MuhammedAli

Linguistic Implication Of Shaykh Naumani’s Understanding Of Aisa Means Itna And Is-Qadr.

1 post in this topic

Introduction:

Shaykh Naumani took Aisa in meaning of Itna and Shaykh Dharbangi took it to mean Itna and Is-Qadr. And both stated in statement of Shaykh Thanvi Aisa is not of Tashbeeh. Shaykh Thanvi did not define Aisa to mean Itna/Is-Qadr but gave example of usage of Aisa laid the foundation of which lead both Shuyukh to determine Aisa is in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr. Shaykh Naumani, as far I am aware, gave few examples of his own to establish Aisa is in meaning of Itna. In light of their examples and linguistic usage of Aisa we see if Shaykh Naumani’s Aisa in meaning of Itna and Shaykh Dharbangi’s Is-Qadr is free of blame. Or they have further compounded the problem for themselves.

0.0 - Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman:

“If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

0.1 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna, Is-Qadr And Yeh:

Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi while explaining his statement of Bast al-Banan gave underlined example to demonstrate Aisa is not used in meaning of Tashbeeh: “From this discussion we learn that in the mentioned statement knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not been compared/equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Umru and others. And the word aisa is not used every time for Tashbeeh. According people who speak the lanugage they use it popularly in; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is aisa powerful.[1] So in this is there intention to compare the power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with another? No! Not at all …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Based on this Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi argued Aisa is in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr: “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect. [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Based on Shaykh Thanvi’s usage of Aisa Shaykh Naumani also took Aisa to mean Itna: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘Khuda aisa qadir e mutliq heh.’[!] Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] In another place Shaykh Naumani gives another example in which Aisa can be used to mean Itna: “You have asked me to provide evidence of aisa being used in meaning of itna linguistically and in popular culture. Indeed this demand of yours is legitimate. Listen! Ameer Minahai (the blessed) in his; Ameer ul-Lughaat, Volume two, page 302 has presented a perfect/detailed research on usage of word aisa. And has mentioned few meanings. From all of them one meaning which I have mentioned. In this situation following is his statement: ‘AISA; (means) itna, is-qadr. SENTENCE: Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.[2] POETICAL VERSE: Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf.[3] Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.’ (Barq). There you go now I have established from linguistics that aisa is used without Tashbeeh in meaning of itna.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77/78, here.] In conclusion Shaykh Thanvi laid the foundation of Aisa to mean Itna and Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Dharbangi spelt out the implication of  example to mean Itna/Is-Qadr. Therefore when the injunction is issued all three would be guilty of same crime of Islamic law.

1.0 - Itna Is For Equality In Quantity – Itna Marbles You Have:

Thanvi owns three marbles. Nanotavi owns three marbles. Both of them are debating over who owns greater quantity of marbles. Enter Sajid Khan, the Pathan, with weak Urdu. Sajid Khan doesn’t know proper usage of Itna, Itni and Itnay due to his weak Urdu. Yet both, Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Nanotavi, agree to make him judge. Sajid Khan says to Shaykh Thanvi to place in a single line on the floor: O O O. After Shaykh Thanvi is done Sajid Khan tells Shaykh Nanotavi; now you place your marbles next to Shaykh Thanvi’s marbles. Shaykh Nanotavi completes the difficult task: OO OO OO. Sajid Khan looks at both Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Nanotavi and enquires do you have any more marbles? Both say: No! Being smart and educated Sajid Khan points out; one of Shaykh Thanvi’s marble is next to Shaykh Nanotavi’s marble and this establishes quantitive equality. He looks at Shaykh Nanotavi and says to him: Teen marble Thanvi kay pass thay aur itna marble tumaray pass heh.[4] Then why are you two arguing who has greater quantity of marbles!’ Sajid Khan is right because jitna (i.e. as-much) marbles Shaykh Thanvi owned Itnay[5] were owned by Shaykh Nanotavi. End. Therefore we come to conclusion; Itna in Urdu is used when there is equality in quantity of two items.

