The Greek mind and the big time karitha (disaster) and fadiha (scandal): in Hadhan lasahiran revisited

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 30, 2011 at 07:22

Like a typical deobandi/tablighee our dear Amin Riad I mean Riaz likes to drop names and his own education and little gobbledygook topoi the likes of "syntactical analysis" or what a student of literature would call that our dear Amin is using the old "argument from authority" and that he knows something from these authorities but he will not share it with us.

For the readers: I can help our dear Amin the graduate of a wahhabi school (oh I'm still waiting for him to provide us with a link to Whhabi central that can confirm that he indeed is a glorious gradaute with a degree in Arabic) and this is how it goes

1. I provided him with a reading of the rasm (Allah's words) of the jumla (sentence) in hadhan la sahiran and he can prove me wrong but he did not

2. I provided him with the gramattical rule that is at the core of this sentence and it is called in wa akhawatiha and the rule is in tarfa3 al-mabtada' wa tansub al-khabar and he can prove me wrong

3. Based on in wa akhawatiha the word hadhan should be in the accustaive and not the nominative or hadhayne and it is very simple and he can prove me wrong

4. I even told him that the recitation of the jumla has either been hadhayne (as in the case of Shiekh Abd al-Baset) or hadhan and he can prove me wrong

5. The response of the islamic masorites (grammarians and those that fixed and edited the rasm of the Qur'an) was to try and explain this mistake and what they came up with is what is called by al-Azhar (and this is why I'm asking him to write to Shiekh al-Azhar to tell him that he has a new tabreer) tabreer al-khata' and I even told him what they are as per al-Suyuti and I even provided him with a great review of what al-Suyuti wrote from QS and let me repeat it one more time

- in means ma and therefore in wa akhawatiha does not apply

- the letter alif and the letter ya/yeh when reading are one and the same or read it as hadhyane and write it as hadhan

ya nhar eswid

- in means yes and therefore in wa akhawtiha does not apply

- in al-ha/heh mudammara which means that there is a missing letter heh/ha and the first word is really inahu

sobhanallah

- in here means ajl and do not ask me what it means because this is really silly

- what is before the dual is in the nominative case but this would mean that in wa akhawatiha has no effect which is not true

- the word hadhan here is the way some Arabs would use it but the real question here is why would Allah use the word which is a grammatical error of some ignorant Arabs?

- the letter alif in the edited rasm hdhn and now edited as hadhan or the alif before the nuun is the gem of the word!

- in has a sukun and therefore in wa akhawatiha becomes ineffective

et voila you have them now and this is why I urged our dear Amin the graduate of Wahhabi Central to write to sheikh al-Azhar to tell him that he has a new tabreer lel khata' and to tell him about the following tablighee BS

1. nafiah leljins what ever that is

2. in is a subject

3. in is not mushabbah bil or lel fail (sic) what ever that is

So go and write him our dear Amin and you will make a fool of yourself

6. I even provided with him with quotes from both 3A'isha and 3Uthman where they both admit that there are mistakes in the Qur'an and that Muslims can read it as hadhyane and write it as hadhan and now he can prove me wrong but in this case the veracity of the hadith is on the line

7. I even provided him with a book written by al-azhar (al-awqaf) where some mistakes in the Qur'an are addressed and he can check it and it is called haqa'iq al-islam fi muwajahat al-mushakekeen and he can check these mistakes for himself

Now it is your chance to shine our dear Amin whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by islam

Oh there is more? darn it

>-Abu Bakr Nahwi

So this is how our dear Amin wrote this name (he was using the argument from authority) but this is poor transliteration of an Arabic name and it should be

Abu Bakr al-Nahwi

It is very clear that our dear Amin has no clue about the very central rule of what the Arabs call al al-ta3reef or the Arabic language definite article and this is a dead give away for tablighees/Pakistanis and Indian Muslims as they have no clue about al al-ta3reef so the Qur'an or al-Qur'an becomes Qur'an and a person who is a grammarian and in this case the above should be read with al al-ta3reef as Abu Bakr (who is) a grammarian again I'm not the one who make these rule

But what is most strange he could not have earned a masters degree in Arabic and still has no clue about al al-ta3reef

Now when this was pointed out to him he changed it to

>un Nawhi

Right our dear Amin? well he has no clue that there is no damma and it is either al or el and indeed in classical Arabic it is al and in modern Arabic it is el and not the bogus un

Oh there is more and I hate to bring up the issue of Arabic grammar so bear with me

The Arabs have a vocalization rule called qa3idat al-lam shamsiyya wa al- lam qamariyya and it is as follows

1. the sun in Arabic is al-shams and this is how it will be written or alif lam sheen meem seen but in vocalization it would be a-shams you just drop the lam in the vocalization

2. the moon in Arabic is al-qamar and here you write AND vocalize it as al-qamar

Now in the case of al-nahwi it would be written as

al-Nahwi

and not his bogus un or even an-nawhi and more evidence that he does not know his WRITTEN Arabic

In vocalization it is

a-nahwi

and there is no shadda here

The fuuny thing is Pakistanis have no clue about this very simple rule so Arabic 3Abd al-Sattar becomes Pakistani Abdus (sic) sattar! where they have no clue about the liguistic structure of an Arabic name!

Now it is your chance to shine O graduate of Wahhabi Central

Oh and od not forget to send the edited e-mail to Shiekh al-Azhar and to provide us reader with a link to wahhabi central so we can tell them about your poor Arabic

---

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".