69 million page views

A pot calls the kettle black

Reader comment on item: Why Newt Gingrich Was Right about Palestinian History
in response to reader comment: self-evaluation - rarely accurate

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Dec 26, 2011 at 20:05

DECEIT IS DECEIT IS DECEIT IS DECEIT. I gave you a list of objections over Dhimmi_No_More yet you chose to insult me by baseless assumptions first and this was style of Dhimmi_No_More. Why make ludicrous petty insults and start off with that? However this is least of his crimes.

For a person who claims to be born in England - Mr Riaz continually demonstares poor grammatical skills. Typos can be forgiven (I'm as guilty as anyone on that front) - but the repeated absence of the indefinite and definite articles and many other faux pas point to maybe a lack of education , a good education but with poor teachers, living amongst a group of people with similar poor habits or actually not having English as a first language.

Yet you did not give one example! And here wasted time on petty personal insult. As repeatedly those who cannot answer the actual matter that is being discussed ... but waste time on such trifles.

Then assumption after assumption.... what for?



Aside from this minor point - Dhimmi's arabic language skills clearly surpass Mr Riaz's. Would Mr Riaz agree? This has been demonstrated time and time again in response to muslims on this blog whose first language is arabic.

You criticised my language skills ... but look at the above. Pot calling kettle black? I am giving you an example ... you couldn't even stretch to that.

Dhimmi has NO Arabic skills... he repeatedly lies (I can prove all - very very easy) and is not even aware of basics of Arabic. I have proved this OVER and OVER and OVER.

I gave you a long list of his mistakes .... yet you brought this up? He has hidden himself and now sent you? Is that it...... this is poor really poor. I though you might bring up a challenging response. But this....

.... You know perfectly well what I thing of Dhimmi's Arabic skills.... yet you posted this:

"Dhimmi's arabic language skills clearly surpass Mr Riaz's. Would Mr Riaz agree? " Now if this isn't deceit, then what is it?

You already say that you have NO Arabic skills..... then you came up with that judgement. How? If someone has explained to you that Dhimmi's Arabic is good.... then bring him/her forward.

I have given him reference after reference from Classical Masters of Arabic. He had ONE response he kept repeating... oh this is Pakistani Arabic. What have I even got to do with Pakistan? And there is no such a thing as Pakistani Arabic. How is one meant to deal with such person. Yet I have answered absolutely EVERYTHING - and I only refused to answer an obscure Iranian he brought up Ali Dashti - but with good reason.

I gave you a longish list of objection you neatly side stepped them. Now you are wasting time here.


I'll make it clear right now - I have zero arabic language skills so cannot hold myself out to be any sort of expert in this area. However, as Mr Riaz mentions - there are websites which authored by arabic language speakers - many of them ex-muslims - who clearly and cogently highlight the various errors and inconsistencies in the Koran.

I have only mentioned one Website - their original authors are NOT ex-Muslims. That website has answers for ALL objection by Muslim as well.

Point is Dhimmi copied his material from there - and REFUSED to admit it - even when I caught him copying word by word. Actual and proper Western academics DO NOT SUPPORT mistakes of grammar in the Quran. Dhimmi had no answers for that.



These people have no agenda other than to bring to public awareness some of the ridiculous claims of their former 'religion' - which they have finally been allowed to break free from now that they are living in the West.

Leaving one's former religion does not make one an automatic expert of that religion ... does it? Or do you say the same thing about former Christians who convert to Islam?

If this is the case and you want to play the numbers game then a lot more people tend to leave Christianity - then join it. Are they all experts? Are they all correct? Many become Atheists, Muslims and etc.

Some of the so called grammar mistakes for example attributed to so called ex-Muslims are ridiculous - take them to any actual Western non-Muslim Arabic scholar even they will agree (majority verdict). Some are so daft - they clearly come from

That website is BIASED and pro-Christianity. To be fair to them - they do not hide it or pretend otherwise. ANd they do publish answers from Muslims.

Second - no one knows those so called ex-Muslims - that is that websites particular claim. Who knows


To judge Arabic of Quran by former books - those written after Quran is stupid proposition.

That is why you cannot use Modern Arabic rules and judge Quran by it. There are many styles, structures and vocabulary in MSA that are different from Quran... so find a grammar book that was written and accepted before Quran and then we can judge the grammar of Quran by it.

This is the primary reason that so many Western scholars do not judge Quranic grammar.


Try not waste time.... answer what I wrote to you from the post before this.


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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 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.)