Ibn Sarh

429 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr. M S M Saifullah

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

On 24 Jun 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Well, it has become part of the web page dedicated to you.
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Responses/saifullah.html
>
> The newest contributions of yours still need to be added,
> but what is there is already quite telling.

Firstly, let us do a small exercise of chronological argument of the
thread "Historical research of Quran". According to Katz, the chronology
of the thread looks like this

---------

The development of the discussion about the claim of "42,000 Qur'an
manuscripts and no variants" (S = Dr. MSM Saifullah, K = Mr. J. Katz, L =
Mr. Lomax, H = Dr. Christoph Heger):

S: Claim, K: question, S: ridicule and refusal to answer, S: more
diversions, K: clarification of the question, K: too much to ask?, S:
again the demand K has to prove non-existence, S: promise to get the
reference but still to claim that K. has to prove non-existence, K: why
the number is unrealistic and the demand illogical, L: comment on the
trustworthiness of the source, S (to K): more ridicule about logic, still
no evidence, K (to S): explanation of logic, S (to K): some acknowledging,
but still..., S (to K): Side tracking, no answer, S (to S): correction, K
(to L): bravo, S (to L): non-answer, K (to S on L): why this is not an
answer, H: Summarizing the facts - Part 1, H: Summarizing the facts - Part
2,

-----------

It is interesting to know that according to Katz, Dr. Heger 'summarized'
the facts which is chronologically last. Actually, the opposite is true.
What Dr. Heger did is to faithfully reproduce his arguments from Islam-L
mailing list. For that he did not show any evidence.

Anyway, since we are talking about the chronology of the thread, it can be
seen at:

http://www.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=thread&recnum=%3c6mp1u3$dig$1...@shell3.ba.best.com%3e%231/1

In this chronology one would see that the 'summarized results' of Dr.
Heger are rather well dealt with as well as destruction of Islamic
manuscripts of Qur'an as well as other material by barbaric followers of
Prince of Peace called the Christian who resided in Spain. Obviously Katz
is trying to selectively choose the argument to show that the argument is
not answered. It is clear that it is not upto Katz to get into anything
which is against his agenda.

> I wouldn't triumph too early. More evidence is emerging and
> given the indepth search that you (or your people) did it is
> amazing that they would only find what is useful to deny the
> charge and so utterly overlook what supports the original
> claim. Could it be that there was some 'selective' presentation?

Yes, it is better for Katz not to triumph this early since there is more
about his 'evidence gathering' exercise below.

So, Katz wants to show us that we are selective in the representation.
Okay! let us see how selective Katz is in linking my arguments against the
issue of Pharaoh and Haman. The thread looks like this in the dejanews:

---------------

Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - M S M Saifullah
1998/05/11
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Jochen Katz 1998/05/12
--- marjan 1998/05/12
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Jochen Katz 1998/05/13
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Dr. M S M
Saifullah 1998/05/13
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Dr. M S M
Saifullah 1998/05/13
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Jochen Katz 1998/05/15
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Dr. M S M
Saifullah 1998/05/15
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Dr. M S M
Saifullah 1998/05/18
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Dr. M S M
Saifullah 1998/05/18
Re: Pharaoh, Haman, Contradictions & The Qur'an - Jochen Katz 1998/05/19

-----------------

And in Katz pages on Pharaoh and Haman at

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qbhc09.html

surprisingly the below thread which dealt with the Historical nature of
the Book of Esther is omitted in the newsgroup discussion. This can be
located at:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=352947689.1

Obviously, Katz would not like his readers to read what his own scholars
say about the book of Esther being historically inaccurate book. So, it is
better not to link it. So, Katz did not link it. Now that is pot calling
the kettle black. As far as hypocrisy is concerned, Katz has a good amount
of history on this newgroup. And now we are seeing the history with our
own eyes. Seeing is believing, as they say!

> Far be it from me to call you a deceiver, you probably were just
> not properly informed by all those other people who did the work
> for you. Nevertheless, it doesn't look as impressive anymore.

What do people call a person who is hypocrite and a deceiver? Yes, it does
not look impressive anymore to claim honesty when there is none. If not
convinced, read the message right from the beginning.

Concerning the statement

> you probably were just
> not properly informed by all those other people who did the work
> for you.

The same can be said about Katz. In fact, this seems to be very regular
with Katz and his writings. Why not admit it? His Middle Eastern 'friends'
never backed him up with arguments, as far as I am aware of.

> We will see if you have the same ability to congratulate for a work
> well done after it is out. Or if you have only the ability to sneer
> and ridicule. In any case, a middle eastern friend wrote a response
> (in Arabic) and it is currently under translation by another friend.
> It will probably be available within a week.

Yes, we will be interested in the 'response' too. By the way, make sure
that you do not contradict whatever you already have about Ibn Sarh in the
homepage at:

http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html

After all, you got to defend that one too. we have not seen any defense yet.

Your Middle Eastern 'friends' have got a strange habit of not telling the
stories correctly, e.g., `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi. And unfortunately, we
have to consult our own sources to verify. So, do not talk about
'selective' stuff etc. We have already seen such examples in Gilchrist's
work.

Wassalam
Saifullah

--
Dr. M S M Saifullah NTT Basic Research Laboratories
'Islamic Awareness' http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/


Dr. M S M Saifullah

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

On 24 Jun 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:

Hello Katz!

> Well, it has become part of the web page dedicated to you.
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Responses/saifullah.html

Listen to me! There are some other posts of mine in that thread concerning
the manuscripts of the Qur'an such as the brief historical analysis from
the point of view of Islamic history. Why not include even that? I know it
is very scary for you guys to at least show honesty that Christians
destroyed lots of manuscripts of the Muslims. Let me see how honest you
are? Let every one know that the followers of prince of peace did to
Islamic manuscripts.

> I wouldn't triumph too early. More evidence is emerging and
> given the indepth search that you (or your people) did it is
> amazing that they would only find what is useful to deny the
> charge and so utterly overlook what supports the original
> claim. Could it be that there was some 'selective' presentation?

