisaan as a PRIMARY source? One can use MULTIPLE primary sources. I am well aware though that of his primary sources, he stuck to Taaj.

HOWEVER, were you aware that Taaj has large derivations/quotes from Lisaan? So it's impossible that Lane did not at least indirectly rely on Lisaan.

But as they say, like a drowning man you are clutching at straws. Allow me to pull the last straws from your hand

JINN, primary meaning something hidden, TAAJ-UL-AROOS vol 9 page 163-166

HUSBAAN, again the EXACT same verse 555 cited in TAAJ-UL-AROOS claiming that it refers to a fixed/counted path/accounted for, vol 1 page 210.

So now, I have quoted references from both Lisaan and Taaj that contradict your definitions, HENCE destroy your argument. Any questions NOW?

CHALLENGE! riddle me this! Why, pray tell, are these 2 words which are close in alphabet (jeem vs ha), so far apart in this 10 volume set? I doubt you would know, which would further display how little true experience you have of the language.

Your story changes every day?

Wow... as if you hadn't created a bad enough impression upon Christianity already... would you now resort to lying as well?? Show me where I said I didn't speak Arabic, if you tell the truth. If you can't show that then you must agree that you are a liar.

Tsk tsk tsk, what is Jesus going to do with you hmm? How about paying more attention to your Bible, rather than attacking the Quran.

As far as your replies to "fa" and "wa," it is HARDLY worthy of a response. It's clear you do not understand Arabic grammar. Could you even begin to understand that waw exists in 3 grammatical forms, waw al-m3iyya, waw al-haal, and waw harf 3tf? Do you know WHICH waw is used in which scenario?

Your example would have the boy in the store at the SAME TIME as he was buying the bread.

Can you even begin to fathom your ignorance, since only one type of waw indicates concomitance?

Now let's look at your ENGLISH grammar.

Let?s review more of your ignorance?

= ?fa?

?fa? definition

A prefixed conjunction particle having conjunctive power. It implies a close connection between the sentences before and after it. This connection may be either definite cause and effect or a natural sequence of events signifying; And, Then; For; Therefore; So that; So; In order that; In that case; In consequence; Afterwards; At least; Lest; Because; For fear of; Truly, After, By; But; Thus; Consequently; In order to. It is also expletive, and a prefix to other particles.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, pp. 2321 - 2323
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 414

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

Let's review your ignorance of English grammar. My example used the English word SO.

Webster's dictionary says

1 a in a manner or way indicated or suggested <do you really think so> -- often used as a substitute for a preceding clause <are you ready? I think so> b in the same manner or way ALSO <worked hard and so did she> c THUS <for so the Lord said -- Isaiah 184 (Authorized Version)> d THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY <and so home and to bed>
2 a to an indicated or suggested extent or degree <had never been so happy> b to a great extent or degree VERY, EXTREMELY <loves her so> c to a definite but unspecified extent or degree <can only do so much in a day> d most certainly INDEED <you did so do it>
3 THEREFORE, CONSEQUENTLY <the witness is biased and so unreliable>

This is a good example of how it's not enough to just have access to dictionaries/lexicons. You have to have the brains to use them too, otherwise you wouldn't say such silly things. Not only are you entirely ignorant of Arabic grammar, you appear to lack skill in English grammar as well now.

SO, I believe this concludes our most interesting discourse. There's nothing more needed to say because it's clear you refuse to accept Lisaan and Taaj lexicon meanings...

You use inaccurate sources (and also ignore quotes from accurate sources)

and have very little understanding of both Arabic and English grammar, which negatively impacts your ability to make logical statements.

You use faulty logic.

Nice talking to you, and I may respond in the future if you have something new and worthwhile to say.

unknownuser

Greetings shuaib,

Let?s look at your exit post?

Quote
Thus, if you want to lambaste Omar, then you are also lambasting the very source that you are quoting for your ?position??

No actually, I've read Lisaan and I have no problem with it. I've also read some of QD however, like the examples I quoted, which has grave MISTAKES. It is NOT FAITHFULLY representing Lisaan or other lexicons, and its author appears to be ignorant of basic Arabic grammar.

Apparently, you don?t realize that Omar?s Dictionary is an integration of classic Arabic lexicography, same as Lane?s Lexicon?

Again, of you want to denounce Omar, then you are also denouncing Lisan al-Arab?

Quote
Lanes tells us that he utilized the Ta?j el-?Aroos as his main medium.

This displays the depth of your ignorance, Let me ask you, do you think Lane ENTIRELY ignored Lisaan as a PRIMARY source? One can use MULTIPLE primary sources. I am well aware though that of his primary sources, he stuck to Taaj.

