The principles of faith in the Quran

unknownuser

= Qaf-Fa-Waw/Ya = to go after, walk behind, follow in the track of, follow the footsteps of, to cause to follow or succeed.

yep that is how many native arabs see it, TO CAUSE TO FOLLOW OR SUCCEED

peace

unknownuser

Hello

Peace to all, please note that my comment is not directed at any one.

It has been a long discussion isn?t it?, well I contacted a 45 years old Muslim Arab and asked him about 1736 and sure his understanding was exactly the same as mine. Hearsay, isn?t it?

What I have noted that the supporters for this understanding ?To follow? never provided any evidence other than this

The same word was used in another 3 locations which they suggest mean ?to follow?
A few English translations showed the Arabic ?Ta Qi Fa? as ?To follow?

No more evidences provided.

Looking closely at their evidences we will see clearly that both have no merit and both can not be admissible.

First of all, the word ?Qa Ffa Ya? means ?to cause something to follow something?, it never mean ?something to follow something?, it is very important to note that the cause by an entity to follow is a must if this word is used.

Let?s have a look at all the 3 locations where ?Qa Fa Ya? appeared and see what it means as well the verses context

YUSUFALI We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!

PICKTHAL And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?

SHAKIR And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.

(87)

-> What can I say, well, not much indeed, let?s just look at the translation of the Arabic word ? ?and see for ourselves

YUSUFALI ?and followed him up with a succession of messengers?

PICKTHAL ?and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him?

SHAKIR ?and We sent messengers after him one after another?

-> It seems to me that Yusuf Ali suffers from a very low IQ, we can see that the other two men translated the Arabic word as an action that is caused by Allah, ?We Caused to Follow? and ?We Sent?, but Mister Yusuf Ali said it like this ?and followed him?, come on, give me a break will ya?, what sense is that? It sounds like God is following him

You see if I?m following a friend on a path, then I should say I followed that person, but if I told my son to follow that friend then I have to say it that I caused my son to follow that mate because THE ACTION IS REFERING TO ME NOT TO MY SON and the action in the verse was to cause other prophets to come one after another, this is obvious by the other 2 translations.

now let?s test 1736

(36)

The translation should be like this

Do Not Cause to Follow what you lack knowledge in,

Oh please give me another break?, What sense is this?

Well if it says Do Not Cause Any One To Follow what you lack knowledge in, I might have accepted it despite its lack of perfect sense , but there is no third party in the verse, it is God and whoever He is warning in the verse, which I guess ?us?.

I can also conclude to myself that Yusuf Ali is the weakest of?m all, I will show you more at the end of my comment

Let?s move on to the second location

YUSUFALI And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him We sent him the Gospel therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

PICKTHAL And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).

SHAKIR And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

(46)

-> Wow, Mister Yusuf Ali has just contradicted himself, LOL, well, let me tell you that this is normal with Mister Yusuf Ali, for the same Arabic word ? ? in 287 which he translated as ?and followed?, in 546 he translated it as ?We Sent?, why is that ladies and gents? Isn?t the same identical word and context?

YUSUFALI ? And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary?

PICKTHAL ? And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps?

SHAKIR ? And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium?

But we can see the other two translators remained consistent with their translations ?We Caused to Follow? and ?We Sent?

No need for testing 1736 any more, let?s move to the last location where the word ?Qa Fa Ya? appears

YUSUFALI Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

PICKTHAL Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers.

SHAKIR Then We made Our messengers to follow in their footsteps, and We sent Isa son of Marium afterwards, and We gave him the Injeel, and We put in the hearts of those who followed him kindness and mercy; and (as for) monkery, they innovated it-- We did not prescribe it to them-- only to seek Allah's pleasure, but they did not observe it with its due observance; so We gave to those of them who believed their reward, and most of them are transgressors.

(27)

-> It seems that Yusuf Ali recognised he made a contradiction when he translated 287 & 546 so he tried to fix it in 5726,unfortunately he went with the wrong coin side in this verse.
We see in 5727 the same Arabic word ? ?, let?s see how the 3 translators did
YUSUFALI ? Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers?

PICKTHAL ? Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps?

SHAKIR ? Then We made Our messengers to follow in their footsteps?

Y A did the same mistake again, he translated it as ?We Followed? while Allah never follows any one, make sense to anyone?, it does to me as it seems he totally dropped ?We caused? . We can also see that PICKTHAL remained consistent ?We Caused to Follow? , SHAKIR on the other hand changed it from ?We Sent? to ?We Made to Follow?

WE HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT ? ? MEANS ?MADE TO FOLLOW? or ?CAUSE TO FOLLOW?

If translated as ?TO FOLLOW? alone, then this is wrong 100%. And there is another common Arabic word that means ?To Follow?

