new article - Quranic terms defined

ayman

Peace Mazhar,

Why are you proving and confirming to be dishonest in academic discussion? Go back and see that I translated word by word the first three words of the above quote.
This was with reference to the quote of the Ayat. The last part/two words are with reference to the following injunction which is not yet discussed when you gave this "intellectual's" translation of the last two words.
This has exposed that you do not know Arabic and are deceiving people by wearing a garb of "intellectual". Allah will keep exposing each and every Munafiq.Why are you so adamant to prove that apart from not knowing Arabic you are fool also by throwing such "pearls" on the forum? Do you know what is the difference between a transitive and non transitive verb? And do you know the implication of double "ll" in what you are presuing the sectarian formula "sallam"? You are not yet well trained in deceiving people. Practice for some time more.

This translation is taken from your translation of 3356, which you claim your mindless parroting of "salla allah 3alyh wa sallam" or "wa sallim" or whatever you made up is based on. If you think it is dishonest and foolish then go back and change your translation

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/033.%20Al%20Ahzaab/033.%20D%20Al%20Ahzaab.htm

You continue to evade to translate the complete sentence "salla allah alayh wa sallam", specifically, the "wa sallam" part. Instead of honestly translating and focusing on the issue you act like a 5 year old whose parents didn't raise well. I think that by now everyone can see that you have no answer and you cannot translate "wa sallam" without exposing your nonsense. When cornered on the simplest specifics such as providing the translation of one word, you run and expose your dogmatic side.

Peace,

Ayman

Mazhar

This translation is taken from your translation of 3356, which you claim your mindless parroting of "salla allah 3alyh wa sallam" or "wa sallim" or whatever you made up is based on. If you think it is dishonest and foolish then go back and change your translation

You seem to be a bold cheat and liar like Rashad Khalifa. My translation is this

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/033.%20Al%20Ahzaab/33.56.gif
It is certain that Allah and His Angels send blessings upon the Distinctly Elevated and Chosen One
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.104a.gif
O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative,
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/033.%20Al%20Ahzaab/33.56a.gif
you people incline upon him with love and praising praying Allah for sending blessings, and you people submit to him salutations showing obeisance in a humble and respectful manner. who refused to show obeisance to Adam whom Allah granted distinction and honour].

And you translated it by changing it with direction to Allah

Peace Mazhar,

You are claiming that you are saying " " based on the command in 3356. Here is how you translated 3356 (from your web site) and underlined is how you translated "" ("wa salemu&quot

It is certain that Allah and His Angels send blessings upon the Distinctly Elevated and Chosen One
O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative, you people incline upon him with love and praising praying Allah for sending blessings, and you people submit to him salutations showing obeisance in a humble and respectful manner.

In other words, when you say "sala allah alayh wa salam"/" " you are saying

Allah sent blessings, help, approval, to him and submits to him salutations showing obeisance.

Ayman

And now when I have pointed out to you the stupidies you have been showing with regard to Arabic words, you are avoiding to respond to those since by now you have realized that under no circumstances that could be implied which you stated in red bold.

ayman

Peace Mazhar,

You seem to be a bold cheat and liar like Rashad Khalifa. My translation is this
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/033.%20Al%20Ahzaab/33.56.gif
It is certain that Allah and His Angels send blessings upon the Distinctly Elevated and Chosen One
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.104a.gif
O you who declare to have accepted listen this imperative,
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/033.%20Al%20Ahzaab/33.56a.gif
you people incline upon him with love and praising praying Allah for sending blessings, and you people submit to him salutations showing obeisance in a humble and respectful manner. who refused to show obeisance to Adam whom Allah granted distinction and honour].
And you translated it by changing it with direction to Allah

You claimed to parrot the formula "sala allah alayh wa sallam" based on 3356. So all I did was to take the translation of the word "sallam" from your translation of 3356. Changing the tense or the subject from A to B doesn't change the meaning and the only subject in your formula is "allah". If you think that this translation is cheating and lying, then it is not my problem that your translation of 3356 is another big lie on your deceptive website. This is why you can't translate even the one word "sallam" or "sallim" in your nonsensical parroting of "sala allah alayh wa sallam". You are mindlessly parroting this statement to imitate Mohamad-worshipping sectarians and not to sincerely uphold the god's command in 3356.

