Do you have an explanation for this? Poll

Hizbullah

If you are actually interested in reading my view
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html

Q1701 - Exalted is HE who took HIS Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa - whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, HE is the Hearing, the Seeing.

The servant of ALLAH is referring to Musa and not Muhammad. My proof is Q2021. Also 1702 begins with a conjunction. So Musa after he had assembled the 12 Tribal Nations which comprises of 11 Ishmaelites tribes and 1 Israelite tribe and after receiving the Book and the Furqan, @ the Masjidil Haram, the instruction thereafter, was to lead the 12 Tribal Nation to the Masjidil Aqsa, the Bless Land. However, the people rebelled and they were forbidden to enter the Bless Land for 40 years.

Masjidil Haram was the place where Musa received both the Book and the Furqan and Muhammad also received both the Book and the Quran. In the Quran 2830....

So when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley, in a location, the blessed of forest, "O Moses, indeed I am ALLAH, Lord of the worlds."

And so was Muhammad, he was called for the second meeting with Jibril at the spot where the Lote tree near the Garden of Abode. It was the same place where the Tur is / was, a forested area - see Q531 - 10. Cross referencing with 5201 - 03

And the Tur, And a Book inscribed, In a fine publication....

The Book was given to him, Q3223 and the Quran was downloaded into his heart Q0297.

As for the Masjidil Al-Aqsa is / was the Bless Land. Please see link http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608396.0, if you are interested.

Q1704 to 08 tells us about the Assyrian campaign against the Israelite. It almost annihilated the Israelite race. The continuation of the story is 17101 to 104.

Wakas

peace Hizbullah,

How does 2021 prove anything about 171?
Your interpretation is mostly wild speculation and not from Quran, except the "wa" connecting 171-2 argument - that part is actually reasonable. You have no answer to what I pointed out in the article

"al masjid al haram" is never mentioned in context with anyone except messenger of Quran
When Quran uses "abd/servant" without explicit mention of whom it is, it always (almost?) refers to messenger of Quran.
You do not translate "al masjid al haram" or "al masjid al aqsa" so we can actually see if it fits in Quran.
175-8 use past tense, then present/future/imperfect tense, so this is not all about the past - Traditionalists also seem to have no explanation for this. It's about future prophecy, as discussed in the article.
you conveniently ignore 1760, 4827 in your explanation - whereas my article provides an explanation
none of the verses you quoted are linked to "al masjid al haram", not even mentioned in the entire chapter! Only in your head is there a link.

But it's all good. People can weigh your understanding, their own understanding, the article's understanding etc and see which one is strongest in terms of the Quranic evidence etc.

Hizbullah

Peace Wakas

peace Hizbullah,

How does 2021 prove anything about 171?
Your interpretation is mostly wild speculation and not from Quran, except the "wa" connecting 171-2 argument - that part is actually reasonable. You have no answer to what I pointed out in the article

My apologies, it should be 0521 not 2021. But how could it be wild speculation, when i show you the intricacies of the Quranic system? There are more to it, but than you might not be able to accept it.

"al masjid al haram" is never mentioned in context with anyone except messenger of Quran

Are you very sure? 1701 is definitely about Musa.

When Quran uses "abd/servant" without explicit mention of whom it is, it always (almost?) refers to messenger of Quran.

Quran 2501 is also referring to Musa, considering the fact that Musa received the Furqan not the Last Prophet.

You do not translate "al masjid al haram" or "al masjid al aqsa" so we can actually see if it fits in Quran.

I have already done so except for the inadvertent input above which suppose to be 0521. I am sure you are aware that Muhammad was the Prophet like Musa. Both were Messenger-Prophet.

175-8 use past tense, then present/future/imperfect tense, so this is not all about the past - Traditionalists also seem to have no explanation for this. It's about future prophecy, as discussed in the article.

It was a prophecy already fulfilled 1705. You have conveniently ignore 17101 to 104.

you conveniently ignore 1760, 4827 in your explanation - whereas my article provides an explanation

From my understanding, the verses tells us about dream interpretation proves that the Last Prophet was a direct descendent of Ishaq. Please connect 1206 with 1760 and 4827.

none of the verses you quoted are linked to "al masjid al haram", not even mentioned in the entire chapter! Only in your head is there a link.

Please read it all over again than if you find that it is inappropriate, we will discuss again. There are some verse of the Quran which i found out but it seems to be wrong interpretation / contradictory.

But it's all good. People can weigh your understanding, their own understanding, the article's understanding etc and see which one is strongest in terms of the Quranic evidence etc.

