Jump to content

MuhammedAli

اراکین
  • کل پوسٹس

    1,558
  • تاریخِ رجسٹریشن

  • آخری تشریف آوری

  • جیتے ہوئے دن

    112

سب کچھ MuhammedAli نے پوسٹ کیا

  1. Meray pass heh. Aap ko ghalat fehmi heh kay yeh print 1825 mein huwi heh. Asal kitab pehli baar 1825 mein print huwi thi. Hand wriiten note ko log ghalat mana letay hen. Yeh print 1970's ka heh. Ji wahan say hi yeh photo leeyeh thay. Meray pass ye donoon print thay magr arsa daraaz ho gaya harddrive kharab ho gaya thah. Meray pass taqwiyat ul imaan kay taqriban 25 mukhtalif print thay.
  2. Deobandiyun nay upar walay print mein tahreef ki heh. Asal print mein thah: jo nah kabi maray na kabi kam howay Is upar wali ibarat par puranay print darkar hen aik ta kay qatti tor par sabat keeya ja sakay kay yeh kameenay khud nahin badaltay kitaben badal detay hen. Mar kar mitti mein milnay ka connection kam howay say heh ... Allah nah maray aur nah mitti mein milay yehni nah gal sarr kar kam howay ... ibarat kay sayaq o sabaq say sabat hota heh kay mitti mein milna mana dafnana mein nahin balkay galnay sarrnay say heh aur aisi soorat bad kam honay say heh. Lehaza Deobandiyun nay rawayati bey-hayahi aur apnay beyghayrat uqabir ki sunnat par amal keeya aur kitab mein tarmeem kar di.
  3. Jo kehta heh ilm ghayb ki categories momkin hi nahin ussay Tawheed ka pata nahin aur ghaliban abhi taq Musalman hi nahin huwa. Mein nay wazahat kar di heh pichli post mein. Ilm Ghayb ki daleelen bi pesh kar deenh. aur divisions ka farq keun aur kesay, kistera hota mukhtasar andaaz mein kar deeya. Tafseel parni ho toh English mein articles hen meray in classifications kay mozoo par.
  4. Mutanahi and ghayb mutanahi. Mutanahi is limited and ghayr mutanahi is unlimited. Surah Ikhlas - As-Samad i.e. eternal, never-ending, everlasting. And laysaka mithli shai'in. Us jaisi kohi cheez nahin. Allah's Zaat/Essence and Sifaat/attributes are UNLIMITED. Allah ki zaat o sifaat limited nahin. Misaal lenh. Aik glass jis mein paani dalen to barr jahay. Keun? Glass ki capacity limited heh. Keun? Us ki zaat hi aisi heh is wasteh limited heh. Glass ki tara har makhlooq limited zaat kay lehaz say. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala unlimited heh zaat mein to jo sifaat us say mutasif hen sab unlimited hen. Aur makhlooq limited heh. Ilm Ghayb ki categories ki divisions ka suboot jis zaat ka Ilm Ghayb heh us ki zaat say milta heh. Makhlooq limited heh. Insaan ki zaat wa sifaat limited hen. RasoolAllah limited hen keun kay makhlooq hen. RasoolAllah ka ilm e Ghayb Allah nay deeya, yehni, Atahi. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala ki zaat/sifaat Zaati hen yehni kissi aur nay Allah ko aur us ki sifaat ko wujud/existance mein nahin laya. Yeh us ki apni hen. Aur Allah ka Ilm ghayb bi Allah ka apna/zaati heh yehni kissi aur nay Allah ko Ghayb ka ilm nahin deeya. Ilm Ghayb Allah nay aik hadd mein RasoolAllah ko deeya, yehni, limited, ya baaz/kuch. Allah makhlooq ko bey-hadd deh bi nahin sakta keun kay makhlooq mein bey-hadd ki qudrat hi nahin. Agar aap glass mein aik jag ka pani dalen toh glass itna hi pani leh ga jis ki us ki hadd heh. joh hadd say bahir heh wo glass say nikal jahay ga. insaan aur Nabi in mein bi bey-hadd ki qudrat nahin Allah aisa kaam hi nahin karta joh us ki shaan kay layk nah ho yehni bey-hadd ilm dalay us mein jis ki hadd ho aur bey-hadd