The example of those who were given the Torah, but then failed to uphold it, is like the donkey that is carrying a cargo of books. Miserable indeed is the example of people who denied God's revelations. And God does not guide the wicked people.

And now when I have pointed out to you the stupidies you have been showing with regard to Arabic words, you are avoiding to respond to those since by now you have realized that under no circumstances that could be implied which you stated in red bold.

I didn't avoid anything. As you can see, I took those stupidities from your website. If you disagree that those are stupidities, then get some courage and stop running from the truth and directly tell us how you would translate "wa sallam" or "wa sallim" in your formula "sala allah alayh wa sallam". It would have taken you no more than 1 minute to translate this one word "wa sallam" instead of wasting everyone's time running around spewing obsenities. Is this the best you can do on this forum? Is this the extent of your knowledge?

Peace,

Ayman

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar,

You claimed to parrot the formula "sala allah alayh wa sallam" based on 3356. So all I did was to take the translation of the word "sallam" from your translation of 3356. Changing the tense or the subject from A to B doesn't change the meaning and the only subject in your formula is "allah". If you think that this translation is cheating and lying, then it is not my problem that your translation of 3356 is another big lie on your deceptive website. This is why you can't translate even the one word "sallam" or "sallim" in your nonsensical parroting of "sala allah alayh wa sallam". You are mindlessly parroting this statement to imitate Mohamad-worshipping sectarians and not to sincerely uphold the god's command in 3356.

The example of those who were given the Torah, but then failed to uphold it, is like the donkey that is carrying a cargo of books. Miserable indeed is the example of people who denied God's revelations. And God does not guide the wicked people.

I didn't avoid anything. As you can see, I took those stupidities from your website. If you disagree that those are stupidities, then get some courage and stop running from the truth and directly tell us how you would translate "wa sallam" or "wa sallim" in your formula "sala allah alayh wa sallam". It would have taken you no more than 1 minute to translate this one word "wa sallam" instead of wasting everyone's time running around spewing obsenities. Is this the best you can do on this forum? Is this the extent of your knowledge?

Peace,

Ayman

Donkeys may have some little knowledge but idiots are worse than donkeys. Instead of straight accepting stupidity of false translation by you, you are like mammals regurgitating the same thing again and again, even more times than mammals. I keep your stupidites highlighting. Now only an idiot student of Arabic will fail to notice that wasalim is signular of verb sallimu with presence of waw and separating vowel-less aleph. And my translation you have yourself quoted. From plural reduce it to singular and there is the translation of "wasalim".

You have not replied the observations about your "pearls of wisdom" stated few posts earlier.

Mazhar

Changing the tense or the subject from A to B doesn't change the meaning and the only subject in your formula is "allah".

Don't say this to a teacher of Arabic, he should slap on your face if you are his student. The subject of the verb is plural not singular "Allah", there is "waw" which is subject pronoun for plural, masculine, third person. Why do you talk such irrational and rather stupid things?

ayman

Peace Mazhar, all,

Don't say this to a teacher of Arabic, he should slap on your face if you are his student. The subject of the verb is plural not singular "Allah", there is "waw" which is subject pronoun for plural, masculine, third person. Why do you talk such irrational and rather stupid things?

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 are definitely on drugs or you have some mental issues. At any rate, since you are too lazy to provide your own translation, then for the benefit of the members of this forum here is the translation for all three according to your nonsensical web site's translation of 3356

"sala allah alayh wa sallam"

Allah sent blessings, help, approval, to him and submitted to him salutations showing obeisance (this is the sectarian formula, which is grammatical but blasphemous).

"sala allah alayh wa sallim"

Allah sent blessings, help, approval, to him and submit (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&quot

"sala allah alayh wa sallimu"

Allah sent blessings, help, approval, to him and submit (2nd person plural 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)

So any of the formulas that Mazhar decides to choose from these is a bunch of crap and I am sure this would also be the case for any other formula he dreams up in the future to imitate Mohamad-worshipping idolaters.

Peace,

Ayman

Mazhar

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.

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 please

ayman

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 please

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

san

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,

ayman

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

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

Mazhar

(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&quot

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.

san

Peace Ayman,

Peace San,

Good luck then since getting the formula's translation out of him is like pulling teeth.

Gotta need it -- as it may not be that easy...

http//prometheuscomic.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/twist-and-shout/

ayman

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

Mazhar

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.

ayman

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

Mazhar

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.

Zidane

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

Wakas

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.