oh سبحان الله I didn’t even realise Mawlana Abu Hasan had already pointed that out in his post — I must’ve skimmed over that part too quickly.
knowing sidi ala hazrat’s mastery in wordplay, it seems the best choice; and considering what is reported in the aḥādīth and the tafāsīr, baʿad fits perfectly, and there is no disrespectful meaning here. but, i love sidi aH's opinion that it is buʿd, with ḍamma on the bā’ in the second line, .
I’ve also heard that بعد here is read as بُعد — distance — meaning his ﷺ honour is entirely distant and removed from zillat, not something that follows it.
i tried to find it in the morning and since i couldn't find it, i wrote one again and hadn't posted. then got busy with some chores and just now got to hit the post button.
deobandis are illiterates. they can neither read urdu, nor arabic - nor speak coherently in english. that is the curse of being unfaithful to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and supporting the blasphemers. and deobandis interpreting poetry is like a congenitally blind man with a blocked nose describing the vivid colours of an exquisite flower garden and the perfume of those flowers sitting far away from the garden next to a cess pool. khayr, let me explain. the salam is a not one or two lines - but 177 lines. anyone with 2 grams of a brain and 2 pennies worth of learning can clearly see that the salam contains not only the praise of mustafa sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, but also praise of sahaba, ayimmah, awlia and prayers of common muslims. the couplet in question appears thus: i have presented a portion of the salam that is contiguous - please note the lines before the couplet in question and those after it. on what basis do you say that the couplet refers to RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam? ----- as you can see - the four couplets below are expression of gratitude - for the great blessing that is RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. while some ulama read it as "bu'ud" and it is possible, even the "ba'ad e zillat" has no problem - except in the diseased mind of devbandis who are desperate to find something to disparage alahazrat. kathrat e ba'ad e qillat pay aksar durud izzat e ba'ad e zillat pay laakhon salaam. numerous blessings on the abundance after scarcity million salutes upon the honour and strength after being weak and oppressed. anyone with basic knowledge of urdu sentence construction will tell you that the salam and durud is on the "kathrat" and the "izzat" when taken literally. however, it is musta'ar - meaning it is a metaphor for the CAUSE of the kathrat and izzat, that is RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. thus on account of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, we got abundance - after scarcity; and we were honoured after having been weak, helpless, terrorised, tyrannised. and even if you take the literal meaning of "disgraced" - even that is fine for us muslims. i will explain all the above, in sha'Allah but we need to clear the context first. what comes IMMEDIATELY after the above couplet? rabb e a'ala ki niymat pay aala durud haq ta'ala ki minnat pay laakhon salam hum gharibon kay aaqa pay bey-had durud hum faqeeron ki sarwat pay laakhon salaam farhat e jaan e mu'min pay bey-had durud ghayz e qalb e zalalat pay laakhon salaam the loftiest blessings upon the blessing of Lord-Most High (rabb e a'ala) a million salutes upon the favour of the Exalted Lord-Almighty (haqq ta'ala) countless blessings upon the master of destitutes like us a million salutes upon the treasure of the paupers like us innumerable blessings upon the the cause of bliss of a believer's soul a million salutes that evokes anger in the wicked heart of deviance. all of the above verses are translations of qur'anic verses - but we will not go into those details right now. my point is - notice the poet is only counting the blessings upon HIMSELF - and sends durud/salam upon the CAUSE of those blessings, that is sayyiduna RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. the context clearly does not mention the state of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - nor does it refer to him in the couplet. if you wish go ahead and read all the four couplets (which are contiguous) and see for yourselves whether they refer to sayyiduna RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. ---- i specifically fished out this quote from a deobandi scholar. hayatu's sahabah of kandhlawi, 5/359 hazrat umar raDi'Allahu anhu told hazrat abu ubaydah:"...we were a disgraced people - and Allah gave us honour by islam" another quote on the next page: 5/360 "o abu ubaydah! you were few, and you were weak (or humiliated) among all nations - but Allah ta'ala gave you honour (or power and glory) by islam..." ==== similar narration in it'haf saadah 10/320 o abu ubaydah! you were the weakest of all nations (or the most disgraced among nations) - and the lowliest of people (aHqar al-naas); then, Allah ta'ala gave you honour and glory (a'azzakum) BY HIS MESSENGER. ---- in fact, the word: "adhillah" is from nass of the qur'an: surah aal imran, 3:123 and Allah ta'ala aided you in badr - whilst you were weak --- explaining this verse, qurtubi says: adhillah means: few. and this sbecause they were only 313 or 314 men facing an enemy that was 900-1000 strong. adhillah is the plural of zaleel (various meanings: weak, humiliated, disgraced, powerless..); and the noun "dhull" is used as a metaphor - because there was none among them (i.e. sahabah), except honourable men. however in relation to their enemies and all the disbelievers, in the entire world, this was said meaning - in spite of your being few, you will prevail. ---- ruh al ma'ani: summarised: he says the phrase: "qillatihim ma'a dhillatihim" means they were few and did not have enough weapons