1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

More islamic comedy

Reader comment on item: Hijabs on Western Public Women
in response to reader comment: Spoon Feeding

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Oct 29, 2011 at 10:10

Our dear Amin is telling us that this poor and bogus Arabic is a grammatical rule called al-maf3ool al-mutlaq or is it zarf and only allahu a3lam

و متكلم حقيقة او لا؟

ROTFL gobbeldygook Arabic

So where is المفعول المطلق

>The above was his question AGAIN I am going to spell it out for -

Oh yes you have to

>maybe for the last time - as repeatedly giving his link back to him to understand from there - he was NOT able to understand why Haqiqatan is considered a mafool mutlaq.

... you did not understand a word of what I wrote about what is al-maf3ool al-mutlaq right? haqiqa is not al-maf3ool al-mutlaq and get over it

And Where do you see the nuun O glropius graduate of wahhabi central? It must be the zabar (ROTFL) thing

... you told us why do your masters the Arabs write and vocalize the word shukran jazilan when it should be shukr jazeel and if so how come his bogus haqiqa is not vocalized as haqiqatan you tell us O glorious graduate of wahhabi central? Let me help you because the word shukran is now part of modern spoken Arabic and it is not just vocalized as shukran but it is also written as شكران جزيلان but the word haqiqa in your bogus sentence is written and volcalized in modern Arabic as حقيقة and not as your bogus حقيقاتن

And do you know why? because grammatical cases are not used in modern Arabic by your arab masters

Why the delusions?

>IF he did know Arabic - he might have understood it.

Understand what? that you are really beyond help? we know that

و متكلم حقيقة او لا؟

>Is short for:

و متكلم تكلما حقيقة او لا؟

ya naharak eswid we menayel be sitten alf neela. You are mangilng the Arabic language

... this is poor syntax let me fix this poor Arabic for you so we can include a maf3ool mutalq in the sentence وهل تتكلم كلام حقيقي او لا and you know what would be al-maf3ool al-mutlaq in this sentence? Hint: it would not be your bogus claim that it is the word haqiqa but it would be kalam which is a masdar now do you get it?

>He is a speaker, speaking really or not.

No it is not your bogus and shameful Arabic is: and speaker he spoke truth or not which is poor English syntax because your bogus sentence is just as bad

1. wa mutalakem means and speaker and not your bogus and he is (sic) speaker

2. takalam means he spoke and not your bogus speaking as speaking means kalam

3. haqiqa aw la means truth or not

You need to stick to urdu and shame on you

Why the delusions? you tell me

Submitting....

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".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to More islamic comedy by dhimmi no more

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)