devbandis imputing sins to prophets / surah fat'h v2 - surah qital v19

[abu Hasan]

deobandis of today are lecturing us and attempt to critique kanz for "not being mindful of ismat" based on their false reading, whereas their scholars have clearly imputed "sin" in the translations for prophets in various places in the qur'an.

there are many reasons for the superiority of kanz, and one specific aspect which is head and shoulders above all translations is the mindfulness of the ismat of Prophets alayhimus salam and their honour.

=============
mahmud al hasan, translating surah fath, v2:

"so that Allah forgives you that sins which commited prior and that which remain.."

no hesitation in attributing sins. modern devs like taqi usmani are subdued due to the backlash - else their elders were candid in their belief.

=====
the same mahmud translating, surah muhammad, s47 v19:

"...seek forgiveness for your sins..."

===========

thanawi translating verses from surah fath' v2:

surah al-qital, v19:

=====
taqi usmani in his urdu trans, subdued and in the tafsir clarifies ismat but the translation is milder version of his elders. but we know he is a hypocrite. see his hunting with the hound and running with the hare gymnastics elsewhere in arabic. (justifying ibn taymiyyah's tajsim)

fath' v2

qital, v19

==============
shafi usmani in ma'arifu'l qur'an (citing mahmud hasan's translation)

 

[abu Hasan]

how alahazrat translated this:

below page is from appendix of upcoming BeS v1 (bahar e shariat vol.1)

======
imam razi relevant snippets from surah fath v2 and surah qital v19

=====

people in glass houses and all that.

=========

 

[abu Hasan]

those aayat when translated literally or without consideration to ismah, are translated imputing sin to prophets by leading devbandis. only modern apologists equivocate - retaining words of their akabir BUT 'explaining' as shafi usmani did

devs do it in numerous places. it is not a one off oversight. this is just a quick sample. if the ahmaq who made the original posts wants an urdu translation with true creed, stick to kanz. see mahmud hasan's translations

----------------

mahmud hasan
surah yusuf:

"and he contemplated about the woman..."
translating 'hamma biha' as if hazrat yusuf alayhis salam contemplated sin..

====
mahmud surah taha:

"adam violated the command of his Lord and went astray from the path.."

=======
one of the most tasteless translations: "and we found you wandering so made you understand the way"

=====
surat an'aam mahmud translated "hadha rabbi?" as an assertive statement!

"the night brought out a star and he said: this is my lord.."
"when the moon shone, he said: this is my lord..."
" when the saw the sun brightly shining, he said: this is my lord..."

=================
notice how alahazrat translated the verses from surah al-an'aam, and no one can fault the lexical accuracy either.

the same by alahazrat:

"when the night came and he saw a star, he said: do you assign THIS as my lord?'

"when he saw the moon shining, he said: do you pronounce THIS is my lord?"

"when he saw the sun effulgent, he said: do you say THIS is my lord?

 

[HASSAN]

The Deobandi has written up another thread on imputing sins -
https://x.com/ibn_fakhruddin/status/1812187246440726633

 

[AbdalQadir]

The Deobandi has written up another thread on imputing sins -
https://x.com/ibn_fakhruddin/status/1812187246440726633

he really is ahqar and haqeer.

he's only shifting the goal post with yet more red herrings. if he was a person of integrity and believed in judgment day, he would first address abu Hasan's point of catching him out on imputing faulty English translations to Ala Hazrat.

that said, it looks like he's a trained andh bhakt, from the thread you mentioned.

so now it's clear from both these threads that he's trained in shamelessness, dishonesty, lies, and lack of integrity.

 

[Hassan_0123]

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/202...ns-of-ahmad-rida-khan-barelwi-shaykh-al-hind/

 

[AR Ahmed]

Response to these quotes -https://x.com/ibn_fakhruddin/status/1812187353550598254

Allegation 1: Mawlana Sirāj ahmad qadri translates fath2 as ”تاکہ بخش دے تمہارے واسطے سے سب اگلے پچھلے گناہ۔“ So that for you your former & latter sins be forgiven. Then Maulana sahab justifies how the one addressed is huzoor ﷺ but the verse is meant for Ummah referencing bukhari Shareef.

Allegation 2: Imam Ahmad Rida Khan translates,

“واستغر لذنبک...“


as


مغفرت مانگ اپنے گناہوں کی اور سب مسلمان مردوں اور مسلمان عورتوں کے لئے


i.e. Ask for forgiveness for your SINS and for every muslim men and Muslim women. (fadail al dua)


Allegation 3: Imam Naqi Ali Khan, who is titled as Miracle amongst the miracle of Sayyidil Mursaleen ﷺ by Aala Hadhrat translates,


“تاکہ معاف کرے اللہ تیرے اگلے پچھلے گناہ“


i.e. So that Allah forgives your former & latter SINS.

(see al kalam al awdah)

Allegation 4: Muhaddith e Azam mawlana Sardar Ahmad writes:


When the verse was revealed (that) all your former & latter SINS are forgiven then Huzoor ﷺ said that this is more dearer to me than the whole world.


Note: He said this in dawra hadith lecture.