par qudrat nah ho. Kulli, every/all, yeh technically Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ki zaat sifaat wasteh istimal nahin hota agar ho to phir yeh unlimited ki taraf lot-ta heh. Kulli aam tor par RasoolAllah kay ilm ghayb wasteh istimal hota heh jab batana yeh maqsood ho keh, RasoolAllah ko tamam al-lawl al-mafooz ka ilm ghayb Allah nay deeya. Agar kulli ko ulimited/ghayr-mutanahi ki taraf lotaya jahay to aisa ilm ghayb rasoolAllah wasteh manna saree shirk/kufr heh. RasoolAllah ka jism shareef rooh/soul mubarak Allah nay bana-hay aur un ka waqia hona aisay aaik waqt mein huwa jis say pehlay nah thay is ko HADIS kehtay hen. Hadis bil muqabil Qadeem heh. Qadeem Allah heh keun kay Qadeem istilah mein ussay kehtay hen jis ki kabi-bi-shoruwaat nah huwi ho aur hamesha say mojood ho. Is lehaz say RasoolAllah ka ilm ghayb Hadis heh keun kay zaat bi hadis aur joh sifaat is say mutasif hen woh bi hadis, aur ilm sift heh. Allah ta'ala ka ilm ghayb Qadeem heh, keun keh zaat qadeem, sifaat qadeem, aur joh in say mutasif woh bi qadeem. Al-Hasil Ghayb ki divisions ka subut, jis zaat ka ilm ghayb heh, us ko analyze kar kay nikala ja sakta heh. Yeh feham Tawheed aqli heh aur in divisions ko qubul keeyeh baghayr kohi Musalman nahin. Yeh Tawheed ka fundamental knowledge heh aap ko seekhna cha-yeh. Mein aap ko apna number message kar doon ga jab kohi zeroorat ho ya kohi masla idhar pesh ho toh post kar kay mujjay whatsApp par message kar deeya keren mein check kar kay jawab likh deeya karoon ga. Abhi mein aik aur masla par busy hoon. itna waqt nahin milta kay website par aya karoon.
  5. Apply this definition on, 72:26/27, and tell me if above definition is correct, He the Alim ul-Ghayb gives His Ghayb to none except a chosen Messenger. Tell me if the definition is correct. Allah says I give Ghayb. Deobandi says what Allah gives is not Ghayb. Wama huwa alal ghaybi bi-Dhaneen. Surah Taqweer He is not miser/stingy with Ghayb. IF zameer of HUWA/He/he returns to Allah, than Allah gives freely without being stingy. Who does He give Ghayb ... none except a chosen Messenger. IF zameer huwa returns to the Messenger than he gives ghayb freely to his Ummatis without holding it back. Question is how can he give Ghayb when he doesnt know it himself. I say both are correct and in agreement with jawami al-kalim nature of Quran. One who denies Ilm ghayb of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is KAFIR. One who calls this belief Shirk is also Kafir. One who calls this belief heretical/misguidance is also a Kafir. One who promotes it, defends it, and supports it is also Kafir.
  6. Imam did not say ilm mutlaq tafseeli belongs to Allah . Ilm mutlaq tafseeli is what is encapsuled in ayah, Allah Knows every thing, ie shai/thing. He than goes mention what is excluded from shai n that is mumkinaat, imkanaat, muhallaat, n knowledge of essence n names of Allah. He was excluding lamuntahi/ghayr-mahdood from ilmi mutlaq tafseeli but Deobandi is saying he included it in. I will write comprehensive reply but i have pointed out the error. To say Allah's knowledge is of and limited to ilm mutlaq tafseeli (limited to general details) is major Kufr n Shirk. This is creations knowledge. Shirk because Allah has been made equal to creation in His knowledge. Normally Shirk is to make creation equal to Allah's knowledge.