First of all, thanks for acknowledging that Lane used the Ta?j el-?Aroos as a primary source. wink

Hence, you have NO leg to stand on, as you already gave your ?blessing? upon the Ta?j el-?Aroos.

Lane, like Omar, utilized numerous sources, including Lisan?

HOWEVER, were you aware that Taaj has large derivations/quotes from Lisaan? So it's impossible that Lane did not at least indirectly rely on Lisaan.

Who ever said that he didn?t?..?

But as they say, like a drowning man you are clutching at straws. Allow me to pull the last straws from your hand

JINN, primary meaning something hidden, TAAJ-UL-AROOS vol 9 page 163-166

HUSBAAN, again the EXACT same verse 555 cited in TAAJ-UL-AROOS claiming that it refers to a fixed/counted path/accounted for, vol 1 page 210.

So now, I have quoted references from both Lisaan and Taaj that contradict your definitions, HENCE destroy your argument. Any questions NOW?

Observe the word of God, the Holy Bible?

Rev 9.3

kai ek tou kapnou exhlqon akrides eis thn ghn kai edoqh autais exousia ws ecousin exousian oi skorpioi ths ghs

And out of the smoke came forth locusts to the earth, and was given to them authority, as have authority the scorpions of the earth.

= ?skorpios? (skor-pee'-os)

?skorpios? definition

Strong?s #4651. Probably from an obsolete skerpo (perhaps strengthened from the base of - skopos 4649 and meaning to pierce); a "scorpion" (from its sting)--scorpion.

Strong?s #4649. From skeptomai (to peer about ("skeptic"); perhaps akin to - skapto 4626 through the idea of concealment; compare 4629); a watch (sentry or scout), i.e. (by implication) a goal--mark.

Strong?s #4626. Apparently a primary verb; to dig--dig.

Strong?s #4629. skepasma skep'-as-mah from a derivative of skepas (a covering; perhaps akin to the base of - skopos 4649 through the idea of noticeableness); clothing--raiment.

Observe the imitation, the Koran...

= ?janna?

?janna? definition

Singular. Masculine. Overshadowed; Covered, to be dark, cover, wrap, conceal, be mad, dark, be hidden to, be excited, veiling, or concealing from the sense, intelligent invisible bodies predominantly of the fiery or of the aerial quality, diabolical or demonical; a great serpent.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 462 - 464
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 104 - 105

Observe that the Biblical demonic locusts and the Jinn share these same attributes

Concealment
Covered

Obviously, the definition of the jinn meaning hidden/concealed/covered, from the Ta?j el-?Aroos, is a valid one....indeed!

Quote
Your story changes every day?

Wow... as if you hadn't created a bad enough impression upon Christianity already... would you now resort to lying as well?? Show me where I said I didn't speak Arabic, if you tell the truth. If you can't show that then you must agree that you are a liar.

Pleasure?

Posted Mon May 09, 2005 227 am

Jokes on you friend, for assuming I speak colloquial Arabic. I am not an arab. But why don?t you enlighten us on how colloquial, modern and classical Arabic differ in the terms ya?teekum and minkum. (this is obviously a rhetorical question, they don?t differ on those particular terms). My point was that asking someone to exegete a sentence like "the boy went to the store," makes you seem rather foolish. The meaning of that verse was OBVIOUS, no reading in between the lines is needed.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45371#45371

Tsk tsk tsk, what is Jesus going to do with you hmm? How about paying more attention to your Bible, rather than attacking the Quran.

Looks like you are on the defensive now?

Please tell us how exposing the truth behind the classic Arabic is somehow an ?attack? on your book of faith? wink

Time to put aside the Islamic propaganda and see what your book of faith states on the matter?

Something that you have never done before?.and are reluctant to do now?

As far as your replies to "fa" and "wa," it is HARDLY worthy of a response. It's clear you do not understand Arabic grammar. Could you even begin to understand that waw exists in 3 grammatical forms, waw al-m3iyya, waw al-haal, and waw harf 3tf? Do you know WHICH waw is used in which scenario?

Apparently I do, as you could not even give us an Arabic example to back up your assertion.

Now?..you are running away?

Quote
Your example would have the boy in the store at the SAME TIME as he was buying the bread.

Can you even begin to fathom your ignorance, since only one type of waw indicates concomitance?

Bring forth your referenced position?

Now let's look at your ENGLISH grammar.

Quote
Let?s review more of your ignorance?

= ?fa?

