Chapter 11
Conviction No. 6
"The Word 'Death'
in The Quranic Text
Does Not Mean
Physical Death"
―DEATH in the Quran is mentioned in the exclusive context of Nations‘ Death. Physical Death of the human organism is not meant. The learned translator also states : ―It is the Law of Nature (Qanoon-e-Qudrat) that no one comes alive after one‘s physical death.
.-.-.-
Some texts from the learned translator's current Quranic translation, carried out in accordance with the above Conviction, together with his interpretation of the same with supportive arguments, are copy/pasted here-below to apprise the Readers of his line of thought. Every copy/paste is accompanied by this writer's Rebuttal too.
Nevertheless, WHAT is the source of this particular “Qanoon-e- Qudrat”, as stated above, or WHERE is the supportive Quranic text relating to it, no clue is offered by him, as usual.
1) Verse : 2/28: “Kayifa takfuroona billahi wa kuntum amwaatan fa-ahyaa-kum, thumma yumeetu-kum, thumma yuhyee-kum, thumma ilayihi turja‟oon”.
(Translation from original Urdu by the learned translator):
How can you deny the Laws of Nature, whereas you were subjects, then you were granted freedom. Moreover, you become subjects and you will remain Free as well, and will be reverted to His Laws.
2) “Thumma ba‟athnaa-kum min ba‟adi mowti-kum la-alla-kum tashkuroon”.
(Translation from original Urdu by the learned translator):
After your (moral) death, we resurrected you once again so that you be grateful.
This is the Law of Nature that no man is resurrected after physical death. Therefore, the Quran, wherever it describes death, it does so with reference to nation‘s moral death. When moral spirit is infused among a dead nation, the same dead nation becomes alive once again, while, nations are dead when they are still living physically.
The writer's Rebuttal:
”Moreover, you become subjects and you will remain Free as well,” (Urdu original by the learned translator: “mazeed yeh keh tum mehkoom bhi hotey ho aur azaad bhi rahogay”.)????
IS that the right translation of “thumma yumeetu-kum thumma yuhyee-kum”? If yes, then by which rule of grammar has the structure of the sentence been radically altered and the "subject‟ (the "Faa‟il‟) is done away with altogether? Allah swt is the "subject‟ here and it is HE Who states here that “AFTER THIS, HE GIVES YOU DEATH (or, WILL GIVE YOU DEATH), AND AFTER THAT, HE GIVES YOU LIFE AGAIN (OR, WILL GIVE YOU LIFE AGAIN); whereas the learned translator writes: “you become subjects and you will remain free as well”? What authority had he to distort the Quran like that?
Let us see why he had to use these misleading tactics.
It is quite evident that his purported definitions of Death and Life (Mehkoomi and Azaadi) were not fit to apply to this part of the Verse. Had they been applied here, translation of this sentence would become MEANINGLESS. Therefore, he resorted to restructuring this part of the Verse autocratically, and thus tried to present a wishful, but distorted, translation. Let us now see why exactly he was forced to resort to this strategy. Let us put his definitions in place of the right translation of the sentence and see if it works:-
“After that He gives you “subjugation”, and after that He gives you “freedom” again”.
This is what the Verse ends up with. Now the questions that this translation of his raises before us are:
1) Is this the inevitable course of action He follows about nations?
2) Or does He inevitably act in this sequence at least twice, with all nations?
3) Any proof of that from the Quran, or any example from history?
None. Therefore, we have to take death for death and life for life in this sentence, and acknowledge the second round of life as the Hereafter. Only then the sentence can give a sense.
The learned translator also states that: “This is the Divine Law (Qanoon-e-Qudrat) that no human gets another life after physical death”. Has he got a Quranic proof or authority for this Divine Law? Probably not. Had he got an authority, he would have definitely brought it up. He is known to always emphasize this principle.
3) Verse No.2/94, 2/95: “QUL IN KAANAT LA-KUM AD-DAAR- UL-AAKHIRATU „IND-UL-LAAHI KHAALISATAN MIN DOON-IN-NAASI FA-TAMANNAU-AL-MAUT IN KUNTUM SAADIQEEN. WA LAN YATAMANNU-HU ABADAN BI-MAA QADDAMAT AYIDEE-HIM”.
(Translation from original Urdu by the learned translator):-
Tell them if the period of prosperity, according to Qudrat, is reserved for you alone, and if you deem yourselves truthful, then you must wish for our failure.
