"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[smaneck]

1.) You called the Taliban "wahabi" and you said Muhsin Khan, the one who wrote the translation of the Qur'aan, is a "Pashtun Wahabi" or part of the Taliban. So I would say that your labels are not very reliable.

There is actually is a relationship between all these movements. Check the isnads of the founders of most of the revivalists movement of the 18th and 19th century and they all go back to some of the same people. These were 'ulama who had objected to the policies of religious pluralism being promoted by the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar's method for dealing with religious dissidents was to offer them a one-way trip to go on pilgrimage to Mecca. They would end up teaching hadith in Mecca. Check the isnad of Ibn Wahhab and even al-Mahdi of the Sudan, they all go back to these 'ulama. Likewise the Deoband school grew out of opposition to Akbar.

For instance, you mentioned how "wahabis" consider Christians and Jews to be disbelievers instead of People of the Book (even though the two terms are not mutually exclusive) insinuating that this is a "wahabi" belief even though the Qur'aan refers to them disbelievers. This is the view of nearly all Muslims but you're pigeonholing and ascribing it only to the "wahabis".

Then a lot of Muslims are contradicting the Qur'an:

"Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians [wal-sabi'een], whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Al-Baqarah 2:62)

"Surely, those who believe, and those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians, whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Al-Ma'idah 5:69)

If the Qur'an goes out of its way to repeat the same thing more than once, don't you think it might mean it?

Why do I need to provide a narration from his book that contradicts this story? I don't know if there is or isn't, but if there isn't, does that automatically mean that this story is right?

As I said, at-Tabari gives all the narrations regarding an event he is aware of so the reader has the opportunity to see for themselves what really happened. If something else happened, why would he not recount it? Would he let a singular account stand if he didn't think it was true? I repeat, this man was a Sunni.

You can't just take his book and ignore his own words He said that he gave the list of narrators so people could discern which chains were sound or not sound.

Where did he say that? As far as I remember he said he was offering different narrations, not isnads so the reader could decide for themselves. Yet you don't have a variant narration for that event, you simply want to deny the one I presented.

A Sunni source that also contains narrations from lots of Shi'aas? ....Alrighty then.

As I said, he presents both sides, which is what makes him a good historian. If there is another side to the story you should have no difficulty finding it.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Just like the rafawafid she has no consistent methodology, she will accept ahadith that suits her (those that insult the ummayad dynasty), and reject those that are critical to her (such as those that say there is no rasul after me).

Yeah, not only do they have to reject a lot of authentic narrations (or believe in false narrations), they have to twist a lot of verses of the Qur'aan in order to accommodate their religion.

B-but- don't you know? Haven't you heard?

Is your girlfriend a Shi'aa, by any chance?

The Brotherhood considers themselves Salafi.

I'm pretty sure they don't. It's like saying the Christian democrats consider themselves [insert a specific denomination of Christianity].

But I can't help but notice that you insist on referring to the Shi'ism with words of insults instead of calling them what they call themselves.

Isn't this kind of rich considering you call people "wahabis" even though generally the only people to call some Muslims that are Shi'aas, barelwis, non-Muslims, and "progressive" Muslims as insults.

Taliban are deobandi maturidi hanafis. Why she would call them Wahabi beats me. Maybe she should read what the deobandi scholars have said about Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab.

Exactly. But see her newest post trying to justify her previous claim. lol. Unbelievable, honestly.

 

[Aristocles X]

@Sma

Then a lot of Muslims are contradicting the Qur'an:

Wrong. Muslims would contradict you'r interpretation of that verse which you reached using you'r own subjective understanding.

Here is how ahlu Sunnah views that verse.

Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and
Christians, and Sabians (Sabi'in), whoever believes in
Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds
shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be
no fear, nor shall they grieve.

After Allah described the condition - and punishment - of those who defy His commands, fall into His prohibitions and transgress set limits by committing prohibited acts,
He stated that the earlier nations who were righteous and obedient received the rewards for their good deeds. This shall be the case, until the Day of Judgment.
Therefore, whoever follows the unlettered Messenger and Prophet shall acquire eternal happiness and shall neither fear from what will happen in the future nor
become sad for what has been lost in the past.

Ali bin Abi Talhah narrated from Ibn Abbas, about, Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and
Christians, and Sabians (Sabi'in), whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be
no fear, nor shall they grieve.

