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

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.

 

A new video has come out by Deobandi Duo where they find that Mufassir e Qur'an, Abu al-Hasanat Sayyid Muhammad Ahmad Qadiri has used the term an-parh in his Tafsir.



He posits that ‘Allamah Faiz Ahmad Uwaysi states that using an-parh for RasulAllah ﷺ is bey-adabi and gustakhi—does gustakhi always mean blasphemy? Are there other meanings of gustakhi?

I've checked the scan in Tafsir e Hasanat and it is present on Page 697 of Volume 2 - https://archive.org/details/tafseerehasanat_Complete/تفسیر حسنات جلد 2/page/n751/mode/2up