ABLUTION “وضو” (WUDU) PART 1

ABLUTION “‫”وضو‬ (WUDU), GENDERS OF GOD, TRUE MEANING OF “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” & “ْ‫ا‬‫و‬ُ‫ن‬َ‫”آم‬
Research Article Part 1
THIS IS AN IDEAL ARTICLE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DEVELOP TRUE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE QURAN, TRUE HISTORY OF ISLAM, REALITY OF
KAABA AND THE ACTUAL MISSION OF THE MOST EXALTED PROPHET OF GOD
MUHAMMAD (PBUH)
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE WORD “BELIEVER” IS AN OLD TERMINOLOGY OF POLYTHEIST
RELIGIONS, WHICH IS WRONGLY INSERTED IN THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE QURAN
We will have to accept this bitter reality that not quite long after the sad
departure of the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the land of his first
Islamic state was completely reoccupied by the progeny of the same Arab
polytheist pagans who were once defeated by the Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) in 630 AD, and surrendered at Makkah. The corrupt people (‫)المنافقین‬
who were disguised among the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were in
fact the enemy of Islam who internally supported likeminded polytheists to
sabotage Islam and seamlessly reverted Muslims back to paganism. As
soon as polytheist pagans reinstated their power and took control over
Islamic state of Arabia they made some political key announcements to
make their rule strong in which they have falsely declared that they have
nearly 100% Muslim population in their state and now, no one can enter the
holly town of Makkah other than the followers of the religion Islam so that
no one can notice what was going on in the sanctuary of Kaaba. This was
the time when the keys of Kaaba went to the same hands who used to
manage this shrine before Islam who secretly reinstalled their main gods
across the sanctuary of Kaaba in deception of the sacred components of
the shrine, e.g. the black stone idol (Hijr-e-Aswad), Arrows of Hubal to start
and complete the circumambulation, vertical idol stone having engraved
feet known as “mqam-e-Ibrahim” and official symbols of Moon god, the
Moon crescents. Apart from the installations of these visible main idols
plenty of other idols were built in the foundations of the sanctuary and

under the passage of Safa and Marwa. In fact, they have prepared the
sanctuary of Kaaba and its surroundings according to the new trend of idol
worship in the name of Islam so that no one can dare to raise his voice
against their hidden paganism. To keep the left over monotheists quiet,
they invented false stories in which the installation of the black stone idol
Hajre Aswad was falsely attributed towards the Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh), the footprint stone idol was attributed to Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and
the mounts of Safa and Marwa where the statues of, the deities of the
Zamzam well, Asaf and Naelah were erected that idol path was attributed
to Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) and his mother. However, no explanation was
given for the installations of the Arrows of idol Hubal installed on the outer
walls of the corridors near Zamzam and the crescents of Moon god
installed high on the minarets of Al Masjid Al Haraam.
We never realised where the most powerful and ruling tribe Quraysh has
disappeared that was controlling Makkah and its sanctuary Kaaba,
reaching as far as Kashmir as a big merchant. We don’t even think about
where the other tribes have gone who were united in alliance with the
Quraysh against the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) till the year 630 AD, when
Makkah was conquered by the Prophet (pbuh). Furthermore, it is not even
logically possible that all Quraysh and their alliance tribes had left or
forgotten the religion of their forefathers or their each and every person had
accepted Islam.
In classical Arabic Literature the word "Quraysh" means a “big fish”
perhaps because they had a big name and power among other tribes and
in the Arabian Peninsula. Where has the ever largest tribe Banu Kinanah
gone that was the mother tribe of so many other branches of tribes like the
Quraysh that was also a branch of the Banu Kinanah tribe?
History of History and History of Religion expert and well-known researcher
Christian Julien Robin of French National Centre for Scientific Research
states in the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity of Arabia and Ethiopia,
“that Quraysh were dominant force in western Arabia”.

Johnson, Scott states in Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-019533693, that the main god of Quraysh was
Hubal. "The Qurayshite pantheon was composed principally of idols that
were in the Haram of Makka, that is, Hubal (the most important and oldest
deity), Manaf, Isaf, and Na'ila.
On page 62 of “The Qur'an An Introduction of Muhammad”, London: ISBN
9781134102945, Abdullah Saeed states that the Quraysh tried to silence
Muhammad's (pbuh) claim of “prophet hood” by putting pressure on him
from different sources. They rejected Islam's conception of monotheism;
while they agreed that there was a single higher God, they also worshipped
many lesser Gods, which they believed were intermediaries between
mankind and the one higher God. Therefore, many of the clans also began
to oppose the followers of the Prophet (pbuh).
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press mentioned on the page 42
of “Muhammad and the Believers”. Cambridge, Massachusetts: ISBN 978-
0-674-05097-6, that the Quraysh fought many battles against Muhammad
(pbuh). One major clash, the Battle of Badr in 624 C.E., where the Quraysh
were defeated, was later seen as a turning point for Muslims. After
Muhammad died, clan rivalries reignited, playing central roles in the
conflicts over the caliphate and contributing to the Shia-Sunni divide.
I can provide you many more solid evidence from the authentic research
publications of the world renowned universities that lead us to believe that
the Western Arab pagans occupied Islam after the death of the holy
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and created conflicts in Islam but this is not the
subject of this article. However, the above references were quoted to
establish a short preface before starting the actual article on pagan ritual
“ablution” or Wudu (‫)وضو‬ so that the readers will judge and determine by
themselves why and where the actual mistake took place and what was the
purpose of incorporating all pagan rituals into Islam by inventing misleading
interpretation of the Quran backed by the forged traditions that were falsely
attributed to the Prophet of Islam (pbuh).

Until 630, AD, Muslims had no control over Makkans and even were
stopped by pagans from going to Makkah till a year before. The Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) hardly lived about one and half year after conquering
Makkah and he died on June 8, 632 AD, in Medina, Saudi Arabia. How was
it possible that each single person from the Quraysh and their big alliance
tribes had accepted Islam in just one and half years after conquering
Makkah? It is not even possible that those who had been fighting with the
Prophet (pbuh) throughout his life were converted to Islam after the death
of the Prophet (pbuh) because their fight was not with the Prophet (pbuh)
but in fact with Islam and with the orders of Allah that were revealed in the
Quran. Except the Quran all Islamic sources are quiet on the question of
where these pagans have gone in such a short period? When our scholars
say that Allah willed them to become Muslim then another question arises.
Why did Allah not will for them to revert to Islam before, when Allah’s
dearest Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was struggling day and night and
eventually forced to migrate? There is no answer except assuming that
Allah wanted to give a really hard time to His Prophet (pbuh).
I believe we Muslims must grow up now and face the reality that the current
Islam is the modern shape of the paganism of Dark Age so that we can
revert to the actual Islam that was brought by the Quran alone and not by
the pagan traditions, which were already in place when the Quran was
revealed and the Prophet (pbuh) came to abolish all traditions and all
religions in which mankind was shackled with strong iron chains.
When the polytheist pagans occupied Islam first of all they replaced
Quranic “‫”صالۃ‬ Salaah with the 5 times a day pagan prayer (Namaz)
because they were afraid of the Quranic ‫صالۃ‬ (Salaah) that had defeated
them. Then they replaced the Quranic “‫”صوم‬ Sawom with their dawn to dusk
hunger fast which they used to dedicate to their Moon deity “‫”شھررمضان‬
(Shahar Ramadan). Likewise, they replaced the Quranic “‫”زکوۃ‬ Zakat with
the annual charity in the name of Moon god. The same practice was known
as “ ‫رام‬‫دان‬ ” Ram Dan that was found in the ancient Hindu culture prevailed
all across Indian subcontinent and throughout the Middle East. They

replaced the Quranic Hajj from broadcasting Allah’s message to
circumambulation around their idols that was an act of moving around so
called sacred idols in Pre-Islam paganism, which is still an integral part of
the devotional practice of Hindus and Buddhists that is known as
pradakśina, in which circumambulation of temples or deity images is
performed. Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) was also a pagan practice before going
to worship or before offering prayers in front of idols and kind of a similar
procedure of ablution is found in other polytheist religions.
The traditional and the Quranist scholars have written quite extensively on
Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) and they are still trying of writing more to falsely
prove Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) from the Quran but they never realised that
the word Wudu “‫”وضو‬ does not even exist in the Arabic texts of the verses
of the Quran to which they usually refer in order to bring the pagan
traditional ritual of Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) into Islam from the certificate of
Quran.
These traditional scholars clearly deviate from the Quran in explaining
Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) and its importance from the traditions (Ahadith). A
few of them are mentioned bellow to compare them with the words of God
mentioned in the Quran:
First of all they urge Muslims putting dirt over them when they don't have
water. Do you really believe that this is from God? Then they tell us that
Allah will not accept any prayers without having Wudu “‫”وضو‬ that is also
known as ablution. Traditional scholars address ablution (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ by
quoting the traditions (Ahadith) such as: Sahih Muslim –Hadith number:
2.0435 states “In Islam, it is compulsory to do ablution (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ before
offering a prayer. Then they elaborate the rules of traditional ablution
(Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ in which a devotee will wash with water his/her hands, face,
feet; pour water inside nostrils, then gush it out, gurgle water and pass wet
hands around his/her head to neck, and the back of ears to complete the
ritual of Wudu “‫(”وضو‬ablution). There are strict rules on the number of times
each limb should be washed, and how many times water is to be gurgled.

The most important reward of ablution is told that it is a cleansing process,
not for the body itself but from all sins, for, even after Wudu “‫”وضو‬
(ablution) plenty of dirt and pollution might stay in the body but according to
the tradition (Ahadith) all the sins committed prior to ablution will be
expiated just by performing Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution). Sahih Muslim Hadith:
2.0476 says that if you perform Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) all sins will come out
of your body even from your nails. Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 1.4.161 says that
if a Muslim performs perfect Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) Allah forgives his/her
sins committed between two prayers. Sahih Muslim Hadith: 2.0475 says
that during Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) Allah forgives all sins committed by eyes
for washing eyes and the same for hands, and other parts of the body.
Who will not like the above stated traditions in which a surety is given on
behalf of Allah to those who want to wash away their sins whatever they
commit throughout the day and night? Therefore, having committed such
sins, all we need is to perform a perfect Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) within twenty
four hours to absolve ourselves from the contrition. Then we can start all
over again. Mind you, the ritual of ablution does not always end with prayer
because Sunaan Abu Dawud Hadith: 1.1.0220 also urges us that one must
perform ablution between two sexual intercourses.
Here are a few more rewards mentioned in the traditions (Ahadith), which
are reserved for those who value the extraordinary purgatory power of
traditional Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution):
When you gurgle during ablution, all sins go out of your mouth…(Sunaan
Nasai, Hadith: 1.104)
For performing perfect Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution) there will be white blaze on
your forehead and white blaze on your feet…(Sahih Muslim, Hadith:
2.0480, 0481)

Allah obliterates sins for performing a thorough Wudu “‫”وضو‬ (ablution),
walking to the mosque, and waiting for the next prayer…(Sahih
Muslim,Hadith: 2.0485)
Ablution (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ removes the sins of the face, mouth, and the
nostrils…(Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 4.1812)
If you do a perfect ablution (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ your face, hands, and feet will be
brighter on the day of resurrection…(Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2.0479, 0481)
Allah’s punishments for not doing (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ ablution is also stated in
the traditions (Ahadith):
If you do not wash your feet during (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ ablution, your feet will
burn in hell fire…(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith: 1.3.57)
Your feet will taste hell fire if you do not wash them during Wudu “‫”وضو‬
(ablution)…(Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2.0464)
Eating “cheese” is treated as bad as having sex. This is the reason why
Hadith: 3.0687 of Sahih Muslim urges you to perform ablution (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬
after eating cheese; otherwise fire will touch you.
A perfect ablution (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ might do, in case there is shortage of
water, or due to inconvenience. When no water is available “‫”تیمم‬
(tayammum) will do. This procedure of “‫”تیمم‬ (tayammum) consists of rinsing
oneself with dirt or dust.