I will be back handshake

parvez_mushtaq

in 2148 the usage of "wherever" is the ONLY time it appears without a close link to "turn+wajh+AMAH" therefore likens "wijhatun (direction/course/goal/motive)" with "qiblah" and consequently likens AMAH to "race to the good" or at least we can say AMAH involves this. Furthermore, AQ implies each person may have their own "qiblah" in 2145 then later in 2148 says "for each is a wijhatun he turns towards it", strongly suggesting "qiblah" and "wijhatun" are being related as similar terms/concepts. Please re-read these verses as this is a key finding.
....
.............
As a side note, the only other use of "wly/turn" in these verses other than "turn+wajh" is 2148 "...he turns towards it (wijhatun/course/goal)", which is primarily figurative and not taken physical-directional by anyone. This may help indicate the type of turning being referred to in these verses.

A few clarification , Wakas
In verse 2148

as per my thinking
refers to the community and not the individual as per context
but as per you ,it is "each one" can you explain this ,Wakas

Wakas

peace all,

Hizbullah,
I dont see any strong link from 521 to 171.

In Ch 25, messenger of Quran is referenced first, Moses appears 2535. See 2185 for furqan with al quran.

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 177. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

As I said, readers can weigh up each interpretation and go with the strongest.

pm,
See http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=kll#(21481)
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=148#(21481)
Literal "And for each/every one is a goal/direction/motive he (singular) turns towards it..."
The translation I provided is correct. That finding in your quote is one of the best gems in that article, in my view of course.

parvez_mushtaq

peace all,

............

pm,
See http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=kll#(21481)
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=148#(21481)
Literal "And for each/every one is a goal/direction/motive he (singular) turns towards it..."
The translation I provided is correct. That finding in your quote is one of the best gems in that article, in my view of course.

I do agree with you Wakas
Because of singular your view point is also correct but at the same time we cannot ignore the context
let me put this way
the verse is of course ,undoubtedly is a GOD's view .He knew about the intention or the direction or the goal which an individual got in his mind

your perception is more or less like as swamy Vivekananda said "Like so many rivers flowing from different mountains, all coming and mingling their waters in the sea, all the different religions, taking their births from different standpoints of fact, come unto Thee"

for example , I am salafi ,yet my goal/direction/motive will definitely differ from others ,as a matter of fact ,no two individual will have a same set of understanding of their religion even though they may belong to same sect this includes Quranints also . i am an element of set(set theory,math) called salafi and suppose you are an element of set called "quranist" .Both salafi and Quranist will their same direction/goal/motive yet they are all are sub set of the set called "Muslims" and all Muslims will have the same goal/direction/motive namely followers of Quran their focal point (of course ignoring their understanding of Quran )
Now let me take the verse 2.145
And if you brought to those who were given the Scripture every sign, they would not follow your qiblah. Nor will you be a follower of their qiblah. Nor would they be followers of one another's qiblah. So if you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, indeed, you would then be among the wrongdoers.

Now let me use your meaning of Qibla here ,Yes the people of scripture will never follow our focal point which is Quran ....You may be correct

But

In verse 2.144
We have certainly seen the turning of your face, , toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you are, turn your faces toward it . Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

In this verse ,i cannot apply your meaning here because

http//quranx.com/Content/Images/ArabicWords/666177616c6c69.png
REM - prefix prefixed resumption particle resumption particle
which clearly says .......So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram....
meaning a physical turning of faces

So my understating is that , Qibla can have your meaning (focal point) at the same time it also means direction .

further , my point is proved even from this verse 2.143
And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.

So the reason for making qibla is for the set called Muslims who follow the messenger prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaiwasalam

So the followers of mohammed sallala hu alai wassalam will face the kaba as their qibla

Mazhar

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 177. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

Please re-read it by focusing attention of the past verb and then subjunctive particle and subjunctive verb. And notice that the apodosis clause of time adverb is elided.

Wakas

peace pm,

I never said Quran was the focal-point.
"wajh" does not always mean the physical "face"
your translation of 2143 inserts "face", which is not there in the Arabic

From article

In addition to 2142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2115, 2142-150, 2177.

Bender

Please re-read it by focusing attention of the past verb and then subjunctive particle and subjunctive verb. And notice that the apodosis clause of time adverb is elided.

Hi,

I have absolutely no idea what you wrote here, to advanced for me, but if he does that then what is he going to see?

imrankhawaja

Hi,

I have absolutely no idea what you wrote here, to advanced for me, but if he does that then what is he going to see?

i think its the grammer of Information tecnology or new age grammer, !

