Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => General Issues / Questions => Topic started by: Wakas on October 05, 2012, 07:58:39 AM

Title: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 05, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Methodology in Understanding Quran
Discussion between Wakas and Farouk.

This discussion is aimed at determining the best methods in understanding the Quran. This subject originally stemmed from a critique I wrote about a blog post by Farouk, which can be read here [link (http://www.scribd.com/doc/100544129/Critique-of-Quranology-Blog-Quranists)].

The format will primarily consist of a Q&A, in which each of us asks and answers a question at a time. Members are requested not to post on this thread, but if they wish to discuss something in this thread, can create a parallel thread.

My questions will primarily consist of getting answers to my original critique, so I will begin:


1) You said ? ?We are to complete the challenge and fertilisation for Allah, which is to establish and grow His system in the world. Whoever is prevented should...?

Prevented from establishing and growing His system in the world. If so that would mean pretty much everyone in the world would be classed as ?prevented?, because at best it would be a tiny tiny minority who could even claim to have ESTABLISHED and GROWN His system in the world.
Further, what establishing and growing means is anyone?s guess. It seems it would be subjective, and difficult to determine when this had been fulfilled, if ever.


You have already agreed that it would only be a minority who could even be said to achieve this. My question is: can you cite anyone, past or present (excluding prophets/messengers) that has "established and grown His system in the world"? And if you can, please give us your criteria on how you determined this.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran
Post by: abdalquran on October 05, 2012, 08:33:16 AM
No I can't.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 02:34:32 AM
I wrote:

Quote
Abbreviations:
NQCR = no Quran cross-reference
NQE = no Quranic evidence
NCADR = no classical Arabic dictionary reference

2) You translate ?al hadiy? as ?progressions? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
Having an alternative translation for a word is fine but at least one would expect an explanation or some presentation of evidence for an unheard of word choice. Secondly, the word is actually ?al hadiy? (definite noun, singular) so it should have been translated as ?the progression?. The use of ?al? commonly signifies that this noun and what it refers to is well known to the addressed audience. Of course, if you were to translate it in this way, it would be more awkward for you to explain.


Question: Can you confirm "al hadiy" is indeed singular and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 05:05:54 AM
Firstly, my work is not a translation. My work is notemaking. Therefore expecting literal translations is inappropriate.

Yes, al-hadiy is in singular.

You asked for :
1. evidence from the Quran.
What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran is meaningless in English and does not have the word 'progressions'.

2. classical Arabic dictionaries.
No, I can't.

Counter question: why is this question relevant?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 09:48:38 AM
By "evidence from Quran" I mean utilising the word occurrences within it to extracting information about said word.

Quote
Counter question: why is this question relevant?

As we agreed upon, one question at a time, and you opted to have your own thread for questions to me, thus if you wish to ask me the above, please do so in the correct thread.

###

I wrote:
Quote
3) Translates ?raas? as ?thought? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
Again, choosing an unusual word choice is fine if it can be backed up with some sort of reasoning/evidence, but you present none. Furthermore, it is plural, not singular.

Question: Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?


Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 11:11:03 AM
Sorry, I haven't finished with your second question yet.

You asked me if the Q evinces the 'translation' of progressions. Kindly show me how you would go about doing so. Perhaps a demonstration would be good.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 11:46:09 AM

You asked me if the Q evinces the 'translation' of progressions. Kindly show me how you would go about doing so. Perhaps a demonstration would be good.

Your request seems to imply you have little idea as to how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean. This is unusual for a person who blogs on Quran. Perhaps you should highlight this on your blog.

As I said:
Quote
By "evidence from Quran" I mean utilising the word occurrences within it to extracting information about said word.

If you have no idea how to look-up word occurrences in Quran and discuss how said word is used, then that is fine, simply state so, and move onto the next question.

If you claim you do not understand what I mean, that is also fine, simply state so and move onto the next question.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 12:16:01 PM
Quote
Your request seems to imply you have little idea as to how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean. This is unusual for a person who blogs on Quran. Perhaps you should highlight this on your blog.

Yes, perhaps so. Perhaps I do know very little and therefore beg your indulgence. Whatever the case, the duty of clarification is on you since YOU levelled the question.

Kindly show me and demonstrate how the Quran would evince a particular translation. You asked for the evidence so presumably you must know what it looks like.

Quote
If you have no idea how to look-up word occurrences in Quran and discuss how said word is used, then that is fine, simply state so, and move onto the next question.

If you claim you do not understand what I mean, that is also fine, simply state so and move onto the next question

I am asking how YOU evidence any particular translation of a word. If you can write critiques about other people's work, then one would assume you know how to perform it yourself.

You asked me for 'quranic evidence'. Kindly show me WHAT is Quranic evidence through a demonstration. You used the phrase, Wakas. Now substantiate it you can.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 02:06:07 PM
You seem to claim I did not clarify what I meant, but I did, re-quote below:

Quote
By "evidence from Quran" I mean utilising the word occurrences within it to extracting information about said word.

You seem to claim you have no idea what I mean by the above and regardless, you have no clue of your own thinking how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean.
If your view is it is impossible to determine what a word means based on Quran, simply state so for all to see.

The above would be an interesting finding, but in any case, I offered a solution for such a situation, re-quote below:

Quote
If you have no idea how to look-up word occurrences in Quran and discuss how said word is used, then that is fine, simply state so, and move onto the next question.

If you claim you do not understand what I mean, that is also fine, simply state so and move onto the next question

Please state so, and move onto the next question.

If you wish to ask me for a demonstration of what I mean by "Quranic evidence", feel free to ask on the other thread. I consider my clarification said here self-explanatory.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 02:23:31 PM
Quote
By "evidence from Quran" I mean utilising the word occurrences within it to extracting information about said word.

Sorry, but I will need a DEMONSTRATION of this so I can see what you mean. Can you provide a demonstration or not? It seems very suspicious that you use the phrase 'quranic evidence' yet you can't seem to provide it yourself.

Quote
You seem to claim you have no idea what I mean by the above and regardless, you have no clue of your own thinking how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean.
If your view is it is impossible to determine what a word means based on Quran, simply state so for all to see.

I understand the words fine and I haven't stated that it's impossible. However, I want to see how any evidence for meaning is 'quranic'. Lets talk about your view of 2/196. Would you say that YOUR translation there is QURANIC?

Quote
If you wish to ask me for a demonstration of what I mean by "Quranic evidence", feel free to ask on the other thread. I consider my clarification said here self-explanatory

What you consider has no bearing at all in this instance. You levelled a criticism and as such, created positive statements with that criticism. You wish for 'quranic evidence'? Show me by demonstration what that is so I can reproduce it for you if I can. Does your interpretation of 2/196 show 'quranic evidence' of meaning? If it does, I will go there so we can see how 'quranic' it really is.

Why would I go to another thread for this? This is YOUR critique. You are responsible for fully furnishing the examples required for your critique to be answered. IF you know what 'quranic evidence' look like, show us please :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
I understand the words fine and I haven't stated that it's impossible.

So you understand fine on the one hand, yet require a demonstration on the other hand. Contradiction.
It seems to me you wish to ask another question under the guise of not understanding something thus requiring a demo, even though you clearly admitted you understand fine.

If you haven't stated that it is impossible, thus, if you think it is possible, then please provide your evidence from Quran, in whatever manner you can fathom for providing such evidence.

If you are unwilling to move on without a demonstration of something you apparently understand fine, then simply state so. To keep the Q&A going I will provide one.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 03:06:58 PM
Quote
So you understand fine on the one hand, yet require a demonstration on the other hand. Contradiction.

To an Aristotelian logician, yes. However, the world has moved on since the days of Ancient Greece. There are now different levels of understanding. CONCEPTUALLY, I understand what YOU mean by 'quranic evidence'. However, I would like to see it demonstrated.

I asked you before: does your work on 2/196 constitute Quranically evinced meanings? Yes or no. If it does, I would like to study it before I proffer my views.


Quote
It seems to me you wish to ask another question under the guise of not understanding something thus requiring a demo, even though you clearly admitted you understand fine.

It can seem to you whatever you like, I asked you to show me what 'quranic evidence' looks like. The onus is on you to show me how it works....if you can.

Quote
If you haven't stated that it is impossible, thus, if you think it is possible, then please provide your evidence from Quran, in whatever manner you can fathom for providing such evidence.

If you are unwilling to move on without a demonstration of something you apparently understand fine, then simply state so. To keep the Q&A going I will provide one.

I need to see what 'quranic evidence' looks like before I determine if my work is quranically evinced or not. If you can show me what that looks like, I will proceed. I am simply asking for demonstration of what YOU asked for. Show me an example of that so I can see how 'quranic' it is. Alternatively, tell me if your 2/196 thing is 'quranically evinced' or not so I can see for myself :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 03:22:48 PM
IF you believe your write up on 2/196 is 'quranically evinced', I'd like to ask about point one:

1) "And complete the hajj and the 3umra for God" - whatever hajj and 3umra are, they should be completed.
Later the verse states "...then a sawm/abstinence/fast three days during the hajj..." - clearly implying the hajj is a delimited/finite timed undertaking/event. Also see 22:28 "appointed days" and 9:3 "day of the greatest/peak hajj".


You claimed here that 'hajj is a delimited/finite timed undertaking/event'. Would you consider this 'quranically evinced' by quoting 22/28 and 9/3 ?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 07, 2012, 02:36:32 AM
Since you seem to require a demo of what I mean, here is an example:

Let's say you think word X means "banana" and others think it means "orange" or "fruit" or something else, we can look to the occurrences of word X within the text (e.g. Quran) to determine what that text means by word X, or at the very least, gather information about word X to help us determine which meaning suits.

Occurrence 1:
As the table fell over the food on it landed on the ground, and the X rolled along the floor.

Occurrence 2:
I normally cut X in half then squeeze the juice to drink.

Occurrence 3:
The X hanging from the trees looked like radiant suns.


From the above we can determine some characteristics of X, e.g. it can roll, it can be cut in half and squeezed for juice, it can be likened to a radiant sun. We simply apply these to the word options, and see what fits best.

So, quite simply, from the occurrences of the word "hadiy" can you bring forth any evidence that backs your meaning of "the progression"? If you can, please provide it, if you cant, then simply state so, and move onto the next question.


My questions are not difficult, but answering them often is.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 07, 2012, 02:38:23 AM
I forgot to add, if you wish to ask me questions, you have your own thread, as we both agreed. Please do not change the agreed upon format midway.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 08, 2012, 04:56:11 AM
You did not provide a QURANIC demonstration (neither 'validated' by nor even 'pertaining' to the Quran) but no matter, lets move on.

'hadiy' is related to the huda which I interpret as moving from location to location. The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16). Therefore, I interpret this to be 'progressions' in our journey of establishing AMAH.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 09, 2012, 03:29:38 AM
'hadiy' is related to the huda which I interpret as moving from location to location. The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16). Therefore, I interpret this to be 'progressions' in our journey of establishing AMAH.

Thanks for actually bringing forth evidence. I consider it very poor and a tenuous link, but at least its something. Readers can of course make up their own minds.
As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves".

Now please move onto the next question:

Quote
Question: Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 09, 2012, 06:59:28 AM
Thanks for actually bringing forth evidence. I consider it very poor and a tenuous link, but at least its something.

Oh thanks so much! This helps me measure my interpretation a lot.

Quote
Readers can of course make up their own minds.


Oh are they allowed? I'd have thought they would be attacked if they agreed for following falsehood.

Quote
As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves".

Maybe for those who uncritically accept this form stuff (and STILL claim the Quran is their furqan, lol) . I don't. Where's your Quranic proof for this by the way.

Quote
Now please move onto the next question:
Question: Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?

What was my word choice for this? It seems you cannot understand: I DID NOT MAKE A TRANSLATION. I am blogging my UNDERSTANDING of this aya. Do you understand the difference?

A translation would lock each Quranic word to a translated word for phrase. I did NOT do that. I am blogging my understanding of that verse. So as such, there is no word CHOICE.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 09, 2012, 07:22:21 AM
Quote from: Farouk
What was my word choice for this?

You may have forgotten since it seems a while ago since I asked.
Perhaps readers should compare your responses to my questions with mine to yours. I answer every question in the very next reply on your thread. You on the other hand evade, stall and obfuscate........... and then reply.... maybe.


Let's try this again...

Quote from: Farouk
I am blogging my UNDERSTANDING of this aya.

Fine. You have an understanding of X, and opted to represent that understanding by choosing words, one of which was "thought" for "raas".

My question is very simple:
Quote
Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?

If you have no evidence for this understanding (as represented by your words), simply state so for all to see.

Or will you opt to evade yet again?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 09, 2012, 07:52:51 AM
Quote
You may have forgotten since it seems a while ago since I asked.
Perhaps readers should compare your responses to my questions with mine to yours. I answer every question in the very next reply on your thread. You on the other hand evade, stall and obfuscate........... and then reply.... maybe
.

Look , if you're not able to understand my technique, your questions are bound to be off the mark. You think in a one a dimensional cut and paste fashion then pretend as if your view is 'quranic' (not pertaining to, validated by) which is absolute nonsense. You don't examine context, themes, shifts in language or even pronoun moods. So yeah, when YOU have a problem with my approach, I take it as a good sign. My reading isn't meant for people who claim to reject hadith yet swallow what lexicographers tell them. 

Oh you answer every question eh? Where is your PROOF for that form 8 comment? Quranic proof please none of that orange fruit nonsense.

Quote
Fine. You have an understanding of X, and opted to represent that understanding by choosing words, one of which was "thought" for "raas".

Good, further proof of your inability to understand. The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal) and so I chose to lift the metaphorical process projected by the word and apply it to my interpretation of the verse. It's not a WORD CHOICE. It's like in English we say 'lose one's head'.


Quote
If you have no evidence for this understanding (as represented by your words), simply state so for all to see.

Or will you opt to evade yet again?
lol...I'll just call it 'quranic' cause it PERTAINS to the Quran  :rotfl:
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 09, 2012, 08:29:31 AM
The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal) and so I chose to lift the metaphorical process projected by the word and apply it to my interpretation of the verse.

Rather than stating something unevidenced, what I asked for was actual evidence either something from Quran or classical arabic dictionaries.

Please try again.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 09, 2012, 09:07:41 AM
Are you denying 'raas' is used metaphorically? Does your wealth have literal heads?

Oh, to keep up your record of answering all my questions, I'm still waiting for proof of 'Form 8'.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 04:42:32 AM
Perhaps you do not understand what the word "evidence" means. Please see:

Quote
ev?i?dence
noun /ˈevədəns/ 
evidences, plural

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

You said: "The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal)"

I didn't see any reference cited there, only what seems like an opinion.

Quote
Definition:
o?pin?ion
noun /əˈpinyən/ 
opinions, plural

A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge


I am not saying what you said is not stated anywhere, what I am asking for is evidence. So readers of the forum can see where you get your understandings from. Let's see if they are Quran based or not. Please cite the reference.



Quote from: Farouk
Oh, to keep up your record of answering all my questions, I'm still waiting for proof of 'Form 8'.

My reference was cited. If you disregard the grammar information on corpus.quran.com then simply state so for all to see.


Once again, let me ask my very simple question:

Quote
Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 07:08:22 AM
Quote
You said: "The word 'raas' means 'head'. However, the head is used metaphorically as well (like raas am waal)"

I didn't see any reference cited there, only what seems like an opinion.