And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. (3:85). This statement by Ibn Abbas indicates that Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad. Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved

Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 2:62

The rest of you'r replies i adressed in my previous post.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

There is actually is a relationship between all these movements.

The bottom line is, smaneck, that you mislabeled the Taliban as "wahabi" just like how the Shi'aas sling that term around to anybody who goes against their creed.

And you called Muhsin Khan a "Pashtun Wahabi" or part of the Taliban. lol, I don't even know where you got this claim from but it's so random that it's almost funny.

Then a lot of Muslims are contradicting the Qur'an

Again rich coming from you. You contradict the Qur'aan about Allaah raising Jesus (peace be upon him) up before he could be crucified, about the real and literal place called Hell, about a creation called the jinn, about the finality of the Prophet Muhammad, about there being nothing like unto Allaah (you say that there are people who are manifestations of Allaah's Attributes, whatever that means), and about how Islaam has been perfected.

The only one contradicting the Qur'aan is you.

Regarding the verses: Salvation for Non-Muslims: by Ansar Al 'Adl

As I said, at-Tabari gives all the narrations regarding an event he is aware of so the reader has the opportunity to see for themselves what really happened. If something else happened, why would he not recount it? Would he let a singular account stand if he didn't think it was true? I repeat, this man was a Sunni.

1.) .....Because not all hadeeth went through him? He is not the be all and end all of narrations. And you're the one claiming that if he didn't think of a narration as accurate, he must provide another version that is accurate. Again flawed thinking on your part.

2.) And I repeat, this man did not intend for his work to be thought of as accurate. But carry on doing what the anti-Islaam websites do and paste false or weak narrations that suit your agenda. And you mentioned self-serving ahadeeth.

Where did he say that? As far as I remember he said he was offering different narrations, not isnads so the reader could decide for themselves. Yet you don't have a variant narration for that event, you simply want to deny the one I presented.

Clearly I have to keep repeating myself (I've already provided the quote previously):

"I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…"

As I said, he presents both sides, which is what makes him a good historian. If there is another side to the story you should have no difficulty finding it.

He doesn't present both sides. He just puts in whatever was narrated to him which does not necessarily mean he puts in multiple versions of one event.

 

[smaneck]

I'm pretty sure they don't. It's like saying the Christian democrats consider themselves [insert a specific denomination of Christianity].

They did on there 'about us' section of their old website. It has been replaced and since they had a falling out with another Salafi group last fall, they may now be avoiding the term.

Isn't this kind of rich considering you call people "wahabis" even though generally the only people to call some Muslims that are Shi'aas, barelwis, non-Muslims, and "progressive" Muslims as insults.

Wahabi merely signifies that the theology goes back to Ibn Wahab. To call someone a deserter (rafida) is an entirely different matter.

Exactly. But see her newest post trying to justify her previous claim. lol. Unbelievable, honestly.

The connection between the isnads of the Wahabis, the Mahdi movement and the Deoband school has been documented by John O. Voll at the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

 

[Aristocles X]

Check the isnads of the founders of most of the revivalists movement of the 18th and 19th century and they all go back to some of the same people.

This is the same as calling Catholics for Protestants and claiming they all go back to the same group.

Check the isnad of Ibn Wahhab

What on earth are you talking about? Also his name was Ibn abd al Wahhab not Ibn Wahhab :/ For a historian you sure miss alot.

al-Mahdi

You mean Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi?

Likewise the Deoband school grew out

THe Deoband school grew out of the Maturidis. Their origins goes back to 1857 and the East India Company targeting Muslims. Scholars went to Deoband and started Darul Uloom around 1866. The founding father being Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi. Connecting this to Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab is far fetched and non-sensical. The one based on Ahlu Kalam and the other on Ibn Taymiyya's reform along with the books of the salaf.

 

[smaneck]

Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 2:62

And Ibn Kathir was a student of Ibn Taymiyya, the darling of all Salafi-type groups. Surprise, surprise.

In any case, if the Qur'an intended the verses in question to apply to the past, it wouldn't have put them it in the present and future tense. But it does explain why religious minorities are so badly treated once you guys come to power. The comparison one your favorites made between Shi'ites and Jews spoke volumes on your hateful attitudes towards both groups.

