I was curious to know why this topic interest you so, and I just noticed your fairly new post about "The Last Messenger, Muhammad"...

This discussion has turned into something I call "silly season" and I am moving on to another discussion.

Salaam

I have already given you the ayats that refer to KANA...

Using the "internal dictionary" of The Book, you will see when The God talks about Himself, He makes it clear how He uses the word "kana". The God uses"ma kana/kuna" to denote when He IS NOT doing something, for example, in 1964 (not forgetful) and 3628 (not sending) and He uses "inna kana" when He IS doing something, for example in 3340 (ever knowing) 443 (ever warning) 445 (ever sending) and 7110 (ever forgiving).

The other ayats are supporting ayats...its called TASRIF. If, as you say these ayats, 661 and 737 reflect "past events" then are you saying that messengers used to come and take people's souls in the past but they are not doing that act in the present and future?

With all due respect, brother, I really don't know what else to say to you even though I have given you ayat after ayat. I am not here to try to convince you of anything. The God has given us the gift of intelligence and I intend to utilize it to the fullest to know who my Creator is and what MY responsibility is to Him.

If you still understand that kana "signifies past upto the point in time of saying-reading it, NOT future." after I have given you 661 and 737, just to mention a few...

and that your "time-line" is "An event. an act signified by past tense signifies time-line. The Day the Man was sent to Earth he was sent with this info that the guidance will keep coming from Him, the Sustainer Lord. The end is when the Guidance has since been sent for the entire humanity, unlike the past when it was local affair, for different nations, not global message. None, repeat none was the Messenger for entire humanity except the Last One." (I really don't know where you got this statement from because you never cited your source...but anyway) after I have given you 771-13 where The God gives us HIS time-line...

then I am ok with that...I just disagree with your reasoning, logic and conclusion which is based on outside sources which are filled with conjecture, speculation and man-made rules of Arabic grammar.

We all have to stand before Our Creator at the appointed time when The God sends a messenger to take our soul (hint, hint, clue, clue ...he's ever sending messengers) and He will make clear to us at that point whether we were rightly guided or astray.

Are you willing to bet your soul on what your understand? if you are, fine...you will find out whether you were right or wrong at your appointed time.

ok...I am going to try this one more time...

I asked you

According to Q.445, is it your understanding that The God SENT messengers ("past transaction&quot and is NOT SENDING ("not continous in the present and future&quot messengers today?

Your response was YES...

Then, in the ayat you quoted, 2875, The God is speaking to the Messenger informing him of certain things regarding Moses. If, as you claim, kana means past and not present or future how did the Messenger become the Messenger?

The God said that He found Muhammad "dhallan" (astray) and He "fahada" (guided) him. (937) A messenger had to come to him AFTER Moses. Are you saying that there were no messengers sent after Moses?

An event. an act signified by past tense signifies time-line. The Day the Man was sent to Earth he was sent with this info that the guidance will keep coming from Him, the Sustainer Lord. The end is when the Guidance has since been sent for the entire humanity, unlike the past when it was local affair, for different nations, not global message. None, repeat none was the Messenger for entire humanity except the Last One.

This is pure conjecture with no support. Allah gives us the "time-line" that you speak of in 771-13.

Provided one does not coin his own meanings and assigns it to the words of Allah....

As I explained to you earlier, I use tasrif, the internal dictionary of The Book, which makes clear the definition of Quranic words...it appears, you on the other hand choose to rely only on outside sources made up of man-made rules of Arabic grammar...now i ask you, who is coining their own meaning and assigning it to the words of Allah?

Among other things...asked and answered...but if you missed it, here it is again...

Using the "internal dictionary" of The Book (i.e., tasrif) I see when The God talks about Himself, He makes it clear how He uses the word "kana". The God uses "ma kana/kuna" to denote when He IS NOT doing something, for example, in 1964 (not forgetful) and 3628 (not sending) and uses inna kana when He IS doing something, for example in 3340 (ever knowing) 443 (ever warning) 445 (ever sending) and 7110 (ever forgiving).

According to the Quran, kana means "was/ever is". The God was and ever is Knowing, Forgiving, Sending, Warning. The God does not "stop knowing" or "stop warning" or "stop sending" or "stop forgiving" unless He specifically tells you that He is not doing it.

For the sake of simplicity, if a person is a medical doctor by profession, and he retires, in the past, he WAS a doctor, but in the present and future he doesnt stop being a doctor...he was and ever is going to be a medical doctor.