Oh sorry, you keep on about your 'comprehensive' study of 2/196 in facebook  so I assumed it would include the word 'raas'. 'Ru'uus amwalikum' is mentioned in 2/279 and when I said 'raas al-amwaal' above, I thought  you'd know about it.

I guess your study wasn't comprehensive after all  and therefore nor were your translations 'Quranic' huh? Oh except that it PERTAINS to the Quran, of course.

Quote
My reference was cited. If you disregard the grammar information on corpus.quran.com then simply state so for all to see.

I asked you for QURANIC evidence that the yafta3ala means what you say it means. I guess your grammar doesn't REALLY come from the Quran. You use the word Quranic grammar to pass off your opinions as authoritative but really they are simply OPINIONS (glad you defined it for me above, btw) about Quranic words.

Yes, if you cared to read my respose to corpus above, I said:

Maybe for those who uncritically accept this form stuff (and STILL claim the Quran is their furqan, lol) . I DON'T.

So I will repeat my question for you - WHERE IS THE QURANIC EVIDENCE FOR THIS? Does the Quran support your view or not? If not, be HONEST and say it's opinion ABOUT the form, one of MANY opinions. Have you actually studied morphology or what?

Also, don't forget my thread. Still waiting for your response there about 'quranic grammar' (or pertaining to, hehe)....
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 09:08:32 AM
Let me repeat my question for the nth time:

Quote
Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?

I assume you are not visually impaired, and can thus see that there are two parts to the above question. In case you have difficulty, I will colour code it for you:

Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural and provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?

Please note I will not repeat my question any further.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 10:41:35 AM
No, raas is SINGULAR. In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness) , the plural version 'ru'us' is given.

Now I will repeat my question: where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 11:35:21 AM
No, raas is SINGULAR. In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness) , the plural version 'ru'us' is given.

Thanks for actually making some mention with regard to the singular/plural issue. It only took asking you multiple times.

Unfortunately, your answer seems to be confused. Let me refresh your memory: in response to your blog post on 2:196 I wrote a critique, and in this critique I wrote:

Quote
3) Translates ?raas? as ?thought? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
Again, choosing an unusual word choice is fine if it can be backed up with some sort of reasoning/evidence, but you present none. Furthermore, it is plural, not singular.

Thus my question of "Can you confirm "raas" is indeed plural..." is in regard to your reference of "thought" in 2:196.

"thought" is singular. In 2:196 "raas" is plural, i.e. "ru'us".

Dont worry, you have taken so long to answer you probably forgot what I was originally referring to. That is understandable.


A future tip when engaging in discussion: try not to stall so long that you actually forget what the original question was.

 ;D
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 12:11:28 PM
So, to clarify for readers, you seemingly based your view on a metaphorical use of the word in Quran, and this magically allowed you to understand the word in another metaphorical way not referenced in Quran.

Quote
flim?sy
adjective /ˈflimzē/ 
flimsier, comparative; flimsiest, superlative

Comparatively light and insubstantial; easily damaged, weak and unconvincing


In any case, thanks for clarifying. Now, let's finally move onto what you said...

No, raas is SINGULAR. In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness) , the plural version 'ru'us' is given.

Now I will repeat my question: where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?

As I said, if you wish to ask me questions, you have your thread. It is one question at a time each, as per agreed format. I was waiting for you to answer my 3rd question, not me answer your nth question.

However, you seem to persist with this one, so let us test it...

Firstly, you incorrectly state my article on 2:196 claimed "comprehensiveness". Please supply evidence with quote. I will even help you out, here is the link:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html
If you cannot provide evidence please correct your statement, if you are humble enough of course.

Secondly, you persist and ask: "Now I will repeat my question: where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?"

Even though I already cited corpus.quran.com, one can use intra-Quran comparison and study all words and all forms, to determine if a pattern is found in their form usage etc. This is what corpus attempts to do. In the other thread, you seem to reject this intra-Quran comparison, but here is the bombshell...

YOU clearly and unequivocally stated "hadiy" is singular, and "ru'us" is plural - but tell us Farouk, how did you determine this?

Please note, since you reject intra-Quran comparison you cannot use that. Do tell us.

This should be interesting.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 12:23:54 PM
It takes time because your use of language is far too rigid. You have been reading far too many grammar books without actually contemplating the ontology of grammar, that is to say, how it exists and what processes go into its construction. It's literally a grammar school approach to grammar.

Take for example this 'thought' thing. If I said 'philosophical thought', will you think of it as a single thought? I hope not but I'm not so sure.

There is so much more to language than simply cutting and pasting from dictionaries and grammar books.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 01:05:35 PM
So, to clarify for readers, you seemingly based your view on a metaphorical use of the word in Quran, and this magically allowed you to understand the word in another metaphorical way not referenced in Quran.

What magically? If a word is used metaphorically in one verse, then it could easily be ALL metaphorical. It depends on the thing which you (by your own admission in QRAC) cannot comprehend: CONTEXT.

My contextual analysis of the passage tells me that to interpret as literally 'head' there makes no applicational sense and thats what I'm here for, application not conformity to Arabic.

Given your allergy to context, why would I bother about you think? Your unsolicited evaluation has no effect on my opinion. If I needed your evaluation, I would check a dictionary, bury my head in the sand about how dictionaries are formulated, and accept that to be the truth.

No thanks though, you can have that for your work and claim its 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' and accuse people of 'spreading falsehood'. That's what you do best, pretense of objectivity. A few questions and that facade becomes unravelled very easily. The very fact that you accept synonyms shows you don't know how language works so there's no point in worrying about what you think.

Your work is good for one thing though, shaking Traditionalist opinion. I thank you very much for that.


Quote
In any case, thanks for clarifying. Now, let's finally move onto what you said...

As I said, if you wish to ask me questions, you have your thread. It is one question at a time each, as per agreed format. I was waiting for you to answer my 3rd question, not me answer your nth question.

If you cant speak clearly and academically, you will face requests for clarification. I suggest you actually study logic instead of quoting logical terms at people. Especially study 'burden of proof'.


Quote
However, you seem to persist with this one, so let us test it...

Firstly, you incorrectly state my article on 2:196 claimed "comprehensiveness". Please supply evidence with quote. I will even help you out, here is the link:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html
If you cannot provide evidence please correct your statement, if you are humble enough of course.

No , this is from facebook. Facebook threads get buried. However, here's one which I can see : https://www.facebook.com/groups/quranology/permalink/475643049142838/

Here you claimed a 'detailed analysis' of AMAH. Another absurd description.


Quote
Secondly, you persist and ask: "Now I will repeat my question: where is the QURANIC evidence for form 8?"

Even though I already cited corpus.quran.com, one can use intra-Quran comparison and study all words and all forms, to determine if a pattern is found in their form usage etc. This is what corpus attempts to do. In the other thread, you seem to reject this intra-Quran comparison, but here is the bombshell...

BOMBSHELL LOL, oh boy. We do love this drama crap don't we. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. To answer your 'bombshell':

I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles. However, since YOU stand by the meaning given by corpus ABOUT Form 8, YOU must provide Quranic ayat which show that this form unequivocally means what you say. Don't tell me corpus did that. It didn't provide any Quranic proof at all. What it did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.

If you believe corpus used the Quran to justify the use of this form, then it is YOUR DUTY to discover which ayat was used to clearly show how this form works.

So where are the ayat? Don't tell me the process please. DEMONSTRATE the process for 'yahtadoon' to show it means what you say it means.


Quote
YOU clearly and unequivocally stated "hadiy" is singular, and "ru'us" is plural - but tell us Farouk, how did you determine this?

Please note, since you reject intra-Quran comparison you cannot use that. Do tell us.

This should be interesting.

I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you do. You analyse one verse without even eliciting WHERE the verse is or what OTHER words could have been used. Your 4/34 analysis goes a long way to show your REAL furqan are the dictionaries and grammar books. There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.

You ignore occurences of words which don't suit you and proclaim the big joke that your work is 'detailed' and 'comprehensive'. Then you actually can't recognise a quranic phrase like raas al-amwal. How on earth were you comprehensive then?! It's all a big joke and I would be content to let sleeping dogs lie but then I needed to test out my theory of language so here we are...

As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine. I have no problem with it. It is of course my subjective reading but no worries, I won't be accusing people who disagree with anything. My reading is for sharing and application, not to gain false authority.

Can we move on to my thread please? I'm gathering some good data here but I do have some very specific questions to ask.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Thanks for clarifying. Here is how it went for all to see:

From: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604460.0

Farouk: "How does one measure grammatical correctness?"

Wakas: Intra-Quran comparison.

Farouk: What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison?

Wakas: It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.

Farouk: How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?


When cornered into being exposed as contradictory/hypocritical, he now says:

Farouk: I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles.


Exposed.


But you dont stop there, you go further:

Farouk: I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you (Wakas) do.

Thanks for telling me what I accept/reject Mr "I'm against authoritarianism".  ;D


But it's not so bad, you can redeem yourself, maybe the above example of hypocrisy/contradiction was a one off. Let's see how you went about checking singular/plural:

Farouk: As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine.

Earlier:
Farouk: What it (corpus) did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.

Just like you "UNCRITICALLY swallowed" what those Arab speakers told you.

But maybe the above 2nd example of hypocrisy/contradiction is another coincidence, surely there is no icing on the cake?

Farouk: There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.

Just like your singular/plural was validated by Arab speakers and their linguistics.


Multiple: Double standard / hypocrisy / contradiction.


Oh dear.

After only asking 3 questions. I had 14 more. Oh well.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
What magically? If a word is used metaphorically in one verse, then it could easily be ALL metaphorical. It depends on the thing which you (by your own admission in QRAC) cannot comprehend: CONTEXT.

My contextual analysis of the passage tells me that to interpret as literally 'head' there makes no applicational sense and thats what I'm here for, application not conformity to Arabic.

Given your allergy to context, why would I bother about you think? Your unsolicited evaluation has no effect on my opinion. If I needed your evaluation, I would check a dictionary, bury my head in the sand about how dictionaries are formulated, and accept that to be the truth.

No thanks though, you can have that for your work and claim its 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' and accuse people of 'spreading falsehood'. That's what you do best, pretense of objectivity. A few questions and that facade becomes unravelled very easily. The very fact that you accept synonyms shows you don't know how language works so there's no point in worrying about what you think.

Your work is good for one thing though, shaking Traditionalist opinion. I thank you very much for that.


If you cant speak clearly and academically, you will face requests for clarification. I suggest you actually study logic instead of quoting logical terms at people. Especially study 'burden of proof'.


No , this is from facebook. Facebook threads get buried. However, here's one which I can see : https://www.facebook.com/groups/quranology/permalink/475643049142838/

Here you claimed a 'detailed analysis' of AMAH. Another absurd description.


BOMBSHELL LOL, oh boy. We do love this drama crap don't we. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. To answer your 'bombshell':

I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles. However, since YOU stand by the meaning given by corpus ABOUT Form 8, YOU must provide Quranic ayat which show that this form unequivocally means what you say. Don't tell me corpus did that. It didn't provide any Quranic proof at all. What it did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.

If you believe corpus used the Quran to justify the use of this form, then it is YOUR DUTY to discover which ayat was used to clearly show how this form works.

So where are the ayat? Don't tell me the process please. DEMONSTRATE the process for 'yahtadoon' to show it means what you say it means.


I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you do. You analyse one verse without even eliciting WHERE the verse is or what OTHER words could have been used. Your 4/34 analysis goes a long way to show your REAL furqan are the dictionaries and grammar books. There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.

You ignore occurences of words which don't suit you and proclaim the big joke that your work is 'detailed' and 'comprehensive'. Then you actually can't recognise a quranic phrase like raas al-amwal. How on earth were you comprehensive then?! It's all a big joke and I would be content to let sleeping dogs lie but then I needed to test out my theory of language so here we are...

As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine. I have no problem with it. It is of course my subjective reading but no worries, I won't be accusing people who disagree with anything. My reading is for sharing and application, not to gain false authority.

Can we move on to my thread please? I'm gathering some good data here but I do have some very specific questions to ask.

I thought I'd quote it for posterity. It's a classic.

I forgot to say with regard to your "comprehensiveness" claim, I thought you meant my article on 2:196. Seems like you slotted in a subject we weren't even discussing. How convenient. But in any case, yes, that is a comprehensive study. If you disagree, please provide a link to an even more comprehensive study on 'al masjid al haram', as I'd like to read it.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 03:25:09 PM
Wow, you're using this as an argument....REALLY?  :rotfl: I must say, I didn't expect this.

Quote
Farouk: "How does one measure grammatical correctness?"

Wakas: Intra-Quran comparison.

Farouk: What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison?

Wakas: It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.

Farouk: How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?

LOL again you ignore CONTEXT. In the link you quoted, I was speaking of showing words to be nouns or verbs! No intra-Quranic comparison can help you determine noun or verbs because the the Quran DOES NOT MENTION nouns or verbs. Do you understand that because that's a very crucial point - it is LINGUISTS who tel you about nouns and verbs. See the difference - one is THE QURAN, the other is NOT the Quran. It's amazing I need to point out the difference. You have CONFLATED the Quran with linguistic resources....wowwww

About 'yahtadoon', you can easily show me a VERSE in which the meaning you inferred is obvious or even a yafta3ala wazn for another root which infers that. See the difference between the two? One s about ABSENT ideas , the other is NOT.

My god, it's amazing you even failed to understand THIS simple thing! See , this is why I asked you for a face to face debate. In a face to face, these pathetic 'misunderstandings' wont happen. We'll be able to immediately see the issue at hand.

And before you run away from the question again : WHERE IS THE QURANIC PROOF OF FORM 8'S FUNCTION? Dont LIE about corpus again please. I asked for an AYA which clearly shows the function of the form. Hope you can actually find it this time.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 03:28:11 PM
Quote
Farouk: I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you (Wakas) do.

Thanks for telling me what I accept/reject Mr "I'm against authoritarianism". 


But it's not so bad, you can redeem yourself, maybe the above example of hypocrisy/contradiction was a one off. Let's see how you went about checking singular/plural:

Wow, you don't even know what authoritariansm is. I can disagree with your views and have a perception of it as you do mine or not but I am no authoritarian. I don't want to suppress your views at all. I even invited you to be part of the Quranist matrix but you want to pretend objectivity even there.

In my group, I allow every kind of quranist opinion whilst you BLOCK people who disagree with you. So get it right , Wakas.

You see, the fact that your furqan is Arabic lingustics doesn't mean I would call you a speader of falsehood like you accused me of or wish to have your works deleted from the internet or applaud that no one reads your work. I believe there is room for people to disagree. I see some measure of correctness of what you do although I find it largely inadequate. You on other hand ATTACK those who refuse to talk to you.

Even if your work is perfect, your fundamentalist attitude would be bad but your work is far from it. It's not even comprehensive.

REDEEM myself? With who? You? I didn't know you were the President of the Tafseer Club. In any case, I didn't expect to reconcile my views with you nor do I care to with anyone. My understanding is for appliction. If you don't like it, move on. No skin off my nose at all. I'm getting exactly what I need from these discussions and my theory is forming well. You can keep your redemption.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 03:31:19 PM
Quote
Farouk: As for hadiy and ru'us, I did check with Arab speakers about its singularity and plurality and given the aya and the context, it seems to work fine.

Earlier:
Farouk: What it (corpus) did was to take these forms from a grammatical system and claim this is what it is. You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.

Just like you "UNCRITICALLY swallowed" what those Arab speakers told you.

