Rasool is 'A Delivered Message', not Messenger?
-
Dr. Kashif Khan claimed 'Rasool' (ل is 'a delivered message' and not Messenger.
Here is his conclusion and article;
Hence, in Arabic language ?Rasool? (ل is not a prophet but a ?memorandum?, a ?delivered message?, ?a delivered speech? and ?an addressed circular?.
Therefore, Arab knows the correct meaning and correct use of Arabic word ?Rasool? (ل but unfortunately, when the same words come in the Quran they take them differently and entirely different to how they use them in their daily life.
This is due to their false beliefs and non-Quranic dogma which bared them to understand the Quran in the same way as they speak their language.
Our scholars work in the same way in which they don?t look at the words of the Quran but invent lies in the translation and exegesis (tafseer) of the Quran following the Arab pagans.https//www.linkedin.com/pulse/rasool-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%84-prophet-%D9%86%D8%A8%DB%8C-quran-traditional-quranist-scholars-khan?trk=mp-reader-card
His explanation is very detailed and perhaps worth a look.
Does his views make any sense? -
Root
Words from this Root in the Grand Qur'aan
a) Total occurrences 513
b) No of constructions 120It occurs in 419 Ayahs in 69 Chapters. This is one of the eleven Roots that have more than 500 occurrences in the concordance of Qur'aan.
Ibn Faris stated
( ة
.That it leads to the perception of renaissance, reawakening, emergence, resurgence, dispatching, sending, and reaching. Thereby it denotes to move softly, soft pace.
Semantic components Breaking down-basic elements into which the meaning of a word can be decomposed into components; semantically the term component refers to irreducible feature in terms of which the sense of lexical items can be analyzed.
It is evident from the basic perception that this Root signifies tri-relationship; the sender, the sent one, and the recipient, destination.
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/8.gif The Messenger
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/68.gif message
-
Root
Words from this Root in the Grand Qur'aan
a) Total occurrences 513
b) No of constructions 120It occurs in 419 Ayahs in 69 Chapters. This is one of the eleven Roots that have more than 500 occurrences in the concordance of Qur'aan.
Ibn Faris stated
( ة
.That it leads to the perception of renaissance, reawakening, emergence, resurgence, dispatching, sending, and reaching. Thereby it denotes to move softly, soft pace.
Semantic components Breaking down-basic elements into which the meaning of a word can be decomposed into components; semantically the term component refers to irreducible feature in terms of which the sense of lexical items can be analyzed.
It is evident from the basic perception that this Root signifies tri-relationship; the sender, the sent one, and the recipient, destination.
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/8.gif The Messenger
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/68.gif message
Peace,
Noted your point.
I am not fluent in Arabic thus I am quite lost on Dr. Khashif's train of thoughts.
However it seem he has discovered something new and accused the traditionalists of twisting the meaning.
Apparently I read what he is saying is when an "alif" is added, there is some thing different to the ordinary term;However, according to its formation ?? is also a ?verbal noun? of highest comparative degree called ? ? a superlative noun or elative noun, which is made by adding letter ?alif? in the beginning of first form of Arabic verb or the source (ر.
He is claiming his point is something special.
If you have time to spare perhaps you could give his article a quick read and see whether he made sense or not.Here is a part of his explanation
?? is derived from ? ? which is the root word of first form (past) of Arabic verb ?? and ?? is the 4th form of its verb, which is technically an imperative or command verb that orders someone to communicate, to correspond, to deliver a message, to message, to address, to post, to mail, to consign and to inscribe etc. However, according to its formation ?? is also a ?verbal noun? of highest comparative degree called ? ? a superlative noun or elative noun, which is made by adding letter ?alif? in the beginning of first form of Arabic verb or the source (ر.
An easy remembering and well-known example of ? ? (Elative noun) is ?? which is actually + = to mean ?the biggest?, ?most highest? or ?almighty?. However, at the same time this is also an imperative verb but there are further rules of its use and determination as an Elative verbal noun or an imperative verb.
