In the book Fawaa’id e Fareediya, written by the Barelwi Mawlana Faqeer Mu’ini Shah Jamali it was said:
“Hazrat Abul Hasan Kharqani said: In the early morning, Allah wrestled (kuchti) with me, and he threw us down….I am two years younger than our Lord.”
A Follow-Up on Abu Hasan’s Errors
Abu Hasan replied to this post:
By posting replies Abu Hasan is only digging himself deeper and deeper in his pit of lies, deceit and errors.
He admits his error here, but tries to defend himself by saying this was back in 2009 when he wasn’t so careful. Readers of this blog will know that there are more errors documented on this very website which Abu Hasan did not have the gall to admit as he knows what that will mean for his credibility:
There are also errors that have gone undocumented because Abu Hasan has cleared some of them up and because not everyone has the time to chase up on his “translations” and “research.”
But fortunately for us الحمد لله we have in this very post, where Abu Hasan replied to the earlier blog post, more examples of Abu Hasan’s incompetence – right in the present, in 2013.
This should therefore count as conclusive evidence in Abu Hasan’s and his readers’ eyes that he does not understand basic Arabic. He should therefore learn from these errors and not dabble in classical texts and draw conclusions from them based on his limited understanding. Or will he follow the path of his Barelwi/so-called “tranditionalist” brethren and speak without knowledge, which has been exposed again and again? “Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge.” (Qur’an 17:36)
Let us first look at his “correction” of the error that was documented in the previous post on this blog. He changed his translation of this line:
wa `an mithli qawli’l kuffari inzajar.
[a person who utters such heretical words] should be severely reprimanded [rebuked and deterred] like the sayings of the infidels [are rejected].
and similar to sayings of disbelievers [concerning God], will be deterred [from uttering such things]
Now, although the meaning of this latter “corrected” “translation” is closer now to the original Arabic than his previous translation, this translation shows that he still has not understood the grammatical construction of this sentence. Look at the brackets in his “translation” – he was forced to add them because he misunderstood what “will be deterred” is connected to; and he omitted the translation of ‘an (from).
The meaning of his new mistaken translation is that the person who understands the doctrine al-Tahawi is propounding will be deterred from uttering it just like he is deterred from the sayings of disbelievers. But the sentence is in reality much simpler than this. It just says that the person who understands this doctrine will be deterred from the sayings of the disbelievers.
In fact, al-Tahawi’s sentence has the verb come after the preposition and position (jar-majroor) which is connected to it (muta’alliq). So the verb “will be deterred” is connected to the previous part “from the like of the saying of disbelievers.” Hence, the sentence simply means “And he will be deterred from the like of the saying of the disbelievers.” Or more literally: “And from the like of the saying of the disbelievers, he will be deterred.”
In short his translation reveals yet again he has misunderstood the grammatical construction of this sentence, even in his second attempt! – when he was supposedly being careful! And even after being corrected. I very much doubt that Abu Hasan has properly studied the sciences of Nahw and Tarkib/I’rab, that every translator from Arabic, especially such important classical Islamic texts, should have full competence in.
But besides this we have another mistake in his “translation” of Babarti’s commentary of this passage. One can find Babarti’s commentary that was “translated” by Abu Hasan here:
On page 66
Abu Hasan translated it as:
…whoever says that the Qur’an is created and it is an accident [huduth] and it is composed of letters and sounds has described the Creator [Bari] with human attributes; then, this statement of his is similar to the saying of disbelievers [kuffar] who say that: [the Qur’an] is human speech and because this implies similitude between the creation and the Creator. one who reflects upon this meaning and researches about it will understand and he will realise; and it is necessary for him to abstain [inzijaar] from what the disbelievers say.
There is more than one obvious error in this passage, but I will illustrate only one here.
The Arabic says
فيكون هذا القول مشابها لقول الكفار الذين هم قائلون بأنه كلام البشر لما فيه من تشبيه الخالق بالخلق
This sentence Abu Hasan translates as: “then, this statement of his is similar to the saying of disbelievers [kuffar] who say that: [the Qur’an] is human speech and because this implies similitude between the creation and the Creator”
Notice he says, “and because this implies similitude between the creation and Creator,” which shows that he believes that this “because” is related to something other than the sentence that immediately precedes it – which sentence that is, is not clear from his translation. This is a misunderstanding as in fact this part of the sentence is simply explaining why the speech under discussion is similar (mushabih) to the speech of the disbelievers – the reason is “due to what is in it of making the Creator similar to creation.” So the “and” in his translation is completely misplaced and shows he did not understand how this phrase is connected to the previous part of the sentence. Al-Babarti is simply explaining that the reason why saying Allah has human qualities is similar to the belief of the disbelievers that the Qur’an is the word of man is because both of these doctrines make a comparison between Allah and His creation.
