For 'Abd al-Rahman and "connotation and denotation" Chutzpah and other sordid matters

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 19, 2006 at 18:52

I'm going to be very blunt with you:

1. You know no Arabic.

2. You seem to know nothing about the evolution of the Arabic language.

3. ...I doubt that you can even read 'Ibn Manzur's Lisan al-'Arab. And you still come here and try to push your very bizarre ideas.

So here is your lecture for today and you can discuss it with your favorite Mullah who most likely knows no Arabic like you.

You must be aware of the following:

1. The Qur'an is the most confused book in the world of literature. It is poor literature. It is not a dictionary and it does not claim to be one, and it does not tells us very much just about any and every thing. We cannot even reconstruct the life of Muhammad by reading it alone. It is full of grammatical mistakes and words that are not Arabic words and the author(s) still claim(s) that it is a kitab mubeen written in Arabi faseeh. So much for honesty.

2. The Muslim Masora is the activity (and it is well dated) of the Muslim 'Ulama that started in the 3rd century after the death of Muhammad in distant Mesopotamia by the likes of Tabari and culminated in the works of Suyuti is in his "Itiqan" Almost all these 'Ulama were non-Arabs and the rule of the Arabs in their own civilization and language is marginal at best.

So what did the masorites do? Well, they worked on the Arabic grammar, the vowels both short and long, the language of the Qur'an and in the process collected al-shi'r al-jahilli (you ask your Mullah about this one) and tried to reconcile the language of the Qur'an with the language of al-shi'r al-Jahilli, and in the process stabilize the text of the Qur'an and the variant readings of it (eg: MLK in al-Fatiha and is it Maaliki or the owner of or is it Malilki or the king of. You know your ignorance of the Arabic language was very clear when you were talking about _transliteration_ without knowing that the second "a" in Maaliki makes the difference between two very different words. And you know what? The Qur'an is the most edited so called holy book) And this is what is now called: Masoretic exegesis (tafseer) of the Qur'an. And as would be expected the culmination of the masora was the creation of a Ma'jam (dictionary) and the one that is the _gold standard_ of the Arbic language is Ibn Manzur's Lisan al-Arab period.

I did not write this dictionary but I follow what it says, and of all people you who knows no Arabic want to redefine a very stable Arabic word and that is: Kafir!!! And stop repeating this nosense about cover and kufr otherwise I will bring up the fact that there might be a connection between Kafir and village after all a village in Arabic means: kafr! And yes it has the same root from KFR.

So until you write your own Arabic dictionary the word kafir means a non-Muslim and under certain condtions a Muslim can be a kafir.

3. When the 'Ulama realized that the Qur'an is a confusing book they came up with the now famous saying: "al-tafseer lel sahaba wa al-ta'weel lel 'Ulama."!!! Which means we the Muslim 'Ulama have no clue about what the Qur'an is really saying and the way out is to use the above saying (now you go and ask your Mullah what this little gem means) And this will bring us to the question of al-naskh wa al-mansukh.

4. AKA Allah changing his mind but because of the above saying :"al-tafseer lel sahaba wa al-ta'weel lel 'ulama" we have to go back as early as we can to find one of the sahaba of Muhammad as in the case of Ibn 'Abbas and we have Dinawari's text of Ibn 'Abbas' "Miqnas min tafsir Ibn 'Abbas" and yes indeed we also have Abu 'Ubayda book (and no it is not extant) "Kitab al-naskh wa al-mansukh" And I'm talking here about the earliest you can get in Arabic sources in regard to the doctrine of aborgation. And you know what? this is what Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn 'Ubayda tell us about let us say the rule of ayat al-saif (the infamous 9:5) in abrogating up to 124 ayat. (for the readers you can also see Suyuti's "Itiqan." (for later sources plaeae see: Nahhas "Kitab al-nasikh wa al-mansukh" and Hibatallah's "Kitab al-nasikh wa al-mansukh")

And I'm not taking here about an Indian man who thinks he is a real 'Alim' when he does not even know the Arabic language and that is Mr. Naik (only if you know what the word Naik means in Arabic)

5. Now this is what we learn here: The last revealed sura is number 9. And (read this with care) and based on the doctrine of abrogation any dispensation in sura 9 will _abrogate_ an older dispensation in the same subject matter. And this is what the doctrine of abrogation is all about. Now how many ayas have been abrogated? There is no easy or fixed answer here because of item 3 (see above). Ancient authorities have numbers of abrogated ayat between 239-124 and only Allahu A'lam!!

6. The aya that you provided must have been abrogated because your Allah states in the infamous Ayat al-saif (9:5) to "iqtollo al mushrikeen" and then he defines al-mushrikeen in 9:30 and they are the Jews and the Christians (gasp!!!!) And remember that your Allah declared that the worst sin is: SHIRK_. and therfeore the new dispensation becomes 9:29 where your Allah declares war on ahl al-Kitab and demand that they pay the mafia tax AKA jizya. Your Allah regards Christians and Jews as mushrikeen or kuffar. Now do you get it?

This is not a new Wahhabi's interpretation. This is from Muqatil (kitab al-ashbah wal'nazaa'ir fi al-Qur'an" and this is as early as you can get.

Now let us take it one more step: Your Allah is saying the following :

1. Kill the mushrikeen.

2. Shirk is a grave sin and it is Kufr.

3. The Jews and Christians (9:30) are mushrikeen because of the doctrine of the tirnity in Christianity and because your Allah believes (and he is wrong here) that the Jews regard 'Uzair (Ezra) as the son of God therefore the jews are also mushrikeen.

4. The dispensation is the sordid 9:29 and declaring war on ahl al-kitab.

5. So where would the Hindus, Buddhists fit in the picture? Your Allah had no clue that such religions existed so by default they must be included in the above sorry lot.

This brings me back to Ibn Manzur's definition of the word kafir and it is:

1. A non-Muslim.

2. A Muslim under certain conditions.

As for, and you must pardon me, it is a waste of time to debate your bogus "connotation and denotation."

PS: Do you really know what the word Chutzpah mean?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".