Quote:

Daughter disputes Muslim will that gave brothers twice as much     by: Caroline Overington     From: The Australian     March 14, 2012 12:00AM THE Supreme Court of the ACT has stepped into a bitter dispute over whether a devout Muslim's three sons should each inherit twice as much as her daughters on the grounds that "one boy is equal to two girls". The case, known as Omari v Omari, involves Mustapha and Mohamed Omari, who want their mother's estate divided according to Islamic law, under which they would inherit one full share for every half-share given to their sisters. One of those sisters, Fatma Omari, objects, saying it is Australian law, not Islamic law, that must apply, meaning all the children would get the same amount from their mother's estate regardless of gender. [...] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/daughter-disputes-muslim-will-that-gave-brothers-twice-as-much/story-e6frg97x-1226298689720

Muslims usually apply Islamic law first then the host country's law second. Now all of a sudden it's Australian law that matters.

salad in wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Quote: Daughter disputes Muslim will that gave brothers twice as much     by: Caroline Overington     From: The Australian     March 14, 2012 12:00AM THE Supreme Court of the ACT has stepped into a bitter dispute over whether a devout Muslim's three sons should each inherit twice as much as her daughters on the grounds that "one boy is equal to two girls". The case, known as Omari v Omari, involves Mustapha and Mohamed Omari, who want their mother's estate divided according to Islamic law, under which they would inherit one full share for every half-share given to their sisters. One of those sisters, Fatma Omari, objects, saying it is Australian law, not Islamic law, that must apply, meaning all the children would get the same amount from their mother's estate regardless of gender. [...] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/daughter-disputes-muslim-will-that-gave-brothers-twice-as-much/story-e6frg97x-1226298689720 Muslims usually apply Islamic law first then the host country's law second. Now all of a sudden it's Australian law that matters.

This question should be easy to resolve/answer, depending upon how any particular individual answers this question;

If Fatma Omari lives in Australia, is she protected by Australian law, OR, [because she is, presumably, a moslem living in Australia] is she protected by ISLAMIC law ???

If she is protected [in Australia] by ISLAMIC law, then ISLAMIC law must apply.

And vice-versa.

Surely ???

I would hope that Australian law will tell her that it's none of her dam business how much her mother left her in comparison to her brothers.  A persons dying wishes should be respected, and not subject to contest by money-grubbing ingrates.

... wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

I would hope that Australian law will tell her that it's none of her dam business how much her mother left her in comparison to her brothers. A persons dying wishes should be respected, and not subject to contest by money-grubbing ingrates.

Exactly so.

salad in wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Quote: THE Supreme Court of the ACT has stepped into a bitter dispute over whether a devout Muslim's three sons should each inherit twice as much as her daughters on the grounds that "one boy is equal to two girls". http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/daughter-disputes-muslim-will-that-gave-brothers-twice-as-much/story-e6frg97x-1226298689720

This statement is incorrect. A son is not equal to two girls. Islam gives men a larger inheritance because it has give men greatwer responsibilities. Men are required by islamic law to provide financially for their wives and children women. Women do not have this obligation under Islamic law.


salad in wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Muslims usually apply Islamic law first then the host country's law second. Now all of a sudden it's Australian law that matters.

Yadda you would conmplain if a Muslim wanted to use Islamic law. It is a bit hypiocritical of you to complain when someone doesn't want to use it.

... wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

I would hope that Australian law will tell her that it's none of her dam business how much her mother left her in comparison to her brothers.  A persons dying wishes should be respected, and not subject to contest by money-grubbing ingrates.

Yep.

My view is a will was made so its game over.

We should look at a verse in the Quran to see if this nonsense is justified.

It is a little confusing so that must be the eloquence of the Quran.
http://quran.com/4/11
Read all translations by ticking boxes.

Falah-
Did Allah make a mathematical error wth this verse?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html
It appears he did,so much for perfection in the Quran.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

My view is a will was made so its game over. We should look at a verse in the Quran to see if this nonsense is justified. It is a little confusing so that must be the eloquence of the Quran. http://quran.com/4/11 Read all translations by ticking boxes. Falah- Did Allah make a mathematical error wth this verse? http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html It appears he did,so much for perfection in the Quran.

