Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Aqdas, Aug 5, 2019.
What about having the Arabic and then Roman transliteration?
great sleuthing AQ.
mate, i'm a little uneasy with your going hyper and passionately wanting abu Hasan to deliver a fatal blow to deobandis
and then when he delivered that fatal blow, you never bothered to comment on the said fatal blow or thank him or something! aisa kyun?
i guess you must be really busy, yeah?
some devbandi guy was also obsessed with fatal blows in the very recent past (march 1, 2019).
the level of shamelessness one needs to have to be a devbandi is mind boggling. he distorted the translation, left out an 'and' and now claims that MY 'tawil' is a stretch! these devbandis speak just like modi-bhakts and trump supporters.
regarding his update:
he has to say something to his constituency or else they will think he has gone speechless. alahazrat's translation of the qur'an is alHamdulillah, the finest - and something which generations of devbandis put together cannot hope to match. hence they try to throw dirt in the vain hope that nobody notices it. keep croaking in your swamp.
also, thanawi's translation can be read: sahib e arsh e buzurg ka; or sahib e arsh, buzurg ka. given that buzurg is usually used as an attribute of persons, he may be right, and it only means that my additional proof by citing thanawi is incorrect. i don't mind taking it back, am not a devbandi to keep insisting on mistakes. anyway, i consider asharfiyli thanawi, a foul-mouthed kafir so it makes no difference to me what thanawi said. [if you really want me to justify 'foul-mouthed' you can ask, and in sha'Allah, you will not be disappointed. and don't regret afterward that you asked...]
the fact remains that it is a valid translation, in spite of the weak croaking of a frog in a puddle.
the devbandi mistranslated wrong from Ala Hazrat's Urdu (and Quranic Arabic) - it's monkeys and swine/pigs.
@abu Hasan , you accidentally carried forward the devbandi's glaring error into your rebuttal.
so now should we spread word that deobandis don't know the difference between swine and pig and monkeys?
the dev just corrected that error in the latest update of his post, in which he pays tribute to you again commenting on your posts. leave here the screenshot with "pigs and swine" error by zaleel.
even if we take his argument on face value, he is incorrect. because devbandi says:
The fourth category, those who worship Satan, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān has treated as a third object of the verb ja‘ala (He made). However, this is not possible grammatically. The last category here is ‘abada al-ṭāghūt ([those who] worship Satan/false gods), it is not a noun like qiradah and khanāzīr, so cannot be made an object of ja‘ala. It appears Aḥmad Riḍā Khān mistook ‘abada (worshipped) for abadata (worshippers).
let us start from tafsir ibn kathir:
..."and he made among them, satan worshippers".
... it is also recited as 'ubud al-taghut' as a super-collection - abd, abeed, ubud similar to thimar and thumur.
...also buraydah al-aslami recited it as "abid al-TaghuT" "satan worshipper"
perhaps ibn kathir also did not know arabic as much as zameel devbandi. i look forward to zameel's corrections on ibn kathir's tafsir on how he has misunderstood the phrase: 'abada al-taghut'.
here is a snip from urdu translation by junagadhi (who has omitted some phrases):
the first example is even more idiotic and hare-brained than the other two. the moron doesn't understand basic urdu construct - or has deliberately distorted a statement to suit his nefarious purpose - but still, seeks to fault alahazrat and attempts to teach him arabic!
anyway, the frog in a puddle says:
according to this person, the grave error is that a phrase has been translated incorrectly. i will examine his claim presently, but first tell me what is the difference between:
"and satan worshippers" vs "and those who worshipped satan".
alahazrat translated: "and satan worshippers"
mahmud al hasan translated: "and those who worshipped satan"
what exactly is the earth shattering mistake?
according to the frog-in-the-puddle, alahazrat's translation is thus:
it is just that out of sheer hatred, he has simply changed the punctuation. it should be read thusly [using his own translation]:
Those on whom is Allah's curse,
and on whom is His Anger,
and from whom He has made pigs [and] swine
AND satan worshippers.
[the 'and' in third line is replaced by the dishonest lying devbandi with a comma.]
update: AQ pointed out that it is monkeys and pigs.
note the urdu:
tum farmaO: kya main bataauN jo Allah ke yahan is se bad-tar darjah meiN hain?
woh jin par Allah ne la'anat ki.
aur un par ghazab farmaya
aur un mein se kardiye bandar aur su'ar
aur shayTan ke pujari
the shameless slanderer very smartly replace the 'aur' between "pigs and swine" with a comma to give the false impression that 'satan worshippers' was added in that clause. will the devbandi apologise? or will he look the other way without acknowledgement as demanded by the devbandi code-of-shamelessness?
all this nonsensical allegations on a misreading! 'casually' interpreting the qur'an is a devbandi attribute. alahazrat was a master of tafsir.
the above was only to counter the frog's own argument. we will show him what else he could see if he jumped out of his stinking puddle.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
frog in the puddle says:
this is a no-brainer. devbandi elders have the most ridiculous translations that defy common sense - but here they are harping on literal meanings! if this is the standard, then we will fish out examples from thanawi and mahmud al-hasan's translations and you can tell us which arabic word corresponds to their translation. if you are not game for that, croak on the top of your lungs that you are a shameless hypocrite.
this is not a glaring error. a glaring error is when even after ten years of deliberation mahmud al hasan cannot understand the meaning of makr or istihza'a and translates it thus:
thanawi in bayanu'l qur'an:
"qasam khata hoon" leave the idiom that it means 'to swear'; is it appropriate to attribute 'eating' even in an idiomatic sense?