  7. I will write response to Deobandi article in due time. He is either distorting or has misunderstood. Misunderstood is possibility n greater chance of it as i have misunderstood it initially while i was reading it. It is a technical book n imam doesn't always clearly doesn't specify his objective. Scholars will find it easy to understand but layman will not. For now all u need to know is that imam wrote anyone who ascribes Allah's unlimited knowledge to a creation he commits kufr/shirk akbar. Allah's names n essence is unlimited n no one not even the prophets including our prophet or Awliyah or Saliheen can know Him as He is they only know bits n their knowledge increases of Tawheed as they progress their stations but they will never come to know Unlimited Him.
  8. Ok. I finally figured why deobandi is saying Imam Ahmad Raza rahimullah established Allah's knowledge for prophet of Allah.
  9. On page 44 of Urdu u can see that Imam Ahmad Raza rahimullah alayhi tala has stated essence n attributes of Allah are lamahdood/ghayr-muntahi ie unlimited. On page 45 he says no creation can know unlimited n gives examples . On page 46 he clearly says prohets n righteous cannot have all knowledge of Allahs essence n attributes but they according to their rank can have knowledge n it increases. N they never become capable of knowing everything about Allahs essence n attributes.
  10. There is nothing in book of Imam Ahmad Raza alayhi rahma which contradicts what he believes. Knowledgebof Allahs essence n attributes is la mahdood ie unlimited hence unlimited cannot be grasped by limited.
  11. Jami means all. Ilm means knowledge. Allah means illahi. All knowledge of Allah.
  12. Janab mein nay pari heh, ala hazrat ki kitab mein kohi contradiction nahin. Deobandi jhoot bolta heh. Ala hazrat nay kaheen bi jami ilm e illahi rasoolAllah wasteh sabat nahin keeya. Deobandi apna uqabir ki tara doka djjal aur iblees shaytaniat mein shikast deh raha. Yeh Hussain Ahmad Tandavi , Khalil Ambethvi, manzoor nomani, abdul shakoor lakhnavi, anwar shah kashmiri dajjali, abdullah darkhawasti jaisay Kafiroon ka shaytani faiz heh is article kay author ko. Lehaza ham shikast tasleem kar letay hen. Jab in ko haya nah rahay toh jaho jo kar saktay ho karo. Allah tala Kafiroon ka saath nahin deta.
  13. Jahan say copy paste keeya heh un ko kaho pehlay parna seekh lenh. Phir peren. -------------------- One is jami ilm illahi which inclusive of wuqu'aat, mumkinaat, imkanaat n muhallaat. One is jami ilm ma kana wama yakoon joh tamam ilm wuquaat ko geray huway heh. Yeh wohi ilm heh jissay al kalam nay lawh al mafooz mein likha, poocha kia likhoon, jawaban, jo ho chuka, jo hoga. Yehni jami ilm ma kana wama yakoon yehni wuquaat ka ilm, yehni jis nay roz awal say roz akhar taq jo kuch hona heh. Shirk fil ilm makhlooq mein aisi barabari heh kay zarra ka farq nah rahay. Yehni joh kamil ilm aur jistera Allah wasteh mano wohi ilm ussi tera makhlooq wasteh mano. Yeh Shirk Kufr kesay?
  14. I am confident you didn't understand what he wrote. Quote the words u think contradict each other. You're Deobandi and unlikely you can put aside your Deobandi brain washing aside n read what he wrote. There is Deobandi meaning of words, i.e. ma kana wama yakoon, n their is Islamic meaning n understanding. In deobandi religion these words r about unlimited knowledge of Allah. In Islam these words are not inclusive of imkanaat, mumkinaat, muhallaat. ma kana wama yakoon are about wuqu'aat as the words themselves denote. I advise you to read the book, leave ur brainwashed brain out of the book, n try again. After i left Deobandism two decades ago, i also kept reading Deobandism into Sunni books. I struggled to understand Ad Dawlatul Makkiyyah too. It was third time reading it that it began to seriously make sense to me. Befre that i was, WHAT RUBBISH IS THIS, WHAT RUBBISH IS HE TALKING TALKING ABOUT. Go back to drawing board n start again if u were not copy pasting. Ifu were copy pasting than keep at it.
