Ibn Sarh - soc.religion.islam

Message from discussion Ibn Sarh

khalid00_

More options Jun 27 1998, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

From: khalid...@hotmail.com

Date: 1998/06/27

Subject: Re: Ibn Sarh

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:

>Anway, everyone is invited to judge for himself if Saifullah
>and team have been honestly given all the sources on this issue
>or been very selective to slant the picture.... Here is the
>translation of the article. The Arabic and English version
>will go up on 'Answering Islam' soon.

>Jochen Katz

Here we go again. first I would request our poor friends to read the
page they are responding to first. Which I don't think it requires any
change at the moment.

Here is first the short and general answer for their blank response,
this is actually a summary of what have been already provided on the
page <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html> :

Ibn Sarh first converted to Islam *in Madina* as shown in the
reference of Usud ALghab, where all the Meccan Chapters have been all
**revealed** a long time ago.

Why is this important?

Because the great part of the response the author [Jochen's friend]
sent was dealing with the quotations of interpretations of Meccan
Chapters where Ibn Sarh was *proven* has not been a Moslem yet
therefore he *couldn't* be the subject of a meccan verses. and this
answers most of the message. That's was easy right? but hey this is
already have been answered on the above quoted page, it require only a
careful reading the author's part. So we are repeating it again.

Why did the interpreters of the Quran then spoken about Srah? because
first they are not error free. second they have given many other
nominees for the verses in question. and that what the word
*interpretation* stand for. by other words they are saying; this verse
might be speaking about this person or that etc. they are trying to
*interpret* the Quran. so they are copieng from each other this part
of the interpretation so search for the report not who copied it :-)

Let me give you this example; There is a verse in the Quran which the
interpreters say it speaks of call to prayers (azan), most of them
agree on it. but after the famous Ibn katheer came he had proven all
of them wrong when showing that the chapter in question is meccan and
call to prayer was not established in mecca but rather in Madina after
all the meccan chapters were revealed. So the verse wasn't speaking
about call to prayers (azan). and Similarly we it has been proven from
the most reliable sources that Ibn Sarh was not a Moselm in the Meccan
era. So how can a Meccan verse speak of him while he wasn't yet a
Moslem???

Did you get the picture yet?

Secondly, you have been proven of, shamelessly, putting words into the
mouth of our scholars, and I mean in this instance Aliraqi, and this
by itself discredit you period. and I am concentrating on this point
to show you before the readership of SRI that who ever resort to such
an act is a worthless person. We have borough the Quotation of Aliraq
on the page:

<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html>

and it is there for everybody to see and to compare with what's on
Jochen's page. And I repeat what I have previously said, if it was me
who was caught in this disgracing act, I would rather not to be called
a Moslem.

So instead of wasting your time on bringing what have been already
known and acknowledged by us and by all the scholars 1000 years ago
try to bring the correct quotation of Aliraqi, and read one more time
what is on the above mentioned page.

=====REQUEST=====
And finally a request of clarification on yet another strange comment:
you have mentioned that there are *many* hadith that speaks of Sarh so
here I am telling you I only know of one [ I am a simple person] and
it is in Abu Daoud complete collection of hadith, and it is marked
"weak" which means unreliable. so please gives us the list of the
*many* hadith that you have so we can verifiy <smile>

so don't forget this time.
================

And now let us look into the so called answer of Jochen and friend.

[intro. deleted]

>2. It is clear that the author of the response did the exact same thing he
>criticizes us of doing; for he himself quotes certain sources while ignoring
>others.

At least here we had a partial confession. and we are waiting for the
full one, if you still have traces of faith. thank you.

But it is totally absurd and childish, and unfair to be comparing the
brothers and describing them with the shameful act you have done here.
let me remind you again about Aliraqi whom you have inserted into his
mouth a complete pargraph and attributed it to un shamefully thinking
it wouldn't be verified. but that's your trade mark and I raise my
brothers from such standard. these are not our ethics. sorry!

>Now, let's investigate the given response.

>The author objects to us saying that the reason for revealing (sabab
>al-nuzool) of verse 89 of Surat Al-An'aam was Abdullah bin Sarh, yet he
>doesn't give us a satisfactory answer to what's written in "Asbab Annuzool"
>by Al-Wahidi, and in Tafseer Al-Tabari of the same verse. What they said is
>the following:

First here is what have been established, The above chapter is a
meccan chapter, and Ibn Sarh was not Moslem until later on when all
the meccan chapters were revealed, isn't that a satisfactory answer?

So the author go on listing the interpretations of the mentioned
scholars which have already been answered on:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html>

So I'll skip it.

>Even though the author mentioned these texts and even may have read them, he
>totally ignored them. Yet the problem is still standing, and we didn't
>invent these texts - we just copied them.

That is pure imagination from the author, these are already
acknowledged and answered in the above site, so read about when Sarh
first became a Moslem. unless you want a glasses to read it.

>The author did the same thing when he talked about 'Ilm Urrijaal (the
>Science of the Folk); he quoted Usuud Ulghaabah while ignoring the others.
>So we refute his book with another book, for Ibn Ab Al-Sarh's biography was
>in "Al-Isaabah fi Tamyeez Al-Sahabah" (Volume 4, Page 109, kaf = 0, ba' = 0,
>ha' = 4714) (from the Encyclopedia of the Prophet's Hadeeth "Mawsoo'at
>Al-Hadeeth Al-Nabawi" - Al-Areesh Company for Computers "Sharikat Al-Areesh
>lil-computer" - Beirut - 1998).

The only quotation from Usud ALghab we have brought was where it
speaks about when Srah came to Islam, to establish that all the Meccan
chapters weren't talking about him.

so we supposed the author, by saying the above, will give another
date in his reference. But reading it we find there is nothing but
repetition of the same argument that have been already answered
nothing more.

What did the author add? NOTHING

So I'll skip, if you want to read then go back the message.

>And we ask again, why does the author of the response ignore this text?

ask yourself ;-)

>This story appears a lot in many (Quran) commentaries, and in many Hadeeth
>collections - and all these sources are Islamic.

Will here we go again. Can you name me one Saheeh hadith of the story?
the story can be found in Ibn Daoud complete collection of hadith and
it has been marked ***weak*** so can you tell us what do you mean by
Many? and at least tell us where we can find these many hadith?

You are poor in this my dear, any way we will be waiting for an answer
for this too, so don't forget??

Salam for now

Khalid...

>The proposed solution by the author with is to criticize the chain of
>narrators of the Hadeeth creates another problem for the Muslims; which is
>the ability to trust most Islamic sources.

Reply to author Forward