Discussion: With reference to this Verse, it is said : “you tell Kuffaar that if they are true to their claims that Aakhirat is only for them, then they should desire death for them”; But this is a meaningless hypothesis because if Kuffar too, in return, ask the same thing of the Momineen – that if Momineen believe that Aakhirat is for them alone, then they should also desire death – what would the Momineen say in reply? Both groups won't say an inconclusive thing like that. So, "death‟, in this sentence, is related with "Failure‟ instead of "physical death‟. Supposing that it were "physical death‟, then it would be calleld “AL-MOWT” instead of “mowt”.
The Writer's Rebuttal:
Many anomalies in the above "discussion‟ can be pointed out, and strong arguments against his contentions can be presented. However, for the sake of brevity, this writer would suffice to point out the visible contradictions in the learned translator's writings which may help the Readers to form their opinions about the soundness of his theories. Kindly note the sentence:-
“Supposing that it were "physical death‟, then it would be called “MOWT” instead of “AL-MOWT”.
It simply means that, according to him, the physical death is not defined by the ma'arfah term “Al-MOWT”. It is defined by nakrah: “mowt”.
Now please look under point 4) below, under the heading of Verse 2/133. In its translation, the learned translator himself has translated the ma'arfah “AL-MOWT” as "physical death‟ (Urdu: „jab Yaqoob ko mowt aai‟), and in this way, has blatantly violated his self-devised "Rule of Grammar‟. And with this violation, he has left us in a quagmire as to what should be the final ruling about “AL-MOWT” and “MOWT”.
After this contradictory statement and sheer inconsistency, how can his translations be taken seriously?
4) Verse 2/133: “UM KUN-TUM SHUHADAA‟A IZ HADHARA YAQOOB AL-MOWT, IZ QAALA LI-BANEE-HI MAA TA‟BUDOONA MIN BA‟ADI, QAALOO NA‟BUDU ILAAHA-KA WA ILAA-HA ABAAI- KA IBRAHEEMA WA ASMAAILA WA ISHAAQA ILAAHAN WAAHIDAN WA NAHNU LA-HU MUSLIMOON”.
(Translation from original Urdu by the learned translator):-
When death came upon Jacob, were you witness to that when he asked his sons as to whom would they obey after him; they replied that they would obey his and his forefathers Ibrahim, Ismael and Ishaaq's God who is unique and we are to provide security on his behalf.
The Writer's Rebuttal:-
Leaving aside other anomalies in this translation, we analyze this work by applying therein the learned translator's own Rule of Grammar which reads like this: “Supposing that it were "physical death‟, then it would be called “MOWT” instead of “AL-MOWT”.
By bringing the above translation in line with this Rule of his, it should read like this :
―When Hadhrat Yaqoob encountered ―ailure‖ or ―Subjugation, were you then witness of what he asked his sons about whose obedience they were to follow…… . etc.
I have just inserted his definition of “AL-MOWT” here, and it can be clearly seen that no reasonable meaning, according to context, can be derived here by applying his self-styled Rule. So, the learned translator, perceiving the difficulty, unhesitantly resorted to changing the definition of the word without regard to violating his own Rule. That is, he instantly changed “AL-MOWT” into “MOWT” without having any scruples at all about condemning his own theory to garbage.
5) Verse No.2/154: “WA LAA TAQOOLU LI-MAN YUQTALU FI SABEEL-IL-LAAHI AMWAAT; BAL AHYAA‟UN WA LAAKIN LAA TASH‟UROON”.
(Translation from original Urdu by the learned translator):-
And do not call those who “are fought” in the way of Allah as “Failed”; they are not failed but are “life giving”; but you do not comprehend.
The Writer's Rebuttal:-
Dear Readers, the above is such an up-side down translation that you must read the original in Urdu to fully enjoy the class of it. It is like this: “aur jo loag ehkamaat-e-ilaahi ki raah men ―l a rraai kiye jaaen‖ un ko nakaam mat kaho, woh nakaam nahi hain, balkeh zindagi dainey waley hain lekin tum samajhte nahi ho‖.
I am sure you can't make heads or tails out of this translation. But here the learned translator has mutilated the passive term “Yuqtalu”, and defined it as “Larraai kiye jaaen”. By this mutilation, he actually tried to avoid the right definition of “Mowt” too which follows this passive verb. Had he done the right translation of Yuqtalu, which is: “who are killed”, he would inevitably have to define “Amwaat” rightly too, viz., “DEAD”, instead of “Failed” (nakaam); that would simply render his own standpoint false. One can rightly question his endless slaughter here of the linguistic norms and literary standards of Urdu text, just to serve his wrongful AGENDA. Isn't the phrase “Larraai kiye jaaen” (in Urdu) a ridiculous expression, and an ungrammatical structure? Has anyone ever witnessed a similar style of expression in Urdu language?