But maybe the above 2nd example of hypocrisy/contradiction is another coincidence, surely there is no icing on the cake?

Nope, I CHECKED it with the context and it works. I stated it in my response which you quoted but could not process. Should I write in smaller sentences, perhaps? It's a shame you need to be DISHONEST to make your point. I learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers but whenever I found their Arabic to against quranic norms, I would reject it - dictionary or grammar book or not.

Arabic is a living language whose effectiveness happens within reality. That's how the Arab world functions.  It's not trapped within dead texts which you read (well you don't really, you read TRANSLATIONS of the real CADS dont you, hehe) and from that cut and paste job, you think you got the meaning. Are you seriously this naive, Wakas?

In philosophy of language, that is QUADRUPLE subjectivity. From the subjectivity of the lexicographer who have 700 years after jahiliya hence alienated from their frame of experience (1st subjectivity) to the subjectivity of the socio-political milleu of the post Abbasaid period (2nd) to the subjectivity of Lanes who learnt Arabic within his own personal world-view (3rd) to you coming 150 years plus AFTER Lanes (4th subjectivty). And you consider CADs' authoritative? How superficial can you get? Study some philosophy of language and maybe you'll see the FLIMSY approach you're pushing here.

Remember your slogan : evidence from quran OR CADS. It's not 'cads VALIDATED by Quran'. It's 'Quran OR CADS'. Quite amazing...
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 03:34:40 PM
Quote
I forgot to say with regard to your "comprehensiveness" claim, I thought you meant my article on 2:196. Seems like you slotted in a subject we weren't even discussing. How convenient. But in any case, yes, that is a comprehensive study. If you disagree, please provide a link to an even more comprehensive study on 'al masjid al haram', as I'd like to read it.

LOL, ok brilliant. This is your 'comprehensive study' . Mate, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about going Wahabi on people all the time. Work on your 'comprehensive studies'. Try to look at what IS objective - the text itself. You give so little credence to the text it's appalling that you say your view is 'from the Quran'. It should be 'from the dictionaries and grammar books'. I'd forget 'comprehensive' and work towards 'quranic' unless you're stick t 'pertaining to Quran', of course lol. 

I will say one thing though: your work is the LONGEST  i've encountered. Would you like a prize for that at least?  However, the comprehensiveness fails at point one even.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 10, 2012, 03:37:13 PM
I have now already answered your raas issue, however you like the answer or not. I am waiting for my answer about 'quranic grammar' in the other thread. Kindly keep your word :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 11, 2012, 02:51:31 AM
You seem to ramble much, spout ad hominens, but evidence little. I dont mind "ad hominens", as it shows you have no credible argument hence resort to fallacious argument.  ;D

When asked for evidence to back up what you said, you've got none. A bit like your Quran understandings. I'm sensing a pattern.
When asked to back-up your claim that I said my article was "comprehensive", you cited another article, not about 2:196. Then when asked for a link to something more comprehensive than that, you cited nothing.


#####

Quote from: Farouk
LOL again you ignore CONTEXT. In the link you quoted, I was speaking of showing words to be nouns or verbs! No intra-Quranic comparison can help you determine noun or verbs because the the Quran DOES NOT MENTION nouns or verbs. Do you understand that because that's a very crucial point - it is LINGUISTS who tel you about nouns and verbs. See the difference - one is THE QURAN, the other is NOT the Quran. It's amazing I need to point out the difference. You have CONFLATED the Quran with linguistic resources....wowwww

Thanks for clarifying what I use "intra-Quran comparison" for is invalid, and when you use it its valid, and you decide what is and is not valid, Mr "I'm against authoritarianism".

I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true".  :rotfl: Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.

I note you did not make mention of my other points where I highlighted your double standards / hypocrisy / contradiction. Telling.  ;)

But it's ok, in your hurry to respond, you gave us another example:

Quote
Farouk: I learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers but whenever I found their Arabic to against quranic norms, I would reject it - dictionary or grammar book or not.

Tell us Farouk, how did you determine "Quranic norms"? And remember you cannot use "intra-Quran comparison".


This should be interesting.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 03:23:11 AM
You seem to ramble much, spout ad hominens, but evidence little. I dont mind "ad hominens", as it shows you have no credible argument hence resort to fallacious argument.  ;D

I wouldn't expect you to appreciate the evidence Wakas. Perhaps if I wrote a dictionary and called it 'Classical Arabic Dictionary' then you would blindly accept anything I say. It's laughable really but again, I'm here to gather information about how NOT to do it. By explicating your method , I am slowly beginning to see how the Q transcends historical gaps in order to preserve meaning. So really, keep going. Do what you do best :)


Quote
When asked for evidence to back up what you said, you've got none. A bit like your Quran understandings. I'm sensing a pattern.
When asked to back-up your claim that I said my article was "comprehensive", you cited another article, not about 2:196. Then when asked for a link to something more comprehensive than that, you cited nothing.

Yeah, sadly facebook threads get buried as I said. I know what I saw though, you called your 2/196 thing as 'comprehensive'. But look, lets call it what you call it 'a lesson in CRITICAL thinking'. Is is that? I don't think so because if it was, you would know what raas al-maal is. You didn't though so how critical were you? Not at all, I reckon.

Or perhaps you could discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. That was another amusing claim. Choose which you prefer. I don't mind either way.

Quote
Thanks for clarifying what I use "intra-Quran comparison" for is invalid, and when you use it its valid, and you decide what is and is not valid, Mr "I'm against authoritarianism".

You can disagree if you like, I won't call you a 'spreader of falsehood' like you do anyone who refuses to talk to you.  However, if you had the guts, you would proceed with the demonstration of both:
1. demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows what's a NOUN and what's a VERB.
2. demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows how a yafta3la form is used.

You won't be able to do either (despite your LIE about the corpus) but at least number 2 has a possibility. Number 1 is a non-starter.

Prove me wrong if you can.

Quote
I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true".  :rotfl: Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.

BRILLIANT. I'm glad you said that. WHY is it fallacious?

Quote
I note you did not make mention of my other points where I highlighted your double standards / hypocrisy / contradiction. Telling.  ;)

I did. I answered every single one of your points across five posts. Kindly show me what I didn't answer.

Quote
But it's ok, in your hurry to respond, you gave us another example:

Tell us Farouk, how did you determine "Quranic norms"? And remember you cannot use "intra-Quran comparison".

Once again, intra-quranic comparison works fine for me. What doesn't work is when you project your artificial classifications ONTO the text. The text doesn't agree what's a noun or what isn't. It does however use words in repetition and that similarity is for us to explore and gain insight from. We build the norms from clear meanings relative to us.

So I await SIX things now:
1. any accusation I failed to answer
2. the demonstration of how to discern nouns and verbs from the Quran
3. the demonstration of how to discern yafta3la form from the Quran
4. the reason my approach is fallacious
5. the answer to the question 'did you check all occurences of raas'. If you did , how did you not know about raas al-maal? If you did not, how did you call your 2/196 write up as 'critical thinking'.
6. whether or not you wish to discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. To me it failed to be detailed in point one itself.

I'm gonna keep listing these down because you keep 'forgetting' them. And please don't forget my thread. I have A LOT MORE than 17 points so we're in it for the long haul. Oh I also answered your challenge in the sajda issue where you banged on to Youseff about answering you. We will see if your sajda article holds up to scrutiny as well.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 03:36:17 AM
As an afterthought, Wakas - I highly recommend you study philosophy of language. It seems you're unable to appreciate the ONTOLOGY of grammar. How grammar come to be and WHY grammar exists. What you're doing is a kindergarten approach. Simply a sing-a-long to whatever grammarians say despite the fact they contradict each other. You simply took whatever the corpus guy told you and deem that's true without ever checking the Quran itself. He is YOUR Dave though I doubt he's ginger.

Another thing is literary theory. This discipline helps us understand the differences between the text and interpretation. Perhaps you'll come to understand the difference between the voice of the author and the reader and how the two interact.

Also the study of Arabic lexicography or in fact, any lexicography. It will help you understand the processes of what makes a dictionary. Perhaps then you won't be a blind follower of what they say without even checking with the underlying theme and purpose of the text.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 11, 2012, 05:21:00 AM
Quote from: Farouk
That's why I don't call people spreaders of falsehood as you do...

Quote from: Farouk
You can disagree if you like, I won't call you a 'spreader of falsehood' like you do anyone who refuses to talk to you.

You seem to like repeating this accusation. I note the interesting progression in your accusation though: first it was calling you a spreader of falsehood, then it was calling "people" such, now its "anyone who refuses to talk to me".

If I were to ask you for evidence for the above three accusations, and you were unable to provide it, would that make you a 'spreader of falsehood'?

Yes/No.

Once you state "yes" or "no". Please provide the evidence of quotes.


#####

Quote from: Farouk
1. demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows what's a NOUN and what's a VERB.
2. demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows how a yafta3la form is used.

You won't be able to do either (despite your LIE about the corpus) but at least number 2 has a possibility. Number 1 is a non-starter.

Number 1 is a "non-starter" because you (i.e. Mr "I'm against authoritarianism) have already rejected the terms in question when you said: "Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran." thus in order to find X in Quran we have to define and agree upon X first. This is basic logic.

When I use the terms "noun" and "verb" I am using the English dictionary definition of these terms. I know you like to make up your own meanings for words, so perhaps you mean something else, if so, please let us know.

And as for 2, you said: "The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16)." To which I said: "As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves". Feel free to actually read what I said. My point in highlighting this was you seem to be taking it other than what corpus says, which is fine, but I like to point it out for the reader so they know exactly the "quality" of evidence you bring.

And then you said "despite your LIE about the corpus" - what "LIE"? Rather than unevidenced ad hominen statements, please cite evidence.

You then asked "WHY is it fallacious? "
Again I am using the dictionary meaning of "fallacious" which is "based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.". If you are implying your mate Dave who knows Arabic is correct and we should accept such a source, then simply state so.

Quote from: Farouk
Once again, intra-quranic comparison works fine for me. What doesn't work is when you project your artificial classifications ONTO the text. The text doesn't agree what's a noun or what isn't. It does however use words in repetition and that similarity is for us to explore and gain insight from. We build the norms from clear meanings relative to us.

Thanks for clarifying once again that "intra-Quran comparison" works fine. You said you learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers, learning Arabic involves learning to differentiate nouns/verbs/prepositions, use of syntax etc, and you said you compared this learnt Arabic to "Quranic norms", in other words, you compared their use of nouns/verbs/prepositions, syntax etc to Quran's use of such. Ergo, you can use "intra-Quran comparison" as a guide to determine such things.

The logic is simple.

The problem is, you do not see you are doing what I'm saying........ what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 05:59:05 AM
Quote
You seem to like repeating this accusation. I note the interesting progression in your accusation though: first it was calling you a spreader of falsehood, then it was calling "people" such, now its "anyone who refuses to talk to me".

If I were to ask you for evidence for the above three accusations, and you were unable to provide it, would that make you a 'spreader of falsehood'?

Yes/No.

Once you state "yes" or "no". Please provide the evidence of quotes.

No I cannot as the thread got buried. Therefore I will call on you to swear by Allah that you did not call me a spreader for falsehood. We will see if you dare do this :)

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:00:52 AM
Quote
Number 1 is a "non-starter" because you (i.e. Mr "I'm against authoritarianism) have already rejected the terms in question when you said: "Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran." thus in order to find X in Quran we have to define and agree upon X first. This is basic logic.

Brilliant. Please define them and show me how they come from the Quran.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:03:12 AM
Quote
And as for 2, you said: "The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16)." To which I said: "As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves". Feel free to actually read what I said. My point in highlighting this was you seem to be taking it other than what corpus says, which is fine, but I like to point it out for the reader so they know exactly the "quality" of evidence you bring.

Yes but you made a positive statement (according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves). Now kindly PROVE your positive statement. How amusing that you call me evasive when you can't even produce ONE verse to show this so-called 'reflexive' quality.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:04:59 AM
Quote
You then asked "WHY is it fallacious? "
Again I am using the dictionary meaning of "fallacious" which is "based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.". If you are implying your mate Dave who knows Arabic is correct and we should accept such a source, then simply state so.

Thanks for your definition but I don't need a dictionary parrot, Wakas. I asked you WHY it's fallacious. I readily accept how Arabs use Arabic IF it fits Quranic norms which I discern. You called this fallacious. WHY is it fallacious?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:07:39 AM
Quote
Thanks for clarifying once again that "intra-Quran comparison" works fine. You said you learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers, learning Arabic involves learning to differentiate nouns/verbs/prepositions, use of syntax etc, and you said you compared this learnt Arabic to "Quranic norms", in other words, you compared their use of nouns/verbs/prepositions, syntax etc to Quran's use of such. Ergo, you can use "intra-Quran comparison" as a guide to determine such things.

Really? I know Arabs who speak perfect Arabic yet have no idea about nouns and verbs. The Middle East has some of the HIGHEST illiteracy rates in the world yet people speak Arabic there.

Of course you WOULD think that because that's how you copy-paste Arabic. Arabic is a fluid language which people speak without needing to know your artificial grammar stuff. Instead of actually thinking on HOW AND WHY they theorised it, you swallowed it whole. UNCRITICALLY and FAR FROM Quranically. Then you have audacity to call your analysis QURANIC and everyone else 'interprets'.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:08:55 AM
Quote
The problem is, you do not see you are doing what I'm saying........ what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That's actually not true. I do not presume to be an authority and accuse people of spreading falsehood like you do. Secondly, I readily acknowledge my subjectivity and I am here to undermine and refute your pretence of objectivity and assumed authority. I have looked at your articles and see , while they have a small measure of truth, they are largely inadequate and should never be called 'quranic' , more like 'qawameesic' or 'nahwic'
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:09:59 AM
Here are my six questions again:

So I await SIX things now:
1. any accusation I failed to answer
2. the demonstration of how to discern nouns and verbs from the Quran
3. the demonstration of how to discern yafta3la form from the Quran
4. the REASON my approach is fallacious
5. the answer to the question 'did you check all occurences of raas'. If you did , how did you not know about raas al-maal? If you did not, how did you call your 2/196 write up as 'critical thinking'.
6. whether or not you wish to discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. To me it failed to be detailed in point one itself
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 11, 2012, 06:40:49 AM
Can we now proceed to MY thread. I am most eager to see how your new definition of 'quranic grammar' works. I have answered your question now kindly keep your word.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 12, 2012, 04:48:19 AM
No I cannot as the thread got buried. Therefore I will call on you to swear by Allah that you did not call me a spreader for falsehood. We will see if you dare do this :)

"swear by Allah"? - and you call me dramatic.  ;D The burden of proof is upon the claimant/slanderer. I do not recall calling you such. The only thing I can think of you are referring to is an indirect theoretical implication of what I said. That is rather different to literally calling you such directly.

In any case, allow me to repeat:

When asked to provide evidence for your repeated slanderous statements, you conveniently said "the thread got buried", i.e. you cant find the evidence to back-up what you said. YOU are the admin of the group in which our discussions took place, and have access to all threads.

Please see free-minds.org forum rule 3:
Quote
"3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member."

You will be well aware you have repeated your slanderous comments in Facebook groups (of which you are admin). Further, you have made other slanderous statements about me, e.g. in these two threads.

It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise.

Slander may be allowed in Facebook groups you are admin of, but we do not tolerate slander here.

