Zafar Iqbal Ka Ek Sher
Afzal A. Khan
Very recently, a sher by the above poet was posted in a thread :
YahaaN kisi ko bhi kuchh hasb-e-aarzoo na mila
Kisi ko hum na mile aur hum ko tuu na mila
I was wondering if we can have a brief discussion on the above
sher.
Zafar Iqbal is a Pakistani poet who has arguably charted a new path
in Urdu ghazal, though he may not be known all that well in India.
I seem to have read somewhere that the above sher was probably
one of his earliest compositions, when he was a student in
Government College, Lahore. (BTW, he is nearly 80 now.)
What exactly is the poet trying to say here ? My problem is with
the second misra'.
Is men to koi shak naheeN ke shaa'ir sirf apne mehboob ko chaahta
hai aur sirf usi ki KHwaahish rakhta hai. Yeh aur baat hai ke yeh
aarzuu poori na ho paayee, aur pehle misre' men isi taraf ishaara
kiya gaya hai. Lekin "kisi ko hum na mile" se kya matlab nikaala
jaaye ?
Is the poet implying someone specific by using the word "kisi" ?
In other words, was there in fact someone who loved him with the
same intensity, but was unsuccessful in that quest ? But this
interpretation does not go well with the sentiments expressed in
the first misra', where the word "kisi" seems to have been used
in the sense of "every one". In other words, this word (in the
first misra') is "all-inclusive" in its import.
But if we interpret the second "kisi" {in the second misra'} in
the same sense, the impact seems to be reduced considerably.
"Nobody was able to find or get me" --- this is fine, but can
this be "hasb-e-aarzuu" ? Why should (all) others be so desirous
of the poet and his attentions ?
If the second misra' had been restricted to his own 'mehboob',
in balancing contrast to himself, the sher perhaps would have had
greater impact. This is just my view and is not meant as a
criticism of the poet.
The above sher recalls to mind another sher of a similar nature,
which has become almost proverbial :
Kabhi kisi ko mukammal jahaaN naheeN milta
Kabhi zameeN to kabhi aasmaaN naheeN milta
This also reminds me of a sher used in a ghazal sung wondrously
by Asha Bhosle for a film. {Though, regrettably, the song/ghazal
was not actually used in that film :
Na woh hamaare huwe aur na hum rahe apne
MohabbatoN ka 'ajab kaarobaar hum ne kiya
Is it possible for other ALUPers to offer their comments ?
Afzal
B.G.M.
Interesting point you have raised, Afzal saahab! and indeed
interesting discussion arguments.
Ik Film song ki ye lines yaad aa gayiiN,
kyaa inn se bhi isii taraH kaa matlab nikaltaa (nikaalaa jaa saktaa)
hai?
"tujhe aur ki tamannaa, mujhe terii aarzuu hai
tere dil meN Gham hi Gham hai, mire dil meN tuu hi tuu hai"
let`s see what our Naseer saahab, UVR saahab, jamil saahab aur Zoya ji
aur Zaff saahab kyaa farmaate haiN
(I did not mean to -not mention- other Alupers)
==================================================================================
Afzal A. Khan
B.G. M. Saheb,
Aap ki 'inaayat ka shukriya.
The lines you have quoted are from a song that was used in a
hindi film classic "Devdas", starring Dilip Kumar, Suchitra
Sen and Vyjayanthimala. The poet is Saahir.
YahaaN mu'aamla doosra hai. Here, there is a triangle.
Dilip is in love with Suchitra (Paro) who he cannot forget.
Vyjayanthimala (Chandramukhi) is in love with Dilip Kumar
but knows that he can never be hers.
In Zafar Iqbal's sher, it is difficult to imagine that, in the
second misra', "kisi" refers to the poet's mehboob, because
he clearly talks about a specific beloved "tuu" in the same
misra'.
Afzal
UVR
Afzal saahib,
Thanks for starting this discussion. I too was taken a bit by this
sh'er and it's nice to be able to talk about it.
I came up with the same two alternate interpretations as you of 'kisi'
in the second misr'a:
yahaaN kisi ko bhi kuchh hasb-e-aarzuu na milaa
kisi ko ham na mile aur ham ko tuu na milaa
viz., "someone didn't find me, and I didn't find you" and "nobody
found me, and I didn't find you".
However, I take the opposite view from yours as to which
interpretation is plausible and more interesting. To me, the (first)
interpretation where the two 'kisi'-s in the sh'er are used to refer
to different 'people' is the more interesting one. Whilst the first
misr'a talks about an all-inclusive 'kisi' (nobody really gets
anything they want in this world), the second one refers to a specific
(unknown?) individual; a classic love "chain", if you will.
I also think that "na milaa" in the first line is to be interpreted in
the sense of "naheeN miltaa hai" -- i.e., as if it were a
pronouncement of an Unassailable Fact -- "nobody gets anything they
want, here."
zaahir hai, hamaari (ya'ani shaa'ir ki) apne mahboob tak rasaa'i
naheeN ho saki hai -- aur yaqeenan is ki wajh yehi ho sakti hai k
hamaaraa ma'ashooq hameN naheeN chaahtaa -- kam az kam us shiddat se
to naheeN chaahta -- goya hamaari muhabbat ik-tarfa hai. to is ka
matlab yeh hua k ma'ashooq kisi aur ko chaahtaa hai, aur us shaKhs ke
firaaq meN Gham.geen aur ranjish.zada rahta hai?
agar yeh baat hai, to phir isee tarah koi aisaa bhi shaKhs hogaa jis
ne hameN apna ma'ashooq banaa rakkha hai, kisi ki aarzoo *ham* bhi
hoNge, jis "kisi" ko "ham na mile" haiN. jab "yahaaN kisi ko bhi
kuchh hasb-e-aarzuu na milaa", to aisaa zaroor hogaa.
And oh, I *must* say that it was a pleasant surprise to read you
quoting the Majrooh sh'er from The Burning Train. It is one of those
songs I rediscovered many years after originally hearing it on Vividh
Bharati -- and that was entirely thanks to my attendance at an RMIM
meet. Incidentally, I always thought it was in the movie, a 'koTha
song' picturized on the same 'vamp lady' who later sings 'pal do pal
kaa saath hamaaraa' (Asha Sachdev?), but I guess I was mistaken -- not
that that's a surprise!
-UVR.
Naseer
When I read this shi'r for the very first time, my interpretation was
akin to BGM Sahib's. I felt that the poet could easily have been
Devdaas!:)
yahaaN kisii ko bhii kuchh Hasb-i-aarzuu nah milaa
kisii ko ham nah mile awr ham ko tuu nah milaa
The first line sets the scene. No one in this world gets what they
desire; this could be anything whether material or spiritual. But the
second line is specific to the poet. He is talking about love or, in
other words, the embodiment of love.
Chandrmukhii ko ham nah mile awr ham ko Paaro nah milii
But Chandrmukhi's "reply" is unbeatable!
tujhe awr kii tamanaa mujhe terii aarzuu hai
tere dil meN Gham hii Gham hai, mere dil meN tuu hii tuu hai
Devdaas Jii, aap ke dil meN to Paaro ke Gham ne ghar kiyaa hu'aa hai
lekin meraa dil itnaa vasii' hai kih is meN nah sirf aap balikih Paaro
kaa Gham bhii baseraa kar sakte haiN!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
B.G.M.
>"Devdaas Jii, aap ke dil meN to Paaro ke Gham ne ghar kiyaa hu'aa hai
> lekin meraa dil itnaa vasii' hai kih is meN nah sirf aap balikih Paaro
> kaa Gham bhii baseraa kar sakte haiN!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;) :) :)
Waa...h! Naseer saahab, Waa...h!!
kyaa kehne!!!
aap ki kuvvat-e-tasavvur tau Chandramukhii se bhi ziyaadah vasii`
niklii,
javaab nahiiN aap ki soach kaa!
Maan gaye, janaab!.
Bahot mazaa aa gayaa paRh kar!
============================================================
Zoya
> Very recently, a sher by the above poet was posted in a thread :
>
> YahaaN kisi ko bhi kuchh hasb-e-aarzoo na mila
> Kisi ko hum na mile aur hum ko tuu na mila
>
> I was wondering if we can have a brief discussion on the above
> sher.
>
> Zafar Iqbal is a Pakistani poet who has arguably charted a new path
> in Urdu ghazal, though he may not be known all that well in India.
>
> I seem to have read somewhere that the above sher was probably
> one of his earliest compositions, when he was a student in
> Government College, Lahore. (BTW, he is nearly 80 now.)
>
>
>
> Afzal
aadaab arz hai, Afzal sahib.
maiN ne abhii abhii yeh puuri ghazal ZI vaale duusre thread meiN post
kii hai. jii haaN, yeh ZI kii shuruu kii ghazaloN meiN se hai, aur un
ke pehle majmua-e-kalaam 'aab-e-ravaaN' meiN shaamil hai.
I personally have always taken this matla at 'face value', with the
first 'kisi' being generic anyone, and the second 'kisi' as a specific
someone.
I would literally translate this sher as:
Here no one got what they desired
someone did not get me, and I did not get you.
Maybe I am being too simplistic here, but that has always been my take
on this sher.
vaise is sher ko dekh kar aksar mere zehn meiN Javed Akhtar kaa yeh
sher aaya kartaa hai:
"aaj kisi ne dil toRaa, to ham ko jaise dhyaan aaya
jis ka dil ham ne toRaa thaa, voh jaane kaisaa hoga!"
_____Zoya
guzoon
Greetings all!
I think the whole she'r jars a little because of the second part of
second misra. Whereas the general 'kisii' of the first misra and the
more specific allusion to a particular person in the 'kisii' of second
misra offers a very poetic play on the same word, the very specific
'tu' in the second part makes it somewhat prosaic. I was expecting the
misra to go something like 'kisii ko ham na mile, aur koii hameN na
mila'; 'koii' offering the same sort of general and specific meaning
as 'kisii', but alluding here to a particular person.
