Iqbal's "Shikvah, Javaab-i-Shikvah" and Khushwant Singh's Translation

[Naseer]

dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.

Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.

More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..

"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.

But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..

"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".

I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.

kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN

jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Naseer
dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.
Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.
More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..
"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.
But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..
"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".
I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

Naseer Saheb,

With due respect, I am not sure this is quite the right approach.
You have quoted the first stanza of "Shikwa". It is probable
that ALUPers would get bogged down in trying to present their own
perception and interpretation of the above verses. And it might
take a long time for us to get down to examine and critique (in
our own way) K.Singh's 'translation'.

What I would suggest instead is that we proceed stanza by stanza,
quoting the original Urdu and ALSO Singh's interpretation or
translation (whatever). That way, we can evaluate whether Singh's
attempt deserves a serious reading.

Additionally, this reminds me of our earlier debates of 3/4 years
back --- when the discussion was centred round whether "Ab
Urdu sites ko hindi men paRHo" was an appropriate thing to do.
I recollect that I had then opined that Piyush Joshi's idea was
better suited for those folks (and those NGs) who did not know
Urdu and were still (genuinely, and this cannot be overemphasised)
desirous of reading some masterpieces of Urdu Literature.

Most Urdu-knowing folks in this Newsgroup (ALUP) can have little
difficulty in following this masterpiece by Iqbal. They will not
need to read Singh's attempt at all. That can be meaningful (pun
unintended) for those people whose knowledge of Urdu does not go
beyond a "nodding acquaintance".

Just my opinion.


Afzal

[Shyam]

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.
Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.
More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..
"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.
But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..
"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".
I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

Naseer Saheb,
With due respect, I am not sure this is quite the right approach.
You have quoted the first stanza of "Shikwa". It is probable
that ALUPers would get bogged down in trying to present their own
perception and interpretation of the above verses. And it might
take a long time for us to get down to examine and critique (in
our own way) K.Singh's 'translation'.
What I would suggest instead is that we proceed stanza by stanza,
quoting the original Urdu and ALSO Singh's interpretation or
translation (whatever). That way, we can evaluate whether Singh's
attempt deserves a serious reading.
Additionally, this reminds me of our earlier debates of 3/4 years
back --- when the discussion was centred round whether "Ab
Urdu sites ko hindi men paRHo" was an appropriate thing to do.
I recollect that I had then opined that Piyush Joshi's idea was
better suited for those folks (and those NGs) who did not know
Urdu and were still (genuinely, and this cannot be overemphasised)
desirous of reading some masterpieces of Urdu Literature.
Most Urdu-knowing folks in this Newsgroup (ALUP) can have little
difficulty in following this masterpiece by Iqbal. They will not
need to read Singh's attempt at all. That can be meaningful (pun
unintended) for those people whose knowledge of Urdu does not go
beyond a "nodding acquaintance".
Just my opinion.
Afzal

Afzal Sahib,

I am always intrigued by your photographic memory. This time, I totally agree with your views above. :)

Kind regards,
Shyam

[Naseer]

Post by Naseer
dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.
Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.
More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..
"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.
But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..
"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".
I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

      Naseer Saheb,
      With due respect, I am not sure this is quite the right approach.
      You have quoted the first stanza of "Shikwa".  It is probable
      that ALUPers would get bogged down in trying to present their own
      perception and interpretation of the above verses.  And it might
      take a long time for us to get down to examine and critique (in
      our own way) K.Singh's 'translation'.
      What I would suggest instead is that we proceed stanza by stanza,
      quoting the original Urdu and ALSO Singh's interpretation or
      translation (whatever).  That way, we can evaluate whether Singh's
      attempt deserves a serious reading.
      Additionally, this reminds me of our earlier debates of 3/4 years
      back --- when the discussion was centred round whether "Ab
      Urdu sites ko hindi men paRHo" was an appropriate thing to do.
      I recollect that I had then opined that Piyush Joshi's idea was
      better suited for those folks (and those NGs) who did not know
      Urdu and were still (genuinely, and this cannot be overemphasised)
      desirous of reading some masterpieces of Urdu Literature.
      Most Urdu-knowing folks in this Newsgroup (ALUP) can have little
      difficulty in following this masterpiece by Iqbal.  They will not
      need to read Singh's attempt at all.  That can be meaningful (pun
      unintended) for those people whose knowledge of Urdu does not go
      beyond a "nodding acquaintance".
      Just my opinion.
      Afzal

janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 'arz hai

I replied to your post a couple of days ago but for some reason it has
not shown up.

Thank you for your detailed reply which is very much appreciated. You
make a valid point that I should post a stanza from the poems Shikvah
and Javaab-i-Shikvah at a time followed by Singh's translation. A
discussion can then take place and Faruqi can be introduced whenever
there is a necessity. I do feel there are a couple of problems here:

1) This will take for ever and a day and people are likely to loose
interest in the thread and the momentum will be lost.

2) I don't have Khushwant Singh's book handy. I shall have to visit my
local library at the weekend and see if I can get hold of it.

Regarding your point that most people are likely to be well versed
with these poems, I would agree with you to a certain point. For a
connoisseur of Urdu (and Persian) poetry and English literature like
you there is indeed going to be no problem in accurate comprehension
of the poem. However, a "half-baked cookie" like me will always be
enlightened by others' understanding of it. I think ALUPers may come
for a little surprise as to how Singh has understood certain aspects
of the poem and how they are in the Urdu poetic reality.

So please bear with me until I visit my library. In the meantime I
seek ALUPers' indulgence in coming forward and giving their
understanding of the opening band.

Naseer

[Zoya]

Naseer sahib/Afzal sahib,

Interesting. My dad presented Khushwant Singh's translation of "Shikwa/javaab-e-shikwa" to me years ago, and it has been a part of my home library ever since. I remember reading/discussing it with my dad when I first got it. I'd love to contribute to this thread, but am currently busy with two weddings in the family. So my focus these days is Punjabi folk wedding songs/dancing, I must admit it is just as much fun as Urdu poetry!:)

More later.

__Zoya

[Naseer]

Post by Zoya
Naseer sahib/Afzal sahib,
Interesting. My dad presented Khushwant Singh's translation of "Shikwa/javaab-e-shikwa" to me years ago, and it has been a part of my home library ever since. I remember reading/discussing it with my dad when I first got it. I'd love to contribute to this thread, but am currently busy with two weddings in the family. So my focus these days is Punjabi folk wedding songs/dancing, I must admit it is just as much fun as Urdu poetry!:)
More later.
__Zoya

That is no problem Zoya SaaHibah, but, what is going to happen to the
"pasandiidah ashaar" thread whilst you are feating, singing and
dancing in your Punjabi "salvaar kamiiz"?:-)

[Zoya]

Post by Naseer
That is no problem Zoya SaaHibah, but, what is going to happen to the
"pasandiidah ashaar" thread whilst you are feating, singing and
dancing in your Punjabi "salvaar kamiiz"?:-)

If 'kamiiz' is a bait Naseer bhai, I am too busy to succumb to it right now!! :)

I plan to continue with the pasandiidah asha'ar thread, as time permits.

__Zoya

[Naseer]

Post by Naseer
So please bear with me until I visit my library. In the meantime I
seek ALUPers' indulgence in coming forward and giving their
understanding of the opening band.

I visited my local library yesterday and was extremely disappointed to
find that not only did I not find Khushwant Singh's book, it was not
even being shown on their computer records! No worries, as Paul Hogan
in "Crocodile Dundee" says. I have managed to find translations of
some stanzas. At least this is a start. So, Afzal SaaHib, here we go.


kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN

jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shikvah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

Iqbal

....................................................................................

Why must I forever lose, forever forgo profit that is my due,
Sunk in the gloom of evenings past, no plans for the morrow pursue.
Why must I all attentive be to the nightingales lament,
Friend, am I as dumb as a flower? Must I remain silent?

My theme makes me bold, makes my tongue more eloquent,
Dust fills my mouth, against Allah I make complaint.

Khushwant Singh

.....................................................................................

Naseer

[Naseer]

Before this thread becomes inaccessible to Urdu lovers to make
additions and my efforts go unrewarded, I am returning to it.
Hopefully the time period has been sufficiently long for interested
parties to make any contributions. Zoya SaaHibah will also have
finished with her commitment to two weddings and Punjabi wedding
songs.

kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN

jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shikvah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

Why must I forever lose, forever forgo profit that is my due,
Sunk in the gloom of evenings past, no plans for the morrow pursue.
Why must I all attentive be to the nightingales lament,
Friend, am I as dumb as a flower? Must I remain silent?

I shall quote Faruqi..

"I have said that Singh's translation shows errors of Urdu language
and Urdu poetry comprehension...Both of his failures are evident in
the very first stanza of the Shikwa. He translates "kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar
banuuN" as "why must I forever loose". "ziyaaN-kaar" means "one who
acts for one's own or somebody else's loss or harm".Thus the
protagonist here is blaming himself and not fate as the translation
suggests. Then " maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN" is
translated "...am I as dumb as a flower? Must I remain silent?". This
shows misapprehension of the concept of "gul" (the rose or any other
flower) in Urdu poetry. The "gul" (the beloved) remains unresponsive
to the wailings of the "bulbul" (the lover) not because it (the gul)
is "dumb", but because it is hard-hearted. To render the
unresponsiveness of the "gul" as "dumbness" betrays not only ignorance
but also bad taste. Again in the last line of this stanza, the Persian
phrase "xaakam ba-dahan" has been translated as "dust fills my mouth".
Actually this phrase has been used as a kind of curse on oneself...an
expression of apology..when one says something impertinent or
sacrilegious. It is subjunctive in mood and must always be translated
as "may there be dust/ash in my mouth".

.......................................................................................

Naseer

[Vijay]

Post by Naseer
Before this thread becomes inaccessible to Urdu lovers to make
additions and my efforts go unrewarded, I am returning to it.
Hopefully the time period has been sufficiently long for interested
parties to make any contributions. Zoya SaaHibah will also have
finished with her commitment to two weddings and Punjabi wedding
songs.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shikvah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko
Why must I forever lose, forever forgo profit that is my due,
Sunk in the gloom of evenings past, no plans for the morrow pursue.
Why must I all attentive be to the nightingales lament,
Friend, am I as dumb as a flower? Must I remain silent?
I shall quote Faruqi..
"I have said that Singh's translation shows errors of Urdu language
and Urdu poetry comprehension...Both of his failures are evident in
the very first stanza of the Shikwa. He translates "kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar
banuuN" as "why must I forever loose". "ziyaaN-kaar" means "one who
acts for one's own or somebody else's loss or harm".Thus the
protagonist here is blaming himself and not fate as the translation
suggests. Then " maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN" is
translated "...am I as dumb as a flower? Must I remain silent?". This
shows misapprehension of the concept of "gul" (the rose or any other
flower) in Urdu poetry. The "gul" (the beloved) remains unresponsive
to the wailings of the "bulbul" (the lover) not because it (the gul)
is "dumb", but because it is hard-hearted. To render the
unresponsiveness of the "gul" as "dumbness" betrays not only ignorance
but also bad taste. Again in the last line of this stanza, the Persian
phrase "xaakam ba-dahan" has been translated as "dust fills my mouth".
Actually this phrase has been used as  a kind of curse on oneself...an
expression of apology..when one says something impertinent or
sacrilegious. It is subjunctive in mood and must always be translated
as "may there be dust/ash in my mouth".
........................................................................... ............
Naseer

Naseer sahib, Eid mubarak to you and yours, and the rest of ALUPers.

About the topic at hand, I personally feel (and have said words to
this effect before) that translating Urdu poetry into English is well
nigh impossible and one can at best make an attempt to do it in prose.
Even there, many of the subtle nuances and references of the language
and Urdu culture are bound to get lost. (It is quite true of
translating English poetry into Urdu, too). I am talking here of
metered poetry that has a proper rhythm. Azaad naz'm may be an easier
task to render from Urdu to English, as it is free from the bounds of
meter and poetic rhythm and thus closer to prose than poetry to begin
with.

So translating metered Urdu poetry into English is not attempted much
and if done, results are often disappointing. Look at some of the
examples provided by Afzal sahib and you will know what I mean. There
are readily available examples of translations of Ghalib's work into
English by others that also come up short compared with the magic of
the original. Where translations have succeeded to some degree, it is
when a 'rendering' rather than translation has been attempted. Again,
please refer to Afzal sahib's excellent posts on the topic and the
examples he has provided.

Now coming to KS's translation. In my view, it is one of the few
'translations' of Urdu poetry, that can stand on its own as a piece of
English verse. It is in meter and easily passess itself off as a work
of poetry. I feel that in order to stick to the requirements of poetry
rhythm, he has perhaps taken liberties with the 'literal' meaning of
the verses here and there and for a purist, it is perhaps sacrilege.
Faruqi has provided such examples, but I wonder if he has provided his
own translation of the corrected version in metered verse. I will be
interested to see that.

Let me illustrate my thoughts with an example of a Ghalib she'r as
translated by Ralph Russell:

kalkatte ka jo zikr kiia tuu ne hamnashiiN
ik tiir mere dil pe, maaraa ki haai haai

Ah me, my friend! the mention of Calcutta's name
Has loosed a shaft, that pierces to my very soul!

I think it is an admirable attempt, and it is in proper poetic rhythm.
Even if I didn't know the original, I still could enjoy it as a stand
alone couplet. I like 'ah me, my friend!' opener particularly. But you
will agree (and I guess Faruqi too would), that it is not what Ghalib
intended or wrote.

So in summary, KS's effort is 'not that an elephant can dance well,
but that it can dance at all'.
Finally, can I ask you (and others who may want to respond), if 'kyuN
ziaaNkaar banuuN' translation works if one imagines that KS has added
an invisible "O fate' in front of his effort? It then becomes a plea
to one's fate that why I must always be the loser, etc.

About the word 'dumb', it looks out of place if one takes the usual
meaning 'stupid'. But here it is used to mean speechless (as opposed
to bulbul) and as it fits the rhythm of the misra, it does work in a
manner.

Best regards,

Vijay

[Naseer]

Post by Vijay
Now coming to KS's translation. In my view, it is one of the few
'translations' of Urdu poetry, that can stand on its own as a piece of
English verse. It is in meter and easily passess itself off as a work
of poetry. I feel that in order to stick to the requirements of poetry
rhythm, he has perhaps taken liberties with the 'literal' meaning of
the verses here and there and for a purist, it is perhaps sacrilege.
Faruqi has provided such examples, but I wonder if he has provided his
own translation of the corrected version in metered verse. I will be
interested to see that.

Vjay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.

Thank you for your kind Eid greetings. They are much appreciated.

My initial posts make clear my purpose behind starting this thread.
And the purpose is not to attack Khushwant Singh's translation in
anyway but for ALUPers, especially me, to understand the poems better
through Faruqi's critical remarks.

A translation of Iqbal's poems in English is not just for those who
know Urdu but it would especially cater for those who don't. For them,
the book with its preface and translation would possibly be the only
source of understanding Iqbal and his two poems. For this reason, a
translator worth his salt ought to get the facts right and the
translation to be as faithful as possible to the intended meaning of
the poet. One could always of course go down the Fitzgeraldian route.
Then it will no longer be a translation.

In my opening post I quoted Faruqi dividing Singh's translation into
four categories. Let me quote him again, concerning "Errors of Fact".

"p23. Iqbal had "an affair with Atiya Zaidi, a young uninhibited
girl..". It is most doubtful if Iqbal had "an affair" with Atiya
(whose surname, incidentally was Faizi, not Zaidi) and her lack of
inhibition is a mere invention.

On the same page, we are informed that "a few days before the end"
Iqbal wrote "a verse in Persian lamenting his own departure". In fact,
what Iqbal wrote was not a lament "on his own departure" but a
dignified melancholy poem which says that there may or may not be
another poet and seer like him to finish what he had set out to do.

Singh further declares (p25) that the shikwa "reveals a not-too-veiled
contempt for non-Muslims, particularly Hindus...Shikwa may be regarded
as the first manifesto of the two nation theory...". If dead men can
turn in their graves, Iqbal must be writhing in his ". To see this
poem, which is at best a populistic expression of Indian Muslims'
frustration at having been neglected to the background on the
national scene, as the two nation theory in embryo, is to miss the
point completely.....(The poems) are not political, but historical and
theological statements. They are based on a populist interpretation of
history of Islam which , quite naturally, soothed Indian Muslims and
also urged them to action. But the action which the two poems urge, is
not political, it is essentially religious and moral".

Connected with the above, Faruqi talks about the fact that if one
makes a misinterpretation of a verse in a stanza of a nazm, it could
affect the understanding of the whole stanza or even the whole nazm.
He says..

"For example, in the shikwa itself, the fourth line of stana twentu-
seven (p54) is "hind ke dair-nashiinoN ko musalmaaN kar de ("These
temple-dwellers of India, make them Muslim.") Now dair-nashiin
literally means"those who sit in the temples," but here the phrase
refers to the Muslims themselves, and not the Hindus. According to the
protagonist, the Indian Muslims have lost the quality of Islam, and he
prays that God change their hearts and make them true Muslims. Singh
translates: "Convert to Islam India's millions who still in temples
dwell." Thus the poem is made to appear not as a plaint of the Muslims
who feel neglected and unloved by God, but as a prayer for conversion
of the "infidels". Perhaps it is misinterpretations such as these
which have led Singh to conclude that these poems have the two nation
theory in its embryonic stage. There is nothing in the poems which
could support such a view. In fact, the poems could be seen as a
warning to the Indian Muslims that they have forfeited, and will
continue to forfeit, God's favours if they do not mend their ways.
They are told that they can not pretend to be God's chosen people just
because they claim to be the followers of the Prophet; God's bounty
comes to those who deserve it; "Muslim" or "Infidel" in the
traditional sense has no meaning for God. What has meaning is true
submission, and the qualities of truth, justice, modesty, fortitude,
ceaseless strife and action, fear of God rather than the fear of
death, in fact all that distinguishes the perfect man. In the Jawab,
God is made to declare unequivocally (Singh's translation, p66);

You are not the clay of which another Adam could be made
If there were one deserving, We'd raise him to regal splendour,
To those who seek, we would unveil a new world of wonder.

And again (Singh's translation, p.72)

From time eternal we the Creator made justice our sovereign rule
To infidels who behaved as Muslims we gave heaven's gifts as prize."

Your query, Vijay Sahib, about whether Faruqi has translated anything
from Urdu into English verse. To tell you the truth, I don't know. He
may well have. But is n't this tantamount to my stating that an
athlete x was useless in the recent Olympics and you replying, "Let's
see how good you are in the x's event!"

I shall continue in my reply to Nagesh SaaHib's post.

Naseer

[Vijay]

Post by Naseer

Post by Vijay
Now coming to KS's translation. In my view, it is one of the few
'translations' of Urdu poetry, that can stand on its own as a piece of
English verse. It is in meter and easily passess itself off as a work
of poetry. I feel that in order to stick to the requirements of poetry
rhythm, he has perhaps taken liberties with the 'literal' meaning of
the verses here and there and for a purist, it is perhaps sacrilege.
Faruqi has provided such examples, but I wonder if he has provided his
own translation of the corrected version in metered verse. I will be
interested to see that.

Vjay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
Thank you for your kind Eid greetings. They are much appreciated.
My initial posts make clear my purpose behind starting this thread.
And the purpose is not to attack Khushwant Singh's translation in
anyway but for ALUPers, especially me, to understand the poems better
through Faruqi's critical remarks.
A translation of Iqbal's poems in English is not just for those who
know Urdu but it would especially cater for those who don't. For them,
the book with its preface and translation would possibly be the only
source of understanding Iqbal and his two poems. For this reason, a
translator worth his salt ought to get the facts right and the
translation to be as faithful as possible to the intended meaning of
the poet. One could always of course go down the Fitzgeraldian route.
Then it will no longer be a translation.
In my opening post I quoted Faruqi dividing Singh's translation into
four categories. Let me quote him again, concerning "Errors of Fact".
"p23. Iqbal had "an affair with Atiya Zaidi, a young uninhibited
girl..". It is most doubtful if Iqbal had "an affair" with Atiya
(whose surname, incidentally was Faizi, not Zaidi) and her lack of
inhibition is a mere invention.
On the same page, we are informed that "a few days before the end"
Iqbal wrote "a verse in Persian lamenting his own departure". In fact,
what Iqbal wrote was not a lament "on his own departure" but a
dignified melancholy poem which says that there may or may not be
another poet and seer like him to finish what he had set out to do.
Singh further declares (p25) that the shikwa "reveals a not-too-veiled
contempt for non-Muslims, particularly Hindus...Shikwa may be regarded
as the first manifesto of the two nation theory...". If dead men can
turn in their graves, Iqbal must be writhing in his ". To see this
poem, which is at best a populistic expression of Indian Muslims'
frustration  at having been neglected to the background on the
national scene, as the two nation theory in embryo, is to miss the
point completely.....(The poems) are not political, but historical and
theological statements. They are based on a populist interpretation of
history of Islam which , quite naturally, soothed Indian Muslims and
also urged them to action. But the action which the two poems urge, is
not political, it is essentially religious and moral".
Connected with the above, Faruqi talks about the fact that if one
makes a misinterpretation of a verse in a stanza of a nazm, it could
affect the understanding of the whole stanza or even the whole nazm.
He says..
"For example, in the shikwa itself, the fourth line of stana twentu-
seven (p54) is "hind ke dair-nashiinoN ko musalmaaN kar de ("These
temple-dwellers of India, make them Muslim.") Now dair-nashiin
literally means"those who sit in the temples," but here the phrase
refers to the Muslims themselves, and not the Hindus. According to the
protagonist, the Indian Muslims have lost the quality of Islam, and he
prays that God change their hearts and make them true Muslims. Singh
translates: "Convert to Islam India's millions who still in temples
dwell." Thus the poem is made to appear not as a plaint of the Muslims
who feel neglected and unloved by God, but as a prayer for conversion
of the "infidels". Perhaps it is misinterpretations such as these
which have led Singh to conclude that these poems have the two nation
theory in its embryonic stage. There is nothing in the poems which
could support such a view. In fact, the poems could be seen as a
warning to the Indian Muslims that they have forfeited, and will
continue to forfeit, God's favours if they do not mend their ways.
They are told that they can not pretend to be God's chosen people just
because they claim to be the followers of the Prophet; God's bounty
comes to those who deserve it; "Muslim" or "Infidel" in the
traditional sense has no meaning for God. What has meaning is true
submission, and the qualities of truth, justice, modesty, fortitude,
ceaseless strife and action, fear of God rather than the fear of
death, in fact all that distinguishes the perfect man. In the Jawab,
God is made to declare unequivocally (Singh's translation, p66);
You are not the clay of which another Adam could be made
If there were one deserving, We'd raise him to regal splendour,
To those who seek, we would unveil a new world of wonder.
And again (Singh's translation, p.72)
From time eternal we the Creator made justice our sovereign rule
To infidels who behaved as Muslims we gave heaven's gifts as prize."
Your query, Vijay Sahib, about whether Faruqi has translated anything
from Urdu into English verse. To tell you the truth, I don't know. He
may well have. But is n't this tantamount to my stating that an
athlete x was useless in the recent Olympics and you replying, "Let's
see how good you are in the x's event!"
I shall continue in my reply to Nagesh SaaHib's post.
Naseer

Thanks for your detailed response Naseer sahib. Language can be an
imprecise tool of communication and let me therefore say it out loud
that I find your posts exhaustively researched and extremely
educational: I have indeed learnt a lot about Urdu in general but the
language of Urdu in particular from you.

