Native Arabic Speakers: Help please

[Lobotomize94]

Quran 2:62 and Quran 5:69 are interpreted in English as being in the past tense. "those who believed"

Is the Arabic actually in the past tense, or is it in the present tense or is there no tense being shown at all?

If both of the above are true, then this is in direct contradiction to Quran:

[Quran 48:13] And whoever has not believed in Allah and His Messenger - then indeed, We have prepared for the disbelievers a Blaze.

This verse makes it clear that you must believe in Allah and the prophet Muhammad, otherwise you are a disbeliever.

So is Quran 2:62 and 5:69 actually in past tense (or is no tense being specified) as far as Arabic grammar? Especially 5:69. The context of 2:62 fits with the past tense, but what about Quran 5:69?

[Wakas]

Few points:

2:62 and 5:69 are in the perfect/past tense, see http://corpus.quran.com/

48:13 is linked to previous verses, check context

you have changed "His messenger" into "prophet Muhammad". Are they the same?


Ponder.

[ahmad]

Dear Lobotomize94

The Quran acknowledges that there were believers in many periods of history before Prophet Muhammed. (Ex: Followers of Prophet Abraham, Prophet Johah & Prophet Moses).

But now, Prophet Muhammed is the last and final messenger. So our belief cannot be complete without believing in him and his message.

If what I have written is not clear, please tell me to elaborate.

Best Regards,

[Lobotomize94]

Few points:

2:62 and 5:69 are in the perfect/past tense, see http://corpus.quran.com/

I looked at Quran 5:69 http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=69

I don't see the word "past tense" at all in there. My understanding of Arabic is very very limited, if you are a native speaker, can you break down what makes the word "believe" into "believed" in Arabic? Also what makes it say "and those who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians" rather than "those who "ARE" jews or Sabeans or Christians"

I guess what I'm asking is, how do you know it is past tense? What part of the Arabic tells you that specifically. Like for example "were" in English simply is past tense "are" is present tense. In Arabic, what is that in this verse?

48:13 is linked to previous verses, check context

you have changed "His messenger" into "prophet Muhammad". Are they the same?

I have to say that I disagree with this. While Quran 48:13 in context talks about the Jews/Christians at the time of the prophet and then starts by saying [paraphrasing] "whoever disbelieves in Allah and his messenger is a disbeliever"

"His messenger" = prophet Muhammad. This is singular, not plural. So this is talking about a specific prophet, not all the other prophets specifically. This specific prophet is Prophet Muhammad (which you also understand from reading the context).

What do you think?

Also Quran chapter 98:1-2 makes it clear that the disbelievers must believe this Prophet (singular, not plural) is a prophet of Allah and Quran 98:6 says those among the people of the book and polytheists who disbelieve will be punished.

[Lobotomize94]

Dear Lobotomize94

The Quran acknowledges that there were believers in many periods of history before Prophet Muhammed. (Ex: Followers of Prophet Abraham, Prophet Johah & Prophet Moses).

But now, Prophet Muhammed is the last and final messenger. So our belief cannot be complete without believing in him and his message.

If what I have written is not clear, please tell me to elaborate.

Best Regards,

Hello I see that your name is Ahmad. Perhaps you are a native Arabic speaker. I'm a convert and don't really speak that much Arabic.

So I ask that if you are a native speaker, can you show me why in Quran 5:69 --what part of the Arabic makes the word "believe" past tense. Can you go over that word for word in Arabic?

The translation is: and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians. What part of the Arabic specifically refers to the Jews/Sabeans/Christians in the past tense?

[ahmad]

Dear Lobotomize,
I have tried to explain it to the best of my abilities. But maybe other members can comment if they see something wrong.

Please note that I have highlighted the corresponding words with the same colors.

[5:69] Saheeh International
Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ - 5:69

[5:69] Transliteration
Inna allatheena amanoo waallatheena hadoo waalssabioona waalnnasara man amana biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri waAAamila salihan fala khawfun AAalayhim wala hum yahzanoona


amanoo Is a verb in the past tense that refers to those what have believed.

hadoo Is a verb in the past tense that refers to the jews. It roughly means those who have turned back to God. We can see a similar term used in 7:156

وَاكْتُبْ لَنَا فِي هَٰذِهِ الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ إِنَّا هُدْنَا إِلَيْكَ ۚ قَالَ عَذَابِي أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاءُ ۖ وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ ۚ فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالَّذِينَ هُم بِآيَاتِنَا يُؤْمِنُونَ - 7:156



[7:156] Transliteration
Waoktub lana fee hathihi alddunya hasanatan wafee alakhirati inna hudna ilayka qala AAathabee oseebu bihi man ashao warahmatee wasiAAat kulla shayin fasaaktubuha lillatheena yattaqoona wayutoona alzzakata waallatheena hum biayatina yuminoona

[5:69] Saheeh International
And decree for us in this world [that which is] good and [also] in the Hereafter; indeed, we have turned back to You." [ Allah ] said, "My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things." So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those who believe in Our verses -


If amanoo(those who have believed ) were in the present tense it would have been in the following form

[2:4] Qarai
and who believe in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.
وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ وَبِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ - 2:4

[2:4] Transliteration
Waallatheena yuminoona bima onzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika wabialakhirati hum yooqinoona

I hope this helps in a small way

Best regards,
Ahmad

[ahmad]

Please note that the word hudna used in 7:156 is also a verb in the past tense.