I thought the evidence presented by you (again resorting mere copying!)
was rather taken out of context. Well, we will be ready for further
investigation on that.

> We will see if you have the same ability to congratulate for a work
> well done after it is out. Or if you have only the ability to sneer
> and ridicule. In any case, a middle eastern friend wrote a response
> (in Arabic) and it is currently under translation by another friend.
> It will probably be available within a week.

Well, our job is to simply check the sources and what they say. As the
tradition goes, the missionaries even when given the sources do not know
how to quote properly. And we do not congratulate deceivers.

Regards

Jochen Katz

unread,
Jun 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/26/98
to

In article <6mui2p$25f$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp (Dr. M S M Saifullah) writes:

} > I wouldn't triumph too early. More evidence is emerging and
} > given the indepth search that you (or your people) did it is
} > amazing that they would only find what is useful to deny the
} > charge and so utterly overlook what supports the original
} > claim. Could it be that there was some 'selective' presentation?
}
} I thought the evidence presented by you (again resorting mere copying!)
} was rather taken out of context. Well, we will be ready for further
} investigation on that.
}
} > We will see if you have the same ability to congratulate for a work
} > well done after it is out. Or if you have only the ability to sneer
} > and ridicule. In any case, a middle eastern friend wrote a response
} > (in Arabic) and it is currently under translation by another friend.
} > It will probably be available within a week.
}
} Well, our job is to simply check the sources and what they say. As the
} tradition goes, the missionaries even when given the sources do not know
} how to quote properly. And we do not congratulate deceivers.

How then do you come to congratulate yourself so often?

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Abdullah bin Sa'd

Before we get into what the author of the response to our article said in
detail at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html ,
there are some things that should be clarified:

1. All sources used in this article are Islamic, the ones on our side of the
story and the ones on the side of the author's story. Sometimes the both of
us even use the same source. Yet in spite of that, we see that there are
great differences in the opinions reached. I think that this is attributed
to the differences and conflicting stories in the Islamic sources
themselves. This gives the opportunity to both us and the author of the
response to quote whatever backs up the point each is trying to prove, but
this method doesn't give us the facts we really want to arrive at.

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.

3. It is well known in the Science of the Quran ('Ulum Al-Quran) that it
is possible for verses to be sent down (revealed) more than once (for
different occasions), and it's even possible for the reason of the
revelation (Sabab Al-Nuzool) of the same verse to be repeated. (See
"Al-Itqan fi 'Ulum Al-Quran" by Al-Suyooti - the chapter "fasl" of the
knowing of the reason of revelation "ma'rifat sabab al-nuzool", and the
chapter "fasl" of what was revealed more than once "ma takarrara nuzuluhu")

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:

Al-Wahidi: his saying [Allah's saying in the Quran], "Who can be more wicked
than one who inventeth a lie against Allah" to the end of this verse. This
verse was revealed about Musaylamah Al-Kathaab (the Liar) Al-Hanafi, he
recited poetry, prophesied and claimed prophethood...

While his saying [Allah's saying in the Quran] "I can reveal the like of
what Allah hath revealed" was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Sarh.
He confessed Islam. The Messenger of Allah invited him once so that he could
write him something, so when the verse which is in Surat Al-Mou'mineen "Man
We did create from a quintessence (of clay)" was recited, he [Mohammad]
dictated it to him [Abdullah]. When Mohammad finished by saying "We
developed out of it another creature", Abdullah was amazed by this detail in
the creation of man and said, "So blessed be Allah, the Best to create!", so
the Messenger of Allah said, "That's how it was revealed to me". So Abdullah
doubted then and said [to himself], "If Mohammad were truthful, then I was
revealed what he was revealed. And if he were a liar, then I said what he
said." (See "Asbaab Al-Nuzool" by Al-Wahidi Al-Naysaboori - Page 126 -
Beirut's Cultural Libary Edition "Tub'at Al-Maktabah Al-thakafiyyah Beirut"
- No date)

Al-Tabari: The One whose name is Exalted (Allah) means in his saying "Who
doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah" and "Who doth
more wrong and who is more ignorant than such as invent a falsehood against
Allah" referring to those who invent falsehood against Allah and claim to be
a Prophet and a Warner, and he [the person who claims] is false in his
claims, and lying in his sayings. In this, God is ridiculing the Pagan
Arabs, and (ridiculing) the opposing of Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh
and the Hanafite Musaylamah to the Prophet of Allah (SAW). For one of them
claimed prophethood and the other claimed that he came up with something
similar to what the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came with [the Quran], and at
the same time denying the lying and false claims against his Prophet
Mohammad (SAW).

The people of the interpretations (scholars) had different opinions about
that; some of them said what we said [agreed with us]. Among those are:

Al-Qasim told us: Al-Hussein narrated: Al-Hajjaj narrated: by Ibn Jurayh, by
Ikrimah:

His saying [Allah's saying in the Quran], "Who doth more wrong than such as
invent a falsehood against Allah, or said: 'I have received inspiration,'
when he hath received none". He [Ikrimah] said: This verse was revealed
about Musaylamah the brother of Bani (children of) Uday bin Haneefah, for he
[Musaylamah] was reciting poetry and prophesying. And "I can reveal like
what Allah hath revealed" was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi
Al-Sarh, the brother of Bani (children of) Amir bin Lu'ai. He [Abdullah]
used to write for the Prophet (SAW), and while he [Mohammad] was dictating
"Exalted in power, full of Wisdom", he [Abdullah] would write it
"Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful", thus changing it. Then he [Abdullah] would
read the changed verses to him [Mohammad], and he [Mohammad] would say, "Yes
[in approval], it's the same [meaning]". So he [Abdullah] reverted from
Islam and followed Quraysh telling them, "He [Mohammad] used to recite to me
Exalted in power, full of Wisdom', and I would change it when I write it
down, and he would tell me, 'Yes [in approval], it's the same [meaning]."
But then he [Abdullah] came back to Islam before the conquering (fath) of
Mecca, while the Prophet (SAW) was at Mur [a place in Arabia - on his way to
Mecca].

