Do you have an explanation for this? Poll

imrankhawaja

perfect imperfection

Wakas

peace all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what you, and others have missed

Re 1760
From article

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

Traditionalists cant explain this from Quran either.

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

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

Hizbullah

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

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

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

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

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

Quran 1047....

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

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

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

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

Here is what you, and others have missed

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

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

Wakas

peace Hizbullah,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mazhar

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

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

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

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

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

In reply 28 to Hizabullah you said

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

I asked you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parvez_mushtaq

peace all,

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

You have listed about 20 points to highlight the problem that we MIGHT have and even after 20 points your list goes on
I feel all the problems that you have listed can have a logical explanation , that too, can be explained with your logic As an example let me take this problem

From your article

If facing the cuboid called "Kaabah" pleased the messenger, as implied in 2144, then it should be noted it was full of idols at the time, as even accepted in traditional sources. They allege that since it was the first house dedicated to worship, built by Abraham, this was more important than the fact it was filled with idols and a pagan symbol, hence "pleased".

as Kabah was full of idols and every Muslim during that time believed that Islam was the abrogated version of Judaism and Christianity and obviously no one will have any problem in facing the qiblah of Jews .
as ALLAH subhanavatala says in verse 2.144(....We have certainly seen the turning of your face, , toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased.... ),It was the the wish of our prophet Mohammaed salla hu aliwa sallam that kiblah to be changed to Kabah ,of course which was full of idols

ALLAH subhanavatala seems to be convincing the believers in the verses 143(..... And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.) and in the verse 2.147(The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.) and not to worry about the idols

Now as you said .....

Further, "to God is the east and the west" in 2142 implies God encompasses all things, and the use of "God is Able/Powerful" in 2148 seems to restate this theme, i.e. this change is perhaps part of a bigger plan, and only the foolish will not understand this. This is reinforced with "God will bring you (all) together" and "that I may complete My favour upon you". Note, "God will bring you all together" which implies many/all believers coming together, and it is not something easy/ordinary, as it says "God is Able/Powerful" implying something a little out of the ordinary. Whatever this new change in qiblah is, i.e. AMAH, should be able to accomplish this.

This might be a prophecy given to the believers so that they might not worry about the idols in kabah and ALLAH subhanvatala will never make there deeds to get wasted and he will complete his favour

this is purely a logical explanation where i have used your logic to prove that Qiblah is the direction to be faced towards Kabah

after re-reading you article , i came to the conclusion that your focal-point theory is empty and does not have focal point
you able to list more than 20 points in addressing the problems of traditional Qiblah but you have not listed a SINGLE point to fill your focal-point .you should be well balanced ,Wakas .You should at least give 20 more points to prove that your view point is more reliable

As you said

..." i.e. a change of qiblah from what they were previously on, thus their new qiblah can never be Quran (as they would have been on that previously), sure the new qiblah is Quran based (obviously) but not Quran. Please re-read the article.

using you view point on Qiblah

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

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

can you give a logical explanation of the above verses

Wakas

Mazhar,
Thanks for demonstrating you couldn't provide any of the 3 things I asked for. Now, let's move onto testing your theory. Please provide your Quran-based translation of 171-8, 1760, 4827.

pm,
You make the same claim Muhammad Asad does regarding what verses talk about what qiblah change - i.e. he reverses the order. See my article

Before some options are discussed, it should be mentioned Muhammad Asad has a slightly different take on these verses, as he does not regard the prophet as being commanded to face Jerusalem, then later commanded otherwise (see his translation and notes on quranix.net). He does not believe in abrogation (see here). Unusually, he says the "great test" in 2143 was restoring the "prayer direction" from Jerusalem to the cuboid called Kaabah NOT from the cuboid to Jerusalem as is commonly interpreted. Traditional Islamic history tells us that the Arabs revered the cuboid and Muhammad and the believers faced it whilst in Mecca, thus one would think it would have been harder to face away from it, than return to it. Furthermore, his view would imply that the messenger was "pleased" for the believers to undergo a "great test" - which I consider unlikely. Lastly, the flow of the verses does not seem to fit his take on it. He seems to hold this understanding as a consequence of rejecting abrogation.

It is an unfortunate demonstration of your reasoning that you can make a claim such as "this is purely a logical explanation where i have used your logic to prove that Qiblah is the direction to be faced towards Kabah" after admitting I raised 20 objections to traditional/your understanding and you only replied to one!

Work through the rest, see what happens.

can you give a logical explanation of the above verses

Which verses?

Mazhar

Mazhar,
Thanks for demonstrating you couldn't provide any of the 3 things I asked for. Now, let's move onto testing your theory. Please provide your Quran-based translation of 171-8, 1760, 4827.

Peace

This is your patent style, more childish than scholarly.

Simple grammar rules are mentioned. You can see them in any grammar book written in English. Just see about Laam of Intent and Subjunctive mood verbs. And then tell us whether or not your assertion about future tense is correct or foolish.

Just restrict to your verdict about a specific verb of 177.

