Author Topic: discussion on PRL  (Read 4819 times)

abdalquran

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2012, 01:02:45 PM »
Quote
Firstly, thanks for quoting what I actually said and the context. From now on, please do that

Oh hey, it was and is my pleasure :)

Quote
I recommend re-reading the instructions I gave to contributors.

There are many meanings in PRL I do not agree with, e.g. salat=prayer, sujud=prostration etc. You simply ignore these examples because they do not fit with your unevidenced allegation. Nice try.

Well to prove PRL is biased, all I need is ONE example. Obviously if you messed up the entire set of meanings, it would be so clear but then not many people checked meanings of sitta and arba3a. Hence why it's only discovered after a few years.


Quote
Dude, no warning was given, end of. If you were being accurate you'd say "technically, no warning was given, but what I said to you was meant as a message from admin and a warning". Speaking accurately is not your thing perhaps.

That's your way of doing things. Your way is not the only way. In fact, I think your way isn't effective at all. I much rather do it my way and lets not forget, you are STILL in the group. Despite our disagreements, your view is WELCOME.


Quote
Did my so-called "hostility" include slander? Do tell Farouk.

Not slander no, but rudeness and negativity which , coming from a subjective being like yourself, is inappropriate. Remember, you are subjective and therefore limited. All these guys you attacked may know a hell of a lot more than you do.


Quote
I own the CAD facilities? That's odd considering I only host Lane's Lexicon (which is now hosted on several sites), I dont host other CAD, and even if I did they are available on multiple sites. I think you must be referring to PRL. Even you confuse PRL with CAD, oh dear.

Lanes is THE CAD facility for English speakers and PRL is the access point so you own the access points. Don't forget, you are THE main contributor of all these facilities. That's why we're gonna build the mausoleum for you, remember?

Quote
As I said, if you think you can do it better, feel free to create a PRL-like resource. After all, you do work/study at an institution which has some of the greatest Islam/Quran resources in the UK......but, erm..... you have made available... er..... none is it?

Wakas ---> made available many resources/tools
Farouk has access to great Quran/Islam works ---> made available nothing?

What I do for the cause is between me and Allah. I'd rather not announce it to the world like you do. People can think what they like :)


Quote
Can you clarify if you are saying I can still finish asking my Qs on 2:196, and discuss your method on another thread (replacing the one you are asking me Qs on)? If so, sounds fine, BUT I request it is evidence-based*, not based on baseless statements.

*see dictionary definition

Sure IF the discussion on my method includes MY counter-questioning of YOUR method. It's essentially a conversation on method. We will be discussing the Quran and philosophy of language.

In that case, then yes. You're not attending to my thread much anyway. I'd much rather forgo it in favour of a full philosophical discussion but kindly remember...it's a question / counter question format. I fully expect to deconstruct your method in this conversation.


Quote
I told you apples and oranges. I am providing tools/resources which can be used to check and even refute what I write. And with regards to salah, as I said, PRL has meanings for it I do not agree with.

Yeah, that was too obvious for you to hide. For sitta and arba3a, how many years did it take? I wouldn't even have mentioned it if I didn't return to FM even though I've known it for a while. I simply thought it was your business what meanings you wanted to censor. 

Quote
Oooh, 3 question marks, you must be serious.  ;D You seem to miss the point that anyone can check what's in PRL via Lane links and the other CAD linked on StudyQuran, and even suggest contributions, as you did. Can you recall how quickly I edited it after your suggestion? Dont worry, I shall remind you: within 24 hours.

Good for you, getting caught tends to move one rather quickly.


Quote
Oh dear, I now support fascist organisations? Can you provide me with "Farouk's weird and wonderful logical deductions" handbook before I post, as I might find it handy in avoiding such pitfalls in future.

This was no accident. The fact that you made THIS GUY be the authority in question and the fact the organisation uses totalitarian methods to get what it wants. No coincidences there...

