Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => General Issues / Questions => Topic started by: abdalquran on October 05, 2012, 03:45:50 PM

Title: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 05, 2012, 03:45:50 PM
Salam,

This thread is a challenge to the pretense of objectivity, claim of authority and fundamentalist attitudes with regards to the understanding and interpretation of the Quran. My questions are designed to interrogate so-called 'rigorous methodologies' in interpretation and to show that this positivism is nothing more than pure subjectivism which Sunnism practices except with a quranist label.

I will begin with Wakas's comment towards 357's post :
How about "using lanes AND logic, cross-reference, quranic grammar etc

which implies that Wakas can identify what 'quranic grammar' is.

We will therefore begin with the question: WHAT IS QURANIC GRAMMAR?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 02:16:57 AM
w/salaam,

Some definitions:

Quranic: of/from or pertaining to The Quran

Some dictionary definitions of "grammar":

1) The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics

2) A particular analysis of the system and structure of language or of a specific language

3) A set of rules governing what strings are valid or allowable in a language or text


So, what I mean by "Quranic grammar" is the system/pattern it uses its words in. For example, neither of us regard the way in which Quran uses its terms as haphazard, i.e. random, therefore it is systematic/structured in some way.

 
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 05:10:58 AM

Quote
So, what I mean by "Quranic grammar" is the system/pattern it uses its words in. For example, neither of us regard the way in which Quran uses its terms as haphazard, i.e. random, therefore it is systematic/structured in some way.

That's actually incorrect. You believe in synonyms so you actually do believe that the Q uses words haphazardly.

Next question: How does one measure grammatical correctness?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 09:43:31 AM
That's actually incorrect. You believe in synonyms so you actually do believe that the Q uses words haphazardly.

You declare something incorrect, yet provide no sound evidence/reason other than your own opinion as to why the use of synonym renders something haphazard.
Ironically, such a statement of yours conflicts with your alleged aim of "...a challenge to the pretense of objectivity, claim of authority and fundamentalist attitudes with regards to the understanding and interpretation of the Quran."

Declaring something incorrect based on your subjective/baseless opinion seems to be the very "claim of authority" and "fundamentalist attitude" and "Sunnism practice" you allegedly seek to challenge.

###

Now, onto your question: How does one measure grammatical correctness?

Intra-Quran comparison.



Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 11:22:21 AM
Quote
You declare something incorrect, yet provide no sound evidence/reason other than your own opinion as to why the use of synonym renders something haphazard.
Ironically, such a statement of yours conflicts with your alleged aim of "...a challenge to the pretense of objectivity, claim of authority and fundamentalist attitudes with regards to the understanding and interpretation of the Quran."

Declaring something incorrect based on your subjective/baseless opinion seems to be the very "claim of authority" and "fundamentalist attitude" and "Sunnism practice" you allegedly seek to challenge.

I should've thought the evidence was perfectly clear from the argument itself but no matter, I can expound.

You claim that 'neither of us regard the way in which Quran uses its terms as haphazard, i.e. random, therefore it is systematic/structured in some way'.

However, if a word is used in a given situation and the author of the text in which the word is used is Allah (one who is ultimate in capacity), then the word used must be perfect for that context. If He uses two words interchangably (the very definition of synonym), then in at least one of those cases, he was NOT being at the peak of eloquence.Therefore anyone who suggests the Q has synonyms must think its author was being haphazard.

How does my allegation contradict my aim?
1. Did I claim objectivity?
2. Did I seek to suppress your claim?
3. Did I call you a 'spreader of falsehood'.

Absolutely not.

We are comparing our views. My objective is to undermine and expose the pretensions of authority some quranists have. In no way am I claiming that authority for myself.


Quote
Now, onto your question: How does one measure grammatical correctness?

Intra-Quran comparison
.

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? Please give a demonstration
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 11:24:22 AM
Sorry, forgot to add, I am Farouk A. Peru and my blog is www.quranology.name
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 06, 2012, 02:25:35 PM
Thanks for backing up what you said with something. This is often helpful.

However, if a word is used in a given situation and the author of the text in which the word is used is Allah (one who is ultimate in capacity), then the word used must be perfect for that context. If He uses two words interchangably (the very definition of synonym), then in at least one of those cases, he was NOT being at the peak of eloquence.Therefore anyone who suggests the Q has synonyms must think its author was being haphazard.

Please clarify what do you mean by "perfect for that context" and "peak of eloquence", and if these measures are subjective or objective. Thanks.

Quote
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? Please give a demonstration

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

I will provide an example: let's say someone comes along and says word X is a verb in a certain Quran verse, yet the exact same word form is a noun in all its other occurrences. Thus, according to Quran's own internal pattern/system, there is little/no evidence for his claim, and therefore it may be expected for that person to provide reason/evidence why he claims the exact same word form is a verb here not a noun.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 06, 2012, 02:34:16 PM
Quote
Please clarify what do you mean by "perfect for that context" and "peak of eloquence", and if these measures are subjective or objective. Thanks.

'Perfect for that context' means that the word used delivers the exact meaning required by by the Author. 'Peak of eloquence' means the word used contextually delivers the exact response required of the reader. These measures are subjectively percieved.


Quote
I will provide an example: let's say someone comes along and says word X is a verb in a certain Quran verse, yet the exact same word form is a noun in all its other occurrences. Thus, according to Quran's own internal pattern/system, there is little/no evidence for his claim, and therefore it may be expected for that person to provide reason/evidence why he claims the exact same word form is a verb here not a noun.

How is this Quranic exactly? Does the Quran declare any word to be a noun or a verb? What makes this reasoning Quranic?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 07, 2012, 02:54:46 AM
These measures are subjectively percieved.

Thanks for making clear your view is based on subjective measures. So, let us recap, you declared I was incorrect, yet openly admit your view is based on subjective measures - thus, can one, according to you, declare another to be wrong based on their own subjective measures? A simple yes/no will suffice.

It seems the more we discuss, the more it seems you contradict your own alleged aims.


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

I would prefer if you phrased your question in one succinct manner, but in any case.... "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran" is rather self-explanatory. If my answer is from/of Quran, then it is "Quranic". For example, if you ask someone "what is zakat" and the person replies with references from Traditional Hadith, then the person's answer is not "Quranic". If the person replies citing all occurrences of zakat in Quran then his answer is "Quranic".

The Quran does not declare a word to be a noun or verb etc just like the following sentence does not either, yet it contains noun and verb: Jim walked to the shops and bought a Pepsi to drink later.

