it is not allowed in shari'ah and there are very serious warnings in ahadith against it. also, it scraps the actual refutation. you will soon see chamaar e zaman whining about it.
Chaman Zaman says Alahazrat is muharrif
- Thread starter Aqdas
- Start date
shahnawazgm
Veteran
Just to add, Ala Hazrat (ra) was the foremost refuter of the heresies that had emerged in the subcontinent and not once did he use foul language even towards the likes of the deobandi elders. And his refutations were for crimes much worse than that of Chaman Zaman, where the heretics were targeting none other than the Beloved Prophet of Allah (saws).
There is a very good probability that Chaman Zaman's parents were pious Muslims in which case the sin committed by Muzaffar Shah sahib is much worse. In any case he should repent from those words, which won't make him look small but will elevate himself by doing so!
There is a very good probability that Chaman Zaman's parents were pious Muslims in which case the sin committed by Muzaffar Shah sahib is much worse. In any case he should repent from those words, which won't make him look small but will elevate himself by doing so!
AbdalQadir
time to move along! will check pm's.
he can be reminded of his boss iran shah; not that it makes Muzaffar saab's action right
abu Hasan
Administrator
i read 40 pages of this chaman guy's book - and the spontaneous review that springs to mind is gadhay ko za'afaran ki kya qadar.
the kind of reasoning employed by this idiot is like: chlorophyll is present in weeds - and chlorophyll is present in a rosebush. therefore, weeds are the same as a rosebush. in other words, people should cultivate weeds in their gardens.
---
while muzaffar shah sahib went overboard - i can sympathise with him, even if i do not condone his colourful language. one cannot help feeling after reading ujday chaman's screed is jootay nikalo aur is bad-bakht ke munh par char lagao [slap the face of this uncouth fellow with your slipper]. i think figurative - jootay marna - is in order.
as noori bhai pointed out, it is not permissible to invoke la'anat or call someone a mal'un - even if it is a kafir. this is the principle of ahlu's sunnah and therefore we do not send la'anat on yazid, except on those - such as abu lahab or iblis or musaylamah or anyone not mentioned as a mal'un in the qur'an or hadith.
======
the fellow has delusions of grandeur certainly. jis ahmaq ko kitab padhnay ki salahiyat nahin, magar tanqid ka shauq josh kar raha ho, phir woh aysi hi rakeek ibaraten tarashta hai aur beja iytirazat ke khashaak ko gul, aur uskay dheyr ko chaman tasawwur karleta hai. phir us farzi chaman ke phuul bhi aysay niralay hain jin mein na buu hai na rang - na nazakat, na dhang - jin ke khosha cheen ko tamyiz hi nahin, ke kya ghath hai aur kya sameen!
bahr haal, alahazrat raDi'Allahu anhu ke paak daman par apnay najis chaman ki ghalazat aur dimagh ka kichad uchalnay ki jo bhar poor koshish ki hai, to chaman ka ilmi muhasba zaroori samjha.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
the kind of reasoning employed by this idiot is like: chlorophyll is present in weeds - and chlorophyll is present in a rosebush. therefore, weeds are the same as a rosebush. in other words, people should cultivate weeds in their gardens.
---
while muzaffar shah sahib went overboard - i can sympathise with him, even if i do not condone his colourful language. one cannot help feeling after reading ujday chaman's screed is jootay nikalo aur is bad-bakht ke munh par char lagao [slap the face of this uncouth fellow with your slipper]. i think figurative - jootay marna - is in order.
as noori bhai pointed out, it is not permissible to invoke la'anat or call someone a mal'un - even if it is a kafir. this is the principle of ahlu's sunnah and therefore we do not send la'anat on yazid, except on those - such as abu lahab or iblis or musaylamah or anyone not mentioned as a mal'un in the qur'an or hadith.