In my previous post, I had no intention of mocking Faruqi. I was
genuinely interested to know if there are examples, either elsewhere,
or of his own, where a poetic translation has been made of the verses
in question that addresses the critical points he raises. I think he
is a man of letters and a keen intellect in matters of Urdu, but I
just don't have access to his work. I thought you may (you always do)
and perhaps can dig out such examples.

My post was merely to rehash what had been said before about
translating poetry. I enjoyed KS's translation as a work of English
poetry and in its own manner, it is meaningful. However, compared with
the original, he is bound to fall short, as have others before him. I
don't know whether you have access to his book; so allow me to quote a
few words from the forewords to the book.

Firstly, here is Rafiq Zakaria opening the introduction:

"Iqbal defies translation. His poems, whether in Urdu or Persian, have
both historical and spiritual overtones. His expressions are steeped
in Islamic lore. It is almost impossible to understand them without a
proper knowledge of the Muslim heritage. That has been both the
weakness and strength of his poetry; its weakness lies in its appeal
being confined mainly to the followers of the Prophet Muhammad; its
strength on the other hand, consists in the hypnotic spell that it has
cast on Muslims. Many have tried to translate Iqbal's poetry into
English; most of them have failed."

Here is KS himself:

"I subscribe to the view that it is impossible to translate good
poetry of one language into another. This is even more true when it
comes to translating Oriental verse into a European language. While
every language has words and concepts which has no counterparts in
others, the oriental poets often go further in investing words with
meanings not recorded in dictionaries". I think KS uses Oriental in
the somewhat narrower sense of S-E Asian subcontinent. (Bengalis still
weep at the injustices done to Gitanjali by its English translators,
even though the English translation did win Tagore the Nobel prize).
KS goes on to illustrate his point about difficulties of translating
by two examples, 'joban' and 'aNgRaaii'.

The other point worth noting in his foreword is the fact that he was
extremely careful, to the point of being obsessive, about getting it
as close to right possible. Listen to him here:

"If I were to put down the names of all the people I consulted, it
would make a formidable list. I am constrained to name a few whom I
troubled with my problems more than others: Satinder Singh of The
Tribune, Hafeez Noorani and Nasira Sharma for checking the exact
meaning of the words; Mujahid Husain of the Embassy of Pakistan for
going over every line of my Shikwa translation, K. N Sud, Dr Masud
Husain of the Aligarh Muslim University and Dr Aley Ahmed Suroor,
Iqbal Professor at the University of Kashmir, for the final revision.
For the translation of Jawaab-i-Shikwa, I consulted the poet Ali
Sardar Jafri and had it examined for accuracy by Begum Sajida Zaidi of
the Aligarh Muslim University before submitting it to Dr. Suruur for a
second scrutiny........"

In Preface to second impression, he adds:

"By and large, Indian critics have been very kind to me. I await with
trepidation the reception of my translation in Pakistan".

It wonder if the intelligentsia that examined the rough proofs of KS's
work felt the way I do that some change in meaning, here and there,
had to be allowed to maintain the poetic rhythm of the translation. I
am sure they must have seen the discrepancies, at least some, if not
all of them, that Faruqi talks about, but couldn't improve upon the
original.

Anyway, I have gone on long enough. Just a last point, in the vain of
'yaar se cheR chalii jaae asad',
your analogy about you criticising an athlete doesn't quite work in
this context (same as your analogy of my 'f'raaz v/s faraaz' didn't
quite equate with 'xuda' v/s 'Khuda'):-)


Best regards,

Vijay

[Naseer]

Vijay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.

At the outset, before I forget, I will endeavour to come up with
analogies that come up to your level of sophistication!:-) The
problem, Vijay SaaHib, is that I am always in a rush and my slow brain
does n't get sufficient time to formulate something worthwhile. Work
gets in the way and without work there is no chance of paying all the
bills!

I am grateful to you for your detailed response. It's good to have a
civilised dialogue now and again on this forum. The days when we used
to have interesting threads with interesting contributions from our
learned friends appear to be a thing of the past. If it were not for
Afzal SaaHib's scholarly posts, this anjuman would be a rather
uninteresting place to visit.

No Vijay SaaHib. I do not have Khushwant Singh's book in my
possession. I thought I might be able to get my hands on it but it is
not available in our local library where I had first come across it.
Thank you for spending the time and digging up references. To be frank
with you, I am utterly surprised that people like Sardar Ja'fri and
Aal-e-Ahmad Suroor did not pick the obvious errors of fact if nothing
else. If Khushwant Singh has taken the trouble to have his translation
looked at by all these men of letters, it seems there is n't much else
he could have done. But any shortfalls and errors remain ultimately
his responsibility.

I disagree with Rafiq Zakariya when he says, ""Iqbal defies
translation. His poems, whether in Urdu or Persian, have both
historical and spiritual overtones. His expressions are steeped in
Islamic lore. It is almost impossible to understand them without a
proper knowledge of the Muslim heritage. That has been both the
weakness and strength of his poetry; its weakness lies in its appeal
being confined mainly to the followers of the Prophet Muhammad; its
strength on the other hand, consists in the hypnotic spell that it has
cast on Muslims. Many have tried to translate Iqbal's poetry into
English; most of them have failed." Nothing actually defies
translation! It's just that some pieces may not be as straightforward
as others and some people will do a better job than others. This is
quite natural. Also his appeal is not mainly confined to the followers
of Muhammad. Everyone knows that he had various aspects to his poetry
and message, nationalistic, moral, human betterment and so on.
Faruqi's "How to Read Iqbal" is an excellent article which covers how
Iqbal managed to bring together the Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and
Western traditions into his poetry.

How to Read Iqbal-http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/
srf/srf_iqbalown_2005.pdf

He was not bigoted and certainly not anti-Hindu. You only need to look
at his poetry on Hindu personalities in "BaaNg-i-Daraa and his close
Hindu friends. He learnt Sanskrit so that he could translate the
Sanskrit epics but unfortunately did not quite get round to this feat.
In his Persian work "Jaaved Naamah" (1932), he (Zinda Ruud/Living
Stream) is accompanied by his mentor and guide Rumi whilst they pass
through various heavenly spheres where they have dialogues with
various personalities such as Zoroaster, Gautam, Tolstoy, Hallaj,
Ghalib, Tahir, an Indian Sage, "The Spirit of India", Ghani Kaashmiri,
Bhartari Hari. Where does Iqbal place Bhartari Hari? Amongst the
prophets in the highest sphere!

If you feel that Khushwant Singh's work, in terms of his English
poetic translation, should be seen as a work of art in its own right
then that's fair enough. But if his intention was to convey what
Iqbal's message was (at least based on these poems) and what Urdu
poetry and all the symbolism that goes with it stands for, then
clearly he has fallen well short. About his English Faruqi says, "Most
of what Singh has produced is simply not good English, either in
terms of idiom or "poetic" language". He then goes on covering several
pages to explain why he feels the way he does.

Faruqi covers examples of misunderstanding of Urdu by Khushwant Singh
citing many examples where the latter has made a pig's ear of the
words and phrases that Iqbal has used. Some of these are "maujuud,
azal, zaat-i-qadiim, safHah-i-dahr, tasliim-o-rizaa, muztarib, shox,
bar-ham......but-garii (which Singh translates as idolatry!), adaa
(which he takes as adaa'igii). "ke dam se" (by virtue of) has been
translated as "by the breath of"). I can go into each of these if
anyone wishes me to do so but it will no doubt be time consuming.
However, there are two examples which I would like to quote which even
someone as unlearned as me would not have misunderstood!

qalb meN soz nahiiN, ruuH meN iHsaas nahiiN
kuchh bhii paGhaam-i-Muhammad kaa tumheN paas nahiiN

"In stanza fourteen (p74), the idiom "kuchh tumheN paas nahiiN" ("you
have no regard for...") has literally and ludicrously been translated
as "nothing with you is left". So the line which simply says, "you
have no regard for Muhammad's message," becomes in Singh's version,
"of Muhammad's message nothing with you is left".

"The comic vein continues in the next stanza (p76) where
"saaHib" ("possessor") is taken to mean the British Sahib and
translated as "gentleman". The line is

ya3nii vuh saaHib-i-ausaaf-i-Hijaazii nah rahe

That is ...those possessors of Hijazi qualities are no more. There are
no "noble gentlemen" here. Yet Singh translates, "The likes of Hijazi
gentlemen are no longer there". " Faruqi's final words are..

"To conclude, this is not a book that I can recommend with a clear
conscience. Strong words, but Khushwant Singh is an important and
influential writer. The sins of the great are always judged more
severely than those of the small".

[Vijay]

Post by Naseer
Vijay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
At the outset, before I forget, I will endeavour to come up with
analogies that come up to your level of sophistication!:-) The
problem, Vijay SaaHib, is that I am always in a rush and my slow brain
does n't get sufficient time to formulate something worthwhile. Work
gets in the way and without work there is no chance of paying all the
bills!
I am grateful to you for your detailed response. It's good to have a
civilised dialogue now and again on this forum. The days when we used
to have interesting threads with interesting contributions from our
learned friends appear to be a thing of the past. If it were not for
Afzal SaaHib's scholarly posts, this anjuman would be a rather
uninteresting place to visit.
No Vijay SaaHib. I do not have Khushwant Singh's book in my
possession. I thought I might be able to get my hands on it but it is
not available in our local library where I had first come across it.
Thank you for spending the time and digging up references. To be frank
with you, I am utterly surprised that people like Sardar Ja'fri and
Aal-e-Ahmad Suroor did not pick the obvious errors of fact if nothing
else. If Khushwant Singh has taken the trouble to have his translation
looked at by all these men of letters, it seems there is n't much else
he could have done. But any shortfalls and errors remain ultimately
his responsibility.
I disagree with Rafiq Zakariya when he says, ""Iqbal defies
translation. His poems, whether in Urdu or Persian, have both
historical and spiritual overtones. His expressions are steeped in
Islamic lore. It is almost impossible to understand them without a
proper knowledge of the Muslim heritage. That has been both the
weakness and strength of his poetry; its weakness lies in its appeal
being confined mainly to the followers of the Prophet Muhammad; its
strength on the other hand, consists in the hypnotic spell that it has
cast on Muslims. Many have tried to translate Iqbal's poetry into
English; most of them have failed." Nothing actually defies
translation! It's just that some pieces may not be as straightforward
as others and some people will do a better job than others. This is
quite natural. Also his appeal is not mainly confined to the followers
of Muhammad. Everyone knows that he had various aspects to his poetry
and message, nationalistic, moral, human betterment and so on.
Faruqi's "How to Read Iqbal" is an excellent article which covers how
Iqbal managed to bring together the Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and
Western traditions into his poetry.
How to Read Iqbal-http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/
srf/srf_iqbalown_2005.pdf
He was not bigoted and certainly not anti-Hindu. You only need to look
at his poetry on Hindu personalities in "BaaNg-i-Daraa and  his close
Hindu friends. He learnt Sanskrit so that he could translate the
Sanskrit epics but unfortunately did not quite get round to this feat.
In his Persian work "Jaaved Naamah" (1932), he (Zinda Ruud/Living
Stream) is accompanied by his mentor and guide Rumi whilst they pass
through various heavenly spheres where they have dialogues with
various personalities such as Zoroaster, Gautam, Tolstoy, Hallaj,
Ghalib, Tahir, an Indian Sage, "The Spirit of India", Ghani Kaashmiri,
Bhartari Hari. Where does Iqbal place Bhartari Hari? Amongst the
prophets in the highest sphere!
If you feel that Khushwant Singh's work, in terms of his English
poetic translation, should be seen as a work of art in its own right
then that's fair enough. But if his intention was to convey what
Iqbal's message was (at least based on these poems) and what Urdu
poetry and all the symbolism that goes with it stands for, then
clearly he has fallen well short. About his English Faruqi says, "Most
of what Singh has produced is simply not good English,  either in
terms of idiom or "poetic" language". He then goes on covering several
pages to explain why he feels the way he does.
Faruqi covers examples of misunderstanding of Urdu by Khushwant Singh
citing many examples where the latter has made a pig's ear of the
words and phrases that Iqbal has used. Some of these are "maujuud,
azal, zaat-i-qadiim, safHah-i-dahr, tasliim-o-rizaa, muztarib, shox,
bar-ham......but-garii (which Singh translates as idolatry!), adaa
(which he takes as adaa'igii). "ke dam se" (by virtue of) has been
translated as "by the breath of"). I can go into each of these if
anyone wishes me to do so but it will no doubt be time consuming.
However, there are two examples which I would like to quote which even
someone as unlearned as me would not have misunderstood!
qalb meN soz nahiiN, ruuH meN iHsaas nahiiN
kuchh bhii paGhaam-i-Muhammad kaa tumheN paas nahiiN
"In stanza fourteen (p74), the idiom "kuchh tumheN paas nahiiN" ("you
have no regard for...") has literally and ludicrously been translated
as "nothing with you is left". So the line which simply says, "you
have no regard for Muhammad's message," becomes in Singh's version,
"of Muhammad's message nothing with you is left".
"The comic vein continues in the next stanza (p76) where
"saaHib" ("possessor") is taken to mean the British Sahib and
translated as "gentleman". The line is
ya3nii vuh saaHib-i-ausaaf-i-Hijaazii nah rahe
That is ...those possessors of Hijazi qualities are no more. There are
no "noble gentlemen" here. Yet Singh translates, "The likes of Hijazi
gentlemen are no longer there". " Faruqi's final words are..
"To conclude, this is not a book that I can recommend with a clear
conscience. Strong words, but Khushwant Singh is an important and
influential writer. The sins of the great are always judged more
severely than those of the small".

Naseer sahib: aadaab-o-tasliimaat!

While growing up in India, in our schools and homes, Iqbal was always
revered as a philosopher poet whose thoughts and ideas, particularly
his concept of Khudi, found resonance across multiple faiths and
belief systems. He was recognised as a secular thinker in the sense of
propagating tolerance across various cultures, faiths and belief
systems. We grew up drawing inspiration from his poetry. His couplets
were quoted routinely. 'Khudi ko kar bulaNd itna', 'ai taa'ir-e-
laahuutii us riz'k se maut acchhii' , 'mazhab nahiiN sikhaataa aapas
meN vair rakhna', 'tuu shaahiiN hai parwaaz hai kaam teraa', 'dil se
jo baat nikaltii hai asar rakhtii hai', 'yaqiiN muhkam, amal peham',
'amal se ziNdagii bantii hai', 'nishaaN yihii hai zamaane meN ziNdaa
qaumoN ka', etc. So I agree that most of Iqbal is accessible to all
and everyone. But I do agree with Zakaria partially at least in this
sense that some of the passages in Shikwa-Jawaab-e-Shikwa have
particular relevance and resonance for adherents of Islamic faith and
perhaps not as universally accessible as much of the rest of his
poetry.

About Khushwant Singh, we may be talking on cross purposes. I am no
apologist for KS. Nor do I think that his command of English language
is par excellence. I don't think he is capable of producing any thing
like:

The moving finger writes; and having writ,.......

Yet I feel Faruqi has taken him to task on his English unfairly. His
criticism seems to ignore my basic contention that KS has not
translated Iqbal's poem in English prose. To illustrate my point with
just one example; his criticism of the word 'paas rakhnaa'. You will
agree that KS knew the meaning of the word and if were translating it
in prose, he would be able to express the meaning in same or similar
words that Faruqi has used (in prose). It is perhaps besides the point
the 'to have regard for' is only a close approximation of this very
rich and evocative Urdu word. I think Faruqi seems to be ignoring the
constraints placed on the translator by the discipline of metered and
rhyming verse. Let me quote the full stanza and the translation. In
context, one would see that KS does convey the general meaning very
well, making it rhyme and fit the meter in the process:

kaun hai taarik-e-aaiin-e-rusuul-e-muKhtaar?
masalhat waqt kii hai kis ke amal kaa maiyaar?
kiskii aaNkhoN meN samaaia hai sha'aar-e-aGiaar?
ho gaii kis kii nigah tarz-e-salaf se bezaar?
qalb meN soz nahiiN ruuh meN ehsaas nahiiN
kucch bhii paiGaam-e-muhammad ka tumheN paas nahiiN

'Who abandoned Our Chosen Messanger's code and its sanctions?
Who made time-serving the measure of your actions?
Whose eyes have been blinded by alien ways and civilizations?
Who have turned their gaze away from their forefathers' traditions?
Your hearts have no passion, your souls are of spirit bereft,
Of Muhammad's message nothing with you is left.'

I think the last line successfully conveys the meaning ' you have
completely disregarded Muhammad's message. i.e. You have not shown any
regard, respect for it. More importantly, it rhymes with previous line
and flows very well.

Allow me another example:

but sanamKhaanoN meN kahte haiN musalman gae
hai Khushii un ko ki kaabe ke nigahebaan gae
maNzil-e-dehar se uuNToN ke hudii Kh'waan gae
apne bagloN meN dabaae huue qura'aan gae
KhaNda zan kuf'r hai, ehsaas tujhe hai ki nahiiN?
Apnii tauhiid ka kucchh paas tujhe hai ki nahiiN


In the temples of idolatory, the idols say, 'The Muslims are gone!'
They rejoice that the guardians of the Kaaba have withdrawn
From the world's caravanserais singing camel-drivers have vanished
The Koran tucked under their arms they have departed
These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?


Here, 'paas tujhe hai ki nahiiN' is translated as 'do you anymore
care'? Again, applying Faruqi's logic, KS comes up short. But I think
he conveys the meaning very adequately and in verse! Again, Faruqi may
think that KS doesn't know what the word means, but I say he would
have translated it differently and perhaps to Faruqi's liking, were he
to do it in prose.

In my previous post, when I posted a translation of a Ghalib she'r by
Russell, the word for 'hamnashiiN' is 'friend' and word for 'tiir' is
'shaft'. Word for 'maaraa' is 'loosed'. But these are the constraints
of poetry and Faruqi will likley find similar objections here. I think
he is blaming an apple for not being a watermelon! (or, to paraphrase
Raju Bhartan, blaming 'Mehmood for not being Talat Mehmood:-))

The beauty of Urdu poetry (and the poem under discussion is a good
example) is partly in the way it weaves a magical spell when recited
aloud. KS has tried to stay true to the word and keep it metered so
that it can retain some of the magic when recited aloud.

I have no doubt it can be translated better and truer to meaning of
each and every word. I am quite sure that Faruqi will do a much better
job of it than KS, but only in prose. I have not seen Arberry's or
Kiernan's efforts at translating this poem. (Arberry's is generally
considered to be inferior and I am not sure if Kiernan has even
translated Shikwa). Perhaps Nagesh sahib or some othre ALUPer can post
the respective passages from their translation so that we can do some
like for like comparison. KS work is not the ultimate by any stretch
of the imagination and a better translation may yet appear. Till then
though, for those who don't know Urdu, KS has provided a stand alone
book of poetry that is enjoyable and may yet encourage people to learn
Urdu to enjoy the original.