As far as I'm aware, all languages in the world have nouns and verbs, but perhaps you know something I do not. If so, please enlighten us.
If you are uncomfortable using the terms "noun" and "verb" then we can simply use "the way in which the word is used", i.e. if someone says it is a "doing word / action" in this occurrence but the same word form is not a "doing word / action" elsewhere, then one may expect that person to provide a reason for this, if they can.
If you are happy for someone to use the exact same word differently in any occurrence, without reason/evidence, or nouns/verbs do not exist in Quran, then simply state so for all to see.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 08, 2012, 04:46:39 AM
Quote
Thanks for making clear your view is based on subjective measures. So, let us recap, you declared I was incorrect, yet openly admit your view is based on subjective measures - thus, can one, according to you, declare another to be wrong based on their own subjective measures? A simple yes/no will suffice.

It seems the more we discuss, the more it seems you contradict your own alleged aims.

Of course I'm subjective, I'm a human being. My very existence constitutes subjectivity. That's why I don't call people spreaders of falsehood as you do or belittle other people's facebook groups. My views can easily be wrong.

As subjective as I am, you are as well.  Your views do not and cannot represent the Quran. All you're doing is adopting certain tools (quite blindly insofar as they do not have Quranic validation). Why do you think you're avoiding the question in the other thread where I asked you 'does your essay on 2/196 have QURANIC meanings'? You probably realise they don't and easily be shown for what they are - a subjective attempt at understanding a concept.

To answer your Aristotelian, one-level logic based question, yes. Being subjective does not preclude discusion. I do believe your interpretations of 2/196, 4/34 and AMAH are simply wrong. I needed to make this evaluation because I need to act upon something. The Quran is not for me read and say 'hey, no one can actually do this therefore i'll just stick to intellectual meanderings'. I need to ACT and therefore decide which view is best. This doesn't mean my view is stagnant and certainly if you had a more convincing argument (contextual studies may help), I will reconsider my views.


Quote
I would prefer if you phrased your question in one succinct manner, but in any case.... "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran" is rather self-explanatory. If my answer is from/of Quran, then it is "Quranic". For example, if you ask someone "what is zakat" and the person replies with references from Traditional Hadith, then the person's answer is not "Quranic". If the person replies citing all occurrences of zakat in Quran then his answer is "Quranic".

Oh is that so? Why is it then when Simple makes a Quranic (according to your defintiion above) statement you said :
Actually, that's your INTERPRETATION of what the ayah is saying

It's really funny, when we search for 'interpretation' posted by Wakas, EVERYONE interprets but you, lol.

Quote
The Quran does not declare a word to be a noun or verb etc just like the following sentence does not either, yet it contains noun and verb: Jim walked to the shops and bought a Pepsi to drink later.

As far as I'm aware, all languages in the world have nouns and verbs, but perhaps you know something I do not. If so, please enlighten us.
If you are uncomfortable using the terms "noun" and "verb" then we can simply use "the way in which the word is used", i.e. if someone says it is a "doing word / action" in this occurrence but the same word form is not a "doing word / action" elsewhere, then one may expect that person to provide a reason for this, if they can.
If you are happy for someone to use the exact same word differently in any occurrence, without reason/evidence, or nouns/verbs do not exist in Quran, then simply state so for all to see.

Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran. Therefore, it cannot be QURANIC grammar unless you use 'pertaining to Quran' argument.

If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair? Or is it just what YOU say is 'quranic grammar'?

To answer your question, I don't use terms like nouns and verbs. They can be useful to measure but should be left behind if they don't suit our purpose.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 19, 2012, 02:14:36 AM
You asked:
How does one measure grammatical correctness?

I answered:
intra-Quran comparison

You further asked:
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? Please give a demonstration

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

I will provide an example: let's say someone comes along and says word X is a verb in a certain Quran verse, yet the exact same word form is a noun in all its other occurrences. Thus, according to Quran's own internal pattern/system, there is little/no evidence for his claim, and therefore it may be expected for that person to provide reason/evidence why he claims the exact same word form is a verb here not a noun.

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

I answered:
I would prefer if you phrased your question in one succinct manner, but in any case.... "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran" is rather self-explanatory. If my answer is from/of Quran, then it is "Quranic". For example, if you ask someone "what is zakat" and the person replies with references from Traditional Hadith, then the person's answer is not "Quranic". If the person replies citing all occurrences of zakat in Quran then his answer is "Quranic".

The Quran does not declare a word to be a noun or verb etc just like the following sentence does not either, yet it contains noun and verb: Jim walked to the shops and bought a Pepsi to drink later.

As far as I'm aware, all languages in the world have nouns and verbs, but perhaps you know something I do not. If so, please enlighten us.
If you are uncomfortable using the terms "noun" and "verb" then we can simply use "the way in which the word is used", i.e. if someone says it is a "doing word / action" in this occurrence but the same word form is not a "doing word / action" elsewhere, then one may expect that person to provide a reason for this, if they can.
If you are happy for someone to use the exact same word differently in any occurrence, without reason/evidence, or nouns/verbs do not exist in Quran, then simply state so for all to see.

You further asked:
Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran. Therefore, it cannot be QURANIC grammar unless you use 'pertaining to Quran' argument.

If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair? Or is it just what YOU say is 'quranic grammar'?


#####

You will note that your one question, then leads you to ask many further questions.

Please keep your questions well-defined and concise.

#####

To end your question 2, I will answer the remaining questions you had:

Quote from: Farouk
If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair?

If it is based on intra-Quran comparison, yes.

Quote from: Farouk
Or is it just what YOU say is 'quranic grammar'?

No.


Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 19, 2012, 07:00:08 AM
Quote
You will note that your one question, then leads you to ask many further questions.

Yes of course. This is an academic exercise. I need to get explicit answers to your method in order to show your subjectivites in engaging with the text. Hope you don't mind.

Quote
If it is based on intra-Quran comparison, yes

Contradiction.

You said in the very last post, "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran". What Aidid and Simple do most certainly pertains to the Quran. Is their work 'Quranic' or not? If they are,then why you do deem them as 'interpretations'?

Quote
Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.

Sorry I can't. I need to see what your actual answer is and so far, all I'm getting are contradictions.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 19, 2012, 10:09:23 AM
Contradictions (plural) you say? Odd, considering the first time you've used the word "contradiction" in this thread was in your last post only.



You said:
If this is what you meant, then ANYTHING ANYONE says about the grammar of the Quran must be Quranic grammar. Would that be fair?