All IMHO,
Vijay
Afzal A. Khan
>>> Afzal
UVR Saheb, Naseer Saheb, Zoya Saheba and Vijay (guzoon) Saheb,
I must thank you for your valuable inputs.
The explanation offered by UVR Saheb and Zoya Saheba had also
occurred to me and, in fact, that may arguably be the best
possible interpretation. To sum up, the first misra' "kisi"
is a sort of generic use, whereas the second misra' "kisi" is
personal and specific.
But I was trying to analyze and, in a way, to evaluate the sher
as a whole. And, IMHO, it may be classed as an ordinary,
"humdrum" sort of verse. I am giving below my reasons therefor :
The first misra' contains a sort of moral or philosophical
truism. But the 'example' or proof given in the second misra'
detracts from that high ground. The poet seems to be saying
that "koi na koi to zaroor hai, ya hoga, jise meri aarzuu thi;
yeh bhi sach hai ke woh mujhe na pa saka. Lekin mujhe to (sirf)
teri hi aarzuu rahi aur, afsos, yeh bhi poori na ho payee".
Is men ek taraf to ana ka pehloo nikalta hai ke "kisi ko hamaari
aarzuu bhi thi". Ya yeh keh leejiye ke yeh "shaa'iraana
ta'alli hai", jise hum angrezi men 'poetic braggadocio' keh sakte
haiN. This kind of assertion drags down the emotional impact of
the first misra'.
In a way, the truism of the first misra' signifies a sense of
loss or deprivation. Urdu men naakaami aur mehroomi ke mauzoo'
par be~shumaar sher mil jaayeNge. Lekin aise sher kam-kam hi
mileNge jin ka asar seedha dil-o-dimaaGH pe chha jaaye. Mirza
Ghalib ka ek sher is waqt zehn men aa raha hai. Aap bhi suniye :
Kis se mehroomi-e-qismat ki shikaayat keeje
Hum ne chaaha tha ke mar jaayeN, so woh bhi na huwa
Ghalib ke is sher ko aahista~aahista do-teen baar duhraaiye ---
is kee gehraayee KHud 'ayaaN ho jaayegi.
In baatoN ke 'ilaawa, maiN ALUPers ki tawajjoh ek aur tarkeeb
ki taraf dilaana chaahta hooN, jise pehle misre' men ist'emaal
kiya gaya hai. Aur woh hai "hasb-e-aarzuu". Ek tarah se
baniye ki dukaan ya naap~tol ka mu'aamla ho gaya. Jaise aaj kal
laRke dul'han ke inteKHaab men sharaait rakhte haiN, {Bahut
KHoobsoorat ho, gora complexion ho, KHoob jahez le kar aaye vg.}
Koi 'aashiq-e-saadiq is tarah 'Thok-baja' ke apne mehboob ka
inteKHaab karega ?
Ho sakta hai, baat zara kaRwee lage. Lekin meri haqeer raaye men
in cheezoN se sher ka maza pheeka paR jaata hai.
In my first post, I had mentioned a sher by Majrooh Sultanpuri,
which bears repetition here :
Na woh hamaare huwe, aur na hum rahe apne
MohabbatoN ka 'ajab kaarobaar hum ne kiya
Ek tarah se mazmoon ya mauzoo' bhi wuhi hai. Lekin yeh sher dil
par ek nashtar ka kaam karta hai. Ek KHaas baat yeh bhi hai ke
Majrooh ne alfaaz aise ist'emaal kiye haiN jo kisi 'aurat
(female) ki zabaan se bilkul 'appropriate' lagte haiN.
To repeat Vijay Saheb's caveat ----> all this, IMHO.
Afzal
venus
maiN phir bhii apni haqeer raae denaa chaahooN gi.
Is sher meiN jo sab se Khoobsoorat lafz hai woh ‘tuu’ hai. aam tur
par ashaar meiN ghumaa phiraa kar indirect mehboob se shikwe shikayaat
kiye jaateN haiN lakin yahaN baat direct mehboob se muKhatib ho kar
kii gaii hai jis kii wajha se sher meiN aik attitude saa chalakne
lagaa hai. aik baat aur jo is she’r meiN munfarid hai woh yeh hai ke
agarche mehboob ke na milne kaa shaair ko afsos tu hai, lakin usne yeh
talKh haqeeqat tasleem kar lii hai (jo keh aam tur par shaair nahi
karte) aur straight off mehboob ko jataa bhi diya hai keh shair
jaanta hai keh is dunya meiN tu insaan koi bhii Khaahish rakhta ho(ba-
shamool muhabbat) woh pori hona na-mumkin hai, isii liye shair khud
aur 'woh' jo shair ko mehboob rakhta thaa dono apni muhabbatoN ko na
pa sake.
Zuhra
nagesh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kis se mehroomi-e-qismat ki shikaayat keeje
Hum ne chaaha tha ke mar jaayeN, so woh bhi na huwa
Ghalib ke is sher ko aahista~aahista do-teen baar duhraaiye
---
is kee gehraayee KHud 'ayaaN ho jaayegi.
THanks for this gem, Afzal Sahib.
nagesh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oops! Premature post. I meant to add that Ghalib had another
provocative sher on the subject of denial or deprivation.
ab jafaa se bhi haiN mehroom ham, allaah allaah!
is qadar dushman-e arbaab-e vafaa ho jaanaa.
Nagesh
guzoon
We are obviously coming at it from diametrically opposite angles,
Naheed sahiba. I feel that in the 'tehziib' of urdu shairii, directly
identifying the mehbuub, particularly after an unsuccessful affair, is
tantamount to sacrilege. Whereas naming 'her' by name will be crude,
using a second person pronoun like 'tu' is quite coarse too. (I have
always felt that songs like 'mere dushman, tu merii dostii ko tarse',
apart from being poorly written, also sound accusatory and hence
beneath the tradition of good poetry). That's why I feel that using a
non-specific pronoun like 'kisii' or 'koii' has enough of an allusion
to a particular person (who is quite often characterised as be-wafaa;
although not necessarily in the she'r at hand), and yet at the same
time leaves enough of a doubt so that 'her' character doesn't get
sullied.
Hope I am making sense and not just 'bak raha huuN junuuN meN kya kya
kucch...':-)
Best,
Vijay
Naseer
> On 12 June, 03:11, venus <venus_...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is sher par agarche discussion ko summarize kiya jaa chukaa hai, lakin
> > maiN phir bhii apni haqeer raae denaa chaahooN gi.
>
> > Is sher meiN jo sab se Khoobsoorat lafz hai woh ‘tuu’ hai. aam tur
> > par ashaar meiN ghumaa phiraa kar indirect mehboob se shikwe shikayaat
> > kiye jaateN haiN lakin yahaN baat direct mehboob se muKhatib ho kar
> > kii gaii hai jis kii wajha se sher meiN aik attitude saa chalakne
> > lagaa hai. aik baat aur jo is she’r meiN munfarid hai woh yeh hai ke
> > agarche mehboob ke na milne kaa shaair ko afsos tu hai, lakin usne yeh
> > talKh haqeeqat tasleem kar lii hai (jo keh aam tur par shaair nahi
> > karte) aur straight off mehboob ko jataa bhi diya hai keh shair
> > jaanta hai keh is dunya meiN tu insaan koi bhii Khaahish rakhta ho(ba-
> > shamool muhabbat) woh pori hona na-mumkin hai, isii liye shair khud
> > aur 'woh' jo shair ko mehboob rakhta thaa dono apni muhabbatoN ko na
> > pa sake.
>
> > Zuhra
>
> We are obviously coming at it from diametrically opposite angles,
> Naheed sahiba.
Naheed Sahiba? Venus, Zuhra, Shukra, Naheed...ek hii baat hai!:)
Naseer
venus
> On 12 June, 03:11, venus <venus_...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is sher par agarche discussion ko summarize kiya jaa chukaa hai, lakin
> > maiN phir bhii apni haqeer raae denaa chaahooN gi.
>
> > Is sher meiN jo sab se Khoobsoorat lafz hai woh ‘tuu’ hai. aam tur
> > par ashaar meiN ghumaa phiraa kar indirect mehboob se shikwe shikayaat
> > kiye jaateN haiN lakin yahaN baat direct mehboob se muKhatib ho kar
> > kii gaii hai jis kii wajha se sher meiN aik attitude saa chalakne
> > lagaa hai. aik baat aur jo is she’r meiN munfarid hai woh yeh hai ke
> > agarche mehboob ke na milne kaa shaair ko afsos tu hai, lakin usne yeh
> > talKh haqeeqat tasleem kar lii hai (jo keh aam tur par shaair nahi
> > karte) aur straight off mehboob ko jataa bhi diya hai keh shair
> > jaanta hai keh is dunya meiN tu insaan koi bhii Khaahish rakhta ho(ba-
> > shamool muhabbat) woh pori hona na-mumkin hai, isii liye shair khud
> > aur 'woh' jo shair ko mehboob rakhta thaa dono apni muhabbatoN ko na
> > pa sake.
>
> > Zuhra
>
> We are obviously coming at it from diametrically opposite angles,
> Naheed sahiba.
Vijay sahab, pehli baat tu yeh keh ham ne apne liye Zuhra nickname kaa
inteKhaab kiya hai lehaza hameN isii nickname se likha aur pukara
jaae!!
