the weakness in your reply is the assumption that translating nafs as ‘person’ is inaccurate… it isn’t… it’s a perfectly legitimate rendition…since you are fond of the aforementioned translators see how they render the following:
002.072
YUSUFALI: Remember ye slew a man (nafs-san)…
PICKTHAL: And (remember) when ye slew a man…
SHAKIR: And when you killed a man…
028.019
YUSUFALI: … that man said: "O Moses! Is it thy intention to slay me as thou slewest a man (nafs-san) yesterday?
PICKTHAL: … he said: O Moses! Wouldst thou kill me as thou didst kill a person yesterday.
SHAKIR: … he said: O Musa! do you intend to kill me as you killed a person yesterday?
or how Yusuf Ali and Pickthal render:
006.098
YUSUFALI: It is He Who hath produced you from a single person (nafs-sin wahidatin)…
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath produced you from a single being…
AQ: no, you're absolutely wrong. the literal meaning of nafs IS soul, and if you are transliterating a verse word by word, you shouldnt put in meanings that dont exist. have you never heard of "nafs e ammara" and "nafs e mutmainna"? Nafs, the closest literal would be "self" or soul or essence. nafsun wahid would mean one soul, if we were to be literal about things, which in language can mean "ek nafri" lekin there is no way that nafs refers to a material object. this is why nafs can never be applied to non-living things.
furthermore Khalaq means creation, which soul is too, even if it isnt corporeal.
gupguppy: the issue is that Anwar was saying that he is translating the ayah word for word. If you wish to transliterate the ayah then Nafs or Soul cannot be substituted for Person.
^ two of your preffered translators obviously disagree with you
006.098
YUSUFALI: It is He Who hath produced you from a single person (nafs-sin wahidatin)...
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath produced you from a single being...
YUSUFALI: O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you.
PICKTHAL: O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.
SHAKIR: O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.
[/quote]
they're either using "minhaa" to mean "of like nature" or "from the same soul". the issue is about the pronoun, what "minhaa" means.. whether it means "of like nature" or "from the same soul" or "from the same person"..
word combination? i thought you were translating word for word
meray bhai, what basis are you using for word combination? the fact that the word was preceded by a quantity? do you mean to say that souls cannot be quanitified?
so are we done with the literal translation issue? do you agree that word for word, without substituting any context that you may suppose may exist, the translation for Nafs would be soul? if you believe otherwise, i suggest you consult a dictionary.
rahi baat zaujiyat not being for arwaah, what basis do you have for that? secondly, the creation of Adam and Havva from a single soul/of like Nature IS physical, because subsequently the Quran speaks about children populating the world. Nothing I say contradicts taht.
at least one of your own preferred translators when translating in a like context renders ‘nafs’ as ‘person’… e.g. see Yusuf Ali’s rendition of 6:98… or do you now disagree with him whereas previously you agreed?
Arwah (plural of Rooh) = Noor (light) which is same for all human beings. The source of Rooh is same for all human beings.
This particular ayah (4:1) talks about the creation of the first man, not his rooh.
for example:
32:9 But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!
**gupguppy: **no i dont, because you can either translate nafs as soul, or nature. so it can be either created Adam and created of the same nature Havva as does yusuf Ali, or it would be created Adam and created from it (the same soul) Havva. read the translations again.
evidently you still dont know what we are talking about.
completely non-sequitur. im not trying to point score here, but you really should see a dictionary on the literal meaning of Nafs, which is Soul or Essence. Rooh also means soul, so the fact that Rooh is used for soul isnt surprising. Neither should naf as soul be surprising.
so you now agree Yusuf Ali was right to translate ‘nafs’ as ‘person’ when he wrote:
006.098
YUSUFALI: It is He Who hath produced you from a single person (nafs-sin wahidatin): here is a place of sojourn and a place of departure: We detail Our signs for people who understand.
to you, gupguppy, the translation is correct in my view.
theres parallel discussions going on, one about the trans*literation* of the verse, provided by AQ which was plain wrong, and then about whether I agree with the verse as translated by most of the translators, which i DO.