Best regards,


Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer
Vijay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
At the outset, before I forget, I will endeavour to come up with
analogies that come up to your level of sophistication!:-) The
problem, Vijay SaaHib, is that I am always in a rush and my slow brain
does n't get sufficient time to formulate something worthwhile. Work
gets in the way and without work there is no chance of paying all the
bills!
I am grateful to you for your detailed response. It's good to have a
civilised dialogue now and again on this forum. The days when we used
to have interesting threads with interesting contributions from our
learned friends appear to be a thing of the past. If it were not for
Afzal SaaHib's scholarly posts, this anjuman would be a rather
uninteresting place to visit.
No Vijay SaaHib. I do not have Khushwant Singh's book in my
possession. I thought I might be able to get my hands on it but it is
not available in our local library where I had first come across it.
Thank you for spending the time and digging up references. To be frank
with you, I am utterly surprised that people like Sardar Ja'fri and
Aal-e-Ahmad Suroor did not pick the obvious errors of fact if nothing
else. If Khushwant Singh has taken the trouble to have his translation
looked at by all these men of letters, it seems there is n't much else
he could have done. But any shortfalls and errors remain ultimately
his responsibility.
I disagree with Rafiq Zakariya when he says, ""Iqbal defies
translation. His poems, whether in Urdu or Persian, have both
historical and spiritual overtones. His expressions are steeped in
Islamic lore. It is almost impossible to understand them without a
proper knowledge of the Muslim heritage. That has been both the
weakness and strength of his poetry; its weakness lies in its appeal
being confined mainly to the followers of the Prophet Muhammad; its
strength on the other hand, consists in the hypnotic spell that it has
cast on Muslims. Many have tried to translate Iqbal's poetry into
English; most of them have failed." Nothing actually defies
translation! It's just that some pieces may not be as straightforward
as others and some people will do a better job than others. This is
quite natural. Also his appeal is not mainly confined to the followers
of Muhammad. Everyone knows that he had various aspects to his poetry
and message, nationalistic, moral, human betterment and so on.
Faruqi's "How to Read Iqbal" is an excellent article which covers how
Iqbal managed to bring together the Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and
Western traditions into his poetry.
How to Read Iqbal-http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/
srf/srf_iqbalown_2005.pdf
He was not bigoted and certainly not anti-Hindu. You only need to look
at his poetry on Hindu personalities in "BaaNg-i-Daraa and his close
Hindu friends. He learnt Sanskrit so that he could translate the
Sanskrit epics but unfortunately did not quite get round to this feat.
In his Persian work "Jaaved Naamah" (1932), he (Zinda Ruud/Living
Stream) is accompanied by his mentor and guide Rumi whilst they pass
through various heavenly spheres where they have dialogues with
various personalities such as Zoroaster, Gautam, Tolstoy, Hallaj,
Ghalib, Tahir, an Indian Sage, "The Spirit of India", Ghani Kaashmiri,
Bhartari Hari. Where does Iqbal place Bhartari Hari? Amongst the
prophets in the highest sphere!
If you feel that Khushwant Singh's work, in terms of his English
poetic translation, should be seen as a work of art in its own right
then that's fair enough. But if his intention was to convey what
Iqbal's message was (at least based on these poems) and what Urdu
poetry and all the symbolism that goes with it stands for, then
clearly he has fallen well short. About his English Faruqi says, "Most
of what Singh has produced is simply not good English, either in
terms of idiom or "poetic" language". He then goes on covering several
pages to explain why he feels the way he does.
Faruqi covers examples of misunderstanding of Urdu by Khushwant Singh
citing many examples where the latter has made a pig's ear of the
words and phrases that Iqbal has used. Some of these are "maujuud,
azal, zaat-i-qadiim, safHah-i-dahr, tasliim-o-rizaa, muztarib, shox,
bar-ham......but-garii (which Singh translates as idolatry!), adaa
(which he takes as adaa'igii). "ke dam se" (by virtue of) has been
translated as "by the breath of"). I can go into each of these if
anyone wishes me to do so but it will no doubt be time consuming.
However, there are two examples which I would like to quote which even
someone as unlearned as me would not have misunderstood!
qalb meN soz nahiiN, ruuH meN iHsaas nahiiN
kuchh bhii paGhaam-i-Muhammad kaa tumheN paas nahiiN
"In stanza fourteen (p74), the idiom "kuchh tumheN paas nahiiN" ("you
have no regard for...") has literally and ludicrously been translated
as "nothing with you is left". So the line which simply says, "you
have no regard for Muhammad's message," becomes in Singh's version,
"of Muhammad's message nothing with you is left".
"The comic vein continues in the next stanza (p76) where
"saaHib" ("possessor") is taken to mean the British Sahib and
translated as "gentleman". The line is
ya3nii vuh saaHib-i-ausaaf-i-Hijaazii nah rahe
That is ...those possessors of Hijazi qualities are no more. There are
no "noble gentlemen" here. Yet Singh translates, "The likes of Hijazi
gentlemen are no longer there". " Faruqi's final words are..
"To conclude, this is not a book that I can recommend with a clear
conscience. Strong words, but Khushwant Singh is an important and
influential writer. The sins of the great are always judged more
severely than those of the small".

Naseer sahib: aadaab-o-tasliimaat!
While growing up in India, in our schools and homes, Iqbal was always
revered as a philosopher poet whose thoughts and ideas, particularly
his concept of Khudi, found resonance across multiple faiths and
belief systems. He was recognised as a secular thinker in the sense of
propagating tolerance across various cultures, faiths and belief
systems. We grew up drawing inspiration from his poetry. His couplets
were quoted routinely. 'Khudi ko kar bulaNd itna', 'ai taa'ir-e-
laahuutii us riz'k se maut acchhii' , 'mazhab nahiiN sikhaataa aapas
meN vair rakhna', 'tuu shaahiiN hai parwaaz hai kaam teraa', 'dil se
jo baat nikaltii hai asar rakhtii hai', 'yaqiiN muhkam, amal peham',
'amal se ziNdagii bantii hai', 'nishaaN yihii hai zamaane meN ziNdaa
qaumoN ka', etc. So I agree that most of Iqbal is accessible to all
and everyone. But I do agree with Zakaria partially at least in this
sense that some of the passages in Shikwa-Jawaab-e-Shikwa have
particular relevance and resonance for adherents of Islamic faith and
perhaps not as universally accessible as much of the rest of his
poetry.
About Khushwant Singh, we may be talking on cross purposes. I am no
apologist for KS. Nor do I think that his command of English language
is par excellence. I don't think he is capable of producing any thing
The moving finger writes; and having writ,.......
Yet I feel Faruqi has taken him to task on his English unfairly. His
criticism seems to ignore my basic contention that KS has not
translated Iqbal's poem in English prose. To illustrate my point with
just one example; his criticism of the word 'paas rakhnaa'. You will
agree that KS knew the meaning of the word and if were translating it
in prose, he would be able to express the meaning in same or similar
words that Faruqi has used (in prose). It is perhaps besides the point
the 'to have regard for' is only a close approximation of this very
rich and evocative Urdu word. I think Faruqi seems to be ignoring the
constraints placed on the translator by the discipline of metered and
rhyming verse. Let me quote the full stanza and the translation. In
context, one would see that KS does convey the general meaning very
kaun hai taarik-e-aaiin-e-rusuul-e-muKhtaar?
masalhat waqt kii hai kis ke amal kaa maiyaar?
kiskii aaNkhoN meN samaaia hai sha'aar-e-aGiaar?
ho gaii kis kii nigah tarz-e-salaf se bezaar?
qalb meN soz nahiiN ruuh meN ehsaas nahiiN
kucch bhii paiGaam-e-muhammad ka tumheN paas nahiiN
'Who abandoned Our Chosen Messanger's code and its sanctions?
Who made time-serving the measure of your actions?
Whose eyes have been blinded by alien ways and civilizations?
Who have turned their gaze away from their forefathers' traditions?
Your hearts have no passion, your souls are of spirit bereft,
Of Muhammad's message nothing with you is left.'
I think the last line successfully conveys the meaning ' you have
completely disregarded Muhammad's message. i.e. You have not shown any
regard, respect for it. More importantly, it rhymes with previous line
and flows very well.
but sanamKhaanoN meN kahte haiN musalman gae
hai Khushii un ko ki kaabe ke nigahebaan gae
maNzil-e-dehar se uuNToN ke hudii Kh'waan gae
apne bagloN meN dabaae huue qura'aan gae
KhaNda zan kuf'r hai, ehsaas tujhe hai ki nahiiN?
Apnii tauhiid ka kucchh paas tujhe hai ki nahiiN
In the temples of idolatory, the idols say, 'The Muslims are gone!'
They rejoice that the guardians of the Kaaba have withdrawn
From the world's caravanserais singing camel-drivers have vanished
The Koran tucked under their arms they have departed
These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?
Here, 'paas tujhe hai ki nahiiN' is translated as 'do you anymore
care'? Again, applying Faruqi's logic, KS comes up short. But I think
he conveys the meaning very adequately and in verse! Again, Faruqi may
think that KS doesn't know what the word means, but I say he would
have translated it differently and perhaps to Faruqi's liking, were he
to do it in prose.
In my previous post, when I posted a translation of a Ghalib she'r by
Russell, the word for 'hamnashiiN' is 'friend' and word for 'tiir' is
'shaft'. Word for 'maaraa' is 'loosed'. But these are the constraints
of poetry and Faruqi will likley find similar objections here. I think
he is blaming an apple for not being a watermelon! (or, to paraphrase
Raju Bhartan, blaming 'Mehmood for not being Talat Mehmood:-))
The beauty of Urdu poetry (and the poem under discussion is a good
example) is partly in the way it weaves a magical spell when recited
aloud. KS has tried to stay true to the word and keep it metered so
that it can retain some of the magic when recited aloud.
I have no doubt it can be translated better and truer to meaning of
each and every word. I am quite sure that Faruqi will do a much better
job of it than KS, but only in prose. I have not seen Arberry's or
Kiernan's efforts at translating this poem. (Arberry's is generally
considered to be inferior and I am not sure if Kiernan has even
translated Shikwa). Perhaps Nagesh sahib or some othre ALUPer can post
the respective passages from their translation so that we can do some
like for like comparison. KS work is not the ultimate by any stretch
of the imagination and a better translation may yet appear. Till then
though, for those who don't know Urdu, KS has provided a stand alone
book of poetry that is enjoyable and may yet encourage people to learn
Urdu to enjoy the original.
Best regards,
Vijay

Vijay Saheb,

I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so far.
And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so 'copious'
that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder. So, at
least for the time being, I shall make only some brief comments.

You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once). KS
has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems, and
the contents of his "version" speak for themselves. Then, how can
his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ? A reader
would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Some of the "English equivalents" found by KS are simply laughable.
If it is contended that the translation, such as it is, is meant
for those who do not know Urdu, one can only lament : "Hum pe
ehsaN jo na karte to yeh ehsaaN hota". In fact, KS is doing a
singular disservice to Iqbal, his two poems and to Urdu in general
by serving up his translation. Apart from the examples cited by
SRF, one can discern other instances where the subtle nuances of
Urdu have been completely ignored by KS. And, I suspect, this
"ignoring" has been caused by "ignorance". I will cite just one
instance :

Iqbal's original line :

KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN

The KS version :

These infidels smirk and snigger at us

How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
"infidels" ?

More later.....


Afzal

[Vijay]

Thanks Afzal sahib for your, as always, valuable input.

      I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so far.
      And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so 'copious'
      that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder.

I know, there has been a lot of repetition. In fact I am little weary
and fatigued to continue. But as I much value your opinion, a couple
of points of clarification, the second one more a question than a
comment.

      You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once).  KS
      has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems, and
      the contents of his "version" speak for themselves.  Then, how can
      his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ?  A reader
      would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Of course they would. By stand alone I merely meant something that can
be read by someone who have little knowledge of the language in which
the original is written. For instance, Sean O'Brien's verse
translation of Dante's inferno, for me, is a 'stand-alone' book and my
knowledge of Inferno is wholly based on his translation. As I have no
knowledge of Italian, for less the Tuscany dialect of the original, I
can only imagine how beautiful the original would sound when read
aloud. This perhaps is not a good example as Italian and English are
both Latin languages and have much in common in their vocabulary, so
O'Brien's task is not as arduous as someone undertaking translating
Urdu poetry into English, and vice-versa.

            KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN
            These infidels smirk and snigger at us
      How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
      "infidels" ?

This has confounded me too but for reasons different than yours. To me
the question is how can 'kufr, a collective abstract noun, be said to
be Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to laugh
derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS puts it, one needs the
practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use many verbs with a
collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty associating 'KhaNda-
zanii' with it. So by default almost, KS seems to have gotten it more
right!

Best regards,

Vijay

[Vijay]

On Sep 4, 4:41 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <***@privacy.net> wrote:

Thanks Afzal sahib for your, as always, valuable input.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so far.
And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so 'copious'
that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder.

I know, there has been a lot of repetition. In fact I am little weary
and fatigued to continue. But as I much value your opinion, a couple
of points of clarification, the second one more a question than a
comment.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once). KS
has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems, and
the contents of his "version" speak for themselves. Then, how can
his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ? A reader
would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Of course they would. By stand alone I merely meant something that
can
be read by someone who has little knowledge of the language in which
the original is written. For instance, Sean O'Brien's verse
translation of Dante's inferno, for me, is a 'stand-alone' book and
my
knowledge of Inferno is wholly based on his translation. As I have no
knowledge of Italian, for less the Tuscany dialect of the original, I
can only imagine how beautiful the original would sound when read
aloud. This perhaps is not a good example as Italian and English are
both Latin languages and have much in common in their vocabulary, so
O'Brien's task is not as arduous as someone undertaking translating
Urdu poetry into English, and vice-versa.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN
These infidels smirk and snigger at us
How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
"infidels" ?

This has confounded me too but for reasons different than yours. To
me
the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract noun, be said
to
be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to
laugh
derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS puts it, one needs the
practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use many verbs with a
collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty associating
'KhaNda-
zanii' with it. So by default almost, KS seems to have gotten it more
right!
Best regards,
Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay
Thanks Afzal sahib for your, as always, valuable input.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so far.
And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so 'copious'
that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder.

I know, there has been a lot of repetition. In fact I am little weary
and fatigued to continue. But as I much value your opinion, a couple
of points of clarification, the second one more a question than a
comment.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once). KS
has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems, and
the contents of his "version" speak for themselves. Then, how can
his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ? A reader
would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Of course they would. By stand alone I merely meant something that
can
be read by someone who has little knowledge of the language in which
the original is written. For instance, Sean O'Brien's verse
translation of Dante's inferno, for me, is a 'stand-alone' book and
my
knowledge of Inferno is wholly based on his translation. As I have no
knowledge of Italian, for less the Tuscany dialect of the original, I
can only imagine how beautiful the original would sound when read
aloud. This perhaps is not a good example as Italian and English are
both Latin languages and have much in common in their vocabulary, so
O'Brien's task is not as arduous as someone undertaking translating
Urdu poetry into English, and vice-versa.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN
These infidels smirk and snigger at us
How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
"infidels" ?

This has confounded me too but for reasons different than yours. To
me
the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract noun, be said
to
be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to
laugh
derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS puts it, one needs the
practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use many verbs with a
collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty associating
'KhaNda-
zanii' with it. So by default almost, KS seems to have gotten it more
right!
Best regards,
Vijay

Vijay Saheb,

No one reads a work (prose or poetry) without any regard for its
contents. As I said, the contents speak for themselves. What KS
does is to present a very twisted and warped view of the spirit
and sense behind Iqbal's poems. Assuming that a reader has no
knowledge of Urdu/Faarsi or Iqbal's poetry, what kind of an impre-
ssion is he going to get about what KS is writing about ?

One cannot excuse a clumsy effort by calling it a stand-alone
work. A few years back, we had a lively discussion in our NG
about Urdu poetry --- though I cannot recall the exact title of
the thread. One "sher" that had been cited in the said discussion
was as under :

Khaana poori hai shaayad
Bahut zaroori hai shaayad

I suppose even this can be called a "stand-alone" sher !

For something which is regarded as a sort of 'translation' and can
still be called a "stand-alone" work of (poetic) art, you don't
have to go very far --- just re-read "Gor-e-GHareebaaN", a poem by
Naz'm Tabatabai. The thread was fairly recent. Even if a reader
has never heard of Thomas Gray or even if he is absolutely unfami-
liar with the English language, he can still read, assimilate and
enjoy the Urdu poem.

As far as "kufr" (vis-a-vis "infidels") is concerned, I don't
know if you have come across the famous Faarsi misra' :

Cho kufr az Kaa'ba barKHezad, kuja maanad Musalmaani

Please don't mind my saying so, but to assert that KS got this
particular sense better than Iqbal is "stand-alone" praise indeed
--- strictly alone, that is.


Afzal

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Vijay
Thanks Afzal sahib for your, as always, valuable input.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so far.
And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so 'copious'
that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder.

I know, there has been a lot of repetition. In fact I am little weary
and fatigued to continue. But as I much value your opinion, a couple
of points of clarification, the second one more a question than a
comment.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once). KS
has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems, and
the contents of his "version" speak for themselves. Then, how can
his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ? A reader
would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Of course they would. By stand alone I merely meant something that
can
be read by someone who has little knowledge of the language in which
the original is written. For instance, Sean O'Brien's verse
translation of Dante's inferno, for me, is a 'stand-alone' book and
my
knowledge of Inferno is wholly based on his translation. As I have no
knowledge of Italian, for less the Tuscany dialect of the original, I
can only imagine how beautiful the original would sound when read
aloud. This perhaps is not a good example as Italian and English are
both Latin languages and have much in common in their vocabulary, so
O'Brien's task is not as arduous as someone undertaking translating
Urdu poetry into English, and vice-versa.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN
These infidels smirk and snigger at us
How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
"infidels" ?

This has confounded me too but for reasons different than yours. To
me
the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract noun, be said
to
be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to
laugh
derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS puts it, one needs the
practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use many verbs with a
collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty associating
'KhaNda-
zanii' with it. So by default almost, KS seems to have gotten it more
right!
Best regards,
Vijay

Vijay Saheb,
No one reads a work (prose or poetry) without any regard for its
contents. As I said, the contents speak for themselves. What KS
does is to present a very twisted and warped view of the spirit
and sense behind Iqbal's poems. Assuming that a reader has no
knowledge of Urdu/Faarsi or Iqbal's poetry, what kind of an impre-
ssion is he going to get about what KS is writing about ?
One cannot excuse a clumsy effort by calling it a stand-alone
work. A few years back, we had a lively discussion in our NG
about Urdu poetry --- though I cannot recall the exact title of
the thread. One "sher" that had been cited in the said discussion
Khaana poori hai shaayad
Bahut zaroori hai shaayad
I suppose even this can be called a "stand-alone" sher !
For something which is regarded as a sort of 'translation' and can
still be called a "stand-alone" work of (poetic) art, you don't
have to go very far --- just re-read "Gor-e-GHareebaaN", a poem by
Naz'm Tabatabai. The thread was fairly recent. Even if a reader
has never heard of Thomas Gray or even if he is absolutely unfami-
liar with the English language, he can still read, assimilate and
enjoy the Urdu poem.
As far as "kufr" (vis-a-vis "infidels") is concerned, I don't
Cho kufr az Kaa'ba barKHezad, kuja maanad Musalmaani
Please don't mind my saying so, but to assert that KS got this
particular sense better than Iqbal is "stand-alone" praise indeed
--- strictly alone, that is.
Afzal

I forgot to add the following sher by Ghalib :

EemaaN mujhe roke hai, jo khenche hai mujhe kufr
Kaa'ba mire peechhe hai, kaleesa mire aage


Afzal

[Vijay]

Post by Vijay
Thanks Afzal sahib for your, as always, valuable input.

       I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so
far.
       And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so
'copious'
       that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder.

I know, there has been a lot of repetition. In fact I am little weary
and fatigued to continue. But as I much value your opinion, a couple
of points of clarification, the second one more a question than a
comment.

       You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once).  KS
       has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems,
and
       the contents of his "version" speak for themselves.  Then, how
can
       his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ?  A reader
       would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Of course they would. By stand alone I merely meant something that
can
be read by someone who has little knowledge of the language in which
the original is written. For instance, Sean O'Brien's verse
translation of Dante's inferno, for me, is a 'stand-alone' book and
my
knowledge of Inferno is wholly based on his translation. As I have no
knowledge of Italian, for less the Tuscany dialect of the original, I
can only imagine how beautiful the original would sound when read
aloud. This perhaps is not a good example as Italian and English are
both Latin languages and have much in common in their vocabulary, so
O'Brien's task is not as arduous as someone undertaking translating
Urdu poetry into English, and vice-versa.

             KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN
             These infidels smirk and snigger at us
       How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
       "infidels" ?

This has confounded me too but for reasons different than yours. To
me
the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract noun, be said
to
be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to
laugh
derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS puts it, one needs the
practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use many verbs with a
collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty associating
'KhaNda-
zanii' with it. So by default almost, KS seems to have gotten it more
right!
Best regards,
Vijay

       Vijay Saheb,
       No one reads a work (prose or poetry) without any regard for its
       contents.  As I said, the contents speak for themselves.  What KS
       does is to present a very twisted and warped view of the spirit
       and sense behind Iqbal's poems.  Assuming that a reader has no
       knowledge of Urdu/Faarsi or Iqbal's poetry, what kind of an impre-
       ssion is he going to get about what KS is writing about ?
       One cannot excuse a clumsy effort by calling it a stand-alone
       work.  A few years back, we had a lively discussion in our NG
       about Urdu poetry --- though I cannot recall the exact title of
       the thread.  One "sher" that had been cited in the said discussion
              Khaana poori hai shaayad
              Bahut zaroori hai shaayad
       I suppose even this can be called a "stand-alone" sher !
       For something which is regarded as a sort of 'translation' and can
       still be called a "stand-alone" work of (poetic) art, you don't
       have to go very far --- just re-read "Gor-e-GHareebaaN", a poem by
       Naz'm Tabatabai.  The thread was fairly recent.  Even if a reader
       has never heard of Thomas Gray or even if he is absolutely unfami-
       liar with the English language, he can still read, assimilate and
       enjoy the Urdu poem.
       As far as "kufr" (vis-a-vis "infidels") is concerned, I don't
             Cho kufr az Kaa'ba barKHezad, kuja maanad Musalmaani
       Please don't mind my saying so, but to assert that KS got this
       particular sense better than Iqbal is "stand-alone" praise indeed
       --- strictly alone, that is.
       Afzal

              EemaaN mujhe roke hai, jo khenche hai mujhe kufr
              Kaa'ba mire peechhe hai, kaleesa mire aage
          Afzal

But my dear Afzal sahib, this is the exact point I was making! Believe
me, this she'r of Ghalib was in my mind when I posted my response
earlier. As I said, many a verb seem appropriate (to me at least) when
used with 'kufr', like Ghalib has done with 'khaiNchana'. I was only
expressing my incredulity in relation to 'kufr ka KhaNda-zan hona'. If
we see 'kufr' as a religious concept, then it can repel, attract, even
win or lose, but how can it 'laugh derisively or mockingly'? Perhaps
there are other occurrences of this usage in Urdu poetry, or even
prose, and I will be grateful if you or someone else can provide a
reference. I don't know Farsi, I am afraid.


Best regards,

Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Vijay
Thanks Afzal sahib for your, as always, valuable input.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I am sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion so far.
And the arguments that have gone on back and forth are so 'copious'
that it is difficult to post a comprehensive rejoinder.

I know, there has been a lot of repetition. In fact I am little weary
and fatigued to continue. But as I much value your opinion, a couple
of points of clarification, the second one more a question than a
comment.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
You have used the word "stand-alone" (maybe more than once). KS
has himself avowed that he is translating the two Iqbal poems, and
the contents of his "version" speak for themselves. Then, how can
his so-called translation be called as "stand-alone" ? A reader
would immediately associate it with the original poems.

Of course they would. By stand alone I merely meant something that
can
be read by someone who has little knowledge of the language in which
the original is written. For instance, Sean O'Brien's verse
translation of Dante's inferno, for me, is a 'stand-alone' book and
my
knowledge of Inferno is wholly based on his translation. As I have no
knowledge of Italian, for less the Tuscany dialect of the original, I
can only imagine how beautiful the original would sound when read
aloud. This perhaps is not a good example as Italian and English are
both Latin languages and have much in common in their vocabulary, so
O'Brien's task is not as arduous as someone undertaking translating
Urdu poetry into English, and vice-versa.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
KHaNda~zan kufr hai, ehsaas tujhe hai k(e) naheeN
These infidels smirk and snigger at us
How, in good conscience, can "kufr" be equated with the plural
"infidels" ?

