وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَّا عَبَدتُّمْ
This verse looks as though it says the same thing as the second. In English both come out as "I do not worship what you worship". Yet in Arabic there is a change in two separate places, and both are laden with meaning.
- Verse 2: lā aʿbudu — a verbal sentence. It negates the act.
- Verse 4: lā ana ʿābidun — a nominal sentence with an active participle. It negates the attribute.
- Verse 2: mā taʿbudūn — imperfect. "What you serve at present."
- Verse 4: mā ʿabadtum — perfect (past). "What you served / have served."
| Verse 2 | Verse 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| My sentence | Verbal sentence: lā aʿbudu | Nominal sentence: lā ana ʿābidun |
| What it negates | The act — "I do not do it" | The attribute — "I am not one who does it" |
| Time (mine) | Present and future | Timeless / continuous |
| Your side | taʿbudūn — imperfect | ʿabadtum — perfect |
| Time (yours) | What you serve now | What you served in the past |
The first door — time. Verse 2 cuts off the future; the ʿabadtum of verse 4 brings the past within range too. The sentence "I do not serve now" is open to the objection "but you used to". Verse 4 closes that objection: none of them, including what you served in the past.
The second door — quality. The sentence "I am not doing it" keeps alive the possibility "you could have, but you chose not to". A choice can change; it is open to negotiation. The nominal sentence removes that possibility: the matter is not a choice but an identity. Not "I do not do it" but "I am not one who does it".
When these two are put together the whole of the answer is: "At this moment I do not do it, and at no time am I one who does it." The first is a notification, the second a definition. And a definition cannot be negotiated.
Why this order? First the verb, then the noun. There is a logic to this: the verbal sentence is a direct answer to the offer — the offer asked for an act, and the answer refuses that act. The nominal sentence is a step above: it says that the refusal is not a temporary stance but something about what the person is. First "no" is said, then it is shown why the "no" is not negotiable.
It must be stated that the third and fifth verses are word for word identical. These are the pair of verses that are fully repeated in the sūra. The change lies between the second and fourth verses.
This puts the question of repetition in the following shape: the two sentences on my side are different, and the difference was shown above; the two sentences on your side are the same. The heading below takes up the explanations of this second state of affairs.