(PDF here: www.aastana.com/books/15_E.pdf)
Abbreviations:
AQ = Al Quran
CAD = classical Arabic Dictionaries
NQCR = no Quran cross-reference
NQE – no Quranic evidence
NCADR = no classical Arabic dictionary reference
P68-69 – points 1 and 2 relevant for Traditionalists not for those who follow a Quran based islam.
P69 – 3rd point - states: “from
the
Root
QWL
and
is used for routine talking.”
– whilst I may agree,
he seemingly neglects that in many places in AQ it says “qul/say (root:
QWL)...........insert statement here” which is part of AQ itself, thus
if one
were to say these “qul statements” in their “namaz” (as he calls it)
then they
would be saying statements that are classified under “qul” but in their
“namaz”.
“Kindly note that routine talk is not
allowed during Namaaz.”
- since he calls salat “namaaz” here, it is hard to differentiate
whether his
statements are only applicable to what is commonly known as “namaaz” or
“salat”
also. I assume it only refers to “namaaz”. For example IF only
applicable to
“namaaz” here then yes, there is no routine talk in “namaaz” as far as
I know
(afaik). However, if he is implying routine talk is not allowed during
salat,
as per AQ, then he should provide Quran references etc.
P70 – 5th
point – claims “came one of you from...” (i.e. from singular to plural)
is a
significant point but seemingly fails to consider that it may have been
phrased
this way to emphasise that going to the toilet (assuming we translate
“al
ghaiti” as “the toilet”) is a personal/individual/private act, not a
plural
activity (which may well have been relatively common in those days)
etc.
States – “Therefore,
to
emphatically
say
that,
if one of you may return
from
lavatory, then you all may perform tayammam, definitely requires
deliberation.
At this point, certainly due to an act by one of the community members,
the
whole community is obliged to undertake some corrective measure.”
- but conveniently neglects to mention that immediately after the
singular
“al ghaiti” reference it becomes plural, e.g. “or you (plural) have
touched the
women” or “and you (plural) could not find water”.
Constantly refers to “sa’idan” as “clay” when the
word for
“clay” is more aptly “salsalin” as per AQ. I presume he does this
because clay
is a mixture of water/soil and is often sticky thus calling it clay
only serves
to denigrate this as a “cleaning” substance, and makes his
understanding sound
better. NCADR.
This may be a translation issue however, from Urdu to English, I don’t
know.
P71 – claims “would
certainly smear the already clean faces” – I never knew travellers,
or
those who had sex or are sick etc have clean faces by default!
Erroneous.
Claims “sa’eedan” can mean “height” – NQE, NCADR. Although I do know it can
mean
“elevated land”, but that is not the same as it meaning “height” only.
P72 – with some
suspect
reasoning he claims – “Therefore,
if
the
targets
set by Quran are kept
before us, then the one declared as sick, is the mentally and
ideologically
sick one.”
-
that may well be true, but note: NQE,
NQCR,
NCADR.
States – “From the above it appears that
the word ‘safar’ is not exclusively used for a journey by land. Rather,
the
change of idealogy or stance is also called ‘safar. To pass different
stages
from one post/assignment to another one is also called ‘safar’.
Therefore, its
meaning in Quran will have to be determined according to the message
and the
spirit of Quran. And certainly here, the ideological ‘safar’ is under
discussion.”
- but NQE, NQCR, NCADR.
Note,
how
he
claims “determined according to
the message of Quran” but fails to utilise it! Then uses words such as
“certainly here”! The word “certain” is a very strong term to use, and
should
only be used for solid things, not when someone has presented almost
zero
evidence! Makes you wonder what else he is “certain” about.
States –
“Backward
communities
in
earlier
times,
as well as today, used to climb down the valleys
and passes for their excrements. So, our translations followed that
backward
practice.”
- fails to mention the common meanings found in CAD which perfectly
explain the
origins of this word, see Project Root List (e.g. enter/sank
into
a
thing,
become
hidden/descended/sloped in the ground, dug/excavated/hollowed out, make
deep,
cavity/pit, "place in which one
satisfies a want of nature") – and there is nothing backward about
digging
a hole in the ground to excrete urine/faeces, in fact, seems sensible
to me and
is common throughout the world and even modern toilets are simply
modified
versions of this simple principle. He seems to often portray the common
understanding with a slant, I assume to make it look bad. This is a mix
between
ad hominen logical fallacy and/or strawman argument logical fallacy –
and if
you don’t know what logical fallacies are then you should before
reading any
works.