Using your line of reasoning, if kana means "past" and not continuous in the "present and future" then if he is not sending messengers in the present or future, then there is a problem in 661 and 737 because The God says that He sends messengers to take our souls at the time of death.

Moreover, in the ayat you quoted, 2845 The God is speaking to the Messenger informing him of certain things regarding Moses. If, as you claim, kana means past and not present or future how did the Messenger become the Messenger? The God said that He found Muhammad "dhallan" (astray) and He "fahada" (guided) him. 937 A messenger had to come to him AFTER Moses. Are you saying that there were no messengers after Moses?

The difference between what you understand kana to mean and what I understand lies in where we look to support our position. Your understanding of the verb "kana" is supported by outside references and dictionaries/lexicons etc., which is not a bad thing, because I do that too, since English is my first language. However, I take that research one step further and go back to The Book and see how The God uses that same word, using tasrif.

I trust The Book Alone and Allah's argument is the Conclusive Argument. In (6150) Allah tells the Messenger to say to the people

"Say Then Allah's is the Conclusive Argument..."

It is my hope that I conveyed my understanding to you clearly.

I was expecting this sot of lengthy statement, that was the reason I wanted to know and restrict to

Why would you want to "restrict" this discussion? The God says "...bring your proof..." (2875). We are discussing Our Creator. I view this forum as a "think tank" where we "roll up our sleeves and get busy." We check our egos and baggage at the door, and contrary to Shaitan's statement that he will show Allah how ungrateful we are, that we are grateful for the gifts that The God has given us and we use our intellect to find out who Allah is and what our responsibility is to Him.

These gifts...Allah speaks about those who have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not and ears wherewith they hear not...they are like cattle, deaf and dumb, but worse than that, they are astray. (7179)

No one person has a "lock" on understanding of this Book. The God says in 3127, "And of the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea with seven more seas added to it, the words of The God would not be exhausted..."

Allah told the messenger to say to the people..."O people of the Book, come to an equitable word between us and you, that we shall serve none but Allah and that we shall not associate nothing with Him, and that some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah. But if they turn away, then say Bear witness that we are Muslims." (363)

My purpose here is not to convince you that I am right and you are wrong, to the contrary, if you derive some understanding from what I communicate to you, it's all good. If you reject it, that's fine too...just know that whatever your understanding is, are you prepared to bet your soul on that understanding and stand before your Creator with that understanding and "take your lumps"...good or bad?

P.S. when I say "you" I dont mean you personally...

Salaam

An interesting line of reasoning...I do not agree with it, but we all have to stand before The God with what we understand. This is my understanding of Q.445

Using the "internal dictionary" of The Book (i.e., tasrif) I see when The God talks about Himself, He makes it clear how He uses the word "kana". The God uses "ma kana/kuna" to denote when He IS NOT doing something, for example, in 1964 (not forgetful) and 3628 (not sending) and when He IS doing something, for example in 3340 (ever knowing) 443 (ever warning) 445 (ever sending) and 7110 (ever forgiving).

According to the Quran, kana means "was/ever is". The God was and ever is Knowing, Forgiving, Sending, Warning. The God does not "stop knowing" or "stop warning" or "stop sending" or "stop forgiving" unless He specifically tells you that He is not doing it.

Using your line of reasoning, if kana means "past" and not continuous in the "present and future" then if he is not sending messengers in the present or future, then there is a problem in 661 and 737 because The God says that He sends messengers to take our souls at the time of death.

Moreover, in the ayat you quoted, 2845 The God is speaking to the Messenger informing him of certain things regarding Moses. If, as you claim, kana means past and not present or future how did the Messenger become the Messenger? The God said that He found Muhammad "dhallan" (astray) and He "fahada" (guided) him. 937 A messenger had to come to him AFTER Moses. Are you saying that there were no messengers after Moses?

And as far as your "time-line" being an "event", this is a statement with no support. However, The God tells us what the "time-line" is in 771-13. Here you can read in context how The God gives us the "time-line" for when He begins and stops sending messengers.

As far as the messenger being the "perpetual and permanent warner/awakener" this is another statement with no support. The messenger did his job during his lifetime but he's been dead for over 1400 years and is no longer able to warn anyone. 3143

The messenger was the last of the prophets...not the last messenger because The God said that He is ever sending messengers (445) until they reach their appointed time, the Day of Judgement. (7711)

Just in case you are wondering about these messengers, The God tells you that He chooses messengers from angels and men (2275)

Mohammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam

Do you really want to keep saying that since in The Book of Guidance, The God told the messenger to Say to the people "We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us, and that whic was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Issac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit." (383)

Or could it be that the majority of those who call themselves "sunni muslims" have adopted the habit of making this statement whenever they say something regarding the messenger...remember The God said, "And if you obey MOST of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from The God's Way. They follow naught but conjecture and they only lie." (6117)

When you look at the times The God speaks about MOST people, it's not a good thing. These are a few...Most hate the truth (2370); Most associate partners (12106); and Most are mushriks (3042)

Leave that baggage at the door...