6) Verse 2/141: “INNA-AL-LAZEENA KAFARU WA MAATU WA HUM KUFFARUN, OOLAAIKA ALAYI-HIM LA‟ANAT-UL-LAAHI WA AL- MALAAIKATI WA AN-NAASI AJMA‟EEN”.
(Translation from original Urdu by the learned translator):-
Verily, those who were persistent in their conduct of denial and FAILED in the same state, they stand deprived of the blessings of the Divine Kingdom, its authorities, and the entire population.
“KHAALIDEENA FI-HAA; LAA YUKHAFFAFU „AN-HUM-UL-„AZAAB WA LAA HUM YUNSAROON”.
Translation: They will live for ever in deprivation. Neither will their torment be lightened nor will they be granted respite.
Discussion by him:
“They will live for ever in deprivation” does not mean that in the future they will be deprived of these blessings for ever, but, they will be kept deprived only as long as they do not change their conduct. Do remember that some other world (life) is not being discussed here; it rather relates to our present world.
The Writer's Rebuttal:
Again, we leave aside many anomalies that are quite obvious in this translation/discussion. We only take up the word “Maatoo”, meaning “they died”. Is there any grammar Rule to define this word here as “they Failed”? The learned translator's own Rule stipulated that “AL-MOWT” (Ma'arfah) always means “Failure” and “Decline”. But here we do not see the use of Ma'arfah, rather the plural, past, verb “maatoo” is used. Apart from that, “khalideena fi-haa” is always used in Quran for “eternity”; and “eternity” is not the characteristic of this worldly life. The total sum of life is an average of 60 to 70 years. How can it be called “living for ever”? The learned translator has tried, in his “discussion” to justify a negation of this “eternity”, but that can safely be regarded as a futile effort to highlight a personal theory over and above the Quranic text.
Now, to facilitate a comparison by Readers, below is an alternate translation, with proper interpretation thereof against the learned translator's translation above of Verses 2/94 and 2/95:-
Verses 2:94-95: “Qul in kaanat la-kum ad-daar-ul-Aakhiratu „ind- al-Allahi khalisatan min doon-in-naasi, fa-tamannaw-al-mowt in kuntum saadiqeen… wa lan yatamannaw-hu abadan bi-maa qaddamat ayidee-him”.
Translation: Say to them: If the house of Aakhirat, with Allah, is reserved for you exclusively, and if you really think you are truthful in this belief of yours, then you should be the ones to desire DEATH most willingly. But, on the contrary, they would never wish to DIE on account of their deeds already accounted for.
Dear Readers, here the literal and the closest meanings of “MOWT”, “HOUSE OF AAKHIRAT”, "the account of acts/deeds sent forward”, are totally unalterable. The philosophy narrated in the text proves the literal meanings of these terms. You can see that neither the meaning of DEATH can be construed as “Nation‟s Decline” here, nor “AAKHIRAT” can be interpreted as “some future period to come within this life”; nor the “acts/deeds to be accounted for in the Hereafter” can be taken in some other perspective.
Two more Verses with explanations that totally reject the learned translator's viewpoint are quoted below.
Verse 39:42: “ALLAHU YATAWAFFA-AL-ANFUSA HEENA MOWTI- HA WA ALLATI LAM TAMUT FI MANAMI-HA, FA-YAMSIKU ALLATI QADHAA ALAYIHA AL-MOWT WA YURSILU AL-UKHRAA ILAA AJALIN MUSAMMAA; INNA FI ZAALIKA LA-AYAATIN LI-QOUMIN YATAFAKKAROON”.
Translation: Allah swt, at the time of Death, completes/ends the role of AL-ANFUS (Rooh, consciousness, brain); he acts the same way with those who are not yet dead, are in their sleep; then he withholds those who are finally dead and sends others back to life to pass through a certain period till its maturity. Indeed, there are signs in it for people who deliberate.
Can the learned translator's wishful translation be applied here?
Verse14:17: “Yatajarra‟u-hu wa laa yakaadu yuseeghu-hu wa ya‟teeh-il-mowtu min kulli makaanin wa maa huwa bi-mayyitin; wa min waraai-hi „azaabun ghaleez”.
Translation: ………AL-MOWT will be descending upon him from every direction, yet he won't die; while continuing to suffer a massive torment.
Here too, the Ma'arfah, AL-MOWT is used, and along with it the word “Mayyit” too. I would be really obliged if the learned translator can demonstrate how to apply his wishful definitions (Failure/Decline) in this text.