Chaman Zaman says Alahazrat is muharrif

pichlay daur mein jo bad-deen thay, qadray un mein ilm ki buu aur samajhne ki salahiyat thi. hamaray daur mein - aur hamaray hissay mein bas gadhay hain - aur in ka radd hai.

not an activity i enjoy, but alahazrat par jo bhaunkay to do char pathhar phenkne hi par ye dum daba ke bhagenge.

====

chaman on p.40 says:



'dhoond dhoond' kar - is tuhmat ki daleel bhi chaman hi dega. baat baat pay nasibi kahnay wala apna rifz na chupa saka.

chaman says: "they have only one job to do: to find the sons of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam one by one and spend their energies making fun of them and mock at them"

this is a claim for which chaman should present proof - is rightfully criticising a neem-rafizi's wayward "tafsir" making fun of him? or is that fellow making fun of our deen and the qur'an?

---
i will in-sha'Allah reply to chaman's attacks on alahazrat and his kanz one by one - bechara diljala (as a brother noted) couldn't contain his hatred of alahazrat and he thought he could vomit all the filth he has swallowed, by playing the devil's advocate. not realising that he became the devil himself! [is chakkar mein khud devil ban gaya!]

---
apologies for brothers who don't understand urdu - as i keep interspersing urdu in my posts. i have tried to translate it alongside.




chaman ke jhoot ka bhi andaza kijiey. according to chaman, he has 'browsed thousands of dictionaries' in urdu. if he is challenging you by saying: "you will not find it even if you scan a thousand dictionaries" - he should be told that the frog in the pond should not croak so loudly. lungs phat jaenge.

it all goes back to what tarjamah means - is it a word-to-word correspondence as in a dictionary?
because we can use the same technique for his translation of ibarat - which are not even from the qur'an!

 

i'm surprised you actually took the pain to expose this donkey's stupidity

seriously, all he has exposed in that piece is his incredibly low iq. naaqis-ul-3aql wives and kids give better arguments, accusations and tantrums than this jahalat when arguing with men



it's not just about being the 3ilmi khaain that he is, wahabis and rawafid are too - but this guy's really dumber than a rock.

i wager than he can't even pass a plain Urdu language test (irrespective of religion) or a 5th grade math exam!

 

chaman keeps saying:






chaman says: every fourth son of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is kafir according to you.

chaman has to prove how did he do this survey and which are these people, in which books, speeches did they declare "every fourth son" a kafir? al iyadhu billah. unless of course, chaman refers to the rawafiz - in whom "sayyids" spring up from nowhere and every fourth rafizi claims to be a sayyid!

sub'HanAllah. is gadhay se kahiye, ke jo qa'idah bataya us par amal karay:

 

on p36, chaman says:



call his bluff.

agar alahazrat ne "apnay ghar se aath kalimat ka izafa kiya" to tum sahih tarjama baghayr kisi izafay ke kar ke dikhau - jo tafasir ki muwafiqat karta ho.

if alahazrat "added 8 words from his house" - then chaman can show how it is done by translating hte same verses without adding any word and in a manner that it agrees with commentaries. even if you can show economy of words - you will have to still prove compatibility with aqidah and tafasir of authorities - not of some neem-rafizi of present day.

----
all of this is to prove the lies of red-beard - jisay baat baat par "RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam ka beta" kahta hai - us se kahiye ke qur'an e majeed ne hamen bata diya:





phir hadis e nabawi hai:

دخنُها من تحتِ قدمِ رجلٍ من أهلِ بيتي ، يزعم أنه مني ، وليس مني وإنما أوليائي المتَّقون
woh za'am karega ke woh mujh se hai - magar woh mujh se nahin hai. mere ahbab to muttaqi log hain

jis se saaf zahir - jo ahl e sunnat se inhiraaf karey, woh ahl e bayt kahlane ka haqdaar hi nahin.

====

 

compared to this moridiot (moron+idiot) - the clowrons of bradford appear intelligent.

the idiot thinks that 'tarjamah' means - word to word correspondence. in which case, according to chaman-zaman (CZ) a google translation will be of the highest quality. the moron has no clue that certain words in a language might not have equivalent words in the translated language. bechara chomu. he doesn't know that idioms and contexts are understood by native speakers - and a translation has to 'capture' that. in many cases, you have the choice to be literal and go against the MEANING or abandon the literal and convey the meaning of that word idiom or sentence.

this is a challenge to chomu chaman who acts as if he is some guru of usul: which usul book specifies the usage of brackets?


chaman ka khaardaar chaman, p.34




first of all, he should produce a definitive list of what constitutes a "tarjamah". he should list down the attributes of a tarjamah and on what basis these attributes are specified and according to which authorities. he should clarify where it is said that a tarjamah should not have additional words. in urdu the words ka, ki, ke are possessive particles - hai is a verb. either they should have a corresponding word in arabic, otherwise according to chaman's rules, it is not a translation. imagine urdu sentences without these words!

pahlay to ye bata'y ke tarjama kisay kahtay hain? phir tarjamah ke awsaf batayen, aur un mein kaun si sifat lazimi hai aur kaun si aarzi iski bhi tafsil bataen aur kin ayimmah e fann ne in awsaf ka zikr kiya woh bhi bataen. agar lafz ki mutabiqat zaroori hai, to "hai", "ka" "ki" "ke" waghayra alfaz jo urdu mein musta'amal hain, unki arabi kya hogi - agar arabi mein nahin hain to har urdu tarjmah se in alfaz ko nikaliye.