He claims the word can
mean “to
come up from a lower level, or a lower valley”
– which it may well do, but since he provides NCADR I guess we will have to take
his word for it.
P73 - He then states “Quran
is a book of values, not of particular methods
of human excretions in different time periods.” -
then immediately
goes onto mention about houses and palaces in the era of the prophet,
implying
they had provisions for satisfying wants of nature and had no need of
going
down to the valleys to have excrements (a meaning he chose to the
neglect of
others – i wonder why!).
The “al” in “al ghaiti” can simply mean “the” as in “the toilet”, and
“the
toilet” can come in different forms. AQ is for all people, all times
and all
places (as he admits) and some may well have to dig a pit in order to
have
excrements – so i do not see his problem here. In fact, he borderline
contradicts himself.
After painting a bad picture of the traditional position (aka “ad
hominem”
logical fallacy) he implies since the traditional position is nonsense
he can
justify his conclusion of:
“In
view of the above, beyond doubt, the word “al-Ghaait” in this Verse,
does not
mean a low lying piece of land, but defines a lower level of
intellectual or
ideological understanding.”
What a leap! He first claimed it can mean “to
come up from a lower
level, or a lower valley” and now pushes it further and claims the
above. NQE, NCADR.
He then has the audacity to use terms such as “beyond doubt”! Sure, he
may well
be right, but with almost zero evidence he should not use such strong
words.
Makes you wonder what else he is “beyond doubt” about.
P74 – claims “al nisaa” means “ideological weakness”, but NQE, NQCR, NCADR. Also fails to
explain the feminine plural.
Notes the wrong root of “saeedan” as S3W, not
S3D as it should be.
Possibly an unintentional lapse.
P75 claims “This
is the objective of “maa’a min as-samaa’i”,
meaning heavenly water. The task of keeping the hearts joined together
cannot
be done by rain water. “
– but it
can. If one is feeling beat down by travel, tiredness, physically
dirty, fighting,
during warfare, or stalemate or whatever, actual physical water can
cleanse oneself,
quench one’s thirst, refresh oneself and lift one’s spirits, which
would
obviously remove the feelings of
opposition/rebellion/desperation/broken spirit
etc i.e. “shaytan”. As a side note, generally, “al shaytan” is simply a
figurehead for opposing forces, be it from oneself or elsewhere.
P76 – for 4:43 states “...do not
you go near any speculation about divine commandments...” –
disregarding
the Arabic: since the object of the verb “near” is “salat”. To confirm
this, I showed
this translation of 4:43 and asked bro Ayman and sister Samia (both
very
knowledgeable of Arabic) who said: it has to refer to
salat, and in no way
refers to anything else, the translation is wrong.
If
we
re-arranged
the
Arabic
correctly, it
would be “while you are speculation” (if we take the above rendering)
which does
not make sense.
He seemingly translates “sukara” as “speculation”: NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
Translates “ta’lamu” as “have full knowledge” which is debateable. I
would need
to see further Quran evidence, in the imperfect tense.
“salat” is singular, not “divine commandments” (plural).
Claims this means “...you can be
regarded as competent for
high level consultations only when you
have acquired full
knowledge of divine commandments –
starting from the
wisdom behind them, up to all the stages
of their full implementation”
- how anyone determines this is anyone’s guess.
Also note “do not speculate about divine commandments” magically
transforms
into “high level consultations” implying something special.
He then attempts to put his views all
together in separate instalments
(with explanation in between) but in a somewhat difficult to follow
manner. So,
let’s examine what happens when we put it together for all to see.
Below is his translation, and the brackets are his explanatory
notes which
are not in the actual Arabic (please note there were many
insertions so it
was a little difficult to determine what was what but I did the best I
could):
“O
believers, do not you go near
(any) speculation (about)
divine
commandment(s), unless you
have (full) knowledge of what you speak (about).”
And
not (even that) who remains on
side or be a stranger (to divine commandments)
except
(the one who) may be
passing through a (ideological) journey
(“aabiri
sabil”)
until
you have cleansed (your
thoughts)
and if
you are (mentally/ideologically)
sick/weak
or on
(another) scripture
or one
of you has now become
(aware of divine guidance by evolution) from (some) lower ideological
level
(aou
jaa’a ahadan minkum min
al-ghaait),
or all
of you have been overcome
(by) a (conceptual) weakness
(aou
laamastum an-nisaa’a)
and
you (may) not reach the (learning
of) divine message
(fa
lam tajidu maa’a),
then
(your resolves and your)
target(s) (must be) high (and) pure
(fa
tayammamu s’aeedan tayyaban).