I feel that in the 'tehziib' of urdu shairii, directly
> identifying the mehbuub, particularly after an unsuccessful affair, is
> tantamount to sacrilege. Whereas naming 'her' by name will be crude,
> using a second person pronoun like 'tu' is quite coarse too. (I have
> always felt that songs like 'mere dushman, tu merii dostii ko tarse',
> apart from being poorly written, also sound accusatory and hence
> beneath the tradition of good poetry).
achha tu is sher ke baare meiN kiyaa Khayaal hai:
waise tu mujhe tumhii ne barbaad kiya hai
ilzaam kisii aur keh sar jaae tu achha!!
agar yahah pehle misre meiN baat 'tumhii' kii bajaye 'usii' waGhera
istemaal kar ke kii jaati tu sher ka saara husn barbaad ho jata!
> non-specific pronoun like 'kisii' or 'koii' has enough of an allusion
> to a particular person (who is quite often characterised as be-wafaa;
> although not necessarily in the she'r at hand), and yet at the same
> time leaves enough of a doubt so that 'her' character doesn't get
> sullied.
character par koii attack nahi ho raha kiyoN baat sirf mehboob se ho
rahi hai, saari duniya se nahi.
> Hope I am making sense and not just 'bak raha huuN junuuN meN kya kya
> kucch...':-)
nahi, Vijay sahab, shaairee kii saari Khubsurtii isii baat meiN hai
keh har banda ise apne tur par mehsoos karta hai.
With best regards,
Zuhra
venus
>
> - Show quoted text -
sorry sher kuchh ulta ho gaya :) sher aise hai:
waise tu tumhii ne mujhe barbaad kiya hai
guzoon
> On Jun 12, 4:52 pm, guzoon <guz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 June, 03:11, venus <venus_...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is sher par agarche discussion ko summarize kiya jaa chukaa hai, lakin
> > > maiN phir bhii apni haqeer raae denaa chaahooN gi.
>
> > > Is sher meiN jo sab se Khoobsoorat lafz hai woh ‘tuu’ hai. aam tur
> > > par ashaar meiN ghumaa phiraa kar indirect mehboob se shikwe shikayaat
> > > kiye jaateN haiN lakin yahaN baat direct mehboob se muKhatib ho kar
> > > kii gaii hai jis kii wajha se sher meiN aik attitude saa chalakne
> > > lagaa hai. aik baat aur jo is she’r meiN munfarid hai woh yeh hai ke
> > > agarche mehboob ke na milne kaa shaair ko afsos tu hai, lakin usne yeh
> > > talKh haqeeqat tasleem kar lii hai (jo keh aam tur par shaair nahi
> > > karte) aur straight off mehboob ko jataa bhi diya hai keh shair
> > > jaanta hai keh is dunya meiN tu insaan koi bhii Khaahish rakhta ho(ba-
> > > shamool muhabbat) woh pori hona na-mumkin hai, isii liye shair khud
> > > aur 'woh' jo shair ko mehboob rakhta thaa dono apni muhabbatoN ko na
> > > pa sake.
>
> > > Zuhra
>
> > We are obviously coming at it from diametrically opposite angles,
> > Naheed sahiba.
>
> Vijay sahab, pehli baat tu yeh keh ham ne apne liye Zuhra nickname kaa
> inteKhaab kiya hai lehaza hameN isii nickname se likha aur pukara
> jaae!!
Mea culpa Zohra sahiba! I didn't even realize that I have called you
by a synonym till Naseer sahib pointed out. Slip of the pen and I
certainly meant no offence. Please accept my apologies. BTW, good to
have new faces on ALUP!
>
> I feel that in the 'tehziib' of urdu shairii, directly
>
>
> achha tu is sher ke baare meiN kiyaa Khayaal hai:
>
> waise to tumhiiN ne mujhe barbaad kiya hai
> ilzaam kisii aur keh sar jaae tu achha!!
Wow! This brought back some memories! This is one of Rafi gems I so
like and Sahir is one of the better poets for Bombay film industry! My
take on this she'r is that as the second misra here is to express a
desire to absolve the mehbuub of her resposibility, a noble deed,
shaai'r needed to identify a bit more specifically the preson; hence
'tumhiiN' here not only works, it is needed.
>
> agar yahah pehle misre meiN baat 'tumhii' kii bajaye 'usii' waGhera
> istemaal kar ke kii jaati tu sher ka saara husn barbaad ho jata!
>
> character par koii attack nahi ho raha kiyoN baat sirf mehboob se ho
> rahi hai, saari duniya se nahi.
>
I think this is the very point I am trying to make and disagree with,
that with using 'koii', the person who is being addressed will clearly
get the message whereas for the others, enough wiggle room is left.
With 'tu', it just becomes a little too direct, removing any doubt as
to who it is all about. Although, as you say, only mehboob is being
addressed, in Urdu shaairii, there are always raqiibs, raazdaaNs and
just tamaashbins around, and I feel it just seems more courteous to
not directly identify the person.
Best regards,
Vijay
Vijay Kumar
Following up on my own post:-( a couple more points. In the Sahir
ghazal, which is a filmi song, most likely it is the hero singing it
just to the heroine (I haven't seen the film, but it is fair guess),
so it can only be 'tmuhii ne'. The whole song also seems to be in a
lighter vain and the she'r just doesn't sound 'blaming' as much as
'courting' the beloved'.
The other point is that in this she'r, in any context, 'kisii' just
deosn't make poetic sense, so the option just isn't there.
Zuhra sahiba, would you agree 'ki ab to ham ne is 'baal kii khaal
uDheR' dii hai?' I am willing to leave it here:-)
Best regards,
Vijay
venus
Vijay sahab,
Aap is bechaare lafz ‘tu’ ko ab tak na'jane kya kuchh keh chuke haiN
(e.g. coarse, crude, disrespectful, indecorous etc.) :) Vijay sahab,
lakin yeh lafz Urdu classical shairee kii tehzeeb se gira hua hargiz
nahi hai. Urdu shaairee tu aise ashaar se bhari paRi hai jin meiN
‘tu, tujhe, teri’ waGhaira kaa istemaal hua hai. Filhaal tu kuchh
ashaar Firaq kii aik Ghazal se yaad aa rahe haiN (lakin aur bhi DheroN
ashaar misaal ke tur par pesh kiye ja sakte haiN):
aik muddat se teri yaad bhii aai na hameN
aur ham bhool gaey hoN tujhe aisaa bhi nahi
mehrbaani ko mahabbat nahin kehte ai dost
aah ab mujh se teri ranjish-e-bejaa bhi nahin
Faiz kaa bhii aik sher haazir hai:
donoN jahaN teri muhabbat meiN haar ke
wo ja raha hai koi shab-e gham guzaar ke
jahaN tak raqeeboN Waghaira kii baat rahi, tu Faiz sahab tu ‘raqeeb’
se bhii bohat comfortably baat kar lete thay!! Aap ne unki shahkaar
nazm ‘raqeeb se’ tu zaroor suni ho gi Noor JehaN ki munfarid aur
Khoobsurat aawaaz meiN.
Zuhra
guzoon
bohat Khuub, Zuhra sahiba. jo jo misaai'l aap ne faraaham kii haiN, un
ko paRh ke ma'zaa aa gaya:-) shukriia. I not only am familiar with
Faiz's 'raqiib se' (and have enjoyed listening endlessly to Noor
jahaaN singing it), I used to be able to recite the whole naz'm from
memory in my college days. I still can, quite large chunks of it!
I am in agreement with your entire post, you may be surprised to know.
I have no problem with 'tu' as a pronoun and its usage in Urdu poetry
or language. It is THE word used to address Khuda, so how can one not
like it. (Although I hear there is a campaign afoot to have it
replaced with 'aap' in this particular context!)
I only have problem with it in the context when it is used as an
identifying pronoun in a she'r where 'aashiq' is expressing
disppointment with or is accusing 'mehbuuba' of be-bawfaaii' etc. That
is all. In such instances, I prefer 'non-identifying' pronouns like
'kisii' ya 'koii' etc. In the she'r in question ZI is clearly bound by
the radiif and hence 'tu' it has to be.
If you were to reply to this post, I promise I will let you have the
last word:-)
Best,
Vijay
UVR
meraa iraada aap aur Zuhra saahiba ki is bahs meN TaaNg aRaane yaa ise
"tool-e-fuzool" :) dene kaa hargiz naheeN thaa, magar aap ne baat hi
aisi kar di k mujh se rahaa na gayaa!
On Jun 16, 2:15 pm, guzoon <guz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...] I have no problem with 'tu' as a pronoun and its usage in Urdu poetry
> or language. It is THE word used to address Khuda, so how can one not
> like it. (Although I hear there is a campaign afoot to have it
> replaced with 'aap' in this particular context!)
>
!!!
Surely these fellows are out of their godforsaken (pun intended)
minds. I hope they are rounded up, lined up and subjected to the
business end of a bayonet. Just where do these officious busybodies
think they get off trying to tell me what pronoun I should use for
*my* Khuda?
> I only have problem with it in the context when it is used as an
> identifying pronoun in a she'r where 'aashiq' is expressing
> disppointment with or is accusing 'mehbuuba' of be-bawfaaii' etc. That
> is all. In such instances, I prefer 'non-identifying' pronouns like
> 'kisii' ya 'koii' etc. In the she'r in question ZI is clearly bound by
> the radiif and hence 'tu' it has to be.
>
Are you suggesting that in the sh'er in question, ZI is 'expressing
disappointment with, or is accusing [his mahboob] of bewafaai' etc?
mere Khayaal meN to ZI ne is sh'er meN aisaa kuchh bhi naheeN kiyaa --
sh'er meN mahz 'duniya' ki ek haqeeqat bayaan ho rahi hai:
yahaaN kisi ko bhi kuchh hasb-e-aarzoo na milaa
kisi ko ham na mile, aur ham ko tuu na milaa
mere Khayaal meN ZI ne mahboob ke na milne kaa agar kisi se gilah kiya
hi hai to sirf "qismat" se kiyaa hai. Khud mahboob ko koi ilzaam
naheeN diyaa.
