Surah : 109 - Al-Kafirun
-
"Rabb" is asking you to say " Kul". HE is not saying it Himself like you are claiming in your explanation.
Peace.Surah 109 2
Peace good logic checked few times this verse again. Am I, missing something no "kul" in this verse or that mater whole of this Sura anywhere, in all Qurans that I have. Please share one where you see it written.
-
Surah 109 2
Peace good logic checked few times this verse again. Am I, missing something no "kul" in this verse or that mater whole of this Sura anywhere, in all Qurans that I have. Please share one where you see it written.
This sentence is the Object of Imperative Verb "Qul", translated by Bk "think and express". This is that which is being expressed in compliance to the command.
-
This sentence is the Object of Imperative Verb "Qul", translated by Bk "think and express". This is that which is being expressed in compliance to the command.
Is above your best answer Brother Mazhar, to the following?
Again incorrect you are thinking based upon your preconceived understanding. Who should or would Rabb need to pray to? Remember this is a message from our Rabb not the messenger. If you believe, it is a message from Rabb. He only needs to say "I do not worship" period. Does he need to relate to anything? If so who do you think he should?
-
Peace bkamwar2.
The word "Kul" at the beginning of that chapter means The whole chapter . You do not put " Kul" in front of every verse.
God is asking you to Say to " Al-Kafirun" everything written in the chapter. No need to keep repeating "Kul" every verse.
Unless you are inventing a new Arabic, It is "Kul" to all the verses.
Peace. -
Peace bkamwar2.
The word "Kul" at the beginning of that chapter means The whole chapter . You do not put " Kul" in front of every verse.
God is asking you to Say to " Al-Kafirun" everything written in the chapter. No need to keep repeating "Kul" every verse.
Unless you are inventing a new Arabic, It is "Kul" to all the verses.
Peace.Peace good logic
I am sure you are going to tell that same unseen force that makes you understand Quran without understanding the language or thinking has told you above. -
Peace bkamwar2.
The word "Kul" at the beginning of that chapter means The whole chapter . You do not put " Kul" in front of every verse.
God is asking you to Say to " Al-Kafirun" everything written in the chapter. No need to keep repeating "Kul" every verse.
Unless you are inventing a new Arabic, It is "Kul" to all the verses.
Peace.good logic furthermore,
Just for your information and it may be a revelation for you. The division of Quranic text into verses and suras, is much later introduction into Quranic text. It was never in it originally.
Before you get more excited, below is the link to one of the earliest available Quran in public domain to confirm my statement. However, you remain free to deny this as Quran.
http//goldkoran.mse.jhu.edu/htdocs/mrsid/Koran/index.pl?pagenum=2
-
Peace bkanwar.
If you have a different understanding from your- unseen force- bring it forth.
We can then discuss and compare .
May the one and only unseen force, the Creator. guide us to HIS truth.
Peace. -
Peace bkanwar.
If you have a different understanding from your- unseen force- bring it forth.
We can then discuss and compare .
May the one and only unseen force, the Creator. guide us to HIS truth.
Peace.I think Badar is already guided to HIS truth
-
peace,
I might be wrong since i don't know arabic. In quran when it's about ''God'' there is generally ''we''.
And in 1096
Why did God say this
For you all are your habits and customs, and FOR me are my habits and customs.habits and customs are for us, not for God.
May Allah guide us to true path peace peace
-
Peace zeynep.
At the beginning of there is " Kul". GOD is asking us to " Say" . It is the believer/reader that is saying" For you all are your habits and customs, and FOR me are my habits and customs".
Peace. -
And in 1096
Why did God say this
For you all are your habits and customs, and FOR me are my habits and customs.habits and customs are for us, not for God.
May Allah guide us to true path peace peaceIt's Lakum Dienukum waliya Dien..
It's not 'habits / customs'.. Dien is judgement/attitude/perception/opinion (towards something)..This is just a reiteration of the La Ikraha Fiddin (2256)..