and material to fight a war. not used as "dhull" meaning disgrace, which is the commonly known meaning. in fact, there is no problem in including hte Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in this address (khitaab) if we use the word in the meaning of "few". it is also said that it is not problematic EVEN if it used in its well-known meaning (i.e. disgraced) - and in which case it means: 'you were SEEN as disgraced in the eyes of others even though, in reality you were honourable ones.." i say (aH): the latter part of alusi's tafsir is supported by the verse, surah zukhruf 43:52 where firawn said describing sayyiduna musa alayhi's salam: أَمۡ أَنَا۠ خَیۡرࣱ مِّنۡ هَـٰذَا ٱلَّذِی هُوَ مَهِینࣱ وَلَا یَكَادُ یُبِینُ here he described sayyiduna musa in the word "mahin" / disgraced (al-iyadhu billah) even though in reality he was among the most honourable of men. Allah ta'ala knows best. ---- razi in his tafsir of the same verse: the explanation of this phrase inevitably means that they were few in number and weak in their state at that time - and few weapons and money (to fund a war) and in reality did not have the strength to put up a resistance against a (powerful) enemy. and dhull means weakness and incapability to mount a resistance - the opposite of which is izz - meaning power and ability to overcome. ===== in the commentary of a hadith of nasayi - explaining the wisdom behind raml, suyuti cites izzuddin ibn abd al-salam: v3/p254, under hadith # and the reason we (do raml during tawaf) is to remind ourselves the great blessing that Allah ta'ala has given his Messenger and his companions - by giving them glory after having been weak, and by strength after a period of being powerless - until his army (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) reached 70,000 men. ==== but devbandis will ignore everything and keep harping that alahazrat committed disrespect. on the other hand, even explicit insults of their own elders are presented with far fetched and ridiculous explanations. --- nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
sidi aH refuted this stupid objection in an old thread, but i am unable to find it. somone please link it here.
and, it is only someone with a biased mindset — for example a hard-core deobandi — who could interpret a shayr in such a way, a shayr that is written in praise of RasulAllah ʿalayhi afḍalus–ṣalāti wat–taslīm, his companions, and his ummah, and that clearly carries several possible positive and respectful meaning, while at the same time overlooking the explicit and problematic statements made by his own elders, statements that oppose fundamental tenets of islam and fail to acknowledge the exalted ranks of our beloved prophet ʿalayhi afḍaluṣ–ṣalāti wat–taslīm.
Answer by Taajush Shari'ah Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan "Kasrat-E-Baad-E-Qillat Pe Akthar Durood; Izzat-E-Baad-E-Zillat Pe Laakhon Salam" Badmazhab Alahazrat K Iss Sher Ka Matlab Ye Nikaltay Hain "Uss Nabi Pe Lakhon Salaam Ho Jo Zalil Honey K Baad Izzat Wala Bana Hy" (Ma'azallah) Aur Is Sharah Ko Alahazrat Ki Taraf Mansoob Kartay Hain. Hazrat Se Guzarish Hay K Iss Sher Ki Sahi Sharah Farma Dein. https://www.jamiaturraza.com/session/29May11/2.mp3
کثرت بعد قلت پہ اکثر درود عزت بعد ذلت پہ لاکھوں سلام there is nothing in this couplet that indicates it is referring to our master, RasulAllah ʿalayhi afḍaluṣ–ṣalāti wat–taslīm. so why should it be interpreted in a way that implies disrespect? in any couplet, both lines must be connected so that they form a complete and coherent meaning. the first line clearly refers to the condition of the early muslims – that they were initially very few, then eventually outnumbered the arab mushrikeen. therefore, the second line should also refer to the condition of the muslims, not something entirely different. how can the first line be about the sahabah and early muslims, while the second line is suddenly interpreted about RasulAllah? moreover, once it is established that the first line speaks about the companions, the second line cannot be understood in a disrespectful sense either. here, ‘izzat’ means islam and ‘zillat’ refers to their pre-islamic state of shirk. Allah ta‘ala granted them honor through islam, whereas previously they were in the humiliation of kufr and shirk. before islam, they held no global recognition or influence; the superpowers did not even regard them. after islam, they became leaders of the world, and those who once looked down upon them as insignificant were left behind. if someone insists that the couplet — especially the second line — refers to the prophet ʿalayhi afḍaluṣ–ṣalātu was–salām, and then reads “baʿde zillat” with a disrespectful intention, this is kufr. if someone simply does not know the meaning of the couplet, he is excused and should be corrected. the real point is that a person’s words should be interpreted according to his intended meaning. when the entire salam is written in praise of RasulAllah ʿalayhiṣ–ṣalātu was–salām, only someone with a corrupt heart would take a single line of a single couplet — containing no explicit reference to him ʿalayhi afḍaluṣ–ṣalāti wat–taslīm, and twist it into a disrespectful meaning, especially when every other couplet in the salam clearly conveys pure and unique reverence. there is a saying: إنما ينشأ الظن الخبيث من القلب الخبيث evil suspicion only arises from an evil heart.
In the recent debate with the deobandis, the following couplet was brought up: Kasrat ba'de qillat pe aksar durood Izzat ba'de/bu'de zillat pe lakhon salaam I have come across explanations that say if the word is ba'd, then this refers to the companions and if bu'd, then this refers to the Prophet. If somebody says the word is ba'd and the line is referring to the Prophet, would this be insulting? @abu Hasan @Noori If you could provide an answer please, would be much appreciated.
