For Saladin or is it Salah al-Deen and the Muslim logic! lahja, transliteration and other sordid matters

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 11, 2006 at 18:11

Why do you bring Christianity in this Salah al-Deen (speaking of transliteration)?....work with me we are talking about your Allah's book!

So is it maalki or maliki? It is all about two very different words that are recited differently and have very different meanings. It is either that Muhammad recited (if this would make you happy) MLK as: maaliki or he recited it as: maliki. It cannot be both. So how did Muhammad recite iMLK? Enlighten us.

There brings me to the sad conclusion that it is either one or the other, and it cannot be both, because Mustapha's claim that it is lahja is incorrect.

The only explanation here is that the 'ulama had no clue what this rasm MLK is all about, recitation as you claim it or no recitation because if the Qur'anic material was based on recitation we would have only one reading either maaliki or maliki but not both. And indeed those brazen 'ulama had to guess. So is it maaliki or is it maliki ya ayuha al-faylasoof al-kabeer? And how can you be sure? So much for the edited Qur'an and Muslim logic.

Ah so you admit that there are indeed foreign words in the Qur'an. I thought that the Qur'an is kitab mubeen in 'Arabi fasseh! So much for honesty.

Now your statement about: "the grammar of a language comes after the language and not the other way around etc..." betrays and you must pardon me your total ignorance of linguistics and I'm not interested in debating this with you, because you are not up to the challenge.

For readers interested in the evolution of the Arabic langauge from 632 CE to the stabiliztion of the language of the Qur'an by the 'Ulama that examined the Muslim masora starting in the 3rd centry of Islam, the examination of the grammar by Sibawayhe, the introduction of the short vowels, the introduction of long vowels in the Arabic langauge and the defective Qur'anic rasm, the introduction in the Arabic language of hundreds of words by the likes of Hunein Ibn Ishaq (he was a Christian....gasp!!!!) the likes of safra, tuhal, shabakiya based on Sibawayhe's Fi'l, and these words would have been foreign to Muhammad and his generation, the changes in alif and alif maksura etc...please see Wansbrough's Quranic Studies pages 85-119 "The Origins of Classical Arabic" and Kees Versteegh's "The Arabic Language."

As for your comment that "there is no naskh and mansukh in the Qur'an (it is al-naskh wa al-mansukh or are you another pakistani who pretends to know Arabic?)" I can only laugh becuase you are only fooling yourself.

Ah 'A'isha and not Ayeshah (I do not think that you know Arabic). I do not think you understood what I was saying: Your tradtion tells us that 'A'isha was 18 years old when Muhammad died in 632 CE. Would you agree with this?

Now let us count: We are told by your distinguished 'Ulama that 'A'isha was 9 years old when Muhammad had sex with her. So this brings us to 623 CE. He married her is when she was 6 years old, and this will brings us back to 620 CE. Now so 'A'isha was born in 614CE, or 4 years after Muhammad received his so called Mab'ath in 610 CE. I'm sure you would agree with me that she had no clue about his so called Meccan period, because she was not born and she was only 8 years old in the year of the so called Hijra in 622 CE. As for the Medina period: she was a child and an adolecent. (Now you share with us Salah al-Deen: how much did you knew or cared about beteen ages 8-18? Mostly likely not too much and 'A'isha was not any different from you) And to credit all this hadith material to her is nothing but fraud.

Stop reading or listening to Zakir Naik (do you know what the Arabic word Naik stands for?). He is ignorant.

Iqra' that is what it is all about.

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".