If you are indeed a student of Quran and its application, you may wish to consider what it says about slander: if it is a good or bad thing, and act accordingly.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 12, 2012, 04:58:57 AM
Quote
swear by Allah"? - and you call me dramatic.   The burden of proof is upon the claimant/slanderer. I do not recall calling you such. The only thing I can think of you are referring to is an indirect theoretical implication of what I said. That is rather different to literally calling you such directly.

No, swearing by Allah (qasm billlah) is a Quranic concept like in 5/53 which perhaps you have not 'comprehensively' studied yet. I swear by Allah that you accused me of spreading falsehood. I have said it in numerous threads in fb and you never challenged it until the thread was safely buried. How convenient. So I call on you to swear that you never accused me of spreading falsehood.

And perhaps you could tell us what this 'indirect theoretical implication' is all about. Expound on it please.



Quote
When asked to provide evidence for your repeated slanderous statements, you conveniently said "the thread got buried", i.e. you cant find the evidence to back-up what you said. YOU are the admin of the group in which our discussions took place, and have access to all threads.

In fb, I doubt Zuckerberg himself has access to all threads. I do have records of me asking you to tone down attacks on my forum members which you refused.

Quote
You will be well aware you have repeated your slanderous comments in Facebook groups (of which you are admin). Further, you have made other slanderous statements about me, e.g. in these two threads.

It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise.

Slander may be allowed in Facebook groups you are admin of, but we do not tolerate slander here.

If you are indeed a student of Quran and its application, you may wish to consider what it says about slander: if it is a good or bad thing, and act accordingly.

I will never retract those statements because I have seen them for myself. However, I wish to lodge a complaint to you about you where you called me 'Mr I'm Against Authoritarianism'. This is an actual ad hominem, attacking the person and not his action. I never called you 'Mr Falsehood Spreader' or 'Mr Delusional Authority' or 'Mr Context Ignorant'. I simply criticised your ACTION, not your person.

And btw, slander is NOT allowed in my fb groups yet you got away with it in NUMEROUS occasions. And you accuse me of hypocrisy :)

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 12, 2012, 05:01:33 AM
Now lets be clear FOR ALL TO SEE (love that phrase). Did you accuse me of SPREADING FALSEHOOD? Yes or no. Be a man, Wakas. Own up and we will move past this :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 12, 2012, 05:11:44 AM
And please don't forget my 6 questions:

1. any accusation I failed to answer
2. the demonstration of how to discern nouns and verbs from the Quran
3. the demonstration of how to discern yafta3la form from the Quran
4. the REASON my approach w.r.t. to my Arab mate 'Dave' is fallacious
5. the answer to the question 'did you check all occurences of raas'. If you did , how did you not know about raas al-maal? If you did not, how did you call your 2/196 write up as 'critical thinking'.
6. whether or not you wish to discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. To me it failed to be detailed in point one itself

And of course, your next response to my thread. Kindly keep your word. That's also a Quranic concept (in case you haven't comprehensively studied it yet).
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 12, 2012, 12:52:26 PM
Farouk,

Even though I underlined and made bold "multiple" in "multiple slanderous statements" you only commented on one, without evidence.

The following is a list of your slanderous / false / misleading / derogatory statements:

1) That's why I don't call people spreaders of falsehood as you do
2) when we search for 'interpretation' posted by Wakas, EVERYONE interprets but you
3) You don't examine context, themes, shifts in language or even pronoun moods.
4) My reading isn't meant for people who claim to reject hadith yet swallow what lexicographers tell them. 
5) Oh sorry, you keep on about your 'comprehensive' study of 2/196 in facebook
6) You use the word Quranic grammar to pass off your opinions as authoritative
7) In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness)
8 ) you can have that for your work and claim its 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' and accuse people of 'spreading falsehood'.
9) It depends on the thing which you (by your own admission in QRAC) cannot comprehend: CONTEXT.
10) However, since YOU stand by the meaning given by corpus ABOUT Form 8
11) You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it.  (i.e. corpus.quran.com).
12) I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you do.
13) Your 4/34 analysis goes a long way to show your REAL furqan are the dictionaries and grammar books.
14) You ignore occurences of words which don't suit you and proclaim the big joke that your work is 'detailed' and 'comprehensive'.
15) I won't be accusing people who disagree with anything.
16) Dont LIE about corpus again please.
17) I even invited you to be part of the Quranist matrix but you want to pretend objectivity even there.
18) In my group, I allow every kind of quranist opinion whilst you BLOCK people who disagree with you
19) the fact that your furqan is Arabic lingustics doesn't mean I would call you a speader of falsehood like you accused me of
20) You on other hand ATTACK those who refuse to talk to you.
21) It's a shame you need to be DISHONEST to make your point.
22) It's not trapped within dead texts which you read (well you don't really, you read TRANSLATIONS of the real CADS dont you,
23) And you consider CADs' authoritative?
24) Mate, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about going Wahabi on people all the time.
25) You give so little credence to the text it's appalling that you say your view is 'from the Quran'.
26) Re: article on al masjid al haram. Farouk: "However, the comprehensiveness fails at point one even."
Whilst "comprehensiveness" is in part subjective, Farouk cited nothing more comprehensive.
27) I won't call you a 'spreader of falsehood' like you do anyone who refuses to talk to you.
28) You won't be able to do either (despite your LIE about the corpus)
29) What you're doing is a kindergarten approach. Simply a sing-a-long to whatever grammarians say
30) You simply took whatever the corpus guy told you and deem that's true without ever checking the Quran itself.
31) Perhaps then you won't be a blind follower of what they say
32) I do have records of me asking you to tone down attacks on my forum members which you refused.
33) And btw, slander is NOT allowed in my fb groups yet you got away with it in NUMEROUS occasions.
34) I never called you 'Mr Falsehood Spreader' or 'Mr Delusional Authority' or 'Mr Context Ignorant'. I simply criticised your ACTION, not your person.


The above are just examples from these two threads, not facebook groups.


From: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

Please see free-minds.org forum rule 3:
Quote
"3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member."

It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous / false statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise. Same for any misleading / derogatory remarks.

We do not tolerate slander, and persistently false/misleading/derogatory remarks here.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: R.H.-Ustahi on October 12, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
Peace dudes,

I have been skimming this thread on and off.

One of the things I notice when two people discuss/debate around scriptures is the approach to win the argument. There is no winning here, nor loosing.

The truth comes to the one willing to let go the own arguments (surrender - remember?)

Another one is, translators, most, forget the state of being one should have to appreciate the inner beauty of the Inspirations the Prophet received, thus get stuck and lost on the tool, rather than living the completeness of existence.

Quran opens up to the level the reader's heart is opened up.

Thus, the word choice becomes melodic issue when one knows the meaning that comes from the Presence of the One.

Remember that the language is the sprinkle of Reality.

And the complete knowing comes to the Complete Being.

When you are complete, there is no need. When you are complete then you are in peace. When you are complete, you are surrendered.....completely.

I know not arabic, but I know what I am talking about.

Peace, and Praise be to what makes the heart see.

R.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 12, 2012, 02:57:15 PM
NO CHANCE, Wakas. I stand by everything I say. I did not lie about anything nor mislead. If you feel I did, let us debate each point. If you don't tolerate 'slander, and persistently false/misleading/derogatory remarks here', you shouldn't tolerate it from YOUSELF either, hence I also wish to lodge a complaint against you about YOUR breaking the rules. I will use your criteria above, ok? Namely, that you said:

1. Your request seems to imply you have little idea as to how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean. This is unusual for a person who blogs on Quran. Perhaps you should highlight this on your blog' <- I consider this an INSULT (using your criteria above).

2. You seem to claim you have no idea what I mean by the above and regardless, you have no clue of your own thinking how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean.
If your view is it is impossible to determine what a word means based on Quran, simply state so for all to see. <- I consider this an INSULT (using your criteria above).

3.So you understand fine on the one hand, yet require a demonstration on the other hand. Contradiction.<- I consider this an INSULT (using your criteria above).

4. My questions are not difficult, but answering them often is.<---- implication that I'm stupid (using your criteria above).

5. You may have forgotten since it seems a while ago since I asked.
Perhaps readers should compare your responses to my questions with mine to yours. I answer every question in the very next reply on your thread. You on the other hand evade, stall and obfuscate........... and then reply.... maybe.<----- this is a BIG LIE. I only asked for clarification. You on the other hand DID NOT keep up your end of the bargain.

6. Or will you opt to evade yet again? <----- big LIE. I never evaded. I sought clarification and the onus was on you to clarify.

7. Let me repeat my question for the nth time:<---- big insult. You did not provide clarifcation to justify this RUDE comment.

8. Unfortunately, your answer seems to be confused. Let me refresh your memory: in response to your blog post on 2:196 I wrote a critique, and in this critique I wrote:<---- calling me confused, big insult.

9. A future tip when engaging in discussion: try not to stall so long that you actually forget what the original question was. <----- INSINUATION that I stall. Perhaps check your debate skills which are woeful.

10. So, to clarify for readers, you seemingly based your view on a metaphorical use of the word in Quran, and this magically allowed you to understand the word in another metaphorical way not referenced in Quran.<------ VERY INSULTING, calling it 'magically'. You did not even ask my method. When I provided a reason later, you didn't comment. How rude is that?

11. Please note, since you reject intra-Quran comparison you cannot use that. Do tell us. <---- big lie designed to mislead. I do NOT reject intra-Quran comparison. I reject your artificial grammatical system.

12. When cornered into being exposed as contradictory/hypocritical, he now says:
Farouk: I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles.<---- calling me a munafiq. Nuff said....

13. Thanks for telling me what I accept/reject Mr "I'm against authoritarianism". <---- direct ad hom attack.


14. Farouk: There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.
Wakas: Just like your singular/plural was validated by Arab speakers and their linguistics.
Multiple: Double standard / hypocrisy / contradiction.<------ another time. Brilliant

15. You seem to ramble much, spout ad hominens, but evidence little. I dont mind "ad hominens", as it shows you have no credible argument hence resort to fallacious argument.  ;D
<---- ramble and spout are very RUDE words. I don't like them at all.

16. When asked for evidence to back up what you said, you've got none. A bit like your Quran understandings. I'm sensing a pattern.<----- big insult. Who's to say the fault lies with YOUR understanding which functions in a limited way?

17. Tell us Farouk, how did you determine "Quranic norms"? And remember you cannot use "intra-Quran comparison".This should be interesting. <---- unnecessary snide remark.

18. I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true".  :rotfl: Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.<----- rude way of describing my method and claiming fallacious but NEVER giving the reason.

I can go on you know, but it gets boring.

So how do you wanna play this, Wakas? You want to apply the same rules on yourself as you will on me (as per 4/135 and 4/58) and remove yourself from admin (does that sound familiar. hehe) ? That is probably why, I suspect, you wanted to come to FM to begin with. When you can no longer answer the questions and they expose your pretensions of being 'quranic' (valided by, in this context), simply suppress the opinion by levelling mickey mouse charges. You will then be judge, jury and executioner and remove me from repeating my questions to you. It would definitely tally with your previous attitudes of harassment. I can see why you avoided a face to face debate when we had the chance. It's hard to be on camera when you try to pull stuff like this.

Or why not give your version of the story, Wakas?

Did you or did you not liken yourself to ibrahim destroying the false idols of other QD members?

Did you or did not belittle aastana group by claiming it's good thing their group is small (which is ironic considering they're now FAR BIGGER than your group now, btw)

Did you or did you not shrug off a warning by me politely asking you to tone it down?

Why don't you expound on these issues here FOR ALL TO SEE (love that phrase)

Oh and my questions please. They require tending to.

My advice is, dont pretend to be objective or quranic. Your work has many shortcomings and is far from detailed. Don't attack those who don't follow your unquranic (because its not validated by Quran) sources of language. Maybe they follow a different road which you're not aware of yet. Don't think you got all the answers. It's FAR from the case. And most of all, don't harass those who don't even wish to discuss with you. Maybe you're not up to their level yet (not true in my case, I am way below your level. I didn't wanna engage with you simply because I don't like your attitude). 

I leave it up to you :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 12, 2012, 03:10:09 PM
Peace dudes,

I have been skimming this thread on and off.

One of the things I notice when two people discuss/debate around scriptures is the approach to win the argument. There is no winning here, nor loosing.

The truth comes to the one willing to let go the own arguments (surrender - remember?)

Another one is, translators, most, forget the state of being one should have to appreciate the inner beauty of the Inspirations the Prophet received, thus get stuck and lost on the tool, rather than living the completeness of existence.

Quran opens up to the level the reader's heart is opened up.

Thus, the word choice becomes melodic issue when one knows the meaning that comes from the Presence of the One.

Remember that the language is the sprinkle of Reality.

And the complete knowing comes to the Complete Being.

When you are complete, there is no need. When you are complete then you are in peace. When you are complete, you are surrendered.....completely.

I know not arabic, but I know what I am talking about.

Peace, and Praise be to what makes the heart see.

R.

Salam Ustahi, the purpose of me putting myself through this intellectual equivalent of pulling teeth is because I'm formulating a theory of Quranic language. Wakas stands on the fundamentalist strand of what I call 'lingocentric quranism'. He believes CADs has a measure of authority over the text without factoring the ontology of language. I needed to test out my ideas against his view and so far, it's going as I expected.

About 'winning' or 'losing', I agree with you. Ultimately we each need to practice what we discern from the Quran. This is the problem I see with the lingocentrists, they have cut off language from the stream of Being, hence consigning their linguistic experience to dead texts. They are no different from Traditionalist Muslims in terms of claims of authority to interpret. The only difference is, the format of the information. Traditionalists indirectly infer meaning through narratives, these guys do it through dictionary entries. Same difference.

Knowing Arabic helped me a lot but more and more I see how the socio-political millieu of the time influenced lexicography in a big way. I wouldn't worry about knowing Arabic. I think it's more important to know yourself and intuit the meanings through internal states. I see Quran now as a mirror and act of polishing it enables us to see ourselves.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Shirley on October 12, 2012, 05:01:57 PM
Quote
Did you or did not belittle aastana group by claiming it's good thing their group is small (which is ironic considering they're now FAR BIGGER than your group now, btw)

Quite Amusing. May I ask for a small elaboration on this? Not that it's a big deal and it certainly has no bearing on the progress and accomplishments of Dr. Qamar and Aastana. Just curious that's all.

Damon.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 12, 2012, 10:33:35 PM
Sure, when the Aastana folk first turned up in my fb group early this year, they quite naturally caused a furore with their novel and outlandish views. A few people (including Wakas) were quite hostile to them despite the positive environment we try to promote where people should disagree in peace. Ironically,  the Aastana folk also claim to be upholding true meanings and grammar of the Quran like Wakas is.

Wakas made the comment that he was happy their group was tiny which I warned him was very insulting and unnecessary. However, he was reluctant to retract. And yes, it's very amusing that the Aastana folks are now a big group of 280 ppl with a vibrant atmosphere and now they've opened a branch in the UK. We will be promoting their works at the Quranist Network conference in December. Not that I agree with them much but the questions they raise are very helpful, I think.

It's a pity that while the quranist movement is still in its embryonic stage, we have fascist attitudes with each other. We should be promoting each others' works and encouraging each person to think for himself. The Traditionalists missed this point completely by forging authorities to interpret religion. Now some quranists wish to do the same....
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Shirley on October 12, 2012, 11:20:29 PM
Thank You for the clarification.

As I already said, that sort of remark doesn't have any affect on Dr. Qamar or The Aastana Group. And I am not the least bit surprised either.