1.1 - Itna Is Not For Quantitive Disparity – Three He Has And Itna Five I Have:

Shaykh Dehalvi and Shaykh Gangohi are best friends. Both decide to pool equal amount of money and purchase eight commonly crows roast feast at home. Shaykh Gangohi being bit dishonest and avid eater of crows commonly found in subcontinent; appropriates five crows for himself and hands three to Shaykh Dehalvi. Shaykh Dehalvi argues with Shaykh Gangohi that he is being cheated by Shaykh Gangohi even though he pooled equal amount of money. Both take their dispute to Sajid Khan, the Pathan, with good Urdu. Shaykh Dehalvi presents case; we brought eight common-crows, each one Kg. And says he has been given three common-crows and Shaykh Gangohi has kept five for himself even we both paid equal amoung of money toward the purchase. Shaykh Gangohi says: ‘Mein jhoot nahin bolta, mera ihtibar keren, Shaykh Dehalvi kay pass teen Zagh e maroofan heh, itna hi panch mein nay apnay pass rakha heh.’[6] Sajid Khan asks both to show the bags and counts three and five and then says: Shaykh Gangohi you are liar. In your bag you have five plump and delicious crows and in Shaykh Dehalvi’s bag there are three mouth wateringly sumptuous crows. Shaykh Gangohi says: ‘Mein nay kab kaha meray pass teen crow hen. Mein nay toh itna kaha heh, aur itna toh size wasteh istimal hota heh; mein nay itna bara amrood khaya.’[7] Sajid Khan: My dear Shaykh Gangohi you stated: ‘… Shaykh Dehalvi kay pass teen Zagh e maroofan heh, itna hi panch mein nay apnay pass rakha heh.’ Itna denotes you have kept same quantity, this is reason for which you was accused of lieing, and your lie is exposed because you acknowledged you kept five. Itna cannot be used in context where there is imbalance of quantity. Itna is used to denote sameness of quantity. Gramatically if the quantity of crows was four each then your following statement would accurately reflect usage of Itna: ‘I am not lieing, trust me, Ismail Dehalvi is in possession of four common-crows, as-much (as him) I have kept four  for my self.’ Sajid Khan continues: You said; Itna was used by you to denote size and not quantity. The dispute is about quantity and not size so your statement about size in context of quantity would make no sense. I say it politely; you’re lieing to cover-up your previous lie. End. Therefore we come to conclusion; when there is inequality in quantity of two items Itna cannot be used.

1.2 - Itna Used In Quantitive Equality And Not In Context Of Disparity:

When Itna is used in context of two quantities, being compared with each other, or merit of one is being negated by mention of another, then equality in quantity must exist otherwise, usage of Itna would be gramatically incorrect. Please note even if the figures of quantity have not be declared like in the following equality in quantity is implied by default: ‘Nothing special about Thanvi’s knowledge; this-much knowledge even child has.’ Or if out of two parties ones quantity is declared and the others is not mentioned even then Itna would establish equality of quantity.

2.0 - Out-Come Of Itna Being For Quantitive Equality:

Shaykh Naumani’s understanding that Aisa is in meaning of Itna. It has been established that Itna when it is used in context of two quantities then there is quantitive equality in both quantities. Also the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is being negated by Shaykh Thanvi. In the context of statement; negation of speciality of prophetic Ghayb could only be if Shaykh Thanvi believed there is equality in quantity: “… intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something…” As such Shaykh Thanvi’s example of; “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.”, Shaykh Naumani’s Itna and Shaykh Darbhangi’s Is-Qadr are of equality in quantity. And this meaning is supported by context of statement becaue Shaykh negated Takhsees of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and this negation of Takhsees can only be correct if the type of Ghayb and quantity of Ghayb is is believed to be same for both parties. Otherwise party with greater knowledge would have Takhsees over party with lesser quantity of knowledge. So it must be that Shaykh Thanvi believed equality in quantity of knowledge. Lastly Shaykh Madani al-Deobandi, aka the mini-gun of insults, has following to say about Itna: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] According to Shaykh Madani Itna is of equality of quantity.

