why should we not trust orientalists? because there is no such rule as 'cannot accepting report from a liar' in any culture, except our isnad culture. especially orientalists - they are kafirs and they have no say in islamic matters. of course, they can say anything they like in a free country, but muslims should not bother about their opinions. ---- continuing from yesterday's example of lane. lane writes: summary [the unsaid in brackets]: 1. lane's lexicon is mainly based on taj al-arus. [but how can i give him credit so easily?]2. "some persons in cairo" said that sayyid murtada was not its author. 3. it was the work of a "certain learned man" from western africa, whose name could also not be ascertained by lane. 4. this "certain learned man" gave the copy of taj al-arus to zabidi for safekeeping and proceeded to makkah for pilgrimage. 5. this "certain learned man" passed away in makkah. 6. so murtada zabidi published it as his own work.he casually poisons the pond. try this: someone told me that lane was a philanderer and an elderly and lonely scot residing in cairo at that time, gave him the manuscript of the "lexicon". lane published it in his own name. of course, lane was himself capable of doing it, but - you know, his extra curricular activities kept him busy and he had to answer his patron - so upon the death of the old scot, lane was free to publish it - because no one in cairo could speak english and they thought it was mad markings. of course, it doesn't sound genuine, but i had to say this. how does it look? ---- being a lexicographer is not an ordinary feat especially 200 years ago. and if there was one - he would automatically gain fame. and if someone so learned, passed from western africa through cairo, it would be well-known. what is the reason for secrecy? here is where the orientalist fails in concocting a lie. it was a practice of ulama to carry a copy of their own work to place it in the haramayn - for two reasons; one, to gain blessing and two, because people came here from all over the world. they would make copies of the book and take it back to their own lands and spread it. but this learned man left it to zabidi and didn't take it to haramayn. but he quickly covers himself by saying: i did not find to be credited by any of the learned, nor do i myself believe it; see? simple. call someone a thief, attribute it to some "unknown persons" and distance yourself from this saying you don't believe it. ----- this is a common trick of orientalists to discredit the work of people in the east - or present themselves as superior to them in some manner. he first made an accusation, then he himself discounted it; then, he praised zabidi that he was capable himself. but he didn't let it go. he poured some more poison - lest you think highly of murtada zabidi, upon whose work lane based his work upon. classic namak harami. so what lane does next is accuse murtada zabidi of plagiarism. "failing to render due honour to one of the most laborious of compilers, by not stating either that the taj el-aroos was mainly derived in the first instance from the lisan el-arab (which i believe to have been the case) or that the contents of the former are mainly found in the latter." summary: 1. murtada zabidi copied large chunks of data from lisan al-arab: 2. his estimation: 75% to 90% of taj al-arus is copied from lisan al-arab. 3. "want of candour" - meaning zabidi didn't disclose this - by NOT stating taj was derived from lisan. 4. or that the contents of the former found in latter. ===== anyone who has seen both lisan and taj will only laugh at this assertion. not only this, but he says 75% to 90% of taj is lisan! apart form bald faced lies only an orientalist is capable of. imam zabidi in the the foreword of his magnum opus, taj al-arus says: i have sought help from the books that Allah ta'ala by His Grace has made it easy for me to peruse; and to take help from them. and i have cited from those books directly, not via secondary sources... ... ... the first of these books - and the most superior of them all according to masters of this science, and the most valuable, is kitab al-siHaH by imam, hujjah, abu naSr al-jawhari. the copy that i have is in eight volumes, in the hand of yaqut rumi. and on its margins are useful notes by abu muhammad ibn barriy and abu zakariyya tabrizi. i found this in the library of the governor azbek. 2. tahzib: imam abu mansur al-az'hari in 16 volumes. 3. al-muHkam: ibn sidah in 8 volumes. 4. tahzib al-abniyah wa'l af'aal: abu'l qasim ibn al-qaTTa'a in 2 volumes. 5. lisan al-arab: by imam jamaluddin muhammad ibn mukarram ibn aliy al-ifriqi in 28 volumes. and it is a copy transcribed in the lifetime of the author from his drafts [musawwadah] in which he has relied upon: SiHaH, tahdhib, muHkam, nihayah, gloss of ibn barriy, jamharah ibn durayd. the two hadith masters [hafizaan] dhahabi and subki have narrated from him. he was born in 630 AH and passed away in 711 AH. --- he has prominently mentioned the author of lisan and his work, and has acknowledged that he has used data from these works. what else should he have done? as for taj being 75%-90% copy of lisan, it is an egregious claim. for example, check the first entry in lisan: now check the entry for the same word in zabidi's taj: ==== according to lane, 75-90% of taj ["additions to qamus"] is taken from lisan. ---- and his own claim of referring to other dictionaries, thereby putting himself on a higher pedestal? we will see that too.