I am not so arrogant and closed minded to refuse to read the works of anyone other than Aastana and Dr. Qamar Zaman. I try to learn from whatever sources I can. However, I find Wakas's latest article on Sujud and Al Masjid Al Haram to be seriously lacking in evidence to support his conclusions. And his translations of the Arabic verses border on the ridiculous.

As far as this particular debate goes, the four things that I wish to say from my point of view are:

1). Translations are NOT the way to engage The Qur'an. I have come to the conclusion that The Qur'an is absolutely untranslatable.

2). If a person REALLY wants to know the contents of The Qur'anic Text, then he or she MUST learn Arabic.

3). It is almost fruitless to focus on the definitions of root words and derivatives that we find in the Lexicons and Dictionaries, but rather we should try to absorb and internalize the Concepts that the definitions are presenting.

4). Actions speak louder than words!! We can all go back and forth and play word games with one another until we're blue in the face. In the end, we are no better or different than any other group of people who seem to show content in Intellectualizing and playing word games. Essentially we are nothing more than petty armchair scholars by doing this.

One last thing I could add to this. I have grown to learn (and I mean I really had to LEARN) that it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to be totally objective. We can try to be and we can even try to convince ourselves that we are objective. But I know now with absolute certainty that it is impossible for any human being to be totally objective. We will always harbor some sort of subjectivity no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

This I had to learn the hard way over the last few years.

Regards,
Damon.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: good logic on October 12, 2012, 11:35:50 PM
Peace All.

What is it that makes us, humans, repeat the same mistakes our ancestors ( past generations) did?

God keeps sending " One unifying message":
23:52
Such is your congregation - one congregation - and I am your Lord; you shall reverence Me.
وَإِنَّ هٰذِهِ أُمَّتُكُم أُمَّةً وٰحِدَةً وَأَنا۠ رَبُّكُم فَاتَّقونِ

And what do we do:
23:53
But they tore themselves into disputing factions; each party happy with what they have.
فَتَقَطَّعوا أَمرَهُم بَينَهُم زُبُرًا كُلُّ حِزبٍ بِما لَدَيهِم فَرِحونَ

Are we ever going to learn?

Qoranists, hadithers, 19 ers, mish mash... all sects are divisive!

God has one name for His people " Believers". What I quoted was from a sura called " Al -Muminun", this is no coicidence.

Are you ever going to " repent" from idolising individuals/ groups....

Unite behind the message your Creator sent:  GOD ALONE!

Peace.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Magnus on October 12, 2012, 11:38:10 PM
This thread was interesting before it turned into a debate about the personalities of Farouk/Wakas, and who insulted whom.

Like I wrote in some other thread; people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, and they do.
People do not have the right to make demonstrably false or unsupported claims to truth without constructive criticism from those who know better.

Lots of self-proclaimed "muslims" have very strong personal opinions about truth/morality, and go to great lengths to re-interpret the Quran until it seemingly supports these opinions, rather than honestly asking themselves if their own personal views on morality/truth have any actual merit according to God. In my opinion it matters little whether Quranic re-interpretation happens with the help of hadith, numerology, using only selected verses as justification, or by taking large liberties with the structure and words of the Arabic language itself - none of these approaches are submissive in nature, and are driven by man's desire to feel "in the right" rather than finding truth.

In the meantime, truth and morality remain what they are, despite man's best efforts to the contrary. Anything believed in that is not objective reality is delusion, no matter how popular or newfangled these delusions are.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 13, 2012, 03:04:22 AM
Whilst I appreciate members offering their input on this thread etc, it was requested not to reply in this thread.

In any case, I want to pick up on one point:

Quote from: Shirley aka Damon
However, I find Wakas's latest article on Sujud and Al Masjid Al Haram to be seriously lacking in evidence to support his conclusions. And his translations of the Arabic verses border on the ridiculous.

My article on "sujud" has been publicly online for almost 2 years, yet you have never said anything to the contrary about it. Threads were created for both the sujud and AMAH articles, thus if you have evidence for your above claims, then please post them on those threads, thanks. I'd be very interested to read your evidence, if you have any.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 13, 2012, 03:13:31 AM
Farouk,

Quote from: Wakas
It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous / false statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise. Same for any misleading / derogatory remarks.

You did not do the above. In fact, you simply added more to the list.

Interestingly you claim "I did not lie about anything nor mislead. If you feel I did, let us debate each point." - when there is no need to debate slander etc, all that is required is to request evidence of the slander. Very simple.

Your case has now been referred to FM admin for group decision. A decision that I will not participate in, contrary to your, yet more, slanderous statement of "You will then be judge, jury and executioner and remove me from repeating my questions to you.".

This thread has been temporarily locked, pending decision.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Jack on October 14, 2012, 12:57:42 AM
Admin action has been taken.

It is advised that both members of this discussion thread remain strictly on topic, avoiding comments of a personal nature and making unsubstantiated claims etc.

This thread has now been re-opened.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 14, 2012, 02:08:58 AM
Here are the three questions filtered from my previous 6.

1. How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is a 'noun' and a 'verb'? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.

2. How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is the function of Form 8 or any other form at all? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.


3. Wakas said : I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true".  :rotfl: Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.
Brilliant. WHY is it fallacious?

Also, kindly don't forget the other thread where we are now measuring
quranic grammar. That is only my second question and I have already answered three of yours.

I hope we can continue this now but if we can't, that's perfectly understandable as well.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 18, 2012, 06:03:24 AM
Farouk,

Forum rules: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

We may now continue.

#####


Here are the three questions filtered from my previous 6.

1. How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is a 'noun' and a 'verb'? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.

You asked similar in your own thread, see my reply #8:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604460.0
If you need to further define the words/parameters of your question, please do so there.


Quote from: Farouk
2. How do you prove through intra-Quranic comparison what is the function of Form 8 or any other form at all? Kindly describe the PROCESS of doing so.
If you wish to ask this as a question in your own thread, please do so. Nowhere did I state what my position/view was on this.


Quote from: Farouk
WHY is it fallacious?


Dictionary:

Quote
fal?la?cious
adjective /fəˈlāSHəs/ 

Based on a mistaken belief
- fallacious arguments


Web definitions

containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information

(fallacy) a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning


In other words, what your mate said may or may not be correct. Further, your choice of source for this information is rather poor, as simply being able to speak Arabic does not indicate anything about accuracy with regards to the question posed, e.g. method they used to determine singular/plural, comparison of Quran occurrences, testable/falsifiable method (if any) etc.
You used what your mate said as a basis from which to work from.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 18, 2012, 09:29:27 AM

You asked similar in your own thread, see my reply #8:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604460.0
If you need to further define the words/parameters of your question, please do so there.

Great. Please attend to my thread when you have the time please.

Quote
If you wish to ask this as a question in your own thread, please do so. Nowhere did I state what my position/view was on this

Good. However, you did relate this to the 'quality' of my analysis. What were you insinuating by this please?

Quote
In other words, what your mate said may or may not be correct. Further, your choice of source for this information is rather poor, as simply being able to speak Arabic does not indicate anything about accuracy with regards to the question posed, e.g. method they used to determine singular/plural, comparison of Quran occurrences, testable/falsifiable method (if any) etc.
You used what your mate said as a basis from which to work from.

How did you jump from fallacious to 'may or may not be correct'? Even your own definition doesn't say that. Presumably you know what 'fallacious' means or are you confusing it with 'fallible'?

'Basis' is a very strong word. I prefer to call it 'raw material'. Arabic is a living language and Arabs, in my experience, understand the vast majority of Quranic words although I believe their understanding is rooted erroneously. Nevertheless, their use of those words is effective, it is a living experience. So how is it fallacious? If it was fallacious, their own communication system would collapse.

Since you deem it fallacious, please propose an alternative method in detail. Thanks.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 19, 2012, 02:36:12 AM
What were you insinuating by this please?

No more than what I said previously.

Quote from: Farouk
How did you jump from fallacious to 'may or may not be correct'? Even your own definition doesn't say that. Presumably you know what 'fallacious' means or are you confusing it with 'fallible'?

'Basis' is a very strong word. I prefer to call it 'raw material'. Arabic is a living language and Arabs, in my experience, understand the vast majority of Quranic words although I believe their understanding is rooted erroneously. Nevertheless, their use of those words is effective, it is a living experience. So how is it fallacious? If it was fallacious, their own communication system would collapse.

Since you deem it fallacious, please propose an alternative method in detail. Thanks.

See my previous reply. If you wish to ask me for an alternative or whatever, please do so on your own thread.

And lastly, if you wish to use "raw material" that is fine. It would then seem you are using something else to determine if this "raw material" (grammar: singular/plural) is correct or not, and that would be intra-Quran comparison.

In other words, what I use.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 19, 2012, 06:38:14 AM
No more than what I said previously.

Sorry, is this an answer? You said that it shows 'quality' of my work. What does this mean exactly? Does conformity to this show my work to be of a high or low quality? Kindly be explicit please.

Quote
See my previous reply. If you wish to ask me for an alternative or whatever, please do so on your own thread.

Will do, a list of questions grows there. Thanks for answering it. 

Quote
And lastly, if you wish to use "raw material" that is fine. It would then seem you are using something else to determine if this "raw material" (grammar: singular/plural) is correct or not, and that would be intra-Quran comparison.

In other words, what I use.

It's not what you use at all. What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar which you then back up by selective quotations of the Quran, if I am ALLOWED to opine, that is. The Quran is not the criteria here at all. If it was, you would look at more than just verses but passages and indeed whole chapters.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 19, 2012, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: Farouk
Kindly be explicit please.


Quote from: Wakas
And as for 2, you said: "The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16)." To which I said: "As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves". Feel free to actually read what I said. My point in highlighting this was you seem to be taking it other than what corpus says, which is fine, but I like to point it out for the reader so they know exactly the "quality" of evidence you bring.



It's not what you use at all. What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar which you then back up by selective quotations of the Quran, if I am ALLOWED to opine, that is. The Quran is not the criteria here at all. If it was, you would look at more than just verses but passages and indeed whole chapters.

Once you define your words, we shall test what you claim about my work/method...

What do you mean by "UNCRITICAL"? Please elaborate with regards to "Arabic terms and grammar".

Please define what you mean by "passages".

Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 12:29:02 AM

Once you define your words, we shall test what you claim about my work/method...

What do you mean by "UNCRITICAL"? Please elaborate with regards to "Arabic terms and grammar".

Please define what you mean by "passages".

Thanks.

Sure, your works display a disregard for the contextual 'feel' of the text. They are simply throwing words in from the dictionary to see what fits. They assume objectivity on the part of the lexicographer. In that way, they are UNCRITICAL.

A 'passage' in this context refers to a collection of verses which gives a coherent meaning.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 02:02:10 AM
Thanks for clarifying what you meant, to some degree.

Quote
Sure, your works display a disregard for the contextual 'feel' of the text.

Please clarify what you mean.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 02:09:22 AM
When one reads the context, there is an emerging theme which concords with the flow the ayat. This is something missing from your analysis.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 05:05:51 AM
Thanks for clarifying.

You said:
Quote
What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar which you then back up by selective quotations of the Quran, if I am ALLOWED to opine, that is. The Quran is not the criteria here at all. If it was, you would look at more than just verses but passages and indeed whole chapters.

You then clarified:
Quote
Sure, your works display a disregard for the contextual 'feel' of the text. They are simply throwing words in from the dictionary to see what fits. They assume objectivity on the part of the lexicographer. In that way, they are UNCRITICAL.

A 'passage' in this context refers to a collection of verses which gives a coherent meaning.

Quote
When one reads the context, there is an emerging theme which concords with the flow the ayat. This is something missing from your analysis.

So let's address them one by one:

You said: "What you employ is an UNCRITICAL use of Arabic terms and grammar..."

Firstly, I use multiple sources for my grammar information. This allows me to check what one source states with other sources. If I was uncritical I'd simply adopt what was said without cross-referencing. But let's say they all or most agree on something, The Quran is my ultimate criterion, and I have demonstrated this with regards to "Arabic terms and grammar" multiple times, e.g.

1) in my works, I very frequently cite roots of words so they can be looked up in Quran and even provide links to look up these roots in Quran. In fact, I do this more than any author who writes works on Quran, that I know of at least.

2) I very rarely cite resources for readers to check which are by Traditional grammarians. Sure, I discuss them from time to time, but since I cite Quran resources most frequently for verification, it is rather obvious what I'm placing emphasis on.

3) I have often went against or proposed something most, and sometimes all, grammarians/resources do not say, e.g. in Quran434.com I point out whenever DRB is used with preposition "bi" it means a physical hit/strike. AFAIK no grammarian or resource says that.
Similarly, in my masjid study, I concluded it means "time of sjd" and whilst grammarians may cite that as a possibility, none seem to advocate that.
In my al masjid al haram study, I cite MKK to mean "crowding" and not a proper noun as all Traditional grammarians take it as, and I cite links to free-minds discussions showing why I did so, which critique the traditional grammarian views.


You said I do not consider chapter themes, contexts, and passages (i..e collection of verses).

In my study method:
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html
I state: "Does my understanding conflict with another part of its message?
If so, it must be rejected. This includes the meaning of words, specific rulings, its general principles and limits. Cross-reference of words and subjects becomes a must.

6:114, 12:111, 15:90-91, 17:89, 16:89, 18:54, 39:27 - try to utilise and appreciate its complete system of concepts.

73:4-5 - in order to receive a weighty or profound word or saying, we need to arrange the likenesses in The Quran, e.g. cross-reference concepts/words/topics.

12:3, 18:54, 17:89, 7:176, 12:111 - look to its internal examples, stories within it give us lessons, it is a clarification for all things.


In my series on sujud I cite contexts of almost all occurrences.

In my latest article I even discuss chapter theme, quote:

Quote
This would serve to explain the whole content of chapter 17, which is a series of stories about messengership, and warnings, reasons for rejection, destruction of rejecting/deviant communities, paradigm shifts and God's will coming to pass. Hence likely why 17:2 uses "Choose no guardian/protector besides Me".

Quote
Some recurrent themes of the surrounding context in chapter 2 are that it is not the mere profession of a creed but righteous conduct that is proper, and the repeated exemplars of Abraham and to follow his creed, is something the believers had in common with the people of the book, placing an emphasis on unity. The believers utilising what Abraham followed and did as the blueprint for their future direction and ultimately success. These themes could explain the placement of these verses.

Even though each chapter containing a theme is an assumption, I tend to agree that seems to be the case.


So, to conclude, your assertions about my method/works is actually baseless. Please see above evidence.

What you could say is that perhaps I do not do it to the extent you'd like or I should do more often etc but that is different.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 07:27:34 AM
My next question for you:

Re: your blog post on 2:196
I stated: Translates ?mahilla? as ?place of effectiveness? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR.

Abbreviations:
NQCR = no Quran cross-reference
NQE = no Quranic evidence
NCADR = no classical Arabic dictionary reference


Question:
Can you provide evidence from Quran and/or Classical Arabic dictionary for your word choice?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 08:24:17 AM
I see 'uhilla' (5/1) as 'made available' and 'wahlul uqdatan min lisaani' as to remove impediments and to make speech effective. Therefor a 'mahilla' is a place where the hadya becomes effective.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 09:59:37 AM
I see 'uhilla' (5/1) as 'made available' and 'wahlul uqdatan min lisaani' as to remove impediments and to make speech effective. Therefor a 'mahilla' is a place where the hadya becomes effective.

