Cases of Faṣl: Clause Relations, Complete Disjunction and Complete Connection

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• What is faṣl in rhetorical usage?
• Which conjunction is the central focus in waṣl?
• On what are the six cases of independent clauses based?
• How many of the six cases ordinarily call for faṣl?
• When can waṣl be warranted despite complete disjunction?
• What is the general ruling in complete disjunction without ambiguity?
• What function does māta fulān perform?
• If raḥimahu Allāh is supplicative, what is its rhetorical function?
• Must every past-tense form function as an ordinary report?
• When can two reporting clauses be completely disjoined?
• Can opposition of meanings ever provide a common link?
• Why is faṣl used in complete connection?
• What outward feature is common to complete connection and disjunction?
• Why is faṣl used in complete disjunction?
• What does the second clause do in semantic reinforcement?
• In dhālika al-kitāb lā rayba fīh, what can the latter clause express?
• Which type of lā appears in lā rayba fīh?
• To what does the pronoun in fīh refer?
• Does a shared referent automatically prove complete connection?
• What does hudan lil-muttaqīn principally express?
• What is one grammatical parsing of dhālika al-kitāb?
• What if the opening expression is not parsed as an independent clause?
• Are two reports automatically emphatic if they concern one person?
• Which pair clearly illustrates report versus supplication?
• What is insufficient when deciding whether faṣl is appropriate?
• What generally applies in the intermediate relation between the two extremes?
• Near-complete connection is a resemblance to which extreme?
• What fundamentally distinguishes report from non-report?
• Which method best analyzes a case of faṣl?
• Why can the second clause in complete connection follow without wāw?