======
the fellow has delusions of grandeur certainly. jis ahmaq ko kitab padhnay ki salahiyat nahin, magar tanqid ka shauq josh kar raha ho, phir woh aysi hi rakeek ibaraten tarashta hai aur beja iytirazat ke khashaak ko gul, aur uskay dheyr ko chaman tasawwur karleta hai. phir us farzi chaman ke phuul bhi aysay niralay hain jin mein na buu hai na rang - na nazakat, na dhang - jin ke khosha cheen ko tamyiz hi nahin, ke kya ghath hai aur kya sameen!
bahr haal, alahazrat raDi'Allahu anhu ke paak daman par apnay najis chaman ki ghalazat aur dimagh ka kichad uchalnay ki jo bhar poor koshish ki hai, to chaman ka ilmi muhasba zaroori samjha.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
abu Hasan
Administrator
compared to this moridiot (moron+idiot) - the clowrons of bradford appear intelligent.
the idiot thinks that 'tarjamah' means - word to word correspondence. in which case, according to chaman-zaman (CZ) a google translation will be of the highest quality. the moron has no clue that certain words in a language might not have equivalent words in the translated language. bechara chomu. he doesn't know that idioms and contexts are understood by native speakers - and a translation has to 'capture' that. in many cases, you have the choice to be literal and go against the MEANING or abandon the literal and convey the meaning of that word idiom or sentence.
this is a challenge to chomu chaman who acts as if he is some guru of usul: which usul book specifies the usage of brackets?
chaman ka khaardaar chaman, p.34
first of all, he should produce a definitive list of what constitutes a "tarjamah". he should list down the attributes of a tarjamah and on what basis these attributes are specified and according to which authorities. he should clarify where it is said that a tarjamah should not have additional words. in urdu the words ka, ki, ke are possessive particles - hai is a verb. either they should have a corresponding word in arabic, otherwise according to chaman's rules, it is not a translation. imagine urdu sentences without these words!
pahlay to ye bata'y ke tarjama kisay kahtay hain? phir tarjamah ke awsaf batayen, aur un mein kaun si sifat lazimi hai aur kaun si aarzi iski bhi tafsil bataen aur kin ayimmah e fann ne in awsaf ka zikr kiya woh bhi bataen. agar lafz ki mutabiqat zaroori hai, to "hai", "ka" "ki" "ke" waghayra alfaz jo urdu mein musta'amal hain, unki arabi kya hogi - agar arabi mein nahin hain to har urdu tarjmah se in alfaz ko nikaliye.
----
mera ye da'awa hai, ke chaman ko yaksar tarjama aur tahrif ka matlab hi nahin malum hai. agar hai, to phir likh kar bataye tarjama kisey kahtay hain aur tahrif kisay. jis chaupaye ko do tangon par khada hona nahin aata, usko motorcycle chalana kya sikhayenge?
----
the idiot thinks that 'tarjamah' means - word to word correspondence. in which case, according to chaman-zaman (CZ) a google translation will be of the highest quality. the moron has no clue that certain words in a language might not have equivalent words in the translated language. bechara chomu. he doesn't know that idioms and contexts are understood by native speakers - and a translation has to 'capture' that. in many cases, you have the choice to be literal and go against the MEANING or abandon the literal and convey the meaning of that word idiom or sentence.
this is a challenge to chomu chaman who acts as if he is some guru of usul: which usul book specifies the usage of brackets?
chaman ka khaardaar chaman, p.34
first of all, he should produce a definitive list of what constitutes a "tarjamah". he should list down the attributes of a tarjamah and on what basis these attributes are specified and according to which authorities. he should clarify where it is said that a tarjamah should not have additional words. in urdu the words ka, ki, ke are possessive particles - hai is a verb. either they should have a corresponding word in arabic, otherwise according to chaman's rules, it is not a translation. imagine urdu sentences without these words!
pahlay to ye bata'y ke tarjama kisay kahtay hain? phir tarjamah ke awsaf batayen, aur un mein kaun si sifat lazimi hai aur kaun si aarzi iski bhi tafsil bataen aur kin ayimmah e fann ne in awsaf ka zikr kiya woh bhi bataen. agar lafz ki mutabiqat zaroori hai, to "hai", "ka" "ki" "ke" waghayra alfaz jo urdu mein musta'amal hain, unki arabi kya hogi - agar arabi mein nahin hain to har urdu tarjmah se in alfaz ko nikaliye.
----
mera ye da'awa hai, ke chaman ko yaksar tarjama aur tahrif ka matlab hi nahin malum hai. agar hai, to phir likh kar bataye tarjama kisey kahtay hain aur tahrif kisay. jis chaupaye ko do tangon par khada hona nahin aata, usko motorcycle chalana kya sikhayenge?