And some said: This verse was indeed revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd in
particular. Among those are:

Mohammad bin Al-Hussein spoke to me, he said: Ahmad bin Al-Mufdil narrated:
Asbat narrated from Al-Sudy: "Who doth more wrong than such as invent a
falsehood against Allah, or said: "I have received inspiration,' when he
hath received none..." until his [Allah] saying, "ye receive your reward, a
penalty of shame". He [Al-Sudy] said: This verse was revealed about Abdullah
bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh, he embraced Islam, and used to write [Quran
revelations] for the Prophet (SAW). So when the Prophet dictated him: "Who
heareth and knoweth all things", he'd write it: "All-Knowing, All-Wise". So
he doubted and reverted. Then he said, "If Mohammad gets inspiration, then I
get inspiration too, and if Allah sent him his revelation then I was sent
the same thing. For when Mohammad said, 'Who heareth and knoweth all things'
I'd say, 'All-Knowing, All-Wise'" So he followed the Pagans, and he blew the
cover of Ammar and Jubar [secret Muslims] to Ibn Al-Hudrumi or to Bani Abd
Al-Dar, so they took them and tortured them until they reverted. Ammar's ear
was cut off that day, so he [Ammar] went to the Prophet (SAW) and told him
what had happened to him, but the Prophet (SAW) refused to handle his issue.
So Allah revealed about [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh and his companions,
"Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, - except under
compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their
breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a
dreadful Penalty" Who was "under compulsion" is Ammar and his companions,
and who "open their breast to Unbelief" is [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh.

Other said: The person who's referred to as saying "I have received
inspiration, when he hath received none" Is Musaylamah Al-Kathaab (the
Liar). Among those are:

Bishr bin Mu'aath spoke to us, he said: Yazeed bin Rabea' narrated: Sa'eed
narrated Qutadah, he said: "I have received inspiration,' when he hath
received none, or (again) who saith, 'I can reveal like of what Allah hath
revealed" This verse was revealed about Musaylamah Al-Kathaab (the Liar). It
was narrated to us that the Prophet of Allah (SAW) said, "I saw in my sleep
two golden bracelets around my arms, they started to grow bigger and bigger
and became a burden on me. So I was inspired to blow on them - I did and
they flew away. I interpreted my dream that they [the bracelets] are the two
Liars I'm between: The Liar of Al-Yamamah Musaylamah, and the Liar of San'aa
Al-Ansi." And he [Al-Ansi] was called Al-Aswad.

Mohammad bin Abd Al-Aa'laa spoke to us, he said: Mohammad bin Thawr narrated
Mu'mar who narrated Qutadah, he said: "I have received inspiration,' when he
hath received none" was revealed about Musaylamah.

Al-Hasan bin Yahya spoke to us, he said: Abd Al-Razaaq informed us: Mu'mar
narrated Qutadah, and he added to it: And the Zuhri told me that the Prophet
(SAW) said, "I saw in my sleep two golden bracelets around my arms, they
started to grow bigger and bigger and became a burden on me. So I was
inspired to blow on them - I did and they flew away. I interpreted my dream
that they [the bracelets] are the two Liars I'm between: The Liar of
Al-Yamamah Musaylamah, and the Liar of San'aa Al-Ansi."

The opinion I believe which has more credibility than the others is to say:
Allah said, "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against
Allah, or said: 'I have received inspiration,' when he hath received none".
There is no disagreement between the Scholars of the Ummah (nation) that Ibn
Abi Sarh was one of those who said, "I had said like [what] Mohammad
[said].", and that he reverted from Islam and followed the Pagans. There is
no doubt that what he said was lies. And there is also no disagreement
between all [the Scholars] that Musaylamah and Al-Ansi the Liars claimed
falsehood against Allah by saying that he sent them as Prophets; for each of
them had said that Allah inspired them, and they are lying in their claims.
(See Al-Tabari in the commentary of the verse - from the Encyclopedia of the
Quran "Mawsoo'at Al-Quran" - Al-Areesh Company for Computers "Sharikat
Al-Areesh lil-computer" - Beirut - 1998).

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.

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).

Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Sarh bin Al-Harith Abu Yahya Al-Qurashi Al-Amiri

4714 ---- Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh bin Al-Harith bin Habeeb
Bilmuhmlah Musghira bin Huthafah bin Malik bin Hasl bin Amir bin Lu'ai
Al-Qurashi Al-Amiri, and some inserted [into his genealogy] Huthafa and
Malik Nasra. The first one is more famous and his Kunyah is Aba Yahya. He
[Abdullah] was Othman's [the fourth Caliph] brother by nursing (rida'ah),
and his mother was Ash'ariyyah (Al-Zubayr bin Bikar said that). Ibn Sa'd
said that her mother is Muhabah bint Jaber. Ibn Habban said that his father
was one of Quraysh's hypocrite infidels - that's what he said and I haven't
seen any other [view]. Al-Hakim narrated from Al0suday, by Mus'ab bin Sa'd
by his father, "When it was the day of the conquering (fath) of Mecca, the
Prophet gave safety to all its people except for four men and two women;
Ikrimah, Ibn Khatl, Maqees bin Subabah, and Ibn Abi Al-Sarh." He went on
with the Hadeeth and said, "As for Abdullah, he hid with Othman, so he
[Othman] came to the Prophet with him, while he [Mohammad] was making vows
of allegiance (bay'ah) with the people. So Othman said, 'O Messenger of
Allah, make a vow of allegiance (bay'ah) with Abdullah.' And so he did after
three attempts. Then he [Mohammad] went to his companions and said, 'Isn't
there any honorable man among you who would stand and kill him [Abdullah]
when he saw me refusing to make the vow with him?'" And from Yazeed Al-Nahwi
by Ikrimah by Ibn Abbas who said, "Abdullah bin Sa'd used to write for the
Prophet, so Satan made him err and he followed the infidels. The Prophet
ordered his death (meaning of the day of Conquering Mecca), but Othman
intervened and asked for his safety, so the Prophet kept him safe [didn't
kill him]."