Not sure why you persist with translations which I already said contain mistakes or lack a proper understanding of the nuances of the Arabic language.

Even if you have competent translators you will often find that they will come up with different translations.

Why are all these Bible translations different?

[/quote]
English Standard Version (©2001)
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

International Standard Version (©2008)
because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, thus The Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Just as Jonah was in the belly of a huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

http://bible.cc/matthew/12-40.htm
[/quote]

So what was it a fish, a huge fish, a great fish, sea creature, a sea monster, or a whale?



Here is the verse of the Quran translated in a clear manner:

11. God commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females; if (there are) only daughters, two or more, their share is two thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is half. For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers or (sisters), the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies he may have bequeathed or debts. You know not which of them, whether your parents or your children, are nearest to you in benefit, (these fixed shares) are ordained by God. And God is Ever All-Knower, All-Wise.

12. In that which your wives leave, your share is a half if they have no child; but if they leave a child, you get a fourth of that which they leave after payment of legacies that they may have bequeathed or debts. In that which you leave, their (your wives) share is a fourth if you leave no child; but if you leave a child, they get an eighth of that which you leave after payment of legacies that you may have bequeathed or debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of lagacies he (or she) may have bequeathed or debts, so that no loss is caused (to anyone). This is a Commandment from God; and God is Ever All-Knowing, Most-Forbearing.

An-Nisa' v.11-12

falah wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14th, 2012 at 1:24pm: My view is a will was made so its game over. We should look at a verse in the Quran to see if this nonsense is justified. It is a little confusing so that must be the eloquence of the Quran. http://quran.com/4/11 Read all translations by ticking boxes. Falah- Did Allah make a mathematical error wth this verse? http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i001.html It appears he did,so much for perfection in the Quran. Not sure why you persist with translations which I already said contain mistakes or lack a proper understanding of the nuances of the Arabic language. Even if you have competent translators you will often find that they will come up with different translations. Here is the verse of the Quran translated 11. God commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females; if (there are) only daughters, two or more, their share is two thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is half. For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers or (sisters), the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies he may have bequeathed or debts. You know not which of them, whether your parents or your children, are nearest to you in benefit, (these fixed shares) are ordained by God. And God is Ever All-Knower, All-Wise. 12. In that which your wives leave, your share is a half if they have no child; but if they leave a child, you get a fourth of that which they leave after payment of legacies that they may have bequeathed or debts. In that which you leave, their (your wives) share is a fourth if you leave no child; but if you leave a child, they get an eighth of that which you leave after payment of legacies that you may have bequeathed or debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of lagacies he (or she) may have bequeathed or debts, so that no loss is caused (to anyone). This is a Commandment from God; and God is Ever All-Knowing, Most-Forbearing. An-Nisa' v.11-12

Do you expect us to believe Pickthal-Yusef Ali-Shakir-Muhsin Khan -etc all got the translation wrong with every verse and you with Arabic as a second language are the only one to get it right?

Why dont you contact Quran.com and point out their many errors?

I suppose this verse would be OK in your opinion -
http://quran.com/39/28

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

Do you expect us to believe Pickthal-Yusef Ali-Shakir-Muhsin Khan -etc all got the translation wrong with every verse and you with Arabic as a second language are the only one to get it right?

Do you realise that all the translators that you mention also have Arabic as a second language? Those translators are Anglish, Afghani and Indians. Do you think that somehow because I am Australian, I could not learn Arabic as well or better than them? Sad to see that you have such a poor opinion of Australians.

I have a university degree in Arabic, they do not. I am an English native-speaker, only Pickthall can lay also lay claim to that.

Of all the tranlsaters you mentioned, non have Arabic as their first language, none have university degrees in Arabic. Only Pickthall has English as his first language.

Therefore, I am just as qualified, if not more so, than any of the translators you mentioned.

university degrees in arabic?  Really?

Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification".

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

university degrees in arabic?  Really? Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification".

What a stupid thing to say, Wesley. A degree in Arabic is hardly worthless. Neither is a degree in gender studies.

