Refuting Jhelumi’s Claim "the word Shaitan is repeated in Sacred Qur’an more than Nouns of Prophets"

AHLUSSUNNAH

Refuting Jhelumi’s Claim that the word Shaitan is repeated in Sacred Qur’an more than all the Nouns /Names of all Prophets with all repetitions.

Mirza Jhelami Answered Home

Refuting Jhelumi’s Claim that the word Shaitan is repeated in Sacred Qur’an more than all the Nouns /Names of all Prophets with all repetitions.

Page 1 of 12

Page 1 of 12

Page 2 of 12 Introduction Mirza Jhelumi has claimed that the Noun/Name/ ‘Ism /Na:m of Shaita:n is found more that all the nouns/names of Prophets with all the repeatations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgF1c9nAQ-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_mkDCNtlsA Please visit:http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/

This claim is absolutely false and only a nescient person can accept this absolutely false claim, as claimed

by Mirza: Jhelumi: . This does shew that the followers of Mirza: Jhelumi: are not only accepting any claim made by him without any positive critical study but are supporting his claim and are trying to interpret his incorrect claim.

So it is necessary to study his claim and to see the wrong defense by the believers in Mirza: Jhelumi: who defend him as if he is infallible and innocent .

First Preliminary Shaita:n when use as a singular Noun [‘Ism] is used for a single Rational Suppositum [Person]. It is not a word used as a noun of species.

It is used 70 times in Sacred Qur’a:n An other noun used for the peson if Shait:a:n is “Ibli:s It is used 11 times in Sacred Qur’a:n This does shew that there are two nouns / “Asma: in Sacred Qur’a:n used for the Person of Shai:t”a:n.

The plural of the word Shait:a:n is Shaya:t:i:n. This word is used 18 times in the Divine Text.

But this word cannot be used for the single rational evil suppositum [Person] namely/ nounly Shait:a:n.

The word ‘Ibli:s is used in the Sacred ur’a:n 11 times.

When a word is used for a single particular person then it cannot be used for any ather person as a Common Noun [nak-rah] .

So neither the word Shait:an is used as a Common Noun which may be used for any person not the noun ‘Ibli:s is used as a common noun in the sense that it can be used for any person of similar nature.

Page 2 of 12

Page 3 of 12 So the text of the sentences of Mirza: Jhelumuli: does not mean the use of these words where they can be applied to persons other than the Particular Jin who disobeyed G-d .

Second Preliminary It is necessary to note the words spoken by Mirza: jhelumi:.

Mirza Jhelumi: use to address his believers and followers in Urdu: , however some time he speaks some sentences in Panja:bi:, when he wants to joke or when he wants to satire on his opponents in his lectures. But these sentences are in clear ‘Urdu.

So it is necessary to study his sentences grammatically and idiomatically , according to the las of Urdu grammar and usage.

Third Preliminary Forth Preliminary There are certain words in Urdu which are used in ‘Al Murakkab ‘Al ‘Id:a:fi.

They are ‘ka’ , ‘Ki’ and ‘Ke’ [The ‘e’ in the word ‘Ke’ sounds like ‘ey’ as in the English word ‘Convey’. So one may find a good approximations as Key , not as in the English word Key, but pronouncing it as “ney” as in the word Convey. An other good approach to this sound is ‘Kay’. So if there is some confusion in the pronunciation, then pronounce it as ‘Kay’].

Now Ka is the singular form [Masculine].

Ke [Kay] is the plural form [Masculine/Feminine] Ki is the Singular form [Faminine].

Plural of Majesty/Respect.

If the word kay is used for a single person then it is supposed to be a plural of majesty. But it is a Metaphorical and Figurative meaning.

Fifth preliminary.

Problem of Plural Forms in Urdu.

There are certain words in “Urdu whose plural forms are not used in many cases.

Page 3 of 12

Page 4 of 12 For example consider the word ‘Bhai’ . Its plural is Bha’ion . But this plural is not used in many cases.

