69 million page views

... AMIN STRIKES AGAIN. His bluff called again and found wanting.

Reader comment on item: Arabist Snobs
in response to reader comment: Calling Bluffs

Submitted by Peter Hall (Australia), Jan 8, 2012 at 01:23

Tell me ... Amin, would you like me to list all your lies and distortions or just the many in your current comment?

Well ... Amin, lets get started;

You said

You couldn't even argue without lying, name calling, stereotyping, prejudice and petty personal insults. That is illogical.

Clearly a lie ... Amin, I have provide many links and facts. I also helped you with your lack of punctuation. I argured quite successfully that not only do you have poor English, but have absolutely no facts to refute my claims. Which is inherently logical. Your answer repeated often, actually to a point of tedium, is that I am lying. If my facts are wrong, why not provide facts that show you are correct then?. I have also taught you the meaning of what adjectives are, and what a lie is, what a s means at the end of a word, and many other things Taqiyya Amin. I have been very logical, supporting my views with numerous references. What have you taught us ?

Now lie Number 2

Such as the one where you changed your story over the word LASER. Or you doctored 60 million to 200 million.

Now I clearly stated that the figure was an obvious mistake on my part now twice! Clearly you failed to read my response and the obvious clearly eludes you. I also asked what benefit would I drive from Inflating the sales of an Arabic Author. I have stated this twice and you continue to repeat the same allegation after it has been answered twice. You are ignoring my answer to try and deceive, hence clearly you are knowingly lying when you ask this same stupid question again. A perfect example of you repeating a lie.

Then you say

Well Amin, Have you bothered to read the Article you have been commenting about??

Have you? Your statements about my lack of Arabic are truly laughable ... Even the author of this article clearly states that you do not need to understand Arabic, to comment on it. Hence my placing you in the more unintelligent Arabist snob catergory.

Here you lie again. Another one to the elongating list - you lack of Arabic knowledge is to do with your defining Arabic as weak.

Now Taqiyya Amin, what are you trying to say? What is an elongating list? Do you understand what elongating is? Also "you lack of Arabic Knowledge is to do with your defining Arabic is weak?" Did you learn your English from a comic book Amin? Please get someone to interpret what you are trying to say. Do you mean to say 'your lack of knowledge of Arabic excludes you from saying Arabic is weak', is that what you were trying to say Amin? Clearly your boast about having superior English is either you lying or you being delusional.

then you say

b) It is not the Arabic - but about Arabic and Arab world. You need to have knowledge about your subject. I have asked you this over and over again. You couldn't name a single book you read about the subject.

Firstly what are you saying "It is not the Arabic - but about Arabic and Arab world," again it does not make sense, what are you trying to say?

"You couldn't name a single book you read about the subject" Clearly you are no linguist. This should have read, 'you could not name a single book you have read about this subject'.

I never claimed to have read a book about Arabic Taqiyya Amin, I suggest you get a few books on English sentence structure though. Your English is actually getting worse!

To refute you yet again, I quote the Article

Of course, it helps to know languages. But, as these examples suggest, languages do not protect against ideology, faddism, pedantry or misinformation.

Are you saying to comment on Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and say that it would not be conducive for advanced mathematics, I would need to speak ancient Egyptian? You are making assumptions ... Amin, like your claim about superior English.

So if I say, due to the lack of a written alphabet, Australian Aborigines would have found it virtually impossible to keep accurate records. Are you saying this is wrong because I do not speak Aboriginal? Are you saying the ONLY source about a language is written in books about that language?

Or are you saying that Arabic has no short comings? Are you saying that my observations are not true due to the fact that I read or write no Arabic?? What a simpleton you are ... Amin! Yet you persist in showing how narrow minded you are, it makes me wonder.

Then you provide this absolute gem;

Hence views out of ignorance. Pretending that it is only you lack of Arabic i laugh at. Not it is the no knowing much about Arabic as a language.

Are you still claiming superior English?

On to more of your gibberish

you say

You find basic facts about the Arab world - then allege it is the weakness of the Arabic language. The two are different arguments. I keep asking you this. What is is it about Arabic the language that it is weak.

Well ... Amin, I am glad you acknowledge my facts about the Arabic world. However, how can you say they are two different arguments? Where else is Arabic applicable as a language then? The Eskimos do not use it, only Arabic speakers do.

Arabic is an inadequate language for the sciences - I quoted a Pakistani Professor as you request confirmation of the obvious, and well as other sources. Few technical journals are written in Arabic or even text books. Surely in a technical age, having a language that is described as inadequate is self explanatory. Do I need to explain this? Well, if you cannot study a particular modern subject in your own language, you will need to learn a language that is adequate for the task.

Now clearly, if Arabic was adequate for the purposes of the study of physics, then all Arabic speaking Universities would have Arabic translations of text books in Physics. I have never heard a Greek professor claim Greek was inadequate for the sciences, and most text books in Greek Universities are in Greek.