  15. https://archive.org/details/al_daulat_ul_makiyyah/page/n41/mode/1up?view=theater Page 42/47, read again. Show me where he wrote, what he wrote, what the contradiction is. And i will respond. I cant read Arabic.
  16. Mujjay Fatawah Rasheedia ki scanned image chayeh jis mein Gangohi nay Ismail Dehalvi ki toba ka inqar keeya heh.
  17. Taqwiyat ul-Iman - Shaykh Dehalvi Wrote Prophet Said: One Day I Will Die And Mingle Into Dust. Introduction: Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote many repugnant statements where he is insulting the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And his style of hurling abuse and insults at the Prophets and Awliyah of Ummah in garb of protecting/promoting Tawheed is a trade mark of Deobandi and Wahhabi scholarship of subcontinent and anyone who is influenced by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Here in this article I will mainly discuss one such statement – where he made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lie by making him say, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, which literally translates to, one day I will die [and] mingle/mix with dust. This article will provide linguistic, idiomatic, contextual usage of, mitti mein milna/milnay, and demonstrate how each changes the meaning of words. In addition to this other bits and bobs relating to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s quoted content also be addressed. 1.0 - Controversial And Kufri Statement Subject Of Dispute: Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi writes in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman: “ … Abu Dawud nay zikr keeya keh Qays Bin Sa’d nay naqal keeya keh, gaya mein aik shehr mein, jis ka naam Hira heh, so dekha mein nay wahan kay logoon ko, Sajdah kartay thay apnay Raja ko, so kaha mein nay albatta peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ziyada layk hen keh Sajda keejiyeh un ko, phir aya mein peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay pass, phir kaha mein nay keh, gaya tha Hira mein, so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon, Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray, na kabi kam howay. Is Hadith say maloom huwa keh Sajdah nah kissi zinda ho keejiyeh, na kissi murda ko, na kissi qabr ko, na kissi thaan ko keun ke’h …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] Hadith employed by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi has already been translated into English and I will employ online English translation but make changes where needed to reflect Urdu peculiarities in translation added by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in translation of Hadith: “In Mishkat (in Book of Marriage) chapter 10 of Wives, here, it is written that Abu Dawud, here, mentioned: “Qays Ibn Sa’d said I travelled to a city whose name is Hirah and there I saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a Satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you/tum have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrate themselves before tum/you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning, I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor reduce. From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] 1.1 - Translations Of Ahadith Referenced In Taqwiyat ul-Iman By Shaykh Dehalvi: “Narrated Qays Ibn Sa'd: I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me , if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B11, H2135, here.]“Qais Ibn Sa'd said: I went to al-Hira and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said, “God’s Messenger has most right to have prostration made before him.” When I came to God’s Messenger I said, “I went to al-Hira and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right to have people prostrating themselves before you.” He replied, “Tell me; if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it?” Then when I said that I would not, he replied, “None of you must do it. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to the husbands by God.” Abu Dawud transmitted it, and Ahmad transmitted it on the authority of Mu'adh b. Jabal.” [Ref: Mishkat, B13, H183, here.] 2.0 - Usage Of Tum/You In Urdu And When Its Usage Denotes Disrespect: (i) Tum in Urdu is used when age of speaker and addressed are of similar age, or there is similarity in social standing. Such usage would not denote insult, nor disrespect. Son using tum/you for his father, or mother, or seniors, or a student using tum/you for teachers, or Madrassa Talib ul-Ilm, or Mureed employing tum/you for Shaykh even IF there is similarity of age is and would be deemed disrespectful by anyone aware of culture of subcontinent and Urdu language. The only known exception to this is usage is use of TUM/you poetical verses. In ordinary daily life addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with tum/you would be disrespectful and this is translation of Hadith not a poem. (ii) In English we do not have ‘you’ of respect but in Urdu there is you of respect and numbers – meaning aap/you. Similar to Arabic in English when a Mureed says to his Shaykh: Shaykh you said this. Than you would be translated according to his standing – meaning aap/you. Same word you IF used for someone younger than me or lower in social standing would be translated to tum/you. Similarly to Arabic how you is translated in Urdu depending upon personality, age, social standing in the same way Arabic anta is to be translated in Urdu. IF a person of lower standing addresses a senior in age, or senior social standing, or senior in knowledge, or senior in spiritual rank with tum/you it is seen as sign of bad manners and disrespect. 