"uhilla" ---> made available
"hlul" ---> to remove
"mahilla" ---> place where X becomes effective


Thanks for providing something, but I dont see much logic/reason behind the above, but that could be me. Interestingly you imply "hlul" in "wahlul uqdatan min lisaani" means "to remove", then for "mahilla" it is "place where X becomes effective" when "effective" seems to be the result of "hlul" in your example not the actual meaning of the word. A bit like using "Jim punched Bob and rendered him unconscious" then saying a derivative of punched, i.e. mahilla, means "place where X becomes unconscious". Bit of a leap if you ask me.

But as I said, could just be me. At the end of the day, it is all about putting evidence on the table, to allow others to weigh and consider.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 07:36:49 PM
Yes, this is what comes from a monodimensional logic. Instead of absorbing 'ahlul UQDAT', you simply disgested 'ahlul'.  It's like doing a jigsaw puzzle and putting pieces of a colour together and saying 'this is the picture'.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 26, 2012, 03:48:16 AM
I should clarify what I said earlier:

"....when "effective" seems to be the result of "hlul" in your example not the actual meaning of the word. .."
should be:
""....when "effective" seems to be a result of "hlul" in your example not the actual meaning of the word. .."

Of course, this renders what you said even more of a leap, as you simply chose to focus on one possible result of the word. There could be others "flowing/eloquent/pleasant-sounding/articulate/accurate" etc.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2012, 06:32:27 AM
Next question:

Re: your blog post on 2:196
Quote from: Farouk
Those who are ill or with psychological issues should fast or give charity or keep up their life activities.

Question:
Do you expect a person with "psychological issues" to determine they are so and therefore fast, give charity etc? I?m very interested to know how this would be, do tell. And if you have examples of this going on elsewhere in Quran, please cite the references. Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 06:57:14 AM
Yes I do. I believe this is the case with ayyub in 38/41-44 where he overcome shaytaan/alienation by performing certain measures.

Also note, 'psychological issues' is a VAST term. Try to tie it back TO CONTEXT of discussion which is the establishment of AMAH in my interpretation. If you process two words at a time, you will never get what I'm trying to say ;)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2012, 07:56:26 AM
Yes I do. I believe this is the case with ayyub in 38/41-44 where he overcome shaytaan/alienation by performing certain measures.

I'm not sure if I follow, please provide a translation of 38:41-44, and explain how this is an example of a person with "psychological issues" redeeming by charity/fast/etc. Thanks.

Quote
Also note, 'psychological issues' is a VAST term. Try to tie it back TO CONTEXT of discussion which is the establishment of AMAH in my interpretation. If you process two words at a time, you will never get what I'm trying to say ;)

I dont need to "try to tie it back" to anything, as I'm asking about YOUR understanding. You tie it back for us. Please provide a few examples of what you mean. Simple.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 28, 2012, 01:31:43 AM
I'm not sure if I follow, please provide a translation of 38:41-44, and explain how this is an example of a person with "psychological issues" redeeming by charity/fast/etc. Thanks.

That's not what I said about ayyub. What I said was by 'performing certain measures'. Still, I'm ok with this translation:
38/41:Commemorate Our Servant ayyub. Behold he cried to his Lord: "ash-shaitaan has afflicted me with distress and suffering!"
42: Strike with your mobility/independence: here is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing, and to drink."
43: And We gave him (back) his people, and doubled their number,- as a Grace from Ourselves, and a thing for commemoration, for the people of the core.
44: And take in your capacities confusion, and seperate therewith: and break not your oath ." Truly We found him full of patience and constancy. How excellent in Our service! ever did he turn

I see shaitaan as the forces of alienation and disimmediation. They afflicted ayyub and he was told to use whatever mobility or independence he said to overcome this affliction. Allah then restored his people and doubled them. Another instruction is to take the confusion he felt and separate it (i.e.. break it down) with his capacities.

These instructions are LIKE (not the same as) the instructions of 2/196.

Quote
I dont need to "try to tie it back" to anything, as I'm asking about YOUR understanding. You tie it back for us. Please provide a few examples of what you mean. Simple.

Sure. In this context, i see it as psychological issues related to the establishment of AMAH. Like some people may whine 'only a few people can do this, if that' despite Allah saying He guarantees victory a number of places.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 28, 2012, 02:51:30 AM
Thanks for clarifying you regard one who whines as having 'psychological issues' but I asked for examples (plural) nor an example (singular). PRC.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 28, 2012, 03:16:50 AM
Sure, how many would you like? I see each example as credit towards thread two ;)

Here's a freebie: people who think the modern world doesn't need an AMAH since it has already the nation state.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 28, 2012, 03:29:47 AM
Quote
people who think the modern world doesn't need an AMAH since it has already the nation state.

You will have to clarify what you mean by AMAH here, as otherwise, it seems you are implying those who do not believe in a Quran goal/directive have 'psychological issues'.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 28, 2012, 03:33:27 AM
sure, AMAH = the space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed and thus the place becomes sanctified.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 28, 2012, 04:30:06 AM
Thanks for clarifying. Here is my comments:

Re: your translation of 38:41-44

Thanks for the reply, however I see many issues with your understanding.

1) you do not take into account the chapter theme, whatever that is - something you accuse me of neglecting  ;D
2) No cross-reference whatsoever
3) fitting "forces of alienation/disimmediation" into other occurrences seems problematic, e.g. 2:275
4) you translate "rijl" as "mobility/independence" which does not fit in many of its other occurrences, 5:6, 5:33, 5:66, 24:31, 24:45 etc
5) You use "here is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing, and to drink" when the Arabic begins this part with "hadha" i.e. "this" referring to something in context, meaning we can only assume "mobility/independence" is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing to drink, which makes little sense.
6) translates "dighthan" as "confusion" which seems to pop out of nowhere. I assume you would make some link of confusion relating to alienation, which seems a tenuous link.
7) You do not explain what oath he was not meant to break


But the most surprising thing, for me at least (as I expected your translation above to have issues), was your explanation of "psychological issues". So, let's make it clear for readers, inserting your definition of AMAH:

1) You consider a person who whines as having "psychological issues"
2) people who think the modern world doesn't need a space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed since it has already the nation state have "psychological issues"

Whilst the above is interesting in itself, the highlight is what happens if we actually insert YOUR understanding into YOUR OWN understanding of 2:196

About 2:196 you said:

Those who are ill or with psychological issues should fast or give charity or keep up their life activities.

But you gave an example of psychological issues as someone who thinks the modern world doesn't need a space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed, so someone who obviously does not advocate or believe in submitting to Allah's laws in a "space" is expected to submit to Quran when it says fast, give charity or keep up their life activities, according to you.

I assume therefore, they submit personally, but do not advocate a "space" for such - even though Quran implies these people have psychological issues, according to you, so they are not really submitting to Allah's laws as such. Hmmm.

#####

As a side note, you have added my critique to your blog (finally) but then you posted "These questions have now been answered on free-minds." which is false. They are being answered (present tense), not have been answered (past tense). It seems you do not pay attention to grammar.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 28, 2012, 04:35:50 AM
I forgot to add "modern world" and "nation state" would obviously not be applicable prior, so I guess your only left with "whining" as "psychological issues" for the past.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 28, 2012, 05:06:38 AM
Thanks for clarifying. Here is my comments:

Re: your translation of 38:41-44

Thanks for the reply, however I see many issues with your understanding.

Great. Thanks for taking the time to think. 

Quote
1) you do not take into account the chapter theme, whatever that is - something you accuse me of neglecting  ;D

Actually I did, the 'sad,  Quran dhi adh-dhikr' is the objective here. The Quran possess the means of vivification so for us, ayyub's example could be actualised from the Quran. What you asked me was about ayyub's story w.r.t. 2/196. I am not able to expound on it fully hence I'm not delusional to say 'this is comprehensive'.


Quote
2) No cross-reference whatsoever

Again false, I checked out several words using cross-references. I am not able to expound on it fully hence I'm not delusional to say 'this is comprehensive'

Quote
3) fitting "forces of alienation/disimmediation" into other occurrences seems problematic, e.g. 2:275

If you can't see the application, move on. No skin off my nose.

Quote
4) you translate "rijl" as "mobility/independence" which does not fit in many of its other occurrences, 5:6, 5:33, 5:66, 24:31, 24:45 etc

If you can't see the application, move on. No skin off my nose

Quote
5) You use "here is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing, and to drink" when the Arabic begins this part with "hadha" i.e. "this" referring to something in context, meaning we can only assume "mobility/independence" is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing to drink, which makes little sense.

To you maybe. Unsurprising for one who thinks Lanes is a credible place to refer to despite his leanings in Christianity which inevitably coloured his understanding of Arabic.

Quote
6) translates "dighthan" as "confusion" which seems to pop out of nowhere. I assume you would make some link of confusion relating to alienation, which seems a tenuous link.

Again, that's to you.

Quote
7) You do not explain what oath he was not meant to break


Yeah, sorry sorry. I keep forgetting who I'm talking to. Go back to theme of the chapter, it goes back to realising the values of the Quran.

Quote
But the most surprising thing, for me at least (as I expected your translation above to have issues), was your explanation of "psychological issues". So, let's make it clear for readers, inserting your definition of AMAH:
1) You consider a person who whines as having "psychological issues"
2) people who think the modern world doesn't need a space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed since it has already the nation state have "psychological issues"

It seems you're loading this phrase with unnecessary baggage. Psychological issues simply means 'issues with the psyche'. We're not talking about Hannibal Lecter here. The psyche is my understanding of Quranic vocabulary is the 'nafs'. Maybe that should be the next subject in your 'comprehensive' (lol) study?

Quote
Whilst the above is interesting in itself, the highlight is what happens if we actually insert YOUR understanding into YOUR OWN understanding of 2:196

About 2:196 you said:

Those who are ill or with psychological issues should fast or give charity or keep up their life activities.

But you gave an example of psychological issues as someone who thinks the modern world doesn't need a space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed, so someone who obviously does not advocate or believe in submitting to Allah's laws in a "space" is expected to submit to Quran when it says fast, give charity or keep up their life activities, according to you.

I assume therefore, they submit personally, but do not advocate a "space" for such - even though Quran implies these people have psychological issues, according to you, so they are not really submitting to Allah's laws as such. Hmmm.

Yes, more evidence of Aristotelian logic, hehe. I don't know if you think thinking is haram or something. If you have ANY kind of issue with Allah or His laws, can Allah tell you to do anything about WITHOUT involving you submitting to his laws?

Quote
As a side note, you have added my critique to your blog (finally) but then you posted "These questions have now been answered on free-minds." which is false. They are being answered (present tense), not have been answered (past tense). It seems you do not pay attention to grammar.

Yes I don't expect to return to them in the future since no one will read them and part of them HAVE been answered.

Ah yes, also, I expect to see you linking this thread to YOUR page on 2/196 by the time you post the next response.

Quote
I forgot to add "modern world" and "nation state" would obviously not be applicable prior, so I guess your only left with "whining" as "psychological issues" for the past.

I don't read the Quran in prior. The Quran is the eternal present for me. If you've been reading the Quran in prior, that's probably why you need to think if Musa or Muhammad is mentioned in 17/1 which to me is absolutely irrelevant and pointless.

I now point you to my thread for my answers please. I am waiting for the crucial answer about WHO decides whatis Quranic.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 29, 2012, 03:50:20 AM
Thanks for clarifying, readers can decide for themselves.

You keep repeating the claim that I somehow consider Lane (and consequently other CAD) as credible implying you do not, but YOU are the one who said the following when asked:

"How do we understand meanings of Quranic words?"

"Personally, I look at lexicons and try to fit the meanings back into the text. The text is remarkably helpful when guiding the reader to the correct meanings."


That is ALL you said. Clearly implying you consider them credible.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 29, 2012, 04:59:39 AM
Look up 'credible' and 'authoritative' please. I know you're a big fan of synoyms but are these two  synonymous?

And I DO think the text is INCREDIBLY helpful but not when you pluck out a word (like musa and leave out the rest of the aya 17/2) and deem other words 'in passing' (like nuh who was mentioned obviously for entertainment purposes only in 17/3).

Oh, might as well look up comprehensive while you at it :P

Once again, I request that you to LINK my future critiques and even this thread to your writings on the web. What is your answer to this?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 30, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
Quote
Look up 'credible' and 'authoritative' please.

No need, I know there is a difference.

So, can we conclude then, you consider lexicons credible? Yes/No.


Quote
Once again, I request that you to LINK my future critiques and even this thread to your writings on the web. What is your answer to this?

What critiques? If you can keep them clear, concise, and without slander / derogatory comments / baseless statements / logical fallacies etc I will consider it.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 30, 2012, 12:21:50 PM
Quote
So, can we conclude then, you consider lexicons credible? Yes/No.

'yes/no' answers are best kept for Aristotelian logicians. Real life is WAY beyond 'yes/no'. I consider lexicons credible IF they suit the readings of the Quran I consider correct. It's very possible that lexicons DO NOT have the answers. For example, the name 'maryam'. i do NOT feel any lexicons has the meaning.

Quote
What critiques? If you can keep them clear, concise, and without slander / derogatory comments / baseless statements / logical fallacies etc I will consider it.

Concise? Your writings are not concise, how do you expect their critique to be concise? I aim to deconstruct every single point.

Baseless statements according to whom? Your critique on 2/196 uses a baseless source, your CADs but your forced your way into my blog anyway. When I ignored you , you harassed me to answer. So why should I follow your judgement of 'baseless'.

Logical fallacies according to whom? Your critique's FIRST point is logically fallacious, that no one will be able to do it. That goes outside the bounds of measure of correctness. It's an absurd statement but I allowed it in. How come that's ok?

What are you afraid of? You expect to BULLDOZE your way into other discussions but you won't allow critiques of your work? Mr Comprehensive needs a little more confidence, I think. Be just please. You want to criticise, be ready to be critiqued yourself.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 30, 2012, 01:41:39 PM
Quote
I consider lexicons credible IF they suit the readings of the Quran I consider correct. It's very possible that lexicons DO NOT have the answers.

Finally, we get an answer on this. And how does this differ from my view? Please remember to respond with evidence not baseless conjecture. I want actual quotes from me etc.

And my Q1 of the critique may or may not be relevant, but since you've been running away from answering my Qs, I wont know till I have those answers. Simple.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 30, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
Finally, we get an answer on this. And how does this differ from my view? Please remember to respond with evidence not baseless conjecture. I want actual quotes from me etc.
 

It differs from your view because you simply claim it. For you, not adhering to dictionaries causes one to lose all credibility. Remember that statement? Or you want me to quote it?

Quote
And my Q1 of the critique may or may not be relevant, but since you've been running away from answering my Qs, I wont know till I have those answers. Simple.

Running? Your criticisms are being answered on this thread.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 30, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
It differs from your view because you simply claim it. For you, not adhering to dictionaries causes one to lose all credibility? Remember that statement? Or you want me to quote it?

Farouk has been exposed yet again.

