new article - Quranic terms defined
-
I don't know what you are smoking but you need to get off it because we are talking about the mindless formula that you utter. First of all the formula that sectarians parrot is "sala allah alayh wa sallam". You changed it and you decided to parrot your own imagined nonsense of "sala allah alayh wa sallim". You now claim that it should be "salla allah alayh wa sallimu".
You now seem to be a classic idiot so far knowig Arabic is concerned. Put these words in Arabic and see nowhere it has been said by me. My words are the same old ones carrying simple and straight forward meanings for everyone who just understands the abc of Arabic but stupid scholars fail to read or understand these because they are by now blind hearted, hopeless case for any recovery; bye.
-
Peace San,
bye, Mazhar?
you haven't answered this question how do you Salla Nabi?
I think that's on topic with this thread--that's why i keep pushing this. don't go bye bye just yet pleaseHe claims that he does this by uttering some formula everytime a certain name is mentioned. However, he is ignorant of what the formula really means and thus evades to completely translate it into English.
Can anyone of those who understand 3356 to mean that we should utter some formula translate this formula in a way consistent with 3356? I am sure no one can.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace San,
He claims that he does this by uttering some formula everytime a certain name is mentioned. However, he is ignorant of what the formula really means and thus evades to completely translate it into English.
Can anyone of those who understand 3356 to mean that we should utter some formula translate this formula in a way consistent with 3356? I am sure no one can.
Peace,
Ayman
well, sir, i'd like Mazhar's opinion directly from him as well -- we sort of have an "unfinished business"..
Peace,
-
Peace San,
well, sir, i'd like Mazhar's opinion directly from him as well -- we sort of have an "unfinished business"..
Good luck then since getting the formula's translation out of him is like pulling teeth.
There are hundreds of millions of people who utter the formula. Any of them should be able to provide a translation. Whether the translation is in line with 3356 is another matter. This is why Mazhar is evasive.
At any rate, this is not about Mazahar or me. It is about exposing the fact that mechanically uttering a certain formula is not what is meant by 3356. Moreover, the formula itself being uttered is not in line with 3356.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
You now seem to be a classic idiot so far knowig Arabic is concerned. Put these words in Arabic and see nowhere it has been said by me. My words are the same old ones carrying simple and straight forward meanings for everyone who just understands the abc of Arabic but stupid scholars fail to read or understand these because they are by now blind hearted, hopeless case for any recovery; bye.
Then tells us the exact formula uttered by you and translate it so that there is no confusion and misunderstanding.
If you think that your formula is true and corect then why keep it and its meaning as a mystery? Why hide what you believe is the truth? Do you think that I am the only one reading this thread?
Peace,
Ayman
-
(2nd person singular imperative) to him salutations showing obeisance (this is ungrammatical nonsense where there is no tense agreement and the subject is missing for the second verb or it is ungrammatical and blasphemous if the subject is taken as "allah"
Good, atleast you have started bothering about grammer too. Now a little more study and you will understand that in the imperative verb the subject is always built in. It is you who took the subject of verb as "Allah" not anyone else as you put the translation in red in some posts earlier. is imperative command where the subjects are people, the believers and the object is the Messenger. And is imperative command to individual, one believer, one listener, individual reader who is reading the text.
-
Peace Mazhar,
Good, atleast you have started bothering about grammer too. Now a little more study and you will understand that in the imperative verb the subject is always built in. It is you who took the subject of verb as "Allah" not anyone else as you put the translation in red in some posts earlier. is imperative command where the subjects are people, the believers and the object is the Messenger. And is imperative command to individual, one believer, one listener, individual reader who is reading the text.
This is false. The subject for the imperative is not always built in. This is why in 3356, the subject for both the imperative verbs "sallu" and "sallimu" is given as
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.104a.gif
which you translated as the following subject O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative,
So for there is in fact a separate subject and it is not "built in" as you imagine. This is why you can't translate your formula "sala allah alayh wa sallim" into English since it would expose your formula as ungrammatical nonsense. Notice that you didn't object to my translation, which is in fact ungrammatical
Allah sent blessings, help, approval, to him and submit to him salutations showing obeisance
Two points
-
You didn't object to my translation but only objected to my comments on the translation where I explain why it is ungrammatical. So you seem to be the only one in the world who thinks that the above sentence is grammatical. In fact, I guarantee that you can't translate your formula into English while not turning it into ungrammatical nonsense without inserting a subject. If you disagree then go ahead and translate your formula for us.
-
Another question is, why did you change the standard Sunni formula from "wa sallam" (which is at least grammatical) into "wa sallim" (which renders the formula ungrammatical)? Sectarians Arabs might be misguided but at least they can tell when something is ungrammatical.
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
So for there is in fact a separate subject and it is not "built in" as you imagine.