2.1 – Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Translation Of Hadith Is Disrespectful: Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi translated anta as in “… lahum fa’anta ahaqqu …” to mean tum/you: “… so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala …” Without getting into technicalities of Arabic grammar it should be noted anta should have been translated to aap/you. Miskhat ul-Masabih translated by Ghayr Muqallid Abu Uns Muhammad Sarwar Gohar and published with Tehqeeq & Takhreej of Shaykh Zubayr Ali translated anta to respectful aap: “… Sajdah kartay dekha, aap ziyada haqdar hen ke’h aap (i.e. saw them prostrate, you/aap are more deserving) …” [Ref: Mishkat ul-Masabih, by Abu Uns Muhammad Sarwar Gohar, Vol2, Page235, here.] Furthermore Deobandi published Sharh of Mishkat ul-Masabih has following translation: “Lihaza aap (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is kay ziyada mustahaq hen (i.e. therefore you/app are more deserving of this )…” [Ref: Mazhar e Haq Sharh Mishkat ul-Masabih, by Muhammad Qutb ad-Din Khan Dehalvi, Vol3, Page271, here.] I have limited myself to only just two examples of translation IF there is need I will demonstrate with many more examples from Deobandi and Ghayr-Muqallid scholarship that anta in this context and when it is in context of esteemed personality than it should be translated to respectful aap/you instead of disrespectful tum/you. 2.2 - Usage Of Usko/Him: - Contexts Where These Denote Disrespect: (i) Similar to usage of tum/you usage of usko/him depending upon for whom it is used for establishes bad manners and disrespect. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi translated the Hadith in manner in which companion is allegedly using usko/him to make referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I cannot comprehend a common and sane individual using usko/him while referencing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and denoting that a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed such insulting tone is serious enough to blow any reader’s mind whose Urdu, subcontinent culture, sense of morality and good manners is intact. This usko similar to tum/you is used by equals for each other, or used by a senior for junior in age, standing, knowledge etc. IF a junior uses for a senior, or child uses for parents, or a similar aged student for teacher, or Mureed for his Shaykh – in all these cases usage of usko denotes disrespect. And speaker does not have respect for one whom he is addressing with usko. (ii) Seemingly Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi has made a companion use the problematic words, tum/you and usko/him. He is insinuating that companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not honour and respect him as an esteemed person but instead they treated him like a man themselves. His translation of tum/you, and usko/him also teaches something to its readers: This is how the companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) addressed him with tum/you and usko/him of equality/lesser-ness and it is acceptable to employ such language for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which insinuates lack of love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 3.0 - Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Kind OF Insinuates Walking Over My Grave: (i) Shaykh Ismail Dehavli’s translation is: “…so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, jo too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo …” A Deobandi employed Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s usage of words par (on/onto) and guzray (travel/pass) to reason his point of view that grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was extremely low/level to ground that people could walk over it. I consulted a scholar with regards to translation and he said translation of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not blameworthy but application by Deobandi Shaykh is blameworthy and Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not to be blamed. He said the wording does denote meaning of walking by the grave. (ii) Years ago when I raised this point against a Deobandi and he attempted to justify Deobandi Shaykh’s point by arguing: “Par means on as in, kis par (on what), and with combination of guzray wording of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi par could also mean over. IF it was said, mein guzra in ki sarrak par say, it would mean, I travelled over their road. IF it is said, jo too guzray meri sarrak par, this would mean, that IF you pass over/on my road. What I am establishing is that in Urdu, jo too guzray meri Qabr/Sarrak par, denotes meaning of walking on road, on grave, over grave, over road. Translation of bold part would be, that IF you travel over my grave, or that IF you travel on my grave. You cannot walk on something without being over it.” This is roughly what he used to defend Deobandi Shaykh’s position. Once again I will point out here the translation isn’t an issue the application by said Deobandi Shaykh is. (iii) As said earlier based on words, “… jo too guzray meri qabr par …”, Deobandi Shaykh was arguing grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was low enough to walk over. And indirectly insinuated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was absolutely OK with people walking over his blessed resting place. He argued Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi's wording also conveys that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wanted companions to not to overly respect him after his death as walking over the grave would insinuate but IF need be walk over my grave. 