This has confounded me too but for reasons different than yours. To
me
the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract noun, be said
to
be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to
laugh
derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS puts it, one needs the
practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use many verbs with a
collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty associating
'KhaNda-
zanii' with it. So by default almost, KS seems to have gotten it more
right!
Best regards,
Vijay

Vijay Saheb,
No one reads a work (prose or poetry) without any regard for its
contents. As I said, the contents speak for themselves. What KS
does is to present a very twisted and warped view of the spirit
and sense behind Iqbal's poems. Assuming that a reader has no
knowledge of Urdu/Faarsi or Iqbal's poetry, what kind of an impre-
ssion is he going to get about what KS is writing about ?
One cannot excuse a clumsy effort by calling it a stand-alone
work. A few years back, we had a lively discussion in our NG
about Urdu poetry --- though I cannot recall the exact title of
the thread. One "sher" that had been cited in the said discussion
Khaana poori hai shaayad
Bahut zaroori hai shaayad
I suppose even this can be called a "stand-alone" sher !
For something which is regarded as a sort of 'translation' and can
still be called a "stand-alone" work of (poetic) art, you don't
have to go very far --- just re-read "Gor-e-GHareebaaN", a poem by
Naz'm Tabatabai. The thread was fairly recent. Even if a reader
has never heard of Thomas Gray or even if he is absolutely unfami-
liar with the English language, he can still read, assimilate and
enjoy the Urdu poem.
As far as "kufr" (vis-a-vis "infidels") is concerned, I don't
Cho kufr az Kaa'ba barKHezad, kuja maanad Musalmaani
Please don't mind my saying so, but to assert that KS got this
particular sense better than Iqbal is "stand-alone" praise indeed
--- strictly alone, that is.
Afzal

EemaaN mujhe roke hai, jo khenche hai mujhe kufr
Kaa'ba mire peechhe hai, kaleesa mire aage
Afzal

But my dear Afzal sahib, this is the exact point I was making! Believe
me, this she'r of Ghalib was in my mind when I posted my response
earlier. As I said, many a verb seem appropriate (to me at least) when
used with 'kufr', like Ghalib has done with 'khaiNchana'. I was only
expressing my incredulity in relation to 'kufr ka KhaNda-zan hona'. If
we see 'kufr' as a religious concept, then it can repel, attract, even
win or lose, but how can it 'laugh derisively or mockingly'? Perhaps
there are other occurrences of this usage in Urdu poetry, or even
prose, and I will be grateful if you or someone else can provide a
reference. I don't know Farsi, I am afraid.
Best regards,
Vijay

I am afraid, I cannot understand this logic. Is it proper or
even possible for us to determine what verbs (signifying some
activities) that an abstract subject (in the grammatical sense)
like "kufr" can and cannot do ? Like it can drag a poet in
whatever direction it wants but cannot mock or sneer at the com-
parative struggle or lack of success on the part of Righteousness?

Maybe, the word "kufr" is not being interpreted in the sense meant
by Iqbal --- or even by other practitioners of the Urdu language.
It is not merely an abstact noun (again in the grammatical sense).
It is a personification of all that is Evil, Base and Perverse
in the scheme of things. Thievery, murder and rapine, for exam-
ple, are not religion-specific. They constitute Evil and, there-
fore, are included as part of "kufr". When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices.
He is talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of
the term. At one place, he says :

Tera dil to hai sanam~aashna, tujhe kya milega namaaz men

He is decrying the blind observance of a ritual, that may be
devoid of true adherence to the principles of Righteousness.
Also, the word "sanam" here is not to be equated with just an
'idol'.

The battle between Good (Haq) and Evil/Untruth (Baatil) is a
continuous process. And it is one of the favourite themes in
Iqbal's poetry. To cite just one example :

Sateeza~kaar raha hai azal se taa im-roz
CharaaGH-e-Mustafavi se sharaar-e-Boo'Lahabi

At another place, he says :

Baatil doee~pasaNd hai, haq laa-shareek hai
Shirkat mayaana-e-haq-o-baatil na kar qubool

In other words, there cannot be a compromise between Truth /
Righteousness and Baatil (Untruth or Evil).


In conclusion, let me reiterate that Iqbal (in the Shikwa) is
talking of "kufr" in the larger sense of Evil or 'Untruth' and
not about "kaafirs" i.e. individuals who happen to be non-
believers.

When the two poems were composed and published, nobody but
nobody had imagined that the country might get partitioned in
subsequent years. KS is basing his opinions or conclusions on
false premises.

And what can be said about your placing KS ahead of Iqbal 'in
getting it right' ----, except that "yeh aap hi ka hissa hai" !
I suppose KS might translate this last part as : "this is your
share only".



Afzal

[Vijay]

      I am afraid, I cannot understand this logic.  Is it proper or
      even possible for us to determine what verbs (signifying some
      activities) that an abstract subject (in the grammatical sense)
      like "kufr" can and cannot do ?  Like it can drag a poet in
      whatever direction it wants but cannot mock or sneer at the com-
      parative struggle or lack of success on the part of Righteousness?
      And what can be said about your placing KS ahead of Iqbal 'in
      getting it right'  ----, except that "yeh aap hi ka hissa hai" !
      I suppose KS might translate this last part as : "this is your
      share only".

Let me first raise my hands and say that I got it wrong when I implied
that KS may have gotten it ‘more right’. What I should have said is
that in my opinion, the verb ‘KhaNda-zan hona’ goes better when the
subject is a person or persons rather than when the subject is an
abstract (or even literal) ‘concept’. Simple as that!

      Maybe, the word "kufr" is not being interpreted in the sense meant
      by Iqbal --- or even by other practitioners of the Urdu language.
      It is not merely an abstact noun (again in the grammatical sense).
      It is a personification of all that is Evil, Base and Perverse
      in the scheme of things.  Thievery, murder and rapine, for exam-
      ple, are not religion-specific.  They constitute Evil and, there-
      fore, are included as part of "kufr".  When Iqbal talks of Islam,
      he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices.
      He is talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of
          Tera dil to hai sanam~aashna, tujhe kya milega namaaz men
      He is decrying the blind observance of a ritual, that may be
      devoid of true adherence to the principles of Righteousness.
      Also, the word "sanam" here is not to be equated with just an
      'idol'.
      The battle between Good (Haq) and Evil/Untruth (Baatil) is a
      continuous process.  And it is one of the favourite themes in
              Sateeza~kaar raha hai azal se taa im-roz
              CharaaGH-e-Mustafavi se sharaar-e-Boo'Lahabi
              Baatil doee~pasaNd hai, haq laa-shareek hai
              Shirkat mayaana-e-haq-o-baatil na kar qubool
      In other words, there cannot be a compromise between Truth /
      Righteousness and Baatil (Untruth or Evil).
      In conclusion, let me reiterate that Iqbal (in the Shikwa) is
      talking of "kufr" in the larger sense of Evil or 'Untruth' and
      not about "kaafirs" i.e. individuals who happen to be non-
      believers.

I think here you have gone on a tangent. Our discussion will be
better served if we didn't obfuscate and stuck to 'Shikwa'. I have a
fondness for Occam’s razor as I practice my craft and to a very large
degree am guided in my day to day life by it. At the risk of repeating
my self on ALUP, it goes (in one of its forms) ‘Pluralitas non est
ponenda sine necessitate’, i.e. multiple or complex explanations are
not necessary when a simple one is staring you in the face. Now, in my
opinion, this following is the ‘simple’ explanation behind Shikwa. Its
theme is the poet’s complaint against Allah for having been unfair to
Muslim community. The poem traces the history of glory of Islam and
how muslims carried the sword of Islam across continents unselfishly
and only to glorify and spread Allah’s name and word. In spite of this
their plight remains miserable. And there are a few passages where
Iqbal has contrasted the plight of muslims with the ‘others’, i.e. non-
muslims who seem to be getting all the rewards. A couple of quotes:

rehmateN haiN terii aGyaar ke kaashaanoN par
barq girtii hai to bechaare musalmaanoN par

And



And

Ye shikaayat nahiiN, haiN un ke Khazaane ma’amuur
nahiiN mehfil meN jinheN baat bhii karne ka sh’auur
qahr to yeh hai ki kaafir ko mileN huur-o-qasoor
aur bechaare musalmaaN ko faqt vaadaa-e-huur

It is quite clear to me that Iqbal when he talks about ‘kufr’, is
referring to those whose creed is different from muslims. You may call
this group as ‘pagans’ ‘kaafirs’, ‘others’. To me ‘infidels’ seems as
good as any other such word. KS could have used ‘others’ and it would
imply the same things. My point is that Iqbal is talking about
‘others’ literally and not in the abstract sense you imply, i.e.
‘evil’, ‘base’ ‘perverse’ etc. (although he may ALSO be implying that,
I don't know).

      When the two poems were composed and published, nobody but
      nobody had imagined that the country might get partitioned in
      subsequent years.  KS is basing his opinions or conclusions on
      false premises.

Now this has confused me. Is the implication that KS is somehow
deliberately distorting the translation as his way of expressing his
feelings about 'partition'? You may have some evidence to back this up
but if not then I think you are playing the man rather than the ball.
KS himself states his motivation to do the translation as "..that I
should have in some small measure been instrumental in re-kindling the
Allamic flame which had been almost snuffed out in India gives me
enormous satisfaction".

Finally, I don't feel I have anything more or new to say on the matter
of KS translation. You may or may not want the last word.

Best regards,


Vijay

[Naseer]

Gentlemen, aadaab.

I have been trying to follow the dialogue taking place in between my
other commitments and have been meaning to express my views on the
matter of "kufr" specifically and some other words associated with
Islam and Muslims in general, when Vijay SaaHib first mentioned this
word but have not been able to do so. Although there is going to be
nothing profound or dramatic, please bear with me a little while.

Naseer

[Naseer]

Post by Naseer
Gentlemen, aadaab.
I have been trying to follow the dialogue taking place in between my
other commitments and have been meaning to express my views on the
matter of "kufr" specifically and some other words associated with
Islam and Muslims in general, when Vijay SaaHib first mentioned this
word but have not been able to do so. Although there is going to be
nothing profound or dramatic, please bear with me a little while.

The more recent discussions have mainly centred on the following
shi3r.

xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN

Iqbal

These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?

Khushwant Singh

Vijay SaaHib has said and I quote..

"“....To me the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract
noun, be said to be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to
laughingly mock, to laugh derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS
puts it, one needs the practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use
many verbs with a collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty
associating 'KhaNda- zanii' with it.”

"kufr" is not a "collective" noun but, in terms of English language, a
"verbal noun" and a "masdar" as far Arabic is concerned whence this
word has its origins. These Arabic nouns should best be translated on
most occasions as "the fact/act of verb-ing" and a transitive verb has
both an active and a passive connotation. For example "qatluhu"
without any further context would be translated as "us kaa qatl
(karnaa)" as well as "us kaa qatl (honaa)". But there is not always a
need to have the "practitioners" of qatl because in our own language
we say..

saaNch ko aaNch nahiiN
sach kaa bol baalaa, jhuuT kaa muNh kaalaa
3ishq par zor nahiiN...

In English there are many such phrases, one example being "Love
conquers all" where we do not need to bring the "practitioners" of
love, namely the lovers.

Let us now look at the word "kufr". Please forgive me if religion
(Islam) appears to be at the forefront of my discussion. I shall only
bring in what is relevant and will aim to keep it as brief as
possible. This word comes from the verb "kafara" which has its
"primeval" meaning of "to cover up (something)". As you are aware,
sometimes a verb has more than one noun (e.g lagnaa > lagan / lagaan /
lagaavaT etc) "kafara" has two, "kufr" and "kufraan". The active
participle of this verb is "kaafir" and most frequent plural for it is
"kuffaar" Chapter 57 verse 20 has the base meaning. I am quoting just
the relevant part.

".... It is like plants that spring up after the rain: their growth at
first delights the sowers, but then you see them wither away, turn
yellow and become stubble.... ".* Some translators have translated
"kuffaar" (sowers) as farmers, tillers, cultivators etc. A tiller
covers the seeds with soil, hence the use of this verb.

Before, I move onto the secondary and tertiary meanings of this verb
and by implication, its verbal nouns, I must quote Professor Toshihiko
Izitsu from his "Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an" where he has
devoted a whole chapter devoted to the concept of "kufr".

"The Qur'an emphasises most strongly the Almighty God's being
particularly a God of grace and goodness. Man, as His creature, owes
everything, his very existence, to the boundless mercy of God. This
means that he owes Him the duty of being grateful for His goodness
which is being shown to him at every moment of his life. A kaafir is a
man who, having thus received God's benevolence, shows no sign of
gratitude in his conduct, or even acts rebelliously against his
Benefactor. .."

Iqbal sets out the case for the Muslims in the following two
couplets..

hai ba-jaa shevah-i-tasliim meN mash_huur haiN ham
qissah-i-dard sunaate haiN kih majbuur haiN ham
ai xudaa shikvah-i-arbaab-i-vafaa bhii sun le
xuugar-i-Hamd se thoRaa saa gilaa bhii sun le.

Here "tasliim" is complete submission to the Almighty and Iqbal is
saying that we Muslims have been faithful in our duty. This is where
the second part of the meaning of the word "kufr" comes in, namely the
act of ingratitude towards the creator. There are many verses in the
Qur'an where this meaning of ingratitude or being ungrateful is the
core sense. 14:7 is just one example.."Remember that He promised, "If
you are thankful, I will give you more, but if you are thankless, My
punishment is terrible indeed". Here the verb "kafara" is used in the
sense of "ingratitude". In Urdu, we have "kufraan-i-ni3mat" for
ingratitude and in Arabic, as well as this there is "kaafir
bi_nni3mah" for "ungrateful".

The third meaning of "kufr" is "disbelief", "denial" or "rejection".
Quoting Toshihiko Izitsu again...

"This fundamental attitude of ingratitude with regard to God's grace
and goodness is manifested in the most radical and positive way by
"takdhiib", that is "giving the lie" to God, his Apostle and the
divine message he is sent with." Interestingly, this meaning of
"kufr" (rejection) is used quite cleverly by Faiz where this and other
Islam-centred words are given not the run of the mill connotations.

aa'iye haath uThaa'eN ham bhii
ham jinheN rasm-i-du3aa yaad nahiiN
....

jin kaa diiN pairavii-i-kizb-o-riyaa hai un ko
himmat-i-kufr mile, jur'at-i-taHqiiq mile
jin ke sar muntazir-i-teGh-i-jafaa haiN un ko
dast-i-qaatil ko jhaTak dene kii taufiiq mile

Those whose religion/way is to follow lying and hypocrisy
May they find the courage to reject and the daring to find the truth
Those whose heads are waiting for the sword of cruelty
May they have success to push away the hand of the murderer

diin/kufr are words used in religious contexts normally and "taufiiq"
actually means "success from God". "taHqiiq", usually translated as
"research" here has its base meaning of "getting to the truth".

In the "Shikvah" Iqbal mentions peoples before the advent of Islam,
namely Turks, Chinese, Iranians, Greeks as well as faith groups, Jews
and Christians.

bas rahe the yahiiN saljuuq bhii, tuuraanii bhii
ahl-ichiiN chiin meN, iiraan meN saasaanii bhii
isii ma3muure meN aabaad the yuunaanii bhii
isii dunyaa meN yahuudii bhii the nasraanii bhii...

For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..

xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN

..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".

qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

By the way "Huur" see post 10 please for the real meaning of "Huur".

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/thread/c774273f5e9e4943/89b238834b096404?lnk=gst&q=Huur+Naseer+#89b238834b096404

In summary, I do not believe Khushwant Singh has managed to get to the
spirit of Iqbal's poems. The factual and linguistic blunders have not
helped his cause. Translating "kufr" as "infidels" is not an accurate
or a fair translation if one reads the poem as a whole. In plain,
colloquial British English, "xandah-zan" could be equated to "having a
laugh.

kufr is having a laugh, are you aware of this or not?
For your Oneness, do you have any concern or not?

Ingratitude and disbelief is the norm, submission butt of ridicule
Of this and for your Unity of Being, are you aware, do you care?

Naseer


* Qur'an translation from "The Qur'an-A New Translation" by M.a.S.
Abdel Haleem

[Anil Kala]

My question is...

Strictly from the point of view of poem, is the interpretation of Khuswant Singh not valid as one of many possible interpretations? Can we assign motives to his attempt at translation?

We have discussed the issue of interpretation on several occasions some think correct interpretation is what the poet had in mind others disagreed with this contention therefore this particular case is one of taking position about interpretation.

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Naseer

Post by Naseer
Gentlemen, aadaab.
I have been trying to follow the dialogue taking place in between my
other commitments and have been meaning to express my views on the
matter of "kufr" specifically and some other words associated with
Islam and Muslims in general, when Vijay SaaHib first mentioned this
word but have not been able to do so. Although there is going to be
nothing profound or dramatic, please bear with me a little while.

The more recent discussions have mainly centred on the following
shi3r.
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
Iqbal
These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?
Khushwant Singh
Vijay SaaHib has said and I quote..
"“....To me the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract
noun, be said to be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to
laughingly mock, to laugh derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS
puts it, one needs the practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use
many verbs with a collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty
associating 'KhaNda- zanii' with it.”
"kufr" is not a "collective" noun but, in terms of English language, a
"verbal noun" and a "masdar" as far Arabic is concerned whence this
word has its origins. These Arabic nouns should best be translated on
most occasions as "the fact/act of verb-ing" and a transitive verb has
both an active and a passive connotation. For example "qatluhu"
without any further context would be translated as "us kaa qatl
(karnaa)" as well as "us kaa qatl (honaa)". But there is not always a
need to have the "practitioners" of qatl because in our own language
we say..
saaNch ko aaNch nahiiN
sach kaa bol baalaa, jhuuT kaa muNh kaalaa
3ishq par zor nahiiN...
In English there are many such phrases, one example being "Love
conquers all" where we do not need to bring the "practitioners" of
love, namely the lovers.
Let us now look at the word "kufr". Please forgive me if religion
(Islam) appears to be at the forefront of my discussion. I shall only
bring in what is relevant and will aim to keep it as brief as
possible. This word comes from the verb "kafara" which has its
"primeval" meaning of "to cover up (something)". As you are aware,
sometimes a verb has more than one noun (e.g lagnaa > lagan / lagaan /
lagaavaT etc) "kafara" has two, "kufr" and "kufraan". The active
participle of this verb is "kaafir" and most frequent plural for it is
"kuffaar" Chapter 57 verse 20 has the base meaning. I am quoting just
the relevant part.
".... It is like plants that spring up after the rain: their growth at
first delights the sowers, but then you see them wither away, turn
yellow and become stubble.... ".* Some translators have translated
"kuffaar" (sowers) as farmers, tillers, cultivators etc. A tiller
covers the seeds with soil, hence the use of this verb.
Before, I move onto the secondary and tertiary meanings of this verb
and by implication, its verbal nouns, I must quote Professor Toshihiko
Izitsu from his "Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an" where he has
devoted a whole chapter devoted to the concept of "kufr".
"The Qur'an emphasises most strongly the Almighty God's being
particularly a God of grace and goodness. Man, as His creature, owes
everything, his very existence, to the boundless mercy of God. This
means that he owes Him the duty of being grateful for His goodness
which is being shown to him at every moment of his life. A kaafir is a
man who, having thus received God's benevolence, shows no sign of
gratitude in his conduct, or even acts rebelliously against his
Benefactor. .."
Iqbal sets out the case for the Muslims in the following two
couplets..
hai ba-jaa shevah-i-tasliim meN mash_huur haiN ham
qissah-i-dard sunaate haiN kih majbuur haiN ham
ai xudaa shikvah-i-arbaab-i-vafaa bhii sun le
xuugar-i-Hamd se thoRaa saa gilaa bhii sun le.
Here "tasliim" is complete submission to the Almighty and Iqbal is
saying that we Muslims have been faithful in our duty. This is where
the second part of the meaning of the word "kufr" comes in, namely the
act of ingratitude towards the creator. There are many verses in the
Qur'an where this meaning of ingratitude or being ungrateful is the
core sense. 14:7 is just one example.."Remember that He promised, "If
you are thankful, I will give you more, but if you are thankless, My
punishment is terrible indeed". Here the verb "kafara" is used in the
sense of "ingratitude". In Urdu, we have "kufraan-i-ni3mat" for
ingratitude and in Arabic, as well as this there is "kaafir
bi_nni3mah" for "ungrateful".
The third meaning of "kufr" is "disbelief", "denial" or "rejection".
Quoting Toshihiko Izitsu again...
"This fundamental attitude of ingratitude with regard to God's grace
and goodness is manifested in the most radical and positive way by
"takdhiib", that is "giving the lie" to God, his Apostle and the
divine message he is sent with." Interestingly, this meaning of
"kufr" (rejection) is used quite cleverly by Faiz where this and other
Islam-centred words are given not the run of the mill connotations.
aa'iye haath uThaa'eN ham bhii
ham jinheN rasm-i-du3aa yaad nahiiN
....
jin kaa diiN pairavii-i-kizb-o-riyaa hai un ko
himmat-i-kufr mile, jur'at-i-taHqiiq mile
jin ke sar muntazir-i-teGh-i-jafaa haiN un ko
dast-i-qaatil ko jhaTak dene kii taufiiq mile
Those whose religion/way is to follow lying and hypocrisy
May they find the courage to reject and the daring to find the truth
Those whose heads are waiting for the sword of cruelty
May they have success to push away the hand of the murderer
diin/kufr are words used in religious contexts normally and "taufiiq"
actually means "success from God". "taHqiiq", usually translated as
"research" here has its base meaning of "getting to the truth".
In the "Shikvah" Iqbal mentions peoples before the advent of Islam,
namely Turks, Chinese, Iranians, Greeks as well as faith groups, Jews
and Christians.
bas rahe the yahiiN saljuuq bhii, tuuraanii bhii
ahl-ichiiN chiin meN, iiraan meN saasaanii bhii
isii ma3muure meN aabaad the yuunaanii bhii
isii dunyaa meN yahuudii bhii the nasraanii bhii...
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur
By the way "Huur" see post 10 please for the real meaning of "Huur".
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/thread/c774273f5e9e4943/89b238834b096404?lnk=gst&q=Huur+Naseer+#89b238834b096404
In summary, I do not believe Khushwant Singh has managed to get to the
spirit of Iqbal's poems. The factual and linguistic blunders have not
helped his cause. Translating "kufr" as "infidels" is not an accurate
or a fair translation if one reads the poem as a whole. In plain,
colloquial British English, "xandah-zan" could be equated to "having a
laugh.
kufr is having a laugh, are you aware of this or not?
For your Oneness, do you have any concern or not?
Ingratitude and disbelief is the norm, submission butt of ridicule
Of this and for your Unity of Being, are you aware, do you care?
Naseer
* Qur'an translation from "The Qur'an-A New Translation" by M.a.S.
Abdel Haleem

Naseer Saheb,

Urdu men ek kahaawat hai : "Sau sunaar ki aur ek lohaar ki".

