Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Translations' started by ramiz.noorie, Dec 29, 2018.
You will hear the reply in the upcoming debate, stay tuned
Dear Shaykh Abu Hasan, please kindly respond to the query below when you have time. Would be highly appreciated
جزاك الله خيرا
Shaykh Abu Hasan, in the work 'Who is Alahazrat?' it is stated on page 74:
Once his brother, Mawlānā Ĥasan Riđā showed him a stanza:
khudāyi bhi hoti jo dene ke laayiq khudā ban ke aāta khudā ka woh bandā
if it was possible to give godhood that slave of God would come as god.
Alahazrat immediately changed it to:
khudāyi bhi hoti jo taĥt e mashiyyat khudā ban ke aāta khudā ka woh bandā
if godhood were governed by Divine Will that slave of God would come as god.
2 questions for you here Sayyidi -
1. What was the error in the original stanza?
2. Where is this incident mentioned? (about the stanza of Mawlana Hasan being changed)
the q/a objected by devbandi is present on p225-226 of malfuzat by dawate islami.
but they have tried to alter the text with good intentions. as such, i dislike insertion of editor's comments inline with the author's text. of course, we do it in translations because we have a constraint,* yet we try to make it clear by inserting additional words in brackets. the original text however, should be untouched and should not be interfered by editors/translators/commentators etc. [in case of translating arabic/persian passages cited by the author without his own trans.]
if at all you need to explain something, use footnotes - so it is clearly demarcated; and a reader can easily tell the original text from the inserted comments.
concerning this issue, dawateislami edition has replaced a sheyr; whether the editors did not understand the sheyr and they replaced it, eager to avoid criticism one does not know. the sheyr, however is in order and explained by alahazrat himself.
khuda karna hota jo taHt e mashiyyat
khuda ho ke aata woh bandah khuda ka
if making one a god was subject to Divine Will
then that slave of God (RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) would have [even] come as a god.
the meaning here is uluhiyyah or any other Divine Attribute is not subject to Divine Will and Divine Power. just as muHalat / rationally impossible things are not subject to Divine Power. this sheyr/couplet explains that. and in the second line he clarifies that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam IS a slave of Allah - bandah khuda ka.
if someone reads the whole passage without prejudice, alahazrat's explanation suffices. but some people love to snip quotes and cite bits and pieces to prove their false accusations.
*of translating into a language with a different script and does not belong to the same/similar family. for example, arabic/persian passages inline with urdu text is a normal practice. inserting translations or explaining arcane words in brackets is 'interference' with the author's text. but when we translate in english - the main text as well as citations are in OUR words and not the author's, so inline brackets will not confuse or mislead an uninitiated reader. Allah ta'ala knows best.
i remember reading, it was duroos of alahazrat compiled by his students. wallahu alam.
If that ever looked like a challenge, you've turned these mute* buffoons to ash.
*As we've established they are utterly unable to understand Kalam.
Nonsense, would he dare read marsiyah gangohi and explain it in front of his own audience and upload the video for everybody to see. In the video the idiot should compare marsiyah gangohi with ala hazrat's statement and explain why marsiyah is not blasphemy and ala hazrat's statement is.
there is an older post here:
see my post, #7.
reposted below (to save you look-up)
please don't consider this as jumping on you. but it is difficult to argue or explain about concepts or issues somewhere midway. my sincere advice to you is to read a book of aqidah like the first part of bahar e shariat or fiqh al akbar or sharh al-aqayid or bad'a al-amali with a teacher.
alahazrat has said:
uluhiyat nubuwat ke siwa tu
tamam afzal ka qabil hai ya ghaws
nabiy ke qadmoN par hai juz nubuwwat
ke khatm is raah meiN Hayil hai ya ghaws
uluhiyyat hi aHmed ne na paayi
nubuwwat hi sey tu `aaTil hai ya ghaws
SaHabiyyat huwi phir tabayiyyat
bas aagey qadri manzil hai ya ghaws
hazaroN tabiyi se tuu fuzuN hai
woh Tabqah mujmilan faazil hai ya ghaws
what alahazrat is saying is that uluhiyyat - meaning every thing related to Divine Names and Attributes - Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala is alone and has no partner. if even a speck from that is attributed to anyone else is shirk.
the first line 'hi' [even] is to compare with RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. the emphasis is on ahmed; that is: "even Ahmed did not get uluhiyyat" meaning, if anyone could get that, he was worthy of it. this is based on the muHal, like the verse says: "if RaHman had a son, i would be the first to worship him."
khuda karna hota jo taHtey mashiyyat
khuda ban kar aata yeh bandah khuda ka
if making god was governed by Divine Will
this slave of God would have come as a god.