4.0 - Insult And Disrespect Of Prophet Is Not Accidental Rather Deliberate: (i) Anyone who speaks Urdu and has lived in culture of Indian subcontinent will be aware usage of tum and uko are not accidental. As a child in subcontinent culture before entering nursery you have already learnt plural form of following is of respect and for whom tum (singular; you), app (plural; you), usko (singular; him, that-one) and plural unko is to be used for. This knowledge is so innate to our language and culture that it’s like breathing. Even IF one does not speak Urdu in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan even than every native language, every dialect of Punjabi has equivalents of tum/you, aap/you, usko and unko. (ii) I am from Azad Kashmir, Mirpur. In our native Punjabi dialect called Mirpuri word toon is equivalent of tum and tusan is equivlent of aap. Equivlent of usko in Mirpuri is usni/usna/uski and respectful Urdu of this would be unneh and its equivalent is unna in Mirpuri. Point being made is these distinctions are are so imbued into our culture to assume these were out of ignorance is too much to ask. Hence usage of these words by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi isn’t and can’t be accidental or lack of education. (iii) A similitude closer to home in Western culture is needed to put in perspective what has been written. Imagine someone in America, UK addresses his/her mother, or father by name with addition of, oye. Son saying to his father: Oye! James drop me to college. And than claims, O, I didn’t know this was disrespectful, or I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. 4.1 - Challenge -: Ask Urdu Speakers IF These Denote Disrespect And Insult: I challenge readers whose native or mother tongue is not Urdu to approach any Urdu speaker and enquire: What should a junior use for a senior tum or aap? Also enquire IF a junior in age, standing, knowledge, others examples I have mentioned earlier uses these words for his seniors than what is being insinuated. He has no respect for person whom the words are being used and is being disrespectful. Also enquire what are implications of using tum, or usko when these words are used by Ummati for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), companions? IF there is a problem enquire explicitly: Does such usage by an Ummati denote disrespect/insult or politeness/love for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Quote the problematic translation: “ … phir aya mein peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay pass, phir kaha mein nay keh, gaya tha Hira mein, so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo.“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] There is no to little chance a Urdu speaker and a Muslim who loves Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would contradict me. The only exception is a man/woman who has been programed by Shayateen to accept Kufr as Islam and one who is a Kafir. 5.0 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Interpretation Of Hadith -: Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala Hoon: (i) At the end of quoting Hadith Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi presents his interpretation in following words: “ … joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni: Mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon, Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray, na kabi kam howay. Is Hadith say maloom huwa keh Sajdah nah kissi zinda ho keejiyeh, na kissi murda ko, na kissi qabr ko, na kissi thaan ko keun ke’h …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] “…Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/to-him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning: I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor reduce. From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] The questionable statement can also be translated as: “I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay).” There is no notable difference in meaning of these two translations nor they go against naturally conveyed meaning of Urdu. To mix and to integrate with dust the entity must disintegrate hence another way of translation would be: “I will one day die (and) disintegrate into dust (after decay).” All of these translations convey natural meaning of this controversial statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. (ii) In English the translation looses its natural sting and insulting tone but in Urdu it is very obviously insulting. 