new article - Quranic terms defined
-
(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"
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.
-
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
-
-
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.
-
-
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
-
-
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.
-
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 -
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.
-
Quote
Also see 1790-93 showing Muhammad cannot literally ascend into the heavens.No such thing is said therein. That is a quote of non believers, and even they have not said this. Please recheck the Arabic text of the Ayat.
I believed Muhamamad is the first astronout..
What? Jesus also ascend to heaven?? Ok Ok.. Muhammad is the second and Jesus is the first astronout.. -
I believed Muhamamad is the first astronout..
What? Jesus also ascend to heaven?? Ok Ok.. Muhammad is the second and Jesus is the first astronout..Before 20th century yours and mine fathers didnt' know even the word astronaut; and that is the quote of Meccans who thought man could go into space.
-
Peace Mazhar,
"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.I can tell that Arabic is not your native tongue and you probably learned Arabic when you were older perhaps in one of those Taliban-style Mosque Madrasahs where they made you memorize a whole bunch of stuff and didn't encourage critical thinking and maybe even spanked you with a stick if you didn't recite properly or questioned authority.
What you are saying about the subject always coming after the verb in Arabic is a mistake that even a 5-year old native Arabic speaker wouldn't make. It can come before or after. There are probably hundreds of examples in the great reading of SVO order. For example, the following sentence has SVO order
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.2a.gifhttp//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.1a.gif
Your ignorance of even basic Arabic outside what you were made to blindly memorize would explain why you still don't have enough intelligence and knowledge to answer the following two simple basic points
-
Povide a translation for your formula "salla allah alayh wa sallim".
-
Why you don't use the sectarian formula, which is "salla alla alayh wa sallam", and instead you made up your own formula?
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
I have something to say on this, or rather something to ask Mazhar.
You claim to attach these words of praise to the mention of the name of Muahmmed based on 3356 where Allah had sent him praise etc, lets not go into the grammatics of the words here, but thats basically it, and in your site in every place of Muhammed's name you have attached this phrase.
Now in Quran there are umpteen verses telling you that Allah is the Most Exalted, Most everything, Highest of the High, it is clear that Allah IS the ONE and ONLY, but you attach NO words of praise to Him at each mention of HIS name, why is that?
"" It is certain that Allah and His Angels send blessings upon the Distinctly Elevated and Chosen One
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""
All throughout your translation, for someone reading this for the first time, you have attached MUCH greater importance to Muhammed than you have to Allah. You may not think so and you may have done this unconsciously, but I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty that is how it reads in English.
To add to this misleading confusion is the way you have translated 18102
""Is it then that those who have refused to accept have thought that they may adopt My created ones besides Me as patrons/guardian.""
Literal Did those who disbelieved think/suppose that they take My worshippers/slaves (as) guardians/allies from other than Me? We have prepared/made ready for the disbelievers Hell (as) a place of descent .
Yusuf Ali Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment.
Pickthal Do the disbelievers reckon that they can choose My bondmen as protecting friends beside Me? Lo! We have prepared hell as a welcome for the disbelievers.
Arberry What, do the unbelievers reckon that they may take My servants as friends, apart from Me? We have prepared Gehenna for the unbelievers' hospitality.
Shakir What! do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants to be guardians besides Me? Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers.
Sarwar Do the unbelievers think they can make My servants as their guardians instead of Me? We have prepared hell as a dwelling place for the disbelievers.
H/K/Saheeh Then do those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants instead of Me as allies? Indeed, We have prepared Hell for the disbelievers as a lodging.
Malik Do the unbelievers think that they can take my servants as protectors, to save themselves from Hell, instead of Me? Certainly We have prepared Hell for the entertainment of such unbelievers.
Maulana Ali** Do those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants to be friends besides Me? Surely We have prepared hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers.
Free Minds Did those who reject think that they can take My servants as allies besides Me? We have prepared Hell for the rejecters as a dwelling place.
Qaribullah Do the unbelievers think that they can take My worshipers as guides other than Me? We have prepared Gehenna to be the hospitality of the unbelievers.
George Sale Do the unbelievers think that I will not punish them, for that they take my servants for their protectors besides me? Verily We have prepared hell for the abode of the infidels.
JM Rodwell What! do the infidels think that they can take my servants as their patrons, beside Me? Verily, we have got Hell ready as the abode of the infidels.
Asad Do they who are bent on denying the truth think, perchance, that they could take My creatures for protectors against Me?" Verily, We have readied hell to welcome all who deny the truth !'
now 'ibadi' is My servants, or My slaves, which includes Muhammed and is to do with 'humans' where as 'My created ones' could be the moon, the stars, mountains and anything else.
Reading 181-4 it is clear that those doing what you do are lost but that they thought they were doing good works in doing this.
I think you should read through your translations with eyes other than your own and if you know any native English speaker who is not a Muslim or has never read Quran then get them to take a look and give thier unbiased opinion on what they take from your translation, because to me when reading it you give MUCH more weight and importance to Muhammed than you do to ALLAH.
-
Can you provide a translation?
Also see 1790-93 showing Muhammad cannot literally ascend into the heavens.
No such thing is said therein. That is a quote of non believers, and even they have not said this. Please recheck the Arabic text of the Ayat.
1793 "Or that you have a luxurious mansion, or that you can ascend into the heavens. And we will not believe in your ascension unless you bring for us a record that we can read." Say "Glory be to my Lord. Am I anything other than a human messenger!"
Arabic text about it is this
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/017.%20Al%20Israa/17.93a.gif -
Peace Mazhar,
I can tell that Arabic is not your native tongue and you probably learned Arabic when you were older perhaps in one of those Taliban-style Mosque Madrasahs where they made you memorize a whole bunch of stuff and didn't encourage critical thinking and maybe even spanked you with a stick if you didn't recite properly or questioned authority.
