BIG ONE - some leftover questions

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Jul 12, 2011 at 22:51

... Read previous posts of Dhimmi - where he kind of praises Syuti, Remeber Syuti is a highly praised and a foremost Sunni scholar (although not an authority on Grammar like Sibwayah, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Hajib and etc)

Here is the quote of Syuti from Itqaan - where apparent Syuti correct mistake of God:

أن قوله تعالى قالوا إن هذين لساحران يريدان أن يخرجاكم من أرضكم بسحرهما ويذهبا بطريقتكم المثلى أن هذه الفصاحة لم تجر على لغة العجم

Please note - this is not discussion on that particular verse.

MY QUESTION IS THIS - WHEN IN HIS BOOK WHICH ACTUALLY DEALS WITH GRAMMAR OF QURAN WHY DID SYUTI NOT CORRECT THIS ERROR:

THE BOOK IS I'RAB UL QURAN - AN AREA DHIMMI HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF BY HIS OWN ADMISSION:

HERE HE GOES THROUGH THE SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS OF QURAN:

وأما قوله تعالى‏:‏ إن هذان لساحران فيمن أضمر لأن لو جعل إن بمعنى نعم فإنه أدخل اللام على خبر المبتدأ لأن هذان في قولهما ابتداء واللام لا تدخل على خبر الابتداء وإنما تدخل على المبتدأ وإدخالها على الخبر شاذ وأنشدوا فيه‏:‏ أم الحليس لعجوز شهر به ترضى من اللحم بعظم الرقبة وقد تقدم ما هو الاختيار عندنا‏.‏

There are several references to the above ayat where explanation is provided by several grammarians. So why when dealing with the grammar doesn't Syuti - says its incorrect. This was your big beef. DISSOLVED.

Anyways go read that book - find all the references and you will understand - OBVIOUSLY yo do not need me to translate or post more.

I have already given the site you can read this work

Oh and the above reference - where seemingly Syuti corrected word of God - that is Syuti's mistake. he made an oversight quoting Quran. - after a man. But a praiseworthy one - as you agree as well.

------

Apparently I dreamed up Ibn Hisham:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grammar-Semantics-Medieval-Arabic-Ibn-Hishams/dp/0700703020

or - look it up on google

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i-4pvHWislwC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Ibn+Hisham+grammarian&source=bl&ots=b4tpTQrzH9&sig=vVvt9SHmviWt08w5NZeyOCgNm9o&hl=en&ei=evEcTrLOEYG2hQeJ46TTBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Ibn%20Hisham%20grammarian&f=false

Dhimmi claims to know Classical Arabic and he says he has read Syuti - and his work Itiqaan fi ulum al quran - so why didn't he know who Ibn Hisham was as he is mentioned clearly:

http://www.almeshkat.net

----

Another lie:

Dhimmi does not know books of I'rab Ul Quran - books of syntactial analysis of Quran (Really!)

You should read them - a it contains all discussions of Grammarians - considering Quran Grammar. If he respects Syuti so much and knows his work - why has he not come across his work on the subject.

Forget Darwish then you like syuti so much then read him:

http://www.almeshkat.net

Reason Darwish book - becuase it is complete and more comprehensive. A later work. Syuti's work is partial and selected.

If you are going to consider Arabic Grammar of Quran- why would some one be unaware of this genre? Because this subset is all about it.

__

There is no such a thing (not as far as I have - as tanfi al jinns) but there particle of nafi al-jinns - anyone with elementary knowledge of Classical Arabic would know it. There is another particle of nafi al-jinns La - it negates a genus.

An unarguable FACT. Look it up in many many arabic grammar books not just a few.

Why don't you look this up in Itqaan of Syuti - the book & author you kind of praised:

he mentions these words (on different topic)

نفي الجنس

-----

Shrah Jami - Shrah شرح is an Arabic word it means "explanation" or "commentary" - very very very common when in context of

------

I looked the Shia reference up - Ali Dashti was a Rationalist - those with in Sunniism (most) died out. The Mutazilla. Considering I reject all Shia'ism - its hardly bringing up reference of that weirdness. Anyways they have said all sorts of strange thing - hunders I know - obviously more than you - else you would have come up with them here :-).

-------

Getting long and tedious - explaining one thing in several ways.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".