Mazhar

It was about this remark by Wakas

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 177. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

Hizbullah

Peace Mazhar

It was about this remark by Wakas

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

You are absolutely correct.

Peace Wakas

I dont see any strong link from 521 to 171.

If you read the story of Musa, he left Madyan with his family and travelled through the night and they reached Tur. The Tur was a forested area where Musa noticed a fire in the distance. This was the first encounter with the LORD ? Chapter 20, 28?

After he rescued the Israelite, Prophet Musa went for a second meeting with THE ALMIGHTY, at the same location where he met the LORD in the first time, the Tur. This Tur is the Masjidil Haram, where Musa received the Furqan. It was the same place where the Last Prophet received the Quran ? Chapter 28, 52, 53; wooded forested area!

After receiving the Furqan, Prophet Musa was instructed to the Bless Land ? Chapter 520 ? 21. The Bless land was non other than what I have written in my thread, http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608396.0, you ignored!

In Ch 25, messenger of Quran is referenced first, Moses appears 2535. See 2185 for furqan with al quran.

What about 0253 and 2148?

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 177. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

The whole event of the Israeli captivity was already prophesied in the Book, before the Israeli captivity - 1704. Its narration of what will happened to the Israelite in the 1st promise - 1705; already fulfilled, and what will happened to them in the last promise - 1706-08. The 2nd event or to be more precise, the last promise is mentioned again in 17104 which, you, Wakas ignored.

Q17101 - And We had certainly given Musa nine manifest signs, so ask the Children of Israel, when he came to them and Fir3aun said to him, "Indeed I think, O Musa, that you are affected by magic."

Q17102 - said, "You have already known that none has sent down these except Lord - the heavens and the earth as evidence, and indeed I think, O Fir3aun, that you are destroyed."

Q17103 - So he intended to drive them from the land, but We drowned him and those with him all together.

Q17104 - And We said from after him to the Children of Israel, "Dwell in the land, and WHEN THERE CAME THE PROMISE OF THE LAST, We brought with you all a mix race."

Also please read Mazhar's comment

parvez_mushtaq

peace pm,

......
2) "wajh" does not always mean the physical "face"
........

From article

In addition to 2142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2115, 2142-150, 2177.

I do agree with you with regards to your point NO2 and your translation of verse 2148

Secondly , i even agree with you about 2.115.2.177
if some one got another view on this .......he is welcome
what is disagree with you is ....

I never said Quran was the focal-point.
...

so as per you in your article

Based on the above, usage of the root QBL in AQ, CAD meanings, and the only other occurrence of "qiblah" in 1087, in terms of likelihood for the meaning of "qiblah", in my view, are

focal-point - focus of interest/attention or activity
direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action

If it is not Quran then as per the verse 2.145
And if you brought to those who were given the Scripture every sign, they would not follow your qiblah. Nor will you be a follower of their qiblah. Nor would they be followers of one another's qiblah. So if you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, indeed, you would then be among the wrongdoers.

how will you differentiate between our focus of interest/attention or activity and the focus of interest/attention or activity of the people of scripture
what is the focal-point of Muslim and focal-point of people of scripture because our focal-point is based on quran and their is based on their scriptures
it is something like Verse 2.120
And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, "Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the guidance." If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper.

and

surah 109 (For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.)

otherwise(if it is not quran) ...the focal-point is the traditional meaning of qiblah
as the verse 2.120 and the surah 109 is differentiating between the scriptures/laws/religion and the verse 2.145 is differentiating us with them in the qiblah

your translation of 2143 inserts "face", which is not there in the Arabic

It was not mine , Wakas rather it was sahih international .I agree with you "Face" is not there but does it change the meaning

but term implies the meaning

Bender

It was about this remark by Wakas

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

I know on what you were commenting but didn't understand what you were trying to say.
But now you have translated your sentence to my English, I am able to understand what you were trying to say, thx!

parvez_mushtaq

It was about this remark by Wakas

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

I know on what you were commenting but didn't understand what you were trying to say.
But now you have translated your sentence to my English, I am able to understand what you were trying to say, thx!

