For the readers: Our dear Amin's help is also posting atrocious Arabic

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 4, 2011 at 06:55

Our dear Amin who tells us that he is a glorious graduate of some wahhabi school with an imaginary degree in "ancient" Arabic what ever that is and for the readers that have the patience to follow this comic exchange our dear Amin whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by Islam tells us readers that there is such thing as

mutakallim haqiqa aw la

Or speaker truth or not Which is atrocious Arabic he told us readers that this is a maf3ool mutlaq but his claim is bogus as this grammatical rule is as follows: verb followed by verbal noun from same root as the verb so one can say akala (he ate) akl ( and this is the verbal noun or food) kathir means much

To get himself out of this disaster he told us readers that the grammatical text that i provided him with is a children's book but notice that he later on used the same text to explain his atrocious Arabic and he told us that al-maf3ool al-mutlaq is really haqiqatan (sic) which is not true because one would except a verb that has the root haq but you will not find it

Then he told us that well there are exceptions to the rule which is true as in deleting the verbal noun or al-masdar or al-maf3ool al-mutlaq so we can say akala kathir and al-akl is deleted but the reader can tell that it is there.

Then he told us that well the verb is the one that was deleted and that the sentence with the verb would be

mutakallim takalma haqiqa aw la

This is atrocious Arabic and it means speaker he spoke truth or not

Then he told us that al-maf3ool al-mutlaq is really the word haqiqatan (sic) which it is not and his bogus reason was because haqiqatan (sic) has a zabar (ROTFL) tanween then he used the example of akala akl kathir and he told us readers that al-maf3ool al-mutlaq is the word kathiran (sic) in other words our dear Amin is using a non Arabic word zabar to explain an Arabic language grammatical rule but he was told not just once but several times the following

1. kathir is not al-masdar in the sentence but it is the word akl

2. His masters the Arabs do not use grammatical cases in modern Arabic which means that the word is really kathri period

3. Then his poor help told us that the word haqiqa means truly or really which is atrocious as the word haqiqa means truth period

Then he told us that he meant to say that haqiqa is really an adverb or zarf in Arabic. I helped him by providing him with the grammatical rule about what is really a zarf

Then he invited another deobandi/tablighee to answer on his behalf right our dear Amin? your so called friend ain't no Arab either and do you know why?

1. The word haq is not vocalized as haqan except by those that have no clue about the Arabic language

2.His ism ul-fail is Pakistani Arabic

3. And he is not you because his syntax is a dead give away that he is posting for you! Why the delusions?

Then when it was pointed out to you that mutakllim means speaker and not your or his bogus he speaks as he speaks means yatakalam then his answer was it is ism ul (sic) fail (sic) then i provided him with an explanation from the children's book about what is ism al-fe3l i also provided him with the grammatical explanation of what is ism al-fa3il just in case and did i have an answer? Not really

But again this is an old deobandi/tablighee trick if they have no clue then change the subject or create debates that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and that is our dear Amin's little sentence is atrocious Arabic and if nothing else works then cry it is out of context right our dear Amin?

So tell us more about your friend who also lives among kuffar and enjoy the social benefits paid by them to his likes

Why the delusions? you tell us readers

---

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".