Just because they don't interest you, doesn't make them irrelevant.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: university degrees in arabic?  Really? Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification". What a stupid thing to say, Wesley. A degree in Arabic is hardly worthless. Neither is a degree in gender studies. Just because they don't interest you, doesn't make them irrelevant.

I note you didn't say why they are useful.

I think we both know why.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: university degrees in arabic?  Really? Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification". What a stupid thing to say, Wesley. A degree in Arabic is hardly worthless. Neither is a degree in gender studies. Just because they don't interest you, doesn't make them irrelevant.

Boy-Penis, Girl-Vagina. Congratulations you now have a PhD

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 5:48pm: ... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: university degrees in arabic?  Really? Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification". What a stupid thing to say, Wesley. A degree in Arabic is hardly worthless. Neither is a degree in gender studies. Just because they don't interest you, doesn't make them irrelevant. Boy-Penis, Girl-Vagina. Congratulations you now have a PhD

That's sex not gender. Perhaps you need to return to high school.

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

university degrees in arabic?  Really?

Given that Arabic is one of the most pristinely preserved ancient languages, it's quite obvious why it is of interest for study by various universities around the world.

In fact other languages like Hebrew, Aramaic etc. which are required for many ancient texts are not even fully understandable without a strong knowledge of Arabic.

falah wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Of all the tranlsaters you mentioned, non have Arabic as their first language, none have university degrees in Arabic. Only Pickthall has English as his first language.

And why is that?
Because, as Charley don't surf, Arabs don't translate the Koran.
The great golden age of Arab translation of ancient texts in the High Middle Ages was done by people like the translators listed: convert (mainly from Christianity and Judaism) non-Arabs who were unhindered by the self-conceit of Arabs about their language and especially about the absolute divinity of the Koran.

Practically nothing is translated into Arabic, compared to what is translated into even the smallest of European languages.

Arabic studies is in effect koranic studies, with a bit of sufi poetry and the 1001 Nights thrown in, if you are lucky. Arabic is useless unless you want to learn the Koran and read koranic commentaries. There is nothing else in Arabic worth learning. And the value of that (Koranic studies) is doubtful on the scale it is done in Arabic countries. An Egyptian university degree is worthless, even in Egypt.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:11pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:06pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 5:48pm: ... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: university degrees in arabic?  Really? Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification". What a stupid thing to say, Wesley. A degree in Arabic is hardly worthless. Neither is a degree in gender studies. Just because they don't interest you, doesn't make them irrelevant. Boy-Penis, Girl-Vagina. Congratulations you now have a PhD That's sex not gender. Perhaps you need to return to high school.

Still about as simple as that.. Dark skin - Black, White Skin - White etc..

You're a bit of an idiot, aren't you?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:11pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:06pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 5:48pm: ... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: university degrees in arabic?  Really? Looks like gender studies and surf science have some competition for the title of "worlds most useless qualification". What a stupid thing to say, Wesley. A degree in Arabic is hardly worthless. Neither is a degree in gender studies. Just because they don't interest you, doesn't make them irrelevant. Boy-Penis, Girl-Vagina. Congratulations you now have a PhD That's sex not gender. Perhaps you need to return to high school.

Perhaps you do too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oX39vt88S4

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: university degrees in arabic?  Really? Given that Arabic is one of the most pristinely preserved ancient languages, it's quite obvious why it is of interest for study by various universities around the world. In fact other languages like Hebrew, Aramaic etc. which are required for many ancient texts are not even fully understandable without a strong knowledge of Arabic.

Oh I undersatnd the value of languages, but not as a degree in themselves.  Knwoing arabic coudl be handy as a unit or 2, as part of something greater, but theres no need to fluff out a night-school course into more than it needs to be. 

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

And why is that? Because, as Charley don't surf, Arabs don't translate the Koran.

Truthful as ever. The Qur'an was translated into other languages since the dawn of Islam. It wasn't an area of focus though, as most people adopted Arabic as their language.


Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Practically nothing is translated into Arabic, compared to what is translated into even the smallest of European languages.

Given that most of their university books are translations of English university texts, I'd have to say again.. your pants are clearly on fire here.