These are a few tidbits of his seriously flawed understanding of the Arabic language and his incompetence in deciphering the meaning of classical Islamic texts, and rendering them into English. The best advice that can be given to him at this point is to stop digging himself further and further in his pit of deceit, lies, errors and mistakes, as that will save him from more humiliation and from further misguiding his blind and deluded followers as he has been doing for years. For everyone else, we should take note not to trust anything Abu Hasan “translates” or anything he presents as his personal “research.” More probably than not, these “translations” and “researches” will be full of mistakes and lies.
Exposing Another of Abu Hasan’s Translation Fails
Here is another example of Abu Hasan’s translation fails:
Here he quotes Imam al-Tahawi and translates his statement as follows:
wa man waSafa Allaha bi ma’ani al-bashar, fa qad kafar.
fa man abSara hadha i’ytabar.
wa `an mithli qawli’l kuffari inzajar.
wa `ullima annahu bi Sifatihi laysa ka’l bashar.
whosoever describes Allah ta’ala in terms of human attributes had committed disbelief (kufr). those who reflect upon this will realize [the truth]. [a person who utters such heretical words] should be severely reprimanded [rebuked and deterred] like the sayings of the infidels [are rejected]. and he will be taught that Allah, in His Attributes is not similar to the attributes of a human.
Abu Hasan gets both the transliteration and the translation wrong.
In the transliteration, the final sentence is not “wa ‘ullima” (he is taught) but “wa ‘alima” (he knows).
As for the translation, after the second sentence, Abu Hasan completely lost the meaning of the author, Imam al-Tahawi.
Al-Tahawi was not talking about a person who “utters such heretical words.”
Instead he was talking about the person who understands that the one who describes Allah with a human quality has committed disbelief. The person who understands this “will reflect/ draw lessons (i’tabar); and will be deterred (inzajara) (i.e. by his own knowledge and belief) from the like of the statements of the disbelievers; and will know that He (Allah) is not like man in His attributes.”
Abu Hasan’s silly error was because he mistook “inzajara” (is deterred), which is an intransitive verb, for a transitive verb (which is actually zajara). There are other misunderstandings of the text too, but there is no need to dwell on them.
Can such a person who cannot understand an elementary ‘aqidah text, and derives meanings from Arabic statements that were not intended by them, be trusted in his “research” and “translations”? You be the judge.
Abu Hasan and Fayslah Kun Munazarah
After ignoring the translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah for over a year, Barelwi forum “sunniport” has finally found itself pressed to issue some form of response.
And the response comes in the form of some incoherent ramblings from its head-in-chief Abu Hasan. Anybody following the debate is asked to read the translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah with all the evidences the author produced, and then check to see if Abu Hasan’s so-called replies have any substance to them.
Let us look at what he says in reply to the discussion on Barahin Qati’ah. http://sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=42213&postcount=4
In fact what you will see is desperation and incredible stupidity. Abu Hasan says:
i am sure the deeply immersed devbandis will point out that the difference between “encompassing knowledge” and “encompassing knowledge of the world” is being discussed. apparently, according to numani, alahazrat mentioned the former whereas all khalil said was the latter, thereby deceiving arab ulama.
It has been discussed in Fayslah that the discussion is actually over “expansive” or “extensive” knowledge, meaning a vast knowledge of the world, and not about “encompassing” knowledge of the world. This can be read on page 61 of the translation. As explained in a footnote by the translator: “When the phrase “encompassing knowledge of the world” is mentioned in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, it is addressing the knowledge which is wrongly affirmed for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) based on the invalid analogy with Satan and the Angel of Death, not the knowledge that is conceded for the latter. The knowledge that is conceded for the latter is what is described in the work being refuted, al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, quoted in the next paragraph above. Hence, the deception in Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan’s comment, “He believes in encompassing earthly knowledge for Iblis,””
In sum, “encompassing knowledge” of the world is nowhere affirmed for Satan – this is another of the many lies propagated by Ahmad Rida Khan. Instead what is affirmed is a vast knowledge of the world based on the evidences produced in Anwar Satiah. When “encompassing knowledge of the world” is used in the text of Barahin it is about the hypothetical knowledge that is wrongly affirmed for the Prophet (peace be upon him) based on the incorrect analogy that he is superior so must have more knowledge of the world.
So even in his “summary” of the Deobandi response Abu Hasan gets it wrong.
charges and because numani told you so, just believe it.
Anybody with a familiarity with Fayslah Kun Munazarah will know this is not Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani’s methodology. He does not expect the reader to believe it solely because he says so. He provides extensive documentation from the original texts. In this particular case, one can find quotes to back up the obvious truth that Mawlana Khalil Saharanpuri was discussing worldly knowledge and not knowledge in general on pages 55 and 56. And not only this Mawlana Nu’mani quotes Mawlana Khalil from al-Muhannad who gives the very same explanation!