Summary

All three verses where ? ? ?Qaffayna? appeared was about one context only that Allah CAUSED PROPHETS TO FOLLOW ONE ANOTHER
There is only one meaning to that word which is ?Cause to follow? or ?Made to follow?
Testing that meaning in 1736 will fail because how we can understand the following

Do Not Cause to Follow what you lack knowledge in ?

The Quran was consistent in using the Arabic word ? ? and all its diversions to express ?something following something?, over 170 times the word was used including numerous warnings and advices, here is a couple of verses that include two advices ?to follow something? and one warning ?not to follow something?

?We said Go forth from this (state) all; so surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.?

(3

?Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow guardians besides Him, how little do you mind.?

(3)

Why on earth Allah has used that word numerous times to express ?to follow? while in those 3 verses where ?Qaffayna? appeared He used another word?, well the answer is simple because ?Qaffayna? DOES NOT MEAN ?TO FOLLOW?, but ? TO CAUSE TO FOLLOW?, this is obvious from the very lil times it was used ?3 times? in comparison with ?over 170 times? for the other word that MEANS ?TO FOLLOW?, IT is also easy to my child to recognise that the 3 verse this word appeared they were talking about the same context, that Allah caused prophets to follow each other. Not a hard puzzle, isn?t it?

Now let?s look at another example of Yusuf Ali low IQ and surly his lack of Arabic

The mentioned the Planets and the Stars numerous times, the Arabic word for a Planet is ? ? pronounced ?Kawkab?, the Arabic word for a Star is ? ? pronounced ?Nijm?

Yusuf Ali ?Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp the Lamp enclosed in Glass the glass as it were a brilliant star Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light Allah doth set forth Parables for men and Allah doth know all things.?

(35)

In all locations where this common Arabic word which means a Planet appeared, Yusuf Ali insisted that it is a Star, which make me think that

Yusuf Ali did not understand the difference between a star and a planet
Yusuf Ali did not understand the simple Arabic words, how about the tough Arabic words then?

Hence his translation has no value to me neither any other translation because simply I do not need it

I rest my case

Peace be with all

mquran

It has been a long discussion isnt it?, well I contacted a 45 years old Muslim Arab and asked him about 1736 and sure his understanding was exactly the same as mine. Hearsay, isnt it?

AB, this isn't how a discussion works. It's like you reasoning about your interpretation of the orphans mothers. We need to stick to factual information in order to arrive at the truth. I could also tell you I know a 90 yr old shiekh (twice as old as your 45 yr old guy) who said that 'argue' wouldnt make sense here. Better we use proper evidence, AB.

It seems to me that Yusuf Ali suffers from a very low IQ, we can see that the other two men translated the Arabic word as an action that is caused by Allah, We Caused to Follow and We Sent, but Mister Yusuf Ali said it like this and followed him, come on, give me a break will ya?, what sense is that? It sounds like God is following him

While I'm no fan of Yusuf Ali, I think you need to quote him contextually, he said 'followed him UP WITH', which is a fair rendering of Qa-FF-ya.

The Quran was consistent in using the Arabic word and all its diversions to express something following something, over 170 times the word was used including numerous warnings and advices, here is a couple of verses that include two advices to follow something and one warning not to follow something

Correct and it uses 'jidaal' and 'hajja' to mean argue and challenge. So by this reasoning, what shall we do?

unknownuser

peace mquran

as I stated, the above was my last comment regarding this subject, but it will be rude not to respond to a comment direct to me, well I reckon 1736 may apply to you wink

for your knowledge, Jiddal also means discusion it does not have to be an arguement lol

salam

Wakas

peace AB,

I dont see anyone saying Yusuf Ali's interpretation is the correct one, so I dont know why you spent the majority of your post discussing this.

Can you simply answer the following two points

taqfu in 1736 is in the imperfect form (an action in the process of being done) according to my grammar sources, and in all others it is in the perfect form (an action done). Perhaps that makes sense because it is "We" in the other occurrences, whilst in 1736 it is directed to us.

Does this change anything?

the 'shadda' is above the Fa in 287, 546, 5727 (x2), but NOT in 1736.

QAFA in 1736 is verb form I
QAFFA in 287, 546, 5727 (x2) is verb form II

Does this change anything?

Also, mq, if you could comment on the above too, it would be appreciated.

Wakas

mquran

Well Wakas, for me its a fairly straight issue. Qafa is used to indicate following up to something based on thier atsar or tracks. 17/36's telling us not to follow something when we just have remains of evidence of an event (tracks are the remnant of the event of walking, for example). This is different from ittiba which is following a living example.

unknownuser

peace AB,

I dont see anyone saying Yusuf Ali's interpretation is the correct one, so I dont know why you spent the majority of your post discussing this.