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:17pm:

Oh I undersatnd the value of languages, but not as a degree in themselves.  Knwoing arabic coudl be handy as a unit or 2, as part of something greater, but theres no need to fluff out a night-school course into more than it needs to be.

Arabic language is a science in itself.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:17pm: Oh I undersatnd the value of languages, but not as a degree in themselves.  Knwoing arabic coudl be handy as a unit or 2, as part of something greater, but theres no need to fluff out a night-school course into more than it needs to be.  Arabic language is a science in itself.

That could be said of every language.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:17pm: Oh I undersatnd the value of languages, but not as a degree in themselves.  Knwoing arabic coudl be handy as a unit or 2, as part of something greater, but theres no need to fluff out a night-school course into more than it needs to be.  Arabic language is a science in itself.

It's as close a thing to science as arabs have given us, granted.  but no, by western standards it's not a science in itself.

arabic is difficult language to understand,, you know i has been teached arabic too and so is make lfe hard at first,,

You know that English is not easy to learn too

back to the topic ...........

Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”

Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:45pm: And why is that? Because, as Charley don't surf, Arabs don't translate the Koran. Truthful as ever. The Qur'an was translated into other languages since the dawn of Islam. It wasn't an area of focus though, as most people adopted Arabic as their language. Soren wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Practically nothing is translated into Arabic, compared to what is translated into even the smallest of European languages. Given that most of their university books are translations of English university texts, I'd have to say again.. your pants are clearly on fire here.

Soooo..... how many Arab do you know of who have  learned a Western language and translated the Koran into that western language?

Re university books - you damn the Arabs with faint praise: they can't even write their own university text book. After all that golden Age of Flowering Learning and Openness to new Ideas and so forth. Bollocks.

ALL the classics of Arabic literature are translated into a dozen western languages. How many of the classics of western literature are translated into Arabic AND read by Arabs? Two. Or three. And not just because most Arabic speakers are STILL illiterate.
Islam is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Arabs (and Malaysians and Pakis and Indonesian). It made opening their minds impossible without apostasy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:51pm:

back to the topic ........... Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.” Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"

Your referencing is incorrect.

Anyway I found the the quote, and Bukhari says it was not said by Prophet Muhammed, God's peace and blessing upon him. The quote was not even said by a Muslim. It was said by Christians.

It was the Christian advisors to Christian Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius, and his Christian priests who said "kill all the Jews".

In fact the Christians said:"Just Issue orders to kill every Jew present in the country."

The context of this is that the during the time of Prophet Muhammed, the Byzantine Emperor had dream about the circumcised people conquering his empire:


"...while (Emperor) Heraclius was visiting Jerusalem, he got up in the morning with a sad mood. Some of his priests asked him why he was in that mood? Heraclius was a foreteller and an astrologer. He replied, "At night when I looked at the stars, I saw that the leader of those who practice circumcision had appeared (become the conqueror). Who are they who practice circumcision?" The people replied, "Except the Jews nobody practices circumcision, so you should not be afraid of them (Jews). Just Issue orders to kill every Jew present in the country."...

Book #1, Hadith #6



As for the hadeeth mentioning "terror" it is a reference to the terror that God put in men's hearts.

I have the book 'The Authentic of the Bukhari' in front of me. Bukhari says that the "terror" is a reference to the verse in the Quran:


Quote:

..."We (God) shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with God, for which He had sent no authority (to do so); their abode will be the Fire (of Hell) and how evil is the abode of the wrongdoers (in Hell)" [The Family of Imran (Jesus' grandfather), v.151] Narrated Abu Huraira: God's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: God's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Now explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wwaUB7Fgo

Lie

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:48pm: ... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:17pm: Oh I undersatnd the value of languages, but not as a degree in themselves.  Knwoing arabic coudl be handy as a unit or 2, as part of something greater, but theres no need to fluff out a night-school course into more than it needs to be.  Arabic language is a science in itself. That could be said of every language.

Not really. English for instance is a hodge podge of a language that doesn't seem to follow much of a system at all. It's just all sorts of stuff flung together and presented as a language.