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

Finally we say that the problem is still standing. Knowing or not knowing
much about the beginnings of Abdullah's coming to Islam doesn't change a
thing. Whether Abdullah's Islam was good after he came back to Islam or
whether he did that to gain the material gains Othman was renown for giving
to his relatives (notice that Abdullah ruled Egypt during Othman's reign,
but left it afterwards) also doesn't change a thing. So let me present you
with the main problem again:

There was a companion scribe of Mohammad. Mohammad used to dictate him what
he wants until he told him to write what he likes. Later Mohammad ordered
his death, but his brother in nursing (Othman) asked for his safety and it
was granted.

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

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. For if we find a Saheeh (correct)
text at one of those sources, we'll find it Da'eef (week) at another - until
we come to Al-Bukhari (who is the Imam of the Hadeeth with the Sunni
Muslims, and not the Shi'a). If we criticize the history of the revelation
of this verse, then it will do us no good because of the existence of all
the other stories which back up the Islamically-not-so-liked story.


khal...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/27/98
to

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.


<laughing>


gho...@eleve.emn.fr

unread,
Jun 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/28/98
to

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Assalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

Greetings Jochen,

I am sorry you could not wait till you had a better argument to present.
Though we do not often agree, I try hard to convince myself that whenever
confronted with the Truth on any topic on your page, you will be elegant
enough and brave enough to acknowledge your mistake and simply withdraw the
flawed article. This seems to be your policy. So, unless you provide new
facts that were not taken into account and that are not already answered by
us, the case of Ibn SarH was thoroughly and honestly rebutted on the Islamic
Awareness site. I think that regarding this issue, you are reaching
crossroads: either you insist on supporting the claim about Ibn SarH without
convincing evidence (and you lose your credit) or you bow to the Truth about
this case and shift to another topic (and you keep the credit I try to give
you).

In article <6n0vpl$brh$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
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

We have given all the sources available to us, Jochen. We have even mentioned
the sources your party gave/distorted (al-Iraqi was distorted and al-Baidawi
was incomplete and proved to convey a fabricated report). We added to that
more evidence against your claims in support to our position. See below for
further details.

> 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.

I advise you to think twice before doing such a thing. I have nothing to lose
if you do but putting poor material on your site is indeed a big problem you
will have to face.


> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Abdullah bin Sa'd
>
> Before we get into what the author of the response to our article said in
> detail at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html ,
> there are some things that should be clarified:
>
> 1. All sources used in this article are Islamic, the ones on our side of the
> story and the ones on the side of the author's story. Sometimes the both of
> us even use the same source. Yet in spite of that, we see that there are
> great differences in the opinions reached. I think that this is attributed
> to the differences and conflicting stories in the Islamic sources
> themselves.

Actually, Islamic sources such as tafseers or Sirah books do present
conflicting reports in some cases. This is a reality. Another fact to keep in
mind, is that these books do not often authenticate their reports (read what
we quoted from al-Haafiz al-Iraqi about that) in our rebuttal. They only
collect all that is floating around in their time. Some of these reports go
further and comment on the reports. While quoting such sources, a honest
searcher has to authenticate the reports presented in terms of transmission
(based on 'Ilm Urrijaal) and in terms of content -"matn"- (based on 'Ilm
Ul-Hadith). If you take these cautions + taking into account the very opinion
of the author of the quoted source, you will reach the honest generally
admitted conclusion. But if you have an agenda that you are trying to serve,
no wonder you will find the conclusion you dream of. But on this forum, we
are not discussing such dreams...

> This gives the opportunity to both us and the author of the
> response to quote whatever backs up the point each is trying to prove, but
> this method doesn't give us the facts we really want to arrive at.

If you want the facts, do read our rebuttal page again. It took us a lot of
time and effort to gather the reports from many sources and confront them
before we reached a conclusion that God will be pleased with inshallah. If
you find any flaw in our rebuttal, you are invited to point it out.
Otherwise, you are also invited to defend your position or honestly update
your site according to the Truth provided at the Islamic Awareness site.

> 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.

The guy who wrote that post for you Jochen is not aware of what he says or he
did not read our rebuttal in the first place. We proved that in your claim
about SarH, some Islamic sources were distorted on purpose, some other
sources were partly quoted (al-Baidawi) and the quoted bit was a gross
fabrication. No such thing could be found in our rebuttal. Add to this the
fact that we mentioned or quoted other sources conveying the same report as
al-Baidawi such as at-Tabari and al-Qurtobi (we have even provided the full
translation of the commentary of al-Qurtobi about verse 6:93). We have also
given you the benifit of doubt about the revelation of verse 6:93 in Medinah
while the whole chapter 6 is fully Meccan according to the vast majority of
scholars. From your side, we asked for simple things that you failed to
fulfil namely, provide the full quotation of al-Baidawi (we could not access
it from our side).

It is easy to accuse us of your own vice but you have to prove it. And for you
own information, what you are accusing us of is definitely against our policy
and we prefer silence and patience to presenting incomplete or dishonest
material.

> 3. It is well known in the Science of the Quran ('Ulum Al-Quran) that it
> is possible for verses to be sent down (revealed) more than once (for
> different occasions), and it's even possible for the reason of the

Yes this is true. That is why many people seem to be concerned with that
verse: Musaylamah al-Kadhdhaab, Al-Ansy of Yemen, Ibn SarH (with the benefit
of doubt), a jewish rabbi in Medinah and more generally anybody who claims to
receive revelation or who pretends to reveal something like God's revelation.
All this is presented in our rebuttal. Nonetheless, the reason given (ie the
revelation of verse 23:12) for Ibn SarH's apostasy is a gross fabrication as
we have demonstrated. The fact that many sources convey that fabrication does
not give it more reliability simply because the commentaries usually quote
each other, because the commentaries do not authenticate their reports (that
is why *all* the reports involved in SarH's issue are weak and disrupted) and
because it was proved to be anachronous.

> 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

actually it is verse 6:93 that we are talking about.