So in Abu Hasan’s fantasy world these are concoctions by “numani” because his “alahazrat” can never be wrong!
Anybody with a basic understanding can see that Abu Hasan is clearly deluded.
all these additional qualifiers, mutlaq, intrinsic, given are all drawn out of thin air to use where necessary. keep adding and removing attributes to make the argument sound – is there any basis or consistency? who cares and as i said, who’s looking?
Again, all the reader has to do is go back to the original book. Mawlana Nu’mani has two sections, “Proving the First Matter” and “Proving the Second Matter” (pages 61-2) where he proves that these qualifiers are present in the original text of Barahin itself.
After these words of desperation and deception, Abu Hasan issues a “disclaimer” to reassure his bewildered fans:
but a disclaimer is in order: faisla kun should be refuted from the urdu original and here i was relying only on the translation (which is tweaked and massaged btw) and by those comments i don’t mean that i agree to his citations or that i don’t have any other issues with that text. i was only showing the inconsistency of the text in a random page
He is basically telling everyone not to trust their own intellects and powers of reasoning, but to rely on their own ignorance of the original Urdu and Abu Hasan’s superior knowledge of Urdu! Please remember, they were not making these suggestions before the translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah. Before that no one had to understand Urdu to know the so-called heresy inherent within the said documents. Now, the only way one can understand is if he knows Urdu! In fact what he is saying is: the only way one can understand it is to trust Abu Hasan and his lies.
the translator helps numani a little by skewing the phrase: “encompassing earthly knowledge”
what khalil wrote was: “ilm e muHiT e zameen”
and alahazrat in husam (according to numani mistranslated the above) “bi `ilmi’l arD al-muHiT”
(see the attached image from this text.)
He does not explain how “encompassing earthly knowledge” skews the translation. And again he spews out a clear falsehood where he says “according to numani (alahazrat) mistranslated the above.” Nowhere does Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani say this. Instead what he says is that Ahmad Rida Khan was untruthful in his claim that Mawlana Saharanpuri affirmed “encompassing earthly knowledge” for Iblis. Mawlana Khalil Saharanpuri did not do this in Barahin. Instead he affirmed vast knowledge of the earth for Iblis based on the evidences provided in Anwar Sati’ah which is the book that was being refuted. “Encompassing earthly knowledge” was only mentioned as the hypothetical knowledge that would be affirmed for the Prophet (peace be upon him) based on this incorrect analogy. That was the point at this particular juncture in Fayslah Kun Munazarah which Abu Hasan in his desperation chose not to see, or chose to hide from his fanbase.
Then Abu Hasan summarises:
khalil was talking about ilm-e-muHiT-e-zameen and saying
1) satan has this, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not
2) the expanse of satan’s knowledge is proved by nuSuS, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not
3) proving it for RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is shirk, but for satan is not.
For answers to all of these claims (which are a rehashing of Ahmad Rida Khan’s lies) see Fayslah Kun Munazarah.
As for point 1, Mawlana Khalil did not say satan has ilm-e-muhit-zameen as explained above.
As for point 2, The expanse of satan’s knowledge in terms of the world is established in clear texts as provided in Anwar Sati’ah (the book that was being refuted by Mawlana Khail Saharanpuri), and knowledge of these particular matters is not established in clear texts for the Prophet (peace be upon him) – this is what was demonstrated in Barahin. But see how Abu Hasan distorts it in point number 2 by not making these qualifications, just as his alahazrat distorted it.
Again point number 3 is untrue. It is not merely affirming it for the Prophet (peace be upon him) that Mawlana Khalil Saharanpuri stated is shirk. Rather what he determines as shirk is affirming it for him proceeding on a false analogy, as that would be to affirm for him more knowledge than was granted to him (i.e. intrinsic knowledge). In fact, Mawlana Nu’mani quotes (on page 63 of translation) an explicit passage from Barahin where Mawlana Khalil says his discussion on “shirk” is about intrinsic knowledge. This is not something Mawlana Nu’mani pulls out of thin air as Abu Hasan would like us to believe.
Abu Hasan writes:
secondly, according to numani, satan has been ‘granted’ this knowledge; why can’t this be ‘granted’ to RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
This is a straw-man argument as nobody said this knowledge cannot be granted to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The argument is merely that it has not been proven that it has been granted.
One may wonder why I went to the trouble of a lengthy response when one with a little discernment can see that Abu Hasan is rambling incoherently, not addressing the actual arguments and merely repeating the lies of his alahazrat. The above should show they have no replies that have any real basis to the solid arguments presented in Fayslah Kun Munazarah. We can rest in peace therefore with the knowledge that the matter is settled, and Abu Hasan and his lying, deluded or unwary ilk have lost all credibility.