Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Refutation' started by Aqdas, Oct 8, 2017.
Yet another idiot!
And you (O dear Prophet Mohammed – peace and blessings be upon him) were not reading any Book before it, nor writing with your right hand – if it were, the people of falsehood would surely have doubted. (Surah Ankabut 29:48)
if they apply the same logic as they do to [ مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ] - they should say that Rasul-Allah (infinite blessings and peace be upon him), fully knew how to write after the start of the waHy.
and then NAK's explanation of the "W" "P" "R" "X" "Q" becomes worse than the shrieks of a raving madman.
The Holy Prophet was a Prophet even when Syeduna Adam was not created!
For a full discussion on this topic refer to this thread on sunniport.
"When was RasulAllah ﷺ granted nubuwwah?"
@brother abu Hasan: let us start a thread on the Miracles of Holy Prophet, beginning from his childhood until the first waHy.
the entire nation has been called Ummi, in the Holy Qur'an:
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ
It is He Who has sent among the unlettered people a Noble Messenger from themselves, who recites His verses to them and purifies them, and bestows them the knowledge of the Book and wisdom; and indeed before this, they were in open error. (Surah Jumu'a 62:2)
It also mentioned in the Hadeeth that the Holy Prophet [infinite blessings and peace be upon him] said when asked about sighting the new moon, "We are an Ummi nation - we do not calculate".
It is with utter shamelessness that the Deobandi gang chooses to apply the word only to Rasul-Allah (and applying its wrongful meaning), when in fact the entire nation was unlettered; and the Holy Qur'an decrees that he - Rasul-Allah - was their teacher, he was their guide, he brought them out of the open error.
Despite being the teacher of the entire world, he was called "Ummi", not because he didn't know, but for several other reasons - primarily not to be accused of fabricating the Holy Qur'an.
when you look at the whole issue, it is nouman who is clueless. and it is hidden in his own speech, and the import of which he doesn't himself understand!
nabiy al-ummi. the untaught prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. he was not taught or instructed by anyone in the creation.
ummi wa daqiqah daan e aalam
be saayah o sayibaan e aalam
untaught, and he is the teacher of the most deepest secrets in knowledge to the world.
he doesn't have a shadow, and he is the cool shade for the whole world.
what nouman should have said is what bhopali said in his tafsir:
the prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was faced with an angel suddenly who said: 'read'. vide sifr al-sa'adah, he was given a silk garment on which it was written - and he did not read the written word. and due to the import of the enormous responsibility, he said: 'i do not read. what shall i read?' and then he was given the book, the revelation.
all this drama and wild gestures and repeated emphasis that the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was 'clueless' (al-iyadhu billah) were unnecessary. what was needed however, was to clarify how the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was different - and is superior to everyone in the creation.
if you had studied in the school of ahmad raza khan, you would have known it. shame on you nouman khan, doob maro.
thus not being to be able to read is a flaw for anyone else - but for the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam it is among his miracles and an attribute of praise. he is uninstructed by any other - only Allah is his Teacher.
any lowlife vermin who tries to equate the "ummi" aspect of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, with his own ignorance or jahl (or that of anyone else) deserves to be spat upon and shunned.
nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
let us go for the obvious first. then i will demonstrate how he talks like a AI bot. maybe siri will give you better tafsir. (if you load it with enough tafasir...)
what a stupid idea. looks like NAK didn't get chomsky's memo. language is hardwired in human brain. humans are naturally wont to speak. and even create words.
and these are letters. don't take my word for it - try it with a two year old child who cannot read. ask them to repeat ALIF-LAM-MEEM and some children may stutter, lisp - but most average children will be able to say ALIF LAM MEEM.
it is not a special skill. YOU are an idiot. what the child cannot probably do (unless instructed) is that CANNOT READ from a written, inscribed piece of paper or screen or whatever medium.
READ as in reading the written word. not READ as in recite.
patent nonsense. the Messenger SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam DID read.
and oh, for those interested in facts: this verse was not revealed in the beginning. rather, this was revealed in madinah. THAT is why i said that people should read itqan, burhan, etc. because they have specific chapters on chronology of verses.
this verse - in fact, the surah was revealed in madinah without any difference of opinion. some say that the whole surah was madinian, though some have differed and put the last two verses as makki and said that they were revealed in miyraj (as nouman says earlier in the speech).
wahidi [abu'l Hasan ali ibn ahmad al-waHidi al-nisaburi, d.468 AH] in his asbab al-nuzul says (p13):
the surah is madinian without any dispute/khilaaf. and that the first four verses are for believers and the next two for kafirs.
