How about telling the truth and state your intentions clearly instead of lying and making up excuses? Isn't lying a big sin?
Grow up kid and refute what i have posted.
What lie and what excuses.... \
As a start why don't you state your intentions?
I will tell you mine...I dont want to see my fellow Muslims falling in a ditch. I according to my understanding have observed Ghamidi as a crook who tries to redefine Islam and i can feel where he is coming from.
but again why am i even answering somebody so immature who gets personal in a sec.
Like all scholars, Ghamdi have good and bad sides, yes the common Mulla is no match for him, they cannot answer and/or argue with him, as he expose the weakness in madrassa system ( which in a way is against Islamic teachings) but at the same time Mr. Ghamdi & students of Ghamdi cannot stand against scholars like Dr. Ghulam Murtaza Malik, Dr. Israar Ahmed & their students.
Mr. Ghamdi and alike are well-known because our madrassa culture is not ready to look beyond it very own nose. This attitude of have given Mr. Ghamdi and alike a very strong stance for proving "Islam as a backward religion" and "introducing new ij'tay'had in Islam".
It's not up to us to judge whether someone is on the straight path or not. Leave that to Allah.
What difference does it make to us whether he thought Jinns existed or not?
Rightly said, if the person is not preaching what he believe then yes, we shouldn't be bother for what they think or believe inside their heart. but Ghamdi's story is different, he preach what he believe which can be mislead people, hence creating further division in Islam, in short creating a Fitna, which is no different then the current lal-masjid fitna.
The Jinns existance is proved through Quran, and quran's order and arguments are un-questionable.
comparison of Ghamidi with Rushdie is totally uncalled for and quite idiotic to say the least. It is needless to mention that revered mufti sahab may not have ever read Rushdie's any book
Linguistic debate aside , It was very irresponsible on moulana's part to Link fantastical links based on assumptions. It is called Buhtaan (accusation ) and bad'gumani (fallacy) of grievous nature without any proof... which is stongly forbidden and condemned in quran
On the Basis of supposed errors in translation, one can not reach the conclusions mentioned in that article by moulana sahab. In my view he and like-minded posters in this thread should repent for comparing an enemy of islam with a learned scholar in such a disrespectful manner.
Ghamidi is a scholar and quite a wise one. He addresses very difficult issue in very decent manner and quite convincingly so ... where these so-called Allama fail miserablly. It is one thing to disagree with him, And i see no harm in it. But it is completely different thing to start throwing mud on people because you dont have convincing powers and intellect to match them.
Regarding the variation in the meaning of some words... various translator have done so in the past according to their understanding. I have seen and i am sure some of you may also have read one translation of Sura Rehman where translator has translated the same repeating verse (fabi ay'ye Ala e rabikuma tukaziban) in different manner each time accoding to the pretext.
Would mufti sahab care to shed some light on this matter also ?
Yes its true, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan directly or indirectly promoted the cause of Muslims. Yes his contributions in education Muslims is great! No doubt. However, nobody is perfect. Yes he did make mistakes also and his biggest being, going a little extreme by not believing in Jinns and angels.
So on one hand, he did have a good intention and helped Muslims, we do owe it to him, but on the other, he was maybe a little too impressed with the West. I don't blame him much for that, maybe i would have fallen in the same trap at that time. Think about the condition of Muslims at that time, how down trodden we were and also under colonial rule.
So guys, one should have the guts to accept the truth also. We as a nation have this big problem, we just get carried away when we make someone a hero. This is what extremism is. Although we admire him for his work, but we do also know as educated Muslims that he did commit mistakes also which we cannot condone.
Yes its true, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan directly or indirectly promoted the cause of Muslims. Yes his contributions in education Muslims is great! No doubt. However, nobody is perfect. Yes he did make mistakes also and his biggest being, going a little extreme by not believing in Jinns and angels.
So on one hand, he did have a good intention and helped Muslims, we do owe it to him, but on the other, he was maybe a little too impressed with the West. I don't blame him much for that, maybe i would have fallen in the same trap at that time. Think about the condition of Muslims at that time, how down trodden we were and also under colonial rule.
So guys, one should have the guts to accept the truth also. We as a nation have this big problem, we just get carried away when we make someone a hero. This is what extremism is. Although we admire him for his work, but we do also know as educated Muslims that he did commit mistakes also which we cannot condone.
I will tell you mine...I dont want to see my fellow Muslims falling in a ditch. I according to my understanding have observed Ghamidi as a crook who tries to redefine Islam and i can feel where he is coming from.
but again why am i even answering somebody so immature who gets personal in a sec.
I was referring to the Mullah who wrote this peice of crap. Too sensitive are we? My response is to expose this Mullah and his ilk. The article is full of false accusations on a person wihout a proof. It is not a scholarly disagreement. How has Mr. Ghamdi attacked Islam? Simply disagreeing on a few translations is not an attack.
Yes its true, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan directly or indirectly promoted the cause of Muslims. Yes his contributions in education Muslims is great! No doubt. However, nobody is perfect. Yes he did make mistakes also and his biggest being, going a little extreme by not believing in Jinns and angels.
So guys, one should have the guts to accept the truth also. We as a nation have this big problem, we just get carried away when we make someone a hero. This is what extremism is. Although we admire him for his work, but we do also know as educated Muslims that he did commit mistakes also which we cannot condone.
It would be quite acceptable to debate aspects of Sir Syed's beliefs that the author might have disagreement with. Whether beleiving in Jinns is a basic requirement to be considered a muslim is another debate and topic. This Mullah has not done that, however. He has branded Sir Syed a stooge of a Islam hating Christian and Jewish conspiracy without offering any proof either on Sir Syed, Mr. Ghamdi or the existense of such a conspiracy. His proof is that he does not agree with the translation of some Ayats by Mr. Ghamdi. This is absolutley illogical and ridiculous.
His proof is that he does not agree with the translation of some Ayats by Mr. Ghamdi. This is absolutley illogical and ridiculous
[/QUOTE]
Ghamdis translation is against the translation of Prophet s.a.w and Sahabas and Mufassireen. This is not a game that anyone can translate Quran for their personal whims and desires and Zindeeq Ghamdi have done.
Ghamdis translation is against the translation of Prophet s.a.w and Sahabas and Mufassireen. This is not a game that anyone can translate Quran for their personal whims and desires and Zindeeq Ghamdi have done.
when did the Prophet translate the Quran? and into which language? which sahabi translated the Quran, and into which language?
he explicitly said the "translation" of the Prophet and Sahaba whereas that is patently wrong. Given that the context of this whole thread has been around translation and mistranslation, I dont see how he can mean tafseer.
Khanbabax might mean "translation" as well as tafseer. Because there are quite a lot of words in the Quran that Arabs in those days couldn't understand . Some words and terms were new for them so Prophet Muhammad(SAW) translated or explained those words and terms. For example the wordsTaharaj and Wahan. The Sahaba(ra) knew these words but they wanted clarification because Quran was changing the meanings of the words, for example the word Karim, before Islam they used this word for being drunk and being lavished.
Khanbabax might mean "translation" as well as tafseer. Because there are quite a lot of words in the Quran that Arabs in those days couldn't understand . Some words and terms were new for them so Prophet Muhammad(SAW) translated or explained those words and terms. For example the wordsTaharaj and Wahan. The Sahaba(ra) knew these words but they wanted clarification because Quran was changing the meanings of the words, for example the word Karim, before Islam they used this word for being drunk and being lavished.
I will wait to understand whether Khanbabax meant translation or tafseer. Meanwhile I will just say that the explanation of a particular word is NOT translation, translation has to involve a second language (thus the "trans").