Urdu men ek mohawara yeh bhi hai : "Sone pe suhaaga"

Aur "sone pe suhaaga" tab hota hai jab........

The ironsmith's sledgehammer blow is delivered with the finesse
and refinement that characterizes the goldsmith's expertise.

Your detailed and most scholarly rejoinder comes in this category.

Aap ke KHuloos-e-neeyat ka jo qaail na ho, use kaafir hi kaha
jaaega.


Afzal

[Anil Kala]

Post by Naseer

Post by Naseer
Gentlemen, aadaab.
I have been trying to follow the dialogue taking place in between my
other commitments and have been meaning to express my views on the
matter of "kufr" specifically and some other words associated with
Islam and Muslims in general, when Vijay SaaHib first mentioned this
word but have not been able to do so. Although there is going to be
nothing profound or dramatic, please bear with me a little while.

The more recent discussions have mainly centred on the following
shi3r.
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
Iqbal
These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?
Khushwant Singh
Vijay SaaHib has said and I quote..
"�....To me the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract
noun, be said to be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to
laughingly mock, to laugh derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS
puts it, one needs the practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use
many verbs with a collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty
associating 'KhaNda- zanii' with it.�
"kufr" is not a "collective" noun but, in terms of English language, a
"verbal noun" and a "masdar" as far Arabic is concerned whence this
word has its origins. These Arabic nouns should best be translated on
most occasions as "the fact/act of verb-ing" and a transitive verb has
both an active and a passive connotation. For example "qatluhu"
without any further context would be translated as "us kaa qatl
(karnaa)" as well as "us kaa qatl (honaa)". But there is not always a
need to have the "practitioners" of qatl because in our own language
we say..
saaNch ko aaNch nahiiN
sach kaa bol baalaa, jhuuT kaa muNh kaalaa
3ishq par zor nahiiN...
In English there are many such phrases, one example being "Love
conquers all" where we do not need to bring the "practitioners" of
love, namely the lovers.
Let us now look at the word "kufr". Please forgive me if religion
(Islam) appears to be at the forefront of my discussion. I shall only
bring in what is relevant and will aim to keep it as brief as
possible. This word comes from the verb "kafara" which has its
"primeval" meaning of "to cover up (something)". As you are aware,
sometimes a verb has more than one noun (e.g lagnaa > lagan / lagaan /
lagaavaT etc) "kafara" has two, "kufr" and "kufraan". The active
participle of this verb is "kaafir" and most frequent plural for it is
"kuffaar" Chapter 57 verse 20 has the base meaning. I am quoting just
the relevant part.
".... It is like plants that spring up after the rain: their growth at
first delights the sowers, but then you see them wither away, turn
yellow and become stubble.... ".* Some translators have translated
"kuffaar" (sowers) as farmers, tillers, cultivators etc. A tiller
covers the seeds with soil, hence the use of this verb.
Before, I move onto the secondary and tertiary meanings of this verb
and by implication, its verbal nouns, I must quote Professor Toshihiko
Izitsu from his "Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an" where he has
devoted a whole chapter devoted to the concept of "kufr".
"The Qur'an emphasises most strongly the Almighty God's being
particularly a God of grace and goodness. Man, as His creature, owes
everything, his very existence, to the boundless mercy of God. This
means that he owes Him the duty of being grateful for His goodness
which is being shown to him at every moment of his life. A kaafir is a
man who, having thus received God's benevolence, shows no sign of
gratitude in his conduct, or even acts rebelliously against his
Benefactor. .."
Iqbal sets out the case for the Muslims in the following two
couplets..
hai ba-jaa shevah-i-tasliim meN mash_huur haiN ham
qissah-i-dard sunaate haiN kih majbuur haiN ham
ai xudaa shikvah-i-arbaab-i-vafaa bhii sun le
xuugar-i-Hamd se thoRaa saa gilaa bhii sun le.
Here "tasliim" is complete submission to the Almighty and Iqbal is
saying that we Muslims have been faithful in our duty. This is where
the second part of the meaning of the word "kufr" comes in, namely the
act of ingratitude towards the creator. There are many verses in the
Qur'an where this meaning of ingratitude or being ungrateful is the
core sense. 14:7 is just one example.."Remember that He promised, "If
you are thankful, I will give you more, but if you are thankless, My
punishment is terrible indeed". Here the verb "kafara" is used in the
sense of "ingratitude". In Urdu, we have "kufraan-i-ni3mat" for
ingratitude and in Arabic, as well as this there is "kaafir
bi_nni3mah" for "ungrateful".
The third meaning of "kufr" is "disbelief", "denial" or "rejection".
Quoting Toshihiko Izitsu again...
"This fundamental attitude of ingratitude with regard to God's grace
and goodness is manifested in the most radical and positive way by
"takdhiib", that is "giving the lie" to God, his Apostle and the
divine message he is sent with." Interestingly, this meaning of
"kufr" (rejection) is used quite cleverly by Faiz where this and other
Islam-centred words are given not the run of the mill connotations.
aa'iye haath uThaa'eN ham bhii
ham jinheN rasm-i-du3aa yaad nahiiN
....
jin kaa diiN pairavii-i-kizb-o-riyaa hai un ko
himmat-i-kufr mile, jur'at-i-taHqiiq mile
jin ke sar muntazir-i-teGh-i-jafaa haiN un ko
dast-i-qaatil ko jhaTak dene kii taufiiq mile
Those whose religion/way is to follow lying and hypocrisy
May they find the courage to reject and the daring to find the truth
Those whose heads are waiting for the sword of cruelty
May they have success to push away the hand of the murderer
diin/kufr are words used in religious contexts normally and "taufiiq"
actually means "success from God". "taHqiiq", usually translated as
"research" here has its base meaning of "getting to the truth".
In the "Shikvah" Iqbal mentions peoples before the advent of Islam,
namely Turks, Chinese, Iranians, Greeks as well as faith groups, Jews
and Christians.
bas rahe the yahiiN saljuuq bhii, tuuraanii bhii
ahl-ichiiN chiin meN, iiraan meN saasaanii bhii
isii ma3muure meN aabaad the yuunaanii bhii
isii dunyaa meN yahuudii bhii the nasraanii bhii...
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His

This is the meaning of kufr

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:3220.platts

I don't see an sledgehammer blow,therefore I am a 'kaafir' but the unabashed display of glee sure displays 'lohaar' like trait.

[Naseer]

Kala SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.

For a while now I have been taking part in one or two language groups
where, because of my interest in language, I have been posting
material concerning Arabic, Persian, Punjabi, Urdu and Hindi. I hasten
to add that in matters concerning Urdu-Hindi, the atmosphere became so
suffocating that I have decided not to respond to any of the posts of
one particular individual. And since I made that voluntary decision, I
feel much the better for it!

Looking at that group and ALUP, I can honestly say that I feel proud
to be associated with the participants of the latter compared with a
few of the participants of the former. Over the years we may have had
our differences of opinion but we have afforded our "opponents" the
utmost courtesy. This is what distinguishes "us" from "them".

I have seen your short posts and I did not reply to them in the hope
that my recent detailed post would cover your queries. In your latest
post you have provided a link to Platts dictionary covering the word
"kufr". You will no doubt agree that it does not differ vastly from
the explanation that I have tried to formulate. The concept of "kufr"
has been covered by a number of scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim and I
have looked into all that was at my disposal. I do not claim to
understand Urdu language, Urdu poetry or any religion in great depth
but I do know that the view of most scholars is that it is not up to
us human beings to label people as "kaafirs" but (for the believers),
let God Almighty be the judge. Who (but God) knows, the so called
devout follower of his faith could be much worse than the seemingly
"bad guy" of another faith or no-faith. Iqbal, in "Asraar-i-Khudi?"
says..

kaafir-i-bedaar-dil, pesh-i-sanam
bih az diin-daare kih xuft andar Haram

ek kaafir jo but ke saamne khaRaa hai lekin us kaa dil jaagaa hu'aa
hai
us musalmaan se achchhaa hai jo Haram meN hai par soyaa hu'aa hai

Before him, Ghalib said..

vafaa-daarii ba-shart-i-ustuvaarii asl-i-iimaaN hai
mare but-xaane meN to Ka3be meN gaaRo barhaman ko

I noticed one or two comments in your posts which have triggered my
post. Before we are Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Atheists, we are
humans. Let us continue to work together as good human beings.

Naseer

[Anil Kala]

Post by Naseer
kaafir-i-bedaar-dil, pesh-i-sanam
bih az diin-daare kih xuft andar Haram
ek kaafir jo but ke saamne khaRaa hai lekin us kaa dil jaagaa hu'aa
hai
us musalmaan se achchhaa hai jo Haram meN hai par soyaa hu'aa hai
Before him, Ghalib said..
vafaa-daarii ba-shart-i-ustuvaarii asl-i-iimaaN hai
mare but-xaane meN to Ka3be meN gaaRo barhaman ko
I noticed one or two comments in your posts which have triggered my
post. Before we are Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Atheists, we are
humans. Let us continue to work together as good human beings.
Naseer

Naseer Saahib

aadaab arz hai ( you have used '3' and 'a' in '3arz' why?)

Yes I noticed the changed persona and I was doubtful if you will engage with with me in a dialogue after my short response. I am glad you chose to do so. My only daughter is dating a Muslim boy so rest assured I have absolutely no regard for any religion and equal disdain for all of them. (btw my 93 years old father thinks the boy is not a Muslim, will get a shock of his life when he comes to know this but he will survive)

Your other post and this one are the most amazing posts I have come across in recent time. Completely objective, detached of emotions the kind I aspire to. I would say you are nearer becoming a 'Buddha'.


As far as the poetry is concerned I am still not convinced. Yes I have read the poem some years back. It is one emotional roller coaster ride written with great language skill but has nothing cerebral. The drift is unmistaken, it is about the Muslims getting a raw deal despite making all the necessary sacrifices. It is not the first time that an abstract characteristic has been personified in a poem. Therefore in the context of the poem Khuswant Singh makes a legitimate interpretation of the poem. May be there are technical flaws but it is one very obvious interpretation that fits the narrative perfectly. Even as a political statement there is nothing offensive in it for non Muslims as the lament is directed at Almighty, infidels are merely incidental.

So we can amicably disagree, as Shrek would say, 'End of story.'

aadaab arz hai

Anil Kala

[n***@yahoo.com]

I found an article that is peripherally related to the original topic of this thread - effective translation. At the following link, you will find excerpts from letters Faiz wrote to his wife. One letter describes an early morning in prison. It is written in English, and foreshadows a famous poem written in Urdu.

http://www.pakistaniaat.org/article/view/10954/7412

I found the letter very moving, and also evocative.

Nagesh

Post by Anil Kala

Post by Naseer
kaafir-i-bedaar-dil, pesh-i-sanam
bih az diin-daare kih xuft andar Haram
ek kaafir jo but ke saamne khaRaa hai lekin us kaa dil jaagaa hu'aa
hai
us musalmaan se achchhaa hai jo Haram meN hai par soyaa hu'aa hai
Before him, Ghalib said..
vafaa-daarii ba-shart-i-ustuvaarii asl-i-iimaaN hai
mare but-xaane meN to Ka3be meN gaaRo barhaman ko
I noticed one or two comments in your posts which have triggered my
post. Before we are Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Atheists, we are
humans. Let us continue to work together as good human beings.
Naseer

Naseer Saahib
aadaab arz hai ( you have used '3' and 'a' in '3arz' why?)
Yes I noticed the changed persona and I was doubtful if you will engage with with me in a dialogue after my short response. I am glad you chose to do so. My only daughter is dating a Muslim boy so rest assured I have absolutely no regard for any religion and equal disdain for all of them. (btw my 93 years old father thinks the boy is not a Muslim, will get a shock of his life when he comes to know this but he will survive)
Your other post and this one are the most amazing posts I have come across in recent time. Completely objective, detached of emotions the kind I aspire to. I would say you are nearer becoming a 'Buddha'.
As far as the poetry is concerned I am still not convinced. Yes I have read the poem some years back. It is one emotional roller coaster ride written with great language skill but has nothing cerebral. The drift is unmistaken, it is about the Muslims getting a raw deal despite making all the necessary sacrifices. It is not the first time that an abstract characteristic has been personified in a poem. Therefore in the context of the poem Khuswant Singh makes a legitimate interpretation of the poem. May be there are technical flaws but it is one very obvious interpretation that fits the narrative perfectly. Even as a political statement there is nothing offensive in it for non Muslims as the lament is directed at Almighty, infidels are merely incidental.
So we can amicably disagree, as Shrek would say, 'End of story.'
aadaab arz hai
Anil Kala

[[e-mail]]

Here is the letter:

Beloved,
This morning the moon shone so brightly in my face it woke me
up. The jail bell tolled the half hour after four. I sat up in my bed
and at the same moment Arbab (51) in the bed next to me also sat
up and smiled at me. He went back to sleep at once but I got up
and sat in the verandah opposite my cell and watched the morning
come. I heard the jail lock open and shut as the guards changed,
the keys and chains rattle in the distance and the iron gates and
door clamp their jaws as if they were chewing up the last remains
of the night’s starry darkness. Then the breeze slowly rose like a
languid woman and the sky slowly paled and the stars seemed to
billow up and down in pearly white pools and then sucked under. I
sat and watched and thoughts and memories flooded into the mind.
Perhaps it was on a morning like this that this moon beckoned to a
lonely traveler a little distance from where I sit and took the
traveler with him away into the unknown and the traveler was my
brother. Perhaps this moon is at this moment softly shining on the
upturned faces, painless now in death, of the murdered men in
Korean prison camps and these dead men too are my brothers.
When they lived, they lived far away in lands I have not seen but
they also lived in me and were a part of my blood and those who
have killed them have killed a part of me and shed some of my
blood. Albeit they are dead, as my brother is dead, and only the
dead can adequately mourn for the living. Perhaps some day I shall
be able to put this morning into verse and I have threatened Arbab
that if I do he might become immortal by being in it.

Nagesh

Post by n***@yahoo.com
I found an article that is peripherally related to the original topic of this thread - effective translation. At the following link, you will find excerpts from letters Faiz wrote to his wife. One letter describes an early morning in prison. It is written in English, and foreshadows a famous poem written in Urdu.
http://www.pakistaniaat.org/article/view/10954/7412
I found the letter very moving, and also evocative.
Nagesh

Post by Anil Kala

Post by Naseer
kaafir-i-bedaar-dil, pesh-i-sanam
bih az diin-daare kih xuft andar Haram
ek kaafir jo but ke saamne khaRaa hai lekin us kaa dil jaagaa hu'aa
hai
us musalmaan se achchhaa hai jo Haram meN hai par soyaa hu'aa hai
Before him, Ghalib said..
vafaa-daarii ba-shart-i-ustuvaarii asl-i-iimaaN hai
mare but-xaane meN to Ka3be meN gaaRo barhaman ko
I noticed one or two comments in your posts which have triggered my
post. Before we are Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Atheists, we are
humans. Let us continue to work together as good human beings.
Naseer

Naseer Saahib
aadaab arz hai ( you have used '3' and 'a' in '3arz' why?)
Yes I noticed the changed persona and I was doubtful if you will engage with with me in a dialogue after my short response. I am glad you chose to do so. My only daughter is dating a Muslim boy so rest assured I have absolutely no regard for any religion and equal disdain for all of them. (btw my 93 years old father thinks the boy is not a Muslim, will get a shock of his life when he comes to know this but he will survive)
Your other post and this one are the most amazing posts I have come across in recent time. Completely objective, detached of emotions the kind I aspire to. I would say you are nearer becoming a 'Buddha'.
As far as the poetry is concerned I am still not convinced. Yes I have read the poem some years back. It is one emotional roller coaster ride written with great language skill but has nothing cerebral. The drift is unmistaken, it is about the Muslims getting a raw deal despite making all the necessary sacrifices. It is not the first time that an abstract characteristic has been personified in a poem. Therefore in the context of the poem Khuswant Singh makes a legitimate interpretation of the poem. May be there are technical flaws but it is one very obvious interpretation that fits the narrative perfectly. Even as a political statement there is nothing offensive in it for non Muslims as the lament is directed at Almighty, infidels are merely incidental.
So we can amicably disagree, as Shrek would say, 'End of story.'
aadaab arz hai
Anil Kala

[Naseer]

Post by Anil Kala
aadaab arz hai ( you have used '3' and 'a' in '3arz' why?)

As a man who reads Urdu newspapers (if my memory serves me right), you
would know that the word begins with an 3ain, is followed by a zabar
(a), the re is saakin and ends with a zvaad. In your "system", you are
missing a whole consonant!

Naseer

[Anil Kala]

Post by Naseer
As a man who reads Urdu newspapers (if my memory serves me right), you
would know that the word begins with an 3ain, is followed by a zabar
(a), the re is saakin and ends with a zvaad. In your "system", you are
missing a whole consonant!
Naseer

Shirimaanji the whole idea of '3' is to replicate Urdu environ and in Urdu scheme of things 'zabar' is conveniently left out. Even though no tree will be felled for this, you are still guilty of using one extra byte of bandwidth

[Naseer]

Post by Anil Kala

Post by Naseer
As a man who reads Urdu newspapers (if my memory serves me right), you
would know that the word begins with an 3ain, is followed by a zabar
(a), the re is saakin and ends with a zvaad. In your "system", you are
missing a whole consonant!
Naseer

Shirimaanji the whole idea of '3' is to replicate Urdu environ and in Urdu scheme of things 'zabar' is conveniently left out. Even though no tree will be felled for this, you are still guilty of using one extra byte of bandwidth

janaab, as this is an Urdu poetry group, there is no harm in trying to
create that environment. I could of course go the whole hog, but then
you and others will start to complain!:-)

Naseer

[Vijay]

Post by Naseer

Post by Naseer
Gentlemen, aadaab.
I have been trying to follow the dialogue taking place in between my
other commitments and have been meaning to express my views on the
matter of "kufr" specifically and some other words associated with
Islam and Muslims in general, when Vijay SaaHib first mentioned this
word but have not been able to do so. Although there is going to be
nothing profound or dramatic, please bear with me a little while.

The more recent discussions have mainly centred on the following
shi3r.
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
Iqbal
These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?
Khushwant Singh
Vijay SaaHib has said and I quote..
"“....To me the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract
noun, be said to be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to
laughingly mock, to laugh derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS
puts it, one needs the practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use
many verbs with a collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty
associating 'KhaNda- zanii' with it.”
"kufr" is not a "collective" noun but, in terms of English language, a
"verbal noun" and a "masdar" as far Arabic is concerned whence this
word has its origins. These Arabic nouns should best be translated on
most occasions as "the fact/act of verb-ing" and a transitive verb has
both an active and a passive connotation. For example "qatluhu"
without any further context would be translated as "us kaa qatl
(karnaa)" as well as "us kaa qatl (honaa)". But there is not always a
need to have the "practitioners" of qatl because in our own language
we say..
saaNch ko aaNch nahiiN
sach kaa bol baalaa, jhuuT kaa muNh kaalaa
3ishq par zor nahiiN...
In English there are many such phrases, one example being "Love
conquers all" where we do not need to bring the "practitioners" of
love, namely the lovers.
Let us now look at the word "kufr". Please forgive me if religion
(Islam) appears to be at the forefront of my discussion. I shall only
bring in what is relevant and will aim to keep it as brief as
possible. This word comes from the verb "kafara" which has its
"primeval" meaning of "to cover up (something)". As you are aware,
sometimes a verb has more than one noun (e.g lagnaa > lagan / lagaan /
lagaavaT etc) "kafara" has two, "kufr" and "kufraan". The active
participle of this verb is "kaafir" and most frequent plural for it is
"kuffaar" Chapter 57 verse 20 has the base meaning. I am quoting just
the relevant part.
".... It is like plants that spring up after the rain: their growth at
first delights the sowers, but then you see them wither away, turn
yellow and become stubble.... ".* Some translators have translated
"kuffaar" (sowers) as farmers, tillers, cultivators etc. A tiller
covers the seeds with soil, hence the use of this verb.
Before, I move onto the secondary and tertiary meanings of this verb
and by implication, its verbal nouns, I must quote Professor Toshihiko
Izitsu from his "Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an" where he has
devoted a whole chapter devoted to the concept of "kufr".
"The Qur'an emphasises most strongly the Almighty God's being
particularly a God of grace and goodness. Man, as His creature, owes
everything, his very existence, to the boundless mercy of God. This
means that he owes Him the duty of being grateful for His goodness
which is being shown to him at every moment of his life. A kaafir is a
man who, having thus received God's benevolence, shows no sign of
gratitude in his conduct, or even acts rebelliously against his
Benefactor. .."
Iqbal sets out the case for the Muslims in the following two
couplets..
hai ba-jaa shevah-i-tasliim meN mash_huur haiN ham
qissah-i-dard sunaate haiN kih majbuur haiN ham
ai xudaa shikvah-i-arbaab-i-vafaa bhii sun le
xuugar-i-Hamd se thoRaa saa gilaa bhii sun le.
Here "tasliim" is complete submission to the Almighty and Iqbal is
saying that we Muslims have been faithful in our duty. This is where
the second part of the meaning of the word "kufr" comes in, namely the
act of ingratitude towards the creator. There are many verses in the
Qur'an where this meaning of ingratitude or being ungrateful is the
core sense. 14:7 is just one example.."Remember that He promised, "If
you are thankful, I will give you more, but if you are thankless, My
punishment is terrible indeed". Here the verb "kafara" is used in the
sense of "ingratitude".  In Urdu, we have "kufraan-i-ni3mat" for
ingratitude and in Arabic, as well as this there is "kaafir
bi_nni3mah" for "ungrateful".
The third meaning of "kufr" is "disbelief", "denial" or "rejection".
Quoting Toshihiko Izitsu again...
"This fundamental attitude of ingratitude with regard to God's grace
and goodness is manifested in the most radical and positive way by
"takdhiib", that is "giving the lie" to God, his Apostle and the
divine message he is sent with." Interestingly, this meaning of
"kufr" (rejection) is used quite cleverly by Faiz where this and other
Islam-centred words are given not the run of the mill connotations.
aa'iye haath uThaa'eN ham bhii
ham jinheN rasm-i-du3aa yaad nahiiN
....
jin kaa diiN pairavii-i-kizb-o-riyaa hai un ko
himmat-i-kufr mile, jur'at-i-taHqiiq mile
jin ke sar muntazir-i-teGh-i-jafaa haiN un ko
dast-i-qaatil ko jhaTak dene kii taufiiq mile
Those whose religion/way is to follow lying and hypocrisy
May they find the courage to reject and the daring to find the truth
Those whose heads are waiting for the sword of cruelty
May they have success to push away the hand of the murderer
diin/kufr are words used in religious contexts normally and "taufiiq"
actually means "success from God". "taHqiiq", usually translated as
"research" here has its base meaning of "getting to the truth".
In the "Shikvah" Iqbal mentions peoples before the advent of Islam,
namely Turks, Chinese, Iranians, Greeks as well as faith groups, Jews
and Christians.
bas rahe the yahiiN saljuuq bhii, tuuraanii bhii
ahl-ichiiN chiin meN, iiraan meN saasaanii bhii
isii ma3muure meN aabaad the yuunaanii bhii
isii dunyaa meN yahuudii bhii the nasraanii bhii...
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur
By the way "Huur" see post 10 please for the real meaning of "Huur".
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/t...
In summary, I do not believe Khushwant Singh has managed to get to the
spirit of Iqbal's poems. The factual and linguistic blunders have not
helped his cause. Translating "kufr" as "infidels" is not an accurate
or a fair translation if one reads the poem as a whole. In plain,
colloquial British English, "xandah-zan" could be equated to "having a
laugh.
kufr is having a laugh, are you aware of this or not?
For your Oneness, do you have any concern or not?
Ingratitude and disbelief is the norm, submission butt of ridicule
Of this and for your Unity of Being, are you aware, do you care?
Naseer
* Qur'an translation from "The Qur'an-A New Translation" by M.a.S.
Abdel Haleem

Bravo Naseer sahib. I have been awaiting your response with
considerable anticipation and you haven't disappointed. I think I
mentioned before once that I have learnt a lot about Urdu language
from you. How right is miir:

yihii jaana ki kucch na jaana haai
so bhii ik um'r meN huua ma'aluum!!