First let me know whether the confusion about sending in future is over or still exists. If it still exists, what is the source in its support?

I am not confused about anything. I am following your line of reasoning just fine. I don't want to misunderstand your position, so to make sure that we are on the same page, could you respond to the questions

When you translated Q. 445 you said "in the entire time-line"...can you please explain what you meant by that statment? According to the Quran, what "time-line" are you referring to? When does it begin and when does it end?

According to Q.445, is it your understanding that The God SENT messengers ("past transaction&quot and is NOT SENDING ("not continous in the present and future&quot messengers today?

Is it your understanding that "Mohammad" is a "permanent and perpetual" warner/awakener not only to the people during his time but also a "permanent and perpetual" warner/awakener to everyone the Quran reaches after his death

Mohammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam pronounced "And this Qur'aan has been communicated to me so that I admonish/awaken you the living people with this and to admonish/ awaken the one whom this Qur'aan reached". ;

All time Admonisher

"in the entire time-line"...can you please explain what you mean by that statment? What "time-line" are you referring to? When does it begin and when does it end?

And is it your understanding that The God SENT messengers and is NOT SENDING messengers today?

And is it your understanding that "Mohammad" is the "perpetual and permanent" warner/awakener?

The above signifies and portrays, "It is a fact that We were the Communicator/Sender in the entire time-line."

Thank you for your response. Let me be clearly on what you are conveying

Are you saying that given the verb, sentence structure, etc., in Q.445, you understand that a more precise translation of this ayat is "It is a fact that We were the Communicator/Sender in the entire time-line."

Deficient verb "kana" denotes a past transanction, act done in the past, not continuous action in the present and future as suggested in the translation quoted by you "A command from Us - truly We are ever sending messengers -" (Q.445)

Let me make sure I am understanding what you are implying...

Is it your understanding that since "kana" denotes past transaction, done in the past and not continous in the present and future then in Q.445, The God SENT messengers in the past and is not sending messengers continuous in the present and future?

If this is not what you mean, could you please clearly explain the meaning of Q.445?

I would appreciate you providing a more precise translation since it seems that it is your understanding that "the translator seems to have little bothered to first peep into some grammar book to know what does a deficient verb mean. Nor he seems to have bothered to first know the structure of the sentences in three worded last part Ayah. Nor he seems to have remembered or taken care the context and the reference to which the Ayah relates."

Given your knowledge of "deficient verbs" "sentence structure" and "context and the reference to which the ayat relates"...what is your understanding of what this ayat is saying?

I agree the Book is the guide. The God told the messenger to say "...and this Quran has been revealed to me that with IT I may warn you and whomever it reaches..." (Q.619)

As far as the messenger "permanently and perpetually" a warner/awakener, The God says, "And Muhammadun is but a messenger - messengers have already passed away before him. If then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?..." (Q.3143) Therefore, we dont need the messenger anymore once he has delivered The Message.

Also, The God says, "A command from Us - truly We are ever sending messengers -" (Q.445)

The Messenger was the last of the prophets, but The God is "...ever sending messengers." "A mercy from thy Lord - truly He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (Q. 445-6)

Who do you understand are the messengers that The God is "ever sending"?

Mohammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam

If the Book is the Guide, where in the Book are we told to say this? In the Book, (Q.383)

"Say We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us, and that whic was revealed to Abraham and Isshmael and Issac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit."

A Guide is the one who is in possession of the road map to destination. He guides only with the help of the Road Map-the Book revealed and communicated to him.

...and what exactly are you inferring?

As I ponder this "2nd person masculine singular" grammar in the Reading, I understand it to pose a problem for some muslims who believe that the prophet guides. When I read Q.2272 and 2856-57, the problems I understand they are confronted with is when you look at Q. 2272, The addressor is Allah and the addressee is the messenger. The God says to the messenger, "Their guidance is not your duty, but Allah guides..." and "sufficient is thy Lord as a Guide and a Helper." (Q.2531) and Allah doesn't need an "assistant" or "helper" to convey His Message. Also, in 2856-57, Allah says to the messenger in ayat 56 that he can't guide those whom he loves (who were right there with him), so how is he capable of guiding us today? Also, in ayat 57, Allah gives us a glimpse of what the people at that time said, "...if we follow the guidance with you..." Here we see that the messenger had to follow the guidance that was sent down also, therefore a follower cannot be an innovator and their argument of the validity of their hadith fails.