> 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:

We did not access al-Wahidi. However, according to your quote, he did not add
anything new to what is mentioned in al-Baidawi, at-Tabary and al-Qurtobi. So
why would we quote him? Quoting a reference is necessary when it brings
something new. There is no interest in scrolling pages and pages of
commentaries saying the same thing!! And for your own information, in our
rebuttal, we said that according to at-Tabari Ibn SarH converted willingly
before the conquest of Meccah but we refused to give this report more credit
than it deserved because it is weak (though it would serve our position to
accept that report) .

> 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.

Let us see if this second smoke screen stands the strong wind of Truth...

> 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).

[skip the quotation from the above reference]

Thank you for the reference. We do not have that book though.

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

The answer is simple: go read the report of al-Qurtobi we provide in our
rebuttal. It provides what you have quoted from the above reference and goes
further. So you cannot accuse us of hiding or overlooking anything. A part of
the same information is provided by your page in kitaab At-Tabaqaat
al-Kabeer. However, speaking of selective quotations, note that your
quotations (even the one quoted in your post) do not mention all that is said
about SarH!! Why do you always "forget" the mention of SarH being a good
Muslim after his second conversion to Islam. Why don't you take into account
the fact presented in Usuud Al-Ghaabah where we learn that SarH's first
conversion to Islam was after Hijrah? The answer is obvious: the fact that he
embraced Islam after Hijrah disqualifies the reports that support your
claims!! The repeated complaint of Saifullah about your party's reading
problems seems to be justified in this case.

> Finally we say that the problem is still standing. Knowing or not knowing
> much about the beginnings of Abdullah's coming to Islam doesn't change a

You do not seem to get the point or you have not read our rebuttal. The fact
that Abdullah came to islam after the Hijrah proves that his claimed
contribution to verses 23:12-23:14 is a FABRICATION. This verse being a
fabrication, the claim that verse 6:93 mentions SarH loses its justication.
Thus two arguments of yours fall flat on the face. Do you see what it changes
to know when Abdullah first came to Islam?

> thing. Whether Abdullah's Islam was good after he came back to Islam or
> whether he did that to gain the material gains Othman was renown for giving
> to his relatives (notice that Abdullah ruled Egypt during Othman's reign,
> but left it afterwards) also doesn't change a thing.

THe main interest of his being a good Muslim after he came back to Islam is
that he seems to fully accept Islam and was convinced of its Truth. He was
not a Hypocrite and that is why he was mentioned among the "Lions" (Usuud
Al-Ghaabah means "The Lions of the Wilderness", namely the brave Companions
who spread the Message after the death of the Prophet (PBUH).)

> So let me present you with the main problem again:

I have understood the problem and the rebuttal of your claims still stand.

> 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.

This is too much rhetoric. If you are talking about the commentaries of the
Quran, we cannot but accept the Saheeh reports they mention. The rest is not
binding and is to be taken with the due cautions. Building accusations like
you do on untrusted reports is a risky adventure and it usually ends flat on
the face like in the case of Ibn SarH. The same applies for Seerah books.

> For if we find a Saheeh (correct)text at one of those sources, we'll find it


> Da'eef (week) at another - until we come to Al-Bukhari (who is the Imam of the
> Hadeeth with the Sunni Muslims, and not the Shi'a).

Be more specific. What you are uttering here is mere rhetorics. I bet you
cannot apply it to the reports concerning SarH since *all the reports* there
are not Sahih whatever your Hadith source may be.

> If we criticize the history of the revelation
> of this verse, then it will do us no good because of the existence of all
> the other stories which back up the Islamically-not-so-liked story.

blablabla.

Do take the above seriously and try to be up to your own policy and standards.
You can also advise your assistants to read carefully what they are answering
before they answer. I will be expecting your next position: either accept the
evidence we have given at:

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

or you have to defend your position with strong evidence not mere rhetorics.
Do not forget to take everything presented into account. Good luck. By the
way, I would like you to link your article about SarH to our rebuttal until
you find an answer (unless you decide to withdraw the article from your
site).

Best regards,

wassalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

Mohammad Ghoniem email: gho...@eleve.emn.fr

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Jochen Katz

unread,
Jun 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/28/98
to

Mohammad Ghoniem wrote:

} I am sorry you could not wait till you had a better argument to present.

Maybe it is not for you to decide on behalf of all others
what is a good argument and what is not?

} Though we do not often agree, I try hard to convince myself that whenever
} confronted with the Truth on any topic on your page, you will be elegant
} enough and brave enough to acknowledge your mistake and simply withdraw the
} flawed article. This seems to be your policy. So, unless you provide new
} facts that were not taken into account and that are not already answered by
} us, the case of Ibn SarH was thoroughly and honestly rebutted on the Islamic
} Awareness site. I think that regarding this issue, you are reaching
} crossroads: either you insist on supporting the claim about Ibn SarH without
} convincing evidence (and you lose your credit) or you bow to the Truth about
} this case and shift to another topic (and you keep the credit I try to give
} you).

Let me tell you that I do not react to "blackmailing" whether blunt
death threats or emotional "I won't like you anymore" kind of threats.

} We have given all the sources available to us, Jochen. We have even mentioned
} the sources your party gave/distorted (al-Iraqi was distorted and al-Baidawi
} was incomplete and proved to convey a fabricated report).

al-Iraqi was distorted so it seems, and I am glad you pointed this
out. This will be corrected in due time. But it will take some
time. There are many issues to take care of. I can't jump to this
always immediately.

What do you mean by "al-Baidawi was incomplete". Did I not give
the full quotation of what al-Baidawi wrote? If that is not what
you mean, then lay the blame at al-Baidawi's feet, but not on
at mine.

For the time being, two days ago I have updated the page about
the issue and you find a link from the original article to both
your response and my friend's answer to it.

Isn't it fair to give the people the opportunity to read both
sides and compare the facts and then decide for themselves?

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html

[US site update will follow in a few days as well.]

That is about all I can say at this time. I am not
qualified really to discuss the technical details.
I leave that to my Arab friends who have access to
the sources.

} >The Arabic and English version
} > will go up on 'Answering Islam' soon.
}
} I advise you to think twice before doing such a thing. I have nothing to lose
} if you do but putting poor material on your site is indeed a big problem you
} will have to face.