----
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
on p36, chaman says:
call his bluff.
agar alahazrat ne "apnay ghar se aath kalimat ka izafa kiya" to tum sahih tarjama baghayr kisi izafay ke kar ke dikhau - jo tafasir ki muwafiqat karta ho.
if alahazrat "added 8 words from his house" - then chaman can show how it is done by translating hte same verses without adding any word and in a manner that it agrees with commentaries. even if you can show economy of words - you will have to still prove compatibility with aqidah and tafasir of authorities - not of some neem-rafizi of present day.
----
all of this is to prove the lies of red-beard - jisay baat baat par "RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam ka beta" kahta hai - us se kahiye ke qur'an e majeed ne hamen bata diya:
phir hadis e nabawi hai:
دخنُها من تحتِ قدمِ رجلٍ من أهلِ بيتي ، يزعم أنه مني ، وليس مني وإنما أوليائي المتَّقون
woh za'am karega ke woh mujh se hai - magar woh mujh se nahin hai. mere ahbab to muttaqi log hain
jis se saaf zahir - jo ahl e sunnat se inhiraaf karey, woh ahl e bayt kahlane ka haqdaar hi nahin.
====
call his bluff.
agar alahazrat ne "apnay ghar se aath kalimat ka izafa kiya" to tum sahih tarjama baghayr kisi izafay ke kar ke dikhau - jo tafasir ki muwafiqat karta ho.
if alahazrat "added 8 words from his house" - then chaman can show how it is done by translating hte same verses without adding any word and in a manner that it agrees with commentaries. even if you can show economy of words - you will have to still prove compatibility with aqidah and tafasir of authorities - not of some neem-rafizi of present day.
----
all of this is to prove the lies of red-beard - jisay baat baat par "RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam ka beta" kahta hai - us se kahiye ke qur'an e majeed ne hamen bata diya:
phir hadis e nabawi hai:
دخنُها من تحتِ قدمِ رجلٍ من أهلِ بيتي ، يزعم أنه مني ، وليس مني وإنما أوليائي المتَّقون
woh za'am karega ke woh mujh se hai - magar woh mujh se nahin hai. mere ahbab to muttaqi log hain
jis se saaf zahir - jo ahl e sunnat se inhiraaf karey, woh ahl e bayt kahlane ka haqdaar hi nahin.
====
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
chaman keeps saying:
chaman says: every fourth son of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is kafir according to you.
chaman has to prove how did he do this survey and which are these people, in which books, speeches did they declare "every fourth son" a kafir? al iyadhu billah. unless of course, chaman refers to the rawafiz - in whom "sayyids" spring up from nowhere and every fourth rafizi claims to be a sayyid!
sub'HanAllah. is gadhay se kahiye, ke jo qa'idah bataya us par amal karay:
chaman says: every fourth son of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is kafir according to you.
chaman has to prove how did he do this survey and which are these people, in which books, speeches did they declare "every fourth son" a kafir? al iyadhu billah. unless of course, chaman refers to the rawafiz - in whom "sayyids" spring up from nowhere and every fourth rafizi claims to be a sayyid!
sub'HanAllah. is gadhay se kahiye, ke jo qa'idah bataya us par amal karay:
Last edited:
AbdalQadir
time to move along! will check pm's.
i'm surprised you actually took the pain to expose this donkey's stupidity
seriously, all he has exposed in that piece is his incredibly low iq. naaqis-ul-3aql wives and kids give better arguments, accusations and tantrums than this jahalat when arguing with men
it's not just about being the 3ilmi khaain that he is, wahabis and rawafid are too - but this guy's really dumber than a rock.
i wager than he can't even pass a plain Urdu language test (irrespective of religion) or a 5th grade math exam!
abu Hasan
Administrator
pichlay daur mein jo bad-deen thay, qadray un mein ilm ki buu aur samajhne ki salahiyat thi. hamaray daur mein - aur hamaray hissay mein bas gadhay hain - aur in ka radd hai.
not an activity i enjoy, but alahazrat par jo bhaunkay to do char pathhar phenkne hi par ye dum daba ke bhagenge.
====
chaman on p.40 says:
'dhoond dhoond' kar - is tuhmat ki daleel bhi chaman hi dega. baat baat pay nasibi kahnay wala apna rifz na chupa saka.
chaman says: "they have only one job to do: to find the sons of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam one by one and spend their energies making fun of them and mock at them"
this is a claim for which chaman should present proof - is rightfully criticising a neem-rafizi's wayward "tafsir" making fun of him? or is that fellow making fun of our deen and the qur'an?