Peace Mazhar,
This is false. The subject for the imperative is not always built in. This is why in 3356, the subject for both the imperative verbs "sallu" and "sallimu" is given as
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.104a.gif
which you translated as the following subject O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative,
So for there is in fact a separate subject and it is not "built in" as you imagine. This is why you can't translate your formula "sala allah alayh wa sallim" into English since it would expose your formula as ungrammatical nonsense. Notice that you didn't object to my translation, which is in fact ungrammatical
Allah sent blessings, help, approval, to him and submit to him salutations showing obeisance
Two points
-
You didn't object to my translation but only objected to my comments on the translation where I explain why it is ungrammatical. So you seem to be the only one in the world who thinks that the above sentence is grammatical. In fact, I guarantee that you can't translate your formula into English while not turning it into ungrammatical nonsense without inserting a subject. If you disagree then go ahead and translate your formula for us.
-
Another question is, why did you change the standard Sunni formula from "wa sallam" (which is at least grammatical) into "wa sallim" (which renders the formula ungrammatical)? Sectarians Arabs might be misguided but at least they can tell when something is ungrammatical.
Peace,
Ayman
Ayman,
What is the problem with you? Why you put such things on the forum which are baseless? Why not you find just about twenty minuties to read about verbs in Arabic?
You are saying subjects of both verbs coming after the above sentence is " " thos who have believed--Do you not know that this is perfect/past verb; third person; plural; masculine. How the subject of third person verb could be the subject of imperative verb, which is always second person? And do you not know the basic lesson of Arabic that the subject comes after the verb and not before the verb? In the subject pronoun is waw in nominative state for second person plural; masculine. Pl Aymen take little time to go through basics which will facilitate discussion if you wish to keep insisting on a baseless premise.
-
-
Peace Mazhar,
What is the problem with you? Why you put such things on the forum which are baseless? Why not you find just about twenty minuties to read about verbs in Arabic?
You are saying subjects of both verbs coming after the above sentence is " " thos who have believed--Do you not know that this is perfect/past verb; third person; plural; masculine. How the subject of third person verb could be the subject of imperative verb, which is always second person? And do you not know the basic lesson of Arabic that the subject comes after the verb and not before the verb? In the subject pronoun is waw in nominative state for second person plural; masculine. Pl Aymen take little time to go through basics which will facilitate discussion if you wish to keep insisting on a baseless premise.I wasn't talking about " " by itself. Can't you read the following?
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.104a.gif
Here is how you tanslated it
O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative,
Can you read the word "you" in your own translation above. Don't you know that "you" is a second person and it is the subject of ""?
Back to your formula. The subject for the imperative needs to be provided whenever there is a change in subject or direction with two additive clauses (separated by and or waw in Arabic) and this is the same in Arabic and English. For example
I cleaned up and you clean up too. (grammatical)
I cleaned up and clean up. (ungrammatical nonsense)
John cooked and you wash the dishes. (not 100% grammatical but at least somewhat understandable)
John cooked and wash the dishes. (ungrammatical nonsense)-
Again, you keep evading the simple task of translating your formula and thereby submitting to the fact that my ungrammatical translation is the proper translation for your ungrammatical formula "salla allah alayh wa sallim".
-
You also evade answering why you don't use the sectarian formula, which is "salla alla alayh wa sallam", and instead you made up your own formula.
There is no discussion without you honestly answering at least one of those points, if not both.
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
Here is how you tanslated it
O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative,
Can you read the word "you" in your own translation above. Don't you know that "you" is a second person and it is the subject of ""?
"Who" is the subject of verb, and before that ther is a vocative particle, which is " ," and then is , the called ones, which is in accusative case and conjoined with it is attention seeking particle called in Arabic . Why are you behaving childishly on a public forum where all are not blind to Arabic?
Why you not understand that subject comes after the verb in Arabic.
Instead of saying, the literal translation "O those who declared to have accepted, listen this imperative", direct translation has been made in keeping with the following verbs. It does not bring forward the subject of later verbs in front.Again my advice, devote some time to learn Arabic.
-
Dear Wakas, Ayman,
Great article and explanation summarizing the terms - I hope it becomes a page summarizing them on WikiPedia or some other God Alone wiki one day.
Thanks again for your contribution in this area - especially your Salat = Bond articles - yes, "Bond" solve the equations of "Salat" context very well.
1821 And like that We made known about them that they might know that God's promise is true and that the Hour there is no doubt in it. When they disputed amongst themselves about their issue, so said "Build over/upon them a building". Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed on their issue said "Surely we will take* (to ourselves) over/upon them a maSJD."
*verb form 8, reflexive.Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse
Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence).
Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "Surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's argument. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque.
Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense.
Lastly, it implies the ones who prevailed had it right, so we must ask ourselves what is the message of this verse? Well, clearly for the people in question God gave them a sign in this story. After this lesson, they disputed, some said "build a building over them" and in-between the other side's argument it says 'Their Lord knows best about them' (also mentioned in subsequent verses), implying their number or who they were is not the point, thus no need for a building, and it is the outcome/lesson of the story that is important, hence it says those who prevailed said "Surely, we will take (to ourselves) an implemented acknowledgement/submission over/upon them". It should be noted that Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", thus those who prevailed got the point and took to themselves an implemented acknowledgement/submission in their memory, i.e. they took a lesson from God in their memory.