There are no compulsory in opinion/judgement/perception/attitude (towards something).. as truth stands out clear from BS..And Kafirun is not 'disbeliever' Kafirun are those who are trying to cover / hide the truth.. (due to some interest / gain that they received from the lies spread out in the society)..
Hear ye all who tries to cover and hide the truth..
I'm not serving what you serve..
And neither you serving of what I serve..
And neither I am a servant of what you serve..
And neither you're servant of what I serve..
To you your own opinion/judgement/perception and to me mine..Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar.
I would agree with your translation except at the beginning. Instead of " Hear ye" I would put " Say to"
ie Say to all who.....
Peace.
-
Surah 109 2
How the Verb Imperfect; First Person; Singular; Mood Indicative; Subject pronoun hidden; - Verbal noun, can become and be treated a "Noun" referring ?an object of worship?.
The Verb is transitive. Where is its Object if is negative "nor".
I was busy for last couple of weeks attending to a family member. However, before I took off there were few important issues raised regarding linguistic based translations that I shared here on this forum.
Since my objective is to understand Quran based upon language. I try my best to keep my own held beliefs aside. Also I try to control my ego and not let it interfere with process of developing linguistic understanding.
Having said this, I would like to thank Brother Mazhar, for his comments on AlKafirun. This is due several reasons. There are very few people who comment based upon linguistic reasoning. Additionally, from pure technical point of view his objection was right on money. How could a verb be translated as a noun? Therefore, this made me look deeper into his objection, beside the rationales that I presented earlier. In order to check, if my understanding was correct or wrong?
However, after review here is my improved understanding of verse in question. This is followed by its linguistic explanation and rationale. Below is what was translated originally. The following is what it should be after taking into account Brother Mazhar?s objection.
Surah 109 2
Neither, I am an object of worship, nor are you worshippers or servants.
Surah 109 2
I have not become an object of worship, why are you worshiping?
Now I have to go into little finer linguistic intricacies. The vowel/harkaats are intrinsic to roots. If one were to pay attention that in There is a Dhuma on second letter. This root should have different meanings than the root with ?fetha? at second letter. Indeed, in lexicon there is a root with ?dhuma?. It is exemplified by a phrase from Quran. which is translated as ?Et Tagoot having become an object of worship?.
(Ref Lane vol. 5 page 1934, middle grid).Therefore, once again Brother Mazhar, thanks for your input to improve understanding of this verse.
-
But dear sorry I could not find any improvement except little difference of phrasing it.
Another basic factor is missing. In all languages the verbs are either transitive or intrasitive. The verbs here are transitive. There is an act, a doer and an object to whom the act is passing on. This is missing in the translation.
-
But dear sorry I could not find any improvement except little difference of phrasing it.
Another basic factor is missing. In all languages the verbs are either transitive or intrasitive. The verbs here are transitive. There is an act, a doer and an object to whom the act is passing on. This is missing in the translation.
No Dear Brother it is just not that. You probably did not bother to even look up the reference page in lexicon. It does now translate as verb and not as a noun, like you pointed out before.
Imperfect is mistranslated and misunderstood in English or some other languages by most as just a present or past tense. It actually, implies an unfinished act that is just commencing or in progress. It in, itself has no reference to the temporal relations of speaker (thinker or writer) and of other actions which are brought into juxtaposition with it.
Additionally, imperfect in Quranic Arabic resembles closely with nouns. Hence, it is named as . Therefore, issue of transitive and non transitive pertains more to perfect and not imperfect. Furthermore, if this message is from Rabb, who shall he be worshiping?
Now if we would please pay attention with this background about imperfect and meaning of verb root with ?duhma? on second letter. Hopefully, you will see it. However, I am afraid that conceptual barrier suggested in other post regarding understanding Quran may still become a hindrance. Thanks for your comments.