Hadith: 1.316 of Nasai urges that a Muslim can bathe in dirt and dust
simply by rolling his body as a camel or a beast does.
Farting is also problematic in the tradition (Hadith) that breaks “‫”وضو‬ Wudu
(ablution). During prayer, a worshipper must not fart. Sahih Bukhari Hadith:
1.4.137 says that Allah will not accept a Muslim’s prayer if he/she passes
wind during the ritual. The exception occurs if the worshipper farts silently,
or the fart does not smell. In such a case, he/she may continue with the
prayer (Sahih Bukhari,Hadith: 1.4.139).
Whereas, Hadith: 1.162 of Sunaan Nasai says that if you fart during a
prayer you must redo ablution and Hadith: 9.86.86 of Sahih Bukhari tells a
“farter” that Allah will not accept his/her prayer until he/she performs
another (Wudu “‫)”وضو‬ ablution.
The first and the most important ritual is that after “‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution) a
Muslim must sprinkle water on his/her private parts (Sunaan Abu Dawud,
Hadith: 1.0166, 0167). The provision of this ritual is repeated in Sunaan
Tirmidhi (Hadith: 136) and Sunaan Tirmidhi (Hadith: 135). It is also
mentioned that during his first revelation, Gabriel taught Muhammad (pbuh)
the ritual of “‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution) and prayer. When Muhammad (pbuh)
finished “‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution), Gabriel sprinkled water on his private parts.
Since it is now compulsory for every Muslim on earth to follow proper “‫”وضو‬
Wudu (ablution) as a Sunnah,
Hadith: 1.0181 of Sunaan Abu Dawud says that if you touch your private
parts you must do an ablution “‫”وضو‬ (Wudu) but the Hadith : 1.157, 1195 of
Sunaan Nasai says if you are sexually excited and your semen flows then
just wash your private parts, no need to do ablution (Wudu “‫.)”وضو‬
However, Hadith: 3.0593 of Sahih Muslim says, for seminal discharge wash
your private parts and perform (‫)وضو‬ ablution but Hadith: 1.167 of Sunan
Nasai says if you touch your private parts during prayer then you do not
need to redo (‫)وضو‬ ablution. The Ahadith: 3.0616, 0620 and 2.0541, 0544

of Sahih Muslim and so many other Ahadith from other books of traditions
cannot be explained here due to their indecent language which you can
read on your own from the books of Hadith.
Seeing the confusions and contradictions in the above traditions (Ahadith) it
is difficult to accept them. However, people have no choice but to accept
them since they are inserted in the translations of the Quran and doing
ablution (‫)وضو‬ has been made compulsory.
The verse 5:6 of Surah Al Ma’aida is misrepresented in the translation to
incorporate the pagan procedure of “‫”وضو‬ Wudu in Islam and the verse
4:43 of Surah Al Nisaa is misemployed in the interpretation as a reminder
to reinforce the same traditional myth of “‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution) in the
repetitive style of the Quran so that the ritual of doing “‫”وضو‬ Wudu
(ablution), before each pagan prayer (Namaz), gets recognition from the
Quran as well that was already attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
in the name of his Sunnah by fabricated Ahadith (false traditions).
The traditional scholars of Islam did nothing but to elaborate the myth of
“‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution) referred in the above stated Ahadith (false
traditions). Whereas, the Quranist scholars interpreted “‫”وضو‬ Wudu
(ablution), from the same verses of the Quran, to mean an overall “spiritual
cleansing of those who come from the lower levels”. They never thought
that the word “‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution) is nowhere mentioned in the Quran
and instead of rejecting the whole concept of “‫”وضو‬ Wudu (ablution) they
have twisted the words of the same verses of the Quran and invented “a
spiritual cleanliness of mind” in their usual allegorical style of taking the
words of the Quran as a metaphor. Unfortunately, none of them ever
looked at the Arabic text of these verses 5:6 and 4:43 in which the word
“‫”وضو‬ Wudu was never revealed. I failed to understand why they bothered
bringing spiritual or non-spiritual myth of “‫”وضو‬ Wudu in the interpretations
of the said verses 5:6 and 4:43 if the word “‫”وضو‬ is not eve a part of the
Arabic text of these verses. Furthermore, the traditional scholars do not
ponder upon the indecent words of Ahadith (false traditions) in which

illogical conditions of doing ablution (“‫”وضو‬ Wudu) does not match with the
words of God revealed in the Quran.
Likewise, the Quranist Scholars never thought why should Allah have used
metaphorical language if He claimed that the Quran was revealed to guide
people on all levels and His guidance was made in their straight Arabic
language to make them understand fully? Does anyone use allegorical
language or metaphors to get his message reached to common people and
holds everyone responsible for not understanding and not following his
message correctly? In fact those who want to insert their own thoughts in
the clear message of God they have invented this myth to blame Allah that
He did not use straight language to understand and follow His message.
They probably think that they are more caring and intelligent than God in
explaining what God Himself could not explain in His own words. However,
they fail to answer if you question them, how did they establish the
particular understanding from the said metaphorical language of God? Also
the meaning of allegory and metaphor can be differently derived from one
person to another according to their personal understanding and
philosophy due to which the message of God does not remain pure and its
original spirit is always lost.
Very first time in the history of theology Paul gave this misleading concept
that the Bible was revealed in metaphorical language. Therefore, on the
false basis of Paul’s understanding of allegorical language the
interpretation of Bible was altered during the “Early Church Conspiracy” in
which meaning of the verses of Bible were changed in the name of so
called reform in Christianity. They made Jesus son of God in the reformed
translations of Bible and brought essential belief in Trinity ignoring the true
meaning of the revealed text of Bible. This was the time when Jewish were
indulged in practicing their manmade book of traditions called “Talmud”
(like our books of traditions Bukhari or Muslim etc.), which was a central
text of Rabbinic Judaism. The cunning pagans who hijacked Islam used the
same strategy to bring their pagan traditions into Islam by inventing
manmade books of Ahadith (false traditions) following the footsteps of
deviated Jewish people who had invented “Talmud” and made it an

essential part of Judaism instead of following their revealed book Torah
alone.
In the recent centuries some thoughtful Muslims realised that somehow the
traditions (false Ahadith) were not going along with the statements (verses)
of the Quran and they decided to practice the Quran alone without sharing
any manmade source outside the Quran. They were actually the founders
of the “forward block” in the current Islam and known as the “Quranists”.
They made a good effort to reinstate the actual Islam that was revealed in
the Quran. There is no doubt about their great intention but unfortunately
they could not find the proper way to dig out the actual message of the
Quran that was shrewdly concealed in the early Islam conspiracy.
Apparently, this forward block had rejected the traditions but they could not
come out of the false belief that the pagan shrine Kaaba was built by
Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and this ex-cage of filthy idols is a focal point of
Islam and a sacred house of Allah. Due to their traditional deadlock they
did not look at the words of the Quran in which it was nowhere mentioned
that the Prophet Ibrahim and his son Prophet Ishmael (pbut) ever built
Kaaba or raised its foundations or walls. “ْ‫ا‬َ‫ن‬َّ‫ب‬َ‫ْر‬ُ‫يل‬ِ‫اع‬َ‫ْس‬ِ‫إ‬َ‫ْو‬ ِ‫ت‬‫ي‬َ‫ب‬‫ْال‬َ‫ن‬ِ‫ْم‬َ‫د‬ِ‫اع‬َ‫و‬َ‫ق‬‫ْال‬ُ‫يم‬ِ‫اه‬َ‫ر‬‫ب‬ِ‫إ‬ُْ‫ع‬َ‫ف‬‫ر‬َ‫ْي‬‫ذ‬ِ‫إ‬َ‫”و‬
(2:127) In fact the Quran mentions in this verse that Prophet Ibrahim and
his son Prophet Ishmael (pbut) had promoted the regulations of Allah. A
common person knows that the word “َْ‫د‬ِ‫اع‬َ‫و‬َ‫ق‬‫”ال‬ (Al Qawaid) is a plural of “‫”قاعدہ‬
(Qaida) means way, method, rule, regulation. However, the traditional and
the Quranist scholars don’t know the meaning of “‫.”قاعدہ‬ You must have
heard the name “ ‫القاعد‬‫ہ‬ ” (Al Qaida) in the media in recent years, which is a
singular of “َْ‫د‬ِ‫اع‬َ‫و‬َ‫ق‬‫”ال‬ (Al Qawaid). The verb “ُْ‫ْع‬َ‫ف‬‫ر‬َ‫”ي‬ is derived from “ُْ‫ع‬َ‫ف‬‫”ر‬ means to
raise high or to promote. Whereas “ِْ‫ت‬‫ي‬َ‫ب‬‫”ال‬ (al bait) means the constitution,
the charter, the virtual platform, the virtual shelter. The definite article “‫”ال‬
(al) with “‫”بیت‬ (bait) makes this constitution special. In the presence of the
preposition”َْ‫ن‬ِ‫”ْم‬ (min) the word “ِْ‫ت‬‫ي‬َ‫ب‬‫”ال‬ (al bait) will be taken mean to “the
regulations from God”, “the constitution of God” and the “charter of God”.
The polytheist pagans wanted to find a reason from the Quran to rebuild
their pagan shrine Kaaba after the death of the Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh), who had demolished Masjid Al Haram (Kaaba) following Allah’s

orders” ‫ل‬ َ‫و‬َ‫ف‬َ‫ك‬َ‫ھ‬ْ‫ج‬ َ‫و‬َ‫ر‬ْ‫َط‬‫ش‬‫د‬‫ج‬ْ‫س‬َ‫م‬ْ‫ال‬‫ام‬ َ‫ر‬َ‫ح‬ْ‫ال‬ ” (verses 2:144, 2:149, 2:150) in which it was
clearly said to the Prophet (pbuh) that “your prioritised or very first
mission/target/goal/direction/ was to split/to crack/to break the forbidden
prostration place (the unlawful mosque). The letter “ َ‫”ف‬ (fa) in the beginning
of “‫ل‬ َ‫و‬َ‫ف‬” (fawalli) is used to make the statement highly important and it
priorities the forthcoming action. “‫ل‬ َ‫”و‬ (wal) is a prime root of popular word
“ ‫ا‬‫و‬‫ل‬ ” (awwal) means the very first, the top one. The word “ َ‫ر‬ْ‫َط‬‫ش‬” (Shatar)
means: split into pieces, split in the middle, crack, and break. “َ‫ك‬َ‫ھ‬ْ‫ج‬ َ‫”و‬
(wajhaka) is a combination of pronoun (your) “َ‫+”ك‬ “َ‫ه‬ْ‫ج‬ َ‫”و‬ means, direction,
face, goal, target and mission. The nexus of the Arab pagans and
polytheists of ancient Iranian religions invented the fabricated interpretation
of the above verses together with the false Ahadith (traditions) in which it
was inserted in the translations of the above verses to “turn your face
towards Al Masjid Al Haram (Kaaba) wherever you are”. They have not
only protected their pagan shrine Kabaa but have invented the way of its
worship from anywhere in the world by turning your face towards the cage
of filthy idols (Kaaba). These verse answer the question of millions of
Muslims why Prophet Muhammad used to go to Kabaa and why he was
keen to go to Makkah when he was migrated to Madina. The traditional
scholars followed the translation of the above verses exactly as it was
given by the polytheist pagans. However, the Quranist scholars asserted in
their interpretation that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) always and again
and again looked up in the desire to go back to his home town Makkah, the
central point of Islam. This is because the meaning of the word “ َ‫ر‬ْ‫َط‬‫ش‬”
(Shatar) were distorted wherever it has been revealed in the Quran.
Therefore, the words of the verses 2:144, 2:149, 2:150 “ َ‫ر‬ْ‫َط‬‫ش‬‫د‬‫ج‬ْ‫س‬َ‫م‬ْ‫ال‬‫ام‬ َ‫ر‬َ‫ح‬ْ‫ال‬ ”
means “crackdown the forbidden mosque” but it was taken to mean turn
your face to the sacred mosque. Due to which even the Quranists could not
reject the pagan rituals like circumambulation in Hajj, Umrah and offering
etc. but in fact they have justified the animal sacrifice near “‫العتیق‬ ‫(”بیت‬Bait
Alateet) and accepted Kaaba as an ancient house of Allah. Nobody ever
thought why Allah took a used place of idols to make His house? Actually
the shrine of Kabaa was called the “house of idol Hubal” and Hubal was
considered Moon god. Therefore, to continue the worship of idol Hubal or
Moon god they have just replaced the name of their chief idol Hubal or
Moon god with “Allah” and declared their pagan shrine as a house of Allah
instead of the house of Hubal or Moon god so that Muslims follow the same

