The Satanic Verses in Urdu Pdf

The satanic verses in urdu pdf Continue This article is about religious verses. For Salman Rushdie's novel, see Satanic Verses. For other purposes, see Satanic verses (disambiguation). The words mistaken for the divine revelation of satanic verses by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad refer to the words of the Satanic proposal which the Islamic prophet Muhammad is said to have mistaken for divine revelation. The alleged poems can be read in early biographies of Muhammad al-Waqidi, Ibn Saad and Ibn Ishaq, as well as Tafsir al-Tabari. The first use of the expression is attributed to Sir William Muir in 1858. While the history of the incident is being rejected today by Muslim scholars based on the theological doctrine of Muhammad's moral infallibility ('isma' Muhammad (i.e. Muhammad would never have been deceived by Satan), some secular scholars accepted it, citing the implausibility of early Muslim biographers fabricating a story so unflattering about their prophet. The main narrative See the full text of Tabari's account below there are numerous reports of the alleged incident that differ in construction and details of the narrative, but they can be widely collected to obtain a basic report. Different versions of this story are traced back to one narrator Muhammad ibn Kabba, who was two generations removed from the biographer Ibn Ishaq. In its basic form, history reports that Muhammad wanted to convert his relatives and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. When he read these verses of Sarat al-Najma, he was considered a revelation from the angel Gabriel, did you think of al-Lut, al-Uza and Mana, the third, Alit, al-Uzzi and Manat were three goddesses worshipped by The Meccans. It is difficult to distinguish the meaning of garanik because it (.ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻐﺮاﻧﻴﻖ اﻟﻌﻠﻰ وإن ﺷﻔﺎﻋﺘﻬﻦ ﻟﺘﺮﺗﺠﻰ a friend? (Koran 53, 19-20) Satan seduced him to utter the following line: it is a sublime garanik, for whose intercession there is hope. (In Arabic is a gapax leomenon (i.e. used only once in the text). Commentators wrote that this meant cranes. The Arabic word usually means tap - appearing in singular as ghirn'q, ghurn'q, ghirnawq and ghurnayq, and the word has a cousin shaped in other words for birds, including crows, crows and eagles. According to Muslim Orthodoxy, the actual account of the events states that a group of Kuraisha leaders (a tribe of politicalists of Mecca persecuting Muslims) passed by when the Prophet was reciting verses from the Koran. It moved their hearts so much that they instantly fell on their faces in stretches, and bear the testimony that it was from Allah alone. Then some of their peers happened, and began to threaten them and threaten them, and made them ashamed, so they denied what had happened, and said they fell only in stretches, because the Prophet gave a concession allowing them to preserve their idolatry, but still to be a Muslim. Admission to the Muslim exegesis Early Islam Satanic verses incident is reported in tafsir and sira-magazi literature, dating back to the first two centuries of Islam, and reported in the respective tafs corpuses transmitted from almost every Koran commentator to note in the first two centuries of hijra. According to Ibn Taimiya: Early Islamic scholars (salafs) collectively considered the verses of cranes in accordance with the Koran. And from the later scholars (Khalaf) who followed the opinion of early scholars, they say that these traditions were recorded with a true chain of narrative, and it is impossible to deny them, and the Koran itself bears witness to this . The earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishak (761-767), has been lost, but his collection of traditions exists mainly in two sources: Ibn Hisham (833) and al-Tabari (915). The story appears in al-Tabari, which includes Ibn Ishaq in the chain of transmission, but not in Ibn Hisham, who admits in the foreword to his text that he omitted questions from the biography of Ibn Ishaq that would upset certain people. Ibn Saad and al-Waqidi, two other early biographers of Muhammad, link this story. Scholars such as Uri Rubin and Shahab Ahmed and Guillaume believe that the report was in Ibn Ishak, while Alford T. Welch believes that the report was not supposedly present in Ibn Ishaq. Later in the medieval period, due to its unreliable chain of narrative, the tradition of satanic verses never entered any of the canonical collections of hadiths (although possible truncated versions of the incident did). References and exegesis about verses appear in early stories. In addition to its appearance in Tabara Tafsar, it is used in the Tafsirs of Mukatil, Abdu r-Razzhak and Ibn Katir, as well as in the nasha of Abu Jafar al-Nahas, the collection of Asbab Wahidi and even in the