Everything is a big bouncer and has gone over my head
will you pl people talk in a language we understand .

imrankhawaja

perfect imperfection

Wakas

peace all,

Mazhar,
The implication of your post is that what I wrote is incorrect. From my experience of discussion with you, your objections often muddle "incorrect according to my view" with "not possible according to the Arabic". You frequently imply the latter when it is actually the former, and rarely make explicit statements.

explicit
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

I prefer explicit/clear statements, backed with evidence, thus please provide what you can of the following

reference from a Classical Arabic grammar book (ideally written in English) proving your claim.
make an explicit statement stating that my view is impossible according to the Arabic. Or if my view is theoretically possible according to the Arabic, then say so.
cite your best example(s) from Quran proving your claim

Hizbullah,
If you are wondering why I ignored your thread on the "bless land" was that it was more wild speculation. Let's stick to Quran first, see it explains itself.

You made a claim that furqan is separate from quran - I cited 2185, you had no response to it. If you are not intellectually honest enough to admit you might have that wrong, just say so. I never even researched all its occurrences to find that one.

However you did bring up a reasonable point with 17104 which may well refer back to the start of Ch 17. Interestingly a "mixed crowd" is exactly what my theory on the prophecy predicts, i.e. the believers come from far and wide and converge upon a locality wherein al hajj is being held, amongst a mix of people, triumphing over all opposition, during the time-period in which this is held i.e. al masjid al haram (the inviolable time of acknowledgement). I'd have to research it more to see if there is any issues with this, or even if its needed.

Here is what you, and others have missed

Re 1760
From article

Note that even though the vision was shown to thee (singular, i.e. the messenger) it is a fit'na/trial for the people, meaning that it MUST have been relayed to them. This is compounded by the theme recurrent of sending the signs/ayat as a warning and the use of "We warn them / make them fearful...". According to the traditional explanations of 1760 (which they link to 171), their source material is primarily the traditional hadith. For those following a Quran based islam, the strong preference is to have a self-contained explanation within AQ itself. If so, where is this vision explained?

Traditionalists cant explain this from Quran either.

pm,
I find it interesting you are telling me what my focal-point is in my article. Hint re-read 2142 "... "What has turned them from the qiblah/focal-point which they were on it?" ..." i.e. a change of qiblah from what they were previously on, thus their new qiblah can never be Quran (as they would have been on that previously), sure the new qiblah is Quran based (obviously) but not Quran. Please re-read the article.

So we may have a better idea of the meaning of qiblah and AMAH, but what was the change these verses allude to?
Firstly, it must be accepted that this is not clearly stated in AQ, thus some interpretation/thinking becomes necessary. Without an explicit reference, this could explain the fanciful traditional interpretations.
When I examined where in AQ this subject and related words were discussed, an interesting discovery was made. ALL verses discussing HaJJ, AMAH, "al bayt al haram," "al bayt al atiq" and "kaaba" occur in the latter revealed chapters of AQ, in order of revelation, not only according to traditional order of revelation but also based on analysis of chapter content (e.g. see chapter 7 of "Introduction to Quran" by Richard Bell, or chapter 2 of "Discovering the Quran" by Neal Robinson, or simply do an online search for the traditional ordering). Out of all the latter chapters that discuss AMAH, chapter 2 is the first of them, in order of revelation, implying that from this point forward, AMAH was the focus - coincidence? 171 is the only occurrence of AMAH that occurs midway through order of revelation. Bearing in mind what has been proposed above, involving a future prophecy, and noting 171-7 gives no special status to AMAH or mentions anything about it, and simply uses it as a reference point - this suggests at this point in time it was not a focal-point. Another coincidence? Not to me. As a side note, whatever meaning of AMAH is chosen, they should be able to reasonably explain why it only occurs in the latter stages of revelation.
This information provides us with a self-contained explanation for the change in focal-point mentioned in 2142-150. If AMAH had been the focus for the believers from the start then this would have been difficult to succeed in because of their low numbers initially, hostility against them etc but later when their numbers/influence/message/power had grown AMAH / "the inviolable time of SJD/acknowledgement" became a perfect vehicle for all believers to converge upon, thus solidifying their position and eventually overcome the opposition.

Hizbullah

I know you are Wakas, the Wise One, the Burn Out, the Great Administrator.............no need sarcasm......

Hizbullah,
If you are wondering why I ignored your thread on the "bless land" was that it was more wild speculation. Let's stick to Quran first, see it explains itself.

In that thread, I have shown Quranic verses to support my points and further to elucidate, i pasted facts from Pazuzu's thread in order to show that the "Bilad" was the Bless Land. Albeit i do not agree to a certain extent, your article, i would not call it a "wild speculation" considering the fact that Quranic verses are shown to elucidate your point.