[in a masterful stroke alahazrat explains the principle that such things are precluded from Divine Will and Divine Power]
it should not be read as uluhiyyat hi; meaning, he has everything except uluhiyyat - which is incorrect. for example, take the issue of knowledge of unseen: alahazrat said [paraphrased]: the comparison of the knowledge of the entire creation (including the most knowledgeable in creation sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) is lesser than that of a billionth part of a drop of water to that of billion oceans - and even here, the comparison is to illustrate the point. because even a billionth part from the knowledge of Allah is infinite, and the knowledge of the entire creation is finite.
so, there is no comparison at all.
as for ghaws e a'azam, alahazrat says that he has all admirable qualities except that of a prophet.
and as for his fazilat or superiority, following the ahlu's sunnah, he clearly says that the rank of tabiyin is higher than that of ghaws e a'azam.
thus Allah ta'ala is Alone and hath no partner in anything - whether His Names or His Attributes or His Actions; anyone who attests to the contrary is a polytheist.
laa ilaaha illa Allah, waHdahu la sharika lah.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
so is that a challenge or what?
does it even merit a response?
he not only looks like an idiot, he is utterly stupid.
@9.31 he quotes alahazrat:
agar uluhiyyat ata farmana bhi zeyr e qudrat hota; zarur yeh bhi ata farmata.
perhaps the guy don't understand urdu; so let me help him:
agar = IF
uluhiyyat = godhood, divinity etc. (which he seems to understand well)
ata farmana = to grant
zeyr-e-qudrat = included in Divine Power
zarur = certainly
yeh = this (meaning godhood)
bhi = as well, also;
ata farmata = would grant.
now, which part did the poor person not understand?
IF granting godhood was subject to Divine Power, then He would certainly grant it to him (i.e. RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam).
the meaning of this is: since, godhood is not subject to Divine Power, Allah ta'ala did not grant him godhood.
the other emphasis is: Allah ta'ala gave him every superlative attribute (fazilat) that could be given.
now, if one claims that it is a blasphemy, that would mean, the person thinks:
1. godhood is subject to Divine Power (uluhiyyat is zeyr e qudrat - zeyr in urdu/persian means taHt in arabic).
2. Allah cannot give to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam everything that is subject to His Divine Power. al-iyadhu billah, which is imposing a limitation on Him.
if 1 is true, then we ask the devbandi to please have a written fatwa issued from any devbandi scholar - the big, small, mini and micro among them. i encourage brothers to ask dev muftis: "is uluhiyyah included in Divine Power or not?".
if 2 is true, then please write down that it is not possible for Allah ta'ala to give something which is within His power.
what a weird bunch of jokers are these - who claim that, if falsehood is not included in Divine Power, His Power become deficient; but if something is in His Power, He cannot give it to whom He Wills!
if neither 1 nor 2 is true or correct, then tell us what the charge of blasphemy is about?
as shaykh asrar said to the poor devbandi student, devbandis are incapable of reading or discussing kalam.
there are many such conditional statements in the qur'an; and only a blockhead or a jahil will be incapable of understanding it:
in surah zukhruf 43:81
say: if Rahman had a son, then i would be the first to worship him.
which means in other words, since Rahman does not have a son, i do not worship anyone other than Rahman.
in tafsir of imam nasafi:
in summary: imam nasafi says that this is a hypothetical scenario which is posited to negate the existence of a son for Allah ta'ala; that worshipping someone as a son of Allah [ma'adhAllah] is conditional to Allah having a son. and since He does not have a son, we cannot worship anyone as a son. the existence of a son for Allah is itself impossible (muHal); and that which is conditional on it, is also impossible.
thereafter imam nasafi cites an example of sa'yid ibn jubayr raDi'Allahu `anhu who was taunted by hajjaj ibn yusuf who said: "i will send you to hell fire" and he replied: 'if i knew that you could do it, i would not have worshipped a god other than you'.
in other words, you do not have authority to do so; and i neither consider you a god nor will i worship you.
in tafsir bayDawi:
quick summary: this does not mean that a son exists and it is permissible to worship (such a hypothetical) son. al-iyadhu billah. this is an impossible necessitating another impossible; rather it is an explicit negator and forceful rejection of such (a hypothetical) son and worship.
this is similar to the verse:
if there were many gods other than Allah, then there would be chaos [in the heavens and the earth].
this does not mean there can be gods or that they can cause chaos. it is just that they don't exist - because if - IF - they existed they could cause chaos.
now, we want the devbandi to issue hukm on alahazrat - when you can accuse of blasphemy, what stops you from getting a fatwa? get us a fatwa from your seminaries that it is indeed blasphemy.
together, fatwa for the Qur'an and sa'yid ibn jubayr raDi'Allahu anhu and the mufassirin who cited this.
Here we go. The deos have released a video accusing alaHazrat of ghulu. It was said:
Scholars and students of knowledge, besides saying Malfuzat wasn't alaHazrat's own compilation, what is the response?