[Lobotomize94]

Thank you very much, that explains it well!

Can I ask another question about Arabic?

In English, we use the conjunction "and" as well as "or" when we are referencing two sentences connected to each other. Does this hold true in the Quran as well?

For example, in Quran 2:79, Wiki-Islam said it is only referring to the uneducated Jews in Quran 2:78, BUT Quran 2:78 exists in conjunction with previous verses talking about even educated jews corrupting the scripture. So doesn't that mean Quran 2:79 is talking about the whole thing and not just the verse immediately before it?

In English, if I say [The knowledgeable jews corrupted the scripture, AND, some knowledgeable ones corrupted the scripture, so woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands.]--in English, if I said that, the "so woe to those" is referencing BOTH of the statements before it because they were connected by "And". Is this also true in Arabic? Are we necessarily obligated to believe that Quran 2:79 only references Quran 2:78 and not the subject in general of the previous verses that were connected by the conjunction "and"?

[Wakas]

On the corpus website it tells you the grammar of each word and you can click on the word if you want to examine its usage in Quran.
Further, this website will help as it lists all the times it is used in the perfect separately and imperfect separately:
http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm


Re: 48:13

I have to say that I disagree with this. While Quran 48:13 in context talks about the Jews/Christians at the time of the prophet and then starts by saying [paraphrasing] "whoever disbelieves in Allah and his messenger is a disbeliever"

The verse begins with "wa" / "and".

"His messenger" = prophet Muhammad. This is singular, not plural. So this is talking about a specific prophet, not all the other prophets specifically. This specific prophet is Prophet Muhammad (which you also understand from reading the context).

What do you think?

Did you read the link I provided? I am not talking about which messenger it is. I am talking about the difference in role words, i.e. between prophet and messenger.

Also Quran chapter 98:1-2 makes it clear that the disbelievers must believe this Prophet (singular, not plural) is a prophet of Allah and Quran 98:6 says those among the people of the book and polytheists who disbelieve will be punished.

Those verses dont use "nabi" / "prophet".


Also bear in mind wiki-islam focuses on critique of islam, as stated on its about page.

[Lobotomize94]

The verse begins with "wa" / "and".

On Quran 48:13

Yes I know. We do this all the time in the English language. Take this for example:

"Those gang members in the United States have committed heinous acts of violence, rape and murder. They were brought down to justice. And anyone who breaks the law will experience the full extent of the justice."

So you see, I made a general statement after that sentence using the conjunction "and"/"wa" even though gang members was the context. The word "anyone" makes it a general statement.

More importantly, in that verse uses warasūlihi which is singular. Its not talking about some other messenger, this is talking about the prophet Muhammad. The context of this verse is also the polytheists contemporaneous with the prophet Muhammad. So this verse is also including them, it says "anyone who disbelieves in Allah and his messenger".

That means if the polytheists become Christians or Jews, it doesn't count. They must become Muslims believing in Allah and Muhammad. And this verse is a generalization (as I discussed above) so it applies to everyone: you must believe (yu'min--not past tense) in Allah and his Messenger. It didn't say "messengers", it said messenger, meaning it is referencing one specifically.

Did you read the link I provided? I am not talking about which messenger it is. I am talking about the difference in role words, i.e. between prophet and messenger.

Is prophet Muhammad not both a prophet and a messenger? It is very clear that 48:13 is referencing Muhammad. In the context of it, the very verse before it is in reference to Muhammad, and in Quran 48:8-9 it is clearly referencing Muhammad.

[Wakas]

If you feel it is irrelevant which word Quran used i.e. messenger or prophet, then that's up to you.

They must become Muslims believing in Allah and Muhammad.

An article you might find interesting:
https://www.free-minds.org/mumins

[Lobotomize94]

@ Wakas,

1. I feel like you are trying to find ambiguity in an unambiguous verse. In context, the verses surrounding 48:13 are talking about those contemporaneous with the prophet. Even more, this verse is in the present tense (not past tense) which again shoots down and interpretation that this verse is referring to a previous prophet. It is about a subject contemporaneous with the prophet, it is in the present tense  I'm not sure how much evidence you need about this verse.

2. Many times the Prophet Muhammad is also referred to as "rasool". The prophet is both a "rasool" and a "Nabi". You also need to address why this verse is about a singular tense--that is a singular prophet and it is in the present tense.

