Where does "allah" say...

[Gremlins]

Perhaps you are confusing modern Arabic with the extinct classic Arabic.

Again...where are your references...?

Sorry matey, the construct state exists in all modern and all older semitic languages. You don't actually speak Arabic at all do you?

 

[ApplePie7]

Sorry matey, the construct state exists in all modern and all older semitic languages. You don't actually speak Arabic at all do you?

You have nothing...

 

[Gremlins]

You have nothing...

Well in that case neither does the Bible:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

In the beginning, Godscreated heaven and earth.

 

[ApplePie7]

Well in that case neither does the Bible:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

In the beginning, Godscreated heaven and earth.

No definition.

No context.

Nothing.

 

[Gremlins]

No definition.

No context.

Nothing.

Two Questions:

1. Do you actually know Arabic at all?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, why have you been deliberately mistranslating things?

 

[ApplePie7]

Two Questions:

1. Do you actually know Arabic at all?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, why have you been deliberately mistranslating things?

We already offered for you to bring forth a Koranic ayah that was causing you distress, so that we could go over each and every word and see who has the best understanding of the text.

So far, you are simply running away...

 

[Gremlins]

We already offered for you to bring forth a Koranic ayah that was causing you distress, so that we could go over each and every word and see who has the best understanding of the text.

So far, you are simply running away...

as-Sajdah 2, as we keep going over and over.

tanzi:lu-l-kitabi

The transmission (revelation, if we're being generous) of the book

It's the Status Constructivus. X al Y means Y's X or X of Y.

If it were the book of revelation it would be kitabu-l-tanzi:l.

 

[ApplePie7]

as-Sajdah 2, as we keep going over and over.

tanzi:lu-l-kitabi

The transmission (revelation, if we're being generous) of the book

It's the Status Constructivus. X al Y means Y's X or X of Y.

If it were the book of revelation it would be kitabu-l-tanzi:l.

Let’s look…


تنزيل الكتبلا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.



The first term…


تنزيل= “tanzeelun”

“tanzeelun” definition:

Verbal noun, accusative case. The Revelation. A sending down (from Heaven), a divine revelation, a name given to the Koran as having been sent down from Heaven.

It comes from the root “nazala”, which means to descend, come down, go down, happen, alight at, settle, in a place, lodge. To cause to descend, send down, especially from Heaven. He alighted, descended and stopped or sojourned or abode or lodged or settled, in the place. It took or occupied the place or became in the position or condition of such a thing. Food prepared for the quest.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, pp. 3031 - 3032
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 559 - 560
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, pp. 145 - 146
Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, pp. 192 – 193



Being that this noun is in the accusative, it means that it is the direct object and is being joined to the next word…





الكتب = “alkitabi”

“alkitabi” definition:

Lane references sura 2.2 in his definition:

ذلك الكتب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين
Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying. (2.2)

“That is the book, or scripture”; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590





Thus…

It becomes quite clear, even by the grammatical definitions of these first two words of the ayah, that this is not just a book, but it is the Book of Revelation.

Moreover, per the classic definition, it directly calls-out for its contents to be Biblical material, “ as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures” – which is exactly what the Biblical Book of Revelation does, hence it completes the Holy Bible.

Even the authors who penned this ayah understood this.

When are you….?

 

[Gremlins]

Let’s look…


تنزيل الكتبلا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.



The first term…

تنزيل= “tanzeelun”

“tanzeelun” definition:

Verbal noun, accusative case. The Revelation. A sending down (from Heaven), a divine revelation, a name given to the Koran as having been sent down from Heaven.

This is getting on my nerves now. You don't even know how the Classical Arabic case system works. Here it is for you:

Nominative: -u(n)
Acccusative: -a(n)
Genitive: -i(n)

Tanzi:lu(n) is nominative!

Being that this noun is in the accusative, it means that it is the direct object and is being joined to the next word…

Well for one it's not accusative, it's nominative, as we have already discussed. Secondly, learn some linguistics. Nouns can't take objects. Verbs take objects. The Classical Arabic accusative case is used for the direct object of a verb.

الكتب = “alkitabi”

“alkitabi” definition:

Lane references sura 2.2 in his definition:

ذلك الكتب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين
Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

Yes, I know what kitab means, thank you very much. I'm not disputing that it means book.