I said:
If it is based on intra-Quran comparison, yes.

You said:
Contradiction.

You said in the very last post, "Quranic" as I already defined "of/from or pertaining to The Quran". What Aidid and Simple do most certainly pertains to the Quran. Is their work 'Quranic' or not? If they are,then why you do deem them as 'interpretations'?

#####

Firstly, you specifically asked about "Quranic grammar".

Secondly, I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms.

Thirdly, your questions imply you are equating the terms "Quranic" and "intra-Quran comparison".


As I said, please move onto your next question, rather than asking multiple follow-up questions. You've asked 9 follow-ups so far.







Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 12:22:21 AM
Contradictions (plural) you say? Odd, considering the first time you've used the word "contradiction" in this thread was in your last post only.

Oh you've been contradicting yourself since you started using the phrase 'quranic grammar' etc. This is simply one of the contradictions.

Quote
Firstly, you specifically asked about "Quranic grammar".
Secondly, I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms.
Thirdly, your questions imply you are equating the terms "Quranic" and "intra-Quran comparison".

Why can't you? If the work of Aidid and Simple PERTAINS to the Quran then by your own definition, these are Quranic works. Aidid wrote a book about Quranic concepts and Simple posts in this forum about clearly Quranic topics. Surely their works are Quranic?

Are your works 'quranic'? If so, why?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 01:57:49 AM
You've now asked 13 follow-up questions. I have given some leeway and allowed multiple follow-ups, but 13 is too much.

However, in your last "follow-up" question, you brought up something we haven't discussed, so I will take that as your next question (your third). I will answer shortly.

Quote from: Farouk
Are your works 'quranic'? If so, why?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 02:13:22 AM
Why are any number of follow up questions 'too much'? Are we going on a point scoring system now? The objective is the discussion of your philosophy of tafseer. One would think any number of questions would be acceptable for such an important issue.

Also note, while you complain a lot, you have hardly answered any of my inquiries. My next question is about what you consider as 'evidence', based on your statement in my group. You told the 'nisa arent women' camp to band together and write an article. Once the 'quranic grammar' issue is resolved, I would like to explore how you will evaluate that 'evidence' :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 03:24:59 AM
I dont mind answering any number of questions, but our agreed upon format was one Q&A at a time, back and forth, not one Q then many follow-up Qs.... which prevents the other side from moving onto their next Q.

In any case, please clarify what is your next question. Thanks.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 03:52:47 AM
I'm not through with the second question yet, sorry. I have asked you, given that Aidid and Simple opine view PERTAINING to the Quran, would you call their views Quranic?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 05:39:29 AM
Your original question was:
How does one measure grammatical correctness?

And now you ask:
I have asked you, given that Aidid and Simple opine view PERTAINING to the Quran, would you call their views Quranic?


Any lay reader can tell they are different questions addressing different things. So, once again, I request you to state your 3rd question. If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question. And if you feel that is unfair, feel free to do the same to me after I ask you 9 follow-up questions  ;D


Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 06:05:31 AM
Wakas are you playing some kind of game? The question is very simple and yet you refuse to answer. This is an adult conversation about what you (hopefully) consider a sacred act - writing about a divine text. I am now probing your view about what is QURANIC. You have given a definition using PERTINENCE as an indicator. Both Aidid and Simple write PERTAINING to the Quran.

Are their writings Quranic or not?

Call it whatever number you want. If you're afraid to answer, just let me know. I can see we're very close to undermining your pretence of authority by how you keep avoiding the question. Let me know so I can stop wasting my time. Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 07:25:33 AM
Amusingly you claim I am refusing to answer yet I clearly said: "If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question." clearly implying I am happy to answer it. I am simply objecting to your 2nd question dragging on for seemingly endless follow-ups.

#####

Finally, the 3rd question:

Farouk asks:
Are their (i.e. Aidid and Simple) writings Quranic or not?


I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms. However, if you require more elaboration, I would say sometimes what they state could be regarded as "Quranic" but sometimes not.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 08:31:16 AM
Quote
Amusingly you claim I am refusing to answer yet I clearly said: "If you do not, I will use the above as your 3rd question." clearly implying I am happy to answer it. I am simply objecting to your 2nd question dragging on for seemingly endless follow-ups.


You can ask me thousands of questions if you want as long as you address my questions. As I said, I have lots more thought experiments to run.


Quote
I cannot comment on "Aidid" and "Simple" in such general terms. However, if you require more elaboration, I would say sometimes what they state could be regarded as "Quranic" but sometimes not
.

So even though their writings PERTAINS to the Quran (we're not talking about their sports commentaries, right?) , 'sometimes' their writings are NOT Quranic. Ok. When are their writings 'Quranic' ?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 25, 2012, 10:12:06 AM
So even though their writings PERTAINS to the Quran (we're not talking about their sports commentaries, right?) , 'sometimes' their writings are NOT Quranic. Ok. When are their writings 'Quranic' ?

Unfortunately your question assumes their writings pertain to the Quran. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.

They are "Quranic" when they are "of/from or pertaining to The Quran".

And before you ask another follow-up, let me help you out by way of example, if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 4:34 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran.

#####

Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 25, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Unfortunately your question assumes their writings pertain to the Quran. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.

They are "Quranic" when they are "of/from or pertaining to The Quran".

Lovely. Aidid says 'salat' means 'commitments'. This is a 'QURANIC view', correct?

Quote
And before you ask another follow-up, let me help you out by way of example, if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 4:34 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran.

Contradiction.

Only two seconds ago, the definition was about pertinence, now it's about YOUR agreement of the interpretation of darb.

Is your view on 4/34 'Quranic' ? Please substantiate why?


Quote
Now, please move onto your next question. Thanks.

That would be akin to slaving all day preparing a gourmet meal and when it's dinner time, to chuck it in the trash.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 26, 2012, 02:35:23 AM
Quote
Contradiction.
Only two seconds ago, the definition was about pertinence, now it's about YOUR agreement of the interpretation of darb.

Perhaps you are unclear as to the meaning of "pertaining", see below, the first three definitions given by google:

Quote
pertain

verb /pərˈtān/ 
pertained, past participle; pertained, past tense; pertaining, present participle; pertains, 3rd person singular present

Be appropriate, related, or applicable
- matters pertaining to the organization of government

Belong to something as a part, appendage, or accessory
- the premises, stock, and all assets pertaining to the business

Be in effect or existence in a specified place or at a specified time

Amusingly, according to how you are interpreting what I said, if someone said "Quran allows you to do handstands and cartwheels on your wife, and cites 4:34" you'd imply that's "Quranic" in my view, for the mere fact they happened to cite a Quran verse. As I said, it's not actually from Quran, hence cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.