late Middle Ages, as in the collection of Al-Suati al-Durr al-Harater- Objections to this incident date back to the fourth Islamic century, for example in the work of al-Nahah and continued to grow over the next generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi (d. 1157), Fahr al-Din Razi (1220), and al-Kurtubi (1285). The most comprehensive argument against the actuality of the incident was presented in al-Shif Kadi Iyah. The incident was discounted at two main bases. First, this incident contradicted the teachings of isma, the divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. Secondly, descriptions of the chain of transmission, which is still not complete and audible (sahih). Ibn Kathir notes in his comment that isads available to him, by which the story was conveyed were almost all mursal, or without The Companion of Muhammad in their chain. Uri Rubin claims that there is a complete version of the inada, continuing to ibn 'Abbes, but it survives only in a few sources. He claims that Ibn Abbas's name was part of the original undesirable and was removed so that the incident could be stripped of his Sahich-inada and discredited. Imam Fahr al-Din al-Razi, commenting on Koran 22:52 in his Tafsir al-Kabir, stated that the people of verification declared the story a blatant fabrication, citing the supporting arguments of the Koran, Sunna and Reason. He then reported that the outstanding Muhaddit Ibn Khuzaima said: This invention of heretics, when once asked about it. Al-Razi also noted that al-Bayhaqi said that the narrative of the story was unreliable because its narrators had questionable integrity. Those scholars who recognized the historical environment of the incident appeared to have a different method of assessing the reports than the one that became the standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taimiya stated that since the reports of tafsira and sira-magazi were usually transmitted incomplete inademe, those reports should be assessed not on the basis of chain fullness but on the basis of regular transmission of the general value between reports. Al-Kurtubi (al-Jami Lee Ahkam al-Koran) rejects all these options in favor of explaining that once Sara al-Najm was safely disclosed the main events of the incident (or rumors about them) were now allowed to occur to identify those of his followers who would accept Muhammad's explanation of blasphemy (JSS 15, p. 254-255). While Ibn Hajar al-Ascollani wrote: All chains of this narrative are weak, with the exception of Saeed ibn Jubair. And when one incident is reported from different chains, it means that there is something real in this incident. In addition, the incident was also told through 2 Mursal (where the chain goes to the successor, i.e. Tabari) tradition, whose chains of narrative are authentic in accordance with the standards of Imam Buhari and Imam Muslim. First, it is what Tabari recorded from Younus bin Yazid, he is from Ibn Shahab that Abu Bakr Ibn Abdul Rehman told me. While the second that Tabari recorded from Mutabar bin Suleiman and Hammad bin Salamah and they are from Dawood bin Abi Hind and he is from Abu Aliyah ... Ibn Arabi and Kadhi Ayad say there is no evidence of this incident, but contrary to their assertion, when one incident goes through different narrative chains, it means that the incident is real. Although there are not only a few narrative chains about this incident, but 3 of them are genuine while 2 of them are Mursal narration. A modern Islamic scholarship while The authors of the Tafsir texts during the first two centuries of the Islamic era did not seem to regard the tradition as in any way unfavorable or unflattering to Muhammad, it seems to have been universally rejected by at least the 13th century, and most modern Muslims also consider the tradition problematic, in the sense that it is seen as deeply heretical, because by allowing the intercession of three pagan female deities, they undermined the power and omnipotence of the Almighty. But they also keep... the pernicious consequences of the revelation in general, for Muhammad's revelation appears to have been based on his desire to mitigate the threat to the deities of the people. Various responses have been developed for the account. All modern Muslim scholars have rejected this story. Arguments in favor of refusal are found in the article muhammad Abduh Masʾalat al-garanin wa-tafsir al-yat, year, Muhammad Hussain Haikal Hayat Muhammad, The Year Necessary by Saeed Kutba Fi Silal al-Koran (1965), Tafim al-Koran Abul Ala Modudi and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani Nasb al-Mahanik li-Nasf al-Gharanik. Aikal points to numerous forms and versions of history and their inconsistencies and argues that the contextual flow of Sura al-Najm does not allow for the inclusion of such verses, as history claims.

Load more