pagan rituals of Hajj, Umrah, Contact Prayer, Animal Sacrifice and Hunger
Fasting in the name of Allah. If the traditional translation is true in which the
Prophet (pbuh) was shown very eager to go back to his homeland Makkah
and asserted that he used to look up in the skies to get his prayers of going
back to Makkah answered then the question arises what was stopping him
to stay in Makkah when it was conquered and came in the control of the
Prophet (pbuh)? If his homeland Makkah was so dear to him and he was
so eager to go back why did he not moved the capital of his Islamic state to
Makkah? Why the prophet (pbuh) went back to Madina after completing his
mission and eventually died in Madian? In fact all these fake translations of
the Quran were invented to displace our attention from the actual mission
of the Prophet (pbuh) that was certainly to hit the paganism by destroying
and demolishing the pagan shrine Kaaba, which was rebuilt after the sad
death of the exalted Prophet of God Muhammad (pbuh). Then non-Quranic
pagan beliefs were incorporated in Islam by the ruling pagan nexus to
make their pagan shrine of filthy idols sacred in our eyes so that we must
act like polytheist pagans and adopt their forbidden rituals without any
question and without thinking further. In this situation the forward block of
Muslims had no choice but to interpret the Quran keeping the same belief
that was given by the pagans. This is the reason why the early Quranist
scholars did not translate the Quran word by word and line by line but left a
detailed explanation of complete Quran in their own words and according to
their personal beliefs. They vaguely mentioned that the contact prayer
(Namaz) is not given in the Quran but they also misleadingly asserted that
prayer was just as the broken signs and signals of a railway track that have
become obsolete now. This interpretation did not reject the contact prayer
that was incorporated by polytheist pagans, centuries after the Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh). Therefore, the forward block of Muslims practice
contact prayer (Namaz) whenever they need to but on the other hand they
carry on preaching that the contact prayer (Namaz) is not a part of Islam.
Some of them who had apparently rejected the traditions (Ahadith) could
not leave the traditional contact prayer (Namaz) that was mentioned only in
the books of traditions (Ahadith) but they have reduced it in numbers of
time and rakaats. Some follow their false assumption that the contact
prayer (Namaz) is mentioned three times a day in the Quran and some
argued that they offer contact prayer (Namaz) only because it is found in
continuation among the Muslim nation. On top of that they have invented a

good reason to justify their non Quranic acts by assuming that when
Prophet Moses (pbuh) grabbed his brother Prophet Haroon (pbuh) upon
their nation’s polytheist act, Haroon (pbuh) replied that he was trying to
keep unity among their nation. Where does the Quran give this justification
that was asserted in the misleading translations? Had the Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) used the same justification and if he did not break the
unity of polytheist pagans who were united in worshipping idols, Islam
would not have come to us. So, this is a severe blame on Prophet Haroon
(pbuh) that he could not stop his people from worshiping idol (the golden
calf) because he did not want to break their unity. In fact each and every
prophet (pbut) interfered in the activities of worshipping idols and they did
their best to break the united belief of idol worshippers. Furthermore, when
the forward block of Muslims appeared, strong waves of communism and
socialism were running from one end to the other end of the world and
everyone was affected by the strong wind of communism that had changed
the way of thinking. That was the time when everything was being
measured materially and unseen virtual values were being rejected by
mechanical revolution. In this tumultuous time the West became popular in
the East, especially in the third world countries. They warmly welcomed the
rumpus against capitalism and accepted this commotion as a redeemer of
their social and financial exploitation. Due to this uproar the West set aside
the religion and lost faith in God. The word ‘God’ was replaced with an
‘energy’ or a ‘drive force’ and ‘act’ of God became the ‘law of nature’.
Church strongly opposed this and activated their missionaries throughout
the world to spread Christianity. When Church started public welfare and
charity networks in the Eastern countries their literature became popular in
the East. This is the exact situation in which the forward block of Muslim
was born. They got awareness from the intense wave of communism, the
exploitation of humanity was in front of them and the literature of
Christianity that was reformed by Paul was also there. The forward block of
Muslims was keen to reinstate the original Islam by doing necessary
rectification in Islamic literature and in the traditional interpretation of the
Quran. However, due to lack of knowledge and lack of expertise in applying
the research methods in which the truth is drilled by modern research
techniques, they could not reach the roots of the truth and had to rely on
the available knowledge of their time. Therefore, the forward block of
Muslims mainly used their sense together with some knowledge from

communism and some from studying the reformation of Paul in which he
had reformed Christianity on the basis of giving own meanings to the said
metaphorical language and allegory of the Bible. The work of these early
Quranists was remarkable in their time when no one was ready to raise
their voice against the false traditions (Ahadith). Therefore, we must give
them a credit for making our mind towards the Quran and for giving us the
right direction of thinking but we should not just stick with their initial work
and should not think whatever they have said was the last word. We should
employee the advancement of knowledge of the current age to translate
the Quran and to drill out the true meaning of the words of the Quran using
the proven scientific research techniques of modern time. The living
scholars and the followers of the forward block of Muslims must accept the
reality that the initial work of their founders will have to be developed with
the advancement of life to keep the interpretation of the Quran up to date
otherwise the Quran will become an obsolete book and we will not get any
benefit from Allah’s true words. Instead of closing our eyes we will have to
be open minded as the critics are the part of development and comparison
among others work always develop the true understanding and make new
ways of learning because the readers can see everything in black and
white readily available in front of them and they can use their knowledge
and sense to draw a line between right and wrong. This is the whole idea of
using others interpretations in my research articles along with the
indications of mistakes in the previous work so that the general readers as
well as the traditional and the Quranist scholars can grasp the correct
understanding of the Quran and avoid repeating the mistakes of their
ancestors in the translation of the Quran. I personally give all my respect to
those true scholars who are not with us in this world and I have no intention
of disrespecting the living scholars and their followers. However, I always
strictly stand against those who are stuck with the misleading work of their
ancestor scholars and those who convey wrong message of the Quran and
preach the non Quranic beliefs of their schools of thought in the name of
pure education of the Quran.
After presenting the over view of our scholars and the traditions, we come
to the scientific analysis of the verse 5:6 of Surah AlMa’aida that is mainly
used to prove the traditional ablution (“‫”وضو‬ Wudu) from the Quran.

َّْ‫ْالص‬ َ‫َل‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ت‬‫م‬ُ‫ق‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫ذ‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫وا‬ُ‫ن‬َ‫ْآم‬َ‫ين‬ِ‫ذ‬َّ‫ل‬‫اْا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫ي‬َْ‫ْو‬‫م‬ُ‫ك‬ِ‫وس‬ُ‫ؤ‬ُ‫ر‬ِ‫ب‬ْ‫وا‬ُ‫ح‬َ‫س‬‫ام‬َ‫ْو‬ِ‫ق‬ِ‫اف‬َ‫ر‬َ‫م‬‫ْال‬ َ‫َل‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬َ‫ي‬ِ‫د‬‫َي‬‫أ‬َ‫ْو‬‫م‬ُ‫ك‬َ‫وه‬ُ‫ج‬ُ‫ْو‬‫وا‬ُ‫ل‬ِ‫س‬‫اغ‬َ‫ف‬ِْ‫ة‬َ‫ال‬ْْ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬َ‫ْو‬ِ‫ني‬َ‫ب‬‫ع‬َ‫ك‬‫ْال‬ َ‫َل‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬َ‫ل‬ُ‫ج‬‫َر‬‫أ‬
َْ‫ل‬ْ‫َو‬‫أ‬ِْ‫ط‬ِ‫ائ‬َ‫غ‬‫ْال‬َ‫ن‬ِّ
ِ‫مْم‬ُ‫ك‬‫ن‬ِّ
ِ‫ْم‬ٌ‫د‬َ‫َح‬‫أ‬َْ‫اء‬َ‫ْج‬‫َو‬‫أ‬ٍْ‫ر‬َ‫ف‬َ‫ىْس‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ْع‬‫َو‬‫أ‬ْ‫ى‬َ‫ض‬‫ر‬َّ‫مْم‬ُ‫نت‬ُ‫ك‬ْ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬َ‫ْو‬‫وا‬ُ‫َّر‬‫ه‬َّ‫ط‬‫ا‬َ‫ف‬ْ‫ا‬ً‫ب‬ُ‫ن‬ُ‫ْج‬‫م‬ُ‫ت‬‫ن‬ُ‫ك‬ُْ‫ت‬‫س‬َ‫م‬ْ‫وا‬ُ‫م‬َّ‫م‬َ‫ي‬َ‫ت‬َ‫ْف‬ً‫اء‬َ‫ْم‬‫وا‬ُ‫د‬ََِْ‫م‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ْف‬َ‫اء‬َ‫س‬ِِّ‫ْالن‬ُ‫م‬
ِْ‫ك‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ْو‬ٍ‫ج‬َ‫ر‬َ‫ْح‬‫ن‬ِّ
ِ‫مْم‬ُ‫ك‬‫ي‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ْع‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ع‬‫ج‬َ‫ي‬ِ‫ْل‬ُِّ‫ْاّلل‬ُ‫د‬‫ي‬ِ‫ر‬ُ‫اْي‬َ‫ْم‬ُ‫ه‬‫ن‬ِّ
ِ‫مْم‬ُ‫ك‬‫ي‬ِ‫د‬‫َي‬‫أ‬َ‫ْو‬‫م‬ُ‫ك‬ِ‫وه‬ُ‫ج‬ُ‫و‬ِ‫ب‬ْ‫وا‬ُ‫ح‬َ‫س‬‫ام‬َ‫ف‬ْ‫ا‬ً‫ب‬ِِّ‫ي‬َ‫ط‬ْ‫ا‬ً‫د‬‫ي‬ِ‫ع‬َ‫ص‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬‫ي‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ْع‬ُ‫ه‬َ‫ت‬َ‫م‬‫ع‬ِ‫ْن‬َّ‫م‬ِ‫ت‬ُ‫ي‬ِ‫ل‬َ‫ْو‬‫م‬ُ‫ك‬َ‫ر‬ِِّ‫ه‬َ‫ط‬ُ‫ي‬ِ‫ْل‬ُ‫د‬‫ي‬ِ‫ر‬ُ‫نْي‬ْْ
ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬َّ‫ل‬َ‫َع‬‫ل‬َْْ‫ن‬‫و‬ُ‫ر‬ُ‫ك‬‫ش‬َ‫ت‬(5:6)
To present the correct translation of the above verse is not a matter but my
aim is to rectify the interpretation of the whole Quran and enable you to
understand the Quran without taking any help from the scholars or their
compiled misleading resources. Therefore, I would like to involve you fully
in my findings and analysis so that you will understand how I have reached
the true interpretation of this verse and by following the same pattern you
can translate the other verses of the Quran correctly. Some learned friends
always insist me to write the translation only without giving any detail of
grammatical issue, roots, meanings, analysis, comparison and examples.
In their opinion people do not read long articles. I respect their views but if I
just write the translation without explaining how exactly I reached that or
how it was derived I am sure they will be the first to laugh at my translation
because they have memorised completely wrong meanings of the words of
the Quran and also the wrong translations. Also, the correct translation will
look odd to them without reading the complete explanation. In fact those
who are blindly stuck with their school of thought don’t want to know the
truth because they are not habitual of reading the evidence based
explanations as their scholars never used any evidence when they wrote
fabricated myths in their books in the name of the interpretation and
explanation of the Quran. This is the reason why they don’t want any
authentic, tested and correct explanation of the Quran in front of their
scholars’ absurd and nonsense pack of lies due to which the world laughs
at their interpretations because everyone reads the wrong translations of
the Quran and blames Allah (swt). My blood boils when I read disgraceful
comments on the Quran from other religions because having read the
traditional misleading translations they think that this is what that Allah has
said in the Quran. I take this matter very seriously and in my articles I
strictly oppose those who spread the wrong message of the Quran. They
need to learn and understand the Quran with its own words before