Particlularly in the cases of Murakkab ‘Al ‘id:a:fi.

For example if you want to say 1] brother of ‘Aslam.

It will we correct to translate in Urdu as “ ‘Aslam Ka Bhai” 2] If you want to say ‘’ Brothers of ‘Aslam” then instead of using urdu plural of the word Bhai, i.e Bha’ion , it is sufficient to use ‘’ “Aslam Kay Bhai ‘’.

In general the plural form of the preposition ‘Ka’ [which is actually a post position in Urdu] with a singular common noun generally indicates and that the common noun is not used as a singular noun but as a plural noun.

How ever there are some exceptions.

1] Itney mein ‘Aslam ke tino Bhai ‘A:gae. [Translation] In the mean time three brothers of ‘Aslam came.

The word three guarantees that the word Bhai is used as a plural.

2] Consider an other sentence.

Itney me ‘Aslam ke bhai ‘a: gae.

[Translation] In the mean time brothers of ‘Aslam came .

How ever there is an other translation by taking the Preposition as Plural of Majesty.

In the mean time [respected] brother of ‘Aslam came.

In nominative cases the plural of the word ‘Bhai’ may be used : ‘Aslam ke Bha’ion ne ‘Arshad ko Mara.

Brothers of Alam beat Arshad.

In double prepositional cases the word Kay [ plural form ] may be used for a singular common noun.

Aslam ke bhai per Ahmar ke Ighwa ka Ilzam he {Brother of Aslam is accused of kidnaping Ahmar} In this case plural of the word Bhai may also be used .

Page 4 of 12

Page 5 of 12 Aslam ke Bhaion per Arshad ki bahan ke ‘Ighwa ka ‘Ilzam he. [ Brothers of ‘Aslam are accused of kidnapping the sister of Arshad].

How ever there is a single rule for the singular form ‘Ka’ .

Although thebhai is of Indian origin . In Sindhi it is Bha:’ [Plural ‘Bha:’er].

But the same rule is applicable to the words which are adopted in Urdu from Persian and the Arabic words . But this is always not the case with ‘Arabic words.

Sixth Preliminary We can say ‘Aslam kay Qalb me Arshad ki Muhabbat he”. [love of Arshad is in the heart of “Aslam] But we cannot say Aslam ke kitab me Arshad ka zikr he.

[Mentioning of Arshad is in the book of Aslam].

Since the word kitab in urdu usage require the feminine form of the word ka.

So it may be consider as a feminine word in Urdu.

A correct urdu sentence is : Aslam ki kitab me Arshad ka zikr he.

Seventh Preliminary Now we have all the necessary knowledge to understand what Mirza Jhelumi: said in his lecture.

Qur’a;n me ‘ALL-H ke ba’d Na:m jiska he woh Shaitan he, Kisi Paigh:ambar ka nam bhi nai itni dafa’ aya.

Haan. ------------1 Sare: paigh:ambaron ken a:m Jama’ karein jetni dafa’: repeat huye hein, us se zayada Shaitan ka na:m ‘a:ya hua he.-------2 A clear translation of this sentence: After the nou n/ name of ‘ALL-H , the noun/name/na:m of Shaita:n is the most mentioned Noun/Name/Na:m.

Collect the names/nouns/na:m of all paigh:ambars , with all the repeatations, more than them the Name/Noun/na:m of Shait:a:n ha occur.

Page 5 of 12

Page 6 of 12 If some one has a beeter translation than that of ours then we humbly ask him to present his translation .

In the sentence 1 the word na:m is used as a singular noun.

The word na:m is an Ism i.e a noun borrowed from Persian language.

It is in singular form.

The word /preposition kay /ke for ‘ALL-H is used in the plural form due to double prepositional case. It is not the case of Grammatical Plural of Majesty.

The same word na:m is used for Shait:a:n. It cannot be used for plural of majesty.

So in classical Urdu , the sentence can mean “ Qur’a:n me:n “ALL-H ke Ism ke Ba’d “Ism jis ka: ‘A:ya he who Shaitan he”.

