wonderful, aH. mawlana qamar uz zaman a'zami said on tv once, that alahazrat would be a mujaddid if it were just for his kanzu'l iman. similarly, another sunni scholar said the same for sub'Han al-subbuH.
this is not just one instance but dozens, if not hundreds of such finer points missed by the translate-from-the-dictionary translators and people with superficial knowledge like mawdudi and a host of others. most modern translators are deluded that just knowing arabic is sufficient to translate the qur'an. ---- alahazrat's mastery of tafsir is evident from all such instances. it is a miracle and a manifest sign that he was divinely aided and the phenomenal knowledge he had of tafsir and usul. remember that mawlana amjad ali says that when he took the dictation of the translation, alahazrat would not refer to books, but dictated extempore. in fact, i have checked many of non-literal translations of alahazrat and compared with others and found that without exception alahazrat's view is corroborated in either tafsir or books of usul. for example, his non-literal translation of the first verse of surah al-fat'h is found in Al-Mawaqif of al-Iji: "or because the 'sin' of his nation is attributed to him figuratively." mawlana abdu'r razzaq bathralwi's : taskin al-janan is a comprehensive treatise that elucidate 170+ EXAMPLES of alahazrat's translations. someone please provide a link to the pdf. ---- if you read a classic book of usul tafsir (one categorization for the book) of al-burhan fi ulumi'l qur'an of al-zarkashi, you will find that there are many forms of 'khitab or 'addressing' in the qur'an. The 42nd Category: [Volume Two] On the Reasons of Addressing and the Address [Khitab] in the Quran. in which he mentions 33 kinds of address in the Qur'an. one of the forms is: 'Addressing Someone Specifically but Intended to Others,' which is the 28th category. ---- even though earlier mufassiring opined that this verse in question was addressed to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, they mentioned together that it was a hypothetical statement, meant as a refutation, similar to the verses: "if there were many gods, they would cause chaos.." or "if Rahman had a son.." alahazrat was careful in that he chose the most conservative opinion, for the very reason you mention in your post. because idiots and ignoramuses, men with long beards but without piety or proper religious education (even if they are graduates of seminaries), people whose hearts are bereft of the love and respect of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam will use such translations in disrespectful ways. ---- in tafsir jamiy al-ahkam of al-qurtubi (d.671) he says under this verse: "it is said that here the address is to the prophet, but meant for his followers" so also in ma'alim at-tanzil of al-baghawi: "this is addressed to RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam but meant to instruct others" "...because Allah ta'ala has vouchsafed from [`ismah] polytheism" in zad al-masir of ibn al-jawzi:as said by ibn abbas, Allah ta'ala instructs adab to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and the warning is for others. because Allah ta'ala has vouchsafed him from polytheism. thus it is also in tafsir of imam nasafi:because this is addressed to RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam but intended for others ----------------- the early mufassirin did not clarify it, as it was not necessary in their times, as they understood these concepts a priori. and in our times, people look at us in disbelief when we say that loving the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is the core component of faith. [it is not hypothetical: i have seen people balk until i had to quote that the hadith is found in bukhari - and it is these people who scorn mawlid as bid'ah!] and sadd al-dharayiy does not occur to deobandis for such delicate topics. why would it, anyway, as it does not aid their madh'hab of diminishing the rank of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam under the pretext of tawhid. ------------------ hum ishq ke bande haiN kyuN baat baDhayi hai? [for the dolts among heretics: ishq ke bandey means: slaves of Allah who are drowned in ishq.] wAllahu a'alam.
Well, what I meant is that i didn't expect these two to give a non-literal translation when the list of those that take the literal meaning is quite long: Add to those above: Abdullah Yusuf A'li, M.M Pickthall, A.J. Aberry, Abdul Majid Daryabadi, M. Junagadhi and F.M Jalandhari.
Assalamua'laikum. Here are some translations for 39:65 that I got at Altafsir.com: Tafsir al-Jalalayn: Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: Royal-Aal-al-Bayt Institute: Taqi Uthmani: Muhammad Asad (unexpected!) : And finally, the beautiful, the fragrant, KANZ-UL-IMAN (Mohammed Aqib Qadri's rendering into english): So my question is, why have such heavyweights as Imam Suyuti (rh) and Hazrat Ibn Abbas (radhiAllahuanhu: assuming that the tafsir can actually be attributed to him), stuck to the literal meaning and why have'nt they clarified it further? And aren't Muhammad Asad's objections justified? I am asking the questions because I just heard a Wahabi use it to explain the enormity of Shirk: " O Prophet, if you too committed Shirk then ......" Jazakallah. Wassalam.