 

[Aristocles X]

Wahabi merely signifies that the theology goes back to Ibn Wahab.

The term Wahhabi comes from the book L'histoire des wahhabis by Corancez. Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab did not come with anything new. In Fes Morocco they had similiar idea's and were against the extreme taqlid. Ahmed Ibn Idris had no problems with Ibn abd al Wahab idea's besides the violence part.

 

[smaneck]

Connecting this to Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab is far fetched and non-sensical. The one based on Ahlu Kalam and the other on Ibn Taymiyya's reform along with the books of the salaf.

Check out who the founders of all these groups studied hadith in Medina. The isnads all go back to the same 'ulama.

 

[Aristocles X]

And Ibn Kathir was a student of Ibn Taymiyya, the darling of all Salafi-type groups. Surprise, surprise.

In any case, if the Qur'an intended the verses in question to apply to the past, it wouldn't have put them it in the present and future tense.

You poor thing. Read it in arabic, i guess i have to explain.

First Ibn Kathir is respected by all muslims. Some claim ashariyya for him.

Second Ibn Kathir quoted Ibn Abbas.

Third Suyuti gives the same interpretation.

Surely those who believe, [who believed] before, in the prophets, and those of Jewry, the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans, a Christian or Jewish sect, whoever, from among them, believes in God and the Last Day, in the time of our Prophet, and performs righteous deeds, according to the Law given to him — their wage, that is, the reward for their deeds, is with their Lord, and no fear shall befall them, neither shall they grieve (the [singular] person of the verbs āmana, ‘believes’, and ‘amila, ‘performs’, takes account of the [singular] form of man, ‘whoever’, but in what comes afterwards [of the plural pronouns] its [plural] meaning [is taken into account]).

Tafsir Jalalayn

Forth the verse is not in the past tense

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ

2:62

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ مَنْ آمَنَ

The same word is used in 10:83 40:30 11:36. As for إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا that is talking about Muslims.

The interpretation our Bahai friend is trying to give to prove bahaism is invalid because of 3:85. There are 2 ways to view this that the arabic permits.

1. It mentions the muslims and the believers of the past.
2. The explanation in Ma'ariful Qur'an. I personly believe nr 1 however here is a 2nd view

One might also ask why the verse mentions the Muslims, for if it is an invitation to Islam, there is no need to extend the invitation to those who have already accepted Islam. But if we keep in mind the richly concentrated style of the Holy Qur'an, and try to look beyond the literal sense of the words into the implications and suggestions contained in the verse, we would find that the inclusion of the Muslim factor has added a new dimension to the meaning. It is as if a king should, in a similar situation, say that his laws are impartially applicable to all his subjects, and that whosoever obeys them shall receive his reward for obedience irrespective of whether he has earlier been a friend or a foe. Obviously, the friend has always been loyal and obedient, and the warning and the promise have really been addressed to the foe. But the suggestion contained in such a formulation is that the favours of the king do not proceed from any personal attachment to the friends, but depend on the quality of obedience and loyalty, and hence the foes too will become worthy of his favours if they acquire the necessary quality. This is the raison d'etre of mentioning the Muslims along with the non-Muslims in this verse, which should never be taken to imply that salvation can be attained without accepting Islam. (Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 228-229)

 

[Aristocles X]

Check out who the founders of all these groups studied hadith in Medina. The isnads all go back to the same 'ulama.

I am unsure what you mean about isnads. Are you talking about the Ijaza?I already asked you to clarify what you mean as you seem to be confused and lost

For argument sake lets say they received Ijaza in ahadith and going back they reach a common sheikh. So what? How does their study in hadith connect them to anything other than hadith studies?

Muhammad ibn abd al wahab received 2 ijaza one from Abul-Muwahib and another from Abdullah ibn Ibrahim. How this makes taliban wahabis beats me.

 

[smaneck]

I am unsure what you mean about isnads. Are you talking about the Ijaza?I already asked you to clarify what you mean as you seem to be confused and lost

As I understand it whenever you memorize a hadith you add your own name to the isnad. I'm saying that the hadith which these people added their names to go back to ones transmitted by ex-patriot Indian scholars living in Medina. Voll didn't mention if they had also received an ijazah from these people.