These rules are not difficult neither there is any confusion upon taking such words as a verbal noun or as an imperative verb but instead of using personal opinion of hitting or missing, an intensive linguistic knowledge and careful attention is required to correctly translate these phrases, such as keeping in view simple grammatical structure of making Arabic sentences, ?Verb + Subject + Object? and paying attention to the placement of pronouns, prepositions, articles and particles coming before and after such complex phrases.
In the phrase ?? of the verse 4078 ?? cannot be treated as a subject because it is already in objective form therefore it does not fit in the rule of grammatical structure of forming Arabic sentence with regular verb (Verb+Subject+Object).
Hence, in the verse 4078 ?? of ?? is not a verb but a ?verbal noun? of highest comparative degree ( ت to correctly mean ?Our exalted delivery?.
?? ( + ً is an Accusative Past Verb in a typical Classical Arabic style in which automatic system of cases ( /vowel movements of fatha, kasra & damma) has been phonetically adjusted with full letters of vowels contrary to the style of ?cases? (ب invented and added on the words of the Quran quite after the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).Therefore, wherever, it was necessary the Quran has itself created the ?cases? (ب within the formation of its own words by using full vowels (alif-wao-ya) to protect the meaning of Quranic words without any external interference of changing the meaning of Allah?s words.
Therefore, ?? is an accusative past verb, which takes a direct object of the subject (?? exalted delivery of ??) without change of meaning.
Although, the nominative case marker ?damma? was added on ?? of ?? afterwards, to achieve the same purpose of directly referring ?? to the subject ( ofا by making it a nominative case but this afterwards invented addition of case markers on the words of the Quran is not necessarily required because nominative case is the default case which is automatically achieved in pronunciation.?? is a preposition to mean ?from/of? and the phrase ?? is the combination of + in which ?? means ?before? or ?earlier? and ?? is a second person singular objective pronoun to mean ?your/yours?.
-
My objections
As far as I can ascertain, the author confuses molds like dujul, khulud, with rasul, ghafur...
Also, I just can't stand the rcial, racist tirades against Arabs. There would be a lot to say to it, and he tries har, hard to show that it is the Qur'an which is racist, but as by his appreciation, rightly or nicely racist. Very funny.
He is too convoluted, and points many things tht are obvious, it seems to me, in order to later squeez his own ideas as if they were equally obvious.
I guess it would be easy to try seeing whether he is right or not, simply replacing rasul as envoy, by rasul as message in all occurrences in the Qur'an. Anybody can do that. I am not particularly convinced by the translations he has put forward to promote his view.
Salaam
-
?? is derived from ? ? which is the root word of first form (past) of Arabic verb ?? and ?? is the 4th form of its verb, which is technically an imperative or command verb that orders someone to communicate, to correspond, to deliver a message, to message, to address, to post, to mail, to consign and to inscribe etc. However, according to its formation ?? is also a ?verbal noun? of highest comparative degree called ? ? a superlative noun or elative noun, which is made by adding letter ?alif? in the beginning of first form of Arabic verb or the source (ر.
He seems totally confused. A verbal noun and Comparative and Elative noun are two different entities.
Elative Noun is a noun derived from Active Voice Primary Verb. It is not derived from the Derivative verbs, Passive Voice Verbs,
Pattern/Construction Design
For Masculine
For Femininehttp//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/34.gif Verb Perfect; Third person; singular; masculine; Passive; ; Proxy Subject Pronoun hidden; - Verbal Noun. (1)706(2)775(3)2105(4) 2627=4
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/37.gif Verb Perfect; Third person; singular; masculine; active; ; Subject Pronoun hidden; - Verbal Noun. (1)933(2)2548(3)3509(4)4828(5) 6109(6)10503=6
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.087/309.%20BirRusal%20Ra%20Seen%20Laam/36.gif Verb Imperative; Second Person; Masculine; Singular; ; Subject pronoun hidden; - Verbal Noun. (1)7111(2)2617=2
-
An easy remembering and well-known example of ? ? (Elative noun) is ?? which is actually + = to mean ?the biggest?, ?most highest? or ?almighty?. However, at the same time this is also an imperative verb but there are further rules of its use and determination as an Elative verbal noun or an imperative verb.