conveying it further or they must stop misguiding people in the name of
Allah.
If you carefully read the following detailed analysis you will be able to
translate correctly many other verses of the Quran because Quran repeats
similar words in its verses. I particularly emphasis on the correct grammar
and on those Quranic words of which the actual meaning were distorted in
the translations.
The above verse 5:6 starts with Allah’s popular phrase “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ ‫ا‬َ‫ي‬” (Ya Ayyuhaa)
in which “‫ا‬َ‫ي‬” (Ya) is a soft vocative particle that is derived by the soft
characteristics of Arabic letter “‫”ی‬ (ya) with the vocal extension “‫”الف‬ (alif) to
prolong the softness of “‫”ی‬ (ya). This addressing article is rather like the
archaic "O" in English to mean: O, Oh, Hey etc. However, “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (Ayyuhaa)
has been wrongly translated throughout the Quran, which we need to
understand first.
It is falsely declared in the Arabic literature and dictionaries of our so called
highly learned scholars that “َ‫أ‬‫ا‬َ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬" (ayyuha) is synonymous with ‫ا‬َ‫ي‬ (ya), with
which it is often used redundantly in conjunction and this is also asserted
that usage of redundant and suspended words is the norm in the Quran.
In other words our scholar believe that Allah has used suspended,
redundant, useless and meaning less words in the Quran! However, the
truth is that no word of God revealed in the Quran is suspended, useless,
redundant and without meaning. These ignorant scholars might not have
read Allah’s challenge to the species of all human and genies to bring the
same as the Quran but they can’t: (17:88)
‫ل‬ُ‫ق‬‫ن‬‫ئ‬‫ل‬‫ت‬َ‫ع‬َ‫م‬َ‫ت‬ْ‫اج‬ُ‫نس‬ ْ‫اْل‬ُّ‫ن‬‫ج‬ْ‫ال‬ َ‫و‬‫ى‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ع‬‫ن‬َ‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬‫و‬ُ‫ت‬ْ‫أ‬َ‫ی‬‫ل‬ْ‫ث‬‫م‬‫ب‬‫آن‬ ْ‫ر‬ُ‫ق‬ْ‫اال‬َ‫ذ‬‫َـ‬‫ه‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ون‬ُ‫ت‬ْ‫أ‬َ‫ی‬‫ه‬‫ل‬ْ‫ث‬‫م‬‫ب‬ْ‫و‬َ‫ل‬ َ‫و‬َ‫ان‬َ‫ك‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُ‫ض‬ْ‫ع‬َ‫ب‬‫ض‬ْ‫ع‬َ‫ب‬‫ل‬‫ا‬ً‫یر‬‫ھ‬َ‫ظ‬
"It is stated if the human and the genies got together to bring same such as
the Quran is, they can’t bring as similar to it, albeit it was somewhat
manifested to several of them" (correct translation 17:88)

Similar statements about the unique written work of the Quran has been
also given in the verses 11:13 and 2:23 of the Quran. If God himself has
set and defined the value and standard of His respected words then how
can we say about any word of the Quran that it is suspended or redundant
or not in use? Either we have no knowledge about the words of the Quran
or we are hiding Allah’s words in our unlawful belief.
Actually the wrong learning starts from our Madrassas in which we are
taught that “‫”أیھا‬ is used in the Quran to attract the listeners’ necessary
attention. It is also taught that ‫یا‬ (ya) and ‫أیھا‬ (ayyuha) are both vocative
particles ( ‫حر‬‫و‬‫ف‬‫نداء‬ ). If we believe in this fabricated statement of our
scholars then a question arises that why we don’t use ‫أیھا‬ (ayyuha) with “‫”ہللا‬
(Allah) instead of “‫”یاہللا‬ (ya Allah), especially if both words are synonyms of
each other and their meanings are the same. However, I never came
across the phrase ‫أیھا‬‫ہللا‬ (ayyuha Allah) when addressing God by His Arabic
title (‫الہ‬ ‫)ال‬ “Al ilah”, i.e. “Allah” in which the definite article “‫”ال‬ is used to
single out “‫”الہ‬ to make definite noun “‫”ہللا‬ (Allah) meaning only one God
because the scholars also said ‫أیھا‬ (ayyuha) is used with the definite noun
only, which is fair enough but if it is the rule that ‫أیھا‬ (ayyuha) has to be
followed by a noun with the definite article ‫ال‬ (Al) then “‫”ہللا‬ (Allah) is
certainly a definite noun. This made me suspect that either my highly
learned Shaiukh (plural of Shaikh “‫)”شیوخ‬ knew nothing about the language
of the Quran or they were hiding the truth.
When I became more curious about finding the answer of my question, I
was diverted towards the rules of “Sarf-o-Nahav” to prove that ‫یا‬ (ya) is only
used with Allah and people. I was given an irrelevant explanation of “‫,”مرفوع‬
nominative nouns and”‫”معروف‬ ( ‫أداۃ‬‫التعریف‬ ) definite nouns etc. Then they
twisted it to “‫”تنوین‬ (nuunation),” ‫اض‬‫افہ‬ ” (idaafa/addition), without “idaafa” and
accusative or non-accusative noun. My simple question had nothing to do
with all of this nor was it clashing with the grammar that they were telling
me because in reality who was more prominent, more “‫”معروف‬ (well-known)
and more able to “‫”تعریف‬ (definite) than “‫”ہللا‬Allah that is why the application
of the said rules of Sarf-o-Nahav quoted by so called highly learned Arabic

teachers and the native Arab “Shayukh” (plural of Shaikh) was wrong in
which Allah was not considered “well-known” to use “‫ھا‬ْ‫”ای‬ (ayyuha) with His
name, if “‫ھا‬ْ‫”ای‬ (ayyuha) was really a “call” (‫)ندا‬ and was same as “‫”یا‬ (ya).
Some big names in Arabic explained that ‫أیھا‬ (ayyuha) is used for
“‫”اشارہ‬Esharah (a hint of something) that always comes with “‫”یا‬ (Ya), e.g.”
‫”یأیھا‬ (ya ayyuha). They also added if there is no “‫”یا‬ (Ya) with “‫ھا‬ْ‫”ای‬ (ayyuha)
it does not mean anything!
The verse of the Quran “ُْ‫َّاس‬‫ن‬‫اْال‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬‫ب‬ِ‫ه‬‫ذ‬ُ‫ْي‬‫أ‬َ‫ش‬َ‫نْي‬ِ‫إ‬” (4:133) proves all of them wrong
in which “‫”أیھا‬ (ayyuha) came without “‫”یا‬ (ya). So, “‫ھا‬ْ‫”ای‬ (ayyuha) is neither a
“‫”ندا‬ (call) nor is it an “‫”اشارہ‬ Esharah (hint) and also contrary to the above
statements of our learned scholars “‫ھا‬ْ‫”ای‬ can come without “‫”یا‬ (ya) as we
have seen in the above verse 4:133.
A big Shaikh scholar told the rules quoting the verbal reference from the
advanced grammar books called “Madina Grammar”. He said, when ‫یا‬ (ya)
is used with a noun having ‫ال‬ (Al), the word ‫ھا‬‫أی‬ (ayyuha) is inserted between
‫یا‬ (ya) and the definite noun, such as “ ‫یا‬‫أیھا‬‫الناس‬ ” (ya ayyuhannas) instead of
“ ‫یا‬‫الناس‬ ” (ya annas). Likewise, ‫یا‬‫أیھا‬‫الرجل‬ (ya ayyuhar rajul) but not “ ‫أیھا‬‫الرجل‬ ”
(ayyu har rajul), and “‫ھا‬ْ‫”ای‬ (ayyuha) is used just as an extra word without
meaning. He also gave the following explanation of “ ‫یا‬‫أیھا‬‫الذین‬‫آمنوا‬ ”
‫(یا‬ya) is Harf nidaa', ‫ُّــ‬‫ی‬‫(أ‬ayyu) is munaadaa and “‫”ها‬ (ha) is mabniyy ,i.e. Harf
tanbiih, and the noun following this combination ( ‫یا‬‫ھا‬‫أی‬ ) is a badal from (‫)أي‬
as in ‫یا‬‫ھا‬‫أی‬َ‫الذین‬ and ‫آمنوا‬ is Silatu l-mawSuul. Sheikh also told the meaning of
“‫:”آمنوا‬ they believed or you believed with the advice of taking whatever you
like out of two.
The above verse 4:133 “ُْ‫َّاس‬‫ن‬‫اْال‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬‫ب‬ِ‫ه‬‫ذ‬ُ‫ْي‬‫أ‬َ‫ش‬َ‫نْي‬ِ‫إ‬” has already rejected the
explanation of the learned Shaikh, which he gave with the reference of
“Madina Grammar Books” saying, when ‫یا‬ (ya) is used with a noun having ‫ال‬
(Al), the word ‫ھا‬‫أی‬ (ayyuha) is inserted between ‫یا‬ (ya) and the definite noun,
and also ‫یا‬ (ya) always comes with “‫ھا‬‫”أی‬ (ayyuha), e.g. “ ‫یا‬‫ھ‬‫أی‬‫ا‬ ” (ya ayuha).
The book 2 page 186 of the same “Madina Grammar” that he has referred

also proves the Shaikh wrong, in which the sentence “ ‫تب‬‫إلى‬‫ہللا‬‫أیھا‬‫المسلم‬ ” is
given without “‫”یا‬ (ya). Therefore, “Madina Grammar” itself proves that “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬”
(ayyuha) is not inserted as a useless or meaningless word between “‫”یا‬ and
the definite noun, nor does “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyuha) always come with “‫”یا‬ (ya) but in
fact our confused scholars pull things from here and there to falsely prove
correct to the misleading translations of the Quran.
I won’t keep you long without telling the actual construction and the true
meaning of the combined phrase “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyuha) so that you can conceive
the correct interpretation of the verses of the Quran wherever this phrase is
used. You may find this article a bit lengthy and probably a little away from
the actual topic of ablution (wudu). This is because the misleading
translation of the whole Quran is in front of me, which I have to rectify and
reinstate in its original spirit carefully following each single word and without
ignoring their preceding and succeeding little articles revealed in the Arabic
text of the Quran.
Actually the construction of combined phrases like “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyuha) is quite
common in Arabic language and Quran follows the same style to deliver
Allah’s message in a simple way and in the same language which is used
and understood by common people. The construction of the Quranic
phrase “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyuha) is the same as we find in the regular combination of
“singular female objective pronoun (Her) ‫ها‬ + verb/noun. Therefore, the
same rule has been applied in the construction of “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyuha), which is
consisted of a Female Objective Singular Pronoun (Ha) ‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ + verb or noun”,
i.e. ‫َا‬‫ه‬ + ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ (Ha + Ayyu) = “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (ayyuha). Now we will find the meaning of “ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬”
(Ayyu).
Frequent use of the word “ ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ش‬ ” (aysh) in spoken Arabic well justifies the
correct use and the true meaning of the word “‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” to mean “what”, “which”,
“that”, “each” and “any”. The frequently spoken word “ ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ش‬ ” (aysh) is used in
the sentences such as: “ ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ش‬‫فی‬ ” or modern “ ‫ش‬َ‫أ‬‫فی‬ ” (what’s in it), “ ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ش‬‫ذا‬ٰ‫ه‬ ” or “ ‫ش‬َ‫أ‬

