Another defeat to a Muslim! aaah! ouch!

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Nov 4, 2011 at 21:57

You have gone round the bush on this one so many times. All you coming out with is long-winded BS. Nothing left in the tank I guess.

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

You could not even read the sentence. It is: mutakallimun haqiqatan aw la - translating as - are you really speaker of Arabic or not. Which makes perfect sense.

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

A lie - easy to disapprove - I NEVER called this source a Childrens book. That you simply made up. Else I have asked you 3 times before to quote me - which u have not been abel to do.

Another lie - you own source said - that the masdar is not repeated in all case - and neither is verb. The adjective such as "Kathiran" is enough to indicate on the masdar - and stand in as the Mafool Mutlaq.

This is ver very common. Words such as Jiddan - Kathiran, Haqqan and etc are commonly used. Also you were unable to translate your own source and I did it for you.

The same passage I had translated - you changed the wording and tried to pass it of as your translation. Ha! That so did NOT work.

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.

There you go - I fail to see argument here - as you clearly admit that I was right. And gree with me :)

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

Oh no my dear - another deceit - that was your own inability to understand Arabic - I never said it was a missing verb - that is a clear lie. Else quote me on it?

You read this: تكلما as a verb. Clearly wrong. That is masdar that is "understood". Takalluman. You denied that Arabic verbs conjugate? If you did not know that - this is OBVIOUSLY way too advanced for you.

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

Actually the "understood" word is not translated - as it never used. So this is another deliberate deceit. Taklluman was simply to demonstrate what the "understood" masdar would have been.

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

Another lie - i maintained from the start that the word was - Haqiqatan - else quote me to prove me wrong. This was the thing that was beyond you and you started this whole charade. And I have never said that the reason it was mafool mutlaq - because it has tanween. That is another deliberate lie - else prove me wrong.

You repeat this process. Yet time after time asking you - you have managed to provide ONE proof. Yet you make up lie after lie.

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

So what is "Kathiran" - why have you failed to answer that? I have challenged you openly on this - surprise surprise - no answer.

Here is source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9iDsYua7gY&feature=related

Chap takes time out to explain - mafool mutlaq in detail.

This was the source Dhimmi used: Clearly says I am right:

شذور من المفعول المطلق:

في اللغة كلمات كثيرة تُعرَب مفعولاً مطلقاً، دونك شذوراً منها:

- حقّاً: نحو: [خالدٌ صديقي حقّاً].

- قطْعاً: نحو: [هذا مذهبي قطْعاً].

- سمعاً وطاعةً: [أي: أَسمع وأُطيع].

- عجَباً: كلمةٌ، معروفة المعنى والاستعمال.

- لبَّيك: [أي: أُلَبّي].

- شُكراً: كلمةٌ، معروفة المعنى والاستعمال.

- حَنانَيْكَ: [أي: تحنَّنْ].

- دَوالَيْكَ: كلمةٌ، تقال للتعبير عن تنقّل الأمر بين كذا وكذا.

- هنيئاً: كلمةٌ، معروفة المعنى والاستعمال.

http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/kafaf/Bohoth/MafolMutlaq.htm

This is still outstanding - again no answer.

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

There is no such word as "kathri" - but I take it you meant "Kathir". If the Arabis do not use case then - what is this mafool mutlaq with mansoob case. The basics that you are fond of repeating? This was really really idiotic thing to say.

Again from the source dhimmi used:

حقّاً: نحو: [خالدٌ صديقي حقّاً].

- قطْعاً: نحو: [هذا مذهبي قطْعاً].

- سمعاً وطاعةً: [أي: أَسمع وأُطيع].

- عجَباً: كلمةٌ، معروفة المعنى والاستعمال.

- لبَّيك: [أي: أُلَبّي].

- شُكراً: كلمةٌ، معروفة المعنى والاستعمال.

- حَنانَيْكَ: [أي: تحنَّنْ].

- دَوالَيْكَ: كلمةٌ، تقال للتعبير عن تنقّل الأمر بين كذا وكذا.

- هنيئاً: كلمةٌ، معروفة المعنى والاستعمال.

- يقيناً: نحو: [عرفته يقيناً]. أي: أُوقِنُها يقيناً.

- بتّةً: وبتّاً والبَتَّةَ وألبتّةَ. (البتّ: القطع)، [لا أفعله بَتَّةً]، أي: قطعاً.

- سبحان الله: أي: تنْزيهاً لله عما لا يليق به.

- معاذَ اللهِ: (عاذ: لجأ واعتصم)، أي: أعوذ بالله.

- تَبّاً له: أي: هلاكاً له.

Obviously grammatical case being used.

Furthermore:

المفعول المطلق: مصدر منصوب، يُذكَر بعد فعلٍ - أو شبهه

Again from the same source. This says - mafool mutlaq is a masdar mansoob (accusative case) cited after the verb or "similar to verb"

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.

Which help? Evidence proof? The meaning of Haqiqah is truth or reality - But not haqiqatan used as a mafool mutlaq. It means same as Haqqan. Both have same meaning. When used as mafool mutlaq as well.

Again the word also means - reality. Check in dictionary. Where really - used in adverb comes from.

Kallamullah.com has all three - Hans Wher, Lanes and Al Mawrid.

Under Hans Wher - see the entry on Page 192. Under the root haqq حق

"haqiqatan really, in reality, in effect, actually, infact, indeed, truly, in truth |"

So this is the entry. Which proves I was right. Also Really - in English is an adverb. Google it.

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

Again a lie - I never called or used the word ZARF - you did. I called it an Adverb. Adverbs in Arabic are spread into four categories.

Mafool Mutlaq - Mafool Fi - Mafool Ma'hu and 1 more - aaah Haal - Zarf are simply adverbs of time and place. That is it. "Adverbs" are more than just - adverbs of time and place.

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

Now you are beginning to see imaginary people? Who did I invite and where? I do not see anyone. Have you lost your marbles boy. Your general stupidity is bad enough to cope with.

2.His ism ul-fail is Pakistani Arabic

Active Participle - this is from your source:

اسم الفاعل: صيغة قياسية تدل على مَن فَعَل الفِعل؛ تُشتق من الثلاثي على وزن [فاعِل]

Corner stone of many human languages. What you deny this? Really!

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

Who are you talking about - I have not read ONE comment in support of me. Well no one has come to support you either.

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

Mutakallim is ismul fa'il - else what is it? You give an answer for a change? Try checking Hans Wher - then read a small book:

Arabic - Verbs & Essentials of Grammar - J Wightwick & Mahmoud Gaafar. Kallamullah.com

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?

Ha ha - I have answered absolutely everything - going into incredible depth of grammar. Yet you have constantly lied - and some really really weird lies. Again absolutely no reason why it is an atrocious sentence.

I have had to spell it OUT the thing I said in my 1st 2 posts. To such depths - that no sane person would believe that I do not know Arabic. Also willing to back everything up. Unlike you.

All those bits i have pointed out as lies. You have not managed to answer a single ONE.

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

Again - what is wrong with you? Which friend. I have NOT read a single COMMENT that was friendly towards me. ...

---

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".