el-tabrirat of the day and what a scandal and mistakes in the Qur'an and our dear Amin is a graduate of wahhabi madrassa

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 15, 2011 at 07:36

I think it is silly when a Muslim that cannot speak read or write Arabic debate a language that he cannot read speak or write so for the readers read and laugh

>Already answered - again:Shrah Jami -

ROTFL Not again you mean sharh al-jami3 or al-sharh al-jami3?

(Jami) is name of the poet. its his commentary - this is a very very common style is Classical Arabic style - anyone with 1 years learning would have know this. Dhimmi EVEN got this wrong. Not surprising really.

ROTFL Pakistani arabic why should i read it when i can read your islamic sources written by arabs you tell us and i can read ibn Manzur for the words (Lisan al-3Arab) and sibawayhe's kitab you tell us

>Just look how ridiculous this reply is - all he could come up with was sticking al- in front of arabic words - ad suddenly he knows them - oh no he doesn't - Just read his previous posts where he said I dreamt these people up.

What a scandal and let me help you here are two of the nine of tabreer al-khata' (oh tabreer and khata'? you can ask one of your Arab masters to tell you)

1. We are told that in hadhan is lughat ba3d al-3arab and al-Suyuti is more specific and he tells us that they are B. Kinana and B. Harith expressed al-muthani by an alif

Do you know what this foolish tabreer is all about? let me help you it means that

1. There are no nominative, accusative or genetive cases in arabic so is this true? let me help you it is not

2. And why would Allah not fix the poor Arabic of some ignorant Arabs? you tell us

And here is a second tabreer for you

2. Jazm an in 3aliyha sukun yubatilu 3amaliha

Or if we have a sukun above the nuun then an becomes ineffective

Well just as stupid as the other tabreer and do you know why?

1. Because the rasm of the Qur'an does not have any short vowels and by default it is all in sukun so this means that there really is no in wa akhawatha do you get it?

2. if i write in hadhan latilmithan and i can assure you that the nuun here has a sukun this is poor arabic grammar just write it and your wahhabi sheikh will have a stroke as it should be in hadhayne latilmithan and if so then it must be in hadhayne lasahiran do you get it?

3. and where would i find in sibawayhe's definition of in wa akhawatha which i already posted

jazm in in 3alayha sukun yubatilu 3amaliha

Where would i find that in Sibawayhe? you tell us

There will be more tabreer as we go

There is no such a thing as Pakistani Arabic

hello shrah jami and nafiah liljins is pakistani arabic

- there is only one Classical Arabic. I have Bsc from London ad went on to King Saud.

Really? where in London? and could you provide us with a link to this wahhabi university?

And what did happen with your little brand agency?

>THIS BIT IS HIGHLY HIGHLY INTERESTING.>Inna - is particle of empahsis this is not Inna - it is In - with silent nuun - a sukun.

oh yeah the bogus jazm an or in 3aliyha sukun yubatilu 3amaliha

What a joke so did sibawayhe lie to us? oh and see above

So? what does this have to do with the fact that it should be hadhayne and not the big time mistake hadhan ... ? and it means truly and that is it so is truly a fa3il? you tell us

>I am going to explain this the fifth time [you may read my previous post for other replies]

And the answer is?

Right - this particle is not Inna - so if its not Inna - why should it be هذين ?

It should be hadhayne because in wa akhawtiha tarf3 al-mubtada' wa tansub al-khabr right? then it should be hadhayne

No Classical Arabic Grammarian says so. I have previously proved that. Simple as that really.See even a non-Muslim source is un acceptable to him.

Really? Arabic speaking Kuffar? let me guess the ignorant Karen Armstrong right?...

---

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".