?fa? definition

A prefixed conjunction particle having conjunctive power. It implies a close connection between the sentences before and after it. This connection may be either definite cause and effect or a natural sequence of events signifying; And, Then; For; Therefore; So that; So; In order that; In that case; In consequence; Afterwards; At least; Lest; Because; For fear of; Truly, After, By; But; Thus; Consequently; In order to. It is also expletive, and a prefix to other particles.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, pp. 2321 - 2323
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 414

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

Let's review your ignorance of English grammar. My example used the English word SO.

Webster's dictionary says
Quote
1 a in a manner or way indicated or suggested <do you really think so> -- often used as a substitute for a preceding clause <are you ready? I think so> b in the same manner or way ALSO <worked hard and so did she> c THUS <for so the Lord said -- Isaiah 184 (Authorized Version)> d THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY <and so home and to bed>
2 a to an indicated or suggested extent or degree <had never been so happy> b to a great extent or degree VERY, EXTREMELY <loves her so> c to a definite but unspecified extent or degree <can only do so much in a day> d most certainly INDEED <you did so do it>
3 THEREFORE, CONSEQUENTLY <the witness is biased and so unreliable>

This is a good example of how it's not enough to just have access to dictionaries/lexicons. You have to have the brains to use them too, otherwise you wouldn't say such silly things. Not only are you entirely ignorant of Arabic grammar, you appear to lack skill in English grammar as well now.

Take a nice, long, hard look at the definition that you posted as it states the very same thing that I posted?

Perhaps your rage has affected your eyesight.

lol

SO, I believe this concludes our most interesting discourse. There's nothing more needed to say because it's clear you refuse to accept Lisaan and Taaj lexicon meanings...

Who ever said that I do not accept these as valid sources?.?

You use inaccurate sources (and also ignore quotes from accurate sources)

So now Lisan and Ta?j el-?Aroos are ?inaccurate??..?

and have very little understanding of both Arabic and English grammar, which negatively impacts your ability to make logical statements.

Where is your evidence of this?.?

You use faulty logic.

Do you even know what logic is?.?

Thanks?

shuaib

apple pie,

well i lied, despite the fact that you had nothing new or of value to say, i will just say some more last words just to illustrate to you why i am losing interest in this discussion with you.

You have poor reading skills

you quoted me saying this

Jokes on you friend, for assuming I speak colloquial Arabic. I am not an arab. But why don?t you enlighten us on how colloquial, modern and classical Arabic differ in the terms ya?teekum and minkum. (this is obviously a rhetorical question, they don?t differ on those particular terms). My point was that asking someone to exegete a sentence like "the boy went to the store," makes you seem rather foolish. The meaning of that verse was OBVIOUS, no reading in between the lines is needed.

Did I say I don't speak Arabic? No.. and I went on to explain that classical modern and colloquial don't differ on SOME simple terms... which to any REASONABLE person would indicate i DO speak Arabic, but scholastically learned (modern or classical), just not colloquial.

You say things without thought.

Before, you posted about jinn being from smoke and in the same sentence claiming they are free from smoke.

NOW, your original COMPLAINT about my English examples was that the ENGLISH word SO is not equivalent to the Arabic word FA.

You proposed that instead, the sentence should be thus

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

I posted your definition, and the definition of the English word SO. Lo and behold, in BOTH definitions, subsequence and consequence are mentioned... MEANING, "fa" and "so" can be thought of as equivalent since they BOTH can mean CONSEQUENCE.

Was that a bit too complex for you?

I'm beginning to think you play stupid simply to degenerate the discussion when it's not going your way, another reason I have lost interest.

Apparently I do, as you could not even give us an Arabic example to back up your assertion.

What good is it to give an Arabic example to someone who has not even a simple understanding of grammar? I won't waste my time teaching you... you can go and learn it yourself if you are serious. The books are out there!

The fact that you could not respond to my challenge, NOR do you have the slightest idea about the grammar of "wa," just reveals to any observer that you simply have no real knowledge. Do you think ANY muslim observing our discussion would take you seriously now?

So now Lisan and Ta?j el-?Aroos are ?inaccurate??..?

No, my brlliant friend. As was abundantly clear from my previous posts... the ONLY source I have said was inaccurate, is QD by Omar.

Lisaan and TAAJ, however, MAKE NO MENTION OF LOCUSTS. Erase the concept of locusts from your "exegesis," since you have NO RELIABLE support for it. In the past 4 posts, after being shown DIRECT PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE to contradict your claims... all you've been able to do is repeat youself... AHEM... dead-end??

It's an interesting trait, really... that Christians have developed. They seem to continue their diatribes without missing a beat, regardless of the number of blatant contradictions you point out. You seem to have mastered this feat quite well yourself.

But again, I see that you're probably playing dumb to just make the discussion go in circles.