This sentence 1 cannot mean:“ Qur’a:n me:n “ALL-H ke ‘Asma:’ ke Ba’d ‘Asma:’ jis ke: ‘A:ye heim who Shaitan he”.

The following translation if made shall be incorrect according to ‘Urdu . “ Qur’a:n me:n “ALL-H ke ‘Asma:’ ke Ba’d ‘Asma:’ jis ke ‘A:ya he who Shaitan he”.

Please note that in the case of the word Na:m its urdu plural cannot be used in such sentences.

So if the word na:m is used as a plural instead of Singular , then the word na:m can be replaced by the word ‘Asma:’ , not as a pure ‘Arabic word but as an urdu adopted word.

As the word ‘ism and its plural ‘Asma:’ and even plural of plural ‘Asa:mi: are adopted in Urdu, we can use them replacing the Persian adopted word na:m , without any change in meaning. In Urdu they are synonyms. So ‘ALL-h kay Na:m kay ba’d can only mean “ After the Name/Noun of ‘ALL-H” , and that is the Noun ‘ALL-H itself. [No other Divine Noun and No other Divine Epithet can be included in the ‘Urdu sentence of Mirza: Jhelumi: ].

This part of the sentence of Mr Jhelumi: cannot mean “After the names/nouns of “ALL-H. In the sentence 2 Mirza: Jhelumi: has said “ sare: Paigh:ambaron ken a:m Jama’ ker lein”.

In this sentence theword na:m is used as a plural on the demand of context. But what is the context.

The plurality of the prepositional case.

Page 6 of 12

Page 7 of 12

The word sare is a word which guarantees the plurality of the meaning of the word na:m .which is used as the grammatical “Ism in the sentence.

So this sentence means “Tama:m Paigh:ambaron ke ‘Asma:’ .

Nouns/names of all paigh:ambaron.

Consider the part of the sentence Us se: Zaya:dah Shait:an ka na:m he.

The word Ka is an irrefutable proof that the word na:m is used as a singular.

So the part of the sentence 2, only and only means Us se: zaya:dah Shait:an ka ism he.

More than it is the name/Noun of Shaita:n .

That is the Noun /Name Shait:a:n [Satan] itself.

It cannot meam Us se zayadah Shait:an ke ‘Asma:’ hain.

More than it are the Nouns/Names of Shait:a:n.

This is a clear proof that any interpretation based on the plurality of the word na:m in meaning spoken as singular in form is incorrect and wrong, based on the simple ignorance from the meaning of Urdu sentences and there meanings.

Eighth Preliminary The problem of the Pronoun [‘Ism D:ami:r] ‘us in the sentence of mister Jhelumi: Mister Jhelumi: has used the word Us . it ould be more correct to use the word ‘Un . Since it refers to the plural form “ Sare paigh:ambaron”. He shoud have said.

Un se zayadah Shait:an ke ‘Asma:’ hain.

How ever one may make an excuse for Mirza: Jhelumi: that he referred to the word na:m not in the meaning but in the form. But this is a weak excuse, and Mirza: jhelumi should not have used such irregular and rare reference of the preposition . This is a possibility. But beyond that there is no excuse in any sense of the word excuse.

Page 7 of 12

Page 8 of 12 Ninth Preliminary The difference between Person /Shakh:s: and Personality /Shakh:s:iah/t .

The personality of a person is an indispensable quality of a person which cannot be separated from the person.

A person may be defined as a Rational Suppositum.

A Suppositum may be defined as an Incommunicable Individual essence . but the word 'Individual Essence' emphasizes the uniqueness of either each member of the same species, or of different species in his /its incommunicability, and distinction.

The difference between person and personality is that personality is a set of qualities that determineth and constituteth a person and also differentiate the person from another person regardless of its species . A person is an individual that is determined and is constituted by a set of qualities . A person is a Rational Suppositum or a Rational Essence not necessary a human being. In ‘Isla:mic theology the word person is not used for the Divine Essence.