Here also he seems confused. There is no such thing "an Elative verbal noun".
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.034/1.%20Istakbara%20Kaaf%20Ba%20Ra/7.gif Elative Noun Indefinite; masculine; singular; nominative. (1)2217(2)2217(3) 2219(4)3118(5)619(6)678(7)972(1641(9)1721(10)1721(11)2945(12)3403(13)3926(14)4010 (15)4057(16)4348(17)6833=17
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.034/1.%20Istakbara%20Kaaf%20Ba%20Ra/36.gif Elative-Comparative & superlative Noun Definite; singular; feminine; accusative/nominative. (1)7920(2)7934(3)8712=3
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.034/1.%20Istakbara%20Kaaf%20Ba%20Ra/31.gif Verb Perfect; Third person; plural; feminine; ; Subject pronoun, in nominative state + Suffixed Object pronoun Third person; singular; masculine, in accusative state; - Verbal noun. (1)1231=1
-
this guys dr kashif , is poor in understanding the language.. due to which he is unable to unnderstand lot of things , and i wonder some of the mistakes he did can easily be checked by anybody else like this thread...
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13951.msg403198#msg403198
-
Peace to All,
Thanks for the various comments above.
What is important is we must have critical views wherever necessary instead of blindly following to what is stated or claimed.Dr. Kashif's approach is rather coarse and crude.
However if any one were to present a proposition which is objective which supported by evidence and logic, it is worth looking into itself and putting personal behavior aside.What I noted of this article of Dr. Kashif's article is he is attempting to demonstrate 'Rasool' should not be focused on the 'messenger' but rather the 'message'.
His argument is against normal linguistic understanding but he had provided substantial arguments to support his point.Now if he is right, then this will support the Quran-only's view that 'Obey Messenger' meant 'obey the message' and not obey the person.
I noted Dr. Kashif had put a lot of effort to support his views thus it is worth some consideration until it can be proven his views are not tenable and wrong.
I will read his article a few more times to get a greater understanding and find out why he is wrong or possibly right.
I hope someone will read the full article and if possible comment on the critical points of contentions.
-
Peace to All,
One of Dr. Kashif's supporting point is this in his long explanation of the translation of 4078.
" (407
Dr. Kashif (Word to word correct translation of the verse 407
• ?And always our exalted message has been delivered before from yours, from them obtained our literature founded on yours and from them whatever drawn without deformity founded on yours and it was not for Rasool (message) that to befall with its verses except by authorisation of God, indeed when came God?s order justifying right and caused loss therein for those who are the deniers.
•
Compare Pickthall's.
• 4078. Verily We sent messengers before thee , among them those of whom We have told thee, and some of whom We have not told thee; and it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by Allah's leave, but when Allah's commandment cometh (the cause) is judged aright , and the followers of vanity will then be lost .
•
In his translation, Dr. Kashif has translated 'rusulan' as 'message' as by justifications in his argument.
At present I am not in a position to conclude he is right or wrong. I am hoping someone could give a full justification on a point to point basis why he is wrong or possibly right.
-
...
I guess it would be easy to try seeing whether he is right or not, simply replacing rasul as envoy, by rasul as message in all occurrences in the Qur'an. Anybody can do that. I am not particularly convinced by the translations he has put forward to promote his view.
SalaamPeace,
I think what you suggested, i.e. to test the term 'rasool' = message for all occurrences in the Quran is a critical step. This is what many have done here with terms like 'salat' , DRB, and Taqwa and others .
It would appear he had not done that in his article. I need to read again to find out whether he made any implications on such a matter or not.
-
Here also he seems confused. There is no such thing "an Elative verbal noun".