To
that end, you will have to
assess and strengthen your views and your resources
(fa
amsahu bi wujuhikum wa
ayidiyakum),
as God
is the Protector and the
Guardian
(Inna Allaha ‘afuwwan ghafura).
Interestingly previously he said a few times
“al” refers to something
specific, but in his own translation fails to give anything specific,
in fact,
it is less specific than the traditional translation! Ironically,
inserts
“some” rather than “the” before “al ghaiti” in his translation making
it less
specific. Perhaps to make it specific would cause confusion/problem.
Does not later comment on the alleged significant point earlier of:
singular to
plural (Ref: al ghaiti) – I don’t know why..
Disregards preposition “bi”.
Note how we puts “high and pure” now, whilst before it was “some height
which
is pure/clean”.
Note how the verb “taghtasiloo”
(which
he
translates
as
“cleansed”) is verb form 8 (reflexive) meaning the
subject
and
the
object are the same. Thus
technically it should read “cleanse yourself” which he interprets as
“cleanse
your thoughts”.
“jaa’a “ becomes “became” and not “came” NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
“tajidu” becomes “reach” not “find” NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
“ma’a” (a noun) becomes “learning of divine message” (a verb!), NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
“amsahu” becomes “assess and strengthen” NQCR, NQE, NCADR.
In addition to the above, his actual translation does not make logical
and/or
practical sense. This is perhaps why in later pages he discusses it and
explains his interpretation further. So let’s examine his translation
with
logic and practical examples:
His translation:
“Do not go near speculation on divine
commandments unless you have full knowledge of what you say”
This would mean you can go near speculation
(sukara) on divine
commandments when you have full knowledge of what you say. When one has
full
knowledge it is still speculation. Logical fail. I guess that’s what you get when messing
with the
verb/object order in Arabic.
Interestingly, previously he said, when
referring to the traditional
position: “Near Namaaz goes not the one
who is in a state of “janabat”, however, the one who is a traveler, is
allowed.”
– note how he clearly states the object of “near” is “namaaz” (i.e.
salat)! Caught
red-handed? Even though this causes everything else he wrote to fail, I
will
run through it anyway:
It would seem that “And
not (even that) who remains on side or be a
stranger (to divine commandments)” is
covered already by saying “unless you
have full knowledge of what you say” – why the seeming repeat?
So, if
you are a stranger to
divine commandments you can come near speculation on divine
commandments when
you have cleansed your thoughts – if so, how one determines one is
cleansed
sufficiently is anyone’s guess.
Does cleansing one’s thoughts = full
knowledge?
Who determines who is “mentally weak”? Does a “mentally weak” person
correctly
deduce that they are “mentally weak” themselves thus does not talk
about divine
commandments?!
Why
are these groups of people:
1) mentally weak
2) those on another scripture (As a side not, why not say people of the
book,
or similar?)
3) those who became (aware) from (some) lower ideological level
4) all
have conceptual weakness
Treated
differently
from
others?
What
is the practical distinctions?
I strongly recommend running through his translation with actual
practical
examples, e.g. where you would fit in, to determine how
impractical/confusing it
is.
P79 –
he claims “But, please let it be known to you before
starting our deliberations that Chapter “Al-Nisaa’a” is about the
status of one
who is lacking in the knowledge of divine guidance; while Chapter
“Al-Maaidah”
consists of those commands that deal with that situation when one has
become
aware of divine guidance and has stood up for their practical
application.”
- but provides no evidence. To prove such a thing would require
significant study I might add.
He
then states “In Chapter “An-Nisaa’a”, it is thus said :
“la taqrabu as-salaat hatta ta’lamu ma taqulun” – do not go near divine
guidance, viz., do not speculate about divine guidance, unless you can
realize
what you are speaking about”
- note how he incorrectly states (lies?) about what 4:43 says! He misses
out the
part in
bold: “la taqraboo
alssalata
waantum
sukara
hatta taAAlamoo
ma taqooloona”.
He
then
flip
flops on what the verb “go near” is
referring to. Make up your mind!
P81
–
claims
“itha”
means “if” when in 4:43 he
himself translates “wa-in” as “and if”. Interestingly, at the top of
page 80 he
states “itha” means “when” – flip flop much?
Note
the
inserted
interpretation
in brackets: “if
you stand up for (the sake of) divine guidance”. I assume he translates
“ila”
as “for” here but afaik “ila” more correctly implies motion and/or
direction,
e.g. “to”.