‫ذا‬ٰ‫”ه‬ (what is this), slang of “‫اسمک‬ ‫”ما‬ is spoken like “ ‫ش‬َ‫أ‬‫اسمک‬ ” (what’s your
name) etc. Basically “ ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ش‬ ” (aysh) is an abbreviation of the phrase “ ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ً‫ء‬‫شی‬ ”, in
which the word “‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” is called an inquiring or an exclamation noun ( ‫اسم‬ُ‫ۃ‬‫دا‬َ‫أ‬
‫ھام‬ْ‫ف‬‫ت‬ْ‫س‬‫)ا‬ to mean: what or which kind of, i.e. asking for a choice from an
indefinite kind, whatever, whatsoever, what it is, what; what sort of; what;
which; who, whichever, whosoever, whosever or whoever.
ْ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ (ayy) also means: any which; no matter which, anything, include
anything any, each, every, either, unspecified amount or number of
something or people, each individual or all possible, either, every, anything
of any kind, being the one just referred to; and this or these; asking for
choice from a definite set of alternatives, give a share, contribute, yield.
Arabic lexicons mentioned that ْ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ (ayy) as a noun is also used as “‫ي‬‫ن‬ْ‫ع‬َ‫ی‬”
(means that): that is to say; in other words; that is; (‫)بمعنى‬ namely.
ْ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ (ayy) as a verb is used meaning to: Wit , give a share, offspring, all
rights, pitching a tent, data manipulation, freedom of opinion, continue
anyway, normalised fraction, travelers, controller functions.
According to Ibn‐Hisham the author of “Mughnee”, Aboo‐'Amr Ibn‐El‐'Ala,
Aboo‐'Amr Esh‐Sheybanee, Thaalab the author of “Faseeh, El‐Azheree the
author of “Tahdheeb” and Seyyid Murtada Ez‐Zebcedee the author of Taj
el‐Aroos, the saying “‫ْد‬‫ی‬ َ‫ز‬ ْ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy Zayd) means; that is Zeyd or that is by
Zaid, and ‫ًا‬‫د‬‫ی‬َ‫ز‬ ْ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬ I mean, Zeyd. Therefore, according to the above authors
“ْ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy) means: “That is”, “By” and “Mean that” or “I mean”. They have
quoted the following verse 10:53 of the Quran in which they have translated
the word “ْ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy) to mean “by”.
ْ‫ق‬ََ‫َل‬ُْ‫ه‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬ْ ِِّ‫ِب‬َ‫ر‬َ‫يْو‬ِ‫إ‬ (10:53) “by my Lord! it is the very truth!” (Translation Yousuf Ali)

All traditional translations of the above verse 10:53 are similar to the above
in which they did not let the meaning of “‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬” (ayy) come. We did not notice
this discrepancy in the above mentioned highly renowned lexicons as well
as in the traditional translations that were made on the authority of the
above Arabic literature. This is because we blindly read the translations of
the Quran and are not habitual of looking at each single word of the Arabic
text that has been revealed in the Quran but we also claim that we have
understood what is being said in the particular verse of the Quran and start
conveying to others the wrong message of the Quran.
I will show you here how they have translated the above verse 10:53 and
what is wrong in the traditional translation:
ْ‫ق‬ََ‫َل‬ُْ‫ه‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬ْ ِِّ‫ِب‬َ‫ر‬َ‫يْو‬ِ‫إ‬ (10:53): Conjunction “‫”و‬ (wao) is used between”‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬ْ” (ayy) and “ِِّْ‫ِب‬َ‫”ر‬
(Rabbi) to mean: and, with, by, through. So, if we consider the above
translation right, i.e. “by my Lord! it is the very truth!” by assuming that the
word “‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬” (ayy) was translated to mean “by” then we cannot see where the
meaning of conjunction “‫”و‬ (wao) were placed and “‫”و‬ (wao) was translated
to mean what? Also if conjunction “‫”و‬ (wao) was translated to mean “by”
then where is the translation of ”‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬ْ” (ayy) and vice versa? However, if we
translate the word “‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬” (ayy) as well as the conjunction “‫”و‬ (wao) the true
translation will be produced as mentioned bellow including the meaning of
both the noun“‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬” (ayy) and the conjunction “‫”و‬ (wao):
ْ‫ق‬ََ‫َل‬ُْ‫ه‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬ِِّْْ‫ِب‬َ‫ر‬َ‫يْو‬ِ‫إ‬ (10:53). “Which is by my Lord that is for sure”. (Correct
translation)
Have you seen the difference between the word to word true and the false
translation? Also you must have noticed that the correct translation using
all words of the Arabic text is quite clearer and more understandable.

Correct use of noun“‫ي‬ِ‫إ‬” (ayy) can be seen in the following verse of the
Quran:
َْ‫ن‬‫و‬ُ‫ن‬ِ‫م‬‫ؤ‬ُ‫ْي‬ُ‫ه‬َ‫د‬‫ع‬َ‫ْب‬ ٍ‫يث‬ِ‫د‬َ‫ْح‬ِِّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ِ‫ب‬َ‫ف‬ (7:185) In what message after this will they then believe
(Yousuf Ali). So with which information/speech after it (do) they believe?
(Literal). So in which narrations after this one will they believe? (Free
Minds). Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in? (Khalifa). What
HADITH besides the Qur'an, are they going to believe after him? (QXP
Shabbir Ahmed). The same statement “َْ‫ن‬‫و‬ُ‫ن‬ِ‫م‬‫ؤ‬ُ‫ْي‬ُ‫ه‬َ‫د‬‫ع‬َ‫ْب‬ ٍ‫يث‬ِ‫د‬َ‫ْح‬ِِّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ِ‫ب‬َ‫ف‬” has been repeated
in the verse 77:50, in fact which /in what Hadith, other than this, do they
uphold/believe? ِِّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬ +ِْ‫=ْف+ْب‬ “ِِّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬ِ‫ب‬َ‫ف‬” in which “ِِّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyi) is a noun and the letter
“‫”ف‬ (Fa) in the beginning makes it universal truth, absolute reality and
priority whereas letter “ِْ‫”ب‬ (Ba) between “‫”ف‬ (Fa) and “ِِّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyi) is a
preposition to mean: for, with and through.
Thus, it is established that in the general Arabic and in the above verses
10:53, 7:185 and 77:50 of the Quran, the word “ِِّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayy) is used to mean:
“what” and “which”.
The following verses of the Quran establish the same word “ُّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyu) to
mean: which, what and who. However, the half vowel movement on “ُّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬”
(ayyu) is just a the preposition meaning to “of”
‫ى‬َ‫ص‬‫َح‬‫أ‬ِْ‫ني‬َ‫ب‬‫ز‬ِ‫ْاَل‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ (18:12) which of the two parties was best at calculating (Yousuf
Ali). Which (of) the two groups/parties (is) more counting/controlling
(Literal).
َْ‫ن‬‫ْو‬ُ‫ب‬ِ‫ل‬َ‫ق‬‫ن‬َ‫ْي‬ ٍ‫ب‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ق‬‫ن‬ُ‫ْْم‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫وا‬ُ‫م‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ظ‬َْ‫ين‬ِ‫ذ‬َّ‫ل‬‫ْا‬ُ‫م‬َ‫ل‬‫ع‬َ‫ي‬َ‫س‬َ‫و‬ (26:227)
)‫دعب‬‫ےک‬‫(رمےن‬‫وہ‬‫ہک‬‫ےگ‬‫ںیل‬‫اجن‬‫رقنعبی‬‫ایک‬‫ملظ‬‫ےن‬‫وہنجں‬‫ولگ‬‫وہ‬‫اور‬‫وکیسن‬‫رک‬‫ٹلپ‬‫ہگج‬‫یک‬‫ےنٹلپ‬‫ںی‬‫اج ے‬(Tahir ul Qadri)

And those who caused injustice/oppressed will know which place of return
they return to (Literal)
Those who do wrong will come to know by what a (great) reverse they will
be overturned! (Pickthal)
And they who act unjustly shall know to what final place of turning they
shall turn back. (Shakir)
As for those who did wrong, they will know which fate they will meet. (Free
Minds)
Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is (Khalifa)
The above verse is actually telling us about turning our shape, face, body
and template in the next life according to our deeds. This is altogether a
different subject on which I have already written many articles in English
and Urdu including a complete book of 300 pages, which is still with the
publisher. However, here we are not discussing on the translation of the
above verse 26:227 but only determining the meaning of the word “‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy)
that we are studying from different verses of the Quran.
Homeyd Ibn-Thowr said that the verse in which “‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy) occurs is never
without a noun or pronoun to which it is prefixed. El‐Farra and El‐Azheree
the author of “Tahdheeb” have quoted the old Arabic poetry to establish the
meaning of “َّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayy) from the old Arabic literature:
‫ى‬َ‫أ‬ َ‫و‬‫ض‬ ْ‫ر‬َ‫أل‬‫ا‬ُ‫َب‬‫ه‬ْ‫ذ‬َ‫ت‬‫اح‬َ‫ی‬‫لص‬‫ل‬ - ُ‫ح‬‫ی‬‫َص‬‫ت‬‫َا‬‫ن‬‫ب‬ُ‫ة‬َ‫ف‬‫ی‬‫ن‬َ‫ح‬ْ‫ذ‬‫إ‬‫َا‬‫ن‬ْ‫ت‬َ‫أ‬ َ‫ر‬
“Haneefeh (the tribe name) shout to us when they see us. And to what
place of the earth, or land, will they go for the shouting”
The Arabs say ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬, the dual ‫ان‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬, and the plural َ‫ُّون‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬; and they make it
feminine, saying ‫ة‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬, and the dual ‫َان‬‫ت‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬, and the plural ‫ات‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬. They prefix it to
nouns like saying ُ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬‫الر‬‫ْن‬‫ی‬َ‫ل‬ُ‫ج‬ (Who, or which, of the two men), and ُ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬‫ْن‬‫ی‬َ‫ت‬َ‫أ‬ ْ‫ر‬َ‫م‬‫ال‬
(Who, or which, of the two women), and ُّ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬‫ال‬َ‫ج‬‫ر‬‫ال‬ (Who, or which, of the
men), and ُّ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬‫آء‬َ‫س‬‫الن‬ (Who, or which, of the women). EI‐Jowharee the author

of “Sihah” has quoted an old Arabic saying, ُ‫ه‬ْ‫م‬‫ر‬ْ‫ك‬ُ‫أ‬ ‫ى‬‫ن‬ْ‫م‬‫ر‬ْ‫ك‬ُ‫ی‬ ْ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ (Whichever of
them treats me with honour, I will treat him with honour).
The Quran also uses the same pattern of prefixing “ُّ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” to nouns and
pronouns meaning to which, what, who, whichever, whatever, whoever,
whosever, and whosesoever of the (in relation with) prefixed noun and
pronoun.
“ُْ‫وت‬َُ‫َت‬ٍْ‫ض‬‫َر‬‫أ‬ِِّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬ِ‫ب‬” (31:34) “in which/ in what land he is to die”. In the above verse
“ٍْ‫ض‬‫َر‬‫أ‬” (Ard) is a noun.
َْ‫ْن‬‫س‬ُ‫ْاَل‬ُ‫اء‬َ‫َْس‬‫ْاْل‬ُ‫ه‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ْف‬‫وا‬ُ‫ع‬‫د‬َ‫ت‬ْ‫ا‬َّ‫اْم‬ًّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬(17:110) whatever /whichever is called by them, in fact
for Him, are all the good names (word by word correct translation)
“In fact they call Him by any name all names are good for Him” (straight
correct interpretation).
)‫(بس‬‫وہ‬‫اکپر ے‬‫یھب‬‫ےس‬‫انم‬‫سج‬‫ںی‬‫ےک‬‫ایس‬‫انم‬‫اےھچ‬(Tahir ul Qadri)
Yousuf Ali translated: “by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for
to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names”.
EI‐Jowharee the author of “Sihah” translated: “Whichever ye call Him, He
hath the best names”
Yousuf Ali and all other translators copied the translation of EI‐Jowharee
the author of “Sihah” in which they have added “ye” a plural form of “thou”
meaning to “You” which is not the part of Arabic text of the above verse.
However, the present form of plural passive verb “ْ‫وا‬ُ‫ع‬‫د‬َ‫ت‬” (tadoo) is already
have a built in objective form of the pronoun of the subject of those who call
Him. Therefore, insertion of “ye” or second person plural pronoun “you” in
the translation is totally wrong and violation of the linguistic rule. So, the
correct pronoun to be used is the third person plural objective pronoun
instead of misleading insertion of second person plural pronoun “you”