tariq masud is like benjamin netanyahu. most of the twitterati supporters are also the same. they are not worried about the damage these things do to muslims; the care only about their followers on SM and their "reputation". what TM is doing is similar to satanyahu's decisions in this round of israeli terrorism. (note: muslims should stop referring to the tragedies of gaza and the massacres of lebanon as 'war' or 'attack' and consistently refer as israeli terrorism). --- sub'HanAllah, the Qur'an is Divinely protected. even an army of a million swine-eating, wine-drinking, philandering orientalists will not be able to harm the Book of Allah. we are not worried about that - because, it is not our responsibility to safeguard it. the damage will be done to muslims. especially people like tulaib, who are wannabe scholars, do not seem to have requisite qualifications and to save face on twitter and win an argument rely on opinions of orientalists. i went to his TL and stumbled on the orientalist kafir, marjin and he was so confidentally talking about stuff as if he personally got it from abu amr al-daani. and tulaib's tweets clearly have picked from this orientalists tweets. check out the stark similarities. these muslims, are unwittingly becoming a pawn of kuffar. they are being instigated to spread the propaganda of orientalists, sowing doubts about the qur'an etc and their "NEW RESEARCH" cow manure. the result is, a number of arabic illiterates* with degrees in worldly professions, begin to doubt their own scholars. i guess this is what needled the guy, when i referred to him as an orientalist. ---- in the past century, many attempts have been made to attack the qur'an and establish/prove that it is not immutable as muslims claim. and rasm has become one of their favourite corners to shoot - because it is easy to confuse the unsuspecting onlooker in our times. people are so besotted with visual media - that if someone shows pictures of old manuscripts, or ancient copies of the qur'an, they get easily impressed. fools who have no idea of the towering imams of qur'an sciences begin to consider these third-rate 'researchers' at par with a suyuti or a zarkashi or a sakhawi. if 100,000 professors of the top universities of the world tell me that it is A and not B; and if our imams say 'A', and no difference of opinion among sunni scholars that merits attention - i will say 'A'. muslims should not take their religion from kuffar. for them, the qur'an is a hobby, a profession. the orientalist looks at the qur'an as any other book. popular book but just another book. but why would he bother about the qur'an and not any other? because, he looks at it similar to a bestseller. it is very popular - so my research or papers or work has a bigger audience. not that he attaches value to the qur'an as a service to the qur'an. so this kafir orientalist, will read the qur'an and qur'an sciences in a state of filth, probably hanging out with his girlfriend, sipping wine. do you think he will wash, pray and treat the qur'an with devotion as a muslim would? then, it doesn't matter for him to call it an 'error' if his small brain, and little learning cannot comprehend an issue. in fact, he will be excited that he might have found that elusive 'mistake' which can demolish the 'muslim narrative' and will expend his energy to find evidence for his theory; may even write papers to promote it. but i, as any other muslim, look at this as the Word of God. so my approach to the qur'an, and my respect and reverence is absent in the kafir orientalist. (ma'adh Allah) i cannot disrespect it, i cannot take it lightly, i cannot be careless about it. i do not look at it as 'research material'. it is my life. i recite it to gain reward, i seek to understand it for it is my duty as a muslim, and i do not have the smallest of misgivings concerning the qur'an. of course, i can easily access, read and refer to numerous tafasir and books on qur'an sciences, wa lillahi'l hamd. but if i come across something that baffles me, or i do not understand something, i do not think that it is an error in the book - Haasha lillah. i am, but a student, but the most prominent muslim researchers and scholars of the qur'an, will do the same. in spite of their erudition, they will not rush to label something as an error in the qur'an - rather, they will reflect and research further, and try to find that missing information, because of which they cannot understand this thing. the qur'an is noor. it guides and protects us - not that we have to protect it. however, we will fight who will try to attack it - openly or surreptiously. ------ another important thing one should remember is that almost all orientalists, excepting a few are not masters of arabic. they learn arabic as a foreign language, may even gain a good command that many ajami muslims may not - but their understanding of the language is not the same as native arabs. i don't think he - or any orientalist - has the ability to produce a masterpiece of poetry; our ulama were so proficient in the language (after all they were native speakers!) that they could compose lengthy odes on any subject! so you should know the difference between an outsider who gains knowledge by reading to a skilled practitioner; a foreign observer of a people of totally different culture, will write about what he observes (his biases, prejudices, errors of observation included) but can never learn about the culture until he has lived among that people for a very long time. so his knowledge remains superficial - apart from spurious additions that he introduced due to his own inability to understand the culture. one who has merely read about surgery and medicine, cannot argue with a surgeon with decades of experience, or fault him for doing something not in the book. --- lane, one of the famous arabists who translated from arabic dictionaries in the lexicon - is mostly a translation of zabidi's taj al-arus. but yet, you can see that he is merely a translator - not a master of arabic. he does a good job of translating arabic definitions - on the cover page he claims he 'fixes' defective explanations of 'qamoos' - i.e., of fayruzabadi. this is hot air. 95% of the lexicon is copied from murtada zabidi's taj al-arus, but still he has the temerity to accuse zabidi of plagiarism! ============== though lane's lexicon is extensive and useful, he is not above criticism. the lexicon has its flaws, but what offends me is the author's arrogance - and the way he presents himself as superior to all other ulama of the past! the manner is which he talks about lexicographers is dismissive and almost always, with a hint of derisiveness. in other words, erudition apart, the guy was so full of himself and probably imagined that he was the greatest arabic scholar in history. for example: note the tone in which he speaks and the sophisticated manner in which he proves himself better than all others. first he praises one of the group and discounting all others. since he is praising one among the scholars, one would not mind. then, he slowly faults this 'better than all others'. then he drops something and says in a way that no one has done before me, which appears to be one notch above the best scholar. while he did not expressly claim it, the reader is bound to take away this conclusion subconsciously. all of this is done by casually dropping negative descriptors. see one more example of shaykh ibrahim dussuqi in next post. i also have a personal grudge against this kafir orientalist for his insinuations against a man like murtada zabidi. but that is how all orientalists are - drop a little poison in otherwise a rich and nutritious dessert. more on it shortly. ===