It becomes quite clear, even by the grammatical definitions of these first two words of the ayah, that this is not just a book, but it is the Book of Revelation.

No, it means 'The revelation of the book'. How do I know? Because Tanzi:lu is in the constructive state. How do I know tanzi:lu is in the constructive state? Let's have a look:

1. It lacks the definite article al-, BUT
2. It also lacks the indefinite suffix -n, which nouns which lack the definite article must take if they are not in construct state.
3. It is immediately followed by a definite noun, al-kitabi. Furthermore, al-kitabi is in the genitive case, as the last noun of a noun phrase with construct state nouns must be.

So what we have infact is this:

tanzi:lu-l-kitabi

revelation.NOM.SC-DEF-book.GEN

Where
NOM = nominative case
SC = Status Constructivus
DEF = definite
GEN = genitive

Therefore, we have 'the revelation of the book' or 'the book's revelation'.

If the authors of the Qur'an had wanted to say 'The Book of Revelation', they would have said kitabu-t-tanzi:li. They didn't. They said tanzi:lu-l-kitabi.

What you're doing is equivalent to saying that Jesus is the 'God of The Lambs' rather than 'The Lamb of God'. It's quite frankly embarassing to see a fellow Christian lie like this just to prove his wacky theory.

Even the authors who penned this ayah understood this.

When are you….?

Funnily enough, I disagree. I, someone who actually understands Arabic grammar, have translated the phrase to mean 'the revelation of the book'. The common translations into English, made by people who understand Arabic grammar, have translated it as 'the revelation of the book'. The men who translated into Turkish and Persian, who understood Arabic grammar, translated it as 'the revelation of the book'.

 

[ApplePie7]

Let’s look…


تنزيل الكتبلا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.



The first term…



This is getting on my nerves now. You don't even know how the Classical Arabic case system works. Here it is for you:

Nominative: -u(n)
Acccusative: -a(n)
Genitive: -i(n)

Tanzi:lu(n) is nominative!




Well for one it's not accusative, it's nominative, as we have already discussed. Secondly, learn some linguistics. Nouns can't take objects. Verbs take objects. The Classical Arabic accusative case is used for the direct object of a verb.

As already shown, the classic references state “tanzeelun” to be a verbal noun in the accusative case. Perhaps you are still confusing modern Arabic with the extinct classic Arabic.

Further, you again offer no references whatsoever upon which to build your case…

Yes, I know what kitab means, thank you very much. I'm not disputing that it means book.

Not just any book.

It refers specifically to Biblical material.

Remember, the Koran was originally an oral transmission only – thus, when it repeatedly appeals to a written “book”, it cannot possibly be referring to itself, as it was not even written down at the time.

No, it means 'The revelation of the book'. How do I know? Because Tanzi:lu is in the constructive state. How do I know tanzi:lu is in the constructive state? Let's have a look:

1. It lacks the definite article al-, BUT
2. It also lacks the indefinite suffix -n, which nouns which lack the definite article must take if they are not in construct state.
3. It is immediately followed by a definite noun, al-kitabi. Furthermore, al-kitabi is in the genitive case, as the last noun of a noun phrase with construct state nouns must be.

So what we have infact is this:

tanzi:lu-l-kitabi

revelation.NOM.SC-DEF-book.GEN

Where
NOM = nominative case
SC = Status Constructivus
DEF = definite
GEN = genitive

Therefore, we have 'the revelation of the book' or 'the book's revelation'.

If the authors of the Qur'an had wanted to say 'The Book of Revelation', they would have said kitabu-t-tanzi:li. They didn't. They said tanzi:lu-l-kitabi.

If “kitab” is in the genitive case, then it indicates a relationship, primarily one of possession, between itself and another (noun).
Thus, the material of the Book is revelatory.
It is the Book of Revelation.

What you're doing is equivalent to saying that Jesus is the 'God of The Lambs' rather than 'The Lamb of God'. It's quite frankly embarassing to see a fellow Christian lie like this just to prove his wacky theory.

Perhaps you could demonstrate this, complete with references, using Biblical Greek?

Funnily enough, I disagree. I, someone who actually understands Arabic grammar, have translated the phrase to mean 'the revelation of the book'. The common translations into English, made by people who understand Arabic grammar, have translated it as 'the revelation of the book'. The men who translated into Turkish and Persian, who understood Arabic grammar, translated it as 'the revelation of the book'.