#####

Is this your next question?

Quote
Is your view on 4/34 'Quranic' ? Please substantiate why?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 26, 2012, 02:53:57 AM
Quote
Be appropriate, RELATED or applicable

Did you actually read this definition or what?  What Aidid and Simple talk about RELATE to the Quran. It's about a word IN the Quran. 'Salah' is a word in the Quran and Aidid says it means 'commitments', so since it RELATES to the Quran and is APPROPRIATE in a Quranic discussion and APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah, then it IS a Quranic view, correct? 

Quote
Amusingly, according to how you are interpreting what I said, if someone said "Quran allows you to do handstands and cartwheels on your wife, and cites 4:34" you'd imply that's "Quranic" in my view, for the mere fact they happened to cite a Quran verse. As I said, it's not actually from Quran, hence cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.

Simplicity is a trick some people use to hide their reasons for authoritarian readings so I don't buy 'simple' as an explanation, sorry. The matter is a FAR MORE COMPLICATED than cut and paste style use of language.

What do you mean 'not ACTUALLY from Quran'? What is 'FROM Quran'? Are your views FROM Quran?
Please DESCRIBE the process to show how somethng can be FROM QURAN and thus Quranic.

Quote
Is this your next question?

Whatever you like, if my credit runs out, just stop answering. Lets play childish games instead of engaging in adult discussions.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 26, 2012, 05:06:24 AM
What a surprise..... yet more follow-up Qs.

Did you actually read this definition or what?  What Aidid and Simple talk about RELATE to the Quran. It's about a word IN the Quran. 'Salah' is a word in the Quran and Aidid says it means 'commitments', so since it RELATES to the Quran and is APPROPRIATE in a Quranic discussion and APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah, then it IS a Quranic view, correct? 

Your own above wording exposes the problem. Note how you insert explanations to justify how "relate", "appropriate" and "applicable" work in this situation, e.g. "APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah". Who said anything about it being dependent on if someone asks opinions about something?

I simply said "Quranic" means "of/from or pertaining to Quran". If we substitute "pertain" for the dictionary meanings, we have:
"of/from or appropriate/related/applicable to Quran".

Then gave examples, e.g. " if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 4:34 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran."

Since I said it is not possible to comment on Aidid/Simple in such general terms, you now ask about a specific. You've made some progress.  ;D You state:
Quote
"Aidid says 'salat' means 'commitments'. This is a 'QURANIC view', correct?

Unlikely, because "salat" seems to be the singular thus cannot mean "commitments". "salawat" is the plural. I have not seen evidence from Quran to the contrary, nor did Aidid supply any. If a person does not supply any evidence from Quran for their chosen meaning then it cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.

You then seem to ask about the meaning of "from", see here (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3A+pertaining&oq=define%3A+pertaining&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sa=X&q=from&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&ei=J3yKUJafPMyS0QXprYCQCw&ved=0CBwQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=9cc6ce1e3edfb4fe&bpcl=35466521&biw=1066&bih=590).


Next question?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 26, 2012, 07:53:10 AM
What a surprise..... yet more follow-up Qs.

Of course. This is an academic discussion, not Sesame Street.

Quote
Your own above wording exposes the problem. Note how you insert explanations to justify how "relate", "appropriate" and "applicable" work in this situation, e.g. "APPLICABLE if one asks about opinions about 'salah". Who said anything about it being dependent on if someone asks opinions about something?

THANK YOU. You're absolutely right. Who INDEED DID SAY that one has to ask the question? In other words, who articulates how we derive the information? YOU? Why should we trust you? You run and promote PRL, a project which LEAVES OUT meanings from the VERY SOURCE it links its readers to showing OBVIOUS BIAS.

What Aidid opines about salah relates, and is appropriate AND is applicable. Of course it won't be applicable if you deliberately shut him out using YOUR CRITERIA but then who can trust your criteria? Definitely not anyone who expects you to represent Lanes, right?


Quote
I simply said "Quranic" means "of/from or pertaining to Quran". If we substitute "pertain" for the dictionary meanings, we have:
"of/from or appropriate/related/applicable to Quran".

Oh lovely, now we're back to the question you avoided in my group. So we have your definition '"of/from or appropriate/related/applicable to Quran'. Next question (let me know if I need to put in another coin) - ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Quote
Then gave examples, e.g. " if someone says Quran allows you to beat your wife and they cite verse 4:34 - if you were to ask me is their post/work "Quranic"? I'd say no, because it's not actually from Quran."

Good. what makes YOUR VIEW from Quran, if indeed it is?

Quote
Since I said it is not possible to comment on Aidid/Simple in such general terms, you now ask about a specific. You've made some progress.  ;D


Thank you so much for your compliment, I'm always looking to progress further. That's why my view is never 'comprehensive' or 'detailed' as some people claim theirs are (although those claims are nothing more than pretexts for authority and can easily fall like a house of cards).

Quote
You state:
Unlikely, because "salat" seems to be the singular thus cannot mean "commitments". "salawat" is the plural. I have not seen evidence from Quran to the contrary, nor did Aidid supply any. If a person does not supply any evidence from Quran for their chosen meaning then it cannot be classed as "Quranic". Simple.

Are you saying that singular words cannot represent a plural quantity of the signified? What then is a unit of 'zakat' please?

Quote
Next question?

Will never come until we fully expose the REAL meanings behind your position :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 26, 2012, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: Farouk"
That's why my view is never 'comprehensive' or 'detailed'...

I think that's the most accurate thing you've said so far.  ;D I've noticed that about your writings. In fact, I have never read anything written by you which has tackled any subject in the Quran in detail*. Interesting. If you have such works, let us know.

*e.g. discusses every occurrence of a word in Quran.

#####

Since your 3rd question, you have asked 19 follow-up questions! Quite a feat.

Since you stated "You can ask me thousands of questions if you want as long as you address my questions." and seem very keen to ask me many follow-up questions, how about we even things out, e.g. every follow-up Q counts towards our Q&A. That way I can finally move onto asking you Qs without having to wait for you to move on after asking many follow-ups - what say you?

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 26, 2012, 11:53:13 AM
I think that's the most accurate thing you've said so far.  ;D I've noticed that about your writings. In fact, I have never read anything written by you which has tackled any subject in the Quran in detail*. Interesting. If you have such works, let us know. [
*e.g. discusses every occurrence of a word in Quran.