...
Peace,
He seem to argue very strongly a 'verbal noun' can be elative or heighten to that of a special/superior quality and be a class on its own from the norm.
One of his supporting point is;
? ? from ? ? is not a ?revealer? but ?revelation?.
?? from ?? is not used for one who enters or ?enterer? but ?entry?.Therefore it is possible for ? ? (Rasool) need not be 'doer' i.e. messenger but rather it can be 'message' as intended by Allah.
As I had stated, I don't have the full Arabic competence so I am suspending judgment on this till further views are presented.
-
Peace,
He seem to argue very strongly a 'verbal noun' can be elative or heighten to that of a special/superior quality and be a class on its own from the norm.
One of his supporting point is;
Therefore it is possible for ? ? (Rasool) need not be 'doer' i.e. messenger but rather it can be 'message' as intended by Allah.
As I had stated, I don't have the full Arabic competence so I am suspending judgment on this till further views are presented.
There is no sense in his so called argument. It is simply nonsense to equate message and messenger.
-
What I noted of this article of Dr. Kashif's article is he is attempting to demonstrate 'Rasool' should not be focused on the 'messenger' but rather the 'message'.
His argument is against normal linguistic understanding but he had provided substantial arguments to support his point.His view does not stand the test of even common sense what to say of linguistics. Messenger and message are used differently.
The Root is used 513 times. Just check few ayahs to find his views are but fantasy.
-
Quote
? ? from ? ? is not a ?revealer? but ?revelation?.
?? from ?? is not used for one who enters or ?enterer? but ?entry?.Therefore it is possible for ? ? (Rasool) need not be 'doer' i.e. messenger but rather it can be 'message' as intended by Allah.
It seems he does not even know the very basics of Arabic.
?? is from ??. Primary verb is derived from the verbal noun; any additional letter in the MASDAR/Verbal noun is removed like waw in this verbal noun. Verbal nouns are on patterns known by usage. It is . A verbal noun signifies an action or a state.
-
What about 2530 and other ayets which are not mentioned in Khan's text, but they're obvious that resool is a man?
A verb "qaale" is form III verb and it's about interaction "talked with somebody", "said to each other".
That text is good in some aspects, btw.
-
Peace to All,
One of Dr. Kashif's supporting point is this in his long explanation of the translation of 4078.
" (407
Dr. Kashif (Word to word correct translation of the verse 407
• ?And always our exalted message has been delivered before from yours, from them obtained our literature founded on yours and from them whatever drawn without deformity founded on yours and it was not for Rasool (message) that to befall with its verses except by authorisation of God, indeed when came God?s order justifying right and caused loss therein for those who are the deniers.
•
Compare Pickthall's.
• 4078. Verily We sent messengers before thee , among them those of whom We have told thee, and some of whom We have not told thee; and it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by Allah's leave, but when Allah's commandment cometh (the cause) is judged aright , and the followers of vanity will then be lost .
•
In his translation, Dr. Kashif has translated 'rusulan' as 'message' as by justifications in his argument.
At present I am not in a position to conclude he is right or wrong. I am hoping someone could give a full justification on a point to point basis why he is wrong or possibly right.
Sorry, but I cannot make head or tail of the translation by Dr. Kashif, and certainly I cannot relate it to what is written in Arabic.
As t the importance of the message. I think many of us agree that it is the message that is important, but to disdain the messenger is nonsense. Some people speak of him that he is a mere postman. The postman does not know what is in the message, but prophets do know which message they are ordered to transmit and not only that, the are the first believers in the message. So no postman, but envoy fron God.
As to obey the messenger. The people who lived in his time should obey him as such messenger and nower of God's message, but not for any other reason. That is obvious. In the same way that if a work under somebody as chief, a must obey hi or her as such a chief, but not for anything unrelated to his or her function.
As to now, obviously the prophet is dead nd he cannot order us anything at all.
It is a bit late to be obediente to him.
Salaam