Chaman Zaman says Alahazrat is muharrif

For those of us not in UK, please advise the names of attendees, endorsers etc.

Ma sha Allah good step but not fully enough, despite being appreciated - we need a fatwa on the fitnah iran shah and his minions with clear Hukme Shari3at. I don't know when and how Sunni ulama started this habit of just stopping short of Hukme Shari3at. have they been taking courses in western journalism and diplomacy?

 

Good he insulted both those mardoods accurately, unlike many of the politically correct molvis of pakistan.

 

Mufti Shahzad Alam

 

Zar mureed, zar khareed, never liked him.

 

Apparently Kaukab noorani okarvi is pro chaman too!

I clearly remember the time he said in front of me that he doesn't want to share the stage with someone who denies the sahabi status of Ameer Mu3awiyah radi Allahu 3anhu.

hilariously apposite sher comes to mind

Zameene chaman gul khilati hai kya kya
Badalta hai rang aasmaan kaise kaise

 

chammar e zaman has already whined about it in a reply (radd e shubhaat) to sayyid muzaffar shah sahib;

 

i hope sidi AH will write a full refutation inshaAllah, these posts are a quick response to those who read on the internet. it will be an honour for me to compose it in urdu inshaAllah.

 

Yes and any upcoming ulama in training can also translate and transcribe in Urdu, and have their teachers check it, and mail a copy to the ujrha chaman. Will be a great homework for them in Urdu language. For example, Shahid Ali can translate to Urdu, get it checked by Bandyalwi sahib, and send it off to ujrha chaman.

 

this is about the translation of verse 55 of surah ghafir.



zahir hai, chomu ka mablagh e ilm to ma'amuli arabi hi hai. bechare ki kya shikayat karen.

the imbecile claims to be a follower of imam maturidi. according to him ordinary arabic reader "knows" that 'kaa' is a pronoun, and should therefore it should be translated as: 'your sins"

when the chomu graduates from 'ma'muli arabic' to higher level arabic he will understand why it is so.

qurtubi in tafsir:




related to the same, chaman says: on p48:



ye gadha apnay aap ko imam maturidi ka payrukar batata hai - to zara dekhen imam maturidi ne kaa ka kya kiya hai.





chomu clarified one thing: that his arabic is only ma'muli level. poor chaman - kash koyi is ahmaq ko arabi padhaney wala hotaa..

 

chomu miyan ki shan mein ab laqab kharr-e-chaman hon chahiye. ke unkay mutabiq har aayat ya lafz ka ek hi ma'ana hona chahiye. aur agar do huwey to jis ma'ana ka inkar karega woh kafir hoga.



jab is gadhay ko "nass e qur'an" ka matlab nahin pata - usko tarjmah, tafsir aur tahrif mein imtiyaz kya nazar aayegi.
when the donkey does not know the meaning of "nass e qur'an" - how can he understand the difference between a translation/interpretation, commentary and/or distortion?

someone should inform this idiot that "nass" means the exact words of the qur'an. one becomes a kafir if they deny that "bayan" is in this verse. but if one denies its interpretation, they are not considered as 'rejecting the nass'.

challenge to chomu miyan: prove that "ma kana wa ma yakun" is nass-e-qur'an in this verse.

in fact, if you stretch it - chomu miyan claims that "ma kana wa ma yakun" is nass of qur'an; and one who claims that something is 'nass" whereas it is not, is certainly a kafir.

pahlay chomu miyan apnay sar se kufr ka ilzam haTa'en.

====




stupidity on wheels.

---




tahrif nahin hai bhai. tahrif ke ta'arif to pahle bayan karo. akhir tum bhi to insan kahlate ho.

this is not distortion. you must first explain the meaning of distortion [tahrif].

 

translation: thus: if the translation of bayan is "description of ma kaana wa maa yakuun" then those folks who have translated "insan" in the previous verse as "human" - does this mean a common man was also taught the knowledge of ma kana wa ma yakun?

---
hilarious. this chaman fellow is unhinged. qiyas ka mi'yyar dekhiye.
agar pichli ayat mein jin hazarat ne insan ka tarjamah insan kiya - woh bayan ka tarjamah bayan karenge. kyunke aayaat mein irtibat hai.

in akhbar al-hamqa, ibn al-jawzi tells a joke about juHaa:

his father died and he was told to buy shroud (kafan) for his father. he said: 'i am afraid that if i go to buy his shroud, i will miss the funeral prayer'.