It is most interesting to watch you base your case upon zero references whatsoever.

It is clear that the authors of the Koran are discussing the Biblical Book of Revelation.

This becomes rather obvious when you consider that >50% of the koranic contents are paraphrased Biblical book of Revelation material to begin with.

 

[Gremlins]

[/size][/font]

As already shown, the classic references state “tanzeelun” to be a verbal noun in the accusative case. Perhaps you are still confusing modern Arabic with the extinct classic Arabic.

Further, you again offer no references whatsoever upon which to build your case…

I am talking about classical Arabic. The vast majority of modern Arabic dialects don't have the nominal case inflections at all.

Any Arabic grammar, any, will tell you that the Nominative is marked by -u-. Even Wikipedia knows the classical Arabic nominative is marked with -u(n), and the accusative with -a(n): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar#Inflection

When are you going to quit bearing false witness and admit you don't speak a word of Arabic?

Not just any book.

It refers specifically to Biblical material.

Remember, the Koran was originally an oral transmission only – thus, when it repeatedly appeals to a written “book”, it cannot possibly be referring to itself, as it was not even written down at the time.

Well actually, qara'a means 'to read'. I'm sure you realise the implication of this.

If “kitab” is in the genitive case, then it indicates a relationship, primarily one of possession, between itself and another (noun).

Thus, the material of the Book is revelatory.
It is the Book of Revelation.

The Book of Revelation is just an appellation given to the last book of the Bible. Pretty much every book in the Bible is revelatory. That doesn't mean that the Bible is infact the Book of Revelation. In the sense that the Qur'an is believed to have been revealed by Allah then yes, it is revelatory. That doesn't make it the book of revelation. You have revealed you can't speak Arabic. That doesn't mean you're the book of revelation

Perhaps you could demonstrate this, complete with references, using Biblical Greek?

I can't speak Greek of any sort, so no. But imagine this scenario: I have an audience where almost no one speaks Greek apart from a few people whose English isn't very good. I then basically just make up the gloss as I go along and then inform people that Jesus was infact the reincarnation of an ancient Semite sheep deity.

That is the equivalent of what you are doing.

It is most interesting to watch you base your case upon zero references whatsoever.

What references do you want? Unlike you, I actually know how Classical Arabic grammar works. I have an Arabic dictionary and a copy of the Qur'an next on the shelf. What more do I actually need to prove you wrong?

And you still haven't answered the question as to whether you know Arabic or not...

 

[ApplePie7]

I am talking about classical Arabic. The vast majority of modern Arabic dialects don't have the nominal case inflections at all.

Any Arabic grammar, any, will tell you that the Nominative is marked by -u-. Even Wikipedia knows the classical Arabic nominative is marked with -u(n), and the accusative with -a(n): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar#Inflection

When are you going to quit bearing false witness and admit you don't speak a word of Arabic?

So….you google your answers…so much for that dictionary on your shelf…

Again, your googled source does not mandate that a verbal noun should be in the nominative case. Nor are there any classic references given at this site.

Well actually, qara'a means 'to read'. I'm sure you realise the implication of this.

False.
The root “qara’a”, has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449

Thus…this is what the Koran is…a collection of previous written scriptures…

The Book of Revelation is just an appellation given to the last book of the Bible. Pretty much every book in the Bible is revelatory. That doesn't mean that the Bible is infact the Book of Revelation. In the sense that the Qur'an is believed to have been revealed by Allah then yes, it is revelatory. That doesn't make it the book of revelation. You have revealed you can't speak Arabic. That doesn't mean you're the book of revelation

Context demonstrates that it is the Biblical Book of Revelation…

I can't speak Greek of any sort, so no. But imagine this scenario: I have an audience where almost no one speaks Greek apart from a few people whose English isn't very good. I then basically just make up the gloss as I go along and then inform people that Jesus was infact the reincarnation of an ancient Semite sheep deity.

That is the equivalent of what you are doing.

If you admit complete and utter Greek ignorance, then why is it that you wanted to use a Greek example in the first place…?

What references do you want?

Classic references.

Unlike you, I actually know how Classical Arabic grammar works.

Apparently you do not.

I have an Arabic dictionary and a copy of the Qur'an next on the shelf. What more do I actually need to prove you wrong?

What dictionary?