I would like to commend you for keeping things factual, unsentimental
and objective. When you have used religion, it has been in proper
context and no one should have any problem with it. I totally accept
your verdict on KS as you have 'played the ball, not the man'.

So congratulations! I do have a couple of points on which I would like
some further clarification. I wonder if I can do so through personal
mail. What do you suggest?

Thanks once again,

Vijay

[Naseer]

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer

Post by Naseer
Gentlemen, aadaab.
I have been trying to follow the dialogue taking place in between my
other commitments and have been meaning to express my views on the
matter of "kufr" specifically and some other words associated with
Islam and Muslims in general, when Vijay SaaHib first mentioned this
word but have not been able to do so. Although there is going to be
nothing profound or dramatic, please bear with me a little while.

The more recent discussions have mainly centred on the following
shi3r.
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
Iqbal
These infidels smirk and snigger at us, are You aware?
For the message of Your oneness, do You anymore care?
Khushwant Singh
Vijay SaaHib has said and I quote..
"“....To me the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract
noun, be said to be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to
laughingly mock, to laugh derisively, or to smirk and snigger, as KS
puts it, one needs the practitioners of 'kufr' to do it. One could use
many verbs with a collective noun like 'kufr', but I have difficulty
associating 'KhaNda- zanii' with it.”
"kufr" is not a "collective" noun but, in terms of English language, a
"verbal noun" and a "masdar" as far Arabic is concerned whence this
word has its origins. These Arabic nouns should best be translated on
most occasions as "the fact/act of verb-ing" and a transitive verb has
both an active and a passive connotation. For example "qatluhu"
without any further context would be translated as "us kaa qatl
(karnaa)" as well as "us kaa qatl (honaa)". But there is not always a
need to have the "practitioners" of qatl because in our own language
we say..
saaNch ko aaNch nahiiN
sach kaa bol baalaa, jhuuT kaa muNh kaalaa
3ishq par zor nahiiN...
In English there are many such phrases, one example being "Love
conquers all" where we do not need to bring the "practitioners" of
love, namely the lovers.
Let us now look at the word "kufr". Please forgive me if religion
(Islam) appears to be at the forefront of my discussion. I shall only
bring in what is relevant and will aim to keep it as brief as
possible. This word comes from the verb "kafara" which has its
"primeval" meaning of "to cover up (something)". As you are aware,
sometimes a verb has more than one noun (e.g lagnaa > lagan / lagaan /
lagaavaT etc) "kafara" has two, "kufr" and "kufraan". The active
participle of this verb is "kaafir" and most frequent plural for it is
"kuffaar" Chapter 57 verse 20 has the base meaning. I am quoting just
the relevant part.
".... It is like plants that spring up after the rain: their growth at
first delights the sowers, but then you see them wither away, turn
yellow and become stubble.... ".* Some translators have translated
"kuffaar" (sowers) as farmers, tillers, cultivators etc. A tiller
covers the seeds with soil, hence the use of this verb.
Before, I move onto the secondary and tertiary meanings of this verb
and by implication, its verbal nouns, I must quote Professor Toshihiko
Izitsu from his "Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an" where he has
devoted a whole chapter devoted to the concept of "kufr".
"The Qur'an emphasises most strongly the Almighty God's being
particularly a God of grace and goodness. Man, as His creature, owes
everything, his very existence, to the boundless mercy of God. This
means that he owes Him the duty of being grateful for His goodness
which is being shown to him at every moment of his life. A kaafir is a
man who, having thus received God's benevolence, shows no sign of
gratitude in his conduct, or even acts rebelliously against his
Benefactor. .."
Iqbal sets out the case for the Muslims in the following two
couplets..
hai ba-jaa shevah-i-tasliim meN mash_huur haiN ham
qissah-i-dard sunaate haiN kih majbuur haiN ham
ai xudaa shikvah-i-arbaab-i-vafaa bhii sun le
xuugar-i-Hamd se thoRaa saa gilaa bhii sun le.
Here "tasliim" is complete submission to the Almighty and Iqbal is
saying that we Muslims have been faithful in our duty. This is where
the second part of the meaning of the word "kufr" comes in, namely the
act of ingratitude towards the creator. There are many verses in the
Qur'an where this meaning of ingratitude or being ungrateful is the
core sense. 14:7 is just one example.."Remember that He promised, "If
you are thankful, I will give you more, but if you are thankless, My
punishment is terrible indeed". Here the verb "kafara" is used in the
sense of "ingratitude".  In Urdu, we have "kufraan-i-ni3mat" for
ingratitude and in Arabic, as well as this there is "kaafir
bi_nni3mah" for "ungrateful".
The third meaning of "kufr" is "disbelief", "denial" or "rejection".
Quoting Toshihiko Izitsu again...
"This fundamental attitude of ingratitude with regard to God's grace
and goodness is manifested in the most radical and positive way by
"takdhiib", that is "giving the lie" to God, his Apostle and the
divine message he is sent with." Interestingly, this meaning of
"kufr" (rejection) is used quite cleverly by Faiz where this and other
Islam-centred words are given not the run of the mill connotations.
aa'iye haath uThaa'eN ham bhii
ham jinheN rasm-i-du3aa yaad nahiiN
....
jin kaa diiN pairavii-i-kizb-o-riyaa hai un ko
himmat-i-kufr mile, jur'at-i-taHqiiq mile
jin ke sar muntazir-i-teGh-i-jafaa haiN un ko
dast-i-qaatil ko jhaTak dene kii taufiiq mile
Those whose religion/way is to follow lying and hypocrisy
May they find the courage to reject and the daring to find the truth
Those whose heads are waiting for the sword of cruelty
May they have success to push away the hand of the murderer
diin/kufr are words used in religious contexts normally and "taufiiq"
actually means "success from God". "taHqiiq", usually translated as
"research" here has its base meaning of "getting to the truth".
In the "Shikvah" Iqbal mentions peoples before the advent of Islam,
namely Turks, Chinese, Iranians, Greeks as well as faith groups, Jews
and Christians.
bas rahe the yahiiN saljuuq bhii, tuuraanii bhii
ahl-ichiiN chiin meN, iiraan meN saasaanii bhii
isii ma3muure meN aabaad the yuunaanii bhii
isii dunyaa meN yahuudii bhii the nasraanii bhii...
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur
By the way "Huur" see post 10 please for the real meaning of "Huur".
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/t...
In summary, I do not believe Khushwant Singh has managed to get to the
spirit of Iqbal's poems. The factual and linguistic blunders have not
helped his cause. Translating "kufr" as "infidels" is not an accurate
or a fair translation if one reads the poem as a whole. In plain,
colloquial British English, "xandah-zan" could be equated to "having a
laugh.
kufr is having a laugh, are you aware of this or not?
For your Oneness, do you have any concern or not?
Ingratitude and disbelief is the norm, submission butt of ridicule
Of this and for your Unity of Being, are you aware, do you care?
Naseer
* Qur'an translation from "The Qur'an-A New Translation" by M.a.S.
Abdel Haleem

Bravo Naseer sahib. I have been awaiting your response with
considerable anticipation and you haven't disappointed. I think I
mentioned before once that I have learnt a lot about Urdu language
yihii jaana ki kucch na jaana haai
so bhii ik um'r meN huua ma'aluum!!
I would like to commend you for keeping things factual, unsentimental
and objective. When you have used religion, it has been in proper
context and no one should have any problem with it. I totally accept
your verdict on KS as you have 'played the ball, not the man'.
So congratulations! I do have a couple of points on which I would like
some further clarification. I wonder if I can do so through personal
mail. What do you suggest?
Thanks once again,
Vijay

Vijay SaaHib aadaab 3arz hai.

I am grateful to you and to Afzal SaaHib for your very encouraging and
kind comments. I am truly glad that my meagre efforts have helped to
clarify one or two issues. I forgot to mention one thing that for the
third meaning of kufr (disbelief/denial/rejection), the antonym is
"iimaan" (belief/faith).

Of course you can contact me by PM. But, if you were to ask your
queries in the open forum, there is a good chance that someone else
might be able to offer a clearer explanation. As I have indicated in
my post to Kala SaaHib, I am no expert in any field, let alone matters
pertaining to faith. Besides, your questions could be useful aids to
further understanding.

Naseer

[Vijay]

Post by Naseer
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

Nasrer sahib:

go maiN raha rahiin-e-sitam haa-e rozgaar
lekin tere Khayaal se Gafil nahiiN raha!

I have been away from base, hence the delay; but am back now to raise
a couple of points. I have taken your advice to raise these here on
ALUP rather than through PM, as others may also want to respond. I am,
however, mostly interested in your take on the matter. I will try to
be brief.

I have in fact resolved some of the points already by re-reading your
post a few times. One question that remains unresolved, or that needs
confirmation, is to do with the second meaning of 'kufr', i.e. lack of
gratitude towards Almighty. Where KS has translated 'kufr' as
'infidels', it seems that, at least what I gather from your post,
'ingrates' will be closer to what Iqbal had in mind.

I feel that this sense of the word 'kufr', given how fallible we
humans are, could conceivably apply to people of all religions. So, in
theory at least, there could be muslims who fail to show their
gratitude to God's bounties. This then leads us to the somewhat
paradoxical paradigm of muslims who are kaafirs, at least in this
sense of the word. In Shikwa, Iqbal is making a complaint to God on
behalf of the whole community of muslims, whom he characterises as
'faithful', 'grateful' and 'showing total submission'. I don't think
he has indicated anywhere in 'Shikwa' that this community also
includes some who are ingrates. If I am right up to this point, and if
you have followed my logic so far, then the 'kufr' in 'KhaNda~zan kufr
hai' could not apply in this sense because then Iqbal would be
implying that 'kufr' that is mockingly laughing also includes (some)
ungrateful muslims?

Hence my assertion, that here the meaning of 'kufr' is to do with the
sense of non-believers or 'infidels', as KS has used.

With best regards,

Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

go maiN raha rahiin-e-sitam haa-e rozgaar
lekin tere Khayaal se Gafil nahiiN raha!
I have been away from base, hence the delay; but am back now to raise
a couple of points. I have taken your advice to raise these here on
ALUP rather than through PM, as others may also want to respond. I am,
however, mostly interested in your take on the matter. I will try to
be brief.
I have in fact resolved some of the points already by re-reading your
post a few times. One question that remains unresolved, or that needs
confirmation, is to do with the second meaning of 'kufr', i.e. lack of
gratitude towards Almighty. Where KS has translated 'kufr' as
'infidels', it seems that, at least what I gather from your post,
'ingrates' will be closer to what Iqbal had in mind.
I feel that this sense of the word 'kufr', given how fallible we
humans are, could conceivably apply to people of all religions. So, in
theory at least, there could be muslims who fail to show their
gratitude to God's bounties. This then leads us to the somewhat
paradoxical paradigm of muslims who are kaafirs, at least in this
sense of the word. In Shikwa, Iqbal is making a complaint to God on
behalf of the whole community of muslims, whom he characterises as
'faithful', 'grateful' and 'showing total submission'. I don't think
he has indicated anywhere in 'Shikwa' that this community also
includes some who are ingrates. If I am right up to this point, and if
you have followed my logic so far, then the 'kufr' in 'KhaNda~zan kufr
hai' could not apply in this sense because then Iqbal would be
implying that 'kufr' that is mockingly laughing also includes (some)
ungrateful muslims?
Hence my assertion, that here the meaning of 'kufr' is to do with the
sense of non-believers or 'infidels', as KS has used.
With best regards,
Vijay

In my view, the two poems have to be read "in tandem", in a manner
of speaking. Neither is to be regarded as a "stand-alone" work of
art.

The problem is that the word "kaafir" is associated by the common
people with the English equivalent "infidels" or "non-believers",
not so much in the sense of "ingrates". When KS uses the word
"infidels", he gives an unnecessary and unjustifiable slant to
what Iqbal has written.

When Iqbal writes about Muslims being ungrateful to God in
"Jawaab-e-Shikwa", he is not referring to them as "kaafirs" (as
normally understood in the sub-continental context). They are
Muslims, no doubt, but who have strayed from the path of
righteousness. One cannot be a "Muslim" and a "kaafir" at one
and the same time.

"Shikwa" (the first of the two-part tandem) is a lament on behalf
of the dissatisfied Muslim community. It lists all the grounds on
which this dissatisfaction is based. When Iqbal is trying to
justify this dissatisfaction, how can he be thinking about a
separate mention or indication of "ingrates" (in this particular
poem) ? The question of "ingratitude" is tackled in the SECOND
poem i.e. "Jawaab-e-Shikwa".

It should be recognized that "Shikwa" nowhere refers to or
represents any "ungrateful" Muslims. If it did, that would negate
the very basis or foundation of that poem. Muslims appear in
this poem as "innocent sufferers". So there can be no question
whatsoever of the "KHaNda~zan kufr" being inclusive of any
"ungrateful Muslims".



Afzal

[shagird]

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

go maiN raha rahiin-e-sitam haa-e rozgaar
lekin tere Khayaal se Gafil nahiiN raha!
I have been away from base, hence the delay; but am back now to raise
a couple of points. I have taken your advice to raise these here on
ALUP rather than through PM, as others may also want to respond. I am,
however, mostly interested in your take on the matter. I will try to
be brief.
I have in fact resolved some of the points already by re-reading your
post a few times. One question that remains unresolved, or that needs
confirmation, is to do with the second meaning of 'kufr', i.e. lack of
gratitude towards Almighty. Where KS has translated 'kufr' as
'infidels', it seems that, at least what I gather from your post,
'ingrates' will be closer to what Iqbal had in mind.
I feel that this sense of the word 'kufr', given how fallible we
humans are, could conceivably apply to people of all religions. So, in
theory at least, there could be muslims who fail to show their
gratitude to God's bounties. This then leads us to the somewhat
paradoxical paradigm of muslims who are kaafirs, at least in this
sense of the word. In Shikwa, Iqbal is making a complaint to God on
behalf of the whole community of muslims, whom he characterises as
'faithful', 'grateful' and 'showing total submission'. I don't think
he has indicated anywhere in 'Shikwa' that this community also
includes some who are ingrates. If I am right up to this point, and if
you have followed my logic so far, then the 'kufr' in 'KhaNda~zan kufr
hai' could not apply in this sense because then Iqbal would be
implying that 'kufr' that is mockingly laughing also includes (some)
ungrateful muslims?
Hence my assertion, that here the meaning of 'kufr' is to do with the
sense of non-believers or 'infidels', as KS has used.

na maiN momin which maseetan
na maiN which kufar diyaaN reetaaN

Bulhay Shah

Post by Vijay
With best regards,
Vijay- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Naseer]

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

go maiN raha rahiin-e-sitam haa-e rozgaar
lekin tere Khayaal se Gafil nahiiN raha!
I have been away from base, hence the delay; but am back now to raise
a couple of points. I have taken your advice to raise these here on
ALUP rather than through PM, as others may also want to respond. I am,
however, mostly interested in your take on the matter. I will try to
be brief.
I have in fact resolved some of the points already by re-reading your
post a few times. One question that remains unresolved, or that needs
confirmation, is to do with the second meaning of 'kufr', i.e. lack of
gratitude towards Almighty. Where KS has translated 'kufr' as
'infidels', it seems that, at least what I gather from your post,
'ingrates' will be closer to what Iqbal had in mind.
I feel that this sense of the word 'kufr', given how fallible we
humans are, could conceivably apply to people of all religions. So, in
theory at least, there could be muslims who fail to show their
gratitude to God's bounties. This then leads us to the somewhat
paradoxical paradigm of muslims who are kaafirs, at least in this
sense of the word. In Shikwa, Iqbal is making a complaint to God on
behalf of the whole community of muslims, whom he characterises as
'faithful', 'grateful' and 'showing total submission'. I don't think
he has indicated anywhere in 'Shikwa' that this community also
includes some who are ingrates. If I am right up to this point, and if
you have followed my logic so far, then the 'kufr' in 'KhaNda~zan kufr
hai' could not apply in this sense because then Iqbal would be
implying that 'kufr' that is mockingly laughing also includes (some)
ungrateful muslims?
Hence my assertion, that here the meaning of 'kufr' is to do with the
sense of non-believers or 'infidels', as KS has used.
With best regards,
Vijay

janaab-i-Vijay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.

You have asked a pertinent question. Theoretically speaking, bearing
in mind the verb "kafara", anyone who rejects something or shows
ingratitude for something can be termed "kaafir".

Here is an example of kaafir/rejecter from the Qur'an.

2: 256 There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become
distinct from error, so whosoever rejects false gods and believes in
God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God
is all hearing and all knowing.

Here the word "kaafir" (in the verbal form yakfuru) is used in a
positive way and means a "rejecter" (of false gods). (cf. Faiz's use
of "kufr" in the sense of "rejecting" the way of lying and hypocrisy).

Another one, once again from the Qur'an, where "kaafir" implies an
"ingrate". When a (Muslim) person has the God-given means to perform
pilgrimage to Mecca but fails in his duty to do so, he is showing
ingratitude to God.

3: 96-97 The first House [of worship] to be established for mankind
was the one at Mecca. It is a blessed place; a source of guidance for
all people; there are clear signs in it; it is the place where Abraham
stood; whosoever enters it is safe. Pilgrimage to the House is a duty
owed to God by people who are able to undertake it. Those who reject
this [should know that] God has no need of anyone.

Although, this translator has used the word "reject" {kafara}, Jamal
Badawi, an Islamic scholar based in Canada describes this rejection
"kufr" as "ingratitude" and states that a Muslim can be a "kaafir/
ingrate" but this does not remove him from the fold of Islam. This is
because he believes in the one God and his message.

It is fair to say that when Iqbal is talking about Muslims, he is not
stating that they are "angels" or perfect Muslims. He is using a
generalisation where, in his view, the majority are decent God-fearing
folk. In the "javaab", God of course enumerates all their faults and
deficiencies. By the same token from amongst those who are in the
realm of "kufr", there will no doubt be people who are innately good
human beings. But once again, Iqbal is using a term "kufr" which
correlates to the broad spectrum of people displaying ingratitude and
disbelief.

In conclusion, "kufr" in the said couplet, once again in my humble
view and understanding does not point only to those peoples who deny
God and his message but also who are ungrateful for his bounty.

For the sake of consistency, I have used the same Qur'an translation
as in my previous post.

I hope, I have been able to add a little to the detailed reply given
by Afzal SaaHib.

