Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Translations' started by Sunnisoldier786, Jan 2, 2021.
The 2 deos running away from questions now
sh. foudeh's hashiya is very important in refuting the mendacities of wahabis and devbandis who run around like headless chicken. will translate presently, in sha'Allah.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
also important in this discussion is imam maturidi's comment regarding the ayat of surah al-zumar:
ta'wilat ahl al-sunnah, 8/656-7:
imam qushayri in his laTa'if al-isharat, under the verse 4 of surah al-zumar: s39 v4:
if Allah wished to take a son, he would have chosen from His creation whoever HE wished.
Exalted is He! He is Allah, the One, the Subduer.
explaining this verse imam qushayri says:
Allah ta'ala addresses them [disbelievers] according to their ability to understand and their belief system. because they said: "Masih Jesus is the son of God" or "Uzayr is the son of God".
Allaht ta'ala says: if Allah wished to adopt a son, and to honour him, he would have chosen someone among the angels who are free from eating, drinking and other attributes of beings. [aH: even angels are creatures; but they do not sin, they do not have desires, they are not dependent on food or drink etc. which makes them more suited. al-iyadhu billah, though they are NOT].
and then, Allah ta'ala informs them of His transcendence of His being free from such things and says: "Glory to Him! He is Allah, the One, the Subduer" - meaning transcendent from taking a son:
- neither in reality [i.e. offspring or giving birth to a son] which is rationally impossible to be His attribute;
- nor figuratively [tabanni - as in choosing someone to give him the status of a son], because of His being transcendent from impossible things.
rather here He mentions it as a far-fetched thing - an impossibility. i.e., if it could be so, then what would it entail?
imam qurTubi under the same verse says: [18/248]
that is, if He wished to NAME someone among His creation with this [i.e. being a son], He would not have allowed them to choose for Him. in other words, He is transcendent from having a son.
ibn Hazm in his al-fiSal fi'l milali wa'n niHal, 2/372 said that it was not impossible for the Rabb to take a son - ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera.
as for the question: does Allah ta'ala have the Power to take a son?
the answer is: Allah ta'ala has the power to do so. And Allah ta'ala has said in Qur'an:
[ibn Hazm mentions the verse from surah al-zumar above and the verse from surah al-anbiya'a mentioned in the previous post.]
then ibn hazm rambles about how if we did not accept power over muHal, it would imply incapability or weakness [`ajz] - and whosoever attributes ajz to Allah has committed kufr.
like all heretics who have shallow knowledge of kalam, irrespective of their abilities and erudition in language or hadith, ibn Hazm didn't realise that he was making an utterly idiotic argument.
we would then say:
1. 'what about `ajz?'
2. does Allah ta'ala have power to make Himself `aajiz? [sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala]
3. if he said 'yes', he would be kafir because that was explicitly ruled by him [ibn Hazm].
4. if he said 'no', it would imply `ajz and he ruled that implication as kufr!
even his understanding of muHal is muddled up and he makes up four categories arbitrarily. [ibn Hazm has been refuted roundly down the ages by ash'ari stalwarts].
the point is - ibn Hazm deems that 'taking' a son is within Divine Power and it is because of his misunderstanding of nuSus and incapability to comprehend the concept of muHal/mustaHil - similar to deobandis and other wahabis of our time.
imam sanusi refuted this idea in his umm al-barahin:
....it is impossible for wajib to be annihilated; because if He could be annihilated, it would mean He was not wajib.
and it impossible for a wajib to become NOT-wajib.
and mustaHil /impossible is also similar. if the two attributes [iradah and qudrah] were connected to mustaHil, it would be trying to attain something which is already the case. [i.e. mustaHil means that it does not exist; and trying to make it NOT-exist / i'ydaam, is attempting to annihilate something that does not exist. which is absurd.]
and if they two [i.e. iradah and qudrah] were related to bring into existence, then it would mean upturning the realities.
both cases are absurd. the impossible will never come into existence.
in its hashiyah, shaykh foudeh in tahdhib sharh al-sanusiyah, p47-48 citing bajuri says along with his own observations:
the meaning of lahw in this verse is interpreted by various exegetes as: 'son' 'wife' or 'intimacy'
let us quickly look up the previous passages in tafsir qurtubi, surah al-anbiya'a v17: [summarised, reworded where necessary]:
"if we intended to take a son" referring to a people who believed that Allah had a son, and refuting them He says: "if we intended to take a son". qatadah has said that 'lahw' means a woman.
ibn abbas has said: 'lahw' means son. hasan al-basri has also said similarly.
jawhari has said: 'lahw' is an euphemism to mean 'sexual intimacy'
.... [couplet of imru'u al-qays omitted]
jawhari said: lahw means 'woman' in this verse. it is also said it means son.
