The Quranic disaster in hadhan la sahiran revisited part one

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Sep 11, 2011 at 13:43

Our dear Amin who is really clueless about the Arabic language wrote that in hadhan lasahiran the big time Quranic disaster is correct grammar is because in "nafiah leljins (sic)" and therefore in hadhan lasahiran is correct

Well this is bogus because ان ... is not nafia lel jins of the in wa akhawatiha grammatical rule what is nafia lel jins is la or لا النافية للجنس which means that la al-nafia lel jins in is not nafia lel jins as in

( لا النافية للجنس )

س – ما هي ( لا ) النافية للجنس ؟ وما عملها ؟
- هي ( لا ) آلتي تنفي خبرها عن جنس اسمها نحو : ( لا قائد كسول ) ، فقد نفت الكسل عن جنس القادة .
- عملها : تعمل عمل ( إن وأخواتها ) ، فتنصب اسمها وترفع خبرها .

... read it one more time if you can read Arabic

س – ما هي ( لا ) النافية للجنس ؟ وما عملها ؟
- هي ( لا ) آلتي تنفي خبرها عن جنس اسمها نحو : ( لا قائد كسول ) ، فقد نفت الكسل عن جنس القادة .
- عملها : تعمل عمل ( إن وأخواتها ) ، فتنصب اسمها وترفع خبرها .

Can you read it ... ? and shame on you for pretending to know Arabic garmmar when you are clueless

But wait what i told you; fine then tell one of your Arab masters that you have the answer to this big time disaster and your stupid reason that because in is nafia lel jins (sic) which it is not then in hadhan lasahiran is correct

They will think that you are crazy and you are out to make fun of Islam

Shame on you

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".