2.1 - Fatwah Of Kufr On Equality Of Quantity Issued By Shaykh Thanvi:

According to Shaykh Naumani; Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi was asked about one who establishes equality in quantity of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the mentioned creations in Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. Shaykh Thanvi replied: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification: … (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir? (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] Shaykh Naumani presents his understanding of the edict in his own words: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] According to Shaykh Naumani one who establishes quantative equality between the Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the creations which Shaykh mentioned such a person is Kafir according to Shaykh Thanvi and himself.

2.2 - The Conclusion Of Itna And Is-Qadr Taweel Of Aisa:

Sections 1.0 to 1.2 establish that Itna is used where there is equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi took aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman to mean itna/is-qadr and we have established they are for equality in quantity. According to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani himself equal quantity warrants Kufr. If aisa is in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr in Hifz ul-Iman then equality in quantity would be established. Hence Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi, would be Kafirs in judgement of Shaykh Thanvi. And Shaykh Thanvi would be Kafir in judgment of  Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi because both believe his statement uses aisa in meaning of itna/is-qadr. So instead of good the result is their own evil has caught them in the web of their own deceit and distortions.

3.0 - Itna In Light Of Shaykh Thanvi’s And Shaykh Naumani’s Examples:

Shaykh Thanvi used following to justify Taweel of Aisa: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.” Based on Shaykh Thanvi’s example; Shaykh Naumani said Aisa is in meaning of Itna and gave following example to justify its usage: “Khuda aisa qadir e mutliq heh.” Shaykh Naumani also gave following example to justify Aisa mean Itna: “Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.” He also quoted poetical verse of certain poet with name of Barq: “Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf. Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.” In addition to these following can be examples of Aisa being in meaning of Itna: ‘Aisa meetha malta.’ Another example: ‘Mirza Qadiyani aisa Kafir thah.’ In all these places Aisa is in meaning of Itna and it is being used to highlight significance and greatness of a quality. And normally these type of sentences are followed by another statement which indicates greatness of quantity being implied. And one example of this is the poetical verse quoted by Shaykh Naumani: “Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf. Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.[8] Poet says; body of that alcahol drinker is so delicate and blemishless that in my imagination [or understanding] it is akin to alcahol and a woman. Poet is equating purity and delicateness of a person to beautiful blemishless woman and alcahol. Shaykh Naumani gave another example: Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.” And the following portion indicates greatness of quantity: “Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya. Another example would be: ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir e mutliq heh keh us nay tamam qaynaat aur us mein hayat banahi. Aur idol aisa bey-qudra keh makhi nahin bana sakta balkay agar kuch cheen leh toh aisa la-char hey keh wapis bi nahin la sakta .’[9] Please note in this example Allah’s greatness in quantity is that He created everything. And idol’s helpness/powerlessness establishes it has greatly low quantity of power to the point of inability to do anything. Therefore usage of Aisa in meaning of Itna in phrases employed by Shaykh Naumani is to highlight the greatness of quantity and superiority of person possessing quality.

3.1 - Itna Of Great Quantity and Itna Of Greatly Insignificant Quanity:

Shaykh Naumani believes Aisa in statement of Shaykh Thanvi is not of Tashbeeh. He instead purposed Aisa is in meaning of Itna -; again without Tashbeeh, and Itna is not of equality, and in the statement prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not being discussed[10] in the following: “… aisa/Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In light of usage of Aisa/Itna in examples of Shaykh Naumani as demonstrated in previous section and his belief underlined in this section the result is that Ghayb knowledge of following is greater in quantity: “… aisa/itna (i.e. great quantity of baaz) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” And in the context of what preceded before this statement it would mean; Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Baaz Ghayb lacks speciality because Zayd, infants, lunatics and animals possess great quantity of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa/itna (great quantity of baaz) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Best way to understand it is to punctuate the statement again and pause for one second right before the next sentence begins and then proceed to read it: “If baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Aisa/Itna (great quantity of baaz) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds.” What can be more insulting then this that Shaykh Nuamani’s Taweel exalts knowledge of random idiots, lunatics, infants, animals and all while negating speciality of prophetic Ghayb.