Quote
Please ask your questions in a clear and concise manner, and number them in future, and dont mix them in with a diatribe. Perhaps if you stuck to an evidence based discussion you might actually realise a discussion can be constructive.

Lets start with a very simple question: Who is the Jack Bauer in this scenario?

Quote
Ahh, I thought it was from PRL. Firstly, if you have read the article, you will note I do not adopt what Lane wrote in my conclusion. For example, I do not opt for humble/obedience/lowly.

So why quote Lanes at all then? Your meaning isn't far from Lanes. I would even say it's inspired by Lanes. Why bother having Lanes there at all unless his view was consequential in some way?

Quote
Secondly, it is not necessary to critique Lane or any source on the spot or every time you mention a source.

Of course not, because Lanes is your furqan. You just swallowed what he said and at best, reworded it.


Quote
For example when you were asked how to determine meanings of Quranic words, you did not critique the lexicons, which your answer was based.


LOL you must be kidding. IF the lexicon IS used, it would ALREADY be critiqued by context, themes, chapter breakdowns etc. I hope I never ever do that because given the transitional nature of language, it would be a very detrimental thing to do.

Quote
What critiques?

They will be coming very soon as part of my 'dialogues' series. Since I accomodated your criticism, I fully expect you to accomodate mine.
Farouk A. Peru

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11208
  • Karma +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2012, 01:58:40 PM »

Well to prove PRL is biased, all I need is ONE example.

If you claim you can "prove" it, then please cite the example with evidence.


Quote
Lanes is THE CAD facility for English speakers and PRL is the access point so you own the access points. Don't forget, you are THE main contributor of all these facilities.

PRL is ONE access point for Lane. There are multiple access points.

Quote
I'd rather not announce it to the world like you do. People can think what they like :)

I never announced anything until you made yet another slanderous statement against me. There is plenty I dont discuss.

You have provided nothing, as I suspected. Interestingly, almost all of what you do provide is your own views. Self-promotion? Surely not.


Quote
Sure IF the discussion on my method includes MY counter-questioning of YOUR method. It's essentially a conversation on method. We will be discussing the Quran and philosophy of language.

In other words, no different to your thread.


Quote
Lets start with a very simple question: Who is the Jack Bauer in this scenario?

Jack Bauer is Jack Bauer from 24.
Quote
So why quote Lanes at all then? Your meaning isn't far from Lanes. I would even say it's inspired by Lanes. Why bother having Lanes there at all unless his view was consequential in some way?

Ahh, so now its my meaning isn't far from Lanes. Now we are getting some accuracy from Farouk. Finally.
I quote Lane so readers can verify via PRL which I link to. Simple.
Quote
Of course not, because Lanes is your furqan. You just swallowed what he said and at best, reworded it.

Ahh, so rewording includes not agreeing with what he said? lol
Try again.
 
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

abdalquran

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2012, 03:05:20 PM »
If you claim you can "prove" it, then please cite the example with evidence.

Are you dreaming or something? What do you think the sitta and arba3a examples are? That's proof that PRL is biased towards YOUR views. Despite 'practical considerations' and 'wheat/chaff' considerations, SOMEONE decided the other meanings weren't as strong. That is the BIAS.


Quote
PRL is ONE access point for Lane. There are multiple access points.

Great and since you're the unparellled contributor bar none, you have the main access  point.


Quote
I never announced anything until you made yet another slanderous statement against me. There is plenty I dont discuss.

Ah so the solution to the 'slander' is the Wakasian tawheed (la musahim mithla Waqas)? So instead of saying 'I try to be unbiased', you have to trumpet your horn to say 'no one else contributes like me?'. How is this even RELEVANT to the 'slander'? How PATHETIC. You should consider it a PRIVILEGE to serve God and make it as ANONYMOUS as possible.

Quote
You have provided nothing, as I suspected. Interestingly, almost all of what you do provide is your own views. Self-promotion? Surely not.
'
As I said, I am accountable to none but Allah, when you reach the delusional level of being Allah (very imminent I reckon) , let me know.