5.1 - Prophet Said, Earth Is Forbidden To Consume To Bodies Of Prophets: Contrary to what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote it is recorded in many Ahadith that Prophets do not decompose and mix into dust as dust: “Narrated Aws ibn Aws: The Prophet said: Among the most excellent of your days is Friday; on it Adam was created, on it he died, on it the last trumpet will be blown, and on it the shout will be made, so invoke more blessings on me that day, for your blessings will be submitted to me. The people asked: Messenger of Allah, how can it be that our blessings will be submitted to you while your body is decayed? He replied: Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B3, H1042, here.] “Aws b. Aws reported the Messenger of Allah as saying: Among the most excellent of your days is Friday; so invoke many blessings on me on that day, for your blessing will be submitted to me. They (the Companions) asked: Messenger of Allah, how can our blessings be submitted to you, when your body has decayed? He said: Allah has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1526, here.] “It was narrated that Shaddad bin Aws said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The best of your days is Friday. On it Adam was created, on it the Trumpet will be blown, on it all creatures will swoon. So send a great deal of peace and blessings upon me on that day, for your peace and blessings will be presented to me.’ A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, how will our peace and blessings be shown to you when you will have disintegrated?’ He said: ‘Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H1085, here.] “It was narrated from Abu Darda’ that the Messenger of Allah said: “Send a great deal of blessing upon me on Fridays, for it is witnessed by the angels. No one sends blessing upon me but his blessing will be presented to me, until he finishes them.” A man said: “Even after death?” He said: “Even after death, for Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets, so the Prophet of Allah is alive and receives provision.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1637, here.] We believe what the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught us and believe in him as he deserves to be believed and we reject disbelievers. 5.2 - Dictionary And Common Usage Of Phrase Mitti Mein Milnay: (i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used idiomatic phrase, mitti mein milnay (i.e. mix in dust), and it is important to see how these words are used in Urdu: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: (i) Idiom: - To mix with dust, (ii) body/jism turning into dust, (iii) to turn away from original state, to turn bad. Mitti mein milana -: Idiom: - To mix with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicate from existence. to bury, tasteless/enjoy-less, to waste, to loose (an item sense). “ [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] In addition to Feroz ul-Lughat I have also checked Jhangir ul-Lughat and in it there is only one entry related to topic: “Idiom -: Mitti mein milna -: To mix/integrate with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicating from existence, joyless/tasteless, to waste.” [Ref: Jhangir ul-Lughat, Page 1348, by Wasi-Ullah Khokhar, here.] An unknown dictionary also has entry under, mitti mein milana, it gives same meanings as Feroz ul-Lughat’s entry of, mitti mein milana: “To mix with dust, to destroy, to bury, to disintegrate, to waste.” [Ref: Unknown Dictionary, Page 533, here.] (ii) Closest entry to mitti mein milnay is in Feroz ul-Lughat as mitti mein mil jana (milna). Maulvi Feroz ud-Deen Sahib added milna (mix) in brackets. He is indicating that alternative of, mitti mein mil-jana, is, mitti mein milna. Milna and milnay are exactly the same words in meaning just milnay is plural form of milna. The other entry mitti mein milana is just a variation of same. (iii) Urdu idiom mitti mein milna/milana and it’s other variations are commonly used with connotation of degrading someone to extremely low level – to nothing. Ninety-nine point nine percentage of Urdu speakers/readers will understand these words of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi as Maulvi Feroz Ud-Deen has: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: (i) Idiom: - To mix with dust, (ii) body/jism turning into dust, (iii) to turn away from original state, to turn bad.” There are two possible exceptions, a) the grammarians, poets, b) common Urdu speaker whose has been pretty viciously coached to reconcile, mitti mein milnay wala hoon, with; will be buried in grave, with help of dictionaries. I am confident IF targetted poet/grammarian knew these words were written about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) than selling Deobandi snake oil (i.e. this is not insulting Prophet) will be impossible. Especially IF they are educated in Islam and are familiar with sort of decorum a Muslims needs to observe in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 5.3 – Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Target Audience And Well Beaten Path: Do make note Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman to remedy alleged Shirk of over-whelming population of Muslims in subcontinent. It was than and is even to this day mass printed and distributed amongst commoners whose Urdu is at best elementary grade. And it is no where near the level to come to understanding, mitti mein milnay wala hoon, means, will be burried in grave. To investigate IF my bias is effecting my understanding I have literally presented a part of this statement to tens of