 

[Gremlins]

So….you google your answers…so much for that dictionary on your shelf…

Again, your googled source does not mandate that a verbal noun should be in the nominative case. Nor are there any classic references given at this site.

No, I know Arabic, I just didn't learn it off the internet, so I don't know any specific links.

I never said a verbal noun had to be in the nominative case. But Tanzi:lu is in the nominative case, constructive state. There is no way you can get around this.

Context demonstrates that it is the Biblical Book of Revelation…

The book of revelations is not mentioned at all in this verse. Why are you finding this so hard to understand? The Qur'an says 'the book's being sent down'. The Turkish and Persian versions say the same. The English version says 'the revelation of the book'.

If you admit complete and utter Greek ignorance, then why is it that you wanted to use a Greek example in the first place…?

Because the New Testament was originally written in Greek?

To use another example, I've already said that Genesis says that Elohim created the world. We, ofcourse, know perfectly well that ancient Hebrew refers to God as plural. Just like anyone with a smidgen of intellectual honesty knows that Classical Arabic has the 'Royal We'.

Apparently you do not.

Which one of us, remind me, can't identify which case and state of tanzi:lu ?

What dictionary?

Oxford Arabic-English dictionary. It's quite pricey, but very good. And the arabic entries are fully vowelled. It's an MSA dictionary, MSA having the same lexicon and grammar as Qur'anic Arabic. I've got the Yale Grammar aswell.

 

[ApplePie7]

No, I know Arabic, I just didn't learn it off the internet, so I don't know any specific links.

I never said a verbal noun had to be in the nominative case. But Tanzi:lu is in the nominative case, constructive state. There is no way you can get around this.

Show us a classic source which calls-out this specific word to be nominative.

The book of revelations is not mentioned at all in this verse. Why are you finding this so hard to understand? The Qur'an says 'the book's being sent down'. The Turkish and Persian versions say the same. The English version says 'the revelation of the book'.

Then show us some context…

Because the New Testament was originally written in Greek?

To use another example, I've already said that Genesis says that Elohim created the world. We, ofcourse, know perfectly well that ancient Hebrew refers to God as plural. Just like anyone with a smidgen of intellectual honesty knows that Classical Arabic has the 'Royal We'.

Plural of Majesty never existed in the Ancient Near East (ANE).
This includes Arabia.
Elohim is used with the singular verb “bara” which makes the plural entity singular.
The fact that the creator God of the holy Bible is singular yet plural, is born-out in Creation ‘day 1’.

Which one of us, remind me, can't identify which case and state of tanzi:lu ?

We already provided our completely verifiable references for this word to be defined as a verbal noun in the accusative case.

You have yet to even show even one reference which even mentions the word in question.

Oxford Arabic-English dictionary. It's quite pricey, but very good. And the arabic entries are fully vowelled. It's an MSA dictionary, MSA having the same lexicon and grammar as Qur'anic Arabic. I've got the Yale Grammar aswell.

Lol…

Oxford is a modern Arabic dictionary complete with the artificially added diacritical markings.

You don’t study the written classic Arabic with a modern Arabic dictionary.

You cannot even use it to reference the word in question.

Show some respect…

 

[wayoflife]

The "we" sounds very much like our Triune God.

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur'an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. ( Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah, 4/143).



"Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning):'Verily, We have given you a manifest victory" [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that."


( Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa ("Verily We") and nahnu ("We"), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say " We have decided…" etc. [This is known in English as "The Royal We" – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur'an innaa ("Verily We") and nahnu ("We"), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as

"Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur'an)"


[al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings):

"And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" [al-Baqarah 2:163]


and

"Say: He is Allaah, the One" [al-Ikhlaas 112:1]


and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.

 

[ApplePie7]

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur'an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. ( Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah, 4/143).



"Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning):'Verily, We have given you a manifest victory" [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that."


( Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa ("Verily We") and nahnu ("We"), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say " We have decided…" etc. [This is known in English as "The Royal We" – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur'an innaa ("Verily We") and nahnu ("We"), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as

"Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur'an)"

Plural of Majesty never existed in ancient Arabia.

Thus, when the authors of the Koran use “us” and “we” they are speaking of plurality.