nouman's assertion that it is reminding of RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is because of the disease in his heart - the wahabi-deobandi malady in which they imagine him to be like them. al-iyadhu billah.
which surah are makki and which are madani? according to the second definition, and the relied upon - those verses that were revealed after hijrah are madinian and prior to hijrah are makkan regardless of the location where they were revealed.
thus, zarkashi in al-burhan cites mawardi that the entire surah is madinian except one aayah; i.e. verse 281 of surah baqarah which was revealed in mina on the day of sacrifice (yawm al-naHr) in the last Hajj of the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.
so by the time, A-L-M or alif-lam-meem were given, the prophet was already reciting many aayats. so NAK's explanation is total nonsense and there is no relation to the prophet's being untaught (ummi).
i will grant it that he wanted to say 'letter' but he said word. alif is a letter "Harf" not a word.
and these are sounds. if NAK has reflected upon it, he will know that arabic is a phonetic language. these are sounds. and sounds can be copied. one can become a fluent speaker of a language without being able to read it. RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was 40 years of age and was faSiH in the arabic language - no one but a jahil will dispute that. to repeat, what was said to such a fluent speaker - is immensely easy.
the bedouins would speak flawless arabic - without being able to read - according to legend, this ability of the bedouins killed sibawayh, what is a pipsqueak arabic instructor like nouman ali khan!
so uttering a letter, repeating after another is not a big deal - unless one is as thick as NAK; and if he is not, he is so unrealistic and has no idea how people speak or learn.
again nonsense. am sorry if i cannot find words to describe this idiocy.
even after you go to school and learn the alphabets: "W" "P" "R" "X" "Q" don't make any sense. they are individual alphabets.
if you do not believe me, you can ask ANY shakespearen scholar and ask him what "W" "P" "R" "X" "Q" mean.
this plays neatly into the orientalist mufassirs who thought that alif-laam-meem meant nothing. and contradict nouman's own statement a while earlier:
you acknowledged that you don't know. didn't you?
now watch. what did your oh-so-great knowledge of arabic that makes you a western sibawayh make you? nothing.
because - read this carefully - EVEN after mastering arabic grammar, you don't know what ALIF-LAAM-MEEM means. or do you?
when you don't, then how can you equate this with the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, which is belittling his lofty station?
there was a brief moment of saving grace, but due to Divine Grace having left you, you were deprived of it. notice, he said:
i think, he almost said: Allah and His Messenger know. but held himself back and said Allah knows.
i will leave the explanation of what these mean for some other occasion, but ulama have said that the qur'an is furqan and that it would not make sense to give something to a person as a 'message' which he cannot understand.
according to zarkashi, there are two opinions - one that say we cannot know the meaning of these disjoint letters; abu bakr siddiq said that it is a secret that Allah knows and sha'abi said: it is mutashabih and we are commanded to believe, not to search for its meaning.
and the other opinion of mutakallimun the disjoint letters have a meaning and can be understood. imam razi said the qur'an was sent for the creation and if they do not understand it, what is the point of sending those verses - because Allah ta'ala commanded us to reflect upon it.
zarkashi said that those who said that it could be understood have more than 20 different explanations of what these letters could be.
my point is this: when mufassirin and ulama debate about these, how can you say that RasulALlah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam did not know this?
and if you said, that he did not know prior to "being made to read", then we say that your objection is stupid - because this verse was revealed in madinah.
nouman ali khan is raving mad and is patently arrogant. probably drunk upon the delusion that he is some great mufassir.
i urge him to listen to his own advice (earlier in the clip) and learn some humility - if not with others, at least with the Messenger of Allah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam who was SENT to TEACH the book. imam razi says that the prophets receive from knowledge and it from the knowledge of prophets that scholars and those lesser to them take.
no, it is not the same problem. the surah does NOT begin with the reminder of the fact that the messenger cannot read.
on the contrary, it is a reminder of your limits and the greatness of the knowledge of the messenger SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - no matter how big scholar you claim to be, remember there are things that you cannot know, and the messenger SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam KNOWS them. these are your limits - not the limits of HIM who was given vast knowledge:
*ibn kathir says in his tafsir that some ignoramuses say that these letters mean nothing; and the answer to them is that we do not know - we can only say that which we are handed by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam through authentic routes. and we say: 'we believe in all of it'. [even if we don't understand]
notice, NAK says (starting from 23:33)
you know what is remarkable about that? in the beginning of the surah, what are the first words? alif lam meem. dhalika'l kitab. dhalika'l kitab. what does alif-lam-meem mean, people? what does it mean? A-L-M? what does it mean? Allah and...Allah knows. we don't know. you know why that's important? for many reasons.
