For: Azmat Zuberi (RYA) and the fantasy goes on and on, part trois

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Aug 13, 2006 at 18:54

Then my dear Azamat (RYA) you try to find a way a out and you keep repeating your nonsesne about the fact that seen, lam, meem, and sa, la, ma are just the same, because you just added a fatha which is pure nonsense.

1. Well I can argue and tell you why not: si, li, mi: I just added a kasra, or I can say: su, lu, mu by adding a damma but all of this is wrong. A root is vocalized in the same the way we vocalize letters period. Your claim is bogus.

2. If you can show me that your claim is correct in Sibawayhe's nahw I can always learn. You? you pretend to know when you do not know.

As for ka ta ba any Arab that would hear this would understand it not as the root: Kaf, teh, beh but as: HE WROTE!!!! This is why when you vocalize (do you know what vocalize really means?) an Arabic root you must vocalize the letters. So your claim is bogus.

Then you wrote: "true sa la ma would also mean: he secured"

Stop here for a minute: why are you using madii or past tense? and could you tell us ya ayuha al-faylasoof al-kabeer what is the word for "he secured" in Arabic and where would it fit in Sibawayhe's F3L?

And by the way the word he secured is: Inahu Itma'n (he is secure is: Mutma'inn) and as you can see it has nothing to do with your bogus claim that it has anything to do with SLM!!!

Then the fantasy goes on and on and you claim that "he escaped" is from the same root. The word he escapes means: inahu yahrab (harab past tense) and nothing to do with the root SLM!!!

There is no reason for me to believe that you have any command of the arabic language. Urdu? may be but it is not the language of your Allah sorry.

More in part quatre

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".