[al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings):

"And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" [al-Baqarah 2:163]

وإلهكم إله وحد لا إله إلا هو الرحمن الرحيم


The term “allah” is never mentioned in this ayah…

and

"Say: He is Allaah, the One" [al-Ikhlaas 112:1]

Adding some context negates the Islamic mindset that your “allah” is one.

According to the context of sura 112, your god had a Son…
Both verbs used in 112.3 (i.e. يلد & يولد ), are each in the imperfect tense.

This clearly is referring to incomplete action.

It is not referring to completed action.

This statement is only telling us that there will be no more children (i.e. Son’s) of “allah”, from here on out.

Sura 112 never once denies that “allah” had a Son in the past.

And…

Sure enough, 4.171 confirms that he did indeed have a Son.

and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.

False.

Every time the authors put him in the plural is because he is attempting to emulate the concept of the Holy Trinity as found in the Holy Bible.

 

[Gremlins]

[/size][/font]

Show us a classic source which calls-out this specific word to be nominative.

Alternatively, how about you explain why the accusative marker -a(n) is not present in tanzi:lu, but the nominative -u(n) is?

Plural of Majesty never existed in the Ancient Near East (ANE).

This includes Arabia.

If you're so keen on references, would you like to provide a reference for that?

We already provided our completely verifiable references for this word to be defined as a verbal noun in the accusative case.

You have yet to even show even one reference which even mentions the word in question.

Tanzi:lu is not accusative, and even if it were, the Classical Arabic accusative marks the direct object of a verb, or the agent of a verb if followed by one of the sisters of inna.

Oxford is a modern Arabic dictionary complete with the artificially added diacritical markings.

You don’t study the written classic Arabic with a modern Arabic dictionary.

You cannot even use it to reference the word in question.

It's a dictionary of اللغة العربية الفصحى
That means it uses virtually the same grammar, vocabulary, and syntax as Qur'anic Arabic.

Show some respect…

You still haven't actually said whether you can speak Arabic or not. Judging by the fact you don't understand how the grammar works, I'm going to go with 'not'.

 

[ApplePie7]

Alternatively, how about you explain why the accusative marker -a(n) is not present in tanzi:lu, but the nominative -u(n) is?

So…

Not only did Oxford let you down…but not google also let you down…

If you're so keen on references, would you like to provide a reference for that?

Done.

Perhaps you should actually read through this thread before responding to it….yes?

Tanzi:lu is not accusative, and even if it were, the Classical Arabic accusative marks the direct object of a verb, or the agent of a verb if followed by one of the sisters of inna.

Still waiting for your verifiable classic reference.
Where is it?

It's a dictionary of اللغة العربية الفصحى
That means it uses virtually the same grammar, vocabulary, and syntax as Qur'anic Arabic.

False.
Anyone even remotely familiar with classic Arabic is cognizant that you don’t study it with the Modern Arabic dictionaries that you are using.
Classic Arabic was completely devoid of diacritical markings – which were only artificially added at a much later date.

You still haven't actually said whether you can speak Arabic or not. Judging by the fact you don't understand how the grammar works, I'm going to go with 'not'.

And here you are still worrying about the colloquial aspects of Modern Arabic…when the subject matter revolves around the extinct written form of ancient Arabic.

Further, you still are unable to even show even one….single…solitary reference for the word in question….the word that you have built your entire argument around.

Is it safe to say that you have wasted your $ on dictionaries that are worthless for classic Arabic…and that now you are left with no argument whatsoever…?

 

[Bookofknowledge]

A kinder word than “plagiarized” is copied….or borrowed…and that is exactly what the authors of the Koran did…

If this is Truth, then you should be ashamed not to follow the teachings of Islam & Qur'aan.

 

[ApplePie7]

If this is Truth, then you should be ashamed not to follow the teachings of Islam & Qur'aan.

As admitted by the authors of the Koran, its collective contents are merely paraphrased and re-translated Biblical Hebrew and Greek scripture that has been repackaged for Islamic consumption.

Knowing this, why would anyone want to follow a convoluted copy when the true word of God, (i.e. the Holy Bible), is available?

The authors of the Koran never once state that their opus was divinely inspired. Not once out of thousands of ayahs….not once out of 114 suras.

However, they repeatedly state the Holy Bible to be divinely inspired.

If you want the complete picture you must refer to the source of the Koran, the Holy Bible.




Btw….the term “Muhammad” never appears in the Arabic of your sig…