Thanks. My works are notes. I make them with the meaning to return to them to enrich them in the future.

Please show proof that discussing every occurence of a WORD shows a detailed or comprehensive study.

#####

Quote
Since your 3rd question, you have asked 19 follow-up questions! Quite a feat.

As I said, this is not Sesame Street. If you don't want to continue, I fully understand.


Quote
Since you stated "You can ask me thousands of questions if you want as long as you address my questions." and seem very keen to ask me many follow-up questions, how about we even things out, e.g. every follow-up Q counts towards our Q&A. That way I can finally move onto asking you Qs without having to wait for you to move on after asking many follow-ups - what say you?

Sure, ask as many as you like. I am here for this thread here and I will gladly indulge you in discussion in return. Fire away as many as you like.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 26, 2012, 11:54:14 AM
So question still remaining : Is your view from the Quran or Quranic and if so, why?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2012, 02:34:10 AM
I make them with the meaning to return to them to enrich them in the future.

Sounds a bit like what I often write in my articles, e.g.

Quote
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:

This work reflects my personal understanding, as of X date. Seeking knowledge is a continual process and I will try to improve my understanding of the signs within 'the reading' (al quran) and out with it, unless The God wills otherwise. All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11.

I like to add disclaimers such as the above in my works. Some dont add such things to their writings, e.g. you.


Quote from: Farouk
Please show proof that discussing every occurence of a WORD shows a detailed or comprehensive study.


It's simple really, I'm using the standard dictionary definitions of the words "detailed" and "comprehensive". If you are of the view not analysing all occurrences of a word in Quran is "comprehensive"/"detailed" that's fine.

But thanks for clarifying you have never written anything that could be classed as detailed/comprehensive on any subject in the entire Quran in your many years of studying it.



#####

Quote
So question still remaining : Is your view from the Quran or Quranic and if so, why?

I need a specific.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 02:46:23 AM
Sounds a bit like what I often write in my articles, e.g.

I like to add disclaimers such as the above in my works. Some dont add such things to their writings, e.g. you.

I do add 'please comment and criticise' when I remember but yeah, not always. At the same time, I also don't attack and harass people if they fail to respond to me. Some people do, they shall remain nameless of course as my lawyers have advised me :D

 

Quote
It's simple really, I'm using the standard dictionary definitions of the words "detailed" and "comprehensive". If you are of the view not analysing all occurrences of a word in Quran is "comprehensive"/"detailed" that's fine.

No it's not simple, really. I asked you for PROOF that studying a particular WORD (lets say 'darb') in ALL occurences makes a study detailed or comprehensive. Proof here means from the Quran.


Quote
But thanks for clarifying you have never written anything that could be classed as detailed/comprehensive on any subject in the entire Quran in your many years of studying it.

Of course, anyone who thinks they CAN write in detail and comprehensively about the Quran are delusional and often prone to assert themselves as authorities. I am no authority. I drink from the Quranic fountain from my own subjective bias as you do as well.

Please don't forget about the quranic proof that studying a WORD in all occurences makes a comprehensive study. I await your evidence. 



#####

Quote
I need a specific.

On 4/34 and even more specifically, idribuhunna.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2012, 06:27:24 AM
I do add 'please comment and criticise' when I remember but yeah, not always.

You did block my critique commentary from being posted on your blog though. Is this an example of you deliberately manipulating the information readers of your blog view? Yes/No.  ;D


Quote
No it's not simple, really. I asked you for PROOF that studying a particular WORD (lets say 'darb') in ALL occurences makes a study detailed or comprehensive. Proof here means from the Quran.

I assume the author of Quran wants us to read all of it, ergo, every occurrence of a word, ergo, analyse its every occurrence. Are you implying otherwise?

And once again, I am using the dictionary definitions of "detailed" and "comprehensive".


#####

Quote
On 4/34 and even more specifically, idribuhunna.

Yes, because I based my answer on Quran and provided evidence from it for the case I put forward. However, that does not mean you or others will also consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.

In the example you gave from Aidid's work he did not provide any evidence whatsoever from Quran that "salat" is "commitments" (plural). However, that does not mean you or others cant consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 07:03:36 AM
You did block my critique commentary from being posted on your blog though. Is this an example of you deliberately manipulating the information readers of your blog view? Yes/No.  ;D

What? I don't know what you're talking about. None of your posts have been deleted from anywhere.


Quote
I assume the author of Quran wants us to read all of it, ergo, every occurrence of a word, ergo, analyse its every occurrence. Are you implying otherwise?

No, I'm not implying otherwise. Kindly read the question carefully. I asked you, does analysing every occurence of a word makes one's analysis comprehensive?

Lets try this another way: Your AMAH analysis is detailed and comprehensive. Why do you deem it so?

#####

Quote
Yes, because I based my answer on Quran and provided evidence from it for the case I put forward. However, that does not mean you or others will also consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.

Well Aidid based his answer on the Quran too, its on a quranic word according to his understanding JUST LIKE YOU. So by that definition, he is as quranic as you are.

Quote
In the example you gave from Aidid's work he did not provide any evidence whatsoever from Quran that "salat" is "commitments" (plural). However, that does not mean you or others cant consider it "Quranic". I do not know what you or others take "Quranic" to mean.

Great, so now we get to the heart of the matter - who decides what is Quranic?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2012, 07:21:17 AM
What? I don't know what you're talking about. None of your posts have been deleted from anywhere.

I never said "deleted", I said "blocked". Please read carefully. All I know is, I posted it to your site but it never appeared. Funny that.

If you are implying my critique would not be blocked from being posted on your site, then please state here clearly and it will be posted on your site for all to see.

Quote
Lets try this another way: Your AMAH analysis is detailed and comprehensive. Why do you deem it so?

Because in my view it fulfils the dictionary definitions of detailed/comprehensive, by incorporating certain things, e.g.

it analyses all occurrences of AMAH (a rather obvious requirement)
it attempts to explain all occurrences
it uses significant Quran cross-reference
it weighs up multiple options, discussing pros/cons for each
it is more in-depth than any other study I have seen on AMAH
it is built upon analyses of sjd and masjid


The very fact you could not link to any work that you'd consider more detailed/comprehensive is telling in my view. Whether one agrees with it or not is another matter.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
I never said "deleted", I said "blocked". Please read carefully. All I know is, I posted it to your site but it never appeared. Funny that.