Also, in 1822 it says "do not dispute about them except with an argument obvious/apparent", and since The Quran does not clarify their number which seems to be the main dispute, the primary obvious/apparent argument is the lesson of their story, and this is what people should be reminded of. As a minor point, it can also be said that building a Mosque upon them may only serve to revere them and the lesson less so. If so little is known, perhaps a building was not built.
As a side note it is alleged Al Masjid Al Haram in Mecca encloses the grave sites of Ishmael and Hagar.Excellent - thanks so much. I and my fellow God alone thinker also pondered on this a few times in the past - realizing that it should not mean a building since it is already proposed to "build a building over them" - this maSJD seems to solve it well too.
By the way, brother Wakas,Ayman please help summarize your own interpretations of maSJD al aqsa and about its "journey" from the maSJD al haram again in related verses - or add it to the list.
Peace,
Zidane -
Peace Bro Zidane,
Here are my notes
171 Glory be to the One who took His servant by night from al maSJD al haram / the sanctified/restricted implemented SJD to al maSJD al aqsa / the farthest/remote implemented SJD which We have blessed its surroundings that We may show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Listener, the Seer.
172 And We gave Moses the Scripture and We made it a guidance for the Children of Israel "Choose no guardian besides Me."If understood traditionally as a journey to Al Masjid Al Aqsa in Jerusalem by prophet Muhammad, it should be noted that it was not built at the time, thus has been explained away as referring to the area/site. Similarly, it is also debatable whether the traditional Al Masjid Al Haram was built at this time, or if it was it was in a rudimentary stage. However, it is clear from the verse itself the reason for this journey is to be shown some of God's signs/ayatin, implying receiving of revelation. It just so happens that the next verse, connected with "wa", discusses giving Moses the scripture. Further, it could be said "the farthest implemented SJD" would most likely be in the presence of God, and this domain is blessed, therfore seems to allude to the process involved in receiving revelation. It is also in the singular throughout.
It could thus be interpreted as the journey of one's heart/mind/consciousness (possibly at night in one's dream or night vigil) from their present instituting of the acknowledgment or actioning of God's decrees (recall that this can be one's focus/qibla) to the farthest representation of this, i.e. in the presence of God resulting in realisation/receipt of divine guidance.Also see 1790-93 showing Muhammad cannot literally ascend into the heavens.
Interestingly, the traditional story does bear some similarities to the Quranic version, i.e. receiving of divine revelation/guidance, being in the "presence" of God/angels, Moses is present.
NB angels~controllers, forces in control of certain functions/laws.
-
Quote
Also see 1790-93 showing Muhammad cannot literally ascend into the heavens.No such thing is said therein. That is a quote of non believers, and even they have not said this. Please recheck the Arabic text of the Ayat.
I believed Muhamamad is the first astronout..
What? Jesus also ascend to heaven?? Ok Ok.. Muhammad is the second and Jesus is the first astronout.. -
I believed Muhamamad is the first astronout..
What? Jesus also ascend to heaven?? Ok Ok.. Muhammad is the second and Jesus is the first astronout..Before 20th century yours and mine fathers didnt' know even the word astronaut; and that is the quote of Meccans who thought man could go into space.
-
Peace Mazhar,
"Who" is the subject of verb, and before that ther is a vocative particle, which is " ," and then is , the called ones, which is in accusative case and conjoined with it is attention seeking particle called in Arabic . Why are you behaving childishly on a public forum where all are not blind to Arabic?
Why you not understand that subject comes after the verb in Arabic.
Instead of saying, the literal translation "O those who declared to have accepted, listen this imperative", direct translation has been made in keeping with the following verbs. It does not bring forward the subject of later verbs in front.
Again my advice, devote some time to learn Arabic.I can tell that Arabic is not your native tongue and you probably learned Arabic when you were older perhaps in one of those Taliban-style Mosque Madrasahs where they made you memorize a whole bunch of stuff and didn't encourage critical thinking and maybe even spanked you with a stick if you didn't recite properly or questioned authority.
What you are saying about the subject always coming after the verb in Arabic is a mistake that even a 5-year old native Arabic speaker wouldn't make. It can come before or after. There are probably hundreds of examples in the great reading of SVO order. For example, the following sentence has SVO order
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.2a.gifhttp//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.1a.gif
Your ignorance of even basic Arabic outside what you were made to blindly memorize would explain why you still don't have enough intelligence and knowledge to answer the following two simple basic points
-
Povide a translation for your formula "salla allah alayh wa sallim".
-
Why you don't use the sectarian formula, which is "salla alla alayh wa sallam", and instead you made up your own formula?
Peace,
Ayman
-