> If you were to reply to this post, I promise I will let you have the
> last word:-)
>
> Best,
>
> Vijay
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
> I have no problem with 'tu' as a pronoun and its usage in Urdu poetry
> or language. It is THE word used to address Khuda, so how can one not
> like it. (Although I hear there is a campaign afoot to have it
> replaced with 'aap' in this particular context!)
> Vijay
Can we have some details about this "campaign" ? Any articles
etc. ?
guzoon
> Vijay saahib,
>
> meraa iraada aap aur Zuhra saahiba ki is bahs meN TaaNg aRaane yaa ise
> "tool-e-fuzool" :) dene kaa hargiz naheeN thaa, magar aap ne baat hi
> aisi kar di k mujh se rahaa na gayaa!
>
> Are you suggesting that in the sh'er in question, ZI is 'expressing
> disappointment with, or is accusing [his mahboob] of bewafaai' etc?
> mere Khayaal meN to ZI ne is sh'er meN aisaa kuchh bhi naheeN kiyaa --
> sh'er meN mahz 'duniya' ki ek haqeeqat bayaan ho rahi hai:
>
> yahaaN kisi ko bhi kuchh hasb-e-aarzoo na milaa
> kisi ko ham na mile, aur ham ko tuu na milaa
>
> mere Khayaal meN ZI ne mahboob ke na milne kaa agar kisi se gilah kiya
> hi hai to sirf "qismat" se kiyaa hai. Khud mahboob ko koi ilzaam
> naheeN diyaa.
>
> > If you were to reply to this post, I promise I will let you have the
> > last word:-)
>
> > Best,
>
> > Vijay
>
> -UVR.
UVR sahib: allow me to respond to your (thought provoking) missive
indirectly and in a somewhat prolix manner. I have been forced by your
comment to re-think as to why I felt second misra to have a certain
dissonance. So here goes:
Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that shaai'r is speaking from
a male perspective, making the 'kisii' and 'tu' in the second misra
both female, obviously different ones. 'kisii' refers to someone who
wanted the shaii'r but couldn't have him and 'tu' refers to the one
whom shaai'r wanted but couldn't have. One would further assume that
in this unsuccessful triangular affair, effort was made to have a
successful relationship, but for one reason or the other, it didn't
work. (i.e., neither affair was purely platonic). Can one then surmise
that although one could evoke 'mahruumi-e-qismat' to explain the
failure, in reality there has to be a certain degree of gila-shikwa on
the part of 'kisii' and the shaii'r!? I would go so far as to suggest
that the degree of sense of loss on the part of 'kisii' and the
'shaa'ir' is implied to be the same.
So this is what jars for me. The first female is cloaked in the
anonymity of 'kisii', whereas the second one is called 'tu'. This may
work if the shaai'r is directly addressing the second female, but in
my opinion, it doesn't work if the she'r is for general consumption
because one party is allowed (in degree) more privacy than the other.
To my mind, 'koii' follows 'kisii' more naturally and maintains the
transition from 'kisii' of first misra (with a different meaning) to
the different 'kisii' in the second misra, to 'koii' more fluidly,
than changing the last pronoun to 'tu'.
Zuhra sahiba, we shall (amiably) disagree!
Afzal sahib, I read about this somewhere (or may have heard it on one
of the media) where Khuda hafiz vs allah hafiz was being discussed. I
will try to find the reference when I have a bit more time and if I
could, I will pm you it.
Regards,
Vijay
Afzal A. Khan
> Vijay
Vijay Saheb,
Aap ne likha hai (and I quote) :
"One would further assume that in this unsuccessful triangular
affair, effort was made to have a successful relationship, but
for one reason or the other, it didn't work. (i.e., neither
affair was purely platonic)."
These days, we often hear of another view, viz. "kya ek laRke
or laRki ke darmiyaan koi aur rishta naheeN ho sakta ?". !!
Regarding your last para above, please continue your search;
I won't be surprised if UVR Saheb figures there too !!
My point was : can we not refrain from averring something,
for which we cannot readily offer some proof or evidence ?
Afzal
guzoon
Afzal sahib: with all due respect, this is not a science forum but an
art one. References are not necessarily a pre-requisite. e.g., if I
were to say that 'I heard or saw somewhere that so and so ghazal is
wrongly attributed to miir', I think I would expect to be taken at
face value and not have to produce the reference as to where I saw
that particular assertion. (It would be nice if I could, but as it is
not a science exam, so it shouldn't be a pre-requisite).
As to the 'aap' for Khuda, I actually read it in one of the Dawn
articles. I remembered it slightly wrong as, although the article is
recent, the 'campaign' is not. It dates back some years. Below is the
link. Hope it is 'readily' enough:
I am afraid I didn't 'get' the allusion to UVR sahib featuring in it.
Best,
Vijay
Afzal A. Khan
Vijay Saheb,
I have seen the link provided above. But I think it involves
politics across the border, and can be deemed as Off-Topic.
In many countries, (if not all), there is always a lunatic fringe
which keeps on indulging in such activities. Hasn't there been a
relentless campaign in Bombay about sign-boards and name-boards
to be displayed in Marathi ? If some people want to use one form
of salutation instead of another, it is their choice.
Here, the discussion was centred round a sher by a (Pakistani)
poet where the word "tu" was used strictly in the context of the
mehboob. We all know that this word is also used while addressing
God Almighty. Meer Anees, Daagh, Iqbal, Maulana Haali and other
poets have all used it. And they will continue to use it in the
futute too. There is no point in bringing up an extraneous issue
in a purely literary discussion.
Afzal
UVR
>
> > I am afraid I didn't 'get' the allusion to UVR sahib featuring in it.
>
> > Best,
>
> > Vijay
>
> Vijay Saheb,
>
> I have seen the link provided above. But I think it involves
> politics across the border, and can be deemed as Off-Topic.
> In many countries, (if not all), there is always a lunatic fringe
> which keeps on indulging in such activities. Hasn't there been a
> relentless campaign in Bombay about sign-boards and name-boards
> to be displayed in Marathi ? If some people want to use one form
> of salutation instead of another, it is their choice.
>
> Here, the discussion was centred round a sher by a (Pakistani)
> poet where the word "tu" was used strictly in the context of the
> mehboob. We all know that this word is also used while addressing
> God Almighty. Meer Anees, Daagh, Iqbal, Maulana Haali and other
> poets have all used it. And they will continue to use it in the
> futute too. There is no point in bringing up an extraneous issue
> in a purely literary discussion.
>
> Afzal
I mostly agree with your point, Afzal saahib.
However, it can hardly be denied that sometimes this "lunatic fringe"
ends up with enough clout, politically, socially, religiously,
whatever-ly, to have its lunacy inflicted on present and coming
generations. Take the whole issue of "allah hafiz vs. Khuda hafiz"
which you have referred to in your previous response to Vijay sb.'s
post, for example. You know as well as I do that this phrase has
become very very common these days. Whereas, even about 30 years ago,
it was used (if at all it was used) probably by a minor 'lunatic
fringe'. And you are also well aware of the justification provided
for why allah hafiz is 'more correct', why Khuda haafiz is 'wrong' and
why everyone ought to use the former rather than the latter. Does
this mean my father's generation (your peers), their fathers, their
grandfathers, their grandfathers, ... were all completely wrong, or
crazy, to have used 'Khuda haafiz'?
Sometimes we have to nip this kind of craziness in the bud. Even if
it's only alive in the minds of a few crazy lunatics.
-UVR.
venus
>
> - Show quoted text -
UVR sahab, Pakistan meiN aaj bhii ‘Khuda Hafiz’ kaa istemaal nayaab
nahi balke bohat aam hai aur koii ‘Khuda Hafiz’ iste’maal karne par
kisi ko lecture nahi de-taa. mere Khayaal meiN ‘Allah Hafiz’ aam hone
ki wajha sirf yeh hai keh yeh aik naya expression thaa aur logoN ko
ise iste’maal karna achha laga ho ga.
Zuhra
guzoon
>
> > I am afraid I didn't 'get' the allusion to UVR sahib featuring in it.
>
> > Best,
>
> > Vijay
>
> Vijay Saheb,
>
> I have seen the link provided above. But I think it involves
> politics across the border, and can be deemed as Off-Topic.
> In many countries, (if not all), there is always a lunatic fringe
> which keeps on indulging in such activities. Hasn't there been a
> relentless campaign in Bombay about sign-boards and name-boards
> to be displayed in Marathi ? If some people want to use one form
> of salutation instead of another, it is their choice.
>
> Here, the discussion was centred round a sher by a (Pakistani)
> poet where the word "tu" was used strictly in the context of the
> mehboob. We all know that this word is also used while addressing
> God Almighty. Meer Anees, Daagh, Iqbal, Maulana Haali and other
> poets have all used it. And they will continue to use it in the
> futute too. There is no point in bringing up an extraneous issue
> in a purely literary discussion.