If you are implying my critique would not be blocked from being posted on your site, then please state here clearly and it will be posted on your site for all to see.

If you're talking about quranists.net (which is my SITE), then I don't see where the critique would fit in. If you're talking about quranology.name (which is my BLOG) , then of course. Please post it there. I do believe in free discussion.

Quote
Because in my view it fulfils the dictionary definitions of detailed/comprehensive, by incorporating certain things, e.g.

it analyses all occurrences of AMAH (a rather obvious requirement)
it attempts to explain all occurrences
it uses significant Quran cross-reference
it weighs up multiple options, discussing pros/cons for each
it is more in-depth than any other study I have seen on AMAH
it is built upon analyses of sjd and masjid


The very fact you could not link to any work that you'd consider more detailed/comprehensive is telling in my view. Whether one agrees with it or not is another matter.

Just because I can't show a more detailed work, THAT make your work detailed and comprehensive? What kind of logic is that? It's utter nonsense. If you said 'its the most comprehensive view in existece', then maybe but even that is arguable.

Your work analyses WORDS but not SENTENCES let alone PASSAGES. In the opening argument itself, you failed to account for the implications of masjid al-haram and aqsa being in one sentence and why they are there. Why are nuh and musa mentioned immediately after that? what links the two masjids in 17/1 with the masjid 17/7?

What's the point of analysing words if you fail to analyse where the words are and the point of the chapter? Does the Quran speak in words? No it does not. It speaks in AYAT and you don't analyse ayat but rather ripped out phrases at best. 'Comprehensive' is not a fit description for your work notwithstanding the fact that it's the longest there is. Maybe there's an award for that?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 10:48:58 AM
Repeat question: WHO decides what is Quranic?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on October 27, 2012, 11:00:55 AM
If you're talking about quranists.net (which is my SITE), then I don't see where the critique would fit in. If you're talking about quranology.name (which is my BLOG) , then of course. Please post it there. I do believe in free discussion.

You know fine well what site I'm referring to. It is obviously your blog wherein you made the post on 2:196, and the one I link to in my critique:
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/critique/quranology-2196.html



Quote
Just because I can't show a more detailed work, does it make your work detailed and comprehensive? What kind of logic is that? It's utter nonsense.

I never said it does, I said its "telling". Please read carefully (PRC).

Quote
If you said 'its the most comprehensive view in existece', then maybe but even that is arguable.

Fine, we can agree on it is the most comprehensive view in existence. Sounds good to me.


Quote
Your work analyses WORDS but not SENTENCES let alone PASSAGES. In the opening argument itself, you failed to account for the implications of masjid al-haram and aqsa being in one sentence and why they are there. Why are nuh and musa mentioned immediately after that? what links the two masjids in 17/1 with the masjid 17/7?

Your above claim is laughable (and I actually did laugh a little).

You claim I did not analyse the ayat and/or take into account AMAH being in the same verse as AMAA, when this is clearly and blatantly analysed in the article. PRC. I discuss Moses, but not Nuh as he is mentioned in passing.

Quote
what links the two masjids in 17/1 with the masjid 17/7?

I have to ask, are you just wasting my time with your so-called objections/questions to my method/works? Anyone can read what I wrote and see I discuss what you asked, in fact, very clearly:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
Quote
Interestingly, the context for 17:7 is established by the dual mention of "masjid" in 17:1, and it just so happens to mention "enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time", implying a minimum of two "masjid" are of relevance - coincidence?

I then go onto explain it.

If you cant accept something as simple as that I discuss the link, then there is very little you will accept.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 11:30:42 AM
You know fine well what site I'm referring to. It is obviously your blog wherein you made the post on 2:196, and the one I link to in my critique:
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/critique/quranology-2196.html

Sorry I didn't but sure, if you send it to my blog I will approve it.

Quote
I never said it does, I said its "telling". Please read carefully (PRC).

Ah, what was it telling exactly?

Quote
Fine, we can agree on it is the most comprehensive view in existence. Sounds good to me.

PRCAIC (Please Read Carefully And In Context). The last phrase reads 'even that is arguable'. Why don't we just say its the most pretentious one?


Quote
Your above claim is laughable (and I actually did laugh a little).

Good for you. It shows your level of awareness.

Quote
You claim I did not analyse the ayat and/or take into account AMAH being in the same verse as AMAA, when this is clearly and blatantly analysed in the article. PRC. I discuss Moses, but not Nuh as he is mentioned in passing.

I asked you WHY (PRCAIC) AMAH and AMAA in the same aya. Paste the answer here please cuz I can't see it.

You don't discuss musa, you simply asked  whether he or Muhammad is the 3abd in 17/1. I am asking you WHY musa is mentioned at all? Show me your answer for that because I can't even smell it, let alone read it.

So if nuh is mentioned in 'passing' (your opinion again), that doesn't make him relevant? Was Allah trying to please nuh by 'simply mentioning him in passing'?

Quote
I have to ask, are you just wasting my time with your so-called objections/questions to my method/works? Anyone can read what I wrote and see I discuss what you asked, in fact, very clearly:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
I then go onto explain it.

If you feel I am, then feel free to stop answering. There will not be any harassment or attacks from me.

For the record, I think your questions in thread 1 are a remarkable waste of time but for as long as I need you to answer my questions, I will subject myself to answering them.


Quote
Interestingly, the context for 17:7 is established by the dual mention of "masjid" in 17:1, and it just so happens to mention "enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time", implying a minimum of two "masjid" are of relevance - coincidence?

This is NOT what I asked. I asked why these two are in the SAME aya? PRCAIC.

Quote
If you cant accept something as simple as that I discuss the link, then there is very little you will accept.

Simplicity is the disguise you give for passing off your subjective analysis as comprehensive and quranic. It's only 'simple' if one fails to interrogate your method and assumptions effectively. The fact is, you overlooked SEVERAL factors at the very outset.

How you answer my three questions above will show how 'simple' things are:

1. WHY are AMAH and AMAA mentioned in the same aya. This only happens ONCE in the Q. Why here?

2. Why is musa mentioned immediately after? I'm not interested if it was him or muhammad. I am asking WHY HE IS MENTIONED. PRCAIC.

3. Why is nuh mentioned there, however in passing?

How can your analysis be comprehensive unless you analyse the whole passage with every constituent of that passage? And that's the only the START, Wakas. I have TONS more points to make about your AMAH work. We're gonna be here a long time indeed :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on October 27, 2012, 11:48:48 AM
Repeat question: WHO decides what is Quranic?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 01, 2012, 05:44:26 AM
Repeat question: WHO decides what is Quranic?