Also if you pay attention to the above mentioned “word by word correct
translation” and the “straight correct interpretation” the word we are
studying “‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy) is a synonym of “any” that is also translated to
whatever, whichever and whosever.
The application of “‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” (ayy) can also be seen in the following verse of the
Quran in the same meaning.
ُْ‫ت‬‫ي‬َ‫ض‬َ‫ق‬ِْ‫ني‬َ‫ل‬َ‫َج‬‫اْاْل‬ََّ‫َّي‬َ‫أ‬ (28:28) whichever of the two terms I fulfil (Yousuf Ali)
El‐Azheree has quoted an old Arabic saying in his book “Tahdheeb” : ‫ى‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬
َ‫ُّك‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ َ‫و‬َ‫ان‬َ‫ك‬‫ا‬‫َر‬‫ش‬ُ‫ہ‬‫ا‬ َ‫ز‬ْ‫خ‬َ‫أ‬َ‫ف‬ُ ٰ‫اءّلل‬ . in which the combined phrase “َ‫ك‬ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (ayyuka) has been
constructed in the same pattern of joining “ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (ayyu)” with the masculine
singular pronoun “َ‫”ـك‬ to mean “you/your”, which is also known as an enclitic
form of َ‫ت‬ْ‫ن‬َ‫أ‬ (anta). So, if َ‫ـك‬ + ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ = َ‫ُّك‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ is regularly used in the Arabic language
why don’t our scholars want to apply the same rule when“ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (ayyu) is
prefixed to a singular feminine pronoun “‫”ها‬ (ha), making “‫”ها‬ + “ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” = ‫ا‬َ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬
(ayyuha)? This is because our non-Quranic dogma in which we believe that
God is a male entity and He can’t be a female. It makes no difference
whatever our belief is but this is the reality that the true meaning of the
Quranic phrase “ ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ا‬َ‫ھ‬ ”is “who are Hers”, “who is Her”, “which is of Her”, “that
is of Her”, “that Hers”, “What’s Her”, “which is Hers”, “whosever is Hers”,
“whichever of Her”, “any of Her” etc. The helping verbs (is, are, etc) and
prepositions (of, s’ etc) are already built in the construction of the phrase
“ ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫ا‬َ‫ھ‬ ” by its vocal movements (semi vowels sound) that is automatically
adjusted with reference to the construction of succeeding noun.
The same formula (pronoun + verb/noun) has been applied on the word
“‫م‬ِ‫ه‬‫”اي‬ in the following verse of the Quran.
‫م‬ِ‫ه‬‫اي‬َ‫ذ‬‫آ‬ ‫ى‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ع‬ ‫ا‬َ‫ن‬‫ب‬َ‫َر‬‫ض‬َ‫ف‬ (18:11)

Then We draw (a veil) over their ears (Translation by Yousuf Ali)
In the above verse 18:11 “‫م‬‫”ایھ‬ (Ayyhem) is translated very well in its
meaning of masculine 3rd
person plural pronoun (hum) ‫م‬‫ه‬ + ‫اي‬ but we don’t
want to translate “ ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬ ” (Ayyuha) in the same manner, which is a similar
combination of a feminine 3rd
person singular pronoun (ha) ‫ها‬ + ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬.
Following the same pattern of pronoun + ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ the phrase “ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” has been
constructed in the following verse 19:69 of the Quran, in which “ُّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬” has
been prefixed with pronoun “ْ‫م‬ُ‫”ه‬ (hum) that is a 3rd
person masculine plural
objective pronoun to make “ayyuhum”: ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ + ُّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬ = ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ meaning to “which of
them” but we think it is a big sin to translate the similar phrase of feminine
3rd
person singular pronoun (ha) ‫ها‬ + ‫ى‬َ‫أ‬ (ْ‫ا‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬) to mean “which of Her”
‫ا‬ًّ‫ي‬ِ‫ت‬ِ‫ْع‬ِ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫ىْالر‬َ‫ل‬َْ‫ُّْع‬‫د‬َ‫ش‬َ‫أ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ (19:69) which of them (is) stronger arrogant/disobedience
on (to) the merciful.(Translated by Literal). Also Free Minds, Pickthal,
Arberry and Qaribullah have correctly translated “ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyuhum) meaning
to “whichever of them” but the translation of H/K/Sahee “those of them
who” is grammatically wrong and not understandable. Khalifa, Shabbir and
the rest have not only omitted “ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” from their translations but also inserted
misleading words “the most” in the translation of the above verse 19:69. If
“ْ‫م‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬”(3rd
person plural masculine objective pronoun “ْ‫م‬ُ‫”ه‬ + “ُّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬”) can be
correctly translated to mean “which of them” why can’t “‫ْا‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (3rd
person
singular feminine objective pronoun “‫ْا‬ُ‫”ه‬ + “ُّْ‫َي‬‫أ‬”) be correctly translated to
mean “which of Her” following the same rule? This is because traditionally
Arabs take Moon as a male because Arab polytheist pagans used to
believe that their Moon deity “Moon god” is a male deity. Therefore, during
the early Islam conspiracy they have misleadingly portrayed God as a male
throughout the interpretation of the Quran as they used to call Allah their
Moon god. Whereas the Quran uses both male and female genders for
God (Allah) and Quran strictly opposes the concept of Moon god “ُْ‫ام‬َ‫ر‬َ‫ْاَل‬ُ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫الش‬
ِْ‫ام‬َ‫ر‬َ‫ْاَل‬ِ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫الش‬ِ‫ب‬” (2:194)” The unlawful moon god is for the unlawful moon god”,i. e.
moon god has nothing to do with Allah. Please see complete details of

moon god “ُْ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫”الش‬ (Ash Shahar) in my article “Moon god and the sacrifice”.
Those who don’t believe in whatever I have said in the above lines ,about
“‫”شھر‬ (shahar) they should Google “shahar god” or should go to the
following link of ‘Wikipedia’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahar_(god)
As soon as you type “shahar god” on the internet you can find for yourself
complete information about “shahar god” (moon god) on so many sites.
Then open the Quran and look at all the verses in which the phrase “ُْ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫الش‬
ُْ‫ام‬َ‫ر‬َ‫”اَل‬ (Ash Shahar ul Haram) and the word “ُْ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫”الش‬ (Ash Shahar) is used. You
can see yourself how sneakily they have twisted the translations of these
verses of the Quran to make the moon god and its sanctuary Kabaa the
most sacred and holy? Some scholars brought the false pagan myth of holy
months in the translations of “ُْ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫”الش‬ and some disciples of pagans have
made Ramadan a holy month with the same word “ُْ‫ر‬‫ه‬َّ‫”ش‬ (shahar)
In the Quran Allah has used more female gender for Himself, than a male
gender and contrary to our current belief He never said that He is
genderless. However, our pagan belief has made God genderless or just a
male. The Quran begins with the gendering attributes of God. In the very
first verse of the Quran “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫ْالر‬ِ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫ْالر‬َِّ‫ْاّلل‬ِ‫م‬‫س‬ِ‫ب‬” (1:1) God has indicated His initial
three gendering attributes, which are categorised as neutral, masculine and
feminine nouns (titles of God). ‘He’ (subjective), ‘Him’ (objective), ‘His’
(possessive) are used as His masculine pronouns. Whereas
‘She’(subjective), ‘Her’(objective), ‘Her/Hers’ (possessive) are God’s
feminine pronouns and ‘It’(subjective),’it’ (objective),‘its’ (possessive) are
His neutral pronouns used in the Quran. In the verse “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫ْالر‬ِ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫ْالر‬َِّ‫ْاّلل‬ِ‫م‬‫س‬ِ‫ب‬” (1:1)
God’s calling title (ِْ‫م‬‫س‬ِ‫ب‬) “Allah” (َِّْ‫)اّلل‬ has neutral attributes, Al Rahman “ِْ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬
has masculine attributes of God and “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫”الر‬ denotes feminine attributes of
God. Also, in the verse 2:163 “ُْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫ْالر‬ُ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫ْالر‬َ‫و‬ُ‫ْه‬َّ‫ل‬ِ‫إ‬َْ‫َه‬‫ل‬ِ‫إ‬َّْ‫ل‬ٌْ‫د‬ِ‫اح‬َ‫ْو‬ٌ‫ه‬َ‫ل‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬ُ‫ه‬َ‫ل‬ِ‫إ‬َ‫”و‬ all three
genders are seen respectively in the single entity of God in one unit. The
same pattern is used throughout the Quran this is the reason why God has
used “plural pronoun” ( ‫نحن‬‫نا‬ / ) in many verses of the Quran. Had we known
the Quran in its original spirit we would have been able to answer the ever

big objection on the Quran from other religions in which they assert that if
Allah is one and a single entity then why does the Quran use Plural
pronoun in His speech?
These people don’t accept the usual stale answers of our scholars who say
that "We" is used only as the "Royal WE" just like it is used in the world for
royalty and that it is a big sin “shirk” and against the oneness of God to
believe in more than one God. No one seems convinced with these policy
statements when they themselves find the reality that Allah has frequently
used first person plural pronouns for Himself in many verses of the Quran
and in the same Quran Allah has also used first person singular pronoun in
many verses. If we accept what our scholars say that Allah has used His
plural pronoun “Royal We” just as for royalty then why did Allah not use the
same royal pronoun “WE” throughout the Quran? Using “Royal pronoun
“WE” in some verses and revealing some verses without the “Royal
pronoun” creates further complications and a doubt that some Quran was
revealed by Royal God and the rest by one who was not as royal as Royal
God!
Since we have changed the meaning of the words of the Quran and
memorised the wrong translation we have lost the message of God and we
do not know what is actually being said in the verses of the Quran.
In the following verse 11:41 three attributes of God have been revealed
with female genders “‫َا‬‫ه‬‫ے‬ ِ‫جر‬َ‫م‬” (Majrey Ha) means “upon Her to
continue/issue/run/move”, “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬‫ا‬َ‫س‬ْ‫ر‬ُ‫م‬” (Mursa Ha) means “upon Her to keep at
rest/to stop/bind/tie up” and “‫يم‬ ِ‫ح‬َّ‫”ر‬ (Raheem) is already an affectionate,
loving and a kind female authority. “‫يم‬ ِ‫ح‬َّ‫ر‬ ‫ور‬ُ‫ف‬َ‫غ‬َ‫ل‬ ‫ي‬ِِّ‫ب‬َ‫ر‬ َّ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬ ‫َا‬‫ه‬‫ا‬َ‫س‬‫ر‬ُ‫م‬َ‫و‬ ‫َا‬‫ه‬‫ے‬ ِ‫ر‬‫ج‬َ‫م‬ ِ ِّ‫الل‬ ِ‫م‬‫س‬ِ‫ب‬”
(11:41)
Allah has clearly said in the Quran “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫ْالر‬ِ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫ْالر‬َ‫ن‬ِّ
ِ‫ْم‬ٌ‫يل‬ِ‫ز‬‫ن‬َ‫”ت‬ (41:2) that it is revealed
from “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫ْالر‬ِ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar Rahmaan – Ar Raheem). The Originating Authority /