Wakas

Simple grammar rules are mentioned. You can see them in any grammar book written in English. Just see about Laam of Intent and Subjunctive mood verbs. And then tell us whether or not your assertion about future tense is correct or foolish.

I'm not disputing the grammar information you highlighted. I'm disputing your assertion that that grammar info makes my view impossible according to the Arabic. I asked you to make such an explicit statement, you declined. I hope you are not arguing with me because I used the wrong terminology, i.e. future tense.
In any case, here is what I know, proven by corpus.quran.com and any grammar book. The words highlighted clearly imply imperfect/present/future, and it uses perfect/past when referring to the first time, thus making it possible the 2nd event is referring to the future. Makes perfect sense considering it is stated in the context of a warning.

177 If you do good, you do good for yourselves, and if you do bad, then it is for it (i.e. yourselves). So when came the last/after promise, to sadden/distress your faces/wills and enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had overcome/conquered (with) destruction.
178 Perhaps your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you revert then so will We. And We made Hell a gathering place for the rejecters/concealers/ungrateful.

Once you make an explicit statement saying that my view is impossible according to the Arabic, I will ask those I know that are knowledgeable of Arabic to take a look at your claim. Simple.

Hizbullah

peace Wakas,

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

The intricacies of the Quranic system, i am well aware off. I am sorry but It is you who were unable to comprehend the intricacies of the Quranic system which it seems quite clearly that you were unaware.

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

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

You then cite a verses which mentions the word "quran" and just because it doesn't mention "furqan", according to your logic, you think you have a point.

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

Q;0303 - We sent down upon you, , the Book in truth, confirming to what is between, support it, and I sent down the Torah and the Gospel.

Q;0304 - FROM BEFORE, AS GUIDANCE FOR MANKIND AND I SENT DOWN THE FURQAN. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of ALLAH will have a severe punishment, and ALLAH is exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.

So its explicit that the Furqan was sent down before the Tawrat and Injeel and before the Quran. As per the Quran - 0253 and 2148; it was given to the Prophet Musa, who was a Messenger-Prophet just like the Last Prophet of ALLAH . Prophet Musa was sent to mankind of this world, considering the fact that he was sent to the 12 Tribal Nations , ancestors of mankind in this present world, yours and mine. Quran 0304 above is the biggest prove!

I note however you do not make an explicit point, and simply pose a question. You do this often. Probably because to hide you have little to no point.

I believe its you. Your discussion with Brother Mazhar proves it all. Brother gave an explicit scholarly explanation but you were stupefied with your views?

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

Below was my reply to your post above.

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

Wakas

Hizbullah,

Thanks for demonstrating you have no verse which shows Moses was sent to AAlameena, unlike messenger of Quran ;D
Let's examine your claim about 34 as the "biggest prove"
He sent down to you the book with truth, authenticating what is present with it; and He sent down the Torah and the Injeel.
From before as a guidance for the people, and He sent down the Criterion. Those who rejected the revelations of God.....

Pay close attention to the "and". The part in blue obviously refers to the torah/injeel. So your claim may or may not be correct. However I find it telling you consider this your "biggest prove" as it seems like grasping at straws.

But dont take my word for it - ask any long term forum member here, see if they conclude what you conclude.

I should also point out that you put Muhammad in brackets (since its not in the Arabic) and it says kitab not quran.

Mazhar

I'm not disputing the grammar information you highlighted. I'm disputing your assertion that that grammar info makes my view impossible according to the Arabic. I asked you to make such an explicit statement, you declined. I hope you are not arguing with me because I used the wrong terminology, i.e. future tense.
In any case, here is what I know, proven by corpus.quran.com and any grammar book. The words highlighted clearly imply imperfect/present/future, and it uses perfect/past when referring to the first time, thus making it possible the 2nd event is referring to the future. Makes perfect sense considering it is stated in the context of a warning.

177 If you do good, you do good for yourselves, and if you do bad, then it is for it (i.e. yourselves). So when came the last/after promise, to sadden/distress your faces/wills and enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had overcome/conquered (with) destruction.
178 Perhaps your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you revert then so will We. And We made Hell a gathering place for the rejecters/concealers/ungrateful.

Once you make an explicit statement saying that my view is impossible according to the Arabic, I will ask those I know that are knowledgeable of Arabic to take a look at your claim. Simple.

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

Why have you rendered the past verbs as imperfect in your translation?

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.058/1.%20Mohseneena%20He%20Seen%20Noon/40.gif Verb Perfect; Second Person; plural; masculine; ; Subject Pronoun, in nominative state; - Verbal noun. (1)1707(2)1707=2

/- /

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.049/196.%20Sue%20Seen%20Waw%20Hamza/19.gif Verb Perfect; Second person; plural; masculine; ; Subject Pronoun in nominative state; - Verbal noun. (1)1707=1

/- /

Wakas

Ahh, I took them as part of the conditional sentence, hence referring to an as yet undecided outcome, depending on what people do. Thanks for pointing that out. In my original article I did not highlight them
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
I will change my article shortly to "did good" / "did bad" though. This works out better as what follows is imperfect, implying a distinction. I will also change "reverted".

