The Arabic word كَانَ (kāna) in the Quran can either be translated as “was,” which would infer past tense or “is,” inferring present tense. A verse that demonstrates the two uses as well as how this can sometimes lead to differences in interpretation can be seen in the following verse.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa
33:40 Muhammad was ( كَانَ) not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is ( كَانَ) fully aware of all things.
Saheeh International
Muḥammad is ( كَانَ) not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allāh and seal [i.e., last] of the prophets. And ever is ( كَانَ) Allāh, of all things, Knowing.
If we look at the above translations from Dr. Rashad Khalifa and Saheeh International, we see that they differed in translating the first use of the word كَانَ, while both translate the second use of the word كَانَ as “is.” This is because the second use of the word كَانَ is in reference to a quality of God, and all qualities of God are ever enduring.
For reference, here is the word-by-word breakdown of the verse.
Father of Men
The translation of “was” vs. “is” does not have much bearing on the first part of the verse since both statements are linguistically and logically correct.
Muhammad was not the father of any man among you
Muḥammad is not the father of [any] one of your men
Messenger of God
The predominant argument between the translations is related to the second part of the first statement. The reason this is contentious is that some individuals use this verse to justify the expression that the shahadatain, which includes the name of Muhammad, is linguistically sound when they state:
Arabic: وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰ
Translation: And I bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger of God
Some argue that even if we assume that كَانَ is to be translated as “was” for the first phrase, regarding Muhammad not being the father of any men among the people, this does not mean that the next statement, regarding his status of being a messenger and the final prophet “وَلَٰكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ” should be understood in the past tense.
Arabic: وَلَٰكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ
Khalifa: He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet.
Saheeh: but [he is] the Messenger of Allāh and seal [i.e., last] of the prophets.
The problem with this understanding is that it is not definitive as we will see that, linguistically, either interpretation holds.
Case for Was
For instance, none of the words in this second statement indicate that the tense of the speech should switch from what was previously stated. It can be argued that it is most logical to carry over the tense that was in the first part of the sentence.
We can demonstrate this by looking at the word-by-word translation without any of the filler words inserted by the translators to better understand the sentence structure.
Arabic 33:40: مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ
Word by Word Translation: Not was/is Muhammad a father of anyone among your men, but [] God’s messenger and seal of the prophets.
Pending if one uses “was” or “is” at the start of the sentence will depend on how the person will understand if the sentence is stating that Muhammad was God’s messenger or is God’s messenger.
Additionally, we see this pattern elsewhere in the Quran, such that the tense that is applied to the word كَانَ should carry over until the sentence ends or there is an indication of a change in tense from any of the following words.
For instance, below are some examples from the Quran.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa:
4:22 Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers—existing marriages are exempted and shall not be broken—for it is a gross offense, and an abominable act.
Saheeh International:
4:22 And do not marry those [women] whom your fathers married, except what has already occurred. Indeed, it was an immorality and hateful [to Allāh] and was evil as a way.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa:
4:92 No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim’s family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belong ed to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belong ed to people with whom you have sign ed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find* a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD. GOD is Knower, Most Wise.
Saheeh International:
4:92 And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake – then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment [diyah] presented to his [i.e., the deceased’s] family [is required], unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if he [i.e., the deceased] was from a people at war with you and he was a believer – then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty – then a compensation payment present ed to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] – then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allāh. And Allāh is ever Knowing and Wise.
Case for Is
Alternatively, someone can argue that because the tense is not indicated in the second part of the phrase, this means that the interpretation of كَانَ in the first part has no bearing. Additionally, the use of وَلَٰكِنْ can indicate that this phrase is separate from the previous statement and can be viewed in isolation. In which case, it should be translated as “is” without the consideration of the first use of كَانَ in the verse.
This can be demonstrated by looking at phrases in isolation and in which case we would have to be understood in the present tense.
Arabic: وَلَٰكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ
Translation: But a messenger of God and a seal of the prophets.
Further evidence for this understanding can be seen in verse 3:67 where it is written in a similar style, but this time uses كَانَ repeatedly between each junction, including immediately after وَلَٰكِنْ. Some can argue that if it was meant to be “was” it should also follow this format.
Khalifa:
3:67 Abraham was neither Jewish, nor Christian; he was a monotheist submitter. He never was an idol worshiper.
Saheeh International:
3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the polytheists.
But
Based on the above arguments for “was” vs. “is” it shows that both interpretations have linguistic support from the Quran. More evidence can be seen when we look at other verses that are written in this style and see that it is not always consistent and can go either way, despite the evidence presented above.
If we look at 28:46, we see that just because the tense is not specified after وَلَٰكِنْ that the tense is still carried over in the case of Saheeh International.