The Progenitor (ِْ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫)الر‬ the Caring Matriarch//Founder (ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫.)الر‬ The plural verb
in passive mood “ٌْ‫يل‬ِ‫ز‬‫ن‬َ‫”ت‬ (tanzil) is very significant to understand the true
meaning of this verse, which shows more than one engenders of God,
which were jointly employed to reveal the Quran otherwise a singular verb
would have been enough. “ٌْ‫يل‬ِ‫ز‬‫ن‬َ‫”ت‬ (tanzeel) is wrongly taken as a noun of “‫”نزل‬
whereas the noun is called “‫”نزول‬ (nazul). The actual meaning of “ٌْ‫يل‬ِ‫ز‬‫ن‬َ‫”ت‬
(tanzeel) is Download, Transfer, Upload or Copying Data. Allah did not use
any conjunction such as “‫”و‬ (meaning to “and”) between “ِْ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar
Rahmaan) and “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar Raheem), which shows His multi gender
personality in one entity. This is the reason why Allah has used plural
pronoun to address the Prophet (pbuh) and people, wherever He was
needed to use His multi attributes. There is no doubt about God being a
single entity and indeed He is an absolute single entity but He has a unity
of His own so many known and unknown genders and attributes within
Himself (as a one unit). He uses His gender/s according to His attribute/s,
which He applies for certain things, e.g. for forgiveness”‫”عفو‬ (Afu) He uses
His soft and affectionate motherly attribute “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫,”الر‬ which usually comes in
the phrase “‫”غفورالرحیم‬ (Ghafoor Ar Raheem). A mother always forgives
everyone because of her God given instinct of love, affection and
closeness. Therefore, to make us understand God has figuratively come to
the level of the mother of all creature He used the same words to assure us
that He is always there for those who seek forgiveness. This is the reason
why “ِْ‫يم‬ِ‫ح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar Raheem) has been used in the Quran more times than “ِْ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬
(Ar Rahmaan) has been used. Whereas, God’s title Ar Rehmaan (ِْ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫)الر‬
denotes fatherly attributes of God and makes Him an almighty Authority
over everything that He has created.
“ ‫م‬ُ‫ث‬‫ن‬َ‫ع‬‫ز‬ْ‫ن‬َ‫ن‬َ‫ل‬‫ن‬‫م‬‫ل‬ُ‫ك‬‫ة‬َ‫ع‬‫ی‬‫ش‬ْ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ُّ‫د‬َ‫ش‬َ‫أ‬‫ى‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ع‬‫ن‬َ‫م‬ْ‫ح‬‫الر‬‫ًّا‬‫ی‬‫ت‬‫ع‬ ” (19:69) In fact we drag out from every
sect whoever of them are extremely disgraceful / reprehensible rebellion to
Ar Rahmaan. (The almighty Authority)

Does the word “‫ن‬ ٰ‫م‬ْ‫ح‬‫”الر‬ (Ar Rahmaan) fit in meaning to the “most
Beneficent”, “the most Gracious” or “the most Merciful” in the strict action of
dragging out or plucking out the rebellions, as mentioned in the above
verse 19:69?
“‫ا‬ًّ‫ي‬ِ‫ق‬َ‫ت‬َْ‫نت‬ُ‫ك‬ْ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬َْ‫نك‬ِ‫ْم‬ِ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫الر‬ِ‫ب‬ُْ‫ذ‬‫و‬ُ‫َع‬‫أ‬ِِّْ‫ِن‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫َت‬‫ل‬‫ا‬َ‫ق‬” (19:18) She said: "That I, I seek protection by
the merciful from you, if you were fearing and obeying." (Translation Literal)
Who gives protection out of “merciful” or “powerful authority”? Do we
normally have any fear of someone who is the most kind and merciful? In
fact people have fear of a strict powerful authority.
“‫ا‬ًّ‫ي‬ِ‫ص‬َ‫ع‬ ِْ‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫لر‬ِ‫ْل‬َ‫ن‬‫ا‬َ‫ك‬َْ‫ن‬‫ا‬َ‫ط‬‫ي‬َّ‫ْالش‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫إ‬ ” (19:44) that the devil has been disobedient to the
merciful. (Traditional Translation)
“‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫ْالر‬َ‫ن‬ِّ
ِ‫ْم‬ٌ‫اب‬َ‫ذ‬َ‫ْع‬ َ‫ك‬َّ‫س‬ََ‫َنَّْي‬‫أ‬ُْ‫اف‬َ‫َخ‬‫أ‬ِِّْ‫ِن‬ِ‫إ‬ْ ِ‫ت‬َ‫َب‬‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫ي‬ ” (19:45) You my father, that I fear that torture
touches you from the merciful (Translation by Literal)
Does anyone have any fear of getting tortured by the most merciful?
In fact torture and mercy are opposite to each other and actually giving
torcher to someone is against the attribution of mercy. However, you can
correct the above statement only if you replace the word “merciful” with the
almighty authority, who can punish them on their wrong doings. The same
things has been portrayed in the above verse 19:18, in which Mary the
mother of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) seeks protection from the almighty
Authority (Ar Rahmaan) and urges the angel to have a fear of the same
almighty Authority (Ar Rahmaan). In the verse 19:44 Prophet Ibrahim
(pbuh) tells his father that Satan was disobedient and rebellious to the
almighty Authority (Ar Rahmaan). In the next verse 19:45 Prophet Ibrahim
(pbuh) tells his father about the expected torcher or punishment of the
almighty Authority (Ar Rahmaan). All characters mentioned in the above
statements, i.e. Mary the mother of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), the angel who
was coming close to her, Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and his father, they all

knew the actual meaning of the title of God “‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar Rahmaan) that He is
the almighty Authority because no one gives any threat of someone who is
very kind and merciful nor does anyone get scared of or have any fear of
the most kind and the most merciful. Therefore, the true meaning of the title
of God “‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar Rahmaan) are not what we have got wrongly memorised
because of our non-Quranic belief and because of the misleading
information conveyed to us by our ignorant scholars. In fact “‫ن‬َ‫ْح‬َّ‫”الر‬ (Ar
Rahmaan) portrays the figure of the almighty Authority. There are more
clear words in the Quran that show God’s genders and His figurative
motherly and fatherly attributes but we have omitted them from the
interpretations of the Quran because of our false belief. There is no point of
reading the Quran if we do not want to accept what is actually written in the
Quran. The earlier revelations are duly consistence with the Quran in which
God did portray His fatherly figure and because God does not change His
initial practice therefore, He has also portrayed His fatherly and motherly
attributes throughout the Quran together with His motherly and fatherly
genders and characteristics. The motherly and fatherly attributes of God
are not biological but purely and only of figurative nature just as we call the
“Father of the nation” the one who leads the nation. “Father of knowledge”
is referred to a highly learned and exceptionally knowledgeable person who
is accepted as an authority in his field. Likewise, a “Father of Biology” is not
our physical or biological father but a person who is accepted as an
authority in the entire faculty of Biology. It is quite strange that a noble
scientist is called ‘Father of Inventions’ but we don’t authorise God to use a
title of figurative father and mother of His creations, which He has created
in and around uncountable universes. We happily call Michael Faraday the
“Father of Electricity” and grant him a title of the “Father of
Electromagnetism” but we have a severe problem in calling God the
“Almighty Father or Almighty Mother” Who have called Himself, in the
Quran, an Engineer and the best of the creators (‫احسنْاخلالقني‬). If anything
goes against our pagan dogma we declare it “Shirk” (the unforgiveable sin)
but we don’t realise that we have been actually committing “Shirk” by
displacing God from His authority and by regularly practicing the pagan
rituals in the name of Islam but actually dedicated to so called pagan deity
Moon god. We have no fear of God when we change His words, which is

the biggest “Shirk”. We are not scared of committing the biggest “shirk”
when we include the fabricated statements of people together with the
statements of God that was revealed in the Quran.
Anyway, the phrase “‫ْا‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫َي‬‫أ‬”is also known as an Epithet of God, which refers
to God’s female gendering attributes when definite nouns such as “‫ذی‬‫”ال‬ (Al
Lazi) or its plural “َ‫ذین‬‫”ال‬ (Al Lazina) or definite noun of people or things like
“‫وا‬ْ‫ن‬َ‫م‬‫”آ‬ (Aamanu) or “‫”الناس‬ (Annaas) etc to be followed. El‐Hareeree also
mentioned on page 534 of “Makamat,” that (‫ى‬َ‫أ‬) is sometimes an epithet
applying to an indeterminate noun.
Confused scholars of early Islam have compiled rubbish and misleading
dictionaries of the Quran in which they have technically distorted the actual
meaning of the words of God by following the false traditions and by
inserting their own fabricated thoughts without any authority. Although at
some point they enlightened the correct meaning or the correct use of
some Quranic words but they gave countless fabricated meanings and
excessive details of made up reasoning against the single correct meaning
to hide the truth. Therefore, an intensive care is required to consult the
Arabic dictionaries.
The above mentioned verses of the Quran have proven those scholars
wrong who do not take “‫ها‬ِ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (Ayyuha) more than a redundant, extra,
useless or suspended word or a meaningless filler. Also the same verses of
the Quran reject those scholars who have invented that “‫ها‬ِ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬” (Ayyuha) is a
“nidaa” or “munaada” or a vocative particle like “‫ا‬َ‫ي‬” (Ya) meaning to "O" or a
similar calling expression. Furthermore, the above verses of the Quran
have also proven those wrong who are lost in their self-created “Sarf-o-
Nahav” and make people confused in the name of Arabic grammar, which
they don’t even know themselves.
It is also asserted that “‫”أیتھا‬ (Ayyatuha) refers to women only to mean: “they
believed or you believed”. This is because of the myth that all plural objects

are feminine but this myth of our scholars is rejected by those verses of the
Quran in which “‫ھا‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬” (ayyuha) has been used with the successive plural
nouns instead of using asserted “‫”أیتھا‬ (ayyatuha), e.g. “ َ‫ھاالذین‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫یا‬‫آمنوا‬ ” (Ya
ayyuha allazina aamanu), “ ‫یا‬‫ھا‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬‫الناس‬ ” (ya ayyuha an maas) “ ‫یا‬‫ھا‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬َ‫المومنون‬ ” (ya
ayyuha almominun) etc. In the above Quranic examples, “َ‫”الذین‬ (allazina),
“‫”الناس‬ (annaas) and “َ‫”المومنون‬ (al mminun) are all plural nouns, which follow
“‫ھا‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬” (ayyuha). However, according to Ibn‐Seedeh the author of the
“Mohkam” ‫ا‬َ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ and ‫ا‬َ‫ھ‬ُ‫ت‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ are also used for the purpose of particularising in
which case they are not preceded by “‫”یا‬ (ya).
Also Arabs practically prefix “‫ى‬َ‫أ‬” to pronouns, saying ‫ا‬َ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ and ‫ا‬َ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُ‫ت‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ (Who, or
which of them two), and َ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ (Who, or which of them), which proves those
scholars wrong who assert that ‫ا‬َ‫م‬ُ‫ھ‬ُ‫ت‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ refers to women only. Whereas, َّ‫ن‬ُ‫ه‬ُّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬
and َّ‫ن‬ُ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫ي‬َ‫أ‬ correctly refer to women. El‐Farra and El‐Azheree the author of
“Tahdheeb” also agree that ‫ن‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ (Who, or which of them) refers to women.
Ibn‐Seedeh, the author of Mohkam also said that sometimes Arabs say,
‫ن‬ُ‫ھ‬ُ‫ت‬‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ referring to women, to mean: ‫ن‬ُ‫ھ‬ُّ‫ی‬َ‫أ‬ (Who, or which of them referring to
women).
In reality “‫”أیتھا‬ (ayyatuha) has nothing to do with women as it is wrongly
asserted that it refers to women only, but in fact “‫”أیتھا‬ (ayyatuha) is a
combination of 3rd
person singular feminine pronoun (her/hers) “‫”ها‬ + “‫”أیت‬ =
“‫.”أیتھا‬ The true meaning of “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) is “wight”, which is explained in the
thesaurus to mean: a person of a specified kind, any living being, a
creature. According to "A History of African Societies to 1870" by Elizabeth
Isichei and books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0521455995 “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) is an
Arabic term or phrase which means “people of” that is also shown in some
names like “ ‫آیت‬‫ہللا‬‫الخمینی‬ ” (Ayyatullah Alkhumaini) or “ ‫آیت‬‫ہللا‬‫العظمی‬‫حاج‬‫سید‬‫علی‬
‫سیستانی‬ ‫”حسینی‬ etc. However, literary meaning of this word is “a spirit, ghost,
or other supernatural being. Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus
of Cambridge University press explained “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) “a ghost, or a dead
person who has come back to life”. “‫”أیت‬ (ayyit) is also translated as
“clear signs” but actually the plural word “‫”بینت‬ (bayyinat) or singular “‫”بین‬
(bayyen) should be translated as “clear signs” because of the meaning of
the plural word “‫”بینت‬ (bayyinat) or singular “‫”بین‬ (bayyen) refers to the true

