And speaking of John Wansbrough and in Hadhan (sic) la sahiran

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 15, 2011 at 12:57

Our dear Amin whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by islam wrote

>John Wansbrough

Oh you did read Wansbrough?masha'allah! In your dearms? How did you do it? You do not know any Arabic or Greek or Syriac or Hebrew or Latin and you undestood what he wrote? Sobhanallah

So let us read what he wrote and get one of your Arab masters to help you because this is beyond you

See Page 222 in QS and it is as follows

"The locus classicus was always Q20:63 'In Hadhan lasahiran (text in Arabic) Suyuti's synthesis includes the entire spectrum of textual treament as well as a conventional notice of dialectical usage

So far so good. Oh darn it our dear Amin does not like al-Suyuti but you can prove him wrong ...

"a. in some dialects eg: of B. Kinana and B Harith the dual is expressed by alif in all three cases (read this as accusative, nominative, genetive)

And this is what i wrote where the islamic tradition tells us hadhihi lighat ba3d al-3arab so you tell us why would Allah select poor Arabic of some ignorant Arabs when the Qur'an claims to be a kitab maktub bi 3arabi faseeh and this would mean that there is no accusative, genitive or nominative in Arabic and therefore the in wa akhawthiha is invalid so do you think that Sibawayhe was a liar?

b. a pronoun anticipating the subsequent proposition damir al-sha'n has been omitted ie: innahu hadhan lasahiran (Arabic text no short vowels)

In plain English there is a heh that is missing in the word in so is there a heh missing? what happened to is? was it also eaten by a hungry goat too? and this is what your islamic souces call in al-heh (ha') mudamara and notice that the word now has a shadda or an extra nuun so do you see two nuuns in the word in? you tell us

c. in addition to the ellipsis assumed in b. a further omission of an inchoative of which saahiraan is the predicate ie: 'innahu hadhan lahuma sahiran (Arabic text)

In other words the ulama that came up with this little tabreer al-khata' here added a second nuun and a ha' or heh to the in and then lahuma so do you see a lahuma in the Qur'an?

d. inna in this locution signifies yes/surely/indeed and thus does not require casus obliqus

Really? and this is what the ulama called in bima3na na3am so is in really means yes? and why did Allah not say

na3am hadhan lasahiran

You tell us

e. Haa is here as anticipatory pronoun damir al-qissa and the reminder of the proposition an independent prediction Innaha dhan lasahiran (Arabic text)

Really? They are editing the Qur'an by adding a second nuun and splitting the hadhan! What a scandal!

At least two other kinds of solution had been earlier articulated in addition to citing the dialectical usage (here of b. balharith b. ka'b)

This is self explaining

Ibn Qutayba recorded appropriate variants masahif from the companion codices namely Ubayy 'In (there is a sukun above the nuun) dhan ila sahiran (Arabic text)

So does the text say in dhan ila sahiran?

This is what your sources called jazm in in 3alayha sukun yubatilu 3amaliha and in the porcess change the words of Alllah? Now do you see why I wanted to see you making a fool of yourself?

and Ibn Masud 'in (with a sukun) hadhan sahiran or 'in hadhan lasahiran or ,in hadhan sahiran (Arabic text)

What a scandal they are editing Allah's Arabic!!

Ibn Qutayba to Asim Jahdari that one wrote inn hadhan and read inn hadhayne

What a scandal they are asking Muslims to play pretend and to be liars and indeed if you listen to recitation of the Qur'an by el-Skiekh Abd el-Baset he did recite it as hadhayne!

So much for islamic hypocrisy

So did you read John Wansbrough or were you just dropping names ...?

Oh there will be more and Uthman and 'A'isha get into this little gem

---

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".