Table of contents for the impatient ones, as well as for people with OCD or similar, when it is hard to read long texts, to make the reading more structured:
Introduction
Basic elaboration and topicality
Hypothesis
Debate conditions
Literature review (compulsory reading)
Introduction
Because it was not even used as a negation in the OSA (Old South Arabic) and the abudance of other Semitic dialects.
It's primary use as negation is in Biblical Hebrew and we know, I mean I know
, that Biblical Hebrew i.e. a fabricated language was used as a primary tool to translate/understand/'diacritice' early Quranic manuscript, in a similar raping fashion that the authentic Old Testement (i.e. the books of the OT which are actually native to whatever there is to be authentic, not those that could have been added later in the collection) innocent texts were once 'translated' using Talmudic tools. The hint is in its diacritical tradition in 8th-10th century, the dots were used instead of shapes to mark vowels:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Kufi.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Arabic_script_evolution.svg/728px-Arabic_script_evolution.svg.png
The only other tradition to employ the dots in Semitic family is Hebrew/Judaistic scholarly, which is also proved by countless of contradictions in the Quran because they wanted to make it look more like Old Testament narrative, how it switches from topic to topic chaotiacally and omits context everywhere and how traditional translations require an abudance of brackets in order to somehow understand it. Also, because God in the Quran is no different than the bloodthirsty YHWY Eloyhim (same root as A-L-H), who is driven by emotions similar to humans are. It is because people have described God in accordance with their shitty patriarchal characters. The truth is, Semitic tradition has an abudance of definitions for roots and Arabic is considered the most 'richest one' not because it is, but because since introduction of the Quran they started adding word meanins out of the blue. This view is also supported by the author of the Sembase project:
Source: sembase.org/#s
Judaistic scholarly and namely the Talmudid works influenced the Quranic narrative and early Islamic religion as a whole. Traditional translation of the Quran and early Islam are basically a product of 7th century Jewish migration, as is evident from the history they themselves observe: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire
You are basically reading and believing the product of the 7th-8th century Talmudic cookery if you believe the traditional interpretation/translation of the Quran is an authentic one.
Basic elaboration and topicality
In truth, laa as a negation was seldom used in Old South Arabic and most other dialects as a study portrays:
Anyways, to sum up the need for an ongoing deciphering project, the arguments are as following:
- Text with the traditional translation of the Quran contridicts itself with abudance of contradictions, both contextual and theological, such as Iblees is mared as kfr although in previous verses kfr are defined as people who do not believe in god;
- Text is highly political and was obviously written 'above' its innate meaning so as to start the religion. Yes, Sunna 'elaborated' it further yet even Quran alone is not a guidance it claims to be, it is merely a book of constant pointless probitions and threats, which makes a believer follow someone who "knows" so as to lower his/her psychological pressure of the text. An example is following charlatans and deluded people like Sam Gerrans, who seems to be genuinely sure of his beliefs, which in turn are more influenced by the traditional libertarian right wing agenda rather than Quran itself, and trusting them in their mambojambo, instead of thinking for yourself and become the independent Self. Tell me it isn't so?
- Message in it is unscientific;
- Modern Arabic grammar is based ON the Quran i.e. the rules are made ABOVE the Quranic initial text, not vise versa. Think about it;
- Quran jumps from topic to topic, omits context, moves from one thing unto another, which makes it impossible to guess the context unless you are Zakir Nakir who plays with verse numbers;
- It is inconsistent. Is sura 4 'Women' actually about women? Only few verses are there, in its traditional translation, actually about the women, the rest is prohibitions, something regarding Isa bin Miryem and other topics.
Take a look at the recently deciphered passage in the Quran and then tell me who the heck are Harut and Marut in 2:102?
It does not talk about the angels nor two in the verse, two is added by a slight diacritic mark in it. But the true passage tells:
<2:102> And they immitated not what oppressors (ShTN) followed during the reign of Suleyman and not was Suleyman confining/restricting (KFR) whereas the oppressors confined/restricted (KFR). [He] learned [what is] mental eloquence and [this was] not exhibited [by] the Kings [of] Babylon [who] conquered and looted or if you prefer translation without brackets then simply 'conquests and lootings by the kingdoms of Babylon' and did not learn about “manifesting as one” [while] roaming. [He] said: “It is not suitable to sow dissension for that is confinement in [what is] learned from them. [Do] not; side with he/she who clearly cause unrest and join with him/her, and not [with] those who are forced/compelled by him/her. Unity is that which is in [the] advice on Leadership and to teach, not force them, {and} [about] what benefits them and such leads to learning about what is bad. [Do] not [be] like who is held back from taking shape and deals not with his/her wronging in themselves of such [there] is to learn.”
Note: the translation is inherently not 100% mine, although I recently started my independent project and changed some words in the passage to address actual root definitions, previous translation was not accurate enough, however translation of Harut and Marut is not of my origin.
Note: Highlighted in Italic is a part which is being worked on.
Now tell me what is more eloquent and makes more sense, two angels in Babylon Harut and Marut, or actually the contextually and historically logical outcome described above?