>
> Afzal
Afzal sahib:
My discussion was purely to expand on my response to Zuhra sahiba in
relation to the use of word 'tu'. I used Khuda as an adressee with
this pronoun as an example of how endearing this pronoun can be
(implying a personal and intimate relationship with Khuda that has
been used in Urdu poetry in particular so effectively). I, in
parentheses, also provided the info about the movement by the 'lunatic
fringe' to have it changed to 'aap' in that context. Discussion still
remianed in the realm of ALUP as if the 'lunatic fringe' were to
succeed, it would seriously undermine the cause of Urdu poetry in this
particular respect, at least. I had no intention of going off topic if
you had accepted my posting 'as is', but you, twice in the same day,
more or less goaded me to either provide the reference (readily) or
else; 'put up or shut-up' so to speak. It is as unsavoury for me as
it is for anyone else to veer the discussion away from poetry/language
and I totally agree with you that we shall leave the extraneous issues
where they belong, out of ALUP. But there is a bit of pots and kettles
in your assertion, as it was not all that long ago that you wanted to
drag a purely poetic discussion to the 'dalits of India':-). I hadn't
a clue where that came from. (The addressee of your comment then was
overly generous in my opinion to even dignify your barb with a
response, a gracious and civil one at that:-))
It must be rare in the annals of ALUP that so much ink has been
spilled over such a mediocre sher.( IMHO, of course:-)). It is over
and out for me from this thread, I am afraid.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Vijay
UVR
Zuhra ji,
jawaab kaa shukriya. aap ki yeh baat mere liye kis hadd tak baa'is-e-
musarrat saabit hui hai is kaa aap ko shaayad hi andaaza hogaa. kuchh
'arsa pahle ALUP par isee mudda'e par bahs hui thi.
waise mujhe 'Allah haafiz' ke 'aam hone kaa koi gila naheeN. mujhe
takleef tab hoti hai jab koi "Allah haafiz" waala "Khuda haafiz" ke
Khilaaf yeh kah kar khaRaa ho jaaye k "Khuda" Farsi ka lafz hai, Arabi
ka naheeN aur is liye "Khuda haafiz" kahnaa *Ghalat* hai.
ALUP par is zimn meN hui guzishta bahs ko aap bhi yahaaN paRhiye (agar
fursat ho):
http://tinyurl.com/nsdhpw
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
>> guzoon wrote:
>>> Vijay
UVR Saheb,
You must excuse me if I respond to your post at some length.
First of all, it needs to be stated that the whole issue of
"Allah Haafiz Vs. KHuda Haafiz" was raised initially by Vijay
Saheb, and not by me. I had pointed out that the issue was
strictly off-topic and need not have been raised in our NG,
particularly in such a literary thread.
I don't really know how popular is the new form of salutation.
There are a great many people in India (possibly a majority) who
still use the old form (K.H.). If the situation is otherwise
across the border, should it really concern us (i.e. folks who
happen to be of Indian origin, like yourself, Yours Truly, Vijay
Saheb and others) ? There are lots of tragically criminal things
going on across the border (like innocent, pious people praying
in mosques who get killed for no reason whatsoever). Can you and
I put a stop to such wanton killing ? There are similar activit-
ies in our own country, and even the police and the government
seem powerless to stop them.
Referring specifically to the AH Vs KH controversy, I believe it
is largely a question of personal choice. For more decades than I
care to remember, I have been using the AH form of salutation.
But I have never ever objected to or even cared about the KH form
that is used by other folks. Does that make me a part of that
"lunatic fringe" ?
You have referred to past practices, earlier generations etc. But
I cannot subscribe to that type of logic. Though this is not the
right forum for discussing such matters, let me inform you that
this was the exact reason (or logic) that had made the seventh
century Arabs in Mecca oppose the Holy Prophet, when he began to
preach against idol worship etc. "Why are you opposing our tra-
tions and forefathers' practices ?", they asked. There are so
many things which our own forefathers did that we don't, these
days. Sati was prevalent for centuries, and continued even when
proscribed by Mohammed Tughlaq and later the Mughal Emperors.
Should we revive that practice ?
Even today, we come across astonishing stories. Recently, I read
a news story that some (Sikh) College in India had expelled some
Sikh lady-students for plucking their eyebrows. The matter went
to court. And a full bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
upheld the expulsion, saying that such girls cannot be considered
as Sikhs ("they should keep their hair unshorn") and cannot study
in a (Sikh) minority institution.
Islam lays great store by "neeyat" or 'intention'. Following a
mere ritual is not enough. It must be accompanied by a true or
genuine intention. Even while praying, it is necessary to recite
the "neeyat". So even if someone uses KH and he means the God
Almighty, I believe the purpose is served. At the same time,
no umbrage need be taken, if someone uses the AH form, for
whatever reason. It is the coercion that one should resist.
Whatever form you use, it is the intention that counts.
B. R. Chopra was well-known for propagating his brand of
"secular" ideals. Like the song in "Dharmaputra" -- "Yeh
masjid hai woh butKHaana, chaahe yeh maano ya woh maano".
Did the poet (Saahir) really mean that Hindu folks should
offer prayers in mosques ? The best interpretation that I can
place on the lyrics is : "To each his own".
So just as we don't care if someone uses the KH form, should we
be concerned if a few others use the AH form ? Chaahe yeh maano
ya woh maano.
Let me conclude by giving a specific example. In January 2008,
the well-known film choreographer Saroj Khan started presenting
a dance programme on an Indian TV channel. There she taught
dance steps to some disciples. Occasionally, established TV
artistes (known for their dancing skills) also appeared on her
show as guests. Now, her real name is Nirmala. She used to end
each episode, by waving a good-bye to the viewers ---"Naachte
rahiye, KHush rahiye". Then she would bend low, do an elaborate
"aadaab" and sign off with a flourish --> "Allah Haafiz". And
all the participants would join her with a resounding "Allah
Haafiz". Has she been influenced by that "lunatic fringe" ?
Afzal
UVR
Afzal saahib,
I think I can give you a short response this time! As I have stated
also in my response to Zuhra saahiba, I have NOTHING (n.o.t.h.i.n.g)
AT ALL against the phrase itself or anyone who uses it.
What I do find offensive and take umbrage at is some of the A.H.
wallahs -- not you, but these people *do* exist -- purporting to
present logical arguments (such as they are) to 'prove' that K.H is
wrong. There should be no need to go into their 'logic' again -- you
have heard it before. That position is precisely what I find silly,
nonsensical and narrow-minded. And as misguided as those who expelled
those Sikhnis you spoke of -- and those who upheld their explusion.
Incidentally, I could not quite understand the relevance of Sati or
Idol Worship in this context. What are you suggesting by introducing
their mention into this thread? That one's insistence on using "Khuda
haafiz" over "Allah haafiz" is as heinous an act -- in certain
peoples' eyes -- as casting one's lot with the proponents of Sati?
-UVR.
B.G.M.
This is precisely why I suggested that -ALUP might need a moderator.
Look at it guys, a simple discussion of a she`r has now culminated and
-I must say degenerated- in to a useless and- to some- a hurtful
discussion and arguments.
But who am I? a mere Urdu poetry lover!
===============================================================
Afzal A. Khan
>>> -UVR.
UVR Saheb,
I think Zuhra Saheba has already confirmed that KH is still the
form used most often by people across the border. There may
be a few people, of course, who would not only practise the
alternate form, but also offer the "logic" you have referred to.
What I can't quite understand is how it can cause so much annoyance
and offense to you or Vijay Saheb. How do their actions affect
you ? As for the Sikh girls, I did feel astonished, but that was
all. And, I am sure you will agree, neither the College trustees
nor the High Court can quite ensure that the girls do in fact
follow the tenets of the Sikh dharm in all respects.
Sati : No, there is no connection between this practice and
KH as a form of salutation. I was only trying to point out that
past practices can be discarded, if required by new circumstances,
or by law (as in the case of Sati). It is also sad that our
lawmakers/ministers can be so regressive in such matters. The
late Kalyan Singh Kalwi (an MP and a Union Minister, IIRC) was
an ardent supporter of the practice of Sati, as was Vijayaraje
Scindia. You must also be well aware of the speeches made by the
present MP from Pilibhit. If our lawmakers have such attitudes,
what can one say of the common man ?
Afzal
UVR
Vijay saahib,
I type this knowing full well that you have said "Khuda haafiz" to
this sh'er and its discussion, but in the vain hope -- one can hope,
can't one? -- that you'll find it worth your while to read what I have
to say in response to your thoughts above.
(1) I don't think there's any need to assign a fixed gender to the
various 'characters' in the sh'er. I think the sh'er works regardless
gender, because the main thing being discussed here is "aarzoo".
(2) It's not a "real triangle". The equation is
A [kisi] --(wants)-->B [shaa'ir] --(wants)-->C [tuu]
This is a "filmi triangle" It would be a "real" one if C wanted A,
but that's not a thought presented in the sh'er.
(3) It is not necessary to infer, as you have done above, that the
degree of loss suffered by A (kisi) and B (shaa'ir) is the same. The
sh'er is talking about the 'extent of aarzoo' (hasb-e-aarzoo) and of
nobody getting what they desire, regardless of how desperately they
desired it/him/her.
(4) To me, the use of 'kisii' in the second line is an indication of
how little attention the shaa'ir has paid to this person A. The poet
could well be saying, "sure, there must be someone -- mmmeh, whatever
-- who desired me too... but see, that person wanted MOI, so how true
could his desire have been, really? (Implication: not very). On the
other hand, me? I wanted YOU. I desperately, totally, entirely, with
the very core of my being, loved and desired you. But *I* couldn't
realize my desires either.
(5) I don't see any reason to infer any gila/shikwa against the
mahboob either. The poet is quite clear as to the reason for his love
remaining unrequited, viz., IT IS WHAT HAPPENS! IOW, "ham ko tuu na
milaa" is not a complaint against the beloved, but rather a statement
of resigned acceptance of The Way Things Will Be. In fact, if
anything, the use of 'tu' in the second line brings in an extra touch
of poignancy into the whole affair -- even after the whole raam
kahaani has ended, and not exactly in the 'aashiq's favor, who does he
go and cry his heart out to but the selfsame beloved again! is ko aap
height of saada.dilee yaa depth of bechaaragi naheeN kaheNge to aur
kyaa kaheNge? :)
-UVR.
Naseer
I think enough has been said on the topic of KHudaa-Haafiz, Allah
Haafiz and other matters. Please let us return to the "tuu"/"aap"
question.