Naseer

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Naseer

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

go maiN raha rahiin-e-sitam haa-e rozgaar
lekin tere Khayaal se Gafil nahiiN raha!
I have been away from base, hence the delay; but am back now to raise
a couple of points. I have taken your advice to raise these here on
ALUP rather than through PM, as others may also want to respond. I am,
however, mostly interested in your take on the matter. I will try to
be brief.
I have in fact resolved some of the points already by re-reading your
post a few times. One question that remains unresolved, or that needs
confirmation, is to do with the second meaning of 'kufr', i.e. lack of
gratitude towards Almighty. Where KS has translated 'kufr' as
'infidels', it seems that, at least what I gather from your post,
'ingrates' will be closer to what Iqbal had in mind.
I feel that this sense of the word 'kufr', given how fallible we
humans are, could conceivably apply to people of all religions. So, in
theory at least, there could be muslims who fail to show their
gratitude to God's bounties. This then leads us to the somewhat
paradoxical paradigm of muslims who are kaafirs, at least in this
sense of the word. In Shikwa, Iqbal is making a complaint to God on
behalf of the whole community of muslims, whom he characterises as
'faithful', 'grateful' and 'showing total submission'. I don't think
he has indicated anywhere in 'Shikwa' that this community also
includes some who are ingrates. If I am right up to this point, and if
you have followed my logic so far, then the 'kufr' in 'KhaNda~zan kufr
hai' could not apply in this sense because then Iqbal would be
implying that 'kufr' that is mockingly laughing also includes (some)
ungrateful muslims?
Hence my assertion, that here the meaning of 'kufr' is to do with the
sense of non-believers or 'infidels', as KS has used.
With best regards,
Vijay

janaab-i-Vijay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
You have asked a pertinent question. Theoretically speaking, bearing
in mind the verb "kafara", anyone who rejects something or shows
ingratitude for something can be termed "kaafir".
Here is an example of kaafir/rejecter from the Qur'an.
2: 256 There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become
distinct from error, so whosoever rejects false gods and believes in
God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God
is all hearing and all knowing.
Here the word "kaafir" (in the verbal form yakfuru) is used in a
positive way and means a "rejecter" (of false gods). (cf. Faiz's use
of "kufr" in the sense of "rejecting" the way of lying and hypocrisy).
Another one, once again from the Qur'an, where "kaafir" implies an
"ingrate". When a (Muslim) person has the God-given means to perform
pilgrimage to Mecca but fails in his duty to do so, he is showing
ingratitude to God.
3: 96-97 The first House [of worship] to be established for mankind
was the one at Mecca. It is a blessed place; a source of guidance for
all people; there are clear signs in it; it is the place where Abraham
stood; whosoever enters it is safe. Pilgrimage to the House is a duty
owed to God by people who are able to undertake it. Those who reject
this [should know that] God has no need of anyone.
Although, this translator has used the word "reject" {kafara}, Jamal
Badawi, an Islamic scholar based in Canada describes this rejection
"kufr" as "ingratitude" and states that a Muslim can be a "kaafir/
ingrate" but this does not remove him from the fold of Islam. This is
because he believes in the one God and his message.
It is fair to say that when Iqbal is talking about Muslims, he is not
stating that they are "angels" or perfect Muslims. He is using a
generalisation where, in his view, the majority are decent God-fearing
folk. In the "javaab", God of course enumerates all their faults and
deficiencies. By the same token from amongst those who are in the
realm of "kufr", there will no doubt be people who are innately good
human beings. But once again, Iqbal is using a term "kufr" which
correlates to the broad spectrum of people displaying ingratitude and
disbelief.
In conclusion, "kufr" in the said couplet, once again in my humble
view and understanding does not point only to those peoples who deny
God and his message but also who are ungrateful for his bounty.
For the sake of consistency, I have used the same Qur'an translation
as in my previous post.
I hope, I have been able to add a little to the detailed reply given
by Afzal SaaHib.
Naseer

With due respect to all participants, I feel we are getting
completely distracted here.

Does anyone really believe that Iqbal had the Quraanic
pronoucements/definitions of "kufr" and "kaafir" in mind
when he wrote the two poems ? I think what he had in mind was
much more mundane and down to earth. He was thinking of these
terms in the same sense as the common man did at that time, and
even in modern times. In other words, he is merely thinking of
two large disparate groups of people --- (a) Muslims, as an ethnic
community and (b) All Others (that include Christians, Hindus etc.
In the first poem, the first Group (Muslims) has put forward its
complaints, and it also deplores the divine bounties that have
accrued to the Other Group (b). In the second poem, God explains
to the complaining Group of Muslims as to how they have strayed
from the path of True Righteousness and this alone is responsible
for their present-day plight. Once they mend their ways, they
will again become God's favourites. It is as simple as that.

And now we come to the second point at issue in this discussion.
And that is Khushwant Singh's interpretation of the pertinent
stanzas. Khushwant Singh talks of the Two Nation Theory, as if
it was what Iqbal might have been thinking about. And nothing
can be further from the truth. As I have already pointed out
earlier, this idea had not occurred to anybody at the time the
two poems were written. Scholars believe that 'Allama Iqbal's
presidential address at the Muslim League Conference on Dec. 29,
1930, was the first exposition of the Two-Nation Theory.

One of the most important points to be borne in mind is that the
Two-Nation Theory pertains to the Indian Sub-Continent ALONE,
whereas Iqbal's entire Philosophy is built around the theme of
Pan-Islamism, i.e. Muslims of the entire world constituting a
single religious entity or Umma. This latter is a philosophical
dogma, whereas the Two-Nation Theory was a political plank. It
should, therefore, be clear that the two poems are not concerned
with the Two-Nation Theory at all. So Khushwant Singh is clearly
in error when he assigns an indefensible interpretation of the
relevant stanzas. And we can reach this conclusion without a
reference to the Quraanic pronouncements or definitions.

When Iqbal says : "KHaNda~zan kufr hai....", he is not thinking
of any specific group of "infidels" or "kaafirs" (in the Sub -
Continental context), indulging in mocking laughter and sneering
behaviour. Instead, he is thinking of an amorphous body of Evil
that has seemingly triumphed over all that is Good and Noble.

In his poetry, Iqbal often talks of the continuous, on-going
struggle between "Haq" and "Baatil", or the forces of Good and
Evil. Two examples are given below :

Baatil doee~pasaNd hai, haq laa-shareek hai
Shirkat mayaana-e-haq-o-baatil na kar qubool

Ho halqa-e-yaaraaN to baresham ki tarah narm
Razm-e-haq-o-baatil ho to faulaad hai momin

It would be wrong to translate "Baatil" in the sense of a large
group of Hindus or some other religious denomination. "Baatil"
here is simply a personification of "Untruth".

In Surah "Al A'araaf" 7:173, the Holy Book mentions (and I am
giving only the English translation here) :

".....the deeds of men who practised Al-Baatil (i.e.
polytheism and committing crimes and sins, invoking and
worshipping others besides Allah)?"
The explanation in parenthesis is as per Tafseer-e-Tabari.

Again, in Surah Al-Isra 17:81 :

".....and Baatil (falsehood, i.e. Satan or polytheism) has
vanished. Surely Baatil is ever bound to vanish."




Afzal

[Naseer]

janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.

It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.

You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.

The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."

For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.

Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.

"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."

My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.

Naseer

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.
You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.
The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.
Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.
"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."
My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.
Naseer

Naseer Saheb,

Quite obviously, these back and forth exchanges are not serving
any useful purpose at all, since the two of us are not talking
about identical or even similar issues. While my comments and
observations have been exclusively in the context of Khushwant
Singh's translation of the two poems (and the inherent errors
of interpretation etc. contained therein), your posts have been
dealing with the issue of "kufr" etc. in the Quraanic context.

And I have no hesitation in stating here that in these posts of
yours, your detailed exposition of the above issues is absolutely
on the dot.

So we can exit this thread now.


Afzal

[Muhammad Fiaz Nabi]

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.
You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.
The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.
Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.
"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."
My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.
Naseer

Naseer Saheb,
Quite obviously, these back and forth exchanges are not serving
any useful purpose at all, since the two of us are not talking
about identical or even similar issues. While my comments and
observations have been exclusively in the context of Khushwant
Singh's translation of the two poems (and the inherent errors
of interpretation etc. contained therein), your posts have been
dealing with the issue of "kufr" etc. in the Quraanic context.
And I have no hesitation in stating here that in these posts of
yours, your detailed exposition of the above issues is absolutely
on the dot.
So we can exit this thread now.
Afzal

Hi, AOA, Respected schloars please any one of you can share me Khuswant singh translation of shikawa --jawabe shikwa and translation of urdu ghazals please I need urgently for teaching materail please ?: ***@gmail.com 03087236500 whatsapp

[Muhammad Fiaz Nabi]

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.
You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.
The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.
Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.
"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."
My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.
Naseer

Naseer Saheb,
Quite obviously, these back and forth exchanges are not serving
any useful purpose at all, since the two of us are not talking
about identical or even similar issues. While my comments and
observations have been exclusively in the context of Khushwant
Singh's translation of the two poems (and the inherent errors
of interpretation etc. contained therein), your posts have been
dealing with the issue of "kufr" etc. in the Quraanic context.
And I have no hesitation in stating here that in these posts of
yours, your detailed exposition of the above issues is absolutely
on the dot.
So we can exit this thread now.
Afzal

Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to
Hi, AOA, Respected schloars please any one of you can share me Khuswant singh translation of shikawa --jawabe shikwa and translation of urdu ghazals please I need urgently for teaching materail please ?: ***@gmail.com 03087236500 whatsapp

[Muhammad Fiaz Nabi]

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.
You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.
The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.
Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.
"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."
My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.
Naseer

Naseer Saheb,
Quite obviously, these back and forth exchanges are not serving
any useful purpose at all, since the two of us are not talking
about identical or even similar issues. While my comments and
observations have been exclusively in the context of Khushwant
Singh's translation of the two poems (and the inherent errors
of interpretation etc. contained therein), your posts have been
dealing with the issue of "kufr" etc. in the Quraanic context.
And I have no hesitation in stating here that in these posts of
yours, your detailed exposition of the above issues is absolutely
on the dot.
So we can exit this thread now.
Afzal

Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to
Hi, AOA, Respected schloars please any one of you can share me Khuswant singh translation of shikawa --jawabe shikwa and translation of urdu ghazals please I need urgently for teaching materail please ?: ***@gmail.com 03087236500 whatsapp

[Muhammad Fiaz Nabi]

Post by Muhammad Fiaz Nabi

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.
You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.
The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.
Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.
"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."
My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.
Naseer

Naseer Saheb,
Quite obviously, these back and forth exchanges are not serving
any useful purpose at all, since the two of us are not talking
about identical or even similar issues. While my comments and
observations have been exclusively in the context of Khushwant
Singh's translation of the two poems (and the inherent errors
of interpretation etc. contained therein), your posts have been
dealing with the issue of "kufr" etc. in the Quraanic context.
And I have no hesitation in stating here that in these posts of
yours, your detailed exposition of the above issues is absolutely
on the dot.
So we can exit this thread now.
Afzal

Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to

03087236500 whatsapp




Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to
Hi, AOA, Respected schloars please any one of you can share me Khuswant singh translation of shikawa --jawabe shikwa and translation of urdu ghazals please I need urgently for teaching materail please ?: ***@gmail.com 03087236500 whatsapp

[Naseer]

Post by Muhammad Fiaz Nabi

Post by Muhammad Fiaz Nabi

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
It is no doubt true that there is no need to perform micro-surgery on
words like "kufr", "kaafir" using Qur'an as the source of the
instruments for this delicate operation. But leaving aside Khushwant
Singh's allegation that these poems by Iqbal planted the seeds for the
"The Two Nation Theory" and your clear refutation of the same, it is
fair to say that the concept of "kufr" needed to be expounded upon
taking into account the exchanges between Vijay SaaHib and your good
self. There is of course always a danger that these discussions will
go "off topic" but as Vijay SaaHib had asked another relevant
question, it was necessary to make an attempt at answering that
question. I don't personally know much about these matters but with a
little "taHqiiq" on my part and "taufiiq" from the Almighty and your
extremely knowledgeable inputs, I hope we have moved some way forward
towards an understanding. One thing that I did forget to add in my
last post was that even though the concept of "kufr" ranges from
"ingratitude" to "denial", in time the meaning indeed has gravitated
to the commonly accepted meaning of rejection of God and his message
or "disbelief". I would also like to add that I completely agree with
your analysis (in your posts 22 and 51 date wise) that ultimately,
Iqbal had the concept of Haq and baatil in his mind without assigning
labels to communities. The 2:256 translation by Professor M.A.S. Abdel
Haleem has "taaGhuut" as "false gods" but Muhhammad Asad in his "The
Message of the Qur'an" gives this word the meaning "the powers of
evil". This, in a way, is what you have been saying.
You mentioned in post 22, the following, "When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices. He is
talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of the term".
This is the concept of Islam in the Qur'an and based on this concept,
all the prophets of God were adhering to Islam, the complete
submission to their creator and nourisher. This is the core meaning of
the word. The customs, rites and practices developed with time.
The word "masjid" mentioned in the first verse of Surah Al-Isra (17:1)
is normally translated as "mosque". We all know that this conjures up
the image of a building with domes and minarets. Let me quote Yusuf
Ali, a respected translator of the Qur'an.
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take his Servant for a journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless,
in order that We might show him some of our signs: for He is the One
Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
For the benefit of those people who may not know the significance of
this verse, I would just like to add a few words. It is a well known
belief amongst Muslims that the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
was taken by God from Mecca's noble sanctuary (the Ka'bah) to
Jerusalem from where he was ultimately taken to the highest heavens to
communicate with God Almighty. Some scholars are of the view that this
was a spiritual experience whilst others are of the view that this was
a physical experience.
Going back to the verse, one might ask, "Was there a mosque in
Jerusalem at that time"? Well, the answer is no, if we have in mind a
building with minarets and domes. But we do know that the prophet
Solomon (Peace be upon him) built a temple there to worship the one
God and with other intervening events in history, it was finally
destroyed by the Romans 74 AD. So, translating the word as "mosque" is
not helpful. A "masjid" is a noun of place, based on the pattern
"maf3il" where the act of prostration "sajdah" takes place (sajada =
to prostrate). Therefore, when one reads Haleem's translation, taking
the base/original meaning of the word makes complete sense.
"Glory to Him who made His servant travel by night from the sacred
place of worship to the furthest place of worship, whose surroundings
we have blessed, to show him some of Our signs: He alone is the All
Hearing, the All Seeing."
My purpose in bringing in words "Islam" and "masjid" was to illustrate
that one needs to bear in mind the original meaning of the words for
their correct understanding.
Naseer

Naseer Saheb,
Quite obviously, these back and forth exchanges are not serving
any useful purpose at all, since the two of us are not talking
about identical or even similar issues. While my comments and
observations have been exclusively in the context of Khushwant
Singh's translation of the two poems (and the inherent errors
of interpretation etc. contained therein), your posts have been
dealing with the issue of "kufr" etc. in the Quraanic context.
And I have no hesitation in stating here that in these posts of
yours, your detailed exposition of the above issues is absolutely
on the dot.
So we can exit this thread now.
Afzal

Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to

03087236500 whatsapp
Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to

Assalamu Alaikum Fiaz Nabi SaaHib.

None of us who took part in this thread are scholars, as far as I know but thank you for participating in ALUP. Please continue to do so, if you are able.

Here is a link to Khushwant Singh's translation of Shikwah-Javaab-i-Shikwah.

https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/shikwa-wa-jawab-e-shikwa-allama-iqbal-ebooks

What "translation of Urdu Ghazals" are you after?

Naseer

[Vijay Kumar]

Post by Naseer

Post by Vijay

Post by Naseer
For such a body of people consisting of non-believers and believers,
in my humble opinion the third meaning of "kufr" can not be applied
because they are all not those who deny the existence of the Supreme
Being. So, when Iqbal says..
xandah-zan kufr hai iHsaas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
apnii tauHiid kaa kuchh paas tujhe hai kih nahiiN
..the "kufr" that he has in mind is not just the disbelief, denial or
rejection of God but also the ingratitude of some people for His
bounties. In addition there are people who are associating other gods
with Him. And it is all these groups who are getting the "Houris" and
palaces. Iqbal would not have put the Jews and the Christians in the
fold of "disbelief" and "rejection".
qahr to yih hai ki kaafir ko mileN Huur-o-qusuur
aur be-chaare musalmaaN ko faqat va3dah-i-Huur

go maiN raha rahiin-e-sitam haa-e rozgaar
lekin tere Khayaal se Gafil nahiiN raha!
I have been away from base, hence the delay; but am back now to raise
a couple of points. I have taken your advice to raise these here on
ALUP rather than through PM, as others may also want to respond. I am,
however, mostly interested in your take on the matter. I will try to
be brief.
I have in fact resolved some of the points already by re-reading your
post a few times. One question that remains unresolved, or that needs
confirmation, is to do with the second meaning of 'kufr', i.e. lack of
gratitude towards Almighty. Where KS has translated 'kufr' as
'infidels', it seems that, at least what I gather from your post,
'ingrates' will be closer to what Iqbal had in mind.
I feel that this sense of the word 'kufr', given how fallible we
humans are, could conceivably apply to people of all religions. So, in
theory at least, there could be muslims who fail to show their
gratitude to God's bounties. This then leads us to the somewhat
paradoxical paradigm of muslims who are kaafirs, at least in this
sense of the word. In Shikwa, Iqbal is making a complaint to God on
behalf of the whole community of muslims, whom he characterises as
'faithful', 'grateful' and 'showing total submission'. I don't think
he has indicated anywhere in 'Shikwa' that this community also
includes some who are ingrates. If I am right up to this point, and if
you have followed my logic so far, then the 'kufr' in 'KhaNda~zan kufr
hai' could not apply in this sense because then Iqbal would be
implying that 'kufr' that is mockingly laughing also includes (some)
ungrateful muslims?
Hence my assertion, that here the meaning of 'kufr' is to do with the
sense of non-believers or 'infidels', as KS has used.
With best regards,
Vijay

janaab-i-Vijay SaaHib, aadaab 3arz hai.
You have asked a pertinent question. Theoretically speaking, bearing
in mind the verb "kafara", anyone who rejects something or shows
ingratitude for something can be termed "kaafir".
Here is an example of kaafir/rejecter from the Qur'an.
 2: 256 There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become
distinct from error, so whosoever rejects false gods and believes in
God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God
is all hearing and all knowing.
Here the word "kaafir" (in the verbal form yakfuru) is used in a
positive way and means a "rejecter" (of false gods). (cf. Faiz's use
of "kufr" in the sense of "rejecting" the way of lying and hypocrisy).
Another one, once again from the Qur'an, where "kaafir" implies an
"ingrate". When a (Muslim) person has the God-given means to perform
pilgrimage to Mecca but fails in his duty to do so, he is showing
ingratitude to God.
3: 96-97 The first House [of worship] to be established for mankind
was the one at Mecca. It is a blessed place; a source of guidance for
all people; there are clear signs in it; it is the place where Abraham
stood; whosoever enters it is safe. Pilgrimage to the House is a duty
owed to God by people who are able to undertake it. Those who reject
this [should know that] God has no need of anyone.
Although, this translator has used the word "reject" {kafara}, Jamal
Badawi, an Islamic scholar based in Canada describes this rejection
"kufr" as "ingratitude" and states that a Muslim can be a "kaafir/
ingrate" but this does not remove him from the fold of Islam. This is
because he believes in the one God and his message.
It is fair to say that when Iqbal is talking about Muslims, he is not
stating that they are "angels" or perfect Muslims. He is using a
generalisation where, in his view, the majority are decent God-fearing
folk. In the "javaab", God of course enumerates all their faults and
deficiencies. By the same token from amongst those who are in the
realm of "kufr", there will no doubt be people who are innately good
human beings. But once again, Iqbal is using a term "kufr" which
correlates to the broad spectrum of people displaying ingratitude and
disbelief.
In conclusion, "kufr" in the said couplet, once again in my humble
view and understanding does not point only to those peoples who deny
God and his message but also who are ungrateful for his bounty.
For the sake of consistency, I have used the same Qur'an translation
as in my previous post.
I hope, I have been able to add a little to the detailed reply given
by Afzal SaaHib.
Naseer- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Thanks so much Naseer sahib for your very eloquent and well thought
out response. I am truly grateful. I also appreciate the courteous and
gracious manner with which you have answered my very specific
question. You have even anticipated a supplementary and provided an
answer for that!

You will be glad to know that 'I have no more questions' on this
matter:-)

Best regards,

Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I am afraid, I cannot understand this logic. Is it proper or
even possible for us to determine what verbs (signifying some
activities) that an abstract subject (in the grammatical sense)
like "kufr" can and cannot do ? Like it can drag a poet in
whatever direction it wants but cannot mock or sneer at the com-
parative struggle or lack of success on the part of Righteousness?
And what can be said about your placing KS ahead of Iqbal 'in
getting it right' ----, except that "yeh aap hi ka hissa hai" !
I suppose KS might translate this last part as : "this is your
share only".

Let me first raise my hands and say that I got it wrong when I implied
that KS may have gotten it ‘more right’. What I should have said is
that in my opinion, the verb ‘KhaNda-zan hona’ goes better when the
subject is a person or persons rather than when the subject is an
abstract (or even literal) ‘concept’. Simple as that!

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Maybe, the word "kufr" is not being interpreted in the sense meant
by Iqbal --- or even by other practitioners of the Urdu language.
It is not merely an abstact noun (again in the grammatical sense).
It is a personification of all that is Evil, Base and Perverse
in the scheme of things. Thievery, murder and rapine, for exam-
ple, are not religion-specific. They constitute Evil and, there-
fore, are included as part of "kufr". When Iqbal talks of Islam,
he is not speaking about a set of customs, rites or practices.
He is talking of Righteousness in the broad cumulative sense of
Tera dil to hai sanam~aashna, tujhe kya milega namaaz men
He is decrying the blind observance of a ritual, that may be
devoid of true adherence to the principles of Righteousness.
Also, the word "sanam" here is not to be equated with just an
'idol'.
The battle between Good (Haq) and Evil/Untruth (Baatil) is a
continuous process. And it is one of the favourite themes in
Sateeza~kaar raha hai azal se taa im-roz
CharaaGH-e-Mustafavi se sharaar-e-Boo'Lahabi
Baatil doee~pasaNd hai, haq laa-shareek hai
Shirkat mayaana-e-haq-o-baatil na kar qubool
In other words, there cannot be a compromise between Truth /
Righteousness and Baatil (Untruth or Evil).
In conclusion, let me reiterate that Iqbal (in the Shikwa) is
talking of "kufr" in the larger sense of Evil or 'Untruth' and
not about "kaafirs" i.e. individuals who happen to be non-
believers.

I think here you have gone on a tangent. Our discussion will be
better served if we didn't obfuscate and stuck to 'Shikwa'. I have a
fondness for Occam’s razor as I practice my craft and to a very large
degree am guided in my day to day life by it. At the risk of repeating
my self on ALUP, it goes (in one of its forms) ‘Pluralitas non est
ponenda sine necessitate’, i.e. multiple or complex explanations are
not necessary when a simple one is staring you in the face. Now, in my
opinion, this following is the ‘simple’ explanation behind Shikwa. Its
theme is the poet’s complaint against Allah for having been unfair to
Muslim community. The poem traces the history of glory of Islam and
how muslims carried the sword of Islam across continents unselfishly
and only to glorify and spread Allah’s name and word. In spite of this
their plight remains miserable. And there are a few passages where
Iqbal has contrasted the plight of muslims with the ‘others’, i.e. non-
rehmateN haiN terii aGyaar ke kaashaanoN par
barq girtii hai to bechaare musalmaanoN par
And
And
Ye shikaayat nahiiN, haiN un ke Khazaane ma’amuur
nahiiN mehfil meN jinheN baat bhii karne ka sh’auur
qahr to yeh hai ki kaafir ko mileN huur-o-qasoor
aur bechaare musalmaaN ko faqt vaadaa-e-huur
It is quite clear to me that Iqbal when he talks about ‘kufr’, is
referring to those whose creed is different from muslims. You may call
this group as ‘pagans’ ‘kaafirs’, ‘others’. To me ‘infidels’ seems as
good as any other such word. KS could have used ‘others’ and it would
imply the same things. My point is that Iqbal is talking about
‘others’ literally and not in the abstract sense you imply, i.e.
‘evil’, ‘base’ ‘perverse’ etc. (although he may ALSO be implying that,
I don't know).