-
Additionally, imperfect in Quranic Arabic resembles closely with nouns. Hence, it is named as . Therefore, issue of transitive and non transitive pertains more to perfect and not imperfect.
It seems a new language is evolving since the above neither pertains to English nor to Arabic known to living humanity.
-
It seems a new language is evolving since the above neither pertains to English nor to Arabic known to living humanity.
No Brother, it is not a new language evolving, rather it is rediscovering the lost language from Archives and with its help meanings of AlQuran. Actually, I should say it is a rediscovery for us Muslims; as west had already discovered and adopted principles of Quran minus ritualistic worship of manmade Islam.
Reference of above statements that you have labelled as new language, please refer to "A Grammar of the Arabic Language" By W Wright reprint 1975 vol. 1 Pages 51 & 61 REM a. In case you care about it.
Thanks to Brother Waqas here is the link to book above.
http//www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol1.pdf
-
Another basic factor is missing. In all languages the verbs are either transitive or intrasitive. The verbs here are transitive. There is an act, a doer and an object to whom the act is passing on. This is missing in the translation.
Furthermore, brother your assertion about this verb being transitive is incorrect linguistically as well. The verbs that have "damma" on second radical are invariably intransitive. (Wright vol 1 page 30). This is the case here. Hence, not only logically your assertion is incorrect (based upon logic of this being from our Rabb and who shall he be praying?) linguistically it is incorrect.
Thanks again for letting me reconfirm it, based upon your objection as a transitive verb. Furthermore, I have relearned again that these verbs with "damma" at second radical letter indicate a permanent state or a naturally inherent quality. This would add to meaning of said verse and it should actually read as follows.
Surah 109 2
I have not become, never was and shall never become an object of worship, why have you become worshipers?
-
Furthermore, brother your assertion about this verb being transitive is incorrect linguistically as well. The verbs that have "damma" on second radical are invariably intransitive. (Wright vol 1 page 30). This is the case here. Hence, not only logically your assertion is incorrect (based upon logic of this being from our Rabb and who shall he be praying?) linguistically it is incorrect.
Thanks again for letting me reconfirm it, based upon your objection as a transitive verb. Furthermore, I have relearned again that these verbs with "damma" at second radical letter indicate a permanent state or a naturally inherent quality. This would add to meaning of said verse and it should actually read as follows.
Surah 109 2
I have not become, never was and shall never become an object of worship, why have you become worshipers?
Sometime back I had pointed to you to read Wright without first having formed your own opinion in mind because in that case you think Wright is saying that which you earlier believed.
Now again visit his page and see what he is saying. He has quoted few verbs which are transitive, and place the third person perfect verb which is with fateha on second radical and understand whether it is transitive or not. The Verb in Ayah is first person imperfect with indicative mood and is transsitive. You may consult few lexicons also only to find it transitive.
-
Sometime back I had pointed to you to read Wright without first having formed your own opinion in mind because in that case you think Wright is saying that which you earlier believed.
Now again visit his page and see what he is saying. He has quoted few verbs which are transitive, and place the third person perfect verb which is with fateha on second radical and understand whether it is transitive or not. The Verb in Ayah is first person imperfect with indicative mood and is transsitive. You may consult few lexicons also only to find it transitive.
Brother it is okay to let ones ego go once in a while and accept the facts and truth. This is also a principle from Quran that our Rabb wants us to adopt. I have pointed out from beginning that verb in this verse has "damma" on second letter not "fatha". Wright explicitly says on page 30 vol 1. where he has described transitive and intransitive verbs. The ones with "damma" at second radical letter are invariably intransitive.
Furthermore, already pointed out above, from Lane its meaning as different from verb with "fetha" on second radical letter. This is my last post on the topic. As I already pointed out my purpose is not to get involved in vain discussion. It is just to find out truth based upon language, reason and logic and share as such with references. Whether, someone agrees or not it is upon a given individual.