"tuu" has been the norm for God in Arabic/Farsi/Hindi and Urdu and
whatever anyone says about replacing it with "aap", no one is likely
to heed to their advice. Besides, in Arabic, a person addressed in the
singular is always "tuu" (anta) and the concept of the "aap"
equivalent does not exist.
Just one more request. Please avoid typing "across the border" when it
is less time consuming to type "Pakistan". Thank you.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
I daresay enough has been said on 'tuu'/'aap' and we should revert, if
necessary, to the sh'er.
In any argument, there have to be two parties stationed roughly on
opposite sides of the issue. Here we can think of the 'use-tuu-if-you-
like-OR-aap-if-you-want' side and the 'YOU-SHALL-USE-AAP-SO-IT-IS-
WRITTEN-SO-SHALL-IT-BE-DONE' side. I have drawn a line between these
two and am standing on our (i.e., yours, mine, Afzal and Vijay
saahibaans') side of it, and I don't think I'm finding a single ALUPer
standing, ahem, "across the border" ;)
-UVR.
PS: don't ignore the smiley.
UVR
I think I have mentioned previously how their actions affect me, Afzal
saahib, but I'll try again.
It raises the temperature of my blood to near boiling point when
someone like that stands in front of me and, with a smug, know-it-all
expression on his face, has the audacious cheek to tell me just after
I have lovingly bid adieu to someone saying Khudaa haafiz, that "you
know that KH is *wrong*, don't you? You should say AH. Because ...
(and the rest of it)."
If there's one kind I don't suffer kindly, it's that kind.
-UVR.
PS: I have elected to delete the other part of your post and ignore it
because there's no relation, as you said, between this and that.
guzoon
Afzal sahib, I am afraid you have wrongly assumed that I raised the
issue of KH and AH. Or that this controversy has been of my making.
You may want to do a search and show me where I have shown any
interest in AH/KH controversy. I am just not interested. My point was
about introducing 'aap' to address Khuda/Allah and its relevence to
Urdu poetry. You asked for a reference and I told you that the
reference existed in an article about KH/AH. You insisted one should
be 'readily' able to produce the reference or refrain from posting.
The reference to 'aap' for Khuda/Allah was in the second paragraph of
the article that I posted. That is it. I am an atheist and have no
time for 'loony fringe' from any religion. BTW, 'loony fringe' is a
phrase I have borrowed from your posting.
Once you have satisfied yourself, that I have not raised or wanted to
discuss the issue of KH/AH, an apology would be nice.
Sincerely,
Vijay
PS. I had seriously assumed that enough had been said in this thread
but I guessed wrong. I am, therefore, back to essentially correct the
above error in Afzal Sahib's two posts, where I have been named as
showing interest in something that I just haven't done!
guzoon
UVR sahib, thanks for taking the time to respond. I enjoyed your
interpretation. Unfortunately, this she'r merely proves that Urdu
Poetry is like the elephant to the blind. Where you see poignancy, I
see dissonance! I more often than not agree with your views, but here,
at the risk of isolating my-self from most ALUPers, I fail to see this
she'r in any way better than mediocre.
Best,
Vijay
Afzal A. Khan
> Unfortunately, this she'r merely proves that Urdu
> Poetry is like the elephant to the blind. Where you see poignancy, I
> see dissonance! I more often than not agree with your views, but here,
> at the risk of isolating my-self from most ALUPers, I fail to see this
> she'r in any way better than mediocre.
> Vijay
Not quite, Vijay Saheb. This is one view where both of us are
in agreement. I stopped short at "humdrum". You went ahead
and called it "mediocre". More power to your --er -- fingers !
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
I daresay I see no one on the other side of the issue, on
either side of the border.
I haven't come across any instance where someone has used
"aap" for God Almighty in Urdu poetry.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
>>> Afzal saahib,
>>> I think I can give you a short response this time! As I have stated
>>> also in my response to Zuhra saahiba, I have NOTHING (n.o.t.h.i.n.g)
>>> AT ALL against the phrase itself or anyone who uses it.
>>> What I do find offensive and take umbrage at is some of the A.H.
>>> wallahs -- not you, but these people *do* exist -- purporting to
>>> present logical arguments (such as they are) to 'prove' that K.H is
>>> wrong. There should be no need to go into their 'logic' again -- you
>>> have heard it before. That position is precisely what I find silly,
>>> nonsensical and narrow-minded. And as misguided as those who expelled
>>> those Sikhnis you spoke of -- and those who upheld their explusion.
>>> -UVR.
>> UVR Saheb,
>>
>> I think Zuhra Saheba has already confirmed that KH is still the
>> form used most often by people across the border. There may
>> be a few people, of course, who would not only practise the
>> alternate form, but also offer the "logic" you have referred to.
>> What I can't quite understand is how it can cause so much annoyance
>> and offense to you or Vijay Saheb. How do their actions affect
>> you ? As for the Sikh girls, I did feel astonished, but that was
>> all. And, I am sure you will agree, neither the College trustees
>> nor the High Court can quite ensure that the girls do in fact
>> follow the tenets of the Sikh dharm in all respects.
>>
>>
>> Afzal
>
> I think I have mentioned previously how their actions affect me, Afzal
> saahib, but I'll try again.
>
> It raises the temperature of my blood to near boiling point when
> someone like that stands in front of me and, with a smug, know-it-all
> expression on his face, has the audacious cheek to tell me just after
> I have lovingly bid adieu to someone saying Khudaa haafiz, that "you
> know that KH is *wrong*, don't you? You should say AH. Because ...
> (and the rest of it)."
>
> If there's one kind I don't suffer kindly, it's that kind.
>
> -UVR.
As I understand it, there might have been some instance where
you bade "KHuda Haafiz" to someone, and he dared to offer the
same 'correction' and the "reason" therefor.
My view is : is it not possible to tell such a person :
"Thanks, but no thanks" ? Even in our Newsgroups, there are
always some issues where posters can be in vehement disagreement.
But we don't really allow our blood to reach boiling point, do
we ?
I think Naseer Saheb has already stated that the Arabic word for
"tu" (singular) is 'anta' --- the last 'a' representing 'zabar'.
Let me clarify further that a basic tenet of Islam is the kalima
"Laa ilaaha illallaah". Which means : "There is no deity except
Allah". That is the word used for God Almighty throughout the
Holy Text. "Rahim", "Rahman" etc. are attributes ('sifaat').
In that sense, if somebody happens to argue that Believers should
refer to God as "Allah", he is merely following the Holy Text.
But that kind of homily is certainly not meant for those who are
"non-Believers".
Even today, Parsis (i.e Zoroastrians)in India routinely refer to
"Ahura Mazda" as "KHoda". The word "KHuda" {in Urdu} can be a
sort of generic term for Divinity. When Saahir laments :
"KHudaa-e-bar'tar, tiri zameeN par zameeN ki KHaatir yeh jaNg
kyoN hai", he IS referring to the Supreme Being. And, nobody,
AFAIK, objected to this line or accused Saahir of blasphemy.
But what I am trying to say here is that the other guy, whether
across the border or on this side of the border, can also claim
that he is merely trying to follow the Quranic Text. So why
raise a stink about such a claim ?
As I said earlier, there is no place for any coercion here. Each
one of us, on either side of the border, should be free to use
the form he favours.
Afzal
UVR
>
> UVR sahib, thanks for taking the time to respond. I enjoyed your
> interpretation. Unfortunately, this she'r merely proves that Urdu
> Poetry is like the elephant to the blind. Where you see poignancy, I
> see dissonance! I more often than not agree with your views, but here,
> at the risk of isolating my-self from most ALUPers, I fail to see this
> she'r in any way better than mediocre.
>
> Best,
>
> Vijay
Vijay saahib,
Actually, I think a majority of us, myself included, are in the same
'camp' when it comes to the overall quality of the sh'er. Nowhere
have I suggested that this sh'er is a stellar example of poetic
skill. It's just that I think the sh'er might present a different
'story' than you do.
That's ok, isn't it? :)
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
> Afzal sahib, I am afraid you have wrongly assumed that I raised the
> issue of KH and AH. Or that this controversy has been of my making.
> You may want to do a search and show me where I have shown any
> interest in AH/KH controversy. I am just not interested. My point was
> about introducing 'aap' to address Khuda/Allah and its relevence to
> Urdu poetry. You asked for a reference and I told you that the
> reference existed in an article about KH/AH. You insisted one should
> be 'readily' able to produce the reference or refrain from posting.
> The reference to 'aap' for Khuda/Allah was in the second paragraph of
> the article that I posted. That is it. I am an atheist and have no
> time for 'loony fringe' from any religion. BTW, 'loony fringe' is a
> phrase I have borrowed from your posting.
>
> Once you have satisfied yourself, that I have not raised or wanted to
> discuss the issue of KH/AH, an apology would be nice.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Vijay
>
> PS. I had seriously assumed that enough had been said in this thread
> but I guessed wrong. I am, therefore, back to essentially correct the
> above error in Afzal Sahib's two posts, where I have been named as
> showing interest in something that I just haven't done!
Vijay Saheb,
If you are looking for an apology merely to soothe your ruffled
feelings, I can offer a thousand apologies.
Even then, I would make an attempt to explain my position.
My remark was in the context of what UVR Saheb had written, and
I quote him :
"Take the whole issue of "allah hafiz vs. Khuda hafiz"
which you have referred to in your previous response to
Vijay sb.'s post ......"
Anyone reading the above quote in isolation is likely to feel
that I had raised the issue. I had merely clarified that
I had done nothing of the kind.
In an earlier post, addressed (I think) to Zuhra Saheba, you
had stated (and again I quote) :
"I am in agreement with your entire post, you may be surprised
to know;
I have no problem with 'tu' as a pronoun and its usage in
Urdu poetry or language. It is THE word used to address
Khuda, so how can one not like it. (Although I hear there is
a campaign afoot to have it replaced with 'aap' in this
particular context !)