And, of course, the final reason is that your posts are filled with wise-cracks and you clearly have no intention of EVER admitting fault, even after blatantly disobeying your own religion in terms of manners. Your extreme arrogance to the point of refusing to apologize after making practically racist statements should reveal your own soul to you.

What's the point in ANYONE carrying a discussion with someone like that?

unknownuser

Greeting shuaib,

Back so soon?..?

apple pie,

well i lied, despite the fact that you had nothing new or of value to say, i will just say some more last words just to illustrate to you why i am losing interest in this discussion with you.

Who would have guessed?? roll

Before, you posted about jinn being from smoke and in the same sentence claiming they are free from smoke.

NOW, your original COMPLAINT about my English examples was that the ENGLISH word SO is not equivalent to the Arabic word FA.

You proposed that instead, the sentence should be thus
Quote
Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

I posted your definition, and the definition of the English word SO. Lo and behold, in BOTH definitions, subsequence and consequence are mentioned... MEANING, "fa" and "so" can be thought of as equivalent since they BOTH can mean CONSEQUENCE.

Was that a bit too complex for you?

I'm beginning to think you play stupid simply to degenerate the discussion when it's not going your way, another reason I have lost interest.

Perhaps you need to calm down, get a grip, and re-read my point?

My clarification is regarding the incorrect illustration of your English ?boy? examples?

Quote
Apparently I do, as you could not even give us an Arabic example to back up your assertion.

What good is it to give an Arabic example to someone who has not even a simple understanding of grammar? I won't waste my time teaching you... you can go and learn it yourself if you are serious. The books are out there!

Once again?.you don?t have the time to adequately demonstrate your position?signifying its inherent weakness? wink

The fact that you could not respond to my challenge, NOR do you have the slightest idea about the grammar of "wa," just reveals to any observer that you simply have no real knowledge. Do you think ANY muslim observing our discussion would take you seriously now?

We are awaiting your Koranic examples?.

Quote
So now Lisan and Ta?j el-?Aroos are ?inaccurate??..?

No, my brlliant friend. As was abundantly clear from my previous posts... the ONLY source I have said was inaccurate, is QD by Omar.

And your assessment is based upon what criteria?.that you have a personal bias against the man?and you don?t think that he is a Muslim?..?

Give us a break?

Lisaan and TAAJ, however, MAKE NO MENTION OF LOCUSTS.

Erase the concept of locusts from your "exegesis," since you have NO RELIABLE support for it. In the past 4 posts, after being shown DIRECT PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE to contradict your claims... all you've been able to do is repeat youself... AHEM... dead-end??

Lane lists the following three independent sources that support Locusts for the definition

Aboo-Ziya?d
The ?Siha?h?
The ?Ka?moos?

It?s not looking too good for you?

It's an interesting trait, really... that Christians have developed. They seem to continue their diatribes without missing a beat, regardless of the number of blatant contradictions you point out. You seem to have mastered this feat quite well yourself.

But again, I see that you're probably playing dumb to just make the discussion go in circles.

And, of course, the final reason is that your posts are filled with wise-cracks and you clearly have no intention of EVER admitting fault, even after blatantly disobeying your own religion in terms of manners. Your extreme arrogance to the point of refusing to apologize after making practically racist statements should reveal your own soul to you.

What's the point in ANYONE carrying a discussion with someone like that?

We can see that you keep slavishly coming back for more, time and again?

What?s up with that?.?

Thanks?

shuaib

salams br wakas,

you were certainly right about not reading apple pie's posts. i think i will join your ranks.. i previously thought well i'll now just respond if he says something new... but i think given his demeanor, it's best just to ignore and carry on fruitful discussions amongst ourselves. As you said before, simply checking his references is enough to disprove his points. I recommend the same course of action to others here, lest you find you have spent all this energy and in the end get nowhere.

getting back to the original point of this thread, I too have to disagree with noor's comments on the term "rab al-alameen."

In Arabic, it is not uncommon for some words to have BOTH jam3 takseer AND jam3 salim forms. So her comment about the grammar of 3aalameen is incorrent. Also, the meaning of rabb also as "superlative," is also incorrect if you check any lexicon.

I'll mention this as well, to perhaps give sister noor an explanation for WHY 3aalameen comes mostly in the plural form in the Quran. It is, IMHO, from what I have studied about linguistic techniques, a method of emphasis. Compared to "Rab-al-3alam," rab-al-3aalameen is a more powerful statement, with the effect that there is truly nothing that Allah is not the RABB of.

unknownuser

worlds and universes are two different words. to be in "your own world" is one thing and to be in "your own universe" is something very undefined