on page 68 imam naqi ali states the general ruling concerning such passages: warning: the attribution of such words towards esteemed prophets - words which are outwardly unbecoming of describing prophets - are not permissible, even if their meaning is correct. the words a king uses to address his minister, cannot be used by a commoner. Allah ta'ala has said: وَعَصَىٰۤ ءَادَمُ رَبَّهُۥ فَغَوَىٰ and aadam made an error... if you [that is humans] say: "aadam was a sinner", your tongue will be pulled out. [i.e. you will be punished severely for disrespecting prophets]. only Allah ta'ala can say this - and He says this to His beloved slaves, in a loving manner, and it is not undesirable [for those it is said] either. ===== would imam naqi himself say it? sub'HanAllah.
further on page 75, imam naqi ali repeats this idea: ...but the affairs of the follower [tabiy] are attributed to the leader [matbu`u]. it is said: the king executed zayd. or the king fought and won a certain kingdom. even though - it is the executioner who killed zayd - and it was the army that fought. Allah ta'ala has said: لِّیَغۡفِرَ لَكَ ٱللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِن ذَنۢبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ "so that He forgives the sins of your ancestors and those of your followers.." even though, the Master (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) is free from sin. ====
my contention is that mawlana naqi ali never wrote those lines. how can i be sure? well you need to read the entire discussion to understand the author's viewpoint. --- i remind, the alleged translation is on page 62 (of my copy). let us go to page 61: we see the same aayat cited but the translation is different. o my beloved, i have forgiven all those matters that occurred prior to prophethood - and any lapses [qusur] that may occur afterward. be at peace in your heart, and do not worry about anything or let disturb your delicate feelings. We shall keep increasing blessings upon you day by day - and you will not be held accountable [mu'akhadhah] or questioned for ANYTHING or any matter. aTa khurasani has said that "previous sins" [dhanb mutaqaddam] refer to the lapse of sayyiduna aadam [alayhis salam] and later [muta'akh-khar] are the sins of his followers. this idiom [muhawarah] is used in this manner in the qur'an elsewhere. in most places, the lapses of ancestors [abaa o ajdaad] are attributed to sons and their children - and the actions of progeny and followers are attributed to ancestors/leaders. and in reality the attribute belongs to state of that related - and sometimes, it is attributed to the thing itself. for example, it is said: "this tree is sweet or sour" - even though, the attribute belongs to the fruit of the tree. it is also said: "the rider is fast" - even though, it is the attribute of the horse. thus, here it is being said: "O our beloved! do not subject your blessed soul to sorrow and agony for your sinful followers [ummat e gunahgar] - We will forgive their sins for your sake; and the lapse of your mother and father - Hawwa and Aadam (alayhima's salam) were forgiven on account of your relation [or for your sake] - so the sins of your followers, because of which you seek forgiveness [istighfar] day and night - and are worry for their salvation day and night, and are restless on their account, and you undertake hardship for their sake thinking how will they be forgiven... [end of page 61] ============ continuing on page 62: [see previous post for urdu original] some have said that this was said only in the honour of the prophet and to elevate his esteem; this is similar to a king if he tells a minister who is very close to him - or his prime minister - to distinguish him from others: "we have forgiven 3 murders on your part". this does not mean that the murders actually took place or will happen in the future. [it is just an expression to indicate the privilege he has]. ---- and lo and behold! few lines after, he allegedly translates it differently and against the lengthy explanation and justification he has given just a few lines earlier. does it make sense?
the fact that the printed version is from a defective / incomplete copy of the manuscript was sufficient to absolve mawlana naqi ali khan but we will go further. first let us check what ahqar devbandi quoted. reproducing the same page below (page numbers may vary but the composed page is the same. in my copy, this is on page 62: this is the accusation - that mawlana translated as: "your previous and later sins". highlighted in pink.
in the foreword, the editor, mawlana wajihuddin qadri writes that mufti azam mawlana mustafa raza khan expressed his desire to see the work of his grandfather, mawlana naqi ali khan published and thus it was published. mawlana fayzan ali began the work based on the copy made from the manuscript and the original manuscript could not be found. in this copy of the manuscript, the editor notes that in places, pages, lines and words are missing - and in some places, the same lines are repeated. and in some places, they are moth-eaten. wherever it was possible, corrections were made based on the context, filling the words/lines based on before and after the missing ones; and where it was incomprehensible, places were left blank. ===== the editor mentions that every effort was expended to ensure that the book was published as close to the available copy of the manuscript, and in spite of this care, if errors have crept in, this must be deemed the shortcoming of the publishers and not the author. ---- the original manuscript was lost. a copy from the manuscript survived. we do not know the copyist's name even this copy had words and lines - even pages missing. in places, the writing was unclear and in some other places, it was moth-eaten so the editors filled in what was best possible and where it was impossible to guess, they left the place blank. the editors have taken upon themselves the blame for any error that might have crept in. note that this was first published in 1975 - a full 105 years after the passing of the author. ---- so we reject any accusation by devbandis that mawlana naqi ali also translated the verse as such. this is the first proof in absolving mawlana naqi ali. more will follow, in sha'Allah.
his argument is: "mawlana naqi ali khan used it, so don't blame our devbandi maulvis for doing the same". ---- this is from my copy of the book - (which is also the same hand written copy reproduced by ahqar)