one of the reasons, is that before you study the qur'an the first thing you need to know is that you don't know anything. the first aayah tells you whats your worth. you know. la ilma lana illa ma `allamtana. and if you don't have that attitude, you cannot understand the rest of the qur'an. forget it.
then he says at 24:21
but ima[gine]..understand this. the prophet SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. did he know how to read? [the verse; surah ankabut, 29:48]
"you would not recite from a book prior to this nor would you write with your right hand."
an-nabiy al-ummi. you know. he doesn't know how to read. now when someone does not know how to read, the word alif doesn't make any sense. the word laam does not make any sense. the word meem does not make any sense. because these are letters of the alphabet. and the only people who learn the alphabet are the people who learn.. who what?... read.
so the first thing that was given in the surah. is that reminding you that the messenger himself, alayhis salatu was salam has no clue how to read, and yet out of his word comes the word alif-laam-meem, which is impossible for someone who doesn't read.
that is like saying somebody who doesn't know anything about english, they don't know any alphabet, they don't know any reading, but said "W" "P" "R" the word "W" "P" "R" "X" "Q" these words don't mean anything. these words don't mean anything on their own. they only mean something when you go to school. and you learn the alphabet. now why is that important?
it is important because when the message began, and the messenger was told "read" [NAK makes a gesture to emphasise] isn't it the same...isn't it as impossible as the messenger knowing alif and laam and meem. isn't it the same problem? the surah begins with the reminder of the fact that the messenger cannot read. he is made to read.
this is plain stupid. nouman khan's talk above is utter balderdash. bilge water.
if fanboys stray here, i urge them to read a bit to see what nonsense he talks and that they shell out $$$$ to listen to this nonsense.
siddiq hasan bhopali in his awn al-bari also mentions the narration of 'written on brocaded silk'
..majduddin [fayruzabadi] in his sifr al-sa'adah said: during one of these days, when he SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was standing on the mountain of Hira, a person appeared and said: "rejoice [glad tidings be to you!] o Muhammad, i am Gibril and you are the Messenger of Allah for this ummah" and then he took a piece of brocaded silk inlaid with jewels and placed them in his [SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam] hand and said: "read"..[unquote]
...in one narration: "i cannot read well"
in the narration of ubayd ibn umayr: "what shall i read"
one commentator of the qur'an said: "alif-lam-mim; THAT book in which there is no doubt" refers to this event when Jibril alayhi's salam brought the book and when he told him: "read".
nouman is utterly ignorant and messes up with simple concepts. it is like a person without basic idea of abstract algebra trying to explain cryptanalysis of AES. those of us who majored in math and tried to master schneier's tome (even those who gave up) will easily understand how stupid it looks.
see the next post.
shaykh abdu'l Haq dihlawi's statement that it was due to sudden appearance and that he was taken by surprise is said by imam ayni in his umdat al-qari:
in the wording of muslim's narration "fa-ji-ahu'l Haqq" instead of "fa-jaa'ahu'l Haqq" meaning he was suddenly presented this. the angel appeared in front of him all of a sudden and surprised him.
in some narrations it is said: "i cannot read well";
in the narration of ibn is'Haq: "what shall i read"
in the narration of ibn al-aswad: "how shall i read"
ayni also posits another narration through Saghani which says:
"i did not know what to read..."
in mirqat of ali al-qari: vol.10 / p.509
...as if he progressed from the rank of wilayah to the rank of nubuwwah [i.e. at the appointed time].
...that which is evident from various commentators is that each step has a different meaning. it is possible that first time when he said: 'ma ana bi qariy' it is negating that he could read; and the second time is a question - with an extra 'baa' - i.e. "what is it that i should read"?
qaDi iyad's advice: read shifa.
in ikmal al-mu'lim, qaDi iyad says under this very hadith:
there is no difference of opinion among research scholars that our Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, like all other prophets before their [announcement of] prophethood have their hearts [lit. bosoms] opened for monotheism [tawHid] and faith in Allah; it is not suitable that they should have any form of disbelief [in their faith] or doubt or even ignorant of it. nor is there any dispute concerning their immunity from it contrary to those who allowed it.
the event: "ma ana bi qariy"
in fat'h al-bari: [below is a summary, not verbatim transl.]
he was told thrice: 'read' and thrice he replied "ma ana bi qariy". so if one asks, why was the question repeated thrice, abu shamah offered the following explanation: " the first time "ma ana bi qari" means "i cannot read" [imtina'a]; the second time "i am not read (or reading) [nafy] and the third time: "what shall i read" [istifham].