"we would take it from Our side" [min ladunna]: that is, I would have take one by Myself; not assigned by YOU people.
ibn jurayj said: "We would have taken women and sons" from the dwellers in the heavens, not from those on earth. by this Allah refuted their false claims, when they said: 'these idols are daughters of Allah'.
Saying thus, Allah refutes them which means: 'how can your carved idols [manHut] be Our son?'
ibn qutaybah says: "this verse is a refutation of christians [who claim that hazrat yisa alayhis salam is the son of Allah. al-iyadhu billah]"
"we would have indeed done so" [in kunna fa'yilin]: qatadah, muqatil, ibn jurayj and Hasan have said: Indeed we will never do so.
similar to: "indeed you are, but a warner"; meaning: you are NOT except a warner. "in" ان here is used to mean a negator.
it is also said: that it is a condition: that is, "IF We were to do so, but We will not do so" because it is impossible for Allah ta'ala to have a son. as if He sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala says: "and if it were so, We would not have created paradise and hell; nor death, nor resurrection, nor held the creation to account"
[HERE is where maulana shahid mentions the snippet]
it is also said: that if we wished to take a son as an adopted one [tabanni], then I would have assigned someone Myself, and chosen someone from the angels.
SOME scholars inclined towards this meaning, because the Divine Will can be related to ADOPTING A SON [tabanni]; but as for HAVING A SON HIMSELF, then it is absolutely impossible and the Divine Will does not relate to impossible things. qushayri mentioned this.
----tabanni = naming someone's son as one's own.
walad = to give birth to one's own son.
while the first meaning is only superficial and in a name; even this is disallowed. therefore we frown upon the usage of: 'being God's children' (al-iyadhu billah). here the meaning is not that we are offspring but only in a figurative sense.
islam disallows even such usage.
thus to explain imam qurtubi's statement, we could say:
1. it is absolutely impossible for ALlah ta'ala to have a son.
2. Divine Will does not relate to impossibilities (like maulana shahid has said: lying, oppression, having a son as an offspring).
3. this ayah refutes disbelievers who say: "Allah has taken a son/child" saying in effect: if We indeed wanted to take a son we would have taken one by Our Own Will, not according to your assigning Us one.
4. the above sentence can be interpreted lexically as either referring to a possibility or an impossibility.
5. if it refers to an impossibility as in ta'liq bi'l muHal, then it is obvious. the meaning is: "Allah can never take a son"
6. if it refers to a possibility, it ONLY means NAMING someone as a son - not GIVING birth as it is an impossibility. but Allah ta'ala says: EVEN that superficial 'naming someone as a child', We will not do.
qaDi abdu'l jabbar mutazili in his al-mughni has mentioned that some christians consider hazrat yisa alayhis salam as a son only in a name (meaning he is honoured) and not as an offspring. [tabanni, not wiladah]
so also imam raghib explaining why the christians fell in this heresy. [see hawashi of bayDawi below]
qadi-zadah in his hashiyah of bayDawi tackles this objection [see hashiyah of tafsir of surah baqarah, 2:117], which can be summarised as 'son' or 'adopted child' can imply that he also belongs to a similar genus. whereas Allah ta'ala is absolutely Alone in all His Attributes, the idea of a son would indicate similarity. whereas khalil-ALlah (friend of ALlah) or Habib-Allah (the beloved of ALlah) does not imply similarity.
hashiyah qawnawi on bayDawi [iSamuddin ismayil al-qonawi al-Hanafi, d.1195 AH]; see 4/181 also explains that it is impermissible even in a figurative sense.
hope this is clear.
Can anyone explain the part where Maulana Shahid Ali quotes Tafseer e Qurtubi that "Many inclined towards this understanding" refering to taking Angel as son (which is also an impossibility) while our Ala Hazrat refers to taking Nabi e Pak (Peace and blessings be upon him) as a son (which is also an impossibility) ?
What was Imam Qurtubi trying to explain regarding this impossibility related with divine will of ALLAH TA'ALA while opting/focusing to the first opinion?
Though I have read Hazrat Abu Hasan's reply to this objection (for ALA HAZRAT's sher) which was very well explained.
But I couldn't comprehend this point explained by Maulana Shahid Ali (made by Imam Qurtubi).
Mawlana Shahid responds.
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?