---
i will in-sha'Allah reply to chaman's attacks on alahazrat and his kanz one by one - bechara diljala (as a brother noted) couldn't contain his hatred of alahazrat and he thought he could vomit all the filth he has swallowed, by playing the devil's advocate. not realising that he became the devil himself! [is chakkar mein khud devil ban gaya!]
---
apologies for brothers who don't understand urdu - as i keep interspersing urdu in my posts. i have tried to translate it alongside.
chaman ke jhoot ka bhi andaza kijiey. according to chaman, he has 'browsed thousands of dictionaries' in urdu. if he is challenging you by saying: "you will not find it even if you scan a thousand dictionaries" - he should be told that the frog in the pond should not croak so loudly. lungs phat jaenge.
it all goes back to what tarjamah means - is it a word-to-word correspondence as in a dictionary?
because we can use the same technique for his translation of ibarat - which are not even from the qur'an!
Last edited:
AbdalQadir
time to move along! will check pm's.
he thinks he's a super intelligent super chamcha (dog as he calls himself) of that rafidi shah and he has crafted the world's greatest most air tight rebuttal that will bowl out all of his puppetmaster's detractors, its salient points being
1. emotional blackmail in the name of love of Sayyids
2. the world's greatest, most impressive, airtight, foolproof ilzami jawab - if you call rafidi shah's jahil translation and explanations as tahreef, you will be morally and logically bound to also call your Fazile Barelwi's translation as tahreef; by extension, if you implicate rafidi shah of kufr, you would be bound to implicate your imam too of kufr
the idiot thinks he's Fakhruddin Al-Razi while he doesn't even know how to make a sound comparison, or what to compare, or how to respond, or how to issue an ilzami jawab
abu Hasan
Administrator
the devil's advocate says:
translation: if a scholar, elder, grandson of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - not in a translation but discussing indications - if he says something, he becomes a "muharrif e qur'an"...
===
tarjamah ho ya ishaarat - qur'an ki taraf koyi baat nisbat karay to ye taqaza hai ke aql aur naql se muwafiqat ho - chaman bechara in usulon ko nahin jaanta - magar ek usul yeh bhi hai kalam e arab mein in muhawaron ka istiymal paya jaaey.
whether it is a translation or an implication - if one attributes something to be 'from the qur'an', it is necessary that it should be compatible with reason (meaning: wild interpretations are unacceptable) and with transmitted evidence (i.e. from hadith or tafsir of sahabah-tabiyin). further interpretations should be consistent with usage of the ancient arabs - it is therefore you will find poetic lines of poetry from jahiliyah (pagan times) in tafasir. poor chaman - he has no clue of ulum al-qur'an and hence he barks wildly.
it becomes tahrif when a meaning is concocted without any basis - neither in qur'an-hadith or can be derived from similar usage - or the opinion of a sahabi or tabiyi - or it corroborates a commonly observed phenomenon.
the million dollar question is: which sunni tafsir supports riaz shah's tahrif? that makanan-aliyya means hazrat idris alayhis salam is buried in the same grave as hazrat ali? which dictionary
what stupid "ishaarat" is it? for example, if one says "riaz is lying on his bed" - can it be linguistically feasible to mean, "riaz died and became dust and his grave is in rabwa".
"riaz apnay bistar par pada hua hai" - can it be linguistically feasible to mean, "riaz matti mein milgaya aur uski qabr rabwah mein hai"?
when alahazrat said: insaniyat ki jaan hazrat muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - for "insan", it is derived thus:
insan -> could refer to a special insan -> i.e. hazrat aadam alayhis salam or muhammad sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.
now, you could just name the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - but to correlate with the word "insan" - alahazrat replaced with the essence of the word: because the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is indeed the soul of mankind.
or chaman zaman should say that he does not believe in it. if he accepts it, then where is the tahrif? if he doesn't accept it - he should be a man enough to boldly state his belief. he should not be like لا إلى هولاء ولا إلى هولاء
the moron - i mean chaman zaman - should prove that "insan" does not refer to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam absolutely if he claims it is tahrif.
===
zad al masir of ibn jawzi
makki ibn abi talib
wahidi in al-wajiz
nasafi in madarik
tafsir sam'ani
====
we will go in more detail in sha'Allah concerning other false allegations of chaman.
translation: if a scholar, elder, grandson of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - not in a translation but discussing indications - if he says something, he becomes a "muharrif e qur'an"...