----
mera ye da'awa hai, ke chaman ko yaksar tarjama aur tahrif ka matlab hi nahin malum hai. agar hai, to phir likh kar bataye tarjama kisey kahtay hain aur tahrif kisay. jis chaupaye ko do tangon par khada hona nahin aata, usko motorcycle chalana kya sikhayenge?

----

 

i read 40 pages of this chaman guy's book - and the spontaneous review that springs to mind is gadhay ko za'afaran ki kya qadar.

the kind of reasoning employed by this idiot is like: chlorophyll is present in weeds - and chlorophyll is present in a rosebush. therefore, weeds are the same as a rosebush. in other words, people should cultivate weeds in their gardens.

---
while muzaffar shah sahib went overboard - i can sympathise with him, even if i do not condone his colourful language. one cannot help feeling after reading ujday chaman's screed is jootay nikalo aur is bad-bakht ke munh par char lagao [slap the face of this uncouth fellow with your slipper]. i think figurative - jootay marna - is in order.

as noori bhai pointed out, it is not permissible to invoke la'anat or call someone a mal'un - even if it is a kafir. this is the principle of ahlu's sunnah and therefore we do not send la'anat on yazid, except on those - such as abu lahab or iblis or musaylamah or anyone not mentioned as a mal'un in the qur'an or hadith.

======
the fellow has delusions of grandeur certainly. jis ahmaq ko kitab padhnay ki salahiyat nahin, magar tanqid ka shauq josh kar raha ho, phir woh aysi hi rakeek ibaraten tarashta hai aur beja iytirazat ke khashaak ko gul, aur uskay dheyr ko chaman tasawwur karleta hai. phir us farzi chaman ke phuul bhi aysay niralay hain jin mein na buu hai na rang - na nazakat, na dhang - jin ke khosha cheen ko tamyiz hi nahin, ke kya ghath hai aur kya sameen!

bahr haal, alahazrat raDi'Allahu anhu ke paak daman par apnay najis chaman ki ghalazat aur dimagh ka kichad uchalnay ki jo bhar poor koshish ki hai, to chaman ka ilmi muhasba zaroori samjha.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

he can be reminded of his boss iran shah; not that it makes Muzaffar saab's action right

 

Just to add, Ala Hazrat (ra) was the foremost refuter of the heresies that had emerged in the subcontinent and not once did he use foul language even towards the likes of the deobandi elders. And his refutations were for crimes much worse than that of Chaman Zaman, where the heretics were targeting none other than the Beloved Prophet of Allah (saws).

There is a very good probability that Chaman Zaman's parents were pious Muslims in which case the sin committed by Muzaffar Shah sahib is much worse. In any case he should repent from those words, which won't make him look small but will elevate himself by doing so!

 

it is not allowed in shari'ah and there are very serious warnings in ahadith against it. also, it scraps the actual refutation. you will soon see chamaar e zaman whining about it.

 

It's just a terrible way of expressing anger in urdu.

I doubt anybody who uses such language actually means it in its true sense.

Similar words like "shaytaan ki aulaad" "jahil ki aulaad" are used frequently in the subcontinent.

I would just perceive these words figuratively for showing anger on one rather than its actual meaning.

It's Just a bad habit ....

 

Unfortunately he has this habit of "gali galoch". If only such "alims" were to exercise restraint it would be better for them. The sad thing is they don't even comprehend the consequences of their accusations!

 

alas! muzaffar shah sahib also calls chamaar e zaman a son of a hypocrite (munafiq ki aulaad), offspring of a wicked person (khabis ki aulaad), and son of a filthy fox (palid lomri ki aulaad), what proofs he has if his father is/was a khabis, if his father has passed away then what knowledge he has about him that he was a munafiq, khabis or a filthy fox (i haven't heard this muhawrah in urdu)?

call whatever you want to call him but do not call names to his ancestors or issue a verdict about his fate in afterlife.

 

is this it?

 

I believe that there would be no disagreement if we say that chaman zaman is a chamar e zaman, but what is the source of shahid imran jalai to call him an eternal accursed ("azali badbakht")

he calls chamar e zaman an eternal accrued twice @4:58 and @7:53.

despite the fact that jalalis are doing a great job to defend the aqidah ahlussunah but this is careless language that causes trouble for them.