Allegation 5: Allama Faz e Haq Khayrābadi


Whilst translating the same verse in Persian, Khayrābadi used the term gunaah (i.e. Sin)


Shafa’at e Mustafa ﷺ p270


Response:

Firstly Alahazrat قدس الله سره writes in volume 29 of Fatawa Ridawiyya Sharif:

(۵)بلکہ خود نفس عبارت گواہ ہے کہ یہ جسے ذنب فرمایا گیا ہر گز حقیقۃً ذنب بمعنی گناہ نہیں۔

Secondly, if this is addressed to the Prophet alayhi salatu wa salam, the word “gunah” here or “Dhanb” in Arabic is referring to khilaf al awla or tark al awla. Shah Abd ul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi alayhirrahmah writes:


درقرآن مجید بآدم نسبت عصیان کردہ وعتاب نمودہ مبنی برعلوشان قرب اوست ومالک رامیرسدکہ برترک اولی وافضل اگرچہ بحد معصیت نرسد بہ بندئہ خود ہرچہ خواہد بگوید وعتاب نماید دیگری رامجال نہ کہ تواندگفت واینجا ادبی ست کہ لازم ست رعایت آن وآن انیست کہ اگر از جانب حضرت بہ بعض انبیا کہ مقربان درگاہ اند عتابی وخطابی رودیا از جانب ایشان کہ بندگان خاص اویند تواضعی وذلتی وانکساری صادر گرددکہ موہم نقص بود مارانبایدکہ دران دخل کینم وبدان تکلم نمائیم.

”أشعۃ اللمعات”، کتاب الإیمان، الفصل الأول، ج۱، ص۴۳.

Alahazrat alayhirrahmah also writes in Fatawa Ridawiyya sharif 29:418


حسنات الابرار سیّئات المقربین[4]۔نیکوں کے جو نیك کام ہیں مقربوں کے حق میں گناہ ہیں۔وہاں ترك اولٰی کو بھی گناہ سے تعبیر کیا جاتا ہے حالانکہ ترك اولی ہر گز گناہ نہیں۔

 

[AR Ahmed]

As for quoting Maulwi Shabeer AHmad Usmani (or Shafi Usmani) in his Tafseer, he did say hasanat al abrar sa’iyyat al muqaribin and did ta’bir of gunah as tark al-awla but there is an usul that some things can be jaiz for a Muslim and not jaiz for others. "maulwi" sajid khan “naqshbandi” explains this in a clip that can be provided on request.

 

[AR Ahmed]

Some other subterfuge from Zameel & company:
https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/aḥmad-riḍa-khan-mistranslates-verses-of-quran/

Responded here
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/kanzul-iman.14303/

 

[abu Hasan]

saw ahqar's new thread - will reply in sha'Allah.

zameel's post - translating from some recent devbandi. looks like the fellow was not a native urdu speaker nor had access to urdu expressions, hence the puerile objections. "did not translate like a noun" - the morons don't even understand translation theory, and they think translation requires retaining verb forms and noun forms intact in translation!

 

[abu Hasan]

he's only shifting the goal post with yet more red herrings.

when his lie was caught out, instead of acknowledging that he was wrong in maligning alahazrat, he latched on to another aspect.
and tried to prove that our ulama also made the same error - especially alahazrat.

---
i will not get into detailed explanations of dhanb and ismatu'l anbiya - as we have a detailed appendix in the upcoming (in sha'Allah) release of bahar e shariat. please refer to it there.

always burning strawmen. let it be clear that no sunni aalim has ever ruled devbandis disbelievers or blasphemers for improper translations of the qur'an. besides, we are not devbandis to consider our ulama as "maSum". if our ulama made mistakes, they are mistakes too - we don't have to justify them. but devbandi's hasty post claiming that our ulama attributed sin to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, and will be debunked shortly.

translating the qur'an is not an easy task, we know that. this is why we recommend sticking to alahazrat's translation. when the devbandis and their translations were found to be pathetic compared to kanz, instead of acknowledging the superiority - or at the least ignoring and keeping to themselves, they began attacking kanz with their false theories borne out of superficial learning and abject ignorance.

it was then, that sunni ulama had to hold the mirror to devbandis: this is the state of your translations. shut up and sit down.
the ahmaq turns this against us:

----
hayaa, amanat and sidq are probably not taught at devbandi madaris. look at how he cleverly compares apples to rotten eggs.

thanavi used "khaTa" in the translation of surah fat'H - clearly addressing the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
alahazrat used "laghzish" in the translation of verse 36 of surah baqarah meaning: "made them slip"

"Shaytan made them to slip"

laghzish is a milder word than khaTa, even though it is a sunni belief that there can be khaTa ijtihadi on the part of prophets as imam azam has said:

however, OUR prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is specially and specifically mentioned separate from all other prophets, that he is ma'Sum from saghira or kabira absolutely.

the ahmaq devbandi couldn't clearly couldn't make this difference.

according to him thanawi's using 'khaTa' in surah fath is the same as 'laghzish' used for hazrat adam and Hawwa alayhima's salam; besides it is clear in the verse that it was shayTan who MADE them slip - not that they CHOSE to make that mistake.