that it was a question "what shall i read" is reinforced by a report from abi'l aswad in his maghazi narrates a report from urwah that corroborates this view, as the wording in that report says: "how shall i read" / "kayfa aqra'a". in a report ubayd ibn umayr from ibn is'haq: "what should i read" / "ma dha aqra'a?" in a mursal report of zuhri in dalayil al-nubuwwah of bayhaqi: "how shall is read" / "kayfa aqra'a".
all these reports bolster the view that the 'maa' is istifhamiyah (i.e. he said: 'what/how shall i read'?)
shaykh abd al-Haqq dihlawi explained this beautifully: [the persian text seems to be a poor scan that all the g's are showing as kaafs; guft is kuft...so be warned; am adding urdu translation ] ash'iatu'l lam'at, v4 p274:
the shaykh said:
"i cannot read" or "i am not able to read"
it is quite possible that he SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam said this due to the appearance of the angel and an intense amazement and the gravity of the station and the fear [of the immensely important responsibility that was impending] upon his blessed heart. not because of the apparent reason that he SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was untaught [ummi].
because, an ummi or an untaught person cannot read by himself; but to read after someone [essentially, repeat someone else's words] is not difficult for an untaught person, particularly someone who is immensely eloquent and articulate person [khuSuSan az faSiH dar ghayat e faSaHat].
that which prevents [contravenes or negates] for a ummi is the skill of writing and to read something that is written.
in al-qamus it is written that ummi is a person who does not know how to write, or read something that is written.
in some narrations it is said, that jibril alayhi's salam came with ornate scroll [SaHifah] on silk brocade with jewels embedded in it, and handed to RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam and said: 'read'. at this RasulALlah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam said: 'i cannot read that which is written on this; how can i read when i am not even looking at it'
this appears to be a more suitable explanation. Allah ta'ala knows best.
thus is the iHtiyat of ulama when discussing this delicate matter. not the way slovenly slobs talk about it, or uncouth clods explain it or grungy barbarians defend the boorish speech of dowdy gabbers.
la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
below is the urdu trans. of ashiyatu'l lam'at by mawlana abdul hakim sharaf and mufti muhammad khan (vol.7 p.201)
the senseless donkey defending the rascal NAK is speaking non-sense.
the kufr of NAK is established even if he says "in a sense"; in no sense of the word can Rasul-Allah be ever considered to have "become a muslim" after receiving the first waHy. and NAK has uttered much, much worse before he said "in a sense" (he probably said it when he saw the shock on the faces of his audience). that does not absolve him from the crime.
the jaahils who are defending NAK have totally ignored the Hadeeth of Bukhari Shareef (referenced by brother abu Hasan) explaining how the waHy started which shows that it did NOT come "suddenly" to him.
Syedah Aisha Siddeeqah, the Mother of the believers, reported: The beginning of the revelation to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight; then, the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship Allah continuously for many days until he desired to see his family. He would take with him food for the stay and then come back to his wife Khadija to take his food again, until the truth came to him while he was in the cave of Hira.
The truth came to him refers to the first revelation of the Qur'an through Jibreel (alayhe as-Salaam)
(Wahhabi rascals purposely mis-translate it "the truth suddenly came to him", although the first part itself makes it clear.)
Note: molvi "abu Hafsah", deobandi brother in faith of NAK, inserted the words "you didn't have a clue about what" to purposely mis-translate the tafseer of Tabari. a standard deobandi sleight of hand.
may Allah ta'ala descend a sudden, violent punishment on these blasphemers, when they do not have a clue, when they have no idea what hit them.
read the rest of the tafsirs to understand what "la tadri" means. that is, if you are capable of reading a proper tafsir AND understanding one. (nouman's tafsir doesn't count).
NAK is a terrible mufassir and takes poetic liberties that previous mufassirs didn't; and knowing arabic grammar alone cannot make one a mufassir.
this is madness - demanding common people to 'understand' the qur'an by learning arabic language. it is wrong. Allah ta'ala did not make common muslims mukallaf to learn arabic - else learning arabic would have become farD ayn.
yes, it is good to learn arabic - but everyone who learns arabic should not dream of becoming a mufassir on their own. and those who dream of becoming mufassirs, should know that there are scores of associated branches of knowledge one should be an expert in, before becoming a mufassir.
at the least one should have read four classical works on ulum al-qur'an:
1. itqan of suyuti
2. burhan of zarkashi
3. jamal al-qurra' of alamuddin sakhawi
4. funun al-afnan of ibn al-jawzi
i can list dozens of books on qur'an sciences - and alHamdulillah, i myself refer to when i have to research something. and then there are books on nasikh mansukh, differences of qir'aat, asbab al-nuzul, iyjaz, gharayib, etc. but the above four are essential reading for anyone to understand how tafsir works.