Why is noting down my thoughts SELF-promotion? That's a bit of projection there, I think. My notes if anything should simply show my fallibility. That's why I have no problem with people saying whatever they like. It's not useful to them, so be it.

You on the other hand expect me to conform your rules when writing against you yet have no problem BULLDOZING your way into my blog. If you don't care about self-promotion, why not allow viewpoints from other methods against your own works?

Anyone who sees his works as self-promotion would tag his work 'comprehensive' even when it leaves out 'passing elements'....oops :P

Quote
In other words, no different to your thread.

One difference: you get to ask questions (so you have TWO threads now). Come on, philosophy is so much more interesting. Lets get to it. It's your suggestion after all and I think it would be worth my time here. This thread is boring now. Lets discuss lexicology for a change, I really want you to explain why you recoursed to dictionaries. Even better, what IS a dictionary. I'm sure you have some very interesting answers :) Shall we proceed?

Quote
Jack Bauer is Jack Bauer from 24.

I didn't think he was Jack Bauer from Eastenders. Who does he REPRESENT in you satire. Who 'plays' him in this satire? Lets be frank, ok Wakas :) ?

Quote
Ahh, so now its my meaning isn't far from Lanes. Now we are getting some accuracy from Farouk. Finally.
I quote Lane so readers can verify via PRL which I link to. Simple.

So why didn't you critique Lanes if my statement accurate? Even that tiny quote you pasted so clearly goes against the Quran yet you didn't say a word.

Quote
Ahh, so rewording includes not agreeing with what he said? lol
Try again.

It does but it does NOT include critiquing him. Don't run away from this fact: you UNCRITICALLY used Lanes. As I said, you haven't factored in ANYTHING of Lane's subjectivities. It's essentially a cut and paste job, that's all.

Repeat question : 4/34 - are all men in charge of all women? Why is there a problem in answering this?
Farouk A. Peru

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11208
  • Karma +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2012, 12:07:39 PM »
fomob = false or misleading or baseless

Are you dreaming or something? What do you think the sitta and arba3a examples are? That's proof that PRL is biased towards YOUR views. Despite 'practical considerations' and 'wheat/chaff' considerations, SOMEONE decided the other meanings weren't as strong. That is the BIAS.

"SOMEONE" as in not me?

When I requested evidence, I did not mean statements based on logical fallacies. See SofA's post. fomob



Quote
Great and since you're the unparellled contributor bar none, you have the main access  point.

You went from I "own the access points" to "the main access point", which may not even be true. fomob


Quote
Ah so the solution to the 'slander' is the Wakasian tawheed (la musahim mithla Waqas)? So instead of saying 'I try to be unbiased', you have to trumpet your horn to say 'no one else contributes like me?'. How is this even RELEVANT to the 'slander'? How PATHETIC. You should consider it a PRIVILEGE to serve God and make it as ANONYMOUS as possible.

Since you make slanderous statements often, perhaps you have forgotten. YOU implied I was suppressing/controlling information, hence my relevant reply, citing evidence against your baseless claim. fomob

Part of serving God is not lying about others, take note.

Quote
Why is noting down my thoughts SELF-promotion? That's a bit of projection there, I think. My notes if anything should simply show my fallibility. That's why I have no problem with people saying whatever they like. It's not useful to them, so be it.


"bit of projection". Glad its not all projection. As is clear, you have made available nothing except your own views.

Quote
You on the other hand expect me to conform your rules when writing against you yet have no problem BULLDOZING your way into my blog. If you don't care about self-promotion, why not allow viewpoints from other methods against your own works?

I create threads for my articles, and anyone can see that on them, some disagree with me. fomob


Quote
One difference: you get to ask questions (so you have TWO threads now). Come on, philosophy is so much more interesting. Lets get to it. It's your suggestion after all and I think it would be worth my time here. This thread is boring now.

Yes, reading and responding to your fomob statements is boring.

