Is taking the meaning of Ummi as 'an-parh' blasphemy?

i was busy with my projects and had resolved not to get distracted. but i think a summary of issues etc is necessary due to the current situation. in sha'Allah, i will try to do something.

well, i just thought of something. a short translation. wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

this is a double question - because you said: 'many'.

a) even if anyone says there are one or two scribal errors, it is kufr. any statement by salaf or sahabah that may appear to be similar or support the above view has a valid explanation of master grammarians and jumhur of towering scholars. one or two isolated opinions will not be heeded and will be interpreted in a way that agrees with the position of jumhur.

b) many: one who says this is an outright kafir - because he openly asserts that the Book of Allah is not preserved and casts doubt about its reliability.

===

yes. he is a kafir. and also a jahil imbecile - grammar was invented to explain the qur'an - not the other way round.

===

though i know of multiple opinions, i don't remember the ruling. i will in sha'Allah come back to you on that.

===

this is the most filthy kufr of all. because the scoundrel who says so not only attributes error to the qur'an, but also disrespects our master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

as i have said in my other posts - ummi means one who did not learn to read from a teacher. every one of us were illiterates before someone taught us to read. but then, we learned to read and became professionals, professors, erudite teachers and what not.

will the scoundrel with a muslim name who says the above - refer to his teachers, or the myriad "highly educated" people as illiterates? will tulaib call the kafir orientalist illiterate? wasn't the kafir orientalist not an illiterate when he was born?

---
mustafa alayhis salatu was salam did not learn from a teacher, and his being ummi IS NOT - and SHOULD NOT - be the common definition of the word. the definition of ummi for RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam is he did not learn to read from anyone in the creation, and only Allah taught him. and when he was given knowledge, how can you refer to him as such?

only a kafir will contest that.

here, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is teaching and training sahabah who were masters of the language - the kuffar accused mustafa alayhis salatu was salam and called him names - but none, not even abu jahl or abu lahb attempted to fault mustafa alayhis salatu was salam for being ummi!

and when Allah taught him - how can you say that he was - al-iyadhu billah - illiterate? especially after the qur'an was revealed?
sub'HanAllah, by what right does the scoundrel claim to be a muslim? he is kafir, murtadd. and if my speech makes someone uncomfortable, they should examine their iman.

inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

 

@abu Hasan Not sure if you have already answered this before elsewhere.

1. Does openly claiming that the holy Qur'an has many scribal errors amount to kufr?
2. What about claiming grammatical errors?
3. Is the claim that "absence of basmala before Surah Tawbah was due to confusion of scribes" a deviance or kufr?

4. Is the claim that scribal errors are due to the Prophet's (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) deficiency/illiteracy (nauzubillah) a kufr?

----

slightly unrelated to current controversy, what about the claim that few ira'ab (that were inserted at later point) are incorrect? i.e. claiming that that the correct ira'ab should be this/that (even when that allegedly "correct" ira'ab is not part of any of the 10 qir'ats)

 

TM can claim that it was a rhetorical/hypothetical question.

 

It's not the issue of "ummi" (and how TM explained it) that is sufficiently blasphemous (to establish), but that there are scribal errors in the Qur'an that are directly attributable to being "ummi".

Thread title asks if "taking the meaning of Ummi as 'an-parh' blasphemy"; to that it also needs to be clarified:
"is ascribing scribal errors or nahwi errors in the Qur'an blasphemous?"

TM connected the 2 points. Is making such connection blasphemous?

 

the full story is, he asked him why do you do so. the imam replied: 'Allah has reprimanded the Prophet' (al iyadhu billah) clearly he was being disrespectful.

agree. but we will come to that. of c you are following the other thread.

the problem is deos (for their nefarious purpose) and illiterate awaam - do not see the fine difference and try to brush the issue under the carpet. so we need to take out piece by piece.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

It's the intent that matters (even though it may be hard at times to establish the true intent of speaker or author).
Sayyiduna 'Umar (radiAllahu anhu) ordered beheading of (munafiq) imam who repeatedly recited Surah 'Abasa in prayer, solely because the latter intended disrespect.

The pejorative manner in which TM said and emphasised the meaning of "ummi" clearly has negative connotations; no two ways about it. If TM's statement is not blasphemous, then I don't know what is.

The direct corollary of TM's statement is that mistakes in the Qur'an are extant due to the Prophet's deficiency (nauzubillah); in turn it also follows that Allah (azza wa'jal) failed to ensure that the Qur'an was free of mistake (since He took the responsibility of its preservation and safeguarding till eternity) and that it belies His claim that the Book is la-rayba fih.

Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan Naeemi also wrote about the nahwi issue in the preface to his tafsir, (but no matter how deobandis want to frame it) he didn't at all imply that any verse of the Qur'an was incorrect from nahwi perspective.

As aH pointed out, "ummi" (and for that matter numerous other words in the Qur'an and Arabic) have multiple shades of meaning. None of the mufassireen (as deobandis have been busy digging sunni tafaseer to absolve themsleves) who translated "ummi" as an-parh went on to ascribe scribal errors in the Qur'an.

TM has no alibi or escape route, other than contritely accepting that he intentionally blasphemed.

 

it is blasphemy if said in a manner that is indicative of disrespect.

 

also check here:
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/deobandi-donkey-on-quranic-grammar.15876/

 

Deobandis don't have reading skills

 

are you a gpt bot
or posting from gpt replies

 

The term "Ummi" does not imply a lack of wisdom or divine guidance. Using "an-parh" as a direct translation can be misleading. Consult Islamic scholars for accurate interpretations.

 

Sayyidi Abu Hasan, what about the tafsir of Mufti Mazharullah Dehlawi رحمة الله عليه?

In Mazhar al-Quran volume 1 p. 481?

 

Shaykh ul-Islam Madani Miyan explaining the meaning of "ummi":

 

shaykh abulhasanat was arrested and sent to jail for protesting against qadiyanis and defending "khatm e nubuwwat" in 1960s.
he wrote this tafsir as a prisoner in lahore central jail. read the first hand account by one of his companions.

vol.1 p.48

 

in fact, in the first volume, preface of the tafsir, shaykh abul hasanat justifies his use of "bey padhay":

vol.1 p.20 (on the PDF - no page number on the image)

 

one may argue that in the Hall e lughat / glossary - the shaykh (or the scribe) has mentioned "ummi" as "anpadh" - but this is easily answered. the shaykh has said that the translation is ba muhawarah / idiomatic. so it should not contain "unpadh". thereafter, he gives a word-by-word literal meaning and it is fair that he mentions: ummi as commonly translated as "unpadh".

this is also a scribe's mistake, because we know clearly the shaykh prefers "bey padha" and has explained it thus. and even if it was not, the shaykh has marked it as: 'glossary' meaning = literal translation.


P.699





P.706





notice - that in the translation of the verse 158 he has used alahazrat's translation: 'ghayb ki khabar batanay wala' and "bey padha"
but in the glossary, it is mentioned: "nabi" and "anpadh".

i think it is the scribes mistake - and even if not, it is clear that the glossary provides a literal translation for learners to compare with the contextual translation.

----
we also see that the entire tafsir is not overseen by shaykh abul hasanat - and the oversight could be on the part of his son or the assistants who were tasked to proof read.

we also see that in the first volume, literal translation is labeled thus: "lafzi tarjama"
and second volume onward, i.e. the sixth part, this portion is termed: "glossary" or "hall e lughat"

 

first thing, if it was a mistake on the part of shaykh abul hasanat, we won't hesitate to consider it a mistake and will not defend his usage.
we are not devbandis to worship our mashayikh - and we won't defend sarih mistakes if proven.

---
having said that, i am confident that it is the scribe's mistake and not the shaykh's. because, the shaykh clearly explains the meaning of the verse in the following pages. the devbandi shows us page 697 on which translation of the verse ummi is written as: "un padh".

let us go to p.701 for the tafsir of the verse:





here, the shaykh has not used "un padh" - rather he has explained that the word "ummi" is usually "bey-padha" but this messenger being nabiyy-ummi means: he gives information without reading it from somewhere.

all of us know that alahazrat used the word: 'bey padha" and the above is proof that shaykh abulhasanat was aware of this.

===
as usual, devvies may scoff at this, but i have a bigger proof for my claim. turn over to the next page, p705. the VERY NEXT ayat (v.158) on this page also has the word ummi BUT is translated as:



bey-padha
====

translation of this particular word was well known and alahazrat's translation was also highly acclaimed in literary circles - which even in the tafsir of the previous verse, the shaykh has used.

clearly it is a scribe's error.

poor devbandi is like the proverbial pig in the garden. there may be a thousand fragrant flowers, and lush trees and beautiful lawns - but the pig is not concerned with all this; if it chances upon a puddle of filth, it will gleefully wallow in it.