The roots of islam and the Arabic language and lies and delusions part three

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jan 11, 2012 at 08:48

For the readers and follow me with care

1. There was no such thing as written Arabic literature before the Qur'an

2. The Quranic text is written as the basic layer of the Qur'an or the rasm and it is the layer that does not have the short vowels (fatha damma and kasra or a, u and i) and many missing long vowles as in the case of the missing alif (which is aa) as in the case of dahaaha and the text lacks some vowels as in the case of the shadda or double consonants and the hamza and this is why the so called tashkent's Qur'an cannot be read without the help and work of the masorites in the 9th century CE and they got it some times and many times they had no clue as in the case of the rasm MLK in surat al-fatiha where it is read in the case of the Cairo Qur'an as MaaLiKi or the owner of and in the case of the Tunisian Qur'an as MaLiKi or the king of which means that the ulama were guessing

3. The Quranic texts that were edited in the 3rd century of islam and in distant Mesopotamia by non Arabs and 70% of the Ulama were not even Arabs and they were Persians (see Ali dashti) which means that the Arabic language and reading the language of the Qur'an must have been affected by the culture and the language of the 3alim that was writing his commentary

4. It is very clear that the ulama were horrified by the many mistakes in spelling of perfect Arabic words and strage syntax and poor grammar that was at variance with what was to be called classical Arabic

5. So what did the ulama do? they INVENTED a language that is called classical Arabic that no one seems to speak not back then and not now and the aim was to explain what the Qur'an really says and this was done through manipulating and establishing rules in Arabic grammar to fit what the Qur'an says inspite of the fact that this would have been poor Arabic that no Arab would use and to add insult to injury they told Muslims that if the Qur'an has a mistake in Arabic grammar (and for sure it has its share of mistakes in grammar) then change the rulesof Arabic grammar to fit what the Quranic mistake is about so in the case of Quranaa(n) 3Arabiyyaa(n) INVENT a rule to justify such mistake and as i provided to the readers that should have been Qurana(n) 3Arabiyya(n) where there would not be an alif but a fatha and this is indeed what the arabs would write as i proved to our dear Amin whose Hindu ancetors were brutalized by islam

et voila lies and more lies

4. We are also told in the case of big time mistakes as in the case of in hadhan lasahiran that Muslims should write it as in hadhan (sic) lasahiran because this is Allah's Arabic but vocalize it as in hadhayni lasahirani whiich is the correct Arabic and in the case of Q12:2 write it as Quranaa 3Arabiyyaa but vocalize it as Qurana(n) (notice that it isa fatha and not alif anymore) 3Arabiyya(n) (again the same little trick of write it with an alif but vocalize it as if the alif was a fatha which is the correct Arabic and again this is what the lies are all about and in the case of Hur 3Ayn (Allah's virgins) is indeed vocalized by Arabs as Hur al-3Ayn and indeed al al-ta3reef here fix this poor and SYRIAC words

5. And if nothing works then Muslims are told that leave the Quranic mistake as is and the Arabs would fix such mistake when vocalizing or writing texts and all will be OK and as you shall see this works very well in the case of the word al-rahman

And more delusions

Sorry I know that any grammar is a very dry subejct

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".