Hudhuda insaan ya parinda?

[saud491]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/gramrefut.html

Responses To The Grammatical Errors In The Qur'n
M S M Saifullah
[FONT=HELVETICA, ARIAL, sans-serif] Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.[/FONT]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance:
Newton and his buddy M. Rafiqul-Haqq published a list of grammatical errors in the Qur'n in 1996. Most of us are unaware that the famous orientalist of our times John Burton wrote a paper called the Linguistic Errors In The Qur'n in the Journal Of Semitic Studies, Volume XXXIII/2, Autumn 1988. He dealt with the hadth of A'isha(R) where she has supposed to have said that the ayahs 4:162, 5:69 and 20:63 are grammatically incorrect. Burton also dealt with the ayah 2:177 to show its grammatical inconsistency. These four verses are also dealt by Newton et al. in their homepage.
In 1992, M A S Abdel Haleem, a Professor from School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London (UK) published a paper called Grammatical Shift For The Rhetorical Purposes: Iltift And Related Features In The Qur'n, in the Bulletin of School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume LV, Part 3. In this paper, he not only dealt with the so-called-linguistic (grammatical) errors published by John Burton, but also showed that people need to be thorough in classical Arabic before saying anything about the Qur'n and its grammatical structure. Most of the discussion on Iltift below is taken from this paper.
To begin with: Iltift means to 'turn/turn one's face to'. It is an important part of balgha (Arabic rhetoric) where there is a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about. Muslim literary critics over the centuries have greatly admired this technique. Iltift has been called by rhetoricians shaj'at al-'arabiyya as it shows, in their opinion, the daring nature of the Arabic language. If any 'daring' is to be attached to it, it should above all be the daring of the language of the Qur'n since it employs this feature far more extensively and in more variations than does Arabic poetry. Most of the authors who talk about iltift use the examples from the Qur'n. No one seems to quote references in prose other than from the Qur'n: and indeed a sampling of hadith material found not a single instance.
The types of iltift and related features are of following types:

1. 1. Changes in person, between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, which is the most common and is usually divided into six kinds. The four important examples that are found in the Qur'n are:
   
   
   • Transition from the 3rd to 1st person. This is the most common type. Over 140 instances can be found in the Qur'n.
   • From 1st to 3rd person - nearly 100 such instances can be found in the Qur'n.
   • From 3rd to 2nd person - nearly 60 instances.
   • From 2nd to 3rd person - under 30 instances.
   2. Change in the number, between singular, dual and plural.
   3. Change in the addressee.
   4. Change in the tense of the verb.
   5. Change in the case marker.
   6. Using noun in the place of pronoun.

Examples from the Qur'n of the above mentioned cases can be seen in M A S Abdel Haleem's paper. The so-called-grammatical errors in ayahs 4:162, 5:69, 20:63 and 2:177 are already dealt by him. Interested persons can read his paper which is online. The Investigating Islam website deals with iltift and other grammatical constructions to refute Newton's material.
Muhammad Ghoneim from France had dealt with the issue of grammatical errors at Newton's website by quoting the Arabic grammarians. He has brought to our notice some very interesting points.
Apart from this, we also have the first refutation by Brother Wail Ibrahim which appeared on soc.religion.islam newsgroup that can be viewed here.
We are also tempted to add that Newton did not even mention that the hadth of A'isha(R) is considered to be weak by the hadth specialists. One can only presuppose that in the spirit of deception, such arrogant and authoritative charges are made possible through the suppression of facts and selective argumentation.
And Allah knows best!

 

[saud491]

Dear brother, laws of nature cannot be dismissed because if you dismiss them then everything falls apart including concept of god and religion. This was a major debate between various muslim scholars of the past eg ibn sina, ibn rushd, imaam ghazali etc included. The debate was about place of revelation and intellect. One people argued revelation was superior to human intellect therefore intellectual decision must be subordinate to revelation, the other people argued that revelation to be taken as revelation one has to judge it rationally so revelation must be subjected to proper understanding. Over the centuries muslim king made sure that rationality went out and blind faith settled in and the result is obvious if we look at last several centuries. This is why sir seyyed and the like were opposed because people had left intellectual thought far far behind.

We have been busy replacing rationality with make beliefs and by now we are fully stuck in it. This is what happens when people give no importance to laws of nature, logic and rationality and instead follow idea of predestination, fatalism, miracles and magic.

I am not justifying interpretation of parwez word for word but his idea of rationality. He gives sample explanation which if one does not like can bring in one's own but they have to be rationally sensible because irrational and illogical explanations are nothing but utter nonsense. In that case one is better say nothing. The old idea was that little birds carried pebbles and when they threw them on elephants they just pierced through them. This made no sense because little birds do not do things like this and no one has ever witnessed anything like this ever. Animals have set natural behaviours, which do not change other than naturally for natural reasons.

When the question is simply whether the quran is a sensible book or just a book of baby stories then parwez decided to explain the quran the best he could. If any of us does not like his explanation he does not stop us from creating one ourselves that explains things better. If I do not like what you come up with the better course of action would be that I try and see if I can do it better rather than waste my time by cursing you for trying.

The other thing I would like to point out is that parwez did not write any short textual translation that is his commentary on the quran, which should have been obvious to everyone but it seems that I was wrong in depending on others even to realise that much perhaps due to prejudices running in our community.

As for videos, it is to show how outside world is busy attacking us but we are busy fighting each other. We will do better if we concentrate on defending what is sensible in a sensible way, which some of us are already doing.

The videos also show the reality of arabic grammar ie it is subordinate to wisdom as I already explained very clearly.

I shall try explaining about the uniqueness of quranic structure as I explained the uniqueness of arabic language for preservation of the quranic text and meanings of the words as and when I get the time. I will explain why we have words in brackets when translating the quran.

As for your style of discussion, I do find it a bit challenging but if you are happy with it then that is all that matters. I like explanations therefore the long posts.

More hopefully later, regards and all the best.

باقی رہا گرامر کا معاملہ تو اس میں طہ حسین اور اس کے ہمنواؤں کی بات بالکلیہ غلط ہے۔ گرامر کے قواعد اہل زبان کے تعامل کو سامنے رکھ کر متعین کیے جاتے ہیں۔ ان کی صحت وعدم صحت اہل زبان کے عمل کی کسوٹی پر پرکھ کر طے کی جاتی ہے ان کی روشنی میں اہل زبان کو غلط قرار نہیں دیا جاتا۔ قرآن مجید میں کوئی ایک جملہ بھی ایسا نہیں ہے جو عربوں کے معروف اسالیب اور تراکیب کے مطابق نہ ہو۔ زمخشری ، سیبویہ اور ابن ہشام جیسے نحوی اپنے قواعد کے لیے سب سے محکم شاہد قرآن مجید کے جملوں کو قرار دیتے ہیں اور اعتماد کے ساتھ قرآن مجید سے مثالیں نقل کرتے ہیں۔ یہ اہل فن کے ہاں مسلم ہے کہ گرامر کی کوئی کتاب زبان کے تمام امکانات کا احاطہ نہیں کرتی۔ چنانچہ نئے ماہرین اس کمی کی تلافی کا کام جاری رکھتے ہیں۔ اگر کسی کو قرآن مجید کا کوئی جملہ اپنی مزعومہ گرامر کے مطابق نظر نہیں آتا تو اسے چاہیے کہ اسے اپنے علم کی کمی سمجھے۔ یہاں میں یہ بھی عرض کر دوں کہ آج تک نحوی غلطیوں کی جو مثالیں بھی پیش کی گئی ہیں ان کا تجزیہ کرکے بتا دیا گیا ہے کہ یہ دعوی درست نہیں ہے۔

​

 

[saud491]

قرآن قطعی الدلالۃ ہے۔ چنانچہ اُس کے مخاطبین جب اُس کے کسی دعوے کو نہیں مانتے تو پوری شان کے ساتھ کہتا ہے کہ'اَلْحَقُّ مِنْ رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَکُنْ مِّنَ الْمُمْتَرِيْنَ*'(تمھارے پروردگار کی طرف سے یہی حق ہے، لہٰذا کسی شبہے میں نہ رہو)۔اور انکار پر اصرار کریں تو اِسی بنا پر اُنھیں یہ کہہ کر مباہلے کا چیلنج دے دیتا ہے کہ یہ 'العلم' ہے جو تمھارے پروردگار کی طرف سے آگیا ہے۔اِس کے مقابلے میں ہر چیز محض کذب و افترا یا ظن و گمان ہے اور حق کے مقابلے میں ظن کوئی حیثیت نہیں رکھتا: 'اِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِیْ مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا'۔**​

​

اُس کی یہی حیثیت آج بھی ہے۔ اِس لیے کہ اُس کے الفاظ جس تواتر کے ساتھ نقل ہوئے ہیں ، اُن کے مفاہیم بھی اُسی طرح نقل کیے گئے ہیں ۔ قرآن کے علما جس چیز میں اختلاف کرتے ہیں ، وہ الفاظ کے مفاہیم نہیں ، بلکہ کسی خاص موقع و محل کے لیے اُن مفاہیم میں سے کسی مفہوم کا انتخاب ہے۔ یہ مفاہیم کتابوں میں ثبت ہوئے ہیں ، اِنھیں علما، فقہا، ادبا اور مفسرین نے جگہ جگہ بیان کیا ہے۔ یہ مسلمانوں کے مدرسوں ، خانقاہوں اور علم و ادب کی مجالس میں پڑھے پڑھائے اور سمجھے سمجھائے گئے ہیں ۔ زمانہ رسالت سے لے کر آج تک یہ سلسلہ اِسی تواتر کے ساتھ جاری ہے، اِس میں کبھی کوئی انقطاع نہیں ہوا۔ یہی معاملہ اُس کی زبان کے قواعد و اسالیب کا ہے۔ اُنھیں بھی اِسی تواتر کے ساتھ نقل کیا گیا اور پڑھا اور پڑھایا گیا ہے۔ اِس میں شاذ اگر کوئی استثنا کہیں بیان کیا جا سکتا ہے تو اپنی دلالت سے یہی متواترات اُس کو بھی درجہ یقین میں لے آتے ہیں ۔ چنانچہ قرآن کے متعلق یہ بات آج بھی پورے اطمینان کے ساتھ کہی جا سکتی ہے کہ انسان اُس کے الفاظ کی رہنمائی قبول کر لے تو وہ قطعیت کے ساتھ اُسے ٹھیک اُس مدعا تک پہنچا دیتے ہیں جس کے لیے استعمال کیے گئے ہیں ۔

...............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
اِسی طرح بعض نئے قلم کاروں کی یہ بات بھی قابل توجہ نہیں ہے کہ عام قطعی الدلالۃ نہیں ہوتا اور قرآن کی زیادہ تر آیتیں چونکہ اِسی طرح کے الفاظ پر مشتمل ہیں ، لہٰذا قرآن بھی قطعی الدلالۃ نہیں ہو سکتا۔ اہل علم خود سمجھ سکتے ہیں کہ یہ بات کیسی طفلانہ اور علم و دانش سے کتنی بعید ہے جس کے کہنے والے الفاظ کی وضع لغوی اور وضع استعمالی کا فرق بھی نہیں جانتے۔

​

ایک اعتراض، البتہ مستحق ہے کہ اُس سے تعرض کیا جائے۔ بعض علما کہتے ہیں کہ قرآن کی بیش تر آیات کے سمجھنے میں لوگوں نے اختلاف کیا ہے، اِس لیے وہ محتمل الوجوہ ہیں اور کوئی محتمل الوجوہ کلام قطعی الدلالۃ نہیں ہو سکتا۔ قطعی الدلالۃ اُسی کلام کو کہیں گے جس کی تاویل میں کوئی اختلاف نہ ہو۔​

​

اِس اعتراض میں اتنی بات بالکل صحیح ہے کہ کوئی محتمل الوجوہ کلام قطعی الدلالۃ نہیں ہو سکتا، لیکن کیا ہر وہ کلام جس کی تاویل میں اختلافات ہوں ، محتمل الوجوہ ہوجاتا ہے؟ ہمارا جواب ہے کہ ہرگز نہیں ۔ محتمل الوجوہ ہونا کلام کی مستقل صفت ہے، یہ اُسے عارض نہیں ہوتی۔ آپ کسی کلام کو محتمل الوجوہ قرار دینا چاہتے ہیں تو ثابت کیجیے کہ اُس کی تاویل میں جو اختلافات بیان کیے جا رہے ہیں ، وہ ہمیشہ سے قائم ہیں اور ہمیشہ قائم رہیں گے۔ علم و استدلال کسی حال میں اُس کے وجود سے اُنھیں منفک نہ کر سکیں گے۔ ایک شخص کسی کلام کو سنتا یا پڑھتا ہے اور اُس کے کسی لفظ، کسی محاورے یا کسی تالیف کے معنی غلط سمجھ لیتا ہے۔ دوسرا جملے کے دروبست کو نظر انداز کرکے اُس کا ایک مفہوم بیان کر دیتا ہے۔ تیسرا ہر جملے کو منفرد خیال کرتا ہے اور سیاق و سباق اور نظم کلام کی پروا کیے بغیر اُس کا ایک مدعا بیان کرتا ہے۔ کیا یہ سب وجوہ کلام ہیں اور اِن کی بنا پر اُسے محتمل الوجوہ کہا جائے گا؟ قرآن کی تاویل میں جتنے اختلافات ہوئے ہیں، سب کی نوعیت یہی ہے۔ چنانچہ اُس کی کوئی ایک آیت بھی نہیں ہے جس کے بارے میں یہ کہا جا سکے کہ اصلاً محتمل الوجوہ ہے اور سلف سے خلف تک تمام علما متفق رہے ہیں کہ اُس میں ایک سے زیادہ معنی کا احتمال ماننا ضروری ہے۔ اِس کے برخلاف صورت حال یہ ہے کہ جتنے اقوال کسی آیت کے بارے میں نقل ہوئے ہیں ، اُن میں سے بعض اختیار کیے گئے اور بعض چھوڑ دیے گئے ہیں ۔ پھر جو چھوڑ دیے گئے ہیں ، اُنھیں دوسرے اہل علم نے اختیار کر لیا ہے اور جو اختیار کیے گئے ہیں ، اُنھیں چھوڑ دیا ہے۔ علما اِس ترک و اختیار کے وجوہ بھی بیان کرتے ہیں ۔ کہیں بتایا جاتا ہے کہ لغت اُس معنی کی تائید نہیں کرتی جو کسی قول میں اختیار کیے گئے تھے، کہیں تالیف کو سمجھنے کی غلطی واضح کی جاتی ہے ، کہیں دروبست کو نظر انداز کرنے کی طرف توجہ دلائی جاتی ہے اور کہیں سیاق و سباق اور نظم کلام سے استدلال کیا جاتا ہے۔ فقہ و کلام اور تفسیر کی کتابیں اِن مباحث سے بھری پڑی ہیں ۔ ابن جریر لوگوں کے اقوال نقل کرنے میں سب سے زیادہ فیاض ہیں ، لیکن تفسیر کا مطالعہ کرنے والے جانتے ہیں کہ جگہ جگہ مختلف اقوال پر تنقید بھی کرتے ہیں ۔ ابن کثیر اُنھی کا خلاصہ ہے، مگر یہ خلاصہ خود اصول ترجیح کی بنیاد پر کیا گیا ہے۔ زمخشری، قرطبی ، آلوسی، طباطبائی، ابوالاعلیٰ مودودی، سب کی تفسیریں اِس کی شہادت دیتی ہیں ۔ دنیا کی دسیوں زبانوں میں قرآن کے ترجمے ہوئے ہیں ۔ اُنھیں دیکھ لیجیے کسی مترجم نے قرآن کی کسی ایک آیت کو بھی محتمل الوجوہ قرار دے کر اُس کا ترجمہ نہیں کیا، بلکہ ہر جگہ اپنی ترجیح قائم کی ہے اور اُسی کے مطابق ترجمہ کیا ہے۔ اِس کا منتہاے کمال امام فراہی کی تفاسیر اور استاذ امام امین احسن اصلاحی کی ''تدبر قرآن'' ہے، جن میں ترجمہ ہی نہیں ، تفسیرمیں بھی ہر جگہ ایک ہی قول کو ترجیح دی گئی ہے۔ اِس ترجیح سے اختلاف بھی کیا جا سکتا ہے، مگر یہ اختلاف خود اِس بات کی دلیل ہوگا کہ اختلاف کرنے والا کلام کو محتمل الوجوہ نہیں مانتا۔ وہ اصرار کر رہا ہے کہ جو معنی سمجھے گئے ہیں ، وہ فلاں اور فلاں وجوہ سے صحیح نہیں ہیں ۔​

​

لوگوں کی غلطی یہ ہے کہ وہ تاویل کے اختلافات اور کلام کے احتمالات میں فرق نہیں کرتے۔ یہ دونوں الگ الگ چیزیں ہیں۔ تاویل کے اختلافات قلت علم سے بھی پیدا ہو جاتے ہیں اور قلت تدبر سے بھی۔ پھر قلت تدبر کے بھی وجوہ ہیں ۔ لوگوں کی ذہنی تربیت، اُن کی خواہشات، تعصبات، عجلت پسندی، اشتغال بالادنیٰ اور اِس نوعیت کی بہت سی چیزیں اِس کا باعث بن جاتی ہیں ۔ اِن میں سے کوئی بات بھی نہ ہو تو قرآن جیسی مقدس کتاب کے بارے میں تنہا یہ احتیاط نقد و جرح سے گریز کا باعث بن جاتی ہے کہ معنی کی ترجیح میں کوئی غلطی نہ ہو جائے۔ اِس کے برخلاف کلام کے احتمالات اُس کی پیدایش کے وقت سے اُس میں ودیعت ہوتے ہیں ۔ پڑھنے یا سننے والا اُنھیں دریافت کر لے تو کبھی کلام سے الگ نہیں کر سکتا۔ چنانچہ وہ جب بیان کیے جاتے ہیں تو ہر شخص ماننے کے لیے مجبور ہو جاتا ہے کہ یہ کلام کا پیدایشی عیب ہے، اِسے دور کرنا ممکن نہیں ہے۔​

​

قرآن مجید اِس عیب سے بالکل مبرا ہے۔اِس طرح کی کوئی چیز اُس کے بارے میں ثابت نہیں کی جا سکتی۔ وہ 'العلم' ہے، 'الحق' ہے، میزان اور فرقان ہے، عربی مبین میں نازل ہوا ہے، 'نذيرًا للعٰلمين' ہے، لہٰذا پوری دنیا کے لیے خدا کی حجت ہے۔ اُس کا دعویٰ ہے کہ خدا کی کسی کتاب میں تضادات اور احتمالات نہیں ہوتے، وہ ہمیشہ قطعی الدلالۃ ہوتی ہے: 'لَوْکَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللّٰهِ لَوَجَدُوْا فِيْهِ اخْتِلَافًا کَثِيْرًا*'۔​

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ​

* آل عمران٣:٦٠۔​

** آل عمران٣:٦١-٦٣۔ النجم٥٣:٢٨۔​

​

 

[saud491]

اس حقیقت سے کوئی انکار نہیں کر سکتا کہ قرآن مجید پیغمبرانہ انذار کی کتاب ہے اور اس کا اصل موضوع خدا کی اسکیم سے آگاہی اور اس کی بندگی کے اصول و ضوابط کی تلقین ہے۔ اس میں اس کائنات اور انسان کے وجود میں خدا کی تخلیق کے بعض پہلوؤں کا ذکر ضرور ہے، لیکن اس کا ہدف بھی اصل میں بندوں کو ان کے پروردگار کی طرف متوجہ کرنا اور ان کے دلوں میں اس کی عظمت کا ادراک پیدا کرنا ہے۔ کوئی سائنسی اکتشافات قرآن کا موضوع نہیں ہیں۔​

سائنسی اکتشافات کے حوالے سے دو رویے پیدا ہوئے ہیں: ایک رویہ یہ ہے کہ سائنس دان جو کچھ بھی دریافت کریں، اس کا کوئی نہ کوئی سراغ قرآن مجید سے نکال لیا جائے۔ اس کے لیے بعض لوگ قرآن کے الفاظ اور سیاق وسباق کو نظر انداز کرکے من مانی تاویل کرنے سے بھی گریز نہیں کرتے، یہ رویہ صریح طور پر غلط ہے، اس لیے کہ کچھ معلوم نہیں کہ کل سائنس کا کو ئی قانون یا نظریہ کسی نئی دریافت کے نتیجے میں تبدیل ہو کر رہ جائے اور ہم نے جس بات کو اپنی نادانی سے خدا کی بات بنا دیا تھا، وہ غلط ثابت ہو جائے۔دوسرا رویہ وہ ہے جسے آپ نے بھی بیان کیا ہے۔ قرآن مجید میں زمین وآسمان اور انسان کی تخلیق یا ساخت کے بارے میں کچھ بیانات ہیں ۔ یہ بیانات انھی الفاظ اور تعبیرات میں ہیں جن میں نزول قرآن کے زمانے کا عرب انھیں سمجھ سکتا تھا اور اس کا کچھ نہ کچھ شعور بھی رکھتا تھا۔یہ درست ہے کہ یہ بیانات کبھی غلط نہیں ہو سکتے اور نئی سائنسی دریافتیں اگر ان کی تائید کرتی ہیں تو اس سے ان کے خدا کا کلام ہونے کا پہلو مزید نمایاں ہوتا ہے، لیکن یہاں بھی یہ خطرہ موجود ہے کہ ہم قرآن کے الفاظ میں وہ معنی داخل کردیں جو ان کا حصہ نہیں تھے اور کل کی کوئی نئی دریافت ہمیں اپنی بات واپس لینے پر مجبور کردے۔
اصل یہ ہے کہ سائنس کی دریافتیں قرآن کی تائید کریں یا نہ کریں، قرآن اپنی جگہ پر اٹل ہے۔ ہمیں اس کی حقانیت انھی دلائل سے ثابت کرنی چاہیے جو ہمیشہ کار آمد ہیں اور جن پر بوسیدگی طاری نہیں ہوتی۔ ہاں، محتاط طریقے سے اگر سائنسی دریافتوں کو قرآن کے مقدمات کے حق میں استعمال کیا جائے تو اس کے مفید ہونے میں شبہ نہیں۔​

 

[Raaz]

عقل ملاحضہ ہو ہد ہد ایک انسان تھا
اگر ہد ہد انسان ہو سکتا ہے تو پھر آدمی کیا ہو گا ؟

اگر ہد ہد کو پرندہ نہ مانو گے تو ترقی نہیں ہو سکتی

کیا یہ کہنا زیادہ پاورفل بات نہیں ہو گی کہ انسان تو انسان جانور اور پرندے بھی خلیفہ تالله کے تا بیح تھے
یا جانوروں کے ذکر سے عزت میں کمی آ جاے گی ؟؟
اور انسانوں کے ذکر سے ترقی ہو جاۓ گی ؟؟؟؟

یہ مسلہ ترجمہ کا نہی ، اپنی بات اور نفسیات کو الله کی بات پر ترجیح دینے کا ہے.
یہ اسی شیطانی سوچ کا نتیجہ ہے جس نے آدم کو سجدہ نہی کیا
بلکہ الٹا الله کو بتانے لگا کہ یہ تو مٹی کا بنا حقیر انسان ہے اور میں آگے سے بنا ہوں، اس سے افضل ہوں

لیکن پرویز صاحب شطان کو بھی نہی مانتے ، شاید خود ہی شیطان ہیں ​

 

[biomat]

Bro Raaz
Assalam-o-alaikum
After all my reservation from late GAP, but i think that still he believed in ALLAH (GOD) & QURAN.. Because our SMALL BRAINS cannot think or imagine ALLAH.. So as most of the science & scientist do not believe in GOD so ALLAH doesnot exist (naozubillah)..
So let put aside this first good thing in late GAP (GHULAM AHMED PERVAIZ)..
==========================================
So i am observing that this thread reaches its conclusion.. May ALLAH guide all of us to the RIGHT PATH & free us from all fitnas, diversion & deceptions..

 

[Mughal1]

Dear friends, thank you very much for your efforts in trying to help each other understand some important points regarding the quran.

So far it has been shown that the quran is book of wisdom and is firmly based on facts and laws of nature. The problem began when some of us began to give priority to grammar over language itself or grammar over rules of wisdom and laws of nature. This is why I decided to take us through an exercise to show that that was not the case. Language was there long before grammar study was put in place.

Likewise laws of nature were always there regardless we discovered them or realized them or not. Our study of things only helps us know that these things are there. However that is only for those who come across those things directly themselves or those who study those findings not masses who never bother.

In this case so far presented arguments only back sir seyyed view of things therefore the attempt at interpretation of the quran in that light is right one. However, the actual interpretation is correct or not is another argument and in that case no translation or interpretation of the quran can be guaranteed to be 100% true. Not even those accepted widely.

It is also important to note that even though the quranic use of words will be expected to be backed by ancient arabic literature to some degree, it would be silly to expect that each and every words would be covered. It is for this reason the idea that taking a word from the quran and saying this has not been covered by ancient literature therefore it can or cannot mean this becomes a meaningless exercise as was attempted by ghamidi sb. It is because not all ancient arabic could be covered in arabic literature because not every arab was a great writer nor that all literature could have survived. So we have only whatever is left of it and that cannot guaranty that nothing is left out of it.

So it all comes down to wisdom rather than make beliefs. And wisdom dictates that human prophets come to guide humanity not animals and their followers are also human who support their missions not animals. Animals can only be used by humans as usual nothing out of natural context eg elephants are used in battles or for moving goods or things. The same is true about horses and donkeys or other animals eg cattle, goats and sheep for domestic purposes. In this context animals were always part of any community. People trained dogs and eagles etc for hunting. Animals never talk sense like humans though they can be trained to talk eg parrots. In our experience we never saw any ants talk nor any hud hud birds.

It is therefore wrong to translate the quranic verses out of their natural contexts based upon sure wisdom that cannot be refuted.

So the question is not about translation/interpretation of parwez and the like but whether their stand is right on the spot or not? So far the idea of parwez is the one that is clear winner not necessarily his interpretation of the quranic texts. But then whose interpretation can be guaranteed 100%?

This is my conclusion based on the evidences presented by all friends here. My only reservation is the language used by some of our friends about others. It is good idea to participate in discussions whole heartedly but one must remain within limits of civility. That is the accepted wisdom and the lesson of the quran for us.

my regards and thanks for all and best wishes.

I shall make yet more contribution regarding the quran but it may take time as to why the quranic text is set the way it is and how it proves an advantage rather than disadvantage. Our challenges are not from within but from outsiders and when we try to address them we have to make statements to address those challenges and these things should not be used against each other for purpose of divisions. The idea is not to force scholars into double talk ie use different and contradicting information giving impression to outsiders as if we are trying to deceive the mankind the while trying please the muslim masses. It is not good for us nor good for the outsiders. The quran is message of Allah for all people and our job is to explain it to the best of our abilities. We should accept the helpful criticism and improve our own knowledge and explain away the misunderstandings. We cannot be in right frame of mind if we do not accept laws of nature and rules of wisdom as basis and our senseless arguments would only confuse our own masses as well as outsiders. Thus we will be digging ourselves our own graves. We need to come out this destructive and damaging mentality.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Incoherence/index.html

 

[Abdul Allah]

Dear friends, thank you very much for your efforts

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Incoherence/index.html

you are yet to answer my question after so many long posts.

 

[crankthskunk]

Re: Hudhuda insaan ys parinda?

The Sonship of Jesus Christ.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_1.html#pgfId-1006062

I had been reluctant to read this thread, knowing fully well that if it contains Pervaiz BS then it would be full of people who think that everything in the universe is under the so-called principles or Laws of Nature, and not under the Commands of Allah SWT. There are two kinds of people who do these interpretations, Atheists, against whom personally I have no problems, at least they are straight in their mind and do not believe in the Creator. Second kind are those who are either Qadianis or following the teachings of Pervaiz, people like those who run Beacon website. These are lost and more dangerous people. They in fact are atheists, but do not openly disclose it.

Ehraz,

From your declaration "Muslims for Peace" a pet slogan of Qadianis and from you quoting from Al-Islam website, it is clear you are a Qadiani.

I start with your non-sense first, let me quote a paragraph from the page you quoted from Al-Islam website;

Something happened in Mary which gave that child a miraculous birth, without a man having touched her. It is the Ahmadiyya Muslim belief that this is exactly what happened. Our case is unshakeable because no scientist can dismiss it as nonsensical or opposed to the known laws of nature.
Miracles are not seen in Islam as unnatural occurrences, but as natural phenomena that are concealed from human knowledge at that period of time. Otherwise, there would be many questions raised against the wisdom of God. If God created the laws of nature Himself, He should have made some provisions whereby without breaking them, He could bring about desired solutions to a problem.

First of all, to call the Miracles as natural phenomena is not only absurd but also belittling the Quranic concept, Allah SWT has to Say Be Kun for a matter and it is done FaiKun.

Muslims dont worry beyond it, to bring rational or so-called Laws of Nature, which in turn indicate that Nature is supreme rather than Allah SWT (nauzobillah). We strongly believe Allah SWT is The Creator of all that exists, He SWT Created everything, out of nothing, without any need or aid of so-called Laws of Nature.

As for Qadianis or Mirzas non-sense, one should remember, Mirza has performed every kind of imaginable summersaults on the nature of both Adam As and Jesus As. I have discussed it long time ago on Ahmedi.org; therefore, I am not going to go in to great length on this subject.

Suffice to say, Mirza have written that he believes in Virgin Birth and given the examples of many such births took place before Jesus As, recorded by the Greeks. Then in other places, he has insinuated other heretic ideas from levelling grave and false accusation against the family of Prophet Isa As.

Here is news from 2007, which I posted at Ahmedi.org in 2007 during a debate on Isa As.

Zoo celebrates virgin Komodo birth
POSTED: 3:38 a.m. EST, January 24, 2007 POSTED: 3:38 a.m. EST, January 24, 2007
MANCHESTER, England (AP) -- A British zoo on Wednesday announced the virgin birth of five Komodo dragons, giving scientists new hope for the captive breeding of the endangered species.
In an evolutionary twist, the newborns' 8-year-old mother, Flora, shocked staff at Chester Zoo in northern England when she became pregnant without ever having a male partner or even being exposed to the opposite sex.

All those who are hell bound to give twist to the Verses of the Holy Quran because of their limited knowledge and their brains could not understand it, are doing a disservice to not only Islam but are also questioning the All Encompassing Powers of Allah SWT.

In Islam it is heretical to limit the Powers of Allah SWT under any so-called Laws of Nature.

Laws of Nature are nothing but the limits of human perceptions, knowledge and experience. Why should Allah SWT be bind by the limitations of Human knowledge and perceptions? Why ignore the repeated Quranic decrees, only Allah SWT Knows what is beyond the perceptions of Human Being?

 

[Mughal1]

Re: Hudhuda insaan ys parinda?

I had been reluctant to read this thread, knowing fully well that if it contains Pervaiz BS then it would be full of people who think that everything in the universe is under the so-called principles or Laws of Nature, and not under the Commands of Allah SWT. There are two kinds of people who do these interpretations, Atheists, against whom personally I have no problems, at least they are straight in their mind and do not believe in the Creator. Second kind are those who are either Qadianis or following the teachings of Pervaiz, people like those who run Beacon website. These are lost and more dangerous people. They in fact are atheists, but do not openly disclose it.

Ehraz,

From your declaration "Muslims for Peace" a pet slogan of Qadianis and from you quoting from Al-Islam website, it is clear you are a Qadiani.

I start with your non-sense first, let me quote a paragraph from the page you quoted from Al-Islam website;



First of all, to call the Miracles as natural phenomena is not only absurd but also belittling the Quranic concept, Allah SWT has to Say “Be” “Kun” for a matter and it is “done” “FaiKun”.

Muslims don’t worry beyond it, to bring rational or so-called “Laws of Nature”, which in turn indicate that Nature is supreme rather than Allah SWT (nauzobillah). We strongly believe Allah SWT is The Creator of all that exists, He SWT Created everything, out of nothing, without any need or aid of so-called Laws of Nature.

As for Qadianis or Mirza’s non-sense, one should remember, Mirza has performed every kind of imaginable summersaults on the nature of both Adam As and Jesus As. I have discussed it long time ago on Ahmedi.org; therefore, I am not going to go in to great length on this subject.

Suffice to say, Mirza have written that he believes in Virgin Birth and given the examples of many such births took place before Jesus As, recorded by the Greeks. Then in other places, he has insinuated other heretic ideas from levelling grave and false accusation against the family of Prophet Isa As.

Here is news from 2007, which I posted at Ahmedi.org in 2007 during a debate on Isa As.



All those who are hell bound to give twist to the Verses of the Holy Quran because of their limited knowledge and their brains could not understand it, are doing a disservice to not only Islam but are also questioning the All Encompassing Powers of Allah SWT.

In Islam it is heretical to limit the Powers of Allah SWT under any so-called Laws of Nature.

Laws of Nature are nothing but the limits of human perceptions, knowledge and experience. Why should Allah SWT be bind by the limitations of Human knowledge and perceptions? Why ignore the repeated Quranic decrees, only Allah SWT Knows what is beyond the perceptions of Human Being?

Dear crankthskunk, as I see it if I understand you correctly, I think your standpoint on laws of nature is seriously mistaken when you think Allah becomes subservient to laws of nature or nature itself. This is clearly not the case when you look at it from stand point of chaos versus order and consistency. If we accept Allah does just anything regardless then your own standpoint becomes unstable because you are trying to argue against any basis for anything so there is no case to answer or argue for. Only if we accept that in some way things can be made sense of that we can argue from that stand point on. In short common ground is absolutely necessary.

The nature would be above God if God did not create it and God created it according to his set purpose and planning and program as I understand it therefore there is no question of Allah being controlled by nature. So your point seems nonsensical unless you could explain it in a better way that does make some sense.

The question is, is chaos the basis of our universe or is it consistent and orderly? Also if created by God then did God just do it haphazardly or did he go by some sort of rule and order? It is choice of God here either way and if by doing things one way he is not under control of it then why would he be by doing it another way? If it is my choice to kick a ball or punch it then whichever choice I make, how is it then not my choice?

Allah claims to be wise in the quran and draws our attention to things so that by seeing his wisdom we are convinced about his existence and his rule of law for us for our own good, would it then not reflect bad on Allah if what he did made no sense to us because he chose chaos rather than order and consistency in doing things?

Please think about it, regards and all the best.

 

[crankthskunk]

Mughal cut the crap. Allah SWT does not need and does not Worry about the Laws of nature. These are you concoctions to fulfil your wane desires. Those who try to defend Pervaiz and his so-called explanations of the Holy Quran are not only misguided themselves but are dangerous for Muslims. Pervaiz was a liar who twisted the Holy Quran. Why should I bother about him or anyone who try to defend his translations and explanations?

You should know, those nature and Laws of Physics proponents never pass the first hurdle, no matter which scientists work they try to search. An example was set on this very forum.

You can try to explain under which Laws of Physics the Universe was created by Allah SWT? What Laws of Nature or Physics were present when according to your science there was no Time and Space?

The problem for people like you, you try to say, Allah SWT the All Encompassing had the Ability and Power to Create this massive Universe without any Laws of Nature and Laws of Physics. But then all of sudden He SWT became subservient to Laws of Nature (nauzobilah) for even smaller Acts compare to Creation of the Universe?

And your arguments of order is also a hoax, Science also says, the building blocks of life, are set in Chaos rather than in order. For example the Science says the stars are born out of Super Novas eruptions all the time, which is a violent event, chaos rather than order.

 

[crankthskunk]

Lets check who can defend the lies now.

All those who are trying to twist the meanings of the Verses of the Holy Quran based on either the Qadianis or Pervaiz concoctions should answer my simple question from Surah Naml.

وَحُشِرَ لِسُلَيْمَانَ جُنُودُهُ مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ وَالطَّيْرِ فَهُمْ يُوزَعُونَ (27:17)
27:17 And [one day] there were assembled before Solomon his hosts of invisible beings, and of men, and of birds; and then they were led forth in orderly ranks,

This verse apart from the Birds, also mentions Jins (Al-Jin). What are these Jins if the Bird turns into woman from Naml tribe?

حَتَّى إِذَا أَتَوْا عَلَى وَادِي النَّمْلِ قَالَتْ نَمْلَةٌ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَسَاكِنَكُمْ لَا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمَانُ وَجُنُودُهُ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ (27:18)

27:18 till, when they came upon a valley [full] of ants, an ant exclaimed: O you ants! Get into your dwellings, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you without [even] being aware [of you]!

Let me point to more absurdities in the translations by the Qadianis.



First of all, the Verse 22:18 (22:19 in Qadianis counting) is not produced correctly. The word Wadi is incorrectly written in Qadianis copy of the Holy Quran.

Secondly, look at the absurdities of the translations, the woman from the tribe of Naml called her colleague as Ae Naml. This is grammatically wrong but also does not make sense. Why not Ladies instead of Ae Naml? Unless it is for ants, as the earlier part of the verse and the grammar used for Wadi Al-Naml, for single ant, and then once again for O you Ants.

Thirdly, the most outrageous is the meaning derived, why wouldnt Solomon As and his army or hosts wouldnt see a gathering of women?

A group of women is visible to human, quite clearly one may say, compared to ants. So why would woman claim that Solomon as and his army or hosts wouldnt see the whole group and crush them without being aware of them?

Even if by mistake a woman get trampled over by one rider, he and others would surely notice it, it wouldnt go without their notice if a human being is killed by them. But in case of Ants, they would surely not notice it.

Advancing the argument further from Surah Naml, the next verse is even more troublesome for the twisters of the Holy Quran.

فَتَبَسَّمَ ضَاحِكًا مِّن قَوْلِهَا وَقَالَ رَبِّ أَوْزِعْنِي أَنْ أَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَعَلَى وَالِدَيَّ وَأَنْ أَعْمَلَ صَالِحًا تَرْضَاهُ وَأَدْخِلْنِي بِرَحْمَتِكَ فِي عِبَادِكَ الصَّالِحِينَ (27:19)

27:19 So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by Thy Grace, to the ranks of Thy righteous Servants."

The most crucial thing is why would Solomon As be amused from the speech of a woman? What is so amusing when a woman speaks? Were the women during Solomons time deprived of speech, that Solomon was so amused from her speech?

And what favours was Solomons as thanking Allah SWT? Favour to hear the speech of a woman? Didnt Allah SWT give everyone this favour during his as time, unless someone was hard of hearing?

Secondly, if he as could hear the speech of the woman, so could others, and if they could hear her, they could also see her and her other colleagues.

Only one conclusion, Solomon As was amused from the speech of the Ant, because it is amusing to hear an ant not a woman. He thanked Allah SWT for His SWT favours because not everyone could hear the speech of an Ant. While everyone else had been given the same favour to hear the speech of women.

Pervaizis and Qadianis are lost people, who try to twist the Holy Quran for their own purposes and gains.

 

[crankthskunk]

Re: Hudhuda insaan ys parinda?

Bro Jaldikar @ Raaz, [MENTION=13100]Abdul Allah[/MENTION] [MENTION=12943]crankthskunk[/MENTION]
Assalam-o-alaikum
Bhai i have been following MUGHAL1 replies specially in ISLAMIC POSTS & THREADS.
Bhai they are here to create rifts in young minds. I have written earlier, ONCE THEY WILL REJECT HADITH AS MAN MADE, THEN CREATE RIFT SAYING TAFASEER ARE WRONG MAN MADE, THEN BY SAYING TRANSLATION ARE FALSE, THEN CURRENT QURAN IS MAN MADE (NAOZUBILLAH) & IT IS MADE BY 3rd KHALIFA..
SO end result ISLAME IS FAKE, ALLAH IS FOR EVERY ONE, LOVE ALLAH & YOU WILL GET SALVATION.
DO U GUYS REMEMBER GOBAR SHAHI.. he had same ideology..
So they will not understand your points, my points, raaz bro points or bro abdul ALLAH points..
Get ready for another thread HOW HAZRAT ADAM (AS) WAS BORNED & HOW HAZRAT HAWWA WAS BORNED..... NATURALLY OR ALLAH's MIRACLE..
Same stupid arguments coming from these guys..
May ALLAH give them hidayat

Don't worry bro, I never paid much attention to the Islamic corner, was not reading it at all. Only recently the thread I wrote for Christians turned my attention to this section.

From now on I will take care of Mughal1 and Eraz, Inshallah. Of every and anything they throw in the mix.

 

[crankthskunk]

Dear Jaldikar, that is your interpretation of the quranic verse not a proof. The question is, is your interpretation of the verse valid or the one I offer? The clear answer is mine because my interpretation is backed by reality not yours.


3/47) Hearing this, Mary said, O my Lord! How can I have a son when I am not even married yet? He replied, so it will be in time as is usual, Allah creates things according to His rule of creation; when He decides to do anything, He initiates the natural processes, and so things happen!

regards and all the best.

Mugal1, this is the worst kind of heresy I have seen in a long time. This must be an honour for you because I have read the books of Mirza for my research, and not many come close to him in heresy.

Ok, let’s look at your translations. Or shall I say lies and concoctions?

If Mary was not married at the time this conversation took place, how did she conceive “Jesus AS” according to the “Natural Process”?

Come on, please come out with your heresy. You should know I am a past master to take care people like you. Be my guest, I am waiting for your response, once you give your response we move forward.

 

[Mughal1]

Dear crankthskunk, you have my points already there and you are welcome to refute them one by one, it is for people to see who is talking sense and who is just pulling his hair out, out of anger. Meanwhile I let you get on with your task that you have chosen for yourself. Or may be you have the time to see what Obama has to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK8Y5YYVbr4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvKX16Eygs0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhhEeI3K7GU&feature=player_embedded#at=61
regards and all the best

 

[crankthskunk]

Mugal1

I didn't ask you for the opinion of Obama about Darwin. Answer my questions. You have not given answers to what I have asked. I have very good idea who you are, there is no Al-Raqeeb here to save you this time.

 

[shamsheer]

Mugal1

I didn't ask you for the opinion of Obama about Darwin. Answer my questions. You have not given answers to what I have asked. I have very good idea who you are, there is no Al-Raqeeb here to save you this time.

Brother Crankthskunk! he does not have any answer. On one hand he does not want to believe in anything that cannot be proved by natural process and on the other hand he claims to believe in wahee and existence of Allah. Also he proclaims that his understanding of wahee is far better than the Prophets. He is misguided and the sole purpose of the teachings that he is following is to pave the way to ultimately refute the existance of Islam as true deen. The followers of his kind day dreams that they are the smartest species on earth. He has not provided any body a single straight forward answer, whether it is you, my self, Abdullah, BretHawk, etc etc. He actually does not have any logical answer becuase his logic is based on very shallow grounds.

 

[biomat]

Dear Crankthskunk.
Assalam-o-alaikum
Please stick to HUD HUD please. As i also didnot touched HAZRAT ISA (AS) miraclous birth.
Also i mentioned in my prev posts that HOW THIS SCIENCE & SO CALLED ENLIGHTENED SCHOLARS CAN PROOF WITH SCIENCE THE MIRACLOUS BIRTH OF HAZRAT ADAM (AS) without male & female, and HAZRAT HAWWA (RA) from a male i-e HAZRAT ADAM (AS)..
If we cannot prove it with science doesnot mean that it didnot happened. This is our fault. But again this is part of our EMAAN that we believe without asking for proof.. But as Hazrat Ibrahim (AS) asked ALLAH for proof, we can only do that by research. But it will remain opened to be refuted as science rules are continously updating & changing..

And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, "Indeed, I am of the Muslims."

And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.

=============================
Surah HA-MEEM (41) verses 33 & 34..

 

[Raaz]

Bro Raaz
Assalam-o-alaikum
After all my reservation from late GAP, but i think that still he believed in ALLAH (GOD) & QURAN.. Because our SMALL BRAINS cannot think or imagine ALLAH.. So as most of the science & scientist do not believe in GOD so ALLAH doesnot exist (naozubillah)..
So let put aside this first good thing in late GAP (GHULAM AHMED PERVAIZ)..
==========================================
So i am observing that this thread reaches its conclusion.. May ALLAH guide all of us to the RIGHT PATH & free us from all fitnas, diversion & deceptions..

Everyone trust Allah Tala and depend on him , willingly or unwillingly.
The way he is doing is not Islamic, because Islam wants something else.


The reason why these three personalities , sir syed , Miraza mardood, Pervez, are translating the quran like this ,is because they are very much influenced and impressed by British empire.

They concluded that there is some fault in quranic understanding.

They changed the meanings of angel , Jin and the different animals in contact with men.

To show that Quran is not a story book. becuse they were very much impressed with the wisdom of Europe.

Second, they found it easy to make changes in translation , based on bible experience.

today we could not find the real Bible in its own text but we could find different translations.

Copying this idea these three people changed the translation.

But Mirza was the most stupid person among these three. He crosses the limits and declared himself a prophet.

 

[biomat]

Everyone trust Allah Tala and depend on him , willingly or unwillingly.
The way he is doing is not Islamic, because Islam wants something else.


The reason why these three personalities , sir syed , Miraza mardood, Pervez, are translating the quran like this , because they are very much influenced and influenced by British empire.

They concluded that there is some fault in quranic understanding.

They changed the meanings of angel , Jin and the different animals in contact with men.

To show that Quran is not a story book. becuse they were very much impressed with the wisdom of Europe.

Second, they found it easy to make changes in translation , based on bible experience.

today we could not find the real Bible in its own text but we could find different translations.

Copying this idea these three people changed the translation.

But Mirza was the most stupid person among these three. He crosses the limits and declared himself a prophet.

Agreed.. Here bro mughal1 is showing same thinking, that is Quran should follow SCIENCE RULES or LAW OF PHYSICS...