these are three examples, and i am sure there are hundreds of such cringeworthy translations in there. and thanawi's translations...one needs a separate post. but for now, this is the quality of work, the devbandi boasts about:
students and colleagues and admirers all juhala and have no adab.
la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah
anyway, frogs living in stinking puddles shouldn't attempt to throw dirt on people who own flowing streams in lush lands. stick to your puddle.
in this case, he has not understood the urdu idiom: 'panah le jaana' which is synonymous with 'panah mangna' and it means, to implore for help, succour. in other words 'faryad karna' which is the translation of thanawi btw.
check fayruzul lughat:
and platts: "to pray for deliverance"
regardless of this hair splitting, the end result is the same. they seek Allah's refuge, they cry out for deliverance.
in tafsir ibn kathir, under the same ayah: surah naHl, 16:53, he explains this as:
"in times of need, you take refuge in him, ask him, implore him earnestly and seek succour from him".
alahazrat was conveying this meaning.
so acting like a drama queen won't make it a 'grave error'; and an ugly frog in a dirty puddle acting like a drama queen makes a revolting scene.
please take a look at alahazrat's qasidatan ra'ayiyatan which he wrote when he was only 28. don't try to teach him arabic.
nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
Thank you Abu Hassan, will this person accept his error on his blog?
Also can a Grand Mufti dictate to a student the translation of the Quran as and when asked, or does he have to sit down and study other translations? That was the initial allegation
the person who wrote that article is an ordinary frog in the well, who thinks his little puddle is the world.
this stinks of zameel's handiwork - that man is rotten to the core.
anyway, this is coming as a separate paper, in sha'Allah. when i started writing it, there were five aayats zameel had criticised.
let us start with #3; the jahil says:
some people may find my retorts harsh, but when a donkey becomes mad and bray incessantly for no reason, you may sympathise with the person who is forced to lash it, to keep it quiet. of course, one should not be cruel to animals, but a mad and rabid dog should be shot to stop it from biting people.
the jahil who wrote the above should have consulted commentaries.
that 'majid' here can be the attribute of either the Owner (sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala) or the Throne itself, is common knowledge.
1. tafsir ibn kathir: there are two readings; with raf' whence it means attribute of the Owner of the Throne (glory and majesty be to Him) and jarr, which then makes it attribute of the Throne. both meanings are valid and correct.
2. zamakhshari in his kash'shaf:
...recited with jarr, it is the attribute of the Throne; majd of the Throne, means its exaltedness and its greatness.
3. tibi on kash'haf:
hamzah and kisai have recited with jarr; others with raf'.
4. qurtubi: kufans except asim have recited majid with khafD, thereby rendering it the description of the Throne.
5. bayDawi: ..majeed when attributed to the Throne means its exaltedness and its greatness.
6. khafaji on bayDawi: inayatu'l qaDi wa kifayatu'r raDi
7. tafsir nasafi, madariku't tanzil:
8. ibn ashur: if the Throne is attributed with glory, (majd) it implies the glory of the Owner of the Throne.
but to put the devbandi in his barn, here are my closing comments related to this verse altering just one name in the devbandi sneering:
As can be seen, there is a ḍammah on the “majīd” (glorious) which means it is a characteristic of Owner (“dhū”), not of the throne (‘arsh). Ashraf Ali Thanawi made it a characteristic of the Throne. This is another clear error.
update: i had cited this but devbandi pointed out that it was not thanawi's view. so i have rescinded that citation.
following is the translation of ashraf ali thanawi in bayanul qur'an.
perhaps you can reply or get someone to reply to it.
please post a link here when someone refutes that post. thank you very much for your tutorial on how to deal with deobandis.
brother i am little uneasy with your post. we don't want rebuttal but want refutation, exposing the lies.
what is understood from your post is that no point because they will disappear and come back with same allegations.
I don't think this was the way of our elders from Allamah Arshad ul Qadri, Allamah Abdul Hakim Sharf Qadri, Allamah Kazmi
or the way of Maulana Asrar Rashid of UK
our elders Alahazrat, Mufti Naeemi, etc.. all refuted and exposed wahabi deobandi lies. They did not put down their jihad with pen against heretics.
Deobandi made a serious allegation and accusation, it requires a fatal blow
isn't that old?
i think it is a repost.
it is not about who wrote first, it is about quality and class. alahazrat's translation is the finest translation in urdu language. no amount of hand wringing by devbandis will change that.
a devbandi is a like a blind donkey. it brays - and people ignore it. encouraged that it has no response, the donkey brays louder, until it annoys someone who whips it and it goes silent.
a saying by thanawi is perfectly apt for devbandi 'consciousness' - but it is below our dignity to cite such profanities - and befits only the devbandi creed: shameless, faithless, hypocrites.
oh, yes. if the guy wants a rebuttal for this post critiquing kanz al-iman, we can give it to him, but then they will disappear for months or years; and without a speck of shame come back with the same allegations.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
can someone look into these latest ridiculous attacks on Alahazrat
claims that Alahazrat mistranslated Quran
it is not permissible to print the entire qur'an in a translation without the arabic. this is the reason previous books were corrupted.
so long as the original is available, any mistranslation or error will be easily corrected as the source is present. if not, we will end up with multiple 'versions' like the christian bibles.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
Wa alaikum Salaam
Yes it's available in English, both online and inprint
Kanzul Iman (translation of the Quran) is often mistaken for the tafsir Noor ul Irfan, that too is available from marifat website as a download. Let me know if you need the exact link
If you're from the UK, sunni foundation in Bradford has it.
Is kanzul Iman available in English? Just english for converts. No Arabic