This mistake is so stupid its funny

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Oct 31, 2011 at 06:17

More comedy from our dear Amin who told us before that the reference that he was provided with is a childrens' book or did you forget? Now you are using the chidldren's book as a refrence. I see

You lies and make belief know no bounds - you previously had copied rules from children grammar book - YOU and got the stuff wrong. That was a separate debate. You manage to lie about this as well. Is there anyone more ridiculous that you?

>... - then why have you failed to answer that KATHIRAN by itsels is mafool mutlaq.

Oh so al-maf3ool al-mutlaq is not your bogus haqiqa any more I see

I asked you to tell me why KATHIRAN is a mafool mutlaq - which you failed to do. And have twisted my words. Just to hide the fact that u could not answer.

>The line is NOT akala aklan kathiran -

What line?

Well if you cannot follow the debate - then get out of the way. Picking one line out - like that? Who are u trying to fool besides ur self.

>rather akala kathiran is used. Kathiran is a mafool mutlaq.

No it is not and you tell your help that he is jahil kabeer

Kathiran is a mafool mutlaq - where is ur evidence it is not?

>Same way so is Haqiqatan.

So haqiqa is a maf33ol mutlaq or is it zarf as you claimed? make up your mind

I never claimed it anything besides Mafool Mutlaq - rest is ur petty lying. Else proof? WHich on numerous previous occasions always alludes you.

It was me who gave you the example.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/190270

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/190328

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/190355

What examples?

Ha ha ha -

I read this as you have no clue right?

Again more meaningless ... Trying to pretend you have answered a Muslim - but saying absolute zilch - other than copying and pasting a bit of what I said. And pretend ing u have replied to something.

> your OWN LINK proves this is not the case. Did the following simply go over your head:

>Here is a passage - going more into detail of what a mafool mutlaq is .

Let me see from the source that you called a children's book i see

More lying - this source I never called as kids book - that was ur previous attempt. But this link is NOT the best written - Arabic wise. But it is sufficient.

أوّلاً - أنْ يُحذَف:

يُحذَف المصدر (المفعول المطلق) في حالات شتّى. لكنها على اختلافها وتنوعها، يحكمها ضابط واحد. هو أنّ المصدر - وإن حُذِف - يظلّ في الكلام ملحوظاً مُلتَمَحاً، ودونك البيان:

رجع القهقرى = رجع رجوعَ القهقرى

أكل كثيراً = أكل أكلاً كثيراً

Did you understand what the text says? let me guess you have no clue yuhdhaf al-masdar or al-maf3ool al-mutlaq in many situations and akal akala kathir equals akal kathir which means ... that the word that hudhifat is the second word which is akla which is al-maf3ool al-mutlaq ...

I translate for youu what the text said - and pointed out your IDIOTICNESS. Yet you simply chose to carry on with your feeble attempt at pretending to know Arabic.

أكل كثيراً = أكل أكلاً كثيراً

You do not even know that Arabic is read from left to right. HA HA HA. Akala is the VERB you buffalo! Akala Aklan Kathiran - is shortened to Akala Kathiran.

Making Kathiran - mafool mutlaq - without the need of Aklan the Masdar being repeat - as it mostly isnt. Depending on the type of sentence. And what the mofool mutlaq is showing.

Again a DISASTROUS attempt - and failure.

I will say this openly - get any Western expert of Arabic. I will be proved 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".