I was just using the fatwa as an example, mainly because of the very first line in the question asked but I will try to see if I can complete it
as-salamu alaikum bro ali why don't you finish off the translation? we'll put it up on www.marifah.net
interesting i'll have a look later, but i cannot figure out how it it would mean suggest or propose. The word ta'arruz is used in urdu also to mean resist, oppose, hinderance etc., and urdu does use arabic words in their classical sense.
What you are saying is true and the prepositions hold different connotations under different contexts. However, in the particular quote that is being discussed, the translation by Sidi Abu Hasan is correct. Just as an example, read the beginning of the following fatwa answered by Habib Umar bin al-Hafidh. It has the same structure as the quote and it does not mean "to oppose". http://www.alhabibomar.com/ask/article.php?id=000090 The fatwa translates as: Q: We have been subject to harassment from an extremist group that calls itself the only saved (sect).....
and it is not wise to give laam a literal meaning of "for", ta'arrud is often used with a laam and it usually means to oppose, resist, object, challenge, defy and so on; i'itirad is usually used with 'ala but it is not translated as over or on literally.
Well logically it would make sense that he affirms the position of his kufr as he says "we" which I would think means the shafis. The shafis did say he was a kafir.
I don't have as-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa but if what you quote is true, then Sidi Abu Hasan's translation is perfectly correct. Your particular translation of "oppose" would have been correct if Imam al-Haythami had written "نعترض". In addition, it makes sense that al-Haythami uses the preposition laam meaning, "We do not present ourselves for his takfir....". Rather if he meant "oppose", the word "تكفير" would have been the direct object of the verb and there would be no need to include the preposition laam. You need to read such statements carefully since they make a huge difference and can cause some serious misunderstanding.
If you carefully read my first posting, you will come to understand, that i can not speak arabic. Why else would i ask an arab brother to check the translation? So when i was quoting "Yet, inspite of his being a Muslim", i was refering to abu Hasans translation here. If that part is also translated wrongly in your opinion, then maybe you can enlighten us and give your translation. Why are you always that passive aggressive? Can't you just try to discus in a normal manner without provoking with every sentence? Really Weird...
the meaning & grammar of the main statement aside...since when does "yet, inspite of his being a muslim" is the translation of وعلى القول بانه مسلم ? Turki bhai sahib.
I just asked a brother who i trust in and he confirmed abu Hasans translation. Afterwards i just realized that asking him was totaly unnecessary. If you look at the sentence after that part you spoke of, you will understand that your translation would not make any sense. Here is what i am talking about: Misbah al-Hidaya's translation: "and actually, we do not oppose his takfir because this is the best and strongest opinion. Yet, inspite of his being a Muslim, he was a transgressor, a sinner, a criminal, a drunk and a tyrant." The bold part does not make much sense with your translation, does it?
This is incorrect, perhaps the brother overlooked the statement. In actuality imam ibn hajar al-haytami states the three opinions amongst ahl al-sunna, namely, takfir of yazid, islam of yazid and silence about yazid...and then gives his own verdict immediately after as: فلا نتعرض لتكفيره أصلا لأن هذا هو الأحرى و الأسلم "and actually, we do not oppose his takfir because this is the best and strongest opinion" here is how brother translates this statement: "We do not propose for his apostacy and this is most accurate and the safest path" perhaps, the brother can clarify his translation with a little help from 'grammar'...it is 'tafa'ul with proposition 'laam'...Ibn Manzur or zubaidi etc can clear it... as far as the statement of ibn hajar...yazid's kufr is the best opinion!!!
Can you check you quotes plz. I got banned when I posted the below on yanabi.com. There must be something wrong with it. I was accused of making constant defence of Yazeed. SO sort it out. Are you or are you not a believer of Ahmad Riza Khan? Can you answer that plz?
tafsir of alusi, ruH al-ma'ani v.23 listed under 9. ---- even though he leans towards the position of uttering curses to yazid's name, he states the position of the jam'hur or the position of the majority. وهو مبني على جواز لعن العاصي المعين من جماعة لعنوا بالوصف، وفي ذلك خلاف فالجمهور، على أنه لا يجوز لعن المعين فاسقاً كان أو ذمياً حياً كان أو ميتاً ولم يعلم موته على الكفر لاحتمال أن يختم له أو ختم له بالإسلام بخلاف من علم موته على الكفر كأبـي جهل. this is based on the idea that it is permissible to curse a sinner specifically from the group of people who have been cursed by attribute [*]; there is a difference of opinion in this matter. the majority [jam'hur] say that it is not permissible to send damnation on a transgressor or even a disbeliever - whether living or dead - unless it is known that he died as a kafir. because a possibility exists that he [zimmi/kafir] might have died as a muslim, opposed to such persons whose death is known to be upon disbelief, like abu jahl. ---------- al-alusi then describes the issues, and quotes others most of which have already been mentioned in sawayiq al-muHriqah of al-haytami. if you notice, most of the references in the lists at yanaabi come from alusi's tafsir. and most of them depend on ibn al-jawzi's opinion; just a sidenote. ----------- * for example like those who drink wine, or lie or any other such attributes.