He provides no evidence whatsoever, not one shred, on how my view differs.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 30, 2012, 02:08:17 PM
Ah , lets have the quote then:

Of course, if you were openly say such a thing, your credibility would be non-existent. You even admitted to me in private message about showing how you arrive at word meanings and said that will come later. Clearly implying the current info you presented is lacking. To what degree it is lacking is open to interpretation. In my view it was woeful.
from : https://www.facebook.com/groups/181724025200188/permalink/427396597299595/?comment_id=433644953341426&offset=50&total_comments=126

There you go :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on October 31, 2012, 03:58:57 AM
Farouk claimed my position was: "not adhering to dictionaries causes one to lose all credibility"

Is that what I actually said? Let's see... (bold emphasis mine)

Quote
I have already explained "NCADR". If a person comes up with a new meaning and cites no evidence, not even from Quran, then I will point out the lack of evidence. CAD are simply one reference you could have used. If you do not care about CAD, fine. Just make it clear for all to see, e.g.you dont mind if you come up with a new Arabic word meaning and its unheard of in any Classical Arabic Dictionary (or any non-Quran source).....and you consider it unnecessary to cite Quran reference or reasoning for your new word choice also. As you regularly did this throughout your 2:196 interpretation.

Of course, if you were openly say such a thing, your credibility would be non-existent. You even admitted to me in private message about showing how you arrive at word meanings and said that will come later. Clearly implying the current info you presented is lacking. To what degree it is lacking is open to interpretation. In my view it was woeful.


Clearly, I discussed evidence from Quran, CAD, other source, and reasoning etc, and if you used NONE to back-up what you write, that would damage credibility, that's what I actually said.


It is becoming rather tedious for me to correct your false/misleading/baseless statements time and time again. From now on I will simply use: fomob (false or misleading or baseless).

If you cant be bothered keeping this discussion accurate/evidence-based, I dont see why I should waste my time having to correct/clarify.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on October 31, 2012, 04:03:06 AM
Quote
Clearly, I discussed evidence from Quran, CAD, other source, and reasoning etc, and if you used NONE to back-up what you write, that would damage credibility, that's what I actually said.

'evidence from Quran', great. WHO or what SOURCE determines the meanings of Quranic words? How does come with a 'new meaning' from Quran? Does Allah write a new footnote to accomodate his views? You use this phrase 'evidence from Quran' so carelessly so I'm not surprised why you won't go into it's deconstruction. 

I described my definition of 'hadya' in this very thread. Please tell me why you do NOT accept this. Is it 'quranic' or not. Thanks :)

Quote
It is becoming rather tedious for me to correct your false/misleading/baseless statements time and time again. From now on I will simply use: fomob (false or misleading or baseless).

If you cant be bothered keeping this discussion accurate/evidence-based, I dont see why I should waste my time having to correct/clarify
.

My thoughts exactly about your 'critiques'. However, I have now written my criticisms to your articles and now await you to include them on your page :) Will you give the same rights that you DEMAND? We shall see....
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 01, 2012, 05:46:51 AM
Next question:

Re: blog post 2:196
You said ?Once they are secure?.

Question: secure from what? Ideally, provide evidence of some kind.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 01, 2012, 05:57:59 AM

secure from their psychological issues. For example if a person felt that this system isnt possible or fears the enemy more than Allah and he attains security from these issues.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 01, 2012, 03:09:06 PM
secure from their psychological issues. For example if a person felt that this system isnt possible or fears the enemy more than Allah and he attains security from these issues.

Your explanation contradicts what you wrote:

Quote from Farouk:
Quote
"Once they are secure*, they are continue with fertilisation towards the challenge (that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression) by keep contributing hadya/progressions."

*(i.e. overcome their "psychological issues" as explained by Farouk above) one example listed by you was "i see it as psychological issues related to the establishment of AMAH. Like some people may whine 'only a few people can do this, if that' despite Allah saying He guarantees victory a number of places." but there is no "continue" and "keep growing" and "keep contributing" as they weren't doing any of this previously as they deemed "only a few people can do this" hence did not do it.

Please try again, or re-word.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 01, 2012, 03:29:54 PM

try thinking beyond your mono-dimensional pattern. Psychological issues are not one offs nor are they limited. This is a general command meant to cover the entire process in full.

I ask again: Will you link my critiques in your blog? Why do you keep avoiding this question? If there is ANY problem with my critique, please let me know.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 02:48:31 AM
Your answer does not directly address what I highlight, my quote below:

Quote
....but there is no "continue" and "keep growing" and "keep contributing" as they weren't doing any of this previously as they deemed "only a few people can do this" hence did not do it.

Are you saying those with "psychological issues" were doing this previously (i.e. continue, growing, contributing towards establishing the system)? Yes/No/what?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 03:16:07 AM
They may have been, yes. Psychological issues do not come once nor are they easily predictable. This aya is talking about who are completing the challenge and fertilisation for Allah.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 08:35:19 AM
They may have been, yes. Psychological issues do not come once nor are they easily predictable. This aya is talking about who are completing the challenge and fertilisation for Allah.

Your view still contradicts what you wrote:

We are to complete the challenge and fertilisation for Allah, which is to establish and grow His system in the world. Whoever is prevented should send forth progressions and not let go of this thought until it reaches its place of effectiveness. Those who are ill or with psychological issues should fast or give charity or keep up their life activities. Once they are secure, they are continue with fertilisation towards the challenge (that is to keep growing Gods system...

Let me break it down so you and readers can see the contradiction:

if you prevented from doing RED do BLUE
those who are ill or "psychological issues" do GREEN

But you admitted those who have "psychological issues" may have been trying to do RED and since you know of no-one in history who has ever done hajj/umrah, according to your understanding, it is highly unlikely they would "complete" it hence "prevented" thus should do BLUE. So, which is it, should they do BLUE or GREEN?

You would then have to explain why those with psychological issues are treated different to those who apparently have none, yet they are all doing the same thing in practical terms.

If the "psychological group" may have been trying to establish/grow, what about the "ill" people - should they also be, or are they exempted for some reason.

Further, the probability of a person actually establishing and growing His system in the world is extremely low, as admitted by you, yet they have psychological issues if they think it wont come be established/grown/etc which is the most probable outcome. Ergo, vast majority of people have "psychological issues" according to your view.

#####

No matter, we will leave the problem for you to resolve. Next question:

Wakas: Incorrectly imply the verse says ?continue with the umra? when the Arabic actually uses a perfect verb, meaning an action done/completed, meaning ?whoever benefitted/enjoyed with the umra?, thus there can be no ?(that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression)? as you allege.

Please explain. If you do not believe in perfect/imperfect verbs, that's fine, simply say so, and state there is no way to determine this etc or similar.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 09:23:37 AM
Quote
But you admitted those who have "psychological issues" may have been trying to do RED and since you know of no-one in history who has ever done hajj/umrah, according to your understanding, it is highly unlikely they would "complete" it hence "prevented" thus should do BLUE. So, which is it, should they do BLUE or GREEN?

Firstly, whatever has happened in history is beyond my concern. You asked an irrelevant question before when you inquired if many people could do this or not. This is not how I read the Q. For all I know history could be a major lie and it has happened many times.

Secondly, 'prevented' here in the context (sigh!) refers to falling short of the itmam state (that's why it's atimmoo and not 'a3malu' or 'af3aloo' or 'aqimoo'). So one is to constantly strive to meet the goal of the hajj (establishment of amah) and umrah (its fertilisation). So if one is prevented from reaching the mark, then one keeps sending forth progressions towards its place of effectiveness.

The 'blue OR green' question shows that once again, you're thinking with Aristotelian logic. I don't see it like this, I see it as an organic process.

Quote
You would then have to explain why those with psychological issues are treated different to those who apparently have none, yet they are all doing the same thing in practical terms.

If the "psychological group" may have been trying to establish/grow, what about the "ill" people - should they also be, or are they exempted for some reason.

To me, people with psychological issues need to work them out before they can progress to the goals. People who are ill need to get well. I don't see any problem with that.


Quote
Further, the probability of a person actually establishing and growing His system in the world is extremely low, as admitted by you, yet they have psychological issues if they think it wont come be established/grown/etc which is the most probable outcome. Ergo, vast majority of people have "psychological issues" according to your view.

This is a SLANDER. I never said the probability is extremely low. I said I dont know anyone who has done it. Kindly stop slandering me.

In terms of nafsiyyah problems then yes most people (including myself) have it. The nafs is the centre of our outcomes so the way the world is (not was), how can I say we're have sound psyches. Clearly most of us do not possess the necessarily personality to actualise masjid al-haram. Of course this is an irrelevant point. The aya gives the process, whether one wants to do it or not is up to one.




 
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 01:35:11 PM

The 'blue OR green' question shows that once again, you're thinking with Aristotelian logic. I don't see it like this, I see it as an organic process.

Simply saying"I see it as an organic process" doesn't actually explain the contradiction.

Quote
To me, people with psychological issues need to work them out before they can progress to the goals.

Contradicts what you said earlier, quote: "They may have been, yes."

Quote
People who are ill need to get well. I don't see any problem with that.

I'll highlight another problem for you. You claim people who are ill need to get well, but what do they do when they get well according to your understanding. They obviously try to establish/grow His system in the world, meaning they will never do the part in green. Unless, your view is Quran suggests they fast when they are ill for example.

As I said, I will leave these problems for you to resolve, next question:

Wakas: Incorrectly imply the verse says ?continue with the umra? when the Arabic actually uses a perfect verb, meaning an action done/completed, meaning ?whoever benefitted/enjoyed with the umra?, thus there can be no ?(that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression)? as you allege.

Please explain. If you do not believe in perfect/imperfect verbs, that's fine, simply say so, and state there is no way to determine this etc or similar.



#####

Quote
This is a SLANDER. I never said the probability is extremely low. I said I dont know anyone who has done it. Kindly stop slandering me.

It's not slander, it is simply a logical deduction of what you said and never contested:

Wakas:
You have already agreed that it would only be a minority who could even be said to achieve this. My question is: can you cite anyone, past or present (excluding prophets/messengers) that has "established and grown His system in the world"?

Farouk:
No I can't.

But it's ok, you already gave us a scenario wherein your view works "For all I know history could be a major lie and it has happened many times."

 ;D

Quote
In terms of nafsiyyah problems then yes most people (including myself) have it. The nafs is the centre of our outcomes so the way the world is (not was), how can I say we're have sound psyches. Clearly most of us do not possess the necessarily personality to actualise masjid al-haram. Of course this is an irrelevant point. The aya gives the process, whether one wants to do it or not is up to one.

Thanks for clarifying in your view most have problems, and I assume here you mean "psychological issues".
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 02:13:47 PM
Simply saying"I see it as an organic process" doesn't actually explain the contradiction.

Sure, that's why I said a LOAD of other things which you did not or quite possibly cannot process. Of course it's more than fine, I wasn't expecting you to, we don't think along similar lines.

Quote
Contradicts what you said earlier, quote: "They may have been, yes."

How so?

Quote
I'll highlight another problem for you. You claim people who are ill need to get well, but what do they do when they get well according to your understanding. They obviously try to establish/grow His system in the world, meaning they will never do the part in green. Unless, your view is Quran suggests they fast when they are ill for example.

Sure, sawm is for taqwa (2/183) and taqwa is the opposite of fujr (91/7-10) so why can't sawm be used for healing?

Quote
As I said, I will leave these problems for you to resolve, next question:

They're problems for you maybe which is none of my concern.

Quote
Wakas: Incorrectly imply the verse says ?continue with the umra? when the Arabic actually uses a perfect verb, meaning an action done/completed, meaning ?whoever benefitted/enjoyed with the umra?, thus there can be no ?(that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression)? as you allege.

Please explain. If you do not believe in perfect/imperfect verbs, that's fine, simply say so, and state there is no way to determine this etc or similar.

Because you see the umrah as a SINGLE process. I told you before, quantify zakat for me. Obviously you can't do it becauwse you think its linear terms. I told you, its cut and paste of dictionaries and grammar.

And with your robotic use of language, of course you think in binary terms. Talking to you is like talking to a computer , you only think along binary values and in a linnear process. Whoever benefitted with the umrah talks about the fertilisation enjoyed by those who invoked the progress. It's an organic process, as I said.


#####

Quote
It's not slander, it is simply a logical deduction of what you said and never contested:

Not many people can do it means its highly improbably to be done? THis is POOR deduction. I don't believe this is the case. I believe anyone with the level of the ibrahmic personality WILL achieve it. For such a person , the probability is 100 percent.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 02:53:42 PM
How so?

PRC.



Quote
Sure, sawm is for taqwa (2/183) and taqwa is the opposite of fujr (91/7-10) so why can't sawm be used for healing?

Thanks for clarifying Quran is suggesting fasting when ill, in your view, with no guidance whatsoever on what type of illness etc.

Quote
Whoever benefitted with the umrah talks about the fertilisation enjoyed by those who invoked the progress.

That's not what you said on your blog. No comment on the perfect/imperfect verb point?

Quote
Not many people can do it means its highly improbably to be done? THis is POOR deduction. I don't believe this is the case. I believe anyone with the level of the ibrahmic personality WILL achieve it. For such a person , the probability is 100 percent.

You know of no such person in the history of the world, post-Quran. As I said "low probability".
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 03:11:27 PM
PRC.

I did. If you can't explain, stop wasting my time.


Quote
Thanks for clarifying Quran is suggesting fasting when ill, in your view, with no guidance whatsoever on what type of illness etc.

Np.

Quote
That's not what you said on your blog. No comment on the perfect/imperfect verb point?

Sure, that's why they're called notes.

Quote
You know of no such person in the history of the world, post-Quran. As I said "low probability".

I know very few people and I don't inquire their activities. The Quran doesn't tell me to be a busybody like maybe it tells you.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 03, 2012, 12:16:20 AM
I have now answered all your points here: http://quranology.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/dialogue-with-wakas-on-2196/

I have also decide to DELETE your comment from my blog as I believe that your toxic presence should only be tolerated if you're willing to play fair. As such, you are NOT. Judging from the tone of your comments on 2/196 which were nauseating to read, you're a BULLY and bullies when challenged, are COWARDS.


 
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 03, 2012, 08:18:37 AM
I have now answered all your points here: http://quranology.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/dialogue-with-wakas-on-2196/

I note how in your blog you have re-worded EVERY answer you gave on this forum. Deceptive. Oh, and you add fomob.

 ;D

Let's review what you said for the rest (bold mine):

Quote from: Farouk
7) Incorrectly imply the verse says ?continue with the umra? when the Arabic actually uses a perfect verb, meaning an action done/completed, meaning ?whoever benefitted/enjoyed with the umra?, thus there can be no ?(that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression)? as you allege.

Once again, this is not a translation. Furthermore, you seem to think this is a single process. The umrah here refers to fertilisation of our acts towards the challenge of establishing masjid al-haram. It would be very unintelligent for us to quantify this. The perfect verb tamatta3a signifies the current process of fertilisation which happens in levels.

8 ) Halfway through the verse you switch ?al hajj? to be in reference to challenging oppression, which is not mentioned in the context.

If context is the next verse, you?d be right. However, I tend to read entire chapters and texts as contributive to the wider meanings of a particular aya. The ism ma3rifa of the hajj refers to establishment of masjid al-haram. Masajid are places which counter oppression by iqamul qist (7/29).

9) For sake of argument, if we assume it is indeed about ??continue with fertilisation towards the challenge (that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression) by keep contributing hadya/progressions. ? ? but the Arabic actually says ??then what is EASY of the progression? ? I never knew challenging oppression would be easy. Can we assume your view is Quran is saying only do the easy stuff when it comes to combating oppression? If it?s difficult just leave it?

Firstly, I?d just like to say your sarcastic and rude tone has no place in a quranist discourse. This is compounded with the fact that your own analysis of masjid al-haram is fraught with shortcomings and even deems Quranic elements as ?passing?. I suggest a thorough self-examination. Ask yourself why the hostility?