What you are saying about the subject always coming after the verb in Arabic is a mistake that even a 5-year old native Arabic speaker wouldn't make. It can come before or after. There are probably hundreds of examples in the great reading of SVO order. For example, the following sentence has SVO order
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.2a.gifhttp//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.1a.gif
Your ignorance of even basic Arabic outside what you were made to blindly memorize would explain why you still don't have enough intelligence and knowledge to answer the following two simple basic points
-
Povide a translation for your formula "salla allah alayh wa sallim".
-
Why you don't use the sectarian formula, which is "salla alla alayh wa sallam", and instead you made up your own formula?
Peace,
Ayman
Arabic is neither my native language nor was it my subject in my studies and nor was it the language in my professional career. Nor I learnt it from any Madrassa or University. I learnt it only from Qur'aan, at my own, with the assistance of work done by hundreds of people about it.
I don't know why every time you expose yourself to be a greater fool than your previous post. The Ayat quoted above is a nominal sentence. The first word is the subject of the sentence and is evident from being in nominative case. And the word "" after it is the predicate of the subject and is a verbal sentence, with subject pronoun/doer of the verb built in, which is , and in Arabic it is mentioned as " ". And in the end is the object of the verb in accusative state since object is always accusative. For this reason you will see my translation
He, Ar'Reh'maan taught the Qur'aan.
PM 552 He has taught the Qur?an. {The subject of verb is Pronoun He-which refers back to the antecedent- Ar'Reh'maan. The Subject comes after the verb.
-
-
You claim to attach these words of praise to the mention of the name of Muahmmed based on 3356 where Allah had sent him praise etc, lets not go into the grammatics of the words here, but thats basically it, and in your site in every place of Muhammed's name you have attached this phrase.
Now in Quran there are umpteen verses telling you that Allah is the Most Exalted, Most everything, Highest of the High, it is clear that Allah IS the ONE and ONLY, but you attach NO words of praise to Him at each mention of HIS name, why is that?
Answer is in your quote and belief. You and majority of others never dispute the Sublime Exalted position of Allah, and the Exalted is built in the name Allah as you would see when we call and mention it in gramattical analysis of Ayat as and even for its states, Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, it is mentioned like this ; Exalted; the Greatness.
For the name of Messenger it is specifically mentioned since you and many others have reservations to accept his exalted position.
-
Answer is in your quote and belief. You and majority of others never dispute the Sublime Exalted position of Allah, and the Exalted is built in the name Allah as you would see when we call and mention it in gramattical analysis of Ayat as and even for its states, Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, it is mentioned like this ; Exalted; the Greatness.
I did ask you to consider someone that has never read Quran and is not Muslim, you have not. FYI and it is clear to anyone I have not 'disputed' the position of the messenger and am disputing why this particular phrase after the name of Muhammed and not after the name of Allah. It may be 'built into that name' of Allah as you claim, but not for someone thats never heard of Allah and also isn't it 'built into the name' of Muhammed 'the praised one' too? Now you are trying to justify praising Muhammed with this phrase and NOT praising Allah as you should with the excuse 'its built into the name', pretty disgusting from where i'm sitting.For the name of Messenger it is specifically mentioned since you and many others have reservations to accept his exalted position.
Thank you for answering the post but it didn't answer my questions nor did you take it as anything other than me 'having reservations about accepting Muhammed's position', not that I expected any thought or a clear answer from you based on what i actually said and based on what I have seen here of your inability to actually see what people are trying to tell you and your refusal to translate the 'wa sallam' as asked given your translation of the verse. it is clear what your position is to those reading and it is also clear what mine is.
I will try to put into words what I have taken as Aymans stance on your translation, just for the record.
33.41-42 tell you to celebrate the blessings of Allah and to do this often, morning and night - why have you not done this at every mention of HIS name?
33.43 tells you He sends (plural, imp verb) His blessing on YOU, meaning US (2nd person Plural) meaning MANKIND
33.53 tells you about going to see the prophet in his houseand how to behave, with respect which one should use going to anyone elses house. It tells you not to annoy the prophet but that he finds it hard to tell you that you are being annoying. Also how to show respect to his wives.
33.54 warns that Allah knows what you reveal or hide, this is related to above verse also
33.56 tells that Allah sent blessings on the prophet and that you should bless him also (accept that he is blessed and has a higher position than YOU) and show him respect, all relating to how to treat him and his wives and how to behave in his house
33.57 is relating again to those who annoy the prophet by not showing respect to him and his wives in his house
Your translation
"It is certain that Allah and His Angels send blessings upon the Distinctly Elevated and Chosen One " (1) clearly a distinction here where there is none"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. who refused to show obeisance to Adam whom Allah granted distinction and honour].
My understanding of this verse is that Allah sent blessings on the prophet and asks us to send blessings on him and greet him with respect, to show respect to him. Allah does not ask us to SUBMIT to him as we submit ONLY to Allah. It does not mean BOW to him as we bow only to Allah, to SHOW OBEISANCE is to BOW before someone superior. In your translation you are saying that 'Allah did this and says we should do that too' and your words are showing a meaning, by using submit and show obeisance, that Allah Himself showed obeisance and submitted to the prophet.
This seems to be the reason, imo, that you are avoiding translating the 'wa sallam' in salla allahu alaiyhi wa sallam
Ayman, if I have got it wrong what you are trying to show in your posts i would be grateful if you correct me please. I have just tried to put in my words what this whole translation looks like to me as I am native English speaker and this translation is an attempt at translating to English.
