Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tafsir' started by Nawazuddin, Feb 28, 2018.
in another work qatf al-az'har:
in his asrar tartib al-qur'an, imam suyuti mentions his work: asrar al-tanzil, in the preface and says that the work has more than 10 chapters as follows:
the coherence of the qur'an - and the nazm of the qur'an has been explained for ages. unless i see the book of farahi and look at what his admirers rave about, we cannot comment on it.
however, that which i understand as 'ground-breaking' from 2nd or 3rd party reviews is something that has existed in various books of our ulama;
1. dalayil al-iyjaz of baqillani
2. dalayil al-iyjaz of jurjani
3. asbab al-nuzul of wahidi
4. asrar al-takrar of kirmani (which specifically talks of repeated verses)
5. asrar tartib suwar al-qur'an by suyuti
6. burhan fi tanasub suwar al-quran of ibn zubayr (d.708 AH)
7. iklil fi istinbat al-tanzil of suyuti
8. qatf al-azhar of suyuti
for example take this work specifically on the order of surahs by ibn zubayr:
I've heard that most of Farahi's "amazing discoveries" about the thematic unity and coherence of the Qur'anic surahs were plagiarized from the tafsir of the Andalusi Sufi and Muhaddith Ibn Barrajan (rahimahullah).
take a look at the many linguists. and weep at the sweeping statements of akram nadawi.
akram praises zamakhshari and dismisses ibn hisham al-anSari:
but in this matter, no tafsir equal to his tafsir.
in the balaghah and the bayan and the ma'ani and the nahw and the sarf of the qur'an.
he was among the last of the people..such..so great in arabic language and grammar
nobody equal to him in his time, even later on after that.
you can find people like ibn hisham and all.
but ibn hisham nothing to do...nowhere equal to zamakhshari.
zamakhshari is the last big man in the arabic grammar and the language and the balaghah and the ma'ani. so his tafsir you know is the best in this matter.
if you believe akram, zamakhshari is the greatest of the arabic language experts in his time and among those who came afterward. that is what he said didn't he?
this is oversimplification and i would say rather shallow. indeed, zamakshari was a master of language, his mufassal, unmuzaj, and fayiq are oft-referenced works; and but dismissing everyone else in favour of a mu'tazili is ignorance. particularly the manner in which akram dismisses ibn hisham in favour of zamakhshari is unfair and irresponsible.
in bughyatu'l wu'ah, which is a two volume compilation of language specialists (linguists, grammarians, lexicologists etc.) suyuti quotes ibn khaldun:
"in maghreb (i.e. north africa/spain) we used to hear of a scholar who had appeared in egypt named ibn hisham and who was supposed to be far more expert in arabic grammar than sibawaiyh."
agreed, that is ibn khaldun's opinion or someone else's conveyed by iK. still, if you would like to learn arabic grammar, stick to ibn hisham's works.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
even akram's favourite kash'shaf says it:
i.e. the first house made for worship of Allah ta'ala is ka'abah.
RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was asked about the first masjid made for people and he said: "masjid al-Haram, and then bayt al-maqdis".
in its supercommentary, allamah tibi says: 4/156:
it actually means House of Allah, and that is a house only for the worship of ALlah.
the hadith is reported in bukhari #3187 and muslim #520 from abu dharr raDiyAllahu anhu.
i also checked imam razi's tafsir, upon which akram turns his nose and says he 'doesn't like it'..
one more point is that the nazm of qur'an has always been mentioned, described, explained and illustrated by mufassirin. i always wondered what this special thing farahi is attributed to. one example is in this very ayat, where imam razi mentions that this verse is 'connected' to the previous one. such comments are common, and students of tafsir will remember them easily.
tafsir kabir, v8/p155:
coming to the tafsir of the verse, one of the explanations. imam razi says (tafsir kabir, v8, p156):
...this does not prove that it was the first house created by Allah ta'ala, nor that it was the first house that appeared on the earth; rather, that which it obviously indicates that it was the first house "established" "selected" for the people.
and that it was for 'naas' meaning mankind means that it was for all humans and is jointly 'FOR'. as for all other houses, they are owned individually - and there is no other house that belongs to ALL THE PEOPLE.
and that it is FOR ALL THE PEOPLE necessitates that it cannot be except for obedience of Allah (ta'ah) and worship of Allah and a direction towards which the creation turns to worship (qiblah).
thus the aayat means: this house was placed by Allah (i.e. commanded to be built) as a place for obeying Allah ta'ala, a place of doing good deeds, and worship and this includes that the house is a qiblah for prayer, and a place for Hajj and a place where reward for worship and good deeds is increased manifold.
so much for dissing razi.
concerning aayat of aal imran, 3:96:
in the below vid, akram says @4.01:
first house. people have problem, why...there must be most before that. mawlana farahi writes in awwala baytin wuDi'a li'n naas: ayy, li Hajji'n naas. first house for the hajj. and then he prove that from the qur'an itself, the meaning the hajj comes after that. you can see many times he puts one word and solves all the problems.
looks like akram never looked up any tafsir. if someone is listening to akram and this is the first time they have encountered this aayat or thought of this objection, one would think "aah! all the mufassirs of yore were stumped. only farahi solved it."
though, a quick survey reveals that the claim that farahi was the first to recognise and explain (though it is implicit in the video; and could be due to akram's ignorance - he saw it in farahi and thought nobody mighta said it before and didn't bother to look up):
take tafsir tabari:
vol.5, p589: those who explained the qur'an (ahl al-ta'wil) differed in this. some said it means: "the first house place for the people to worship and in which there was blessing and guidance for the worlds, is the one in bakkah (makkah)." they said: it does not mean it was the first house built on earth, and there were many houses before it.
on p.591 he says:
from khalid ibn `ur`urah he said, i have heard ali and he was asked about: "indeed, the first house established for mankind is the one at makkah". and he was asked: "was it the first house built on earth?"
he replied: "no" and he said: "where then did the people of Noah and people of Hud stay? rather, this was the first house established for people that was blessed and established for guidance.