It also appears you have a severe reading difficulty. You yourself said ?what is easy OF THE PROGRESSION? then deduce that Quran implies ?challenging oppression would be easy?. This is a terrible deduction. How does progression transform into oppression? Progressions here are contributive towards the goal. The goal itself may not be immediately attainable but progress towards that goal is.

10) You say ?If he is unable to make progress during the period of challenge? but the Arabic simply says ?so whoever couldn?t find?. Let us know what you translate ?yajid (find)? as.

Yes, ?yajid? means find but find what? Please read in context. The flow of the aya is talking about the hadya which are progressions towards the goal.

11) Since you view ?the challenge? as establishing God?s system in the world then the vast majority would not be able to establish it, thus the period you allude to would be their lifetime, yet you now imply ?the challenge? is a finite period or periods. Please explain.

I never said or implied any such thing. Your question was about the vast majority being able to do it. The hajj in this context is a finite period which ends when one?s connected people (ahl) are in the presence of masjid-al haram.

12) I?d be very interested in hearing your logic behind having 3 periods of fasting during the challenge and a number of periods during the times for people. And why this is a ?formula for perfect social living?? And if you have time, explain your obscure reference to 2:189 and timings and how they?d be determined practically.

At the moment, ?3′ is not something I?m sure of as anymore as new developments have emerged. I am sure that fasting is involved as fasting to a certain point (that of shahru ramadhan) is essential to build spiritual energy. This is during the time when the challenge is undertaken. However, in a lax period (as per 2/187) , the fasts can be regular fasts (as per 2/183-184).

These fasts are withdrawals from consumption and spending for the poor. As such, it will be bring about a harmonious society.

13) You seemingly miss out the Arabic when it says ?when you returned? -please explain.

In the context, it refers to when people have returned to normal living from engaging with the challenge.

14) You claim ?3asharah kaamilah? means ?perfect social living? with NQCR, NQE, NCADR. The same word ?3asharah? appears in 5:89 and using your translation would render it nonsensical. Further, the grammar of these two words in their construction would need explained in any alternative understanding. As it stand you have not.

As you have admitted yourself a subjective meaning, ?nonsensical? is relative to your paradigm of tafseer. I see 3asharah masakeen as the society of the stagnant people. That is to say, the social class who are unable to progress.

15) The Arabic is ?al masjid al haram? which implies you are translating ?masjid? as ?system?. Is this how you translate ?masjid? elsewhere? And therefore what about ?sujud??

Masjid is a place of submission and thereby projecting a system of actions through its obedience to laws. Sadly, your inability to percieve beyond a literal reading hampers your understanding a lot.

16) Strictly speaking, the preposition ?fee (in)? is not there in the Arabic prior to ?al masjid al haram?.

Yes, these are notes which are in English. They would not be coherent in a word for word translation.

17) You translate ?haram? as ?sanctified?, but this makes little sense elsewhere, e.g. 2:194, 5:97, 9:5, 9:36 amongst others. If we combine this with your translation of ?shahr? as ?situation/condition? or ?obvious state?, then what are the 12 obvious states with God, and 4 of them are sanctified (see 9:36)? If they are indeed obvious, it should be easy for you to tell us what they are, and/or the logic behind them, as per Quran.

Haram cannot be translated with one word. It could be sanctified or sanctioned.  There are no 12 or 4 obvious states. I don?t believe in these numbers at all. ?Ithna 3ashara? refers to the two ends of society which come together, arba3a I am unable to articulate at present but I would venture with stability.

Re: Q7
Ahh, so you admit there is such a thing as perfect verbs. Interesting. Previously, when discussing verbs and grammar, you said:

Quote
Maybe for those who uncritically accept this form stuff (and STILL claim the Quran is their furqan, lol) . I don't. Where's your Quranic proof for this by the way.

Quote
Farouk: "How does one measure grammatical correctness?"

Wakas: Intra-Quran comparison.

Farouk: What exactly do you mean by this? The Quran nowhere makes any mention of grammar. How on earth can you make an 'intra-quran' comparison?

Wakas: It's simple. By "intra-Quran comparison" I mean comparing the same word/structure for its occurrences.

Farouk: How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?

Quote
I was speaking of showing words to be nouns or verbs! No intra-Quranic comparison can help you determine noun or verbs because the the Quran DOES NOT MENTION nouns or verbs. Do you understand that because that's a very crucial point - it is LINGUISTS who tel you about nouns and verbs. See the difference - one is THE QURAN, the other is NOT the Quran. It's amazing I need to point out the difference. You have CONFLATED the Quran with linguistic resources....wowwww

 ;D



Quote from: Farouk
I have also decide to DELETE your comment from my blog as I believe that your toxic presence should only be tolerated if you're willing to play fair. As such, you are NOT. Judging from the tone of your comments on 2/196 which were nauseating to read, you're a BULLY and bullies when challenged, are COWARDS.

Farouk: "NOT ONCE did I delete your posts..." and "I NEVER suppressed your posts."

Until now. Glad that's clear.

And lol@toxic presence. Here is something you can try Farouk, ask one of your online contacts/friends/etc to read the discussions we've had on this forum, and get them to answer 3 simple Qs:

1) who made more derogatory remarks: Farouk or Wakas?
2) who made more false/misleading/baseless statements and logical fallacies: Farouk or Wakas?
3) who made more slanderous statements: Farouk or Wakas?

And then ask them who is more toxic, hehe.  ;D
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 03, 2012, 08:28:27 AM
Re: Q9

You dont actually answer what I asked, and add fomob:

Farouk: You yourself said ?what is easy OF THE PROGRESSION? then deduce that Quran implies ?challenging oppression would be easy?.  This is a terrible deduction.

No, I did not deduce Quran implies that. I was actually referring to the logical consequence of YOUR view, but I'm glad you described it as "a terrible deduction" as I couldn't agree more.  ;D

Let me make it real simple for you, I said: "For sake of argument, if we assume it is indeed about ??continue with fertilisation towards the challenge (that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression) by keep contributing hadya/progressions. ? ? but the Arabic actually says ??then what is EASY of the progression?


So, simply slot in what the Arabic actually says into your understanding and see the mess that results. Then answer what I actually asked.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 03, 2012, 08:41:36 AM
Re: Q11

Your answer doesn't actually make sense. You first said:
?We are to complete the challenge and fertilisation for Allah, which is to establish and grow His system in the world."

Due to the low probability of the above, it would likely take a person their entire lifetime to actually establish and grow His system in the world, but in your answer to Q11 you now say "The hajj in this context is a finite period which ends when one?s connected people (ahl) are in the presence of masjid-al haram." and previously defined AMAH as "the space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed and thus the place becomes sanctified."

So it only ends when there is a "space where submission to Allah's laws are performed" and as I said, and you indirectly admitted, very few would actually achieve this, thus finite periods does not make sense, especially more than one! Please explain and give a practical example of someone undergoing hajj according to you with finite periods (i.e. more than one).
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: abdalquran on November 04, 2012, 12:42:33 AM
I note how in your blog you have re-worded EVERY answer you gave on this forum. Deceptive. Oh, and you add fomob.

LOL, as I said, your disclaimer isn't worth tuppence. Unlike your self-proclaimed greatest contribution to quranist development, word experiences aren't fixed. They are ORGANIC, they grow with time (well, not yours but normal people's). Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that, you need the word 'dictionary' on the title page to make you to accept anything :P



Quote
Re: Q7
Ahh, so you admit there is such a thing as perfect verbs. Interesting. Previously, when discussing verbs and grammar, you said:

Yes and like your quranic analyis for poor old NUH, you missed the key word...UNCRITICAL. Word forms can be useful when they produce coherence in meaning.  It's ironic too because if a PRL entry was made about YOU, UNCRITICAL would be the first meaning there  :rotfl:



Quote
Farouk: "NOT ONCE did I delete your posts..." and "I NEVER suppressed your posts."

Until now. Glad that's clear.

Of course. I only extend cordial relations to people with honest discussions. People who are  RUDE, AUTHORITARIAN, UNABLE (or unwilling) to understand simple sentences and most all THEMSELVES SUPPRESSIVE are not worth the bother. The Q tells us to judge fairly between naas (4/58) so if I am not treated with the same courtesy, why would I extend the same to you? Your 'comprehensive' and 'Quranic' claims have now been flushed down the toilet and your authoritarian pretensions would be FINISHED when you link your work to any criticism.

And come on, look at your comprehension skils. I was shaking my head in disbelief. For God's sake, look at this:
For sake of argument, if we assume it is indeed about ??continue with fertilisation towards the challenge (that is to keep growing Gods system till it challenges oppression) by keep contributing hadya/progressions. ? ? but the Arabic actually says ??then what is EASY of the progression? ? I never knew challenging oppression would be easy. Can we assume your view is Quran is saying only do the easy stuff when it comes to combating oppression? If it?s difficult just leave it?

If it says 'what is easy of the PROGRESSION/HADY, you understand it to mean challenging OPPRESSION is easy? This discussion is a complete waste of time. Your comprehension skills are about pre-school level.  How can any productive discussions take place when you can't even comprehend simple sentences? I know now why you like one word sentences (like 'contradiction.' and 'deceptive.'). You probably can't process much else.


Quote
And lol@toxic presence. Here is something you can try Farouk, ask one of your online contacts/friends/etc to read the discussions we've had on this forum, and get them to answer 3 simple Qs:

1) who made more derogatory remarks: Farouk or Wakas?
2) who made more false/misleading/baseless statements and logical fallacies: Farouk or Wakas?
3) who made more slanderous statements: Farouk or Wakas
And then ask them who is more toxic, hehe.  ;D

The events which resulted in me BEING here to begin with STARTED with people's complaints about YOU. Your obnoxious way of speaking to people suggests you're some kind of authority (even though you can't even process a complete aya, you need to chop it up and process only two words at a time like a lame blender). Then you cuss out people in my group (the warning is recorded), you harass others including myself (warning is recorded) and you got banned from QRAC. Nice people don't get banned. So I think the polling is unnecessary. Even if I DID care about people's opinions, it's quite clear to me. But I don't. Your presence is toxic on MY blog. I like pleasant discussions and you are - like you are with digesting complex sentences - incapable of that.

The biggest expose about you is when you complained of being IGNORED. Really?...IGNORED? You think people are OBLIGED to engage with you? Just who the heck do you think you are? People have a right to discuss whatever they want without the benefit of your comments. At least they do in my groups. Here you can pretend to be the quranist Hitler and if you play it really cool, no one will know about your own flaws.

I'm done answering your inane questions. You may consider these discussions closed. And like the guy whose post you deleted said, you can have the last word :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 05, 2012, 05:23:50 AM
Unlike your self-proclaimed greatest contribution to quranist development,

fomob

Is that all you've got left Farouk: ad-hominen?



Quote from: Farouk
Yes and like your quranic analyis for poor old NUH, you missed the key word...UNCRITICAL. Word forms can be useful when they produce coherence in meaning.  It's ironic too because if a PRL entry was made about YOU, UNCRITICAL would be the first meaning there

Thanks for finally admitting verbs exist, perfect/imperfect, and singular/plural words etc. Your double standards have been exposed. Further, you claim I am uncritical, yet this claim of yours was completely and utterly demolished by this post of mine and you did not rebut any point I made:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604455.msg311263#msg311263

Once again, you have been exposed.


Quote from: Farouk
Of course. I only extend cordial relations to people with honest discussions.

Once again, you have been exposed. Anyone can read our threads and see who made the derogatory/false/misleading/baseless/slanderous statements first, you or I.


I note how you did not answer my remarks about Q9 and Q11 in your reply above.
Once again, exposed.


Quote from: Farouk
Then you cuss out people in my group (the warning is recorded), you harass others including myself (warning is recorded)

cuss out (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuss%20out)? Another slanderous statement. Exposed.

Warning is recorded huh Farouk? lol. Then please quote it for everyone to see. You have my permission.



Quote from: Farouk
and you got banned from QRAC. Nice people don't get banned.


For those who do not know, yes I was banned from the facebook group above, for simply requesting Farouk to provide evidence of his repeated slander against me. One admin (not Farouk) messages me simply saying let it go and try to keep it positive yet never identified herself as admin (and I never even knew she was admin), so when I posted another request for evidence, I got banned. Simple.
If anyone here is a member of QRAC, you can verify this yourself (if the messages are still there). In any case, it is my Quranic right to speak out against an injustice and asking for evidence for slander is hardly an offence.

The fact that you bring this up shows you are grasping at straws, in an attempt to make more ad-hominen remarks.

Exposed.

Quote from: Farouk
I like pleasant discussions

Then dont make multiple slanderous/false/misleading/baseless/derogatory statements then. The evidence is here for all to see. Exposed.

Quote
The biggest expose about you is when you complained of being IGNORED. Really?...IGNORED? You think people are OBLIGED to engage with you? Just who the heck do you think you are? People have a right to discuss whatever they want without the benefit of your comments. At least they do in my groups. Here you can pretend to be the quranist Hitler and if you play it really cool, no one will know about your own flaws.

Complained about being ignored? What are you going on about? Please provide the quote with context or dont say anything at all.

"Quranist hitler"? lol.
Everyone can see you have been exposed Farouk. You've got nothing but ad-hominen left.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
Post by: Wakas on November 10, 2012, 09:03:54 AM
To conclude this analysis, my comments on the remaining answered questions are as follows. If no reply from Farouk is given within 30 days, this thread can be locked.


Re: Q12)
Farouk admits having an incomplete understanding of this aspect, which is fair enough. However, reconciling this may unhinge the rest of his understanding.
Claims he is sure of fasting being undertaken during the time when the challenge is undertaken, however, as previously said this time-period would likely be one's entire lifetime. He offers no explanation.

Re: Q13)
We can only assume here, that Farouk means "His system is established and grown in the world", which suffers from the same problems as previously stated.

Re: Q14)
Provides no evidence from Quran as initially asked. Interestingly he went from it meaning "perfect social living" to somehow implying a stagnant social class unable to progress.

Re: Q15)
Any understanding requires examination in its Quran occurrences. As yet, not done by Farouk.

Re: Q16)
My point being those interpreting Quran often imply certain words are in the Arabic when they are not. An interesting trait amongst "Quranists" is to criticise Traditional translations and tafsirs on this very point, but often neglect to highlight this when they do it themselves.

Re: Q17)
Farouk's reply would render his understanding of 9:36 similar to "indeed the number of situations/conditions with God is two ends of society which come together condition/situation in the kitab of God from the day/period He created the heavens and the earth, from/of them stability (are) sanctioned/sanctified (plural)". Whatever that means is anyone's guess. He does not offer any logical explanation.


#####


To conclude, I initially wrote my critique (http://www.scribd.com/doc/100544129/Critique-of-Quranology-Blog-Quranists) because so much of Farouk's post on 2:196 seemed unevidenced/impractical/illogical, and I had studied 2:196 for a mini-article I wrote (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html).
Now that we have his replies to the critique, readers can weigh the evidence for themselves are consider whether his view is sound or not etc.

Unfortunately, a pattern amongst many interpreters of Quran (Traditionalists as well as Quranist) has been to apply an inconsistent method when trying to interpret it, which can and does lead to problems.
The key has and always will be to apply a robust/systematic method, that is at least somewhat falsifiable (i.e. test-able), to maximise one's chances of extracting the most accurate understanding.

With the multitude of information out there, trying to determine the sound from the unsound can prove difficult, however, if we stick with an evidence-based approach, like the scientific-world principally has, we will make leaps and bounds in our Quranic understandings, God-willing.

My approach can read here (http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html).