[ahmad]

Dear Lobotomize,

In English, if I say [The knowledgeable jews corrupted the scripture, AND, some knowledgeable ones corrupted the scripture, so woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands.]--in English, if I said that, the "so woe to those" is referencing BOTH of the statements before it because they were connected by "And". Is this also true in Arabic? Are we necessarily obligated to believe that Quran 2:79 only references Quran 2:78 and not the subject in general of the previous verses that were connected by the conjunction "and"?

I don't think I can directly answer your question with a sound grammatical argument because its not an area of strenght for me. But I can share some advice I try to follow myself. It's also the same advice shared by brother Joseph.
One should not build a theological position on unclear evidence or evidence that contains a degree of ambiguity. In other words, one should only use Muhkam/Qualified verses/ parts of verses [3:7] to build arguments. When I personally see an argument that can be easily tipped to either side of the table by adding or removing evidences. I try to abort the discussion. And rely on clear matters instead.

In the case of 2:79-78.
The clearest point one can posit which is also hard to argue against is that "writing the scripture with their own hands" is attributed to a group of the jewish community due to its immediate context with the preceding verses. However, it's less clear who exactly is responsible. Of course one might develop arguments (linguistic or otherwise) to support their position. But I believe its best to just not seek elaboration where the Quran did not provide any.

And instead one might try to internalize the wisdom of the verse and reflect on how it applies to their own circumstances.

I understand that you were asking about linguistic rules of the Arabic language. Maybe other members can shed some light on them better than I can. However I just wanted to use this opportunity to share some humble thoughts.

Anyway good luck with your studies
And I wish you all the best.

Best Regards,
Ahmad.

[ahmad]

Dear Lobotomize,

In English, if I say [The knowledgeable jews corrupted the scripture, AND, some knowledgeable ones corrupted the scripture, so woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands.]--in English, if I said that, the "so woe to those" is referencing BOTH of the statements before it because they were connected by "And". Is this also true in Arabic? Are we necessarily obligated to believe that Quran 2:79 only references Quran 2:78 and not the subject in general of the previous verses that were connected by the conjunction "and"?

I don't think I can directly answer your question with a sound grammatical argument because its not an area of strenght for me. But I can share some advice I try to follow myself. It's also the same advice shared by brother Joseph.
One should not build a theological position on unclear evidence or evidence that contains a degree of ambiguity. In other words, one should only use Muhkam/Qualified verses/ parts of verses [3:7] to build arguments. When I personally see an argument that can be easily tipped to either side of the table by adding or removing evidences. I try to abort the discussion. And rely on clear matters instead.

In the case of 2:79-78.
The clearest point one can posit which is also hard to argue against is that "writing the scripture with their own hands" is attributed to at least a group of the jewish community due to its immediate context with the preceding verses. However, it's less clear who exactly is responsible. Of course one might develop arguments (linguistic or otherwise) to support their position. But I believe its best to just not seek elaboration where the Quran did not provide any.

And instead one might try to internalize the wisdom of the verse and reflect on how it applies to their own circumstances.

I understand that you were asking about linguistic rules of the Arabic language. Maybe other members can shed some light on them better than I can. However I just wanted to use this opportunity to share some humble thoughts.

Anyway good luck with your studies
And I wish you all the best.

Best Regards,
Ahmad.

[Lobotomize94]

In the case of 2:79-78.
The clearest point one can posit which is also hard to argue against is that "writing the scripture with their own hands" is attributed to at least a group of the jewish community due to its immediate context with the preceding verses. However, it's less clear who exactly is responsible. Of course one might develop arguments (linguistic or otherwise) to support their position. But I believe its best to just not seek elaboration where the Quran did not provide any.

Hello Ahmad, thank you very much for your response. I do agree about 3:7 as well!

The reason I ask this questions is because the Quran says:

[Quran 4:157]: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

This is unambiguous. It is stating that Jesus was not crucified. Yet the new testament clearly says Jesus was crucified. So this is indirect evidence of God speaking to us telling us that the bible has been corrupted. If it weren't corrupted, it wouldn't have said that Jesus was crucified. So this seems like a clear cut piece of evidence that the bible was corrupted as Allah is helping us infer. What do you think?

Yet Quran 5:47 says:

[Quran 5:47]: And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

So we see here the in spite of the Gospel's corruption, there is still sufficient truth in there that the gospel contains some of what Allah revealed which should sufficiently lead to the conclusion that Islam is true. And the very next verse (Quran 5:48) says that the Quran is there to guard the previous scriptures. But if the previous scriptures were already guarded by Allah, then why was the Quran needed to guard them? So clearly, they weren't guarded by Allah, Allah left them to corrupt the scriptures, corruption ensued in them, and that is why Quran was needed to confirm and guard their original message.

We also see that Allah commanding people to judge by what was revealed of the Gospel they have is not necessarily a testament to its lack of corruption. The very next verse tells us this through inference.
---

So what do you think about this?