Peace

well I have to expose the confused who claim to be helping Islam, as indeed Yusif Ali caused a lot of propagandas with his silly and dodgy job of translating the Quran, yet his notes is more bizzare than his translation

How many non arabic speakers that man caused them to be confused?, well I can tell you a lot because I spent a year trying to fix a lot of flaws that was caused by his crappy translation, he lacks arabic for sure, but what puzzles me that he translated the Quran while he lacks arabic, that is funny

Can you simply answer the following two points

taqfu in 1736 is in the imperfect form (an action in the process of being done) according to my grammar sources, and in all others it is in the perfect form (an action done). Perhaps that makes sense because it is "We" in the other occurrences, whilst in 1736 it is directed to us.
Does this change anything?

The words has nothing to do with "We" or "Us" the word was only used in 3 locations to stress that Allah caused prophets to follow each other, ONLY ONE CONTEXT, the word Qaffaya is perfect to be used in this context, in 1736 the word give us a non complete context while there is another words that Allah used over 170 times to express following

the 'shadda' is above the Fa in 287, 546, 5727 (x2), but NOT in 1736.

QAFA in 1736 is verb form I
QAFFA in 287, 546, 5727 (x2) is verb form II

Does this change anything?

of course it does in the pronouonciation and the meaning, The word QaFfaYa, MUST alway have a shadda on the letter F, while the other word "Wa Qa Fa" does not have shadda on the F, hence they are totally different words in letters and in meaning, if it is "Qa Ffa Ya" then in 1736 the "La" should make the shadda dissppear and a full stop in the pronouncieation on the last letter F must be inforced, i.e "La Ta QQif" , in 1736 we can see a dumma on the F hence it is a present in an prder tense verb with no shadda on the F

unknownuser

Also the arabic word "Wa Qa Fa" has two common meanings

To Stand Up

To Stop

If both meanings contexted in 1736, both meaning will be valid as a metaphor regarding arguing

peace

mquran

as I stated, the above was my last comment regarding this subject, but it will be rude not to respond to a comment direct to me, well I reckon 1736 may apply to you

for your knowledge, Jiddal also means discusion it does not have to be an arguement

AB, the reason why we differ is what I call different 'etymological strategies' . I've had this problem with Anwar Goins (who has unparalelled scholarship in Arabic, in my experience) before he takes his meaning from the dictionaries straight to al-quraan without al-quraan playing an active role. I find that unacceptable.

Jidaal in al-quraan is used as follows
argue with them (jaadiluhum) in ways that are best and most gracious

so to me, 'jidaal' acquires meaning the more its used in the book. This is how I build my world-view of al-quraan.

unknownuser

Hi AhmadBahgat,

Then you would translate the ayat as follows?

You shall not argue without knowledge. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
Right?

Perfect bro, thanks

In your translation, u have 'argue' . Is there an arabic word meaning 'argue' present in that particular verse?

no there is not, but this is a common metaphor in the arabic world that represent arguing, I explained this before to Nadeem, this how the verse sounded to me BEFORE I READ THE TAFSIR BY 4 MAJOR ONES AND SURE THE MAJORITY WAS THE SAME, SO I FELT HAPPY AND CONFIDENT TO TAKE THAT MEANING

for me the highest on the list is "not to argue when you lack knowledge"

anyway, verse 1736 is clear as light that it means "DO NOT ARGUE WHEN YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE"

but what I'm 100% posutive about is 1736 means "DO NOT ARGUE WHEN YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE"

The word "argue" in Arabic doesn?t exist in 1736 and yet Ahmedbaghat insists that it is clear as light and 100% positive, defining it yet further as a metaphor. Go figure this one out. This is getting abnormally hilarious, especially when coming from a highly influenced Arabic linguistic, as he so confidently and vehemently professes. roll lol

And here is another case (emphasis in bold & underlined)

I've had this problem with Anwar Goins (who has unparalelled scholarship in Arabic, in my experience) before he takes his meaning from the dictionaries straight to al-quraan without al-quraan playing an active role. I find that unacceptable.

History and ah yes, NATURE has shown enough evidences amongst disgruntled yet highly skilled and influential linguists. I mean the fatwa driven professionals.

unknownuser

The word "argue" in Arabic doesn?t exist in 1736 and yet Ahmedbaghat insists that it is clear as light and 100% positive, defining it yet further as a metaphor. Go figure this one out. This is getting abnormally hilarious, especially when coming from a highly influenced Arabic linguistic, as he so confidently and vehemently professes. roll lol

well don't take it as to argue then, how about

Do not stop at things that you lack knowledge in

now this advice is to you mister non arabic speaker

I challenge anyone to fault the above translation