Arabic on the other hand is all based on harmonious systems that function within a strict and predictable framework, much like any scientific system does.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:26pm:

arabic is difficult language to understand,, you know i has been teached arabic too and so is make lfe hard at first

Arabic is not difficult to understand. In fact once you master the systems of the language it becomes very easy to understand, as you can predict what things will mean.

You probably just consider it as such, coming from a Hebrew speaking background, because Hebrew is basically just a dumbed down 'creole' version of Arabic. Hebrew 4000+ years ago would've been much like Arabic, but over the years it became extremely corrupted and lost much of its complexity.

In fact much of Hebrew actually sounds like a European child or someone with a speech impediment trying to speak Arabic.

As an example, the word for "you" in the Semitic languages is "anta", but in Hebrew it has become "atta" like someone with a swollen tongue is trying their darnedest to say "anta", but just can't get it out.

This phenomena appears all throughout Hebrew with words like
pig: khunzeer -> khuzeer
nose: anf -> af
girl: bint -> bat

(The first word in each pair is the original Semitic/Arabic, pronunciation, the second word is the Hebrew corruption)

To say the second word in each pair, one merely has to contort their mouth like they have a speech impediment and it will produce the Hebrew corruption.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:55pm:

Lie

So rabbis tell lies about their religion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wwaUB7Fgo

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 10:40pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:06pm: abu_rashid wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:48pm: ... wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:17pm: Oh I undersatnd the value of languages, but not as a degree in themselves.  Knwoing arabic coudl be handy as a unit or 2, as part of something greater, but theres no need to fluff out a night-school course into more than it needs to be.  Arabic language is a science in itself. That could be said of every language. Not really. English for instance is a hodge podge of a language that doesn't seem to follow much of a system at all. It's just all sorts of stuff flung together and presented as a language.

Rubbish.
English has strict grammatical rules; requires subject, predicate (verb and its modifiers), and object; each must grammatically agree with the other.
It also accommodates analogy, metaphor, abstract reasoning, comparison, contrast, and exegesis etc. etc. 


Quote:

abu wrote Arabic on the other hand is all based on harmonious systems that function within a strict and predictable framework, much like any scientific system does.

Now let's unpack this. (Although I am not expecting an answer, not a detailed one anyway).
What is a "Harmonious system" and what is a "scientific system"?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:17pm:

Rubbish. English has strict grammatical rules; requires subject, predicate (verb and its modifiers), and object; each must grammatically agree with the other.

I wouldn't call English rules of grammar strict. Firstly half of the Germanic features like case system, gender etc. have all but disappeared from the language. Also for each rule in English, there's usually about 30 odd exceptions to the rule. It's really a nightmare for non-native speakers to learn, for this very reason. Even as children in school we all had so much pain from all the different exceptions to rules. English simply doesn't follow the rules much of the time.

And the phonology of English is just atrocious, hence examples like "ghoti".

The fact is, that English was forged in a land that was under constant waves of conquests, and that's why the language is so bastardised with each and every wave of conquerors adding and subtracting from the language. In fact only about 1/4 of the vocabulary of English is actually originally Germanic, and even much of that was probably re-borrowed from other Germanic languages rather than being directly inherited from older forms of English.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:17pm:

It also accommodates analogy, metaphor, abstract reasoning, comparison, contrast, and exegesis etc. etc.

The nett effect of this sentence is: "English is a language". There's few languages that don't accommodate such concepts.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:17pm:

Now let's unpack this. (Although I am not expecting an answer, not a detailed one anyway). What is a "Harmonious system" and what is a "scientific system"?

Ok a few starting points.

All Arabic vocabulary is based on verbal roots, which usually consist of 3 radicals (sometimes more). Pretty much every other kind of word can be derived from these roots by applying systematic patterns to them. For example:

The root k-t-b which relates to the concept of writing can be configured into the following patterns to produce the following meanings:

kataba (3rd. person singular complete verb, simplest form of the root, 'he wrote')
maktab (location the action is carried out, ie an office, or place of writing)
kaatib (active participle, the one who writes, or author)
maktoub (passive participle, that which is written, or prescribed)
kitaab (a book)
maktabah (library)

and so on. Now I can use those patterns to apply to other roots and instantly determine their meaning. for example the root j-l-s which relates to the concept of sitting:

jalasa (same Ca-Ca-Ca pattern, 3rd. person singular complete verb, 'he sat')
majlis (location of sitting, ie. a gathering, a parliament, a sitting session or meeting)
jaalis (a sitter, the one who sits, active participle)

and so on.