Khalifa:
28:46 Nor were you on the slope of Mount Sinai when we called (Moses). But it is mercy from your Lord, (towards the people,) in order to warn people who received no warner before you, that they may take heed.
Saheeh International:
28:46 And you were not at the side of the mount when We called [Moses] but [ were sent] as a mercy from your Lord to warn a people to whom no warner had come before you that they might be reminded.
Another example can be seen in verse 3:79, where this time, Dr. Rashad Khalifa uses a consistent tense throughout the passage, while Saheeh International changes tense in the passage.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa:
3:79 Not would a human being whom GOD blessed with the scripture and prophethood say to the people, “Idolize me beside GOD.” Instead, (he would say), “Devote yourselves absolutely to your Lord alone,” according to the scripture you preach and the teachings you learn.
Saheeh International:
It is not for a human [prophet] that Allāh should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, “Be servants to me rather than Allāh,” but [instead, he would say], “Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied.”
We see that in this instance, the translation by Khalifa is consistent that the second statement after the word وَلَٰكِنْ carries over the same tense when there is not a verb stating otherwise. This is not the case for Sahih International, which uses the present tense at the beginning of the verse and the past tense in the second part of the statement.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa:
12:38 “And I followed instead the religion of my ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We never set up any idols beside GOD. Such is the blessing from GOD upon us and upon the people, but most people are unappreciative.
Saheeh International:
And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And it was not for us to associate anything with Allāh. That is from the favor of Allāh upon us and upon the people, but most of the people are not grateful.
We see that in this instance, the translation by Khalifa is consistent that the second statement after the word وَلَٰكِنْ carries over the same tense when there is not a verb stating otherwise. Again, this is not the case for Sahih International, which uses the past tense at the beginning of the verse and the present tense in the second part of the statement.
Dr. Rashad Khalifa:
12:68 When they went (to Joseph), they entered in accordance with their father’s instructions. Although this could not change anything decreed by GOD, Jacob had a private reason for asking them to do this. For he possessed certain knowledge that we taught him, but most people do not know.
Saheeh International:
12:68 And when they entered from where their father had ordered them, it did not avail them against Allāh at all except [it was] a need [i.e., concern] within the soul of Jacob, which he satisfied. And indeed, he was a possessor of knowledge because of what We had taught him, but most of the people do not know.
In this article, I attempted my best to present the strongest case I could for justification for either translation and from the findings, it appears that there are arguments on both sides to support the use of either “was” or “is” in the translation. This leads me to believe that both ways of translating have linguistic merit.
I believe the reason it is written in such a way is because the Quran is timeless. This allowed the people who were amongst Muhammad to read it and understand it in the present tense, while those who are hearing this verse after Muhammad’s death to understand it in the past tense. So either way, it looks like God wrote it in such a way that if someone was reading it when Muhammad was alive or dead that it was both linguistically correct.
Shahadatain Verdict
But as stated above, the argument regarding the translation of this verse is really a meta-argument to a bigger debate regarding the linguistic validity of the shahadatain. So from this analysis, can determine if the following statement made by a billion Muslims in their shahadatain is linguistically correct?
Arabic: وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰ
Translation: And I bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger of God
Interestingly the verse that is the strongest argument, in my opinion, for the interpretation of “is” in the translation of 33:40 is also the verse that confirms for me that the shahadatain as stated today is linguistically incorrect. This verse was previously mentioned and is 3:67, which is strikingly similar in structure to 33:40, with the exception that it uses the term كَانَ after وَلَٰكِنْ which is not the case for 33:40.
Khalifa:
3:67 Abraham was neither Jewish, nor Christian; he was a monotheist submitter. He never was an idol worshiper.
Saheeh International:
3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the polytheists.
It is worth pointing out that verse 3:67 is universally translated as “was” by translators. This makes sense since Abraham lived thousands of years before the revelation of the Quran, and if the translation stated “is,” then it would infer that Abraham was living when the Quran was revealed.
So just like it doesn’t make sense to use the present tense when the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago about Abraham, it does not make sense today to use the present tense in claiming to bear witness to Muhammad being a messenger of God. This is because Muhammad is no longer amongst us, and therefore it is linguistically and logically incorrect to proclaim Muhammad is a messenger of God. Instead, people who make this proclimation should state that Muhammad was ( كَانَ) a messenger of God.
Arabic: وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا كَانَ رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰ
Translation: And I bear witness that Muhammad was a messenger of God
39:30 You (Muhammad) will surely die, just like they will die.
39:31 On the Day of Resurrection, before your Lord, you people will feud with one another.
39:32 Who is more evil than one who attributes lies to GOD, while disbelieving in the truth that has come to him? Is Hell not a just requital for the disbelievers?
39:33 As for those who promote the truth, and believe therein, they are the righteous.