"And The God will establish the truth by His Words, though the guilty be averse." (Q.1082)

"For them is good news in this world's life and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of The God. That is the
Mighty Achievement." (Q.1064)

Some of us have very busy lives...but not too busy to stop and discuss our Creator. I always have time for that! Your welcome.

@uq Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding. Also, please excuse my typo, it should have read Dictionary of the Holy Quran, p.8

I will try to convey my understanding as simply as I possibly can.

@SAbboushi
On the paper were the words

If you are referring to Q.2145 where it says ?And even if thou shouldst bring to those who have been given the Book?? you need to first read the context in order to get a sense of what is being conveyed.

In Q.2144 the subject of the discourse is ?ka? (2nd Per/M/Sing). Therefore, in 2145 the verb used there (ataita) must agree with the subject, be conjugated accordingly and must stay in the same tense. (See Dictionary of the Holy Quran, p..

As you read further in Q. 2145, the discourse reverts back to the initial subject of the discourse using the ?ka? (2nd Per/M/Sing). In reading the ayats in context, you are able to discern who is speaking and who is being spoken to.

Looking at these two ayats in context, alot can be discussed in these two ayats, however, simply put, The God is the addressor and the messenger is the addressee.

It is not necessary to be a "competent Arabic grammarian" to understand this Message. The God said "And certainly We have made the Quran easy to remember, but is there any one who will mind?" Q.5417

As a female with English as my first language, reading Q.2145, (if that is the ayat you are referring to when you made reference to regarding giving a female a piece of paper) I would say that this particular situation expressed in that ayat has nothing to do with me.

This particular situation was germane to the messenger during his time and whatever was going on. The God has made us privy to this information. Everything in The Reading does not pertain to us today. We are given glimpses of situations that occurred during the time of the messenger that have no bearing on us today except for the fact that we might derive some benefit and/or lesson from reading it.

This is a basic rule of grammar in any language...the subject must match the verb...for example, "He has" or "They have." You cannot say "He have" or "They has."

@uq same rules of grammar apply to your statement "sabbih bi hamdi rabbika..." and "'aqim al-salaata..." the ?ka? is the subject of the discourse and the subsequent verb must conjugate accordingly.

I do not believe I made the statement that ?ka? was exclusive to the messenger, and if I conveyed that message, I apologize, that was not my intent. I concur with Mazhar on the point that ?Ka? is only exclusive to it being 2nd Per/M/Sing.

You referenced comparing "English Law" and Quranic usage, (how The God uses His Words). There is no comparison with something created such as English Law and The Reading authored by The Creator of All Things. The God said "The Originator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs of the cattle, too, multiplying you thereby. Nothing is like Him; and He is The Hearing, The Seeing." Q.4211

Would you possibly want to re-think that statement?

As to whether or not the 2nd pers. sing. masc. pronoun refers specifically to Muhammad or to anyone who might read it, then this does not fall under the scope of the rules of grammar; this is an exegetical issue.

If i understanding you correctly, your position is that the use of the 2nd Per M/S in The Reading does not refer to grammatical usage but how a person "interprets" the ayat? If this is your position, I respectfully disagree. The God is clear (bayan) in the usage of words. We have a tendancy to "mis-interpret" its meaning if we are not careful in our study. We should approach The Reading free from all sorts of "baggage" and absorb its meaning with the help of "tasrif" and not "interpret" what The God is saying.

In 1689 we read that The God is telling the messenger..."And We have revealed the Book on YOU (alaika) explaining all things..." The God did not "reveal" His Message to us. This Message was "revealed" to the messenger and the messenger relayed (hadithina) this message to his people verbally. This is why The God calls The Message, the best hadith (see 3923).

Lets suppose this was written for the reader. Suppose the reader is female? Would this be the correct grammar for either a male or female reader?]

Be careful of "supposition." I am a female reader and student of The Reading. Given this premise, is that "supposed" to change the instructions from The God? This Message is clear, global and timeless. We are the ones who sometimes mis-interpret this Message and we need to "step up our game" and do some serious critical thinking when it comes to This Message. This is serious business...your soul depends on it!