States
- “fa ughsilu wujuhakum wa ayidiyakum
ila al-marafiq” – then you cleanse your thoughts and your resources so
that those
may become ‘marafiq”
- ignores the common meaning of “ila” as “to”, and does not even
translate
it as “for” as he did before. Is consistency too much to ask for?
Ignores his previous commentary on “al” when he said it refers to
something
specific, then proceeds to make it unspecific! Mentions different word
forms
for the same root and implies he has some sort of point, when he has no
point
at all. If he can find the exact word form in CAD meaning what he
thinks it
means in 5:6, then maybe he has a point. NCADR.
P82 –
States ““wa amsahu bi ru’usikum wa arjulakum ila
al-ka’bain” – And be, for
your juniors and seniors, a redeemer up to extreme respect and honor.”
- NQE, NCADR,
NQCR.
Flip flops on his previous meaning of “amsahu” as “assess and
strengthen”, now
it’s seemingly “redeemer” – not to mention “redeemer” is an active
participle
not a verb as it is in 5:6.
Seeming incorrect usage of preposition “bi” and also
ignores
the
dual
form for “al ka’bain” –
most likely
because it would destroy his view if he paid attention to the
Arabic. Offers
no explanation. Flip flops on “ila” as he now says “up to” – thus has
used 3
different meanings for it thus far.
States “wa in” as “and if” which is correct, but previously took “itha”
as
“when”. Another flip flop.
Seemingly
translates
“lāmastumu”
as
“been affected by ....”
which would require it to be a passive verb when in fact it is not –
making his
translation impossible
according
to
the
Arabic.
Interestingly, once again ignores his previous commentary about “al”
referring
to something specific and uses “some kind of.....” making it less
specific!
Translates
“ma’an”
as
“divine
guidance”
when he has been translating “salat” as “divine guidance” in
5:6. NQE, NQCR, NCADR.
Evidence
may
well
exist,
but he provides none. Previously translated it as
something else – flip flop.
“tayammamoo”
is
a
verb,
form 5 reflexive, and not
“your targets and objectives” which are plural nouns. Previously used
“your
resolves and targets” – flip flop. He would need to change this. Using
his
rendering and staying true to the Arabic it would be “target yourselves
(with)
height pure” – make of that what you will. NCADR.
Flip
flops on the word “amsahu”
and now means “carry out the duty of improving”. Inserts “aims” – most
likely
in order to make his translation work.
P86 –
has the audacity to finish
off the discussion with “that they use
to move God’s words from their rightful places and used to taunt: “we
listened
and we disobeyed”.
- when it could easily be argued he just did the exact same thing!
End
Notes:
Please
note I only pointed out the
errors I found. That does not mean there are not other errors. The
above was
only from 19 pages of his work, giving a significantly high error rate.
It
should be noted that he
regularly shifts his word meanings throughout the discussion –
“finessing”, if
you will - thus making it more difficult to track.
This
does not mean his other views
are full of errors, only his analysis of 5:6 and 4:43. I have
personally not
read his other views and based on this, I dont intend to.
If Dr Qamar Zaman is right about these verses it would seem AQ is using
very unusual
words and phrases in these verses, when other words in AQ would be much
more
suitable. One could argue this would make AQ tantamount to being
misleading.
When
an author writes something
and does not give the reader enough information to verify or refute
what they
have said then one must be very wary of such an author and their
content.
Dr
Zaman’s work reminded me of
Aidid Safar’s work which contains good points mixed in with plenty of
errors.
When one attempts to force a meaning into AQ, it will result in
tell-tale
signs, e.g. lengthy explanatory notes inserted into the translation,
cross-reference inconsistency, logical fallacies, grammar errors,
logical
problems, practical problems etc.
A symptom amongst some “Quranists” seems to be since they come to
reject the
illogical beliefs and practices and Quran interpretations of
Traditional
Islam/Muslims they go to the other extreme and reject anything and
everything
that may resemble such a thing. This is natural to some degree, and of
course
healthy scepticism is good, but thoroughness, logic and evidence
reign
supreme over personal bias. Always have, always will.
Link:
How to read and study The
Quran?
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html
Based
on this analysis/critique, I
consider Dr Zaman’s view of 4:43 and 5:6 as: at
best
“very
far
from proven” and at worst “complete and utter nonsense”.
Note,
what Dr Zaman puts first in
his list on how he tries to understand Quran:
Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman On 05 March
2010
From:
www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=3&SID=29
My way of understanding of Quran is very
simple
1.
Every word of
Quran should be translated according to the rules of Grammar and the
dictionary.
To me, it seems his knowledge of Arabic is suspect.