Post by Afzal A. Khan
When the two poems were composed and published, nobody but
nobody had imagined that the country might get partitioned in
subsequent years. KS is basing his opinions or conclusions on
false premises.

Now this has confused me. Is the implication that KS is somehow
deliberately distorting the translation as his way of expressing his
feelings about 'partition'? You may have some evidence to back this up
but if not then I think you are playing the man rather than the ball.
KS himself states his motivation to do the translation as "..that I
should have in some small measure been instrumental in re-kindling the
Allamic flame which had been almost snuffed out in India gives me
enormous satisfaction".
Finally, I don't feel I have anything more or new to say on the matter
of KS translation. You may or may not want the last word.

You bet I do. Though it may not be the last word. As it is,
our worthy friend Naseer Saheb is "threatening" to jump into
the fray and dilate on the theme of "kufr" etc.

This thread began when Janaab Farooqi's review of the KS book
was quoted in a respected journal. He has panned the book in
no uncertain terms. He has given umpteen examples where KS
has gone wrong in understanding the Urdu words and the histo-
rical allusions in the two poems. He has also quoted (very
profusely, I may add) examples of the bad English employed by
KS.

But I do not wish to belabour these points. I do take excep-
tion, however, to KS's claim that he wanted to "rekindle the
Allamic flame which had almost been snuffed out in India".
In other words, he wants to sort of introduce these poems and
make known their contents to the millions in India who belong
to the newer generation/s and/or who have little knowledge of
Urdu.

When somebody makes an attempt like this, honesty and integrity
demand that he should follow the dictates of exactitude. And,
as SRF has ably demonstrated, KS has signally failed to do so.

Even a novice can see that the target audience for Iqbal's
lament was the Urdu-knowing (Muslim) community in India. Quite
obviously, other communities in India (be they Hindus or
Christians) were not expected to grieve over-much over the
plight of the Indian Muslims, as Iqbal saw it.

The two poems were written in the early part of the twentieth
century. At the time, the Quaid-e-Azam was a staunch "nation-
alist" and people had not really thought about claiming a
separate homeland for the Indian Muslims. The campaign in
this behalf really began towards the late thirties. These are
incontrovertible historical facts. Even then, KS has declared,
as per SRF, that "the Shikwa reveals a not-too-veiled contempt
for non-Muslims, particularly Hindus and it may be regarded as
the first manifesto of the Two Nation Theory". What does this
assertion indicate if not a wholly dishonest mindset ? Is he
not doing a singular disservice to Iqbal by telling the non-
Urdu Indian masses that Iqbal was advocating a Partition of the
country around 1910, (when the poem was composed) ? And this
too as recently as 1975 ?

KS has translated Iqbal's line "Hind ke dair~nasheenoN ko
MusalmaaN kar de" as "Convert to Islam, India's millions who
still in temples dwell". Doesn't he realize that this is a
sentiment or prayer absolutely unrelated to what Iqbal has
been saying in the poem ?

As everybody knows, there are any number of explanatory
texts (on Iqbal's poetry) available in the market and even
online. As a man of letters, KS must surely be aware of this.
Also, he can have very easy access to them. Further, he can
consult other eminent thinkers on any related issue which is
not clear to him. What is the point in "shooting from the
hip" ?

Anybody who reads Iqbal's "Bang-e-Dara", cannot fail to notice
the very large number of poems which reflect the "Ganga-Jam'ni"
tehzeeb of the sub-continent.

I am sure, you know and remember the Gayatri Mantar. You may
even be reciting it every day. IIRC, it is very brief, maybe
about four lines. And yet Iqbal has written a masterpiece on
this Vedic piece, which is much longer than the original. It
is an invocation to the Sun (as something like a Deity). And
Iqbal has specifically clarified in the title itself that it
purports to be a translation of the Gayatri Mantar. If you
contrast its contents with the general themes of Iqbal's
poetry, it may even appear to be blasphemous. And yes, this is
a poem that deserves to be called a "stand-alone" piece of
poetry. When you read it, your mind doesn't quite think of it
as a translation.

Enough said.



Afzal

[Vijay]

          I am sure, you know and remember the Gayatri Mantar.  You may
          even be reciting it every day.

Ha! If you only knew!

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I am sure, you know and remember the Gayatri Mantar. You may
even be reciting it every day.

Ha! If you only knew!

So tell me.


Maybe you are trying to say that you are perhaps an agnostic
or atheist. It doesn't matter....

BTW, a point just occurred to me : Over the last 15 years or so,
I have posted quite a few translations in these two groups, viz.
RMIM and ALUP. It may even be a sort of "claim to fame". Who
else (amongst our members) has posted such translations, and how
many ? I am, of course, grateful to all our friends for their
encouragement and support. Interestingly, I do not recall any -
body blaming me for changing or twisting the sense of the origi-
nal text. So you can imagine why I expect the same from people
like Khushwant Singh.


Afzal

[Vijay]

Post by Vijay

           I am sure, you know and remember the Gayatri Mantar.  You may
           even be reciting it every day.

Ha! If you only knew!

        So tell me.
        Maybe you are trying to say that you are perhaps an agnostic
        or atheist.

No. I belong to the church of latter day saints:-)

It doesn't matter....

Darn right it doesn't! It has no place, IMO, in a newsgroup that
celebrates the language and poetry of Urdu.

        BTW, a point just occurred to me : Over the last 15 years or so,
        I have posted quite a few translations in these two groups, viz.
        RMIM and ALUP.  It may even be a sort of "claim to fame".
Who else (amongst our members) has posted such translations, and how
many ?  I am, of course, grateful to all our friends for their
encouragement and support.  Interestingly, I do not recall anybody
blaming me for changing or twisting the sense of the original text.
So you can imagine why I expect the same from people
        like Khushwant Singh.

Narcissus wept!


Vijay

[Anil Kala]

A few observations of my own to stir up hornet's nest.

1. An emotional response lacks objectivity. It becomes difficult to relate to arguments properly.
2. Getting idioms of a language wrong is bad translation
3. Interpreting a poem in a manner not to the liking of a critic is not bad translation.

The translating 'Khanda zan kufr hai ..... ' the case is clearly of interpreting a poem in a certain way therefore nothing wrong in it.

[shagird]

Post by Anil Kala
A few observations of my own to stir up hornet's nest.
1. An emotional response lacks objectivity. It becomes difficult to relate to arguments properly.
2. Getting idioms of a language wrong is bad translation
3. Interpreting a poem in a manner not to the liking of a critic is not bad translation.
The translating 'Khanda zan kufr hai ..... ' the case is clearly of interpreting a poem in a certain way therefore nothing wrong in it.

phaR nuqta(h) choR hisaaban nooN
kar door kufr dayaaN baabaan nooN
lah dozakh goar 'azabaan nooN
kar saaf dilaaN dayyaN khaabaaN nooN

gul aisay ghar which Dhookdee ai
ik nuqtay which gul mukdee ai

eenway muthaa zameen ghissaaee daa
lamaN pa mehraab dikaaee daa
paRh kalma loag sohaaee daa
dil andar sumajh na layyaaee daa

...

ka'ee haajee ban ban aa'ay ji
kul neelay jaamay paa'ay ji
haj waich takay lay khaa'ay ji
bhalaa aih gul kinhoon bhaa'ay ji

...

Iqbal's poetry is not an island. In part it is an expansion and
continuation of ideas that have come before. Without that context
supposed literal translations can lead to a totally unintended
contextualization.

[shagird]

Post by shagird

Post by Anil Kala
A few observations of my own to stir up hornet's nest.
1. An emotional response lacks objectivity. It becomes difficult to relate to arguments properly.
2. Getting idioms of a language wrong is bad translation
3. Interpreting a poem in a manner not to the liking of a critic is not bad translation.
The translating 'Khanda zan kufr hai ..... ' the case is clearly of interpreting a poem in a certain way therefore nothing wrong in it.

phaR nuqta(h) choR hisaaban nooN
kar door kufr dayaaN baabaan nooN
lah dozakh goar 'azabaan nooN
kar saaf dilaaN dayyaN khaabaaN nooN
gul aisay ghar which Dhookdee ai
ik nuqtay which gul mukdee ai
eenway muthaa zameen ghissaaee daa
lamaN pa mehraab dikaaee daa
paRh kalma loag sohaaee daa
dil andar sumajh na layyaaee daa
...
ka'ee haajee ban ban aa'ay ji
kul neelay jaamay paa'ay ji
haj waich takay lay khaa'ay ji
bhalaa aih gul kinhoon bhaa'ay ji
...
Iqbal's poetry is not an island. In part it is an expansion and
continuation of ideas that have come before. Without that context
supposed literal translations can lead to a totally unintended
contextualization.

The persian and punjabi sufi poets (to whom Iqbal must have been
thoroughly versed) use the concept of dunyavi ishq as a simile to give
people an emotional feel for being one with nature/god. They use the
language of one love to describe another. In that they developed a
very a "language" where words which will usually have one connotation
will have another one in poetry (just as in urdu poetry shama' etc.
can have very different meanings or atleast extensions of meaning from
their regular ones). Iqbal's audience knew these poets as well. He
uses the language of now what is familiar to people as "godly" love
and extends and turns it upside down a bit. He asks them to bring that
passion to the affairs of the world or whatever they set their passion
to be ("tu agar maira nahin banta na ban, apna to ban").

Nigah-e-faqr main shaan-e-sikandari kya hai?

Khiraaj ki jo gada ho, wo qaiseri kya hai?

Falaq nay ki hai ata un ko khaajgi kay jinhain

Khabar nahin rawish-e-banda parwari kya hai?

Kissey nahin hai tamanna-e-sarwari lekin

Khudi ki mout ho jis main, wo sarwari kya hai?

Buton say tujh ko umeedain, Khuda say no meedi

Mujhey bata tou sahi aur kaafri kya hai?

...
paani paani kar gai mujhay qalandar ki ye baat
Tu jhuka jab ghair key aagey, na tann tera na mann

Apney mann main dub kay pa ja suragh-e-zindagi

Tu agar mera nahi banta, na ban, apna tou bann

[shagird]

Post by shagird

Post by shagird

Post by Anil Kala
A few observations of my own to stir up hornet's nest.
1. An emotional response lacks objectivity. It becomes difficult to relate to arguments properly.
2. Getting idioms of a language wrong is bad translation
3. Interpreting a poem in a manner not to the liking of a critic is not bad translation.
The translating 'Khanda zan kufr hai ..... ' the case is clearly of interpreting a poem in a certain way therefore nothing wrong in it.

phaR nuqta(h) choR hisaaban nooN
kar door kufr dayaaN baabaan nooN
lah dozakh goar 'azabaan nooN
kar saaf dilaaN dayyaN khaabaaN nooN
gul aisay ghar which Dhookdee ai
ik nuqtay which gul mukdee ai
eenway muthaa zameen ghissaaee daa
lamaN pa mehraab dikaaee daa
paRh kalma loag sohaaee daa
dil andar sumajh na layyaaee daa

Yeh Hikmat E Malkooti Yeh Ilm E Laa-Hoti
Haram Ke Dard Ka Darmaan Nahi To Kuch Bhi Nahi
Yeh Zikr E Neem Shabi Yeh Buraak Beyasu
Teri Khudhi Ke Nigehbaan Nahi To Kuch Bhi Nahi



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Complete_lyrics_of_dayar-e-ishq_by_allama_iqbal#ixzz277ZbDFmQ

Post by shagird

Post by shagird
...
ka'ee haajee ban ban aa'ay ji
kul neelay jaamay paa'ay ji
haj waich takay lay khaa'ay ji
bhalaa aih gul kinhoon bhaa'ay ji
...
Iqbal's poetry is not an island. In part it is an expansion and
continuation of ideas that have come before. Without that context
supposed literal translations can lead to a totally unintended
contextualization.

The persian and punjabi sufi poets (to whom Iqbal must have been
thoroughly versed) use the concept of dunyavi ishq as a simile to give
people an emotional feel for being one with nature/god. They use the
language of one love to describe another. In that they developed a
very a "language" where words which will usually have one connotation
will have another one in poetry (just as in urdu poetry shama' etc.
can have very different meanings or atleast extensions of meaning from
their regular ones). Iqbal's audience knew these poets as well. He
uses the language of now what is familiar to people as "godly" love
and extends and turns it upside down a bit. He asks them to bring that
passion to the affairs of the world or whatever they set their passion
to be ("tu agar maira nahin banta na ban, apna to ban").
      Nigah-e-faqr main shaan-e-sikandari kya hai?
       Khiraaj ki jo gada ho, wo qaiseri kya hai?
       Falaq nay ki hai ata un ko khaajgi kay jinhain
       Khabar nahin rawish-e-banda parwari kya hai?
       Kissey nahin hai tamanna-e-sarwari lekin
       Khudi ki mout ho jis main, wo sarwari kya hai?
       Buton say tujh ko umeedain, Khuda say no meedi
       Mujhey bata tou sahi aur kaafri kya hai?

Now take the above two lines. No one would say that Iqbal is talking
of a literal but. He is talking about what may be considered by some
to be worldly powers that can grant some wish. Yet in case of Khuda
and kaafiri more narrow sense is sometimes applied. Looking at the
rest of the poem it clear he is talking about self reliance. Again but
( and khuda) is a word that in Urdu poetry is used to convey different
meanings depending on the context.

Take Faraz's sh'air:
Yeh aalam shauq ka daikhaa na ja'ay
wo but hai yaa khuda daikha na ja'ay

And let's say I change it to
nazar naakaam hai dil khaam ab bhi
wo but hai yaa khuda daikhaa na ja'ay

The second misra' now represents different meanings in each case.


And consider:

Mun Ki Dunya Mein Na Paya Mein Ne Afrangi Ka Raaj
Mun Ki Dunya Mein Na Dekhe Mein Ne Shaikh O Brahman
Paani Paani Ker Gayi Mujh Ko Qalandar Ki Yeh Baat
Tu Jhuka Jab Ghair Ke Agay Na Mun Tera Na Tan

Now one can take lterally afrangi, shaikh and Brahman or the more
universally a worldly power, and different ritualistic adherences of
and to religions or creeds.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Complete_lyrics_of_dayar-e-ishq_by_allama_iqbal#ixzz277YpAZum

Post by shagird
...
      paani paani kar gai mujhay qalandar ki ye baat
      Tu jhuka jab ghair key aagey, na tann tera na mann
       Apney mann main dub kay pa ja suragh-e-zindagi
       Tu agar mera nahi banta, na ban, apna tou bann- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Naseer]

Post by Vijay

       As far as "kufr" (vis-a-vis "infidels") is concerned, I don't
             Cho kufr az Kaa'ba barKHezad, kuja maanad Musalmaani

I don't know Farsi, I am afraid.

فارسی سے کس قدر رکھتی ہے گہرا رابطہ
تیل کی سیال نعمت اور اس کی سیل بھی
کشورِ ایران اپنا وہ برادر ملک ہے
بولتا ہے فارسی بھی، بیچتا ہے تیل بھی

Farsi se kis qadar rakhtii hai gahraa rabt
tel kii sayyaal ni3mat aur us kii sale bhii
kishvar-i-iiraan apnaa vuh baraadar mulk hai
boltaa hai Farsi bh

[Anil Kala]

Post by Vijay
the question is how can 'kufr', a collective abstract noun, be said
to
be 'Khanda-zan'? To me it is obvious that to laughingly mock, to

Is Kufr a noun at all? I thought Kaafir is the noun and kufr an act of kaafir or characteristic of kafir

[Muhammad Fiaz Nabi]

Post by Naseer

Post by Afzal A. Khan

Post by Naseer
dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.
Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.
More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..
"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.
But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..
"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".
I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

Naseer Saheb,
With due respect, I am not sure this is quite the right approach.
You have quoted the first stanza of "Shikwa". It is probable
that ALUPers would get bogged down in trying to present their own
perception and interpretation of the above verses. And it might
take a long time for us to get down to examine and critique (in
our own way) K.Singh's 'translation'.
What I would suggest instead is that we proceed stanza by stanza,
quoting the original Urdu and ALSO Singh's interpretation or
translation (whatever). That way, we can evaluate whether Singh's
attempt deserves a serious reading.
Additionally, this reminds me of our earlier debates of 3/4 years
back --- when the discussion was centred round whether "Ab
Urdu sites ko hindi men paRHo" was an appropriate thing to do.
I recollect that I had then opined that Piyush Joshi's idea was
better suited for those folks (and those NGs) who did not know
Urdu and were still (genuinely, and this cannot be overemphasised)
desirous of reading some masterpieces of Urdu Literature.
Most Urdu-knowing folks in this Newsgroup (ALUP) can have little
difficulty in following this masterpiece by Iqbal. They will not
need to read Singh's attempt at all. That can be meaningful (pun
unintended) for those people whose knowledge of Urdu does not go
beyond a "nodding acquaintance".
Just my opinion.
Afzal

janaab-i-Afzal SaaHib, aadaab 'arz hai
I replied to your post a couple of days ago but for some reason it has
not shown up.
Thank you for your detailed reply which is very much appreciated. You
make a valid point that I should post a stanza from the poems Shikvah
and Javaab-i-Shikvah at a time followed by Singh's translation. A
discussion can then take place and Faruqi can be introduced whenever
1) This will take for ever and a day and people are likely to loose
interest in the thread and the momentum will be lost.
2) I don't have Khushwant Singh's book handy. I shall have to visit my
local library at the weekend and see if I can get hold of it.
Regarding your point that most people are likely to be well versed
with these poems, I would agree with you to a certain point. For a
connoisseur of Urdu (and Persian) poetry and English literature like
you there is indeed going to be no problem in accurate comprehension
of the poem. However, a "half-baked cookie" like me will always be
enlightened by others' understanding of it. I think ALUPers may come
for a little surprise as to how Singh has understood certain aspects
of the poem and how they are in the Urdu poetic reality.
So please bear with me until I visit my library. In the meantime I
seek ALUPers' indulgence in coming forward and giving their
understanding of the opening band.
Naseer

Muhammad Fiaz Nabi
Jan 1, 2021, 5:30:00 PM (now)
to
Hi, AOA, Respected schloars please any one of you can share me Khuswant singh translation of shikawa --jawabe shikwa and translation of urdu ghazals please I need urgently for teaching materail please ?: ***@gmail.com 03087236500 whatsapp

[n***@yahoo.com]

Greetings!

First, thanks to Afzal Sahib for his many posts on translations, which I have read with care, and derived much profit from. I tried responding with thanks earlier, but for some reason the computer ate my messages. And now it won't let me post at the end of the thread.

Assuming this gets through - it seems to me that translators often have as their main goal the desire to make poetry they enjoy accessible to those who do not understand the language. For the purpose of introducing the poetry to an audience with no knowledge, the criticisms raised may not be very important. Those who understand the poet's language have no need of translations.

From this perspective, translators like KS and Victor Kiernan perform a very valuable service. If it were not for them (and Fitzgerald) I would never have developed an interest in Urdu poetry.

Regards,


Nagesh

Post by Naseer
dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.
Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.
More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..
"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.
But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..
"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".
I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko

[n***@yahoo.com]

I have Kiernan's book on Faiz, but not his book on Iqbal. The latter costs more than $40 on Amazon, so I will wait for a less expensive option. Perhaps Oxford India has a less expensive edition.

Here is the first item in Kiernan's book on Fai. He provides the Urdu original on one page, and on the facing page he provides a Roman transliteration, a literal translation, and a poetic translation.

Last night your lost memory so came into the heart
As spring comes in the wilderness quietly
As the zephyr moves slowly in deserts
As rest comes without cause to a sick man

Last night your faded memory filled my heart
Like spring's calm advent in the wilderness
Like the soft desert footfalls of the breeze
Like peace somehow coming to one in sickness.

The literal translation obviates the need for a dictionary - most of the time my guesses of a word's meaning are correct. The poetic translations sometimes appeal to me, and sometimes they don't.

Kiernan notes that "All translation is a horn-window allowing only a certain quantity of light to pass through it ..."

Faiz himself read the draft of the book and made many suggestions.

I find the book good reading.

Regards,

Nagesh

Post by Naseer
dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 'arz hai.
Most if not all of you will know that in 1981 Khushwant Singh
published (Oxford University Press) his English translation in verse
of Iqbal 's "Shikwa & Jaweab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer: Iqbal's
Dialogue with Allah). I had seen this book in our local library and
although I did look through sections of it, I did not read the whole
book. Perhaps I felt there was no need for me to read a translation of
a work that I could read and pretty well understand in its original.
To me, the translation was pretty good and the author was to be
commended for his labour of love.
More recently I came across a critical article of this translation by
the renowned Urdu critic, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi published in 1982 in
"Annual of Urdu Studies". Faruqi is extremely critical of this
translation and to me this came as quite a surprise. Faruqi begins
thus..
"I am afraid I am going to come quite heavily on this book..The
translator greatly admires Iqbal and the Urdu language, and he is not
happy with the extant (admittedly bad) translations of the two poems
he has chosen to translate. He has brought to bear on his task a
fervour, a vigour and a devotion which are truly commendable. The
translator has taken pains to track down the allusions to Islamic
history and learning with which the poems abound. He has done some
background reading on Iqbal, and has provided some useful factual
information. He has not made a literal translation, in that he has
very often expanded the original lines, endeavouring (but mostly
failing) to make their sense more clear.
But, has Khushwant Singh made a good translation or even a good poem
in English? Is he competent to do a translation from Urdu? The answer
to both of these questions has to be, I am afraid, a firm "No"..."
Faruqi goes on to say..
"Broadly speaking, there are errors of fact, errors of Urdu language
comprehension, errors of Urdu poetry comprehension and errors of
English".
I thought it might be a good idea if I posted a selected number of
ash'aar from these poems and ask you to give your understanding of
them. I shall then provide Singh's translation and Faruqi's criticism
of it. (x = Kh). Let's see how this pans out.
kyuuN ziyaaN-kaar banuuN suud-faraamosh rahuuN
fikr-i-fardaa nah karuuN maHv-i-Gham-i-dosh rahuuN
naale bulbul ke sunuuN aur hamah-tan gosh rahuuN
ham-navaa maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN
jur'at-aamoz mirii taab-i-suxan hai mujh ko
shivah Allah se "xaakam ba-dahan" hai mujh ko