So the few Greek Speakers compared to the numbers of Arabic speakers seem to be able to translate texts into Greek. Poverty is no excuse as the Arabic world has more money than poor Greece.

The poor state of Arabic literature is another example. Also the poor literacy.

Then back to your lies

You said

So where is that formula .... by which you proclaimed Arab countries had literacy levels of 10%. Whilst that is not what the figures show.

Pathetic ... Amin, Where did I say Arab literacy was10%?? Do I really have to explain every thing to you 3 or 4 times? ... I used your figure of 70% of Arabs are literate. That was your figure not mine. I stated no figure for Arabic literacy.

However, now take your time Amin, remember your mistakes about the print runs of 10,000 copies, so you have proved you have trouble following simple concepts. Concentrate!

I said that one method used to estimate the level of the population that is literate but consider uneducated, was to double the percentage of illiterate, to arrive at a figure. For the purposes of this definition it is defined as those with less than 4 years of formal education, hence uneducated but literate.

So what I said was that using this formula, 100% less 70% equals 30%. Arab illiteracy. Multiply 30% x 2 equals 60% estimated literate but uneducated.

Therefore 60% of the Arabic population would be estimated to have less than 4 years of formal education but be literate.

Therefore if 60% are literate but uneducated, and 30% are illiterate(your figures not mine) then only 10% would be estimated as educated. I cannot explain it a manner any more basic.

Now unless you are going to use Mohammed mathematics for division of property for inheritance, to find there is more than 160% to 100%, my figure of 10% of Arab speakers are educated is calculated using your base data.

So ... Amin, or do I have to repeat this a 3rd time? I never said 10% of Arabs are literate, a clear lie on your behalf.

Then you show again what a genius you are;

India and China militaries are both equipped with huge numbers of low-tech equipment.


This is clear evidence that you are lazy, lets look at India for example;

1,129,900 Active personnel 960,000 Reserve personnel Is that not huge Taqiyya Amin?

India has 750 T55 tanks (designed 1945) and 2418 T72 tanks(designed 1967) equals 3168 tanks out of 3945 tanks

So is that not huge numbers of old tanks? Well ... Amin?

INS Viraat (R22) (Sanskrit: विराट, Virāṭ. "Giant" ) is a Centaur class aircraft carrier currently in service with the Indian Navy. INS Viraat is the flagship of the Indian Navy, the oldest carrier in service launched in 1953. It was originally laid down in the second world war but not completed until 1953.

In 2004, India bought the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov [12] from Russia for US$ 2.35 billion including its complement of aircraft.[13] It is expected to enter service in 2013–2014

The ship was laid down in 1978 at Nikolayev South (Shipyard No.444) in Ukraine, launched in 1982, and commissioned in 1987. The delay in commissioning was largely caused by software bugs in the new command and control system.

So the newest aircraft carrier India will get has a keel 36 years old if they finish it in 2014.

The PLA's tank inventory was numbered around 10,000 during its peak time in the 1980s and 1990s, but this is estimated to have been reduced to 7,000, operating in 11 armored brigades.[26] The Chinese-produced versions of the Soviet T-54A (Type 59 and Type 69) account for over two-thirds of the total PLA tank inventory.

The PLA also operates about 10,000 light tanks including the Type 62 light tank and the Type 63 amphibious tank, both of which entered production in the 1960s.

All these facts can be found if you checked ... yourself, but obviously you like having your bluff called, and yet again I have shown you full of nothing, absolutely nothing but hot air.

Do these figures confirm large numbers of low tech equipment Taqiyya Amin? Did you know the Harrier jump jets India has on its 58 year old aircraft carrier are the original model jump jets? Did you know, the Indian flagship will be 65 years old when it is retired? 65 years old?? Does that sound high technology to you ... Amin? The statement I made, I feel was one that did not need referencing. The reason for this would be obvious to everybody but the most deficient of readers here. Yet I see your request for evidence clearly places you in this latter category.

Then you again show you are lazy

J K Rowlings has written a series of children's books that collectively, would have been printed more copies that the total number of books printed by the whole Arabic world combined.


Why not consult your failing memory and look at the link I previously provided for top selling books. Now look for the list showing Arabic books and do the math. Is this another example of Taqiyya by laziness?

All the Arabic writers have been doing the last few decades is copying a style of writing that is Western in nature, not Arabic.


Are you that lazy? I will have to start calling you Lazy Taqiyya Amin. Read the links I provided as well as some by you, there are numerous comments about the newer Arabic writers confirming this. Or is this too difficult for you Lazy Taqiyya Amin?

Or are you going to cry lies again, or maybe ask for evidence? Very lame ... Amin, very lame.


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: © 1968-2024 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.)