You made a claim that furqan is separate from quran - I cited 2185, you had no response to it. If you are not intellectually honest enough to admit you might have that wrong, just say so. I never even researched all its occurrences to find that one.

02185 says that the Quran is a manifestation of the Furqan. It does not says that it is the Furqan! If you are not intellectually honest enough to admit you might have that wrong, just say so.

Quran 1047....

And it was not for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah , but a confirmation of is between, support it and a detailed explanation of the Book, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

The above verse, mentioned Quran NOT Furqan, why? Or maybe you can give me an explanation why is it ALLAH gave Musa Furqan and not the Quran? And also please give an exegesis of what is Furqan?

However you did bring up a reasonable point with 17104 which may well refer back to the start of Ch 17. Interestingly a "mixed crowd" is exactly what my theory on the prophecy predicts, i.e. the believers come from far and wide and converge upon a locality wherein al hajj is being held, amongst a mix of people, triumphing over all opposition, during the time-period in which this is held i.e. al masjid al haram (the inviolable time of acknowledgement). I'd have to research it more to see if there is any issues with this, or even if its needed.

It is not a "reasonable" point. It is a fact. Good, do your research and we discuss....

Here is what you, and others have missed

Re 1760
From article
Traditionalists cant explain this from Quran either.

Off course Traditionalists cant explain. They need the Ahadith! It shows that the Prophet was descended from Prophet Ishaq. And also plausible as what you explain, cross referencing with 4827

Wakas

peace Hizbullah,

There is a difference between citing verses from Quran and the ability to derive sound conclusions and links from them.

Here is what 2185 says...
...in which the reading/quran was revealed; a guide to the people and clarities from the guidance and (from) the furqan/criterion...

"furqan" is a genitive, and "min" is a partitive, meaning the quran/reading contains clarities from the furqan/criterion, i.e. a part of furqan.

You then cite a verses which mentions the word "quran" and just because it doesn't mention "furqan", according to your logic, you think you have a point. I note however you do not make an explicit point, and simply pose a question. You do this often. Probably because to hide you have little to no point.

You also claim 251 refers to Moses because it mentions furqan, as if furqan is exclusive to Moses. 251 also mentions being a warner to the beings/worlds/AAalameena. Can you refer us to a verse in Quran where Moses is sent to the beings/worlds? Note, I haven't studied it, but since you seem to be so confident of your view, let's see what evidence you have.

So you think the warning, the trial of 1760 is discovering the info the Prophet was descended from Prophet Ishaq (not even mentioned in Ch 17)? Doesn't sound like a warning/trial to me Hint a warning, refers to paying heed to what is being said so you change your ways, so as to avoid or lessen the consequences. Try again.

Mazhar

Mazhar,
The implication of your post is that what I wrote is incorrect. From my experience of discussion with you, your objections often muddle "incorrect according to my view" with "not possible according to the Arabic". You frequently imply the latter when it is actually the former, and rarely make explicit statements.

explicit
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

I prefer explicit/clear statements, backed with evidence, thus please provide what you can of the following

reference from a Classical Arabic grammar book (ideally written in English) proving your claim.
make an explicit statement stating that my view is impossible according to the Arabic. Or if my view is theoretically possible according to the Arabic, then say so.
cite your best example(s) from Quran proving your claim

It was absolutely incorrect for which reason I gave you hints to reconsider it.

In reply 28 to Hizabullah you said

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 177. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

I asked you

Please re-read it by focusing attention of the past verb and then subjunctive particle and subjunctive verb. And notice that the apodosis clause of time adverb is elided.

Focus attention on the past verb;
Notice subjunctive particle;
See the mood of verb which is subjunctive;
Notice that apodosis clause of time adverb is elided.

I thought you will consult grammar book in English to learn about verbs that might help you learn Arabic and avoid such erroneous rather foolish statements.

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/017.%20Al%20Israa/Temp%2001%2017.007c.gif

Verb is perfect and verbal sentence is in construct position with time adverb.

Apdosis clause is elided since it is evident for sensible readers; it is mentioned in 175; its repetition would have been redundant.

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.049/196.%20Sue%20Seen%20Waw%20Hamza/56.gif

About this verb you said
you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 177

A verb prefixed with particle of intent is in the meanings of a verbal noun. It constitutes a dependent clause. Particle along with verb and other connected elements is called a genitive construction like prepositional phrase. It collectively links to a preceding element of sentence.

Later in my another post I mentioned that it is a Narrative, is there any need to tell you that a narrative is about a real life event that is passed and relates only to past, NOT to future.