the reason why i am doing this is because, inexperienced readers might be led to believe that it is truly the case. for example, take tarikh ibn al-khallikan [i assume it is the same as wafyat al-a'ayan] quoted at number 1 in the second list: the poster [oe henceforth] proudly translated that part which suits him. that ilkiya al-harrasi ruled that sending curses on yazid is permissible but conveniently omits two words which al-khallikan added: 'rather ghazali wrote contrary to this..' and quoted a fatwa which has been used on the forum to lash at imam ghazali. --- take sawayiq al-muHriqah at number 6 in the second list: imam ibn Hajar al-haytami quoted these positions and noted that none of such reports are reported through rigorously authenticated chains. rather, in the conclusion he not only affirms his own position that we should abstain from la'anah on yazid but also quotes ibn SalaH's fatwa verbatim. see here. --- 10. sharH aqayid an-nasafi by sa'aduddin taftazani, page 113 / the charge is true. see here. but taftazani's opinion was refuted by Ali al-Qari: see here. --- i will try to post from each of the books that is possible [some books are originally in farsi and i don't have them]; there are lesser known authors in this list. certainly, one major scholar like alaHazrat cannot be countered by dozens who came after him. at the end of the day, we are not salafis - and we should not behave like them - choosing what suits our fancy and ignoring our imams as and when we wish. if we cannot accept the opinion of men like imam al-a'azam in a ridiculously small matter as cursing yazeed, where no man today can produce a rigorously authenticated [saHeeH] hadith that he died as a kafir, can we be expected to follow their opinion in many other matters? why do you fight tooth and nail with salafis who counter your madh'hab with rigorously authenticated hadith in serious matters of halal and haraam without any proof except, merely imam abu Hanifah's word as a proof? what does taqlid mean then? there remains little in calling oneself Hanafi anymore. Allah ta'ala knows best.
an 'objective enquirer' has posted references that apparently 'affirm' takfir of yazid and listed the following books [cut and pasted including errors and comments]: ---------------------- he has posted another, listing references of yazeed's evil acts. i do not know which language to use or if my english is not plain enough: nobody from the ahlu's sunnah disputes that yazeed was evil. nobody argues that he was evil. nobody bothers about yazeed. *i* don't have any sympathy for yazeed; *i* don't dispute that he was evil. but also *i* don't want to send la'anat on him because it is not proven from qur'an and hadith that he died as a kafir. alaHazrat's advice to muslims: 'prevent muslims from uttering curses; even a kafir should not be cursed upon until it is proven from qur'an and hadith that he has died a kafir'. we will examine these books to determine whether the authors REALLY affirmed that yazid had become a kafir. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. al-bidaya wa al-nihaya bu ibn katheer in the chapter on the head of Hossein(A) page. 204 volume 8 2. Minhaj al-sunnah ibn taymiya (nasibi) 3. sharah fiqh akbar, page 73 4. tafseer mazhari, volume 5 page 21 5. shazrat al-zahib, page 69 6. maqtal hossein by khurazami, volume 2, page 58 7. tazkira al-alkhawas by sibt ibn jawzi, page 148 8. tarikh tabari, volume 11, page 73 9. tafseer rooh al-mani, surah mohammed 10. tarikh kamil, volume 4, page 69 ------- 1. tarikh ibn khallikaan 2. hayat al-hayyawaan, volume 2, page 176 3. irshad al-sari sharah bokari, volume 5, page 104 4. siraaj al-munir sharah jami al-saghir, volume 1, page 80 5. maktoobaat, sana Allah pani patti 6. al-sawaiq buy ibn hajar, page131 7. akbar al-duwal page 51 9. sharah fiqh akbar, page 72 10. sharah aqaid nasfi, page 113 11. sharah maqasid, volume2, page 309 12. shazrat al-zahib, volume 1, page 69