====
ahmaq says:

certainly. Allah taala is the Creator and He can address His creation as He pleases. YOU and your devbandi maulvis are not.
devbandi mulla should hold his tongue and be cautious; he should not speak as if he is himself the creator, and address the Prophet ﷺ in the manner of the Creator addressing His Slave. this is the translation of the qur'an and these are YOUR words, not the qur'an per se.

if

"no muslim in the ummah considers it correct to even think, let let alone say, that the Prophet ﷺ was sinful; rather, they consider it a grave crime."​

then why don't devbandi maulvis consider this aspect in their translations? and happily keep translating as sins?

if predecessors translated it as 'SINS' for our Prophet ﷺ then they have slipped too. only fools will emulate them in their error after it has been highlighted. which rule says that you should follow predecessors in their mistakes?

whereas almost all tafasir and our salaf have clarified that 'dhanb' mentioned should not be deemed a sin for our master ﷺ.

imam maturidi mentioned that we should not mention or speak of their lapses (except in tilawah or hadith or teaching) nor are their lapses or actions termed 'sins' the same as our 'sins'; it is only khilaf awla (choosing a better option, instead of best).

snippet from tafsir maturidi:

=====
in fact, in today's world - when people are far from religion, and doubts are sown about our Prophet by heretics and kuffar, we should make extra effort to clarify this aspect. instead of keeping on justifying dead men's mistakes. but the devbandis are incorrigible.

use your common sense. it is not about my people and your people. if you recite the kalimah of RasulAllah ﷺ and your teachers said something incorrect about him; would you keep repeating/justifying it or change it out of love and respect to RasulAllah ﷺ ?

may Allah ta'ala give guidance.

 

[abu Hasan]

remember we were comparing qur'an translations, and our adversary couldn't manage a proper reply so he fumbled in the dark to find something to throw hoping it would stick. he thought he found two key sources - alahazrat and his noble father, mawlana naqi ali raDi'Allahu anhuma. but to give an impression that he has numerous examples, he brought a third source - though he presents as #3 and #4

chalo.

ahmaq says:

frankly, i have not seen this book and i don't know the author. it appears to be by a contemporary scholar. firstly, we are not liable to answer for every scholar who claims to be a sunni or an alahazrat follower. and claiming to be alahazrat's maslak doesn't automatically bestow on them some sort of superiority that they cannot make a mistake. we are not devbandis to make such claims.

after writing the above, i searched for and downloaded the book and browsed it. it is a collection of fatawa in defence of a translation by allamah sayid kazmi sahib. firstly, allamah sayid kazmi sahib was completely in line with translation of alahazrat, though his translation is more of an explanation. hazrat kazmi shah writes:

which is the sunni standpoint and which has been explained in most tafasir and sirah works. it appears that there was some controversy about this and kazmi sahib's son wrote to muftis all over for affirmation.

one such mufti is siraj ahmad qadri of bahalwpur (pakistan) who has signed it in the year 1424. (see pages 247-251). this particular fatwa is riddled with errors, mistakes of context and misquoting alahazrat to prove something else.

for example, molvi siraj writes in point #8:

"the Prophet ﷺ accepted the above verses (i.e. surah muminun, surah qital, surah fat'h) were revealed for him solely without participation of any other; and the companions also accepted it for the Prophet ﷺ and did not say that: apparently it is addressed to me but this is meant for the ummah"​

the above comment is utterly ignorant as is obvious. the poor fellow didn't realise that he cannot present any proof that the Prophet ﷺ "accepted it SOLELY for himself". bila shirkat e ghayr - which hadith narrator or sahabi reported this? and how exactly do you derive this?

as for khitaabaat - again it is mufti's ignorance of not only tafasir but also quran tafsir principles. he should probably read burhan of zarkashi, or itqan of suyuti on the number of "khitaabat" in the qur'an before making wild and ignorant claims which cannot be proved.

regardless, #3 & #4 are eminently rejected - these are flawed opinions of a contemporary mufti who could well be a closet devbandi. nas'alu Allah al aafiyah.

ahmaq accuses of muhaddis azam pakistan of writing something.

"writes" but also clarifies that it is "said this in his lecture". iztirab of the accuser aside, since it is maulvi siraj's citation, it is rejected.

 

[abu Hasan]

https://x.com/ridawipress/status/1814274222149030056

https://x.com/ridawipress/status/1814271326426714607

 

[abu Hasan]

ahqar posted this clip from "shafa'at e mustafa" attributed to imam faDl al-Haqq khayrabadi. the book was originally named taHqiq al-fatwa wa ibTal al-Taghwa, a refutation of the indian wahabi granddaddy ismayil dihlawi's mindless rants.

the full quote is like this (on the same p270) "ask forgiveness for your sins (that is such actions which are not befitting your stature)" devbandi cleverly clipped it.

using the word "sin" in translation - as a translation of 'dhanb' may be compelling - but a translator should also clarify that prophets are free from sin as in common usage of the word. we will go back to devbandi translation such as mahmud hasan's shortly. in sha'Allah.

so we have only two more citations to respond to. wa billahi't tawfiq.