surah baqarah, s2v147: mahmud al-hasan: thanawi: alahazrat in his kanz. and for frogs in a stinking puddle, here is the proof that alahazrat was aware of tafasir whereas the usual gang of suspects were 'reckless and committing sin': do you now see what reckless is?
khitab - or address. in the qur'an, the verses are addressed to various people, groups, individuals, etc. and in myriad forms. this is an important branch of science in itself. in al-burhan of imam al-zarkashi, the 42nd category is mukhaTabat and he says there are 40 different types of such addresses. some examples: - the address is general, and the statement/ruling is meant to be generic. - the address is specific and it is meant to be specific. ... ... ... - mode of address where the addressed person/entity is praised such as: "o those who believe" [khiTab al-mad'H] - mode of address where the addressed person/entity is derided, such as: "o those who disbelieve" [khiTab al-dhamm] - mode of address where the addressed person/entity is given honour, such as: "o adam, stay in paradise, you and your wife" [khitab al-karamah] - mode of address where the addressed person/entity is deplored: "get out, you are damned" [khiTab al-ihanah] - an address where the tense is singular, but addressed to more than one: "o man!" - an address where the tense is plural, but addressed to one person. "o messengers! eat from good food" [in this case rusul is used, addressing RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam even though there is no other messenger along with him]. type 18: addressed specifically to an individual, but it is meant for others. such as: in the above verse, it is addressed to RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, but is meant for his followers, believers. because, he was sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, the most pious (taqiyy), and it is impossible that he would ever obey kafirs and munafiqin. ==== it is this point which is the outstanding feature of kanz compared to all other translations. others thought that armed with a knowledge of arabic grammar and vocabulary, they can scale this peak - but they faltered miserably. and alahazrat's translation is correct to a fault because of his acute awareness of these concepts and knowledge of tafsir. so now you will see what reckless means. let us start with the ayat above.
recap of what devbandi zameel termed as 'reckless and great sin' according to the devbandi list of three samples: ---- 1. "satan worshippers" was a big error. his shake mahmud al-hasan translated that phrase as: "those who worshipped satan". in reality, this was not an error at all even going by devbandis own claim. it was a grossly dishonest reading and distortion where he cleverly dropped an 'and' and replaced it with a comma to make the statement conducive to his narrative. after being caught out, he threw up his nose, looked the other way and stood his ground. EVEN when i showed that it is correct both ways. this is the devbandi manhaj - never apologise, never admit a mistake - even when it is rubbed in your face, just stand your ground in your stinking swamp and never accept the haqq. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. ---- 2. "seeking refuge" instead of "calling out loudly for help". what difference does it make? the frog in the swamp does not understand a common urdu idiom, and based on HIS own ignorant reading, he calls it an error! the devbandi sheds crocodile tears and laments that one ought to be just always. much like narendar modi acting as chowkidar. is this justice? i pray and hope people evaluate these in a fair manner without allowing their dislike or hatred of alahazrat marring their judgement. ---- 3. "the glorious Throne", instead of the "the glorious Owner of the Throne". even though both readings are correct as proven emphatically, and moreover attributing the Throne with glory is indirectly attributing glory to its Owner. yet, he calls these as errors and "reckless and great sin". sub'HanAllah.
devbandi posted a critique of alahazrat - and tried to pick on kanz al-iman. in an alternate universe, even if he were correct in his evaluation, and these were indeed errors, such a translation would not cause any major difference to the reader. even though, i have demonstrated that the devbandi found them as errors because of his own ignorance and ingrained hatred of alahazrat. much like a village idiot who thinks that his plow is far more valuable than an iPhone and insists on comparing the plow with the phone: "looook how heavy is my plow..." --- you can read his rambling here: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/aḥmad-riḍa-khan-mistranslates-verses-of-quran/ and its rebuttal here: http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/kanzul-iman.14303/ --- the devbandi threw gratuitous insults and accusations that alahazrat was reckless in his translation. so methought, let us show him what reckless actually looks like. and how reckless his elders have been. ===================== wa billahi't tawfiq.