The passage is about two political entities, one of the Suleyman, who believed it is best to enlighten people and the Babylons who had no faith, as you would say, and looted and pillaged other nations.
Hypothesis
So the thesis is formulated as following: Quranic Laa is not a negation and the traditional understanding of the Quran was fabricated/forced to create a false image of the text so as to pursue specific political-religious needs of the clergy in medieval period, and needs to be deciphered based on the root meanings. Quranic Initials symbolize the root meanings and hint that author has to look down the Semitic roots and use definitions which are native to these root and not constructed out of the blue by the pen of clergy
Debate conditions
1) I will debate only with reasonable responses, and you will have to read the [compulsory] literature I provide first before debating me. This way I confine you (i.e. put a limit on you, cover you, root K-F-R) and impose my rules upon you. Kafiirun has nothing to do with faith. But the primary aim is not to confine you but to free ya'll from the 1200 year dogma you live in. Quranic tradition is probably later than 7th century, they probably really started working on it as close as 8th-9th century, based on historical observation, first scholarly/theological comments started appearing some 140-200 years after the alleged revelation of the Quran.
This is because you have to prove me you are capable of being a critical thinker, otherwise I am not debating zombies, it is of no use to me, in my 'fishing' practice. I 'fish' for golden people, not zombies. You have to prove you are worthy of my family.
2) I will also only debate you after you tell me what is the purpose of Laa in 90:1. Just propose your idea.
Also, Sam Gerrans is a pussy and how many wives a pussy "is allowed" to have in 35:1?
Literature review (compulsory reading):
My ordeal with the Quran and God in the Quran, by Abbas Abdul Noor (free .pdf available on the Internet);
Pat-El, N. (2012). On Verbal Negation in Semitic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl?ndischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 162, No. 1 (2012), pp. 17-45.
Non-compulsory reading:
Walker, D. The Semitic Negative. The University of Chicago Press, 1896.
WWW:
Jewish Virtual Library A Project of Aice. Modern Jewish History: Great Rabbis of the Muslim Empire by Dr. Ezra Chwat. URL = http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire (last checked 14.04.2018).*
* The above link is obviously NOT an anti-semitic propaganda but their own written history so it is plausible and neutral to include such links in the research.
Sembase. A database project for the study of Semitic roots. URL = http://sembase.org/
Introduction
Basic elaboration and topicality
Hypothesis
Debate conditions
Literature review (compulsory reading)
Introduction
Because it was not even used as a negation in the OSA (Old South Arabic) and the abudance of other Semitic dialects.
It's primary use as negation is in Biblical Hebrew and we know, I mean I know

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Kufi.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Arabic_script_evolution.svg/728px-Arabic_script_evolution.svg.png
The only other tradition to employ the dots in Semitic family is Hebrew/Judaistic scholarly, which is also proved by countless of contradictions in the Quran because they wanted to make it look more like Old Testament narrative, how it switches from topic to topic chaotiacally and omits context everywhere and how traditional translations require an abudance of brackets in order to somehow understand it. Also, because God in the Quran is no different than the bloodthirsty YHWY Eloyhim (same root as A-L-H), who is driven by emotions similar to humans are. It is because people have described God in accordance with their shitty patriarchal characters. The truth is, Semitic tradition has an abudance of definitions for roots and Arabic is considered the most 'richest one' not because it is, but because since introduction of the Quran they started adding word meanins out of the blue. This view is also supported by the author of the Sembase project:
QuoteIn the absence of compounding, vocabulary has evolved partly by assigning different but related meanings to variants of a root caused by sound shifts. One wonders if pressure to generate vocabulary has also resulted in the rather large number of consonants (twenty-nine in the Old South Arabian group). Vocabulary is also generated by simply adding yet more meanings to existing words. This has caused Arabic, for example, to be considered to be very "rich," in the sense that the same word can mean many things. The language is thus highly context dependent, and ideal for poetry. This semantic accretion and the phenomenon of accidental convergence of roots often make it unclear what one might consider to be the base meaning of a root.
Source: sembase.org/#s
Judaistic scholarly and namely the Talmudid works influenced the Quranic narrative and early Islamic religion as a whole. Traditional translation of the Quran and early Islam are basically a product of 7th century Jewish migration, as is evident from the history they themselves observe: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire
You are basically reading and believing the product of the 7th-8th century Talmudic cookery if you believe the traditional interpretation/translation of the Quran is an authentic one.
Basic elaboration and topicality
In truth, laa as a negation was seldom used in Old South Arabic and most other dialects as a study portrays:
QuoteSecond, we tend to think of lā as the quintessential Semitic negation, but in fact most MSA languages, OSA, Phoenician and all the Ethio-Semitic languages do not use it at all. On the other hand, the particle ʾal is missing only in Arabic and Akkadian. So, if anything, ʾal is the most common negation particle in Semitic. Is it related to lā, as Blake, Pardee, Lipiński and others suggested? It seems unlikely, since they have distinctive functions and different distribution in early Semitic, hence, a development lā > ʾal, if it happened at all, happened prior to Proto-Semitic, as all Semitic languages attest to a dual set.- p. 40.