Quote
So why didn't you critique Lanes if my statement accurate? Even that tiny quote you pasted so clearly goes against the Quran yet you didn't say a word.

fomob

Quote
It does but it does NOT include critiquing him. Don't run away from this fact: you UNCRITICALLY used Lanes. As I said, you haven't factored in ANYTHING of Lane's subjectivities. It's essentially a cut and paste job, that's all.


critiquing him? ad-hominen is more your style, I'll leave that to you. Readers can read what I wrote and what Lane wrote, and see they do not entirely agree.

Quote
Repeat question : 4/34 - are all men in charge of all women? Why is there a problem in answering this?

already answered. To claim otherwise is fomob.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

abdalquran

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2012, 02:36:44 PM »
I have now written a 4 part critique of your AMAH view. Will you extend the SAME courtesy you DEMANDED (and recieved) from me? If not, why not?

Farouk A. Peru

abdalquran

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2012, 02:57:27 PM »
Quote
Farouk: Repeat question : 4/34 - are all men in charge of all women? Why is there a problem in answering this?

Wakas: already answered. To claim otherwise is fomob.

WHAT A JOKE. Mr 'I produce Evidence' for the first time points vaguely to a section of his essay. Come on Wakas, if it's there, point it out. Paste it for all to see. The truthis you never answered this question because it strips your position of the most important point - that it does talk about marital relation. Of course, if you paste the answer here, I'd be happy to retract :)
Farouk A. Peru

abdalquran

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2012, 03:15:06 PM »
Lastly, I'm waiting for you to comment on my thread. When will that happen please?
Farouk A. Peru

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11208
  • Karma +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2012, 05:41:31 AM »
WHAT A JOKE. Mr 'I produce Evidence' for the first time points vaguely to a section of his essay. Come on Wakas, if it's there, point it out. Paste it for all to see. The truthis you never answered this question because it strips your position of the most important point - that it does talk about marital relation. Of course, if you paste the answer here, I'd be happy to retract :)

Once again, I did answer, but it seems you did not read properly, so here it is again, with highlighting this time:

From: http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part2

Quote
"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic: qawwamoon, root: Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in:
4:135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
5:8 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).

M. Asad: The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 4:5 and 5:97.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4:135, 5:8 and 4:5, 5:97 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses [2:228, 2:233, 65:6], and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" [2:232-233, 4:24], "tashaawar" [2:233], which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation [3:159, 39:18, 42:38, 58:11], then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2:231, 4:19.
If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 4:34 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female.

"...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2:253 and 17:21, and also 6:53 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison.
However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase:
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)

The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 4:32. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others [2:253] and some prophets to others [17:55] and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious [49:13]. It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given [6:165]. In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional.

Clear.


The above is not a Q on PRL. If you wish me to reply on your thread, you should stop asking Qs in mine and other threads which I answer.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

abdalquran

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2012, 08:17:52 AM »
Clear, thank you and apologies :)

Quote
The above is not a Q on PRL. If you wish me to reply on your thread, you should stop asking Qs in mine and other threads which I answer.

Why would I do that? Are you telling me your article is not open to be questioned elsewhere?

Next question: Since you admit that not all men are in charge of all women but rather it is conditional, a man can spend on another man's wife and it would then earn them the right of obedience. Is this correct? :)

Repeat question: I have now written a 4 part critique of your AMAH view. Will you extend the SAME courtesy you DEMANDED (and recieved) from me? If not, why not?

Farouk A. Peru

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11208
  • Karma +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: discussion on PRL
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2012, 09:44:05 AM »
Why would I do that? Are you telling me your article is not open to be questioned elsewhere?

Not to someone who sneaks in Qs in other threads going off-topic, when he has his very own thread for asking me Qs.

Quote
Next question: Since you admit that not all men are in charge of all women but rather it is conditional, a man can spend on another man's wife and it would then earn them the right of obedience. Is this correct? :)

Please use your own thread.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org