In English you might find sporadic cases that such a systematic system of morphology exists, but it's nowhere near as consistent and reliable as in Arabic.

Arabic also has a case system, it has grammatical gender, 3 grammatical numbers and many other grammatical features English simply does not have anymore, because it lost them when it mixed with other languages.

Anyway, if you're truly interested in this, you should study the language for yourself and see. I'm not stating Arabic is the only language with such features, Latin & German from the European languages also share many of these traits, but English is like the "dogs' breakfast" of languages, it's all over the shop, and anyone who thinks other wise simply doesn't know much about languages.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:26pm: arabic is difficult language to understand,, you know i has been teached arabic too and so is make lfe hard at first Arabic is not difficult to understand. In fact once you master the systems of the language it becomes very easy to understand, as you can predict what things will mean. You probably just consider it as such, coming from a Hebrew speaking background, because Hebrew is basically just a dumbed down 'creole' version of Arabic. Hebrew 4000+ years ago would've been much like Arabic, but over the years it became extremely corrupted and lost much of its complexity. In fact much of Hebrew actually sounds like a European child or someone with a speech impediment trying to speak Arabic. As an example, the word for "you" in the Semitic languages is "anta", but in Hebrew it has become "atta" like someone with a swollen tongue is trying their darnedest to say "anta", but just can't get it out. This phenomena appears all throughout Hebrew with words like pig: khunzeer -> khuzeer nose: anf -> af girl: bint -> bat (The first word in each pair is the original Semitic/Arabic, pronunciation, the second word is the Hebrew corruption) To say the second word in each pair, one merely has to contort their mouth like they have a speech impediment and it will produce the Hebrew corruption.

You make Hebrew to be a childs language which is not true.

Hebrew is very traditional language and complexity too,,

see who the original bibles is written in

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:42pm:

English simply doesn't follow the rules much of the time.

That must really irritate your Germanic Muslim heart - 'rules must be obeyed at all times'.
;)

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:58am:

You make Hebrew to be a childs language

Actually you and your ancestors did that, I'm just pointing it out.


Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:58am:

which is not true.

I think you know it's true. Any Hebrew speaker who learns a little Arabic, could not help but realise his own language is a really dumbed down version of Arabic.


Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:58am:

Hebrew is very traditional language and complexity too,,

Traditional? What exactly is a "traditional" language? Do you mean ancient? Hebrew certainly evolved from an ancient Semitic language like Arabic, but Hebrew today is a very different language which has evolved dramatically.

In fact modern "Israeli" Hebrew sounds more like a European language, because like its speakers, it is a modern re-construction. It is an artificial implant in a world in which it does not belong.


Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:58am:

see who the original bibles is written in

If you heard the original Hebrew of Moshe's time spoken, you'd think he was speaking Arabic, you wouldn't recognise it as Hebrew at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stf-y6jZkYo&feature=related


This my unit colleagues when we welcomes in 2 girls new to unit,, you think is easy language and like a child,, come please,,,,,,,,,,

This is very happy occasion and welcoming time for the girls

Not quite sure what the video's supposing to prove...

I did note the girl sounds more like she's speaking French or some northern European language than a Semitic Middle Eastern language though. Thanks.

It has show things,,
1, is we nice happy unit not child kill people's you try to say
2, you see the modern Hebrew we speak , is mide east language

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Not quite sure what the video's supposing to prove... I did note the girl sounds more like she's speaking French or some northern European language than a Semitic Middle Eastern language though. Thanks.

