Where the aspect of the verb makes the meaning
Arabic distinguishes the perfect, the imperfect and the participle. This is not a mere tense marker, and the perfect does not always mean the past: that mechanical reading is set aside (“Verbal aspect carries meaning”). But when a passage sets the forms against one another, that opposition carries the meaning, and the translation keeps it in all six languages.
Sura 109 is the textbook case. It alternates three forms of the same verb: the imperfect "I do not obey what you obey" (109:2), the participle "nor are you ones who obey" (109:3), and the perfect "what you have obeyed" (109:4). The present act, the lasting state and the finished past are not confused: the break holds for what I do, for what I am, and for what you have done.
Sura 102 opens on a perfect: "Rivalry in accumulation has distracted you" (102:1). The finding is made: the distraction has already happened. Sura 104 does the same: he thinks "that his goods have made him eternal" (104:3), as if it were settled.
The openings in "has glorified" and in "glorifies" (see 59:1, 59:24 and “"Has glorified" and "glorifies": the aspect of the openings in سبّح”) show the opposition between two suras, or between the start and the end of one sura (“One formula opens and closes the sura”).
Conversely, after إذا, the perfect describes what will happen: "When the sun is wrapped up" (81:1). There, translating it in the past would be a misreading. The rule is therefore not "perfect = past", but: spot the opposition of forms, and render it.
In the text
لَآ أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَوَلَآ أَنَا۠ عَابِدٌۭ مَّا عَبَدتُّمْإِذَا ٱلشَّمْسُ كُوِّرَتْ