Channel: Nouman Ali Khan
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. Welcome once again to amazed by the Quran, a series in which I share with you what I find amazing about the Quran. Today inshallah I want to share with you something that's again, somewhat technical, but my job is to try to make it easy to understand. In the Arabic language. There are two ways of saying wasn't okay, so you can say lamea Cohen wasn't, or Makana also means wasn't, but the difference is that when you say Makana, the latter, then it actually means to refute. Like, for example, he wasn't a teacher. If somebody asked, was he a teacher, I could say let me go and start and he wasn't a teacher, I'm answering somebody's question.
But if somebody makes a false claim, he was a teacher and I go after them and say, No, no, you're wrong. He was definitely not a teacher. You are wrong about that, sir. Then I don't say lemmya Cohen, I say Mark and I will stand and so the word ma basically to make it easy. The word ma is used for refutation purposes, it's there to correct an incorrect assumption, okay. So there are two IR one belonging to the sixth surah SoTL, Anam and the other belonging to solitude, the 11th surah. Very similar ayat Allah mucuna rabuka De Luca lahmacun, lahmacun rabuka Monica, Cora, and the other maca, Nora Bukola, helical Cora. Allah was not one to destroy towns, both in English translation say
your master was not one to destroy towns. Okay. But in one of them, he says Lem jaquan wasn't. And the other he says Makana he wasn't at all one to destroy towns. In other words, in one, he's simply making a statement of fact, he wasn't one to destroy towns. And then the other one, he's refuting someone and telling them he wasn't one to destroy towns at all. So why refute one in one case, it's the same exact statement, why make it reputational in one context and make it simply a matter of fact, in the other. You'll notice in subtle anatomy, he just states it as a matter of fact, it's not even a debate with someone. He's not correcting anyone. It's actually a scene describing Judgment
Day, on judgment day all arguments have come to an end, there is nothing to refute. It's all fact now. Nobody denies anything anymore. So he puts it as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, your master was never one to just destroy towns belittlement wrongfully he would never do that.
On the other hand, if you study sort of who that's actually talking about a debate happening between the believer and the disbeliever, in this world, where the disbeliever is making a claim that your God destroys nations wrongfully, and he's being corrected, and he's being told No, he doesn't destroy nations wrongfully at all. Makana so every even phrase that you find in English translation, exactly the same, it's actually very different in the in the Arabic, you know, and then there's the other really beautiful thing here, destroyer of towns, destroyer of towns, mostly called Cora, as opposed to destroys towns, I think about the English destroyer is a noun. destroyer of towns,
therefore are two nouns, destroyer and towns. But if I say, your master doesn't destroy towns, or he would never destroy towns, when you use the verb, right, it's different so actually ended in the scene that's about judgment day he used a noun for destroying. He called himself a destroyer of towns, mostly calahorra. But in the scene that's describing this world, he says he destroys towns used a verb. And what's the difference between a noun and a verb a noun is permanent set unchanged in mobile. And a verb is shifting like a verb is an act that's taking place or might take place, but it's not a constant. It's incredible that for judgment day, he used the noun because just like a
noun is set. In mobile. It is the decisions on judgment day that are set and in mobile, but in this world, there are nations that may rebelled against God, but they might find their way back. Allah's decision about them hasn't been set in stone, they still have a chance to earn forgiveness. He didn't condemn anybody and make any nation godforsaken as the term is used. Nope. The verb is used to suggest that in this world, people have a chance to change entire nations have a chance to change a law will never destroy a nation wrongfully. The verb is used because he hasn't become a destroyer of them had to use the word destroyed, their fate would have been sealed. So the people who argue
well number one that he did that before or the number to imply that he'll do it again, both of those are refuted just in the language that is captured inside the ayah which to me is not only the part of the literary beauty of the Quran, but in that literary beauty what is captured is the loving mercy and justice of Allah subhana wa Tada. Allah once again, give us the ability to reflect on the Quran as it deserves to be reflected on barakallahu li walakum wa salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.