===
tarjamah ho ya ishaarat - qur'an ki taraf koyi baat nisbat karay to ye taqaza hai ke aql aur naql se muwafiqat ho - chaman bechara in usulon ko nahin jaanta - magar ek usul yeh bhi hai kalam e arab mein in muhawaron ka istiymal paya jaaey.
whether it is a translation or an implication - if one attributes something to be 'from the qur'an', it is necessary that it should be compatible with reason (meaning: wild interpretations are unacceptable) and with transmitted evidence (i.e. from hadith or tafsir of sahabah-tabiyin). further interpretations should be consistent with usage of the ancient arabs - it is therefore you will find poetic lines of poetry from jahiliyah (pagan times) in tafasir. poor chaman - he has no clue of ulum al-qur'an and hence he barks wildly.
it becomes tahrif when a meaning is concocted without any basis - neither in qur'an-hadith or can be derived from similar usage - or the opinion of a sahabi or tabiyi - or it corroborates a commonly observed phenomenon.
the million dollar question is: which sunni tafsir supports riaz shah's tahrif? that makanan-aliyya means hazrat idris alayhis salam is buried in the same grave as hazrat ali? which dictionary
what stupid "ishaarat" is it? for example, if one says "riaz is lying on his bed" - can it be linguistically feasible to mean, "riaz died and became dust and his grave is in rabwa".
"riaz apnay bistar par pada hua hai" - can it be linguistically feasible to mean, "riaz matti mein milgaya aur uski qabr rabwah mein hai"?
when alahazrat said: insaniyat ki jaan hazrat muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - for "insan", it is derived thus:
insan -> could refer to a special insan -> i.e. hazrat aadam alayhis salam or muhammad sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.
now, you could just name the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - but to correlate with the word "insan" - alahazrat replaced with the essence of the word: because the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is indeed the soul of mankind.
or chaman zaman should say that he does not believe in it. if he accepts it, then where is the tahrif? if he doesn't accept it - he should be a man enough to boldly state his belief. he should not be like لا إلى هولاء ولا إلى هولاء
the moron - i mean chaman zaman - should prove that "insan" does not refer to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam absolutely if he claims it is tahrif.
===
zad al masir of ibn jawzi
makki ibn abi talib
wahidi in al-wajiz
nasafi in madarik
tafsir sam'ani
====
we will go in more detail in sha'Allah concerning other false allegations of chaman.
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
translation: thus: if the translation of bayan is "description of ma kaana wa maa yakuun" then those folks who have translated "insan" in the previous verse as "human" - does this mean a common man was also taught the knowledge of ma kana wa ma yakun?
---
hilarious. this chaman fellow is unhinged. qiyas ka mi'yyar dekhiye.
agar pichli ayat mein jin hazarat ne insan ka tarjamah insan kiya - woh bayan ka tarjamah bayan karenge. kyunke aayaat mein irtibat hai.
in akhbar al-hamqa, ibn al-jawzi tells a joke about juHaa:
his father died and he was told to buy shroud (kafan) for his father. he said: 'i am afraid that if i go to buy his shroud, i will miss the funeral prayer'.
===
bayan = "maa kana wa ma yakun" when insan = RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
bayan = "names of things, when insan = adam alayhi's salam
bayan = six different meanings when insan = human (meaning any man)
1. speech and discernment
2. (bayan of) halal and haram
3. that which he says and what is said to him
4. (bayan of) good and evil
5. ways of guidance
6. ability to write and script (i.e. handwriting)
this is from zad al-masir of ibn al-jawzi.
---
this is why ulama insist on ma'ani and balaghah for a student. to comprehend the written word and gain a capability to decipher manTuq and mafhoom (explictly said and implicitly understood by context) because if a village idiot like chomu zaman begins to interpret the qur'an with a dictionary - and has no clue of badiy, bayan, ma'ani, majaz - the village idiot will add 2+2 and make it 22.
---
nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
abu Hasan
Administrator
chomu miyan ki shan mein ab laqab kharr-e-chaman hon chahiye. ke unkay mutabiq har aayat ya lafz ka ek hi ma'ana hona chahiye. aur agar do huwey to jis ma'ana ka inkar karega woh kafir hoga.
jab is gadhay ko "nass e qur'an" ka matlab nahin pata - usko tarjmah, tafsir aur tahrif mein imtiyaz kya nazar aayegi.
when the donkey does not know the meaning of "nass e qur'an" - how can he understand the difference between a translation/interpretation, commentary and/or distortion?
someone should inform this idiot that "nass" means the exact words of the qur'an. one becomes a kafir if they deny that "bayan" is in this verse. but if one denies its interpretation, they are not considered as 'rejecting the nass'.
challenge to chomu miyan: prove that "ma kana wa ma yakun" is nass-e-qur'an in this verse.
in fact, if you stretch it - chomu miyan claims that "ma kana wa ma yakun" is nass of qur'an; and one who claims that something is 'nass" whereas it is not, is certainly a kafir.
pahlay chomu miyan apnay sar se kufr ka ilzam haTa'en.