Generally speaking, the person whom you are asking the question to.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 01, 2012, 05:54:56 AM

Quote
Generally speaking, the person whom you are asking the question to.
Fantastic. Bear that relativity in mind when people disagree with you.

Next question : I have now written a critique of your AMAH views. Will you extend the same courtesy and link to my critique since you have posted your critique on my post on 2/196?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 02:44:52 AM

Next question : I have now written a critique of your AMAH views. Will you extend the same courtesy and link to my critique since you have posted your critique on my post on 2/196?

By "extend the same courtesy" do you mean: ignore your critique, then block it being posted for months, then once posted make a false statement about it in response? In other words, do what you did?
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 02:58:56 AM
Quote
By "extend the same courtesy" do you mean: ignore your critique, then block it being posted for months, then once posted make a false statement about it in response? In other words, do what you did

NOT ONCE did I delete your posts in the places you answered your my group. I have a right to ignore anything I wish though, I didn't like your attitude (still don't) and guessed quite correctly that discussion with you would be negatively charged. However, I need to test my ideas somewhere so here I am :)

However, I NEVER suppressed your posts. See the difference? I'm sure you have your own ethics on the matter. It probably goes something like this:

I have a right to harass and force people to answer me and force my way into their blogs.

People have no right to ask their critiques to be linked to me since my works are (lol) comprehensive and therefore no further word on it needs to be said.

Brilliant.

I never blocked your critique in my blog. As soon as you mentioned it I said 'ok', you posted it, I approved'. If you say it was blocked, kindly speak with EVIDENCE or it will be deemed as SLANDER and I will complain to the biased moderators because I like doing pointless things.

My statement isn't false. Your critiques HAVE been answered and also are being answered. They're not really problematic critiques. In fact, tell you what, why not post the whole thing at once? Get it over and done with.  Then we can talk about (as you suggested)  discussion on verifiability and meaning? I am waiting for that philosophical discussion with great eagerness.

So what say you, Wakas? Will your ego allow for your views to be challenged? Surely my poor, unfounded research cannot threaten YOU, the man whose contribution to Quranic studies is unparelled (Allahumma salli alaik) and whose work is so comprehensive that guys in the Quran who are mentioned in passing are ignored (maybe cuz they're not needed anymore, lol). Didn't see the 'abd' link there though, did you? hehe...

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 07:33:04 AM
correction: the first sentence should read 'NOT ONCE did I delete your posts which critique my blog posts.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 09:52:21 AM
...and guessed quite correctly that discussion with you would be negatively charged.

That usually happens when you fill it with false/misleading/baseless/derogatory/slanderous statements.

Quote
However, I NEVER suppressed your posts. See the difference? I'm sure you have your own ethics on the matter. It probably goes something like this:

I have a right to harass and force people to answer me and force my way into their blogs.

People have no right to ask their critiques to be linked to me since my works are (lol) comprehensive and therefore no further word on it needs to be said.

Brilliant.

I never blocked your critique in my blog. As soon as you mentioned it I said 'ok', you posted it, I approved'. If you say it was blocked, kindly speak with EVIDENCE or it will be deemed as SLANDER and I will complain to the biased moderators because I like doing pointless things.

"force" their way into blogs do I? I never realised clicking "post a comment" button on a blog was forcing my way in, unless there is something else to it. But you are right, I cannot prove you blocked it, since I do not routinely keep screenshot evidence of blog posts I make, so I will retract that statement.

Amusingly, you claim slander then in the same sentence make a slanderous statement about moderators. At least you are consistent, that's one thing you've got going for you.


Quote
My statement isn't false.

It is.

Quote
In fact, tell you what, why not post the whole thing at once? Get it over and done with.  Then we can talk about (as you suggested)  discussion on verifiability and meaning? I am waiting for that philosophical discussion with great eagerness.

So what say you, Wakas?

I dont know why you pretend you are not aware of the critique questions when you have known about them all for months. If you wish to answer them in one go, feel free.

If you are indeed eager to begin that discussion, simply keep your statements accurate, this would waste less time and move on the discussion more quickly. Simple.

Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
That usually happens when you fill it with false/misleading/baseless/derogatory/slanderous statements.

I am referring to my ORIGINAL post on 2/196 on which you HARASSED me to answer in two separate fb groups till I had to warn you privately.  In this original post, I didn't mention anyone so  'derogatory/slanderous' do not apply. Only ' false/misleading/baseless' is left. So you're basically saying if a person writes ' false/misleading/baseless' stuff, you're allowed to harass them till they answer you??????

Wow...seriously, WOW. I'm glad you're not in charge otherwise the stock of piano wires would go sky high. I tell you what though, your kind of approach is seriously detrimental to quranist islam. It's sad you choose this route.

And dude, you can't even cover all the angles in ONE passage in your analysis of AMAH. And I have only BARELY BEGUN to criticise it. I suggest you fix this unquranic attitude of yours and focus on your own work. Be critical all you want but be NICE about it. If people don't want to talk to you, don't force them. That's the stuff Islamofascists do.

Quote
"force" their way into blogs do I? I never realised clicking "post a comment" button on a blog was forcing my way in, unless there is something else to it. But you are right, I cannot prove you blocked it, since I do not routinely keep screenshot evidence of blog posts I make, so I will retract that statement.

The harassment implies the force.

Quote
Amusingly, you claim slander then in the same sentence make a slanderous statement about moderators. At least you are consistent, that's one thing you've got going for you.

I have PMs from a moderator who told me straight out, I have no right to ask about the effect of my complaint. What more needs to be said?

Quote
It is.

One way to solve it. Field all your other questions in one go.

Quote
I dont know why you pretend you are not aware of the critique questions when you have known about them all for months. If you wish to answer them in one go, feel free.

Sure, I await your next questions.

Quote
If you are indeed eager to begin that discussion, simply keep your statements accurate, this would waste less time and move on the discussion more quickly. Simple.

Great. Lets do it. Remember the format please.

Repeat question: Will you allow my critiques to be linked in your pages? If you won't its ok, lets just hear it so everyone can see what kind of game you're playing :)
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 01:17:22 PM
I am referring to my ORIGINAL post on 2/196 on which you HARASSED me to answer in two separate fb groups till I had to warn you privately.  In this original post, I didn't mention anyone so  'derogatory/slanderous' do not apply. Only ' false/misleading/baseless' is left. So you're basically saying if a person writes ' false/misleading/baseless' stuff, you're allowed to harass them till they answer you??????