evidence that is actually the clear “sign” and the clear “verse” as “‫نة‬‫”بی‬
means “a clear thing”. The American Heritage® Dictionary translated “‫”أيت‬
(ayyit) meaning to heroic, daring, noble, archaic, valorous and brave
as well as the “people of” and explained that “‫”أیت‬ (ayyit) is a synonym of
Arabic word “‫”بنو‬ (Banu) as used in “‫هاشم‬ ‫”بنو‬ (Banu Hashim) etc. “Indifferent
Languages Dictionary” mentioned “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) to mean: heaven, hermit,
impudent, knowledgeable, legendary, optimist, prudent and sullen. Legal
thesaurus took “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) to mean: undergo, charge, physical change,
change in substance. According to Scientific thesaurus, Medical
encyclopedia, Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Harper Collins
Publications, Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary and
Almaani thesaurus and dictionary, “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) means: to experience or be
subjected to, a house that is undergoing renovations, to convert or be
converted totally or partially into ions, i.e., ionize, to convert or be converted
totally or partially into ions, (General Physics) to change or become
changed into ions, to separate or change into ions, to produce ions in, to
become changed into the form of ions, as by dissolving, to add an electron
to, or remove an electron from, an atom or group of atoms so as to give it
an electric charge, o form ions in a substance, lightning ionizes air, i.e.
ionizing, Insulin that breaks into a kind of sweet fructose and produces
energy to keep the human body functioning.
A popular holiday company “ ‫جزیرۃ‬‫شواط‬‫ئ‬‫ایت‬ ” (Wight Holiday) uses the same
Arabic word “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) for its practical applications into their business and
to attract their customers, who understand its meaning to heaven, charge
into life, nourishment of spirit, lively, sweet, lightening, noble people, heroic
and optimistic personal or a specified kind etc. If you google you will find so
many Arab businesses in which the same word “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) is still used in its
true meanings and both the Arab business owners and people understand
the correct meaning and practical application of this word in their daily life
but when they come to the Quran they change its meanings following the
false Islamic literature and misleading interpretations of the Quran. This is
nothing but a hypocrisy against Allah’s words revealed in the Quran. Does
the above stated holiday company “ ‫جزیرۃ‬‫شواطئ‬‫ایت‬ ” book only women to
take them on holidays or do other Arab businesses that use “‫”أیت‬ (ayyt) in
their names do business with women only? This is the real mess in the

understanding of the Quran that was initially created by Arabs and
subsequently spread throughout the Muslim world.
Therefore, the following verse 89:27 makes it clear that the Quran did not
use the phrase “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyatiha) for women only but in fact it addresses both
men and women.
ُْ‫ة‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫ْال‬ُ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫اْالن‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫ي‬ (89:27) (To the righteous soul will be said:) "O (thou) soul,
in (complete) rest and satisfaction! (Translation by Yousuf Ali).
You, you the self, the assured/tranquil (Literal). 'O soul at peace (Arberry)
"O you soul which is peaceful." (Free Minds). O satisfied soul (Qaribullah)
As for you, O content soul (Khalifa).
None of the above and any of the rest of the translations of this verse are
correct because the Quran was revealed onto a live person the Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) and all the instructions of God revealed in the Quran
are for living people only and not for the spirits or the ghosts. Also “ُْ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫”الن‬
(annafs) means “the person” but only to ruin the meaning of “‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬”
(ayyatuha) and to insert the polytheists’ myth of liberation of soul, that is
also known as “mukti” and “gati” in Hinduism. The meaning of this verse,
even the whole chapter 89 has been changed. Arab pagans were
influenced by Hinduism that was prevailed throughout the East and the
Middle East including the present land of Saudi Arabia. According to their
polytheist belief, if someone, especially women, dies unsatisfactory without
fulfilling their inner desires their soul does not reach its destination and only
satisfactory souls get resurrection and attain life in the higher realm
(Moksha). According to this pagan myth unsatisfied souls remain attached
to the earth, especially who have unnatural deaths like suicides, accidents
and died without unsettled issue or spirits of those whose last rites could
not be performed properly due to various reasons. The language of
interpretation and explanation of the above verse 89:27 and in fact the

interpretation of the whole chapter 89 is full of pagan connotations for
conveying the pagan myth in the name of the Quran. There is no scope to
explain it further in this article, which will be explained in the relevant write
up but Oxford Dictionary of World Religions explained it well for those who
are keen to know more about it.
The above verse 89:27 is wrongly translated on behalf of early Islam
scholars who wrote in their dictionaries that “ُْ‫س‬‫ف‬َّ‫”ن‬ (nafs) is a human spirit
(ghost), which is an irregular feminine noun, hence why ‫أیتھا‬ is used for
women only. Since then the actual meaning of the word “ُْ‫س‬‫ف‬َّ‫”ن‬ (nafs) has
been changed in all subsequent Arabic dictionaries and the translation of
the Quran. However, along with its made up meaning of “human spirit” or
“ghost” some good dictionaries still give the true meaning, of “ُْ‫س‬‫ف‬َّ‫”ن‬ (nafs), to
mean a “person”, “himself” or “herself” and “individual candidate”. Likewise,
in spoken language “ُْ‫س‬‫ف‬َّ‫”ن‬ (nafs) is used to describe one’s self personality or
oneself. Also if the above verse 89:27 refers to women only with the wordsْ
‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫ْال‬ُ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫اْالن‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫ي‬ then what was said to men, instead of these words, to treat
them equally? If “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫ْال‬ُ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫”الن‬ (annafs al mutmainnah) is meant to be a
satisfied ghost or a soul then it should be found in men as well but we
cannot find any separate statement for men only that contains the similar
words, i.e. “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫ْال‬ُ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫”الن‬ (annafs al mutmainnah) without its preceding
phrase“‫ا‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬” (ayyatuha).
In fact, the Arabic word “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫”ال‬ does not mean “satisfaction” or “peaceful”
like they take it in Persian language. However, the Quran was revealed in
straight Arabic language and the Arabic word “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫”ال‬ is derived from the
Arabic root word “‫”طمن‬ to mean: aspirations, ambitions, humbleness,
submission, bow down in belief and being put before Allah’s words.
EI‐Feiyoomee wrote in “Misbah” that the Arabic word “َّ‫ن‬َ‫أ‬َ‫م‬‫ِط‬‫ا‬”, derived from
“‫ن‬َ‫م‬‫”ط‬ means “َ‫ع‬َ‫ك‬َ‫”ر‬ (Raka): He stooped, [bent himself down,] or lowered

himself. The word “َ‫ع‬َ‫ك‬َ‫”ر‬ (Raka) is the root word of the Quranic word “‫”رکوع‬
(Raku) means bow down in acceptance of Allah’s orders. Seyyid Murtada
Ez‐Zebcedee gave the following Arabic saying in Taj -el-Aroos: “ ‫ت‬‫ن‬َ‫أ‬َ‫م‬ْ‫ط‬‫ا‬
ُ‫ض‬ ْ‫ر‬َ‫أل‬‫”ا‬ means: "the land, or ground, was, or became, low or bowed”.
However, on the page 280 of “Makamat”, El‐Hareeree gave an example of
saying “ ‫اطمأن‬‫ع‬‫ض‬ ْ‫و‬َ‫م‬‫ال‬‫ب‬ ” meaning to: He settled in the place; i. e. He remained,
stayed, abode, or dwelt, in the place, and took it as his home. Some
scholars took the word “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫”ال‬ to mean: tranquility, stillness and freedom
from disquietude, a thing to which one trusts, or upon which one relies.
However, modern Arabic dictionaries explained correctly the word “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫”ال‬
that is revealed in the above verse 89:27 meaning to: the humble, the
submissive, being put before Allah’s words, ambitious, aspirant. Therefore,
the Quranic word “‫َّة‬‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫”ال‬ (almutmainna) is 100% wrongly translated to
mean: satisfied and content. Whereas in Arabic the word “‫”رضي‬ from “‫”راض‬
is used to mean “satisfied” and “content”, which is seen in the next verse
“ًْ‫ة‬َّ‫ي‬ِ‫ض‬‫ر‬َّ‫ْم‬ً‫ة‬َ‫ي‬ِ‫اض‬َ‫ْر‬ِ‫ك‬ِِّ‫ب‬َ‫ْر‬ َ‫َل‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫ي‬ِ‫ع‬ِ‫ج‬‫”ار‬ (89:28). “Come back thou to thy Lord,- well pleased
(thyself), and well-pleasing unto Him!” (Yousuf Ali). All translations of the
above verse 89:28 are more or less similar to the above mentioned
misleading translation of Yousuf Ali. No scholar ever bothered to
understand that this verse 89:27 “ُْ‫ة‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫ْال‬ُ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫اْالن‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫”ي‬ does not address any
satisfied or content soul but in fact God addresses “a submissive, humble
and aspirant person” who satisfied God. Also it is common sense and a
fact that the candidates have to satisfy the examiner in order to
progress to the higher class instead of satisfying themselves?
“ُْ‫ة‬َّ‫ن‬ِ‫ئ‬َ‫م‬‫ط‬ُ‫م‬‫ْال‬ُ‫س‬‫َّف‬‫اْالن‬َ‫ه‬ُ‫ت‬َّ‫َي‬‫أ‬ْ‫ا‬َ‫”ي‬ (89:27). O’ Her (God’s) optimistic aspirant/ submissive
candidate/ humble person (correct translation)
“ًْ‫ة‬َّ‫ي‬ِ‫ض‬‫ر‬َّ‫ْم‬ً‫ة‬َ‫ي‬ِ‫اض‬َ‫ْر‬ِ‫ك‬ِِّ‫ب‬َ‫ْر‬ َ‫َل‬ِ‫إ‬ْ‫ي‬ِ‫ع‬ِ‫ج‬‫”ار‬ (89:28) Return to your Lord having fulfilled His condition
(Advanced correct translation)
Return to your Lord having satisfied Him satisfactorily (Basic correct
translation).

ABLUTION “وضو” (WUDU) PART 1

ABLUTION “وضو” (WUDU) PART 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to ABLUTION “وضو” (WUDU) PART 1

Similar to ABLUTION “وضو” (WUDU) PART 1 (20)

ABLUTION “وضو” (WUDU) PART 1