[the second narration in the clip above:]
HafS asked Hasan and i heard him concerning the verse and he replied: "it was the first place of worship (masjid) in which Allah ta'ala was worshipped"
[aH says:] the difference is when some scholars said, it was absolutely the first house built on earth; some others disagreed and said there were others before it and this was the first house in which Allah ta'ala was worshipped.
on p. 592, imam tabari says:
[tabari said:] the correct opinion concerning what Allah ta'ala Glorified is He, said is: the first house which was blessed and in which was guidance (or for guidance) established, placed, built for humans was the one in makkah. (i.e. the ka'abah). the first house built for humans, that is, for the worship of Allah ta'ala in it. "blessed and for guidance" i.e. for that reason. and the destination for the pilgrimage (nusuk) and circumambulation (tawaf) to show respect to the Greatness of Allah ta'ala and to glorify Him was built in Bakkah; as a sahih report comes from RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
farahi might not have claimed it; but we know how deep akram's knowledge is to give common people recommendations.
so a good brother keeps sending me akram's nuggets. he sent me this:
@2.00 he makes all kinds of statements about tafsir of imam razi.
akram is just a showpiece - he doesn't seem to have really read any of the tafsirs he mentions (i don't know about farahi), but is just mouthing handed-down opinions. after witnessing his utterly ignorant comments on very simple and clear verses of the qur'an, his 'authority' on tafsir is only laughable.
mafatih al-ghayb of imam fakhruddin razi is termed tafsir kabir for nothing. it is one of the finest works on tafsir. and the rational argument that he presents and refutes mu'tazilah and the anthropomorphists is also quite formidable. many of these thieves steal from his tafsir in private - and in public deplore it.
besides, what do these pipsqueaks know about philosophy and metaphysics? yet, they bad mouth works which they don't even understand - and i have already said that i doubt they have even read it. if so, let them come out with a coherent critique, with a rational argument that really proves their point.
until then, all talk.
kash'shaf should not be touched by anyone except by scholars AND only when accompanied by al-tibi's super-commentary.
akram is so arrogant that he even dismisses ibn hisham! according to akram nadawi, ibn hisham is nothing compared to zamakhshari. and the way he says it really irritating.
i tried to look for this so-called genius farahi's works but couldn't find them. if anyone has links post them.
they say, he studied the qur'an with focus for 50 years. his followers make tall and huge claims about him - but unless he has demonstrated his knowledge and ability in associated sciences, particularly, if one is not an expert in hadith and its sciences, reading the Book for 500 years will only lead him astray.
i am very skeptical about claims about this farahi. agreed, unless we have seen what he has said, we cannot make a statement; yet, my first impression is that the only ones who praise him are the likes of akram nadwi, islahi, nouman khan, javed ghamad, among others. and we have seen their pathetic level and their utter deviance.
javed ghamaD here:
the guy cannot even pronounce the letters properly and reads like an illiterate peasant. this moron is a qur'an scholar? yeah, the world throws up all kinds of deluded shayateen.
i too have been reading tafasir for years, and alHamdulillah, an ardent reader of tafasir. but i will never claim to be a more than a student and will not dispute with well-known ulama of tafsir in all the masayil that are unanimously agreed upon. in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqihi. (of course, certain explanations that are not ijma'yi, and those which appear to conflict with overwhelming empirical evidence can be disagreed with respectfully. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah).
forget about my opinion, if you have a mind to think, just think about this:
those great scholars such as baghawi, nasafi, razi, bayDawi, qurTubi, abu Hayyan, ibn kathir, who were imams of fiqh and hadith and had a native expertise in arabic - would you defer to their explanation of the qur'an and agree with their understanding of the qur'an, or some modernist who says 'none of them understood it properly and an indian did it after 1300 years'. ?
who do you think has better grasp of the qur'anic idiom and the language:
- native speakers and those who were closer to the time of sahabah?
- or ajamis* who came after centuries and ACQUIRED the language; and those who cannot even pronounce the letters properly?** those who do not realise that arabic being a phonetic language
this javed ghamad in the above clip says: "ashkal" for ishkal. doesn't seem to realise that ashkal is for shapes and ishkal is for objections. so this person will tell us what the great mufassirin didn't know.
as you see, these times were foretold. and if you want to disregard real stuff for marketing glitz, it is your choice.
nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
* even though many arabic experts were ajamis, including zamakshari, razi, bayDawi, nasafi among others. and even deviants among them, like zamakhsari did not say what contemporary ajamis say. to clarify, being an ajami doesn't mean one is not qualified to be a mufassir; but to say that an ajami after 1300 years understood what native arabs of the first centuries of islam did not understand is very very rich.
** like the ghamaD, watch here: