|
Join AASTANABLOG
|
| Share your Quranic thoughts, research and knowledge with other's. |
 |
| It's free, easy and only takes a minute. |
|
| Sign up Now |
|
| ARTICLES | | AYYAT E MUTASHABIHAT |
 | I don't have a question but wish to post my comment on Ayyat e Mutashabibat? |
 | Comments by: aurangzaib On Thursday, February 11, 2010 |  | |
| AYAT 3/7 – AL-QURAN.
Lo and behold!!!!..... Another explosion of colossal proportions by brother Dr. Qamar Zaman. Another discovery of great value out of the rubble and confusion of Traditional Tafasir.
How easy was it to understand, when explained with help from only the preliminaries of Arabic Grammar? No deep insight or high linguistic intricacies were involved! No intellectual advancement of a superlative degree was needed.
QURAN CONSISTS OF NO DOUBTFUL (MUTASHABIH – having ‘Shubah’, doubt) AYAAT having dual meanings, as has hitherto been implied by all and sundry! Including the ‘Quranic EGGHEADS’ of OURBEACON.COM (QXP), who had expelled heavy bursts of fury against “HAQIQAT-E-SOAM” and against the person of Brother Dr. Qamar Zaman. In their respective Blog, no visible influence of Quranic learning was witnessed. Their comments did portray a high degree of arrogance and haughtiness reflective of self aggrandizement. I hope these respected brothers go through ‘Ayaat-e-Mutashabihaat’ again and again and analyze the explanation carefully.
This is another turning point in history!!! An important new milestone in the journey of time.
My most sincere compliments and homage to Dr. Sahib. My best wishes for his health and a long, long rewarding life. God bless you Dr. Sahib.
| |
| Comments by: dawood On Saturday, February 13, 2010 | Report Abuse | |
| SA Dr. Qamar: What a revealing analysis!!! May Allah increase you and all of us in knowledge of the Quran.
I however have one observation on the second part of the verse "Okhero' mutashabihaat," that has been translated as " aur doosree aayaat mutashabihaat hein." Is this translation OK? I ask this because (1) there is no mention of word aayaat in this part, and (2) we don't consider that other books of hadith/fiqh etc. contain any aayaats? Could it be more suitable to translate this part as " aur doosree mutashabihaat hein?" This would then clearly convey that this part is referring to other writings. I am just wondering? Any help/explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Dawood | |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Saturday, February 13, 2010 | | |
| I second the observation made by brother Dawood.
"Okhero" can easily mean "the other or the secondary MATERIAL that is similar in nature or a look-alike, or resembles the Book."
"Aur deegar sub mawaad us se mushabihat rakhta hay / mushtabah qisam ka hay". Something like this might be possible.
We wait for Dr. Sahib's help. | |
| Comments by: Anwer Suri On Tuesday, February 16, 2010 | Report Abuse | |
| Dr. Qamar Sahib AOA,
I am reading your books and I like the way you explain your point of view without insulting anyone. May Allah help you in your efforts.
It is amazing that how simple it looks now after your explanation. I think the problem is that we consider 'Ayat' only as verse of Quran. I think same problem is with abrogation issue.
But I also think this verse need more explanation for example I would like to understand 1- what about the verses which are understood after the scientific discoveries and 2- How to understand verses like 'alif-laam-meem'. | |
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman On Wednesday, February 24, 2010 | | |
| Mohtaram Dawood Bhai
Yes you and Aurangzeb bhai are absolutely correct to point out that "okharo MOTAShBEHAT" should better be translated "aur doosri mutashbehat hain" as there is no mention of "aayyat" in this part of the verse.
Let me explain ....... Consider a sentence. The teacher said ...
"I have a class of boys who are brilliant and they are cream of the college, while others are average"
In this sentence word boys is omitted after average, but the word boys is automatically understood to be there and reffers to some other class of the college.
Likewise the compound "Quran-al-fajr" sometimes only word "Fajr" is mentioned to mean "Quran-al-fajr" and word Quran is omitted.
A good literature does not repeat nouns but replaces it with pronouns or adjectives etc, but while translating it into a different language and for different people of different intellect one has to be very clear in giving the essence of the literary work, and hence the need of the translation requires such usage of words.
Mr Dawood and Mr Aurangzeb would you like to add?
thanks. | |
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman On Wednesday, February 24, 2010 | | |
| Mohtaram Anwar Suri saheb AOA
Yes you are right, we have taken the meaning of aayat as verse of Quran mostly. It is very amazing to note that where it does mean ayyat of Quran the interpretors have taken it as miracle e.g. Sura 20 verse 23 & 47. | |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Wednesday, February 24, 2010 | | |
| Dear Dr. Sahib,
What you have very kindly and wisely explained is well understood. The noun once narrated in a sentence, in the secondary part of that sentence it need not be essentially mentioned, and is automatically derived from the context through a pronoun or adjective. And surely the word “Ayaat” can succeed, without mention, the word “Okhero”.
However, the word Ayaat necessarily diverts attention towards Quran and links the “Okhero” with “other Ayaats” of Quran. So, the confusion that has been created since long, goes on to persist and pervade.
Is there a way to be very specific in separating the “Okhero” material (or Ayaat) away from Quran, or Quranic Ayaat?
Can the God given common sense, and the fear of confusion and mix-up, lead us to a more clear-cut and precise translation/interpretation where there is no possibility of misconception? Of course keeping in mind that the word Ayaat does create misconception here?
God bless you.
| |
| Comments by: Hafiz Abdullah On Thursday, March 04, 2010 | Report Abuse | |
| Dear all peace be upon u all,
I liked the new theory of Ayyat e Mutashabibat very much .
I would like to ask a question to be answered by anyone who knows better .
the question is :-
the word minho doesnt mean "in it"but it means " from it/some of it ". isnt it?
God bless you. | |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Thursday, March 04, 2010 | | |
| Dear Abdullah,
Peace.
In my opinion you are right. "In it" would be "fee hi".
| |
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman On Thursday, March 04, 2010 | | |
| dear Abdullah Bhai
will you please make your question more clear.In general the compound Minho/Minhu( as it is a combination of two words Min & ho) is to be translated as "from it" | |
| Comments by: Hafiz Abdullah On Friday, March 05, 2010 | Report Abuse | |
| Dear Dr Shahib slam/peace,
I think Mr. Aurangzaib has understood my point rightly.
In my opinion the word for "In it" would be "fee hi" but for " from it/some of it " would be the word "min ho" .
indeed, the word used in the verse is "min ho" which means " from it/some of it ".
what do u comment about my opinion which has has been understood by Mr. Aurangzaib ?
God bless you. | |
| Comments by: Hafiz Abdullah On Friday, March 05, 2010 | Report Abuse | |
| Dear Dr. Shahib slam/peace,
I think Mr. Aurangzaib has understood my point rightly.
In my opinion the word for "In it" would be "fee hi" but for " from it/some of it " would be the word "min ho" .
indeed, the word used in the verse is "min ho" which means " from it/some of it ".
I think the word "min ho" cant be meant as "In it" n ur translation is wrong .
what do u think about that?
what do u comment about my opinion which has has been understood by Mr. Aurangzaib ?
God bless you. | |
| Dear Dr. Qamar Sahib, SA:
I thank you for taking time and providing the explanation regarding the use of words at places and then omitting the same at other places. I had seen this coming and its a perfectly logical explanation. In general, I agree with this explanation completely. In this case, however, I am adding two cents of mine, once again. My knowledge of the Arabic language is next to none. And about my writings I could only say, Oh God, please help. Having said that, here I go:
1. The first part of the ayah (verse 7, Al-Imran) talks about the entire book and then says that "in it" or "from it" ( I don't know which one is true) are verses that have been perfected (or meanings to that effect) and these are the "mother of the book." Now the question is; if the verse is only talking about some verses being perfected .... and not all the verses in the book, then one may logically assume that other verses are not perfected ....This would then go against the verse 1 of surat hood, as you have already mentioned in your work? I could therefore logically conclude that the first part of the subject verse is talking about all the verses in the book. If that is so, then the second part cannot refer to verses mentioned in the book. It then must refer to something outside the book; and we know there are no verses, as we know them or understand them, outside the book. It is not therefore logical to say that the second part of the same verse is also referring to the ayat or verses. It could simply be referring to other material. It is at this place that the confusion has been created in the past.
2. The same point is further elaborated in the same verse … they follow that is similar (mutashabih) to the Book …. In my humble opinion, this is a further clarification that people claim similarity between the verses in the Book and the material found in other books. If we look more closely, people are not saying that there are verses (ayat) in other books that are similar to the ones found in the Book. They are rather claiming ridiculously that other books provide explanation, elaboration, abrogation, etc. So they elevate these books to a level that more or less is at par with the Book. In my humble opinion that is how they claim the “similarity status” of the other books vis-à-vis the Book (Quran).
May Allah SWT help us all to understand and follow His Book. May Allah SWT reward you for your work. | |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Saturday, March 06, 2010 | | |
| Dear Abdullah,
I am sorry you are talking in "code words" and trying to infer something without discussing the full context of the matter. This is not a very commendable methodology for a Quranic student and the conclusions you will draw from this tactics will not be backed up by authenticity or credibility. And you are using my name also for asserting some point which you have failed to elaborate in detail. Kindly be clear and specific. This is a friendly blog and you are encouraged to open up and be frank and honest. There are respectable ways to discuss points and to agree or differ.
God bless you.
| |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Saturday, March 06, 2010 | | |
| Dear Abdullah,
It took me some time to come back to your comment above, directed to Dr. Qamar Zaman, which I quote as under:
"I think the word "min ho" cant be meant as "In it" n ur translation is wrong .
what do u think about that?"
The way you arrived at this conclusion was uncalled for, undesirable and smacked of crook-ism as it involved dubious tactics and manipulation. You are young and in a learning phase of your life. Do you think you are matured enough to pass judgments? Or are you smart enough to exploit my name into meeting your mysterious motives? All I mean to say is that you could have been fearlessly straight forward on this issue. You could have expressed your difference of opinion in a respectable way. I do not want to hurt you. But I do wish to make you develop into a respectable Quranic scholar some day.
The word ‘MIN’ that you have partly and separately discussed, and extracted your wishful meanings of, from some of us, is not so simple as to easily fall within your mental faculties unless studied thoroughly. The word is discussed at length in Idara Balagh-ul-Quran's Tafseer-e-Quran bil Quran, 1st part, as well as in their book "Quran Fahmi ke Qurani Usool". Khwaja Azhar Abbas has also highlighted different meanings of this word in his Article some time back in either Tulu-e-Islam or Saut ul Haq. ‘ MIN’ my brother is "TABEEDHIYYA" (تبعیضیہ ) and MIN is "BAYAANIYYA" (بیانیہ ). It means that somewhere, according to its context, it means "from" and some other places, it means "THE WHOLE OF”. MIN KUM may mean some of you, and MIN KUM may mean YOU ALL or ALL OF YOU. It is the context that decides the actual applicable status and meaning of the word MIN. And there are other aspects of this word too that are discussed at length, as I have referred to above. So, the word under discussion “MIN HU” can easily mean “All of that” or “The whole of that (it)”. You deliberately confused the whole issue by first asking its meaning totally out of context and then passing an immature verdict.
It took me some time to answer this as I was locating the references that I had in my record, which illustrate the different usages of this word in Quran. But I could not succeed as the search needed much more time. And I am running short of time these days. But I have quoted references for you to go through, for your peace of mind.
So, in view of the above, I expect you to review your hasty remarks towards Dr. Qamar Zaman, preferably with an apology. And as long as you are in a learning phase, kindly abstain from passing judgments on scholars of repute, especially when they are far senior to you. Kindly just keep absorbing whatever knowledge and wisdom you are gathering from varied and diverse sources. Wait for your decisive phase of life to come. Before that stage arrives, you might still have to pass a phase of wonder and doubt, where you might like to turn towards atheism, agnosticism, apostasy, or may be communism or at least skepticism. It is only after that, that you will eventually touch the maturity of intellect and would be able to judge things with broader and global perspectives.
God bless you.
| |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Sunday, March 07, 2010 | | |
| Dear brother Abdullah,
In continuation of my mail above, I have at last found out the relevant references for the word “MIN” and they are as follows:
1)“Fa ajtanibu al-rijs MIN al authaan” (22/30) - Beware of the filth FROM IDOLS.
Note that it is “all the idols”, and not “from some of” the idols.
2)“Al lazee auhayina alayka MIN al-kitaab huwa al-Haq” (35/31) – And the Book that we have transmitted towards you, that is the Truth.
Note that “MIN al-KITAAB” is not “SOME OF THE KITAAB” or “A PART FROM THE KITAAB”. It is “THE WHOLE KITAAB”, in its entirety.
3) “Wal takun MIN KUM Ummatan yadoona ila al-khair, wa yamaroon bilma’aruf…..”(3/104).
- And essentially you all be a community who invite towards Quran and…. –
Again here MIN kum means “ALL OF YOU”. Not that SOME OF YOU only have to be such a community…..
I hope this clears the controversy in your mind about “Min hu Ayaatin Mohkamaatin”. It is not that “some of its Ayaat are Mohkamaat” but it is “the whole of it contains Ayaat-e-Mohkamaat”.
This is the references for MIN Bayaaniyyah. There are other places where MIN is Tab’eediyyah and they need not be reproduced here.
God bless you. | |
| Comments by: moazzam On Monday, April 12, 2010 | | |
| My dear abdullah and respected aurangzaib sahib regards, after reading your comments at "ayyat-e-mutashabihat, i would like to share my openion with you both.Before goig deep in interpritation of Quraan, our focus must be on a very crucial point ,wether we are putting our efferts to dignifying the status of Quraan or otherwise.Hafiz abdullah's novice interest toward quraanic research shows that he wants to learn Quran in its true sense ,he could be a scholar of the holy Quraan ,if respected and followed the seniors(like Dr. Qamarzaman) of this great field,he has the positive edge of "HIFZ E QURAAN"Dear Aurangzaib sahib your polite attitude as usual will be highly appreciated.May Allah BLESS you. | |
| Comments by: Hafiz Abdullah On Friday, April 23, 2010 | Report Abuse | |
| Dear respectable all of u slam,
Dear respectable Dr. sahib slam,
sir I am sory if u r hurt nd disrespected by me. Please pardon me. I didnt intend to disrespec u ,although it may appear as disrespect. I was just asking a question to remove my conusion, and then clearifying my question on ur demand. nor I did intend to cause a dispute between a teacer and a diciple .I always wish better for u , I love u .I regard u as my guide and a great scholor who has changed my life almost entirely.
since I am a regular university student so I couldnt find better opportunity to reply .I have understood the above concept through Aurandzaib's and Mr. Rahamatullah Tariq's elaboration. thanks 4 them. | |
| Comments by: aurangzaib On Friday, April 23, 2010 | | |
| My dear Abdullah,
Through your above comment, you have strengthened my belief in your high intellectual capabilities. I congratulate you on your honesty and moral courage. You are as dear to me still as you have always been.
Please do not ever think that a difference of opinion can blur your good image in our minds. It is just the way to express it that looked uncivil. I still would not utter a harsh word if I did not have close personal relations with you. That fact gave me a right over you. I am sure you understand me. And I also apologize if I was a little bit stern with you. I feel much relieved now and believe that Dr. Sahib would write a few words for you too.
God bless you. | |
| Dear respectable all of u slam,
My dear Moazzam,
thanks 4 ur kind advice and great inspiration .
My dear Aurangzaib,
Thanks 4 the expression of ur kind emotions which is a huge inspiration 4 me .
I also have been regarding u as my teacher and a great source of knowledge, guidance, advices, and inspirations .
I would just request u to be lenient to, have good faith 4 others, and don't mind of my request .
God bless you.
thanks. | |
|