The good thing is that if it turns out to be bad,
then I can always correct it. I never put intentionally bad
material on. But one can be genuinely of different opinion
and think something is good and another can think it is bad.
I had some people tell me that the response is good. The fact
that you don't like it and call it bad is not really the
measure of all things.

There is tons of bad material all over many Muslim sites.
Few Muslims seem to care about that. So why should it
be so bad that I have some articles you think are bad?


} If you take these cautions + taking into account the very opinion
} of the author of the quoted source, you will reach the honest generally
} admitted conclusion. But if you have an agenda that you are trying to serve,
} no wonder you will find the conclusion you dream of. But on this forum, we
} are not discussing such dreams...

Just tell me you have "no agenda". :-)

There is still the unanswered question how some very respected
Islamic scholars like al-Baidawi report those stories as facts.
They had no intention to slander Muhammad or Islam. They thought
this was true. How did those stories come to be accepted among
the Muslims if they had no basis whatsoever?

I can see how positive stories are accepted because people want
them to be true, even if they are not. But what have the stories
of Ibn Sa'd going for them that would make them stick if they
are not true and well known?

The very fact that there are "bad stories" and "good stories"
found reported by devout Muslim scholars makes you wonder
which ones are more likely to have been invented by Muhammad's
community and which are mor likely to be authentic?

Face it, but that is how much of critical scholarship
works. You can't just discard those because you don't
like them. Where are they coming from? What is the
motivation for inventing them?

} If you want the facts, do read our rebuttal page again. It took us a lot of
} time and effort to gather the reports from many sources and confront them
} before we reached a conclusion that God will be pleased with inshallah. If
} you find any flaw in our rebuttal, you are invited to point it out.
} Otherwise, you are also invited to defend your position or honestly update
} your site according to the Truth provided at the Islamic Awareness site.

As I said, the site will be updated, but for the time being
you can hardly expect more than the fact that I link to your
response for all to see.

Everyone is free to compare.

} > 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
}
} actually it is verse 6:93 that we are talking about.

either that is a typo, ir that is just one of the many cases
where there are so many different verse countings. But I'll
ask him to check.

} The answer is simple: go read the report of al-Qurtobi we provide in our
} rebuttal. It provides what you have quoted from the above reference and goes
} further. So you cannot accuse us of hiding or overlooking anything. A part of
} the same information is provided by your page in kitaab At-Tabaqaat
} al-Kabeer. However, speaking of selective quotations, note that your
} quotations (even the one quoted in your post) do not mention all that is said
} about SarH!! Why do you always "forget" the mention of SarH being a good
} Muslim after his second conversion to Islam.

Now, that part even I can answer. Because his later life is
irrelevant to both issues in question:

1. did Sarh contribute formulations to the Qur'an, i.e. not all
came from God through Gabriel to Muhammad, but Sarh's formulations
are in the Qur'an.

2. Why did Muhammad issue the death order regarding Sarh?

Those were the only issues we ever discussed.
Sarh's later life is completely irrelevant to those questions.

Either, Sarh had a genuine change of heart (you never know,
it happens), or he decided to go with the flow and play good
Muslim since he couldn't change anything with the power
constellation as it was now. He might as well profit from
it then. Both of these are possible and we cannot know which
of them is true.

However, they have no influence on the above mentioned
essential questions. Regarding the truth of Islam, only
the question of the text of the Qur'an and the character
of Muhammad are of interest. The character of Sarh's
person in his later life does not tell us whether Islam
is true or not.

Enough on that for now. Thanks to Mohammad though for
being able to speak with more politeness than the other
responder earlier.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz


Dr. M S M Saifullah

unread,
Jun 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/29/98
to

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

Well, do we have to congratulate Katz and his Middle Eastern 'friend' for
providing us with such a 'brilliant' piece of 'response' concerning Ibn
Sarh? It is now turning out to be anybody's guess.

What is still worst is that they have not read the whole page

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

properly. After good responses from Brother Khalid (welcome!) and brother
Ghoniem, alhamdulillah, I do not have anything to say.

Wassalam

mgho...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jun 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/30/98
to

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Assalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

Hello Jochen,

In article <6n6ps3$qdj$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,


Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Mohammad Ghoniem wrote:
>
> } I am sorry you could not wait till you had a better argument to present.
>
> Maybe it is not for you to decide on behalf of all others
> what is a good argument and what is not?

It is for the readership to decide and I brought the necessary evidence to
disprove your argument. Your reaction was merely to avoid the arguments I
brought so I will try to state them plainly this time.

> Let me tell you that I do not react to "blackmailing" whether blunt
> death threats or emotional "I won't like you anymore" kind of threats.

Be assured that I won't address you death threats ever :-)

> al-Iraqi was distorted so it seems, and I am glad you pointed this
> out. This will be corrected in due time. But it will take some

My pleasure.

> time. There are many issues to take care of. I can't jump to this
> always immediately.

Take your time but the sooner the better for me.

> What do you mean by "al-Baidawi was incomplete". Did I not give
> the full quotation of what al-Baidawi wrote? If that is not what
> you mean, then lay the blame at al-Baidawi's feet, but not on
> at mine.

We asked for the full entry of Al-Baidawi about verse 6:93. Even you, Jochen
Katz, do not have the evidence that the quoted passage is all that is given
in this regard. One expects something as lengthy as in Al-Qurtobi or
At-Tabary. So please ask your party to scan the page where he extracted this
passage from and let us examin what al-Baidawi says.

> For the time being, two days ago I have updated the page about
> the issue and you find a link from the original article to both
> your response and my friend's answer to it.

Well, this is fair enough. However, in my last post, I answered your partners
accusation about giving incomplete information. His claim is simply not true
as I have explained on 28/06/1998. The fact is mentioning every ressourec
existing on earth is simply impossible and it is worthless provided that the
sources you quote provide everything available on the issue. Any addition
beyond that limit will be a simple repetition of no value. So I guess the
accusation on your page is not fair.