The word personality is that entity which is the per se subsistent subject of all the states and acts that constitute his complete life. In this case personality of a person is the person itself.

In more clear words “A Personality is a set of all attributes and qualities of the Essence of a person which distinguish it from the person from an other person. A personality is not the common nature of several mutually distinct persons. In that sense the term Personality is an innovation of modern era.

That is the reason a personality is impossible to be shared among several persons. A personality implies a unique person, and a unique person implies a unique personality [set of qualities which determines a unique person].

So plurality of person implies plurality of personalities [Shakh:s:ia:t] and plurality of personalities implies plurality of persons [‘Ashkh:a:s:] . some extreme apologists of Mr jhelumi: has claimed that the word Shait:a:n used in

Page 8 of 12

Page 9 of 12 the text of sentence by Mr jhelumi: was not in the sense of a Person but in the sense of Personality.

Some Modern philosophera hold that personality is not constituted by set of qualities held by any underlying essence in a person. They have gone to such an extreme to defend Mr jhelumi: that they are applying these new concepts to Sacred Qur’a:n just to defend a person who has made a great error in his zeal.

This dogma was also used by Sir Saiyid who denied Shait:an as a jin being and a Jin Person, and declared as a common nature of all evil human beings.

Only they have added the Shait:an among the human beings as a Jin being.

That is what they are doing and they are playing and toying with Sacred Qur’a:n and ‘Ah:a:di:th: , inlove of an apostate, the worst apostate ever lived.

So these persons are also astray if not apostate.

Nature, essence, and substance are related terms. Terms Essence [Dh:a:t] and Substance [Jauhar] are the static approache of some thing that Per Se Subsistent and the word Nature is dynamic approach to the same per se Subsistent.

TenthPreliminary If a term can be predicated to more than one mutually distinct individuals then the term is not identical to any one of them.

For examble let A1 , A2 , A3,…..An be n distinct individuals.

Let B can be predicated to Ai, 1<i<n, n is a natural Number then, B is not Ai. Since Aj, j=/=i , but Aj is B. This means Ai is not Identical to B and B is not Identical to Ai, otherwise a contradiction is Implied Per Se. Words like T:a:gh:u:t may be used for Shait:a:n, but it is not a word becular to this individual being.

It can be applied to more than one beings. In Sacred Qur’a:n the word shait:a:n is used for a particular Jin who is also called ‘Ibli:s.

Page 9 of 12

Page 10 of 12 If a word cab be predicated to more than one mutually distinct/separate individuals then it cannot be the Name/Noun of any one of them. If Shaitan is a Qari:n then not every Qari:n is Shaita:n, This only means that jins other than Ibli:s can be called as Qari:n. So Qari:n and T:agh:ut are not the nouns of Shaita:n . Mirza: Jhelumi does not mean this meaning. But it is certain that he word Shaita:n when used in singular , is not used as a Common Noun but as a Proper Noun for a Rational Jin Suppositum , who is mentioned in Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;a:n and who did disobey G-d , in the event of Divine Commandment to angels. " If a word or a term can be predicated to more than One individual either of the same species or of different species then this word can neither be a Noun/Name of any one of the individual nor it can be used as a proper noun/name. If it is done so then this means that in such a case it is in a different sense. So the word Qari:n does not mean the Jin Shai:ta:n even if Shait:a:n can be predicated by the word Qari:n in some sence.

Logically if A is B , C is B , then the word B nether means A nor C. The same is true for the word T:agh:u:t.

Conclusion:Mirza: jhelumi: did err when he alleged that the name/Noun of Shait:a:n is used more than the nouns/names of all Paigh:Ambars with all its repeatations in the Sacred Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;a:n.

But his believers are attempting to defend him by saying that he meant different Nouns/Names of Shait:a:n . This is a lame excuse, an excuse of a mistake which is a greater mistake . Obscur ad Obscurum.

Page 10 of 12

Page 11 of 12

Page 11 of 12