====
stupidity on wheels.
---
tahrif nahin hai bhai. tahrif ke ta'arif to pahle bayan karo. akhir tum bhi to insan kahlate ho.
this is not distortion. you must first explain the meaning of distortion [tahrif].
jab is gadhay ko "nass e qur'an" ka matlab nahin pata - usko tarjmah, tafsir aur tahrif mein imtiyaz kya nazar aayegi.
when the donkey does not know the meaning of "nass e qur'an" - how can he understand the difference between a translation/interpretation, commentary and/or distortion?
someone should inform this idiot that "nass" means the exact words of the qur'an. one becomes a kafir if they deny that "bayan" is in this verse. but if one denies its interpretation, they are not considered as 'rejecting the nass'.
challenge to chomu miyan: prove that "ma kana wa ma yakun" is nass-e-qur'an in this verse.
in fact, if you stretch it - chomu miyan claims that "ma kana wa ma yakun" is nass of qur'an; and one who claims that something is 'nass" whereas it is not, is certainly a kafir.
pahlay chomu miyan apnay sar se kufr ka ilzam haTa'en.
====
stupidity on wheels.
---
tahrif nahin hai bhai. tahrif ke ta'arif to pahle bayan karo. akhir tum bhi to insan kahlate ho.
this is not distortion. you must first explain the meaning of distortion [tahrif].
abu Hasan
Administrator
this is about the translation of verse 55 of surah ghafir.
zahir hai, chomu ka mablagh e ilm to ma'amuli arabi hi hai. bechare ki kya shikayat karen.
the imbecile claims to be a follower of imam maturidi. according to him ordinary arabic reader "knows" that 'kaa' is a pronoun, and should therefore it should be translated as: 'your sins"
when the chomu graduates from 'ma'muli arabic' to higher level arabic he will understand why it is so.
qurtubi in tafsir:
related to the same, chaman says: on p48:
ye gadha apnay aap ko imam maturidi ka payrukar batata hai - to zara dekhen imam maturidi ne kaa ka kya kiya hai.
chomu clarified one thing: that his arabic is only ma'muli level. poor chaman - kash koyi is ahmaq ko arabi padhaney wala hotaa..
zahir hai, chomu ka mablagh e ilm to ma'amuli arabi hi hai. bechare ki kya shikayat karen.
the imbecile claims to be a follower of imam maturidi. according to him ordinary arabic reader "knows" that 'kaa' is a pronoun, and should therefore it should be translated as: 'your sins"
when the chomu graduates from 'ma'muli arabic' to higher level arabic he will understand why it is so.
qurtubi in tafsir:
related to the same, chaman says: on p48:
ye gadha apnay aap ko imam maturidi ka payrukar batata hai - to zara dekhen imam maturidi ne kaa ka kya kiya hai.
chomu clarified one thing: that his arabic is only ma'muli level. poor chaman - kash koyi is ahmaq ko arabi padhaney wala hotaa..
AbdalQadir
time to move along! will check pm's.
Yes and any upcoming ulama in training can also translate and transcribe in Urdu, and have their teachers check it, and mail a copy to the ujrha chaman. Will be a great homework for them in Urdu language. For example, Shahid Ali can translate to Urdu, get it checked by Bandyalwi sahib, and send it off to ujrha chaman.
chammar e zaman has already whined about it in a reply (radd e shubhaat) to sayyid muzaffar shah sahib;
AbdalQadir
time to move along! will check pm's.
Apparently Kaukab noorani okarvi is pro chaman too!
I clearly remember the time he said in front of me that he doesn't want to share the stage with someone who denies the sahabi status of Ameer Mu3awiyah radi Allahu 3anhu.
hilariously apposite sher comes to mind
Zameene chaman gul khilati hai kya kya
Badalta hai rang aasmaan kaise kaise
Zar mureed, zar khareed, never liked him.