> Isn't it fair to give the people the opportunity to read both
> sides and compare the facts and then decide for themselves?

Of course, it is fair and I encourage you to continue doing so.

> That is about all I can say at this time. I am not
> qualified really to discuss the technical details.
> I leave that to my Arab friends who have access to
> the sources.

There are no technical details in our debate that a simple person could not
evaluate. But it may be more convenient for you to leave that issue to your
partners.

> The good thing is that if it turns out to be bad,
> then I can always correct it. I never put intentionally bad

In Egypt, we have a proverb that says: "The shot that does not hit its target
makes a lot of noise". So maybe, making a lot of noise is the least you expect
to gain before you correct the poor material on your site. But who knows?

> material on. But one can be genuinely of different opinion
> and think something is good and another can think it is bad.

I guess we are not discussing tastes here. It is not like "I like ice cream
with strawberry flavour and you prefer chocolate". We are providing factual
evidence that can be judged and criticized honestly. One may think whatever
he likes, but in order to convince other people you have to present arguments
and not only thoughts and wishes.

> I had some people tell me that the response is good. The fact
> that you don't like it and call it bad is not really the
> measure of all things.

As far as I may advise you, those people are not helping you find the Truth.
Anyway, I will be waiting for their answer.

> There is tons of bad material all over many Muslim sites.
> Few Muslims seem to care about that. So why should it
> be so bad that I have some articles you think are bad?

I don't know of such Muslim sites and I am by no means bound by their
behaviour because I drive my principles from constant standards. Does the
existence of poor material on internet justify or encourage you to put poor
material on your site as well?

> } If you take these cautions + taking into account the very opinion
> } of the author of the quoted source, you will reach the honest generally
> } admitted conclusion. But if you have an agenda that you are trying to serve,
> } no wonder you will find the conclusion you dream of. But on this forum, we
> } are not discussing such dreams...
>
> Just tell me you have "no agenda". :-)

Do not avoid the heartly advice I am giving you.
Of course everybody has an agenda. But you must be able while searching the
Truth to forget that agenda for a moment.

> There is still the unanswered question how some very respected
> Islamic scholars like al-Baidawi report those stories as facts.

I answered that by you did not mind reading. The fact that many "respected"
scholars like al-Baidawi reported those stories is not a big deal because:

* Most of the mentioned scholars copy from each other. So the existence of
the same claim in many sources does not increase its credit. On the contrary,
when the report proves to be a fabrication, they are sadly conveying the same
fabrication!! * All the mentioned scholars _collected_ the reports floating
around them _without authentication_ because their main interest was the
preservation of the existing account before an authentication process could
be applied to them by the following generations of scholars. refer to the
quotation of Al-Haafiz Al-Iraqi about that in the case of Seerah books. the
same applies to the commentaries because they actually take a lot of stories
from the Seerah books.

> They had no intention to slander Muhammad or Islam. They thought
> this was true. How did those stories come to be accepted among
> the Muslims if they had no basis whatsoever?

Who says they were accepted? They were merely conveyed which is a different
issue. You cannot prove that conveying a report implies an agreement from the
scholar (unless he says so clearly). Otherwise, how come that many scholars
would quote contradictory opinions about the same subject? Moreover, for your
own information, a source such as the commentary of At-Tabary is criticized
by many scholars for being full of "Israa'iliyyaat" (ie stories inspired from
the Jewish accounts and having no real basis in Islam). So the sources you
think are "respectable" may sometimes be regarded differently depending on
the standpoint.

> I can see how positive stories are accepted because people want
> them to be true, even if they are not. But what have the stories

Positive stories may be accepted by somebody looking for entertainment not
for a critical researcher. When it comes to accepting a report as true,
sometimes I reject "positive" stories if they lack evidence. I would only
mention them anecdotically, no more no less.

> The very fact that there are "bad stories" and "good stories"
> found reported by devout Muslim scholars makes you wonder
> which ones are more likely to have been invented by Muhammad's
> community and which are mor likely to be authentic?

Once you understand that those devout people were mere reporters and were not
concerned by authentication, you have no trouble imagining why they reported
bad stories as well as good stories. "Muhammad's community" was not uniform
and it contained devout and unfaithful people side by side. So what is your
point?

> Face it, but that is how much of critical scholarship
> works. You can't just discard those because you don't
> like them. Where are they coming from? What is the
> motivation for inventing them?

You can discard them because they prove to be a gross fabrication. Forget what
you like and what you dislike for a while, will you?

> As I said, the site will be updated, but for the time being
> you can hardly expect more than the fact that I link to your
> response for all to see.

Nothing more is expected.

> } The answer is simple: go read the report of al-Qurtobi we provide in our
> } rebuttal. It provides what you have quoted from the above reference and goes
> } further. So you cannot accuse us of hiding or overlooking anything. A part
of
> } the same information is provided by your page in kitaab At-Tabaqaat
> } al-Kabeer. However, speaking of selective quotations, note that your
> } quotations (even the one quoted in your post) do not mention all that is
said
> } about SarH!! Why do you always "forget" the mention of SarH being a good
> } Muslim after his second conversion to Islam.
>
> Now, that part even I can answer.

Can you answer the fact that we did not make partial quotations as claimed by
your party? Can you still claim and prove that we retained information of any
kind?

> Because his later life is irrelevant to both issues in question:
>
> 1. did Sarh contribute formulations to the Qur'an, i.e. not all
> came from God through Gabriel to Muhammad, but Sarh's formulations
> are in the Qur'an.

We have brought conclusive evidence that Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi SarH
converted to Islam for the first time in Medinah (thanks to the quotation from
Usuud Al-Ghaabah) while the verses supposed to contain his contribution are
Meccan. This is an obvious anachronism and it proves that Ibn SarH did not
change what is claimed by you partners. So you still have to prove that he
really contributed to the Quran whatsoever.

> 2. Why did Muhammad issue the death order regarding Sarh?

This answered at the Islamic Awareness site in the url:

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

I mentioned "ta'dheer" so check that part again.

> Those were the only issues we ever discussed.
> Sarh's later life is completely irrelevant to those questions.