In this thread, I believe this was the FIRST mention of this
issue.
When I requested you to favour us with some particulars, this
is what you wrote (and I quote, once again) :
"As to the 'aap' for Khuda, I actually read it in one of the Dawn
articles. I remembered it slightly wrong as, although the article
is recent, the 'campaign' is not. It dates back some years.
Below is the link. Hope it is 'readily' enough: "
I had perused the column written in the Dawn, which was in the
nature of a political commentary. Most of the article comprises
the columnist's own personal views. President Zia-ul-Haq died
21 years back. The traumatic happenings witnessed across the border
during the past 10-12 years involve geo-political influences and
events. But, in the article, nowhere did I find a mention that
zealots across the border were advocating the use of "aap" in
Urdu poetry (as a reference to God).
So let me too bid "Allah Haafiz" to this controversy --- till it is
raised again !!
Afzal
guzoon
> But, in the article, nowhere did I find a mention that
> zealots across the border were advocating the use of "aap" in
> Urdu poetry (as a reference to God).
>
> So let me too bid "Allah Haafiz" to this controversy --- till it is
> raised again !!
>
> Afzal
Afzal sahib: The only reason for me to supply that article as a
reference was the following sentence; I had no intention to get into
AH/KH controversy:
"The first one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the
informal ‘Tu’ and instead address him as ‘Aap’ (the respectful way of
saying ‘you’ in Urdu). "
I don't know how you missed it and mistook my intention; particularly
as the whole idea of supplying the link was at your insistence.
Again, I neither initiated, nor participated in, nor referred to
anything other than the 'aap' for Khuda/Allah (referred to as God in
that article); and that too in the context of Urdu poetry/language. So
dragging my name into discussions extraneous to ALUP just isn't fair,
particularly as it is you who seem to be making a habit of going on a
'tangent; about issues like 'dalits of India' practices of 'sati',
( and for god's sake), women plucking their eyebrows in some Indian
school????
I am not sure I even want an apology:-)
Best,
Vijay
Afzal A. Khan
> On 19 June, 03:15, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> But, in the article, nowhere did I find a mention that
>> zealots across the border were advocating the use of "aap" in
>> Urdu poetry (as a reference to God).
>>
>> So let me too bid "Allah Haafiz" to this controversy --- till it is
>> raised again !!
>>
>> Afzal
>
> Afzal sahib: The only reason for me to supply that article as a
> reference was the following sentence; I had no intention to get into
> AH/KH controversy:
>
>
> "The first one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the
> informal �Tu� and instead address him as �Aap� (the respectful way of
> saying �you� in Urdu). "
>
> I don't know how you missed it and mistook my intention; particularly
> as the whole idea of supplying the link was at your insistence.
>
> Again, I neither initiated, nor participated in, nor referred to
> anything other than the 'aap' for Khuda/Allah (referred to as God in
> that article); and that too in the context of Urdu poetry/language. So
> dragging my name into discussions extraneous to ALUP just isn't fair,
> particularly as it is you who seem to be making a habit of going on a
> 'tangent; about issues like 'dalits of India' practices of 'sati',
> ( and for god's sake), women plucking their eyebrows in some Indian
> school????
>
> I am not sure I even want an apology:-)
>
> Best,
>
> Vijay
Vijay Saheb,
I am reminded of the following sher by Akbar Ilaahabadi :
RaqeeboN ne ripaT likhwaaii hai ja ja ke thaane men
Ke Akbar naam leta hai KHuda ka is zamaane men
BTW, nobody has ever theorized that Akbar, a devout Muslim, was
referring to the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda. In film songs too,
the word "KHuda" has been used freely, e.g. "Aap naaraaz KHuda
KHair kare". Nobody ever objected on the ground that Saira
Banu and Dev Anand were non-Muslim characters in the film. Now,
what I write here may be considered irrelevant by some. And
that is exactly the point I am trying to make.
We were talking about the use of "tu" in the ZI sher. Now a
sly mention is made as to why the word is so likeable --- it is
used for God. And then, an insidious reference is cited to some
campaign being carried on across the border. Pray, tell me how
these events (during the period of Zia-ul-Haq, Benazeer Bhutto
and Nawaaz Shareef etc.) are relevant for our poetry discussion.
Those who held up the banners were exhorting their countrymen to
use "aap" instead of "tu". As I pointed out, there was no
mention in the article of anyone requiring "aap" to be used in
Urdu poetry. If the exhortation related to ordinary social
intercourse amongst people, how and why should it concern us ?
There are any number of lunatics in other countries (including
India) who come up with crazy ideas. There must be umpteen such
"campaigns" initiated by soap-box orators in Hyde Park. Even a
serious political figure as the revered (erstwhile) Prime Minis-
terial candidate Shri Advani-ji made such a fuss about "our
Imrana Bahen" a few years back. What kind of a "campaign" was
that ?
Admittedly, all these are irrelevant matters (for our NG) ---
just as the events described in the Dawn article are. There
can be no shying away from that fact.
"Dalits" : This is the second time you have referred to this.
My comment was a one-liner. And there was nothing in that
comment against that unfortunate, oppressed and downtrodden
community. And everybody knows how much I respect the person/
addressee to whom you have referred. If there is talk about
one person facing "discrimination", can my mind not go back to
the depths of discrimination faced by crores of people for eons ?
Sati : I was referring to past practices and the need to give up
those which could not be justified or supported on any count.
And I also referred to two Members of Parliament/Ministers who
supported this heinous practice in modern times. The previous
reference was to the so-called "earlier" practice of using the
KH form. What is so sacrosanct about it, that no alternate form
is permissible ?
Sikh girls plucking their eyebrows : I was talking about the
regressive nature of the court decision. It was not a "lunatic
fringe", holding up some banners, but an august body like the
full bench of an Indian High Court, laying down the law. What
is more, it was not merely a political commentary by some
columnist, but a hard news-report.
Apology : I don't think it is called for.
Afzal
UVR
> The previous
> reference was to the so-called "earlier" practice of using the
> KH form. What is so sacrosanct about it, that no alternate form
> is permissible ?
>
Afzal saahib,
I am responding only to the above portion of your post. And I'm doing
so only because I am convinced that your statement completely and
utterly misrepresents the facts of the KH/AH discussion. I'm afraid
that letting the above be the last word on that topic will indicate my
acquiescence with your 'version' of the events, and I do not feel
comfortable with that.
With all due respect, I must again strongly assert (for the last time,
I hope) that I have _never_ said that the KH form "is sacrosanct" or
that "no alternate form is permissible". Nor, to my recollection and
searching ability, has anyone else. If you disagree with this, I will
request you to kindly peruse all my posts in the current and previous
KH/AH discussion and supply evidence of my having taken such a
position. I daresay no such evidence will be found, because I have,
in fact made an explicit assertion to the contrary. Not once, but
twice in the current thread itself -- once in Urdu and once in
English; I have stated as unambiguously as I can that there is
absolutely no issue taken if someone wishes to use the AH form. I see
no reason for anyone to interpret otherwise.
My objection was, and continues to be, to a particular "lunatic
fringe" of the AH group attempting to inflict their opinion, viz.,
that "KH is wrong", on the other side. I think I have stated this
also previously.
ek baar aur sahi -- just to be clear again: it is The Foisting of an
Opinion on others (including me) that is being objected to. Not the
Opinion itself.
I hope this can be allowed to be the last word on the KH/AH matter (in
this thread!).
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
KHudaa~ra ek baat bataaiye ke mujhe aap se kis qism ki dushmani
hai ya ho sakti hai ke jo baat aap ne naheeN kahi, usii baat ke
liye maiN baar~baar aur zabardasti aap ko ilzaam dooN ?
Obviously, you have not called the KH form as "sacrosanct", nor
asserted that "no alternate form is permissible". At the same
time, I never ever said that you did utter these words.
But you did say the following in an earlier post (and I quote):
"You know as well as I do that this phrase has become very
very common these days. Whereas, even about 30 years ago,
it was used (if at all it was used) probably by a minor
'lunatic fringe'. And you are also well aware of the
justification provided for why allah hafiz is 'more
correct', why Khuda haafiz is 'wrong' and why everyone ought
to use the former rather than the latter. Does this mean my
father's generation (your peers), their fathers, their
grandfathers, their grandfathers, ... were all completely
wrong, or crazy, to have used 'Khuda haafiz'? "
Isn't all this a reference to past practices ?
There are so many things that people did in the past that they
no longer do. As a child, I learnt to write with a "baru".
I don't know how many people today are familiar with even this
word. When fountain pens (i.e. ink pens) were introduced in
India, people would say that their use would completely spoil a
child's writing. When ball-points came into use, even banks
in India frowned on their use. Bank documents etc. had to be
filled in regular ink, not in ball point. Over the years, of
course, ball pens became acceptable. Change and progress
are inevitable in human society. Of course, not all changes
are for the better. But this is largely a matter of opinion.
And we shall do well to remember this last point.
Most films made in the fifties and right up to the mid-sixties
upheld family values etc. But some people started deriding them
as "Madrasi formula" films. I am sure you are aware of this.
Today, even many of the folks belonging to the Indian Diaspora
living in the US mostly laugh at things like a Joint Family or
Eastern (or Indian) values. And to think that the first
settlers in the US were the Puritans from England --- people who
thought that the English Reformation had not gone far enough.
One could even call them religious extremists, perhaps. But
that would be just one point of view. When the Limited Overs
cricket matches began in the seventies, many old-timers scoffed
at them. Today, the Twenty-20 format has become the greatest
money-spinner. People should learn to live with opposing
viewpoints. These kind of disparate ideas can be found aplenty
in the music newsgroup RMIM. You are well aware of them.
Enough said.