===

bayan = "maa kana wa ma yakun" when insan = RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

bayan = "names of things, when insan = adam alayhi's salam

bayan = six different meanings when insan = human (meaning any man)

1. speech and discernment
2. (bayan of) halal and haram
3. that which he says and what is said to him
4. (bayan of) good and evil
5. ways of guidance
6. ability to write and script (i.e. handwriting)




this is from zad al-masir of ibn al-jawzi.

---
this is why ulama insist on ma'ani and balaghah for a student. to comprehend the written word and gain a capability to decipher manTuq and mafhoom (explictly said and implicitly understood by context) because if a village idiot like chomu zaman begins to interpret the qur'an with a dictionary - and has no clue of badiy, bayan, ma'ani, majaz - the village idiot will add 2+2 and make it 22.

---
nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

 

the devil's advocate says:




translation: if a scholar, elder, grandson of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - not in a translation but discussing indications - if he says something, he becomes a "muharrif e qur'an"...

===
tarjamah ho ya ishaarat - qur'an ki taraf koyi baat nisbat karay to ye taqaza hai ke aql aur naql se muwafiqat ho - chaman bechara in usulon ko nahin jaanta - magar ek usul yeh bhi hai kalam e arab mein in muhawaron ka istiymal paya jaaey.

whether it is a translation or an implication - if one attributes something to be 'from the qur'an', it is necessary that it should be compatible with reason (meaning: wild interpretations are unacceptable) and with transmitted evidence (i.e. from hadith or tafsir of sahabah-tabiyin). further interpretations should be consistent with usage of the ancient arabs - it is therefore you will find poetic lines of poetry from jahiliyah (pagan times) in tafasir. poor chaman - he has no clue of ulum al-qur'an and hence he barks wildly.

it becomes tahrif when a meaning is concocted without any basis - neither in qur'an-hadith or can be derived from similar usage - or the opinion of a sahabi or tabiyi - or it corroborates a commonly observed phenomenon.

the million dollar question is: which sunni tafsir supports riaz shah's tahrif? that makanan-aliyya means hazrat idris alayhis salam is buried in the same grave as hazrat ali? which dictionary

what stupid "ishaarat" is it? for example, if one says "riaz is lying on his bed" - can it be linguistically feasible to mean, "riaz died and became dust and his grave is in rabwa".

"riaz apnay bistar par pada hua hai" - can it be linguistically feasible to mean, "riaz matti mein milgaya aur uski qabr rabwah mein hai"?

when alahazrat said: insaniyat ki jaan hazrat muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - for "insan", it is derived thus:

insan -> could refer to a special insan -> i.e. hazrat aadam alayhis salam or muhammad sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.
now, you could just name the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - but to correlate with the word "insan" - alahazrat replaced with the essence of the word: because the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is indeed the soul of mankind.

or chaman zaman should say that he does not believe in it. if he accepts it, then where is the tahrif? if he doesn't accept it - he should be a man enough to boldly state his belief. he should not be like لا إلى هولاء ولا إلى هولاء

the moron - i mean chaman zaman - should prove that "insan" does not refer to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam absolutely if he claims it is tahrif.

===

zad al masir of ibn jawzi



makki ibn abi talib


wahidi in al-wajiz



nasafi in madarik




tafsir sam'ani



====
we will go in more detail in sha'Allah concerning other false allegations of chaman.

 

he thinks he's a super intelligent super chamcha (dog as he calls himself) of that rafidi shah and he has crafted the world's greatest most air tight rebuttal that will bowl out all of his puppetmaster's detractors, its salient points being

1. emotional blackmail in the name of love of Sayyids

2. the world's greatest, most impressive, airtight, foolproof ilzami jawab - if you call rafidi shah's jahil translation and explanations as tahreef, you will be morally and logically bound to also call your Fazile Barelwi's translation as tahreef; by extension, if you implicate rafidi shah of kufr, you would be bound to implicate your imam too of kufr

the idiot thinks he's Fakhruddin Al-Razi while he doesn't even know how to make a sound comparison, or what to compare, or how to respond, or how to issue an ilzami jawab