Thus, can we conclude that since those are the only two verbs you highlighted the rest of my post is correct referring to the imperfect use? ;D

Mazhar

Ahh, I took them as part of the conditional sentence, hence referring to an as yet undecided outcome, depending on what people do. Thanks for pointing that out. In my original article I did not highlight them
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
I will change my article shortly to "did good" / "did bad" though. This works out better as what follows is imperfect, implying a distinction. I will also change "reverted".

Thus, can we conclude that since those are the only two verbs you highlighted the rest of my post is correct referring to the imperfect use? ;D

No, rest is also incorrect.

http//So when came the last/after promise, to sadden/distress your faces/wills and enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had overcome/conquered (with) destruction.

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/017.%20Al%20Israa/Temp%2001%2017.007c.gif
Eventually, when the time of second of the two promised occasions reached;

" to sadden/distress your faces/wills and enter al maSJD" Who were they to do this?

Time adverb needs apodosis clause which can be elided, if the context makes its estimation explicit.

Read what was done on reaching of first pf the two promised occasions

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/017.%20Al%20Israa/Temp%2001%2017.005b.gif
Accordingly, when the time of executing promise for first of the two occasions reached, Our Majesty appointed-raised upon you/Bani Iesraa'eel Our selected servants, men of military might, thereby they entered the innermost of your dwellings;

Wakas

No, rest is also incorrect.

According to corpus.quran.com the words are imperfect

http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(17712)
http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(17714)

Who were they to do this?

In my view there are two possible interpretations 1) the category is "servants of ours" wherein believers can be included this time around, or 2) it is referring to believers taking us back to 171 showing that the prophet was there during the inviolable time of acknowledgement, hence taken from that time to a time in the future. As I said in the article is it a coincidence two al masjid are mentioned in 171 and it just so happens 177 requires two events involving al masjid, at different times, i.e. two al masjid are of relevance to the prophecy.

Who are "they" according to you?

Mazhar

Yes, verb is imperfect, but why you miss other information about it which is for semantic purposes

Please read about both particle of intent and subjunctive mood as to what is its grammatical status as to whether or not it has future tense in it.

And We unambiguously pronounced the fact to Bani Iesraa'eel in the Book, "Certainly, you people will create disturbance and imbalance in the Earth, for creating chaos on two occasions;
And you will surely be haughty, extreme haughtiness ".
Accordingly, when the time of executing promise for first of the two occasions reached, Our Majesty appointed-raised upon you/Bani Iesraa'eel Our selected servants, men of military might, thereby they entered the innermost of your dwellings;
And taking matters to logical conclusion has been the promise that stands fulfilled- accomplished.

After a lapse of time, We revived for you the position over them;
And We reinforced you with wealth and sons;
And We rendered you numerous, demographically.

If you acted modestly, gracefully and generously you would have done it for your own selves, and if you people did evil, thereby, you will have to suffer its effect.

Eventually, when the time of second of the two promised occasions reached;

We appointed those mighty ones so that they may depress and sadden your faces, and so that they may enter the Mosque just as they had entered on the first occasion, and so that they smash what they had conquered, quite destructively.

As I said in the article is it a coincidence two al masjid are mentioned in 171 and it just so happens 177 requires two events involving al masjid, at different times, i.e. two al masjid are of relevance to the prophecy.

Where are two in 177? Noun is singular definite, and the suffixed object pronoun with the verb refers back to same one certain Masjid.

177 Grammatically and syntactically parsed

Wakas

Yes, verb is imperfect, but why you miss other information about it which is for semantic purposes

Please read about both particle of intent and subjunctive mood as to what is its grammatical status as to whether or not it has future tense in it.

I just did and all the sites I found said imperfect verb and subjunctive mood is about the future e.g.

http//arabic.tripod.com/Moods1.htm

All these are moods only of the Imperfective verbs. This means that they can be expressed in both the present and the future tenses.

Remember that the imperfective alone often denotes the future tense in classical writings.

http//www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=7296

The subjunctive of the imperfect ( (has always a future sense

Even your translation has "may" which is a verb expressing possibility

We appointed those mighty ones so that they may depress and sadden your faces, and so that they may enter the Mosque just as they had entered on the first occasion, and so that they smash what they had conquered, quite destructively.

If it's in the past, it either happened or didn't, not "may" happen.

parvez_mushtaq

What happened to your site , Wakas
it is down form yesterday night .i could not open it even today .something went wrong
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html

Mazhar

Wakas,

Peace

You naively miss the point. verb is prefixed with particle , "in order to", "for the purpose of"

When it is part of the past verb, it denotes the action that was intended at that point in time. semantically it is verbal noun.

'he went to library to study; he went to library for study, he went to library that he may study there'.

would you take may as future tense.

Wakas

Those links discuss the particle Lam, but say the same thing.
you said, quote "When it is part of the past verb" - it's not a past verb, it's imperfect.

Future is a possibility it seems.