It is possible that the advocates of AH across the border may be
considered by some as being religious extremists. But, in one
of my posts, I have tried to point out that they too may have a
case. It is the coercion and the "foisting" that I am opposed
to. Perhaps I am intolerant of intolerance.
But, to my knowledge, it isn't as if anybody using KH is immed-
iately set upon by the AH-wallahs and beaten to a pulp. I have
also stated categorically that if somebody had told you to
eschew KH and use only AH, you would have done well to tell him
where he got off. I see no point in seething and steaming about
it. And that is all.
Afzal
asad
> B. R. Chopra was well-known for propagating his brand of
> "secular" ideals. Like the song in "Dharmaputra" -- "Yeh
> masjid hai woh butKHaana, chaahe yeh maano ya woh maano".
> Did the poet (Saahir) really mean that Hindu folks should
> offer prayers in mosques ? The best interpretation that I can
> place on the lyrics is : "To each his own".
Afzal Saaheb,
In B.R. Chopra's "Dharnaputra" Sahir surely did not mean that Hindu
folks should offer prayers in mosques when he says "Yeh masjid hai woh
butKHaana, chaahe yeh maano ya woh maano". But did he mean the same in
the "Dhool Ka Phool" song where he says "Qur'aan na ho jismein vo
mandir naheen teraa, Geeta na ho jismein vo Haram teraa naheen hai? :)
Asad
asad
> Let me clarify further that a basic tenet of Islam is the kalima
> "Laa ilaaha illallaah". Which means : "There is no deity except
> Allah". That is the word used for God Almighty throughout the
> Holy Text. "Rahim", "Rahman" etc. are attributes ('sifaat').
> In that sense, if somebody happens to argue that Believers should
> refer to God as "Allah", he is merely following the Holy Text.
> But that kind of homily is certainly not meant for those who are
> "non-Believers".
Afzal Saheb,
OT
As someone who uses the salutation KH like UVR saheb, on innumerable
occasions I have been "corrected" by people. Some of them tell me that
using Khuda is wrong because it is derived from KHudi. (KHuda/Allah
jaane ismein kitnee sachchaayee hai). You had earlier said that in
Islam neeyat is important. If I as a believer am using a phrase with
the neeyat that I am referring to Allah, is that homily justified? or
just because I am saying KH, I become less of a believer.
Remember how Jalaaluddin Mohammad Akbar used "Allahu Akbar" and "Jall-
e-Jalaalahu".
Asad
Naseer
janaab-i-Asad Sahib, aadaab.
I have tried to stay away from this "KHudaa/Allah" debate as we have
already discussed this issue in the past.
When Sahir says:-
"Yeh masjid hai woh butKHaana
chaahe yeh maano ya woh maano"
I believe he saying "laa ikrah fi_ddiin", (There is no compulsion in
religion)..." To each his own".
In "Qur'aan na ho jismein vo mandir naheen teraa.
Geeta na ho jismein vo Haram teraa naheen hai?
Sahir is simply stating the central common theme of both the faiths
(and indeed of all faiths) embodying shared beliefs.
Coming to KH vs. AH. I have always used KH. I have never ever thought
of KHudaa as a different being from Allah or whatever name one gives
to the ultimate creator. I have said KHudaa Haafiz to people and there
have been times when the reply has been Allah Haafiz but neither side
has shown any disapproval.
Linguistically, KHudaa carries more than one meaning, KHudaa-vand
( "lord"for humans ), dih-KHudaa, naao-KHudaa etc. It also can be made
into a plural KHudaa-haa, KHudaayaan etc, whereas Allah neither has a
plural nor gender. For this reason, I believe the "puritans" prefer
its usage. We are all agreed that this should be and in my view it is
a personal choice and there is no coersion that I am aware of from any
direction.
Naseer
guzoon
> guzoon wrote:
> > On 19 June, 03:15, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> >> But, in the article, nowhere did I find a mention that
> >> zealots across the border were advocating the use of "aap" in
> >> Urdu poetry (as a reference to God).
>
> >> So let me too bid "Allah Haafiz" to this controversy --- till it is
> >> raised again !!
>
> >> Afzal
>
> > Afzal sahib: The only reason for me to supply that article as a
> > reference was the following sentence; I had no intention to get into
> > AH/KH controversy:
>
> > "The first one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the
> > saying ‘you’ in Urdu). "
Afzal sahib: you have gone ad hominim on me (again). I think I will
let ALUPers draw their own conclusions from reading my posts as to
whether I did or didn't veer away from ALUP charter. Once again, and
hopefully for the last time, I feel that replacing 'aap' for 'tu' for
any kind of god is extremely relevant to poetry and language. (I keep
getting panic attacks imagining 'ai maalik aap ke baNde ham:-)) There
was absolutely no cunning involved in my reference to the article
(which I was goign to pm you initially and only posted it on ALUP
because you insisted and more or less implied that I may be making it
up; although I couldn't if I tried). So calling my comment 'sly' is a
non sequitur, pure and simple. You have to just trust me on this, that
there was absolutely no motive extraneous to discussing (and
defending) my feelings about the word 'tu'.This is truly 'voh baat
saare f'saane meN jis ka zik'r na thaa...' If you still feel
otherwise, I am afraid you have brittle defences indeed. You wouldn't
have failed to notice that I haven't participated AH vs KH debate. I
am similarly absent from a previous debate on this issue, the link for
which UVR sahib furnished. I may have opinions on this issue but have
no compulsion to share those on ALUP.
I am hoping that we can at least stop our discussion here, even if we
disagree. If you are still compelled to respond, could you please make
your response such that it brings some closure to this debate, at
least between the two of us.
Best regards,
Vijay
Afzal A. Khan
> On 19 June, 17:02, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> guzoon wrote:
>>> On 19 June, 03:15, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> But, in the article, nowhere did I find a mention that
>>>> zealots across the border were advocating the use of "aap" in
>>>> Urdu poetry (as a reference to God).
>>>> So let me too bid "Allah Haafiz" to this controversy --- till it is
>>>> raised again !!
>>>> Afzal
>>> Afzal sahib: The only reason for me to supply that article as a
>>> reference was the following sentence; I had no intention to get into
>>> AH/KH controversy:
>>> "The first one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the
>>> informal �Tu� and instead address him as �Aap� (the respectful way of
>>> saying �you� in Urdu). "
Vijay Saheb,
I believe the Latin phrase is "ad hominem".......
I am prepared to accept all that you have said above.
So let us forget everything and remain friends ---
and also devotees of the Urdu language.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Asad Saheb,
In this thread, I have expressed some of my views, which include
the issue of "neeyat". I have never ever tried to "correct"
anyone, though I have always used the AH form myself.
I have also tried to explain that the other guy may have a case
too (Quraanic Text, and all that). So anybody telling you to
start using the AH form is, maybe, trying to do his good deed of
the day ! Since it is a question of personal choice, you can
continue bidding everyone a merry KH.
Is men aasteen chaRhaa lene ki kya baat hai ? !!
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Asad Saheb,
Did you see the film ("Dhool Ka Phool") ? I recall seeing the
film in Bombay's (old) Minerva Cinema, sometime around December
1959.
The song you have mentioned was filmed on the late character
actor Manmohan Krishn.
Do you remember MK doing an aarti of Krishna or Ganpati in the
film ? I certainly don't. But I do recall him performing
'namaaz'.
Oh, I see --- the exhortation is supposed to be for the young
toddler, not for himself.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
> On Jun 20, 8:52 am, asad <kidwai.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In B.R. Chopra's "Dharnaputra" Sahir surely did not mean that Hindu
>> folks should offer prayers in mosques when he says "Yeh masjid hai woh
>> butKHaana, chaahe yeh maano ya woh maano". But did he mean the same in
>> the "Dhool Ka Phool" song where he says "Qur'aan na ho jismein vo
>> mandir naheen teraa, Geeta na ho jismein vo Haram teraa naheen hai? :)
>>
>> Asad
>
> janaab-i-Asad Sahib, aadaab.
>
> In "Qur'aan na ho jismein vo mandir naheen teraa.
> Geeta na ho jismein vo Haram teraa naheen hai?
>
> Sahir is simply stating the central common theme of both the faiths
> (and indeed of all faiths) embodying shared beliefs.
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
You are treading on perilous grounds. Let me say no more.
Afzal
guzoon
>, whereas Allah neither has a
> plural nor gender. For this reason, I believe the "puritans" prefer
> its usage.
But I am sure he/she can understand a bit of persian:-)
Sorry, couldn't resist:-)
VIjay
asad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Afzal Saaheb,
Huzoor, aasteen chaRhhane kee jurrat kise hai, ham to bas Topi pahen
rahe the:)
@ Naseer Saaheb,
I appreciate what you have written, but isn't Allah referred to
Allahuu in Qur'aan, which is gender specific?
Asad
Naseer
> @ Naseer Saaheb,
> I appreciate what you have written, but isn't Allah referred to
> Allahuu in Qur'aan, which is gender specific?
>
janaab-i-Asad Sahib, aadaab.
It is true that in the Qur'aan , for Allah SubHaana wa Ta'aalaa, the
pronoun "huwa" (He) is assigned. This is true of other languages too
where "he" is assigned for God. We know that according to the Qur'aan,
there is no being like "him". So, in this respect, gender is
irrelevant.
What I was talking about is the word Allah itself as opposed to the
Being.
God/god Gods/gods
God/Goddess
Devtaa/Devii
ilaah (Arabic for "god"), aaliha (gods)
ilaahah (goddess) ilaahaat (goddesses)
Allah (no plural form neither feminine form).
Just an additional note about Arabic grammar. It has dual gender,
masculine and feminine. But, when one is talking about a mixture of
males and females, the masculine gender is used. So, the "default"
gender is masculine.
I hope this has been of some use.
Naseer