 

[Aristocles X]

As I understand it whenever you memorize a hadith you add your own name to the isnad. I'm saying that the hadith which these people added their names to go back to ones transmitted by ex-patriot Indian scholars living in Medina. Voll didn't mention if they had also received an ijazah from these people.

If you receive the ijaza you receive the right to transmit ahadith from you'r teacher depending upon which type of Ijaza it is, you can also receive ijaza in other things. It is not simply enough memorizing the hadith no wonder you have think the hadith science is weak, you have no clue about the science itself.

However since you made the statement that the ulema of Deoband and Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab would have a common source at around he 16th century i would like you to prove this by bringing the the chains of the Ijaza and showing were they connected in the 16th century.

 

[smaneck]

If you receive the ijaza you receive the right to transmit ahadith from you'r teacher depending upon which type of Ijaza it is, you can also receive ijaza in other things. It is not simply enough memorizing the hadith no wonder you have think the hadith science is weak, you have no clue about the science itself.

They would not have had ijazahs during the time in which

However since you made the statement that the ulema of Deoband and Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab would have a common source at around he 16th century i would like you to prove this by bringing the the chains of the Ijaza and showing were they connected in the 16th century.

I don't have it. I got that information from Prof. John Voll who was the past director of director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He's the one who did the research on this topic.

 

[Aristocles X]

They would not have had ijazahs during the time in which

Huh? You want to finish the sentance?

I don't have it.

If you cannot provide a source for a claim it is best not to mention it.

 

[smaneck]

Huh? You want to finish the sentance?

Oops,sorry. What I meant to say is that during the early period when these hadith were first being collected there were no ijazahs. From a historical standpoint that is the only period which counts.

If you cannot provide a source for a claim it is best not to mention it.

I gave my source. Dr. John Voll. He got his information from Arabic biographical dictionaries.

 

[Aristocles X]

What I meant to say is that during the early period when these hadith were first being collected there were no ijazahs.

The Ijaza system started in th 11th century. Before Ijaza they had sama3 which was much more strict.

I gave my source

If we are talking about empirical evidence you should have the material you claim exists. I have not read the works of John Voll however i do think you misunderstood him. Deobandis and Salafis have no connection with each other. Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi forexample studied in Deoband and Saharanpur and we are talking after the death of Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab.

 

[smaneck]

The Ijaza system started in th 11th century. Before Ijaza they had sama3 which was much more strict.

Is that three supposed to represent an 'ayn?
That's pretty late.

If we are talking about empirical evidence you should have the material you claim exists. I have not read the works of John Voll however i do think you misunderstood him.

It is not something I read. I talked about this research with him when I was still a graduate student.

Deobandis and Salafis have no connection with each other. Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi forexample studied in Deoband and Saharanpur and we are talking after the death of Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab.

You aren't going back far enough. Remember I said the line of scholars all of these men studied under goes back to dissidents against the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar lived towards the end of the sixteenth century. Of those 'ulama who opposed him some ended up in Medina, but obviously not all were exiled and some of them produce the line that gives birth to the Deoband school.

 

[Aristocles X]

Is that three supposed to represent an 'ayn?
That's pretty late.

Yes the 3 is ayn. Sama3 is superior and more secure than Ijaza. Even when the Ijaza system started sama3 was still common.

You aren't going back far enough.

How far you want to go? To the time of Malik?

I said the line of scholars all of these men studied under goes back to dissidents against the Mughal Emperor Akbar.

Which scholar is common for both?

f those 'ulama who opposed him some ended up in Medina

Yes end? Whats the evidence that one of these unnamed ulama was a teacher of ahadith that passed ijaza of passing knowledge or books that later ended up with the scholars in Deoband and with Ibn abd al Wahab?

produce the line that gives birth to the Deoband school.

The Deoband school is largly mased on Maturidiyaa and Hanafi fiqh.

 

[smaneck]

How far you want to go? To the time of Malik?

Haven't been paying attention. I said this line begins with the 'ulama who opposed the Emperor Akbar.

The Deoband school is largly mased on Maturidiyaa and Hanafi fiqh.

Doesn't matter. We are talking about hadith scholars not scholars of kalam or figh.

Anyhow I did find John Voll's article on this. I'd gotten this from him orally and was not aware of his article on this topic.

Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: An Ulama Group in the 18th Century Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World
Journal of Asian and African Studies July 1980 15: 264-273,