Wow...seriously, WOW. I'm glad you're not in charge otherwise the stock of piano wires would go sky high. I tell you what though, your kind of approach is seriously detrimental to quranist islam. It's sad you choose this route.

And dude, you can't even cover all the angles in ONE passage in your analysis of AMAH. And I have only BARELY BEGUN to criticise it. I suggest you fix this unquranic attitude of yours and focus on your own work. Be critical all you want but be NICE about it. If people don't want to talk to you, don't force them. That's the stuff Islamofascists do.

fomob

Quote
I have PMs from a moderator who told me straight out, I have no right to ask about the effect of my complaint. What more needs to be said?

Your slanderous statement said "biased" not about not being given information. They are different. I recommend looking up a dictionary.

Quote
Next question : I have now written a critique of your AMAH views. Will you extend the same courtesy and link to my critique since you have posted your critique on my post on 2/196?

As I said I will extend the same "courtesy" as you did me. However, my site is not a blog where people can post comments. However, I frequently create threads for my articles here. You can post your critique there. I have already told you about such critique, it is up to you to avoid slander, fomob content therein. Generally, I do not promote fomob content.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
fomob

Which parts are 'f' , 'm' and 'b' ? Show me please.

Quote
Your slanderous statement said "biased" not about not being given information. They are different. I recommend looking up a dictionary
.

Dictionary huh? Typical.....

The bias is IN not being given information. You complain, results happen. I complain, zip happens. THAT is bias. You guys run a mafia here where people who don't conform get whacked. I've seen this set up being tried in my fb group but it wont happen. You can take your elitist crap elsewhere. 

Quote
As I said I will extend the same "courtesy" as you did me. However, my site is not a blog where people can post comments. However, I frequently create threads for my articles here. You can post your critique there. I have already told you about such critique, it is up to you to avoid slander, fomob content therein. Generally, I do not promote fomob content.

It's nothing to do with fomob, it's to do with your unwillingness to be exposed. I figure you'd use very excuse in the book to get out of it and I don't blame you either. You've built such a sentinel like persona for yourself that having your 'comprehensive' thing shown to be utter nonsense can't be fun. I never expected you to extend anything, Wakas. No worries. Thanks for exposing yourself though.

And no worries, I hope I'm not sad enough to have to chase you across cyberspace just to show what a sham you are. If people find it on my blog, good for them. If not, no skin off my nose. 
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 02, 2012, 02:42:30 PM
You seem not to understand what is written, either by yourself or others.

You apparently cannot see fomob in what you write till I (and SofA one time) have to waste time and point it out to you.

Well, how about we make it beneficial rather than it being a waste of my time - how about for each fomob you have written, as I will highlight, you donate a certain ? to charity, e.g. ?25. Proof can be sent to my pm, e.g. screenshot proof of donation confirmation page.

If you claim it is not about fomob, which in my view you have drenched your posts in, this proposal should be no problem.


Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 02, 2012, 03:15:51 PM
I think its YOU who fails to understand. If you claim it's fomob lets debate every single point again.

That's why I told you long ago, lets have a FACE TO FACE debate. In a face to face, people who are evasive and deceptive automatically get exposed and shown for what they really are. Behind the screen, people can pretend not to understand, forget or overlook the question. In person, their body language will show their true selves.

Whatever little ihsaan I do, it's not for the benefit of YOUR ego,Wakas. I don't submit to your judgement of fomob. Fortunately, your sphere of control ends when one leaves this forum. Otherwise it'd be the age of the 4th Reich.
 
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 03, 2012, 04:00:19 AM
I think its YOU who fails to understand. If you claim it's fomob lets debate every single point again.

If you are confident there is very little fomob in what you have written, you'd have no problem accepting my proposal.

Generally, I find when people have to "put your money where your mouth is" (as the saying goes) their true colours show, and in your case, you ran away. Exposed.

Quote
That's why I told you long ago, lets have a FACE TO FACE debate. In a face to face, people who are evasive and deceptive automatically get exposed and shown for what they really are. Behind the screen, people can pretend not to understand, forget or overlook the question. In person, their body language will show their true selves.

You seem to think face to face is the pinnacle of information exchange or debate. It's not, go ask any peer reviewed journal or academics on where they get their reliable information from: face to face debates or other sources. Face to face is more of a show, whilst careful and reasoned discussion is much more accurate. Cheaper too.
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: abdalquran on November 04, 2012, 01:02:32 AM
If you are confident there is very little fomob in what you have written, you'd have no problem accepting my proposal.

Generally, I find when people have to "put your money where your mouth is" (as the saying goes) their true colours show, and in your case, you ran away. Exposed.

So the way for me to prove myself is to submit to YOUR judgements of fomob.

You, the guy who ACCUSES me of fomob wants me to be JUDGED by you. Spoken like a TRUE SUNNI MULLAH. They accuse you of blasphemy by THEIR laws and they put you in THEIR COURTROOM with THIER judge. Grow a beard, trim your trouser cuffs but don't worry, at least your quran-ripping skills can't be improved further.  They don't read full ayat either.

Can you see how ludicrous your suggestion is or do I need to type in one word sentences for you to get it?

Quote
You seem to think face to face is the pinnacle of information exchange or debate. It's not, go ask any peer reviewed journal or academics on where they get their reliable information from: face to face debates or other sources. Face to face is more of a show, whilst careful and reasoned discussion is much more accurate. Cheaper too.

Of course, this is where your tricks wont wash. If you pretend to not understand like you do here, the audience will explain it to you. Here behind the screen whatever doesn't suit you, you'll just ignore. And it will show as well from physical cues. But its ok keep hiding here and suppress whatever information doesn't suit you. It's what you do best.

You may consider yourself free from the responsibility of answering my questions about your AMAH analysis. We both know it won't come anyway. Intellectual cowardice works better behind the screen. Just keep up your shambolic claims of being 'comprehensive' and 'quranic' and pretend like you're an authority. I'm done here. I'm going back to place you're unable to get to - positive quranic discussion.

 
Title: Re: Methodology in Understanding Quran (part 2)
Post by: Wakas on November 05, 2012, 04:54:33 AM
In terms of proving fomob it's simple. I am using the standard dictionary definition of "evidence". Here is a simple example you might understand:

Farouk says: Wakas says X

Wakas asks: please provide evidence I said X.

Farouk either provides evidence via quote or does not.

If not ---> fomob


It's really simple.