disclaimer: i do not claim nor imagine myself to be a mufassir, in case someone accuses me of doing so.
the safest bet, is to rely on earlier mufassirin - cite an earlier mufassir instead of trying to strike a new path. and even if you do it, your tafsir should be consistent with sunni aqidah, fiqh and hadith. which means you must know enough of sunni aqidah, fiqh and hadith to detect any possible incompatibility.
instead of trying to learn arabic and become a mufassir oneself (which will take dozens of years of dedicated study and a sharp mind to recollect and make the connections) - it is far more useful to read a reliable tafsir. and more important is to learn the correct aqidah - and read shifa to learn the right of the messenger SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam upon us.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
imam tabari DID not say what nouman ali khan did.
stop lying and misleading - just to save the skin of shameless preacher.
nouman says @ 22:30: "and Allah is letting him know, that when Gibril first came. alayhis salam. when Gibril first came, even the messenger, had to accept islam. like you know we say somebody converted to islam? somebody reverted to islam? somebody took shahadah? well the messenger alayhis salatu was salam also had to...in a sense...become muslim. "
what he says thereafter is just filling in the image. he explicitly lays out the blasphemy. al-iyadhu billah. that the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam had to 'convert'. al-iyadhu billah.
if you watch the clip, look how smugly he demeans the station of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - by using figures of speech and words to portray him as someone who 'had no clue' and was shocked to learn about all this. astaghfirullah.
when the angel came he has no idea what is going on. he has no clue, what this is yet. when he is being shaken and when he is told iqra'a 'read, read' he has no idea (nouman snickers here) what is going on. ma ana bi qariy. this is an incredible scene.
this is a lie. nouman is lying on the messenger of Allah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.
this utter jahil - he doesn't even know the opening hadith of SaHiH bukhari that describes the "beginning of waHy":
in this hadith, it is clearly said: 'that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was on the religion of sayyiduna ibrahim.."
as explained in fat'h al-bariy, what yataHannath means: "it means yataHannaf; that is, he was among the Hanafiyyah who followed the religion of ibrahim..."
and in the hadith itself there is [mudraj] that it means worship.
the idiot doesn't know the difference between "not knowing the meaning of yiman in detail" and "becoming muslim". someone send this apologist - the rest of the tafsir what "la tadri" ACTUALLY means. i posted upwards of 30 tafsirs that explain what "la tadri" actually means.
there is no doubt that nouman is being derisive about the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam - and demeaning him. he tries every bit to rub it in - by gestures, eyes, snickering....
"did not have a clue" is a derisive, belittling translation. in sayyiduna umar's time, this wretch should be flogged for such a translation. only a man with filth in his diseased heart will make such a translation. these are all scoundrels who wear beards and act as religious people but are shameless shayaTeen. that is filth they were fed on from the temples of deoband and their high priests.
if any of these wretches had read proper tafsirs and seen the adab exercised by mufassirin, they would perhaps have learned the adab of mentioning RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
when one speaks of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, one should choose words carefully - and avoid words that diminish his lofty status.
some deobandi apologist for nouman apparently used tafsir tabari to explain nouman's blasphemy and hinged on the 'in a sense' that nouman inserted. ok smarty, what about the "converted, reverted, took shahadah" comparison? and thereafter the rest of the derisive piece - he calls 'tafseer'.
NAK's bottom line was that RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam became muslim - al iyadhu billah when the angel appeared.
shame on scoundrels who have no adab when talking about RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
in shifa sharif, it is said (see TKM)
before anything else, i think we should make shifa compulsory for all public speakers. if he/she has not read shifa sharif of qaDi iyaD, they should be refused to speak.
every pipsqueak who can speak - essentially the ruwaybiDah - is a star today and keeps blabbering without any restraint or second thought.
in the hadith: a time when truthful will be belied, the liars will be attested as truthful...
when 'ruwaybiDah' shall become speakers / or 'ruwaybiDah' wll speak. when asked who the 'ruwaybiDah were, he SallALlah alayhi wa sallam said: "trashy, worthless, insignificant, contemptible, useless folk [rajul al-taafah] who will speak on important matters".
in another narration: 'foolish, impudent, profligates' [safih] talking on matters concerning the generality.
talkhis of dhahabi from mustadrak al-Hakim:
mustadrak of al-Hakim:
also in mushkil al-aathar of TaHawi: (in a printed edition, DKI, it is #449-450)