Anyways, to sum up the need for an ongoing deciphering project, the arguments are as following:
- Text with the traditional translation of the Quran contridicts itself with abudance of contradictions, both contextual and theological, such as Iblees is mared as kfr although in previous verses kfr are defined as people who do not believe in god;
- Text is highly political and was obviously written 'above' its innate meaning so as to start the religion. Yes, Sunna 'elaborated' it further yet even Quran alone is not a guidance it claims to be, it is merely a book of constant pointless probitions and threats, which makes a believer follow someone who "knows" so as to lower his/her psychological pressure of the text. An example is following charlatans and deluded people like Sam Gerrans, who seems to be genuinely sure of his beliefs, which in turn are more influenced by the traditional libertarian right wing agenda rather than Quran itself, and trusting them in their mambojambo, instead of thinking for yourself and become the independent Self. Tell me it isn't so?
- Message in it is unscientific;
- Modern Arabic grammar is based ON the Quran i.e. the rules are made ABOVE the Quranic initial text, not vise versa. Think about it;
- Quran jumps from topic to topic, omits context, moves from one thing unto another, which makes it impossible to guess the context unless you are Zakir Nakir who plays with verse numbers;
- It is inconsistent. Is sura 4 'Women' actually about women? Only few verses are there, in its traditional translation, actually about the women, the rest is prohibitions, something regarding Isa bin Miryem and other topics.
Take a look at the recently deciphered passage in the Quran and then tell me who the heck are Harut and Marut in 2:102?

<2:102> And they immitated not what oppressors (ShTN) followed during the reign of Suleyman and not was Suleyman confining/restricting (KFR) whereas the oppressors confined/restricted (KFR). [He] learned [what is] mental eloquence and [this was] not exhibited [by] the Kings [of] Babylon [who] conquered and looted or if you prefer translation without brackets then simply 'conquests and lootings by the kingdoms of Babylon' and did not learn about “manifesting as one” [while] roaming. [He] said: “It is not suitable to sow dissension for that is confinement in [what is] learned from them. [Do] not; side with he/she who clearly cause unrest and join with him/her, and not [with] those who are forced/compelled by him/her. Unity is that which is in [the] advice on Leadership and to teach, not force them, {and} [about] what benefits them and such leads to learning about what is bad. [Do] not [be] like who is held back from taking shape and deals not with his/her wronging in themselves of such [there] is to learn.”
Note: the translation is inherently not 100% mine, although I recently started my independent project and changed some words in the passage to address actual root definitions, previous translation was not accurate enough, however translation of Harut and Marut is not of my origin.
Note: Highlighted in Italic is a part which is being worked on.
Now tell me what is more eloquent and makes more sense, two angels in Babylon Harut and Marut, or actually the contextually and historically logical outcome described above?

Hypothesis
So the thesis is formulated as following: Quranic Laa is not a negation and the traditional understanding of the Quran was fabricated/forced to create a false image of the text so as to pursue specific political-religious needs of the clergy in medieval period, and needs to be deciphered based on the root meanings. Quranic Initials symbolize the root meanings and hint that author has to look down the Semitic roots and use definitions which are native to these root and not constructed out of the blue by the pen of clergy
Debate conditions
1) I will debate only with reasonable responses, and you will have to read the [compulsory] literature I provide first before debating me. This way I confine you (i.e. put a limit on you, cover you, root K-F-R) and impose my rules upon you. Kafiirun has nothing to do with faith. But the primary aim is not to confine you but to free ya'll from the 1200 year dogma you live in. Quranic tradition is probably later than 7th century, they probably really started working on it as close as 8th-9th century, based on historical observation, first scholarly/theological comments started appearing some 140-200 years after the alleged revelation of the Quran.
This is because you have to prove me you are capable of being a critical thinker, otherwise I am not debating zombies, it is of no use to me, in my 'fishing' practice. I 'fish' for golden people, not zombies. You have to prove you are worthy of my family.
2) I will also only debate you after you tell me what is the purpose of Laa in 90:1. Just propose your idea.
Also, Sam Gerrans is a pussy and how many wives a pussy "is allowed" to have in 35:1?

Literature review (compulsory reading):
My ordeal with the Quran and God in the Quran, by Abbas Abdul Noor (free .pdf available on the Internet);
Pat-El, N. (2012). On Verbal Negation in Semitic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl?ndischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 162, No. 1 (2012), pp. 17-45.
Non-compulsory reading:
Walker, D. The Semitic Negative. The University of Chicago Press, 1896.
WWW:
Jewish Virtual Library A Project of Aice. Modern Jewish History: Great Rabbis of the Muslim Empire by Dr. Ezra Chwat. URL = http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire (last checked 14.04.2018).*
* The above link is obviously NOT an anti-semitic propaganda but their own written history so it is plausible and neutral to include such links in the research.
Sembase. A database project for the study of Semitic roots. URL = http://sembase.org/