3.2 – Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel In Perspective Of Truth:

Now Shaykh Naumani’s supporters may argue he believes knowledge of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi is insignificant compared to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); like in the following therefore great quantity of baaz insertion in brackets is unjust. We will say that accessment of his Itna/Aisa was made in light of his examples which I quoted but if you want to change the Itna/Aisa to greatly insignificant quantity be my guest. Before we respond to this it important to note that even though Shaykh Naumani said Aisa/Itna is not of Tashbeeh, nor equality in quantity is intended, nor Prophetic Baaz knowledge of Ghayb is being discussed the truth is in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. And it refutes the distortion of Shaykh Naumani: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa/Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] If Shaykh Naumani intended Itna/Aisa of insignificance then the statement would read: “… aisa/itna (greatly insignificant baaz quantity) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” And because contextually speciality of prophetic Ghayb knowledge is being negated/refuted by Shaykh Thanvi. Therefore it must be that Shaykh Thanvi employs equality between knowledge for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and for creations; Zayd, Amr; infants, lunatic, animals, quadrupeds. If he considered greater quantity for prophetic knowledge then how would it be possible for him to negate speciality because greatness of quantity and quality establishes speciality. Hence if Itna/Aisa was of insignificance then contextually same Itna/Aisa of insignificance is for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); like in the following: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa/itna (greatly insignificant baaz quantity) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” And this would mean that Shaykh Naumani deliberately lowered the great prophetic knowledge to negate speciality even when he knew it wasn’t the case. And this is worse for Shaykh Thanvi and worst Taweel for Shayh Naumani.

Conclusion:

In statement of Shaykh Thanvi Aisa is used for Tashbeeh and if Taweel of Aisa is made to mean Itna then Itna is also of Tashbeeh. Takhsees of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is being negated hence comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) via Aisa/Itna is fundamental for it. And this Tashbeeh is clearly being made linguistically. In the statement Itna is of equality in quantity; be that equality in insignificant quantity of baaz or great quantity of baaz. Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi all believe, if in statement of Shaykh Thanvi, there was equality in quantity then it would be Kufr. And this precisely has been established.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

FootNotes:

- [1] Urdu: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.” Means: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is so powerful. Or it can mean: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is so-much powerful.

- [!] Means: ‘God is aisa (i.e. this-much) all-mighty powerful.’

- [2] Ad means half and mowa means death. Therefore literally it means: Struck so-much that (he put him) in half death state. It can mean: Struck him so-much that nearly killed him. And means: Struck in like-this that nearly killed him. It can also mean: Beat up so-much mean knocked him unconcious, or paralysed. Note meanings are derived from what the word ad-mowa can referr to.

- [3] It roughly means: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so-much delicate and blemish-less.’ Better rendering of it in English would be: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so delicate and blemish-less.’

- [4] ’Teen marble Thanvi kay pass heh aur itna marble tumaray pass heh.’ It means: ‘Thanvi owns three marbles and this-much marble are yours also.’ It was pointed out; Sajid Khan has weak Urdu and he used Itna but he should have used Itnay plural to denote more then one marble. Weak Urdu story was invented so Itna fits into Shaykh Naumani’s Itna. Itna to Itnay, single to plural, would not have changed the verdict of quantitive equality.

[5] Itnay is plural, if the item discussed was single item, then itna would be used but item was more then one hence Itna.

- [6] Statement: ‘Mein jhoot nahin bolta, mera ihtibar keren, Shaykh Dehalvi kay pass teen Zagh e maroofan heh, itna hi panch mein nay apnay pass rakha heh.’ Means: ‘I am not lieing, trust me, Shaykh Dehalvi is in possession of three crows, as-much (as him) I have kept five for my self.’

- [7] Statement: ‘Mein nay kab kaha meray pass teen crow hen. Mein nay toh itna kaha heh, aur itna toh size wasteh istimal hota heh; mein nay itna bara Aamb khaya.’ Means: ‘When did I say I have three crows. I used Itna and Itna is used for size; I ate this-much big mango.’

- [8] To easily access the poetical verse read it: Jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf us bada-kash ka. Moj e Sharab ka zana par ghuman hey.

- [9] Translation: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is so-much poweful; He created all the universe and all life in it. And idol is so-much powerless that it can’t even creat a fly infact if she snaches something from it that it is so-much helpless it cannot bring it back.

- [10] “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. [] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited of knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb [] meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.