Girl with long hair is original from north Europa country this is why she has Hebrew with this way,,

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:17pm: Rubbish. English has strict grammatical rules; requires subject, predicate (verb and its modifiers), and object; each must grammatically agree with the other. I wouldn't call English rules of grammar strict. Firstly half of the Germanic features like case system, gender etc. have all but disappeared from the language. Also for each rule in English, there's usually about 30 odd exceptions to the rule. It's really a nightmare for non-native speakers to learn, for this very reason. Even as children in school we all had so much pain from all the different exceptions to rules. English simply doesn't follow the rules much of the time. And the phonology of English is just atrocious, hence examples like "ghoti". The fact is, that English was forged in a land that was under constant waves of conquests, and that's why the language is so bastardised with each and every wave of conquerors adding and subtracting from the language. In fact only about 1/4 of the vocabulary of English is actually originally Germanic, and even much of that was probably re-borrowed from other Germanic languages rather than being directly inherited from older forms of English. Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:17pm: It also accommodates analogy, metaphor, abstract reasoning, comparison, contrast, and exegesis etc. etc.  The nett effect of this sentence is: "English is a language". There's few languages that don't accommodate such concepts. Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:17pm: Now let's unpack this. (Although I am not expecting an answer, not a detailed one anyway). What is a "Harmonious system" and what is a "scientific system"? Ok a few starting points. All Arabic vocabulary is based on verbal roots, which usually consist of 3 radicals (sometimes more). Pretty much every other kind of word can be derived from these roots by applying systematic patterns to them. For example: The root k-t-b which relates to the concept of writing can be configured into the following patterns to produce the following meanings: kataba (3rd. person singular complete verb, simplest form of the root, 'he wrote') maktab (location the action is carried out, ie an office, or place of writing) kaatib (active participle, the one who writes, or author) maktoub (passive participle, that which is written, or prescribed) kitaab (a book) maktabah (library) and so on. Now I can use those patterns to apply to other roots and instantly determine their meaning. for example the root j-l-s which relates to the concept of sitting: jalasa (same Ca-Ca-Ca pattern, 3rd. person singular complete verb, 'he sat') majlis (location of sitting, ie. a gathering, a parliament, a sitting session or meeting) jaalis (a sitter, the one who sits, active participle) and so on. In English you might find sporadic cases that such a systematic system of morphology exists, but it's nowhere near as consistent and reliable as in Arabic. Arabic also has a case system, it has grammatical gender, 3 grammatical numbers and many other grammatical features English simply does not have anymore, because it lost them when it mixed with other languages. Anyway, if you're truly interested in this, you should study the language for yourself and see. I'm not stating Arabic is the only language with such features, Latin & German from the European languages also share many of these traits, but English is like the "dogs' breakfast" of languages, it's all over the shop, and anyone who thinks other wise simply doesn't know much about languages.

Firstly, English sentences do have strict grammatical rules; each sentence must have a subject, verb, and object. If it's missing any of these it's called a "fragment," not a sentence. The syntax also has to be correct for it to make sense.

Secondly, all languages morph over time. English has morphed more than most because of various external influences. Arabic would also have morphed over time and never would have been stagnate. But given Arabic's less tumultuous history, this would be why Arabic may seem more "harmonious;" but this in no way makes it a more "scientific" language. Words, regardless of the language, are metaphors or abstractions used to describe a "thing." It's hugely debatable whether one language gets closer to the noumena because it's rarely proven that noumenal characterizations exist. And, ironically, the English natural philosophers and scientists are the ones more willing to place down noumenal scientific claims.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:42pm:

Anyway, if you're truly interested in this, you should study the language for yourself and see. I'm not stating Arabic is the only language with such features, Latin & German from the European languages also share many of these traits, but English is like the "dogs' breakfast" of languages, it's all over the shop, and anyone who thinks other wise simply doesn't know much about languages.

English therefore reflects the world much better than some silly, rigid language that is hellbent on rules despite the evidence of the world's fluidity.

English allows people, all sorts of people, to dwell in it.  Language expresses you, not the other way around. "Language is the house of Being.  In its home man dwells."  You, bearded numpty, dwell in English, NOT Arabic.

Some people can spin anything as positive.  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Some people can spin anything as positive.  ;D

like Islam?