Urdu speakers from Pakistan and India asking them what does it mean to them: Mein Muhammed Ali aik din mar mar mitti mein milnay wala hoon. And not one, by Allah, not one person has said it means: I Muhammed Ali will one day die and will be burried in a grave. They all said similar to meanings: I will one day die and mix with dust. 6.0 – Demonstrating Why, Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala, Is Insulting - 01: (i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi doesn’t say what he wants to say but made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say it: “…Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/to-him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning: I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] This is a sophisticated/sly way of insulting and degrading Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). How? Imagine a conversation between Jahil and Shaykh Dehalvi and I as historian commenting on the event. (ii) Jahil: Is it permissible to have sexual relationship with my beautiful daughter. Shaykh Dehalvi: Does Islam allow you to marry her? Jahil: No. Shaykh Dehalvi: Than don’t. Muhammed Ali: Meaning how can I Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi allow you to have intercourse with biological your daughter, even though I would enjoy it with my own daughter, it is Haram. (iii) What is the point of adding the underlined detail? Was this really needed? IF not what I am attempting to do? Answer. First of all I wrote that because I have intense dislike of Kafir. Secondly I want to portray him has a pervert and as desiring incestuous sexual contact with his daughter as a way to degrade and insult him. This is sophisticated way of insulting/degrading the Shaytan without me actually directly insulting/degrading him. And without letting my hate of him out the bag in a obvious way. (iv) This is what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is doing in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). His objective is to bring readers love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to level of an ordinary human being so his Shaytani version of ‘Tawheed’ isn’t challenged. 6.1 - Demonstrating Why, Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala, Is Insulting- 02: Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say: “…Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/to-him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning: I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] In contrast to lie which Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tell; it is recorded in Ahadith that bodies of Prophets do not decompose, decay, disintegrate, integrate as dust in to dust: “The people asked: Messenger of Allah, how can it be that our blessings will be submitted to you while your body is decayed? He replied: Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B3, H1042, here.] Why would Shaykh Dehalvi make Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) utter a lie and say something against what is recorded in authentic Ahadith? Linguistically the words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used, mar kar mitti mein milnay, are used to degrade and insult especially even more when words uttered have no relevance to actuality. How so? Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi you're a BASTARD. That’s how so! When a statement has no truth to it and it is a slander, and it is; lowering, belittling, challenging/negating integrity - like Dhil Khuwaisira did, or piety, or a merit than it is insult, disrespect, and slander. IF he was indeed was a BASTARD as I wrote than it would not be insult, or disrespect, or slander. Hence saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) died, or making him say, he decomposed, disintegrated, integrated into dust as dust is insult and disrespect. 6.2 - Demonstrating Why Words, Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala, Is Insulting - 03: (i) In context of a punch-up. Amr: Jabr ab tum mar kar mitti mein milnay walay ho. Meaning: Jabr you are about to die and mix within dust. Comment: This is an idiomatic reference to impending humiliation Jabr will have to face after getting knocked-out unconscious. Here literal death wasn’t meant. Similarly Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and the world knew/knows the bodies of Prophets including Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not and will not decompose. Hence his use of these words linguistically are idiomatic usage denoting insult/disrespect as they were in case of Amr. (ii) Jabr: Tum kia samjay, mein aaj din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon? Nahin, aaj tum mitti mein milo gay. Meaning: What did you understand/think, today I will die and mix with dust? No! Today you will mingle with dust. Comment: Again Jabr retaliated saying that Amr was of opinion that Jabr will get knocked-out and get humiliated but Jabr believes it will be Amr who will get shamed and humiliated. (iii) When the words mitti mein milna/milnay and its other variations are used but do not reflect the ground reality than they are used idiomatically and to degrade/Tazleel. And their usage by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi also denotes insult, humiliation, and degradation of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.
×
×
  • Create New...