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:42pm: Anyway, if you're truly interested in this, you should study the language for yourself and see. I'm not stating Arabic is the only language with such features, Latin & German from the European languages also share many of these traits, but English is like the "dogs' breakfast" of languages, it's all over the shop, and anyone who thinks other wise simply doesn't know much about languages. English therefore reflects the world much better than some silly, rigid language that is hellbent on rules despite the evidence of the world's fluidity. English allows people, all sorts of people, to dwell in it.  Language expresses you, not the other way around. "Language is the house of Being.  In its home man dwells."  You, bearded numpty, dwell in English, NOT Arabic.

My friend, you are clearly a member of the Faculty, no?

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Some people can spin anything as positive.  ;D

That's a shiteating grin, rashid - you think and speak in english. Don't knock it until you can exists outside it. You do not now.

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:06pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Some people can spin anything as positive.  ;D That's a shiteating grin, rashid - you think and speak in english. Don't knock it until you can exists outside it. You do not now.

Unlike you though, I possess the integrity to say something is wrong even if it's my own.

You on the other hand worship anything that derives from Western (and specifically English) culture because you perceive it to be dominant and therefore superior.

Quote:

Unlike you though, I possess the integrity to say something is wrong even if it's my own.

Like Islam's stance on rape and slavery?

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:33am:

Like Islam's stance on rape and slavery?

fd, you've been answered on these topics several times in the past, your continual niggling for new little discrepancies you *think* you can use against Islam is just pathetic, really. Grow up.

The situation that we can see in Africa from Muslims shows they are responsible for terrible behaviour to women and rape girls,,
They say raped and is accuse of lies and killed,,

Shame Islam!!

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 12:55am:

Soren wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 10:06pm: abu_rashid wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Some people can spin anything as positive.  ;D That's a shiteating grin, rashid - you think and speak in english. Don't knock it until you can exists outside it. You do not now. Unlike you though, I possess the integrity to say something is wrong even if it's my own. You on the other hand worship anything that derives from Western (and specifically English) culture because you perceive it to be dominant and therefore superior.

I can't help noticing that you, like me, also prefer life in English, linguistially as well as politically, even though you, unlike me, haven't got a single good thing to say about it when compared to the Arabic language  and Islamic society. You pretend to be somehow trapped by circumstances in some sort of oppressive Anglo gulag, unable to break out and move to your heart's homeland where at last you would be able to breath the pure air of Islam.
This makes you ridiculous.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:33am: Like Islam's stance on rape and slavery? fd, you've been answered on these topics several times in the past, your continual niggling for new little discrepancies you *think* you can use against Islam is just pathetic, really. Grow up.

It is not a 'discrepancy' Abu. Islam permits rape and sex slavery. And you are incapable of criticising it, or even calling it for what it is, because you cannot bring yourself to criticise Islam.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:03am:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 9:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:33am: Like Islam's stance on rape and slavery? fd, you've been answered on these topics several times in the past, your continual niggling for new little discrepancies you *think* you can use against Islam is just pathetic, really. Grow up. It is not a 'discrepancy' Abu. Islam permits rape and sex slavery. And you are incapable of criticising it, or even calling it for what it is, because you cannot bring yourself to criticise Islam.

Freediver, don't you get sick of lying? You have made this claim many times, but have yet to demonstrate exactly where Islam permits rape.

Provide proof or be proven for the liar that you are.

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

I can't help noticing that you, like me, also prefer life in English, linguistially as well as politically, even though you, unlike me, haven't got a single good thing to say about it when compared to the Arabic language  and Islamic society. You pretend to be somehow trapped by circumstances in some sort of oppressive Anglo gulag, unable to break out and move to your heart's homeland where at last you would be able to breath the pure air of Islam. This makes you ridiculous.

I don't particularly prefer English,  I was simply raised speaking it. I think you're confusing circumstance with choice. Not the only thing you've confused here I might add.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:03am:

Islam permits rape and sex slavery. And you are incapable of criticising it, or even calling it for what it is, because you cannot bring yourself to criticise Islam.

I'm incapable of criticising it, because it's a load of nonsense.

But whatever keeps you happy, keep believing your delusions.

Quote:

Freediver, don't you get sick of lying? You have made this claim many times, but have yet to demonstrate exactly where Islam permits rape.

Your own words have demonstrated this plenty of times Falah. You being unwilling to use the term rape to describe the Islamic practice does not mean it is not rape.