Those were the issues we answered. Sarh's later life does not have much to do
with that but it helps us brush an exact image of him.

> Enough on that for now. Thanks to Mohammad though for
> being able to speak with more politeness than the other
> responder earlier.

Thanks for your interest. May you take the time to read the arguments
presented and drive the right conclusions. I know this is not funny for you
but "what does not kil you, strengthens you, they say."

Best regards,

wassalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

Mohammad Ghoniem email:gho...@eleve.emn.fr


"Lord, forgive me, and my parents and the Faithfull on the day of Judgement"

Jochen Katz

unread,
Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98
to

I had asked:

} > What do you mean by "al-Baidawi was incomplete". Did I not give
} > the full quotation of what al-Baidawi wrote? If that is not what
} > you mean, then lay the blame at al-Baidawi's feet, but not on
} > at mine.

In article <6n9m9f$34v$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mgho...@my-dejanews.com writes:

} We asked for the full entry of Al-Baidawi about verse 6:93. Even you, Jochen
} Katz, do not have the evidence that the quoted passage is all that is given
} in this regard. One expects something as lengthy as in Al-Qurtobi or
} At-Tabary. So please ask your party to scan the page where he extracted this
} passage from and let us examin what al-Baidawi says.

I have answered to this already several times. I am plainly
sick of it. I will just cut and paste and then you are on
your own. I find this very impolite. If you think it is not
all then get the commentary and show me that there is more.
I have asked my friend and he told me this is all. It is now
up to you to disprove it if you don't believe it. This is
what I have said many times:


I wrote in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=333863158.3

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Saifullah:]
} so katz, why do not you tell us the whole story from baidawi. it will be
} quite interesting again to see the whole argument in that book. suyuti says
} the last part of 23:14 "So blessed be Allah the fairest of creators!" was
} revealed through the tongue of 'umar (RA).

According to an Arab friend of mine who supplied the Arabic text of
Baidawi's quote, this is the complete comment by Baidawi on this aya.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html

He typed it up for me directly out of the Tafsir by Baidawi.
I can only trust him on that. I don't read Arabic and have no
access to the work. If you disagree, then it is for you to bring
more of the quotation. I have no responsibility to invent for you
a longer quotation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=333863109.1
I also wrote:

This is to the best of my knowledge al-Baidawi's complete comment
on this verse.

And in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=336591437.3 I wrote:

************************************************************************
However, the al-Baidawi quotation is verbatim from his tafsir
and agrees rather well with the Al-Iraqi one. Not the particular
formulation of "exposed" but the rest of what supposedly happened.
And the quotation from Baidawi in that book and in the original is
identical. So, it isn't that the book is distorting everything.
I know the people behind Light of Life, I have met several of them
and they are very sincere and honest people as far as I can tell.
But everyone can make mistakes. I will find out what the issue is
with this one.
************************************************************************


And in http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=336586880 I had to
repeat:

========================================================================
} i asked for a complete quote of that section. nothing more, nothing less.

And I gave you the complete quote and you call me a liar.
So what is the point asking for the complete quote
if you are not going to believe it when I do?
========================================================================

Is that often enough?
You have read certainly most of those,
why then do you come again with the same?


Jochen Katz

Jochen Katz

unread,
Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98
to

In article <6n9kla$nnc$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp (Dr. M S M Saifullah) writes:

} ..., I do not have anything to say.

This statement does not come to any surprise. :-)


By the way, Khalid's response has been responded to already
and will be translated soon. The problem is that the author's
English is so error-ridden that he rather writes in Arabic
and then somebody else translates it. However, this does
slow down the communication process considerably.

But patience is a virtue, and with a bit of delay we will
continue this discussion until all the issues are on the
table.

Both, the author and the translator are converts by the
way, who have a solid Islamic education. Not so easy to
fool.

Sincerely,

Jochen Katz

mgho...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Assalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

Hi Jochen,

> In article <6n9m9f$34v$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> mgho...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> } We asked for the full entry of Al-Baidawi about verse 6:93. Even you, Jochen
> } Katz, do not have the evidence that the quoted passage is all that is given
> } in this regard. One expects something as lengthy as in Al-Qurtobi or
> } At-Tabary. So please ask your party to scan the page where he extracted this
> } passage from and let us examin what al-Baidawi says.
>
> I have answered to this already several times. I am plainly
> sick of it. I will just cut and paste and then you are on
> your own. I find this very impolite.

In this thread, you seem to be losing your temper especially in the last
couple of posts (I mean you stoped greeting people even if they greet you and
you stoped asking for peace and guidance for them). This is really a bad
sign, isn't it?

Let me make an offer. Your friend has got Al-Baidawi's commentary or at least
a photocopy of the relevant page, right?

My request is that you find a way to _scan_ the hardcopy and send it to me. If
you can be generous enough, just send me a phocopy of the relevant page(s).
Please make sure that the graphic file is readable enough.

Be assured that from our side, we have desperately looked for al-Baidawi's
commentary but in vain. One is not well served in the West. What I can do
from my side (except waiting for you to kindly fulfil the above request) is
to look for al-Baidawi's commentary in Egypt during my summer holidays
inshallah. In this regard, I would highly appreciate if your friend in
possession of that commentary could give you the exact reference of that book
(editor, print etc.)

> If you think it is not
> all then get the commentary and show me that there is more.

Well let's hope I will find it inshallah.

> I have asked my friend and he told me this is all. It is now

You are certainly aware that "my friend has told me" does not evacuate the
doubt. So I guess your friend will be able to _scan_ or at least photocopy the
relevant page and let us judge. Is that fair enough?

[...]

> According to an Arab friend of mine who supplied the Arabic text of
> Baidawi's quote, this is the complete comment by Baidawi on this aya.

Let me warn you against a possible misunderstanding: the quotation supplied
by your friend _might be_ the complete comment concerning Ibn SarH but it is
by no means the complete quotation about this aya (note that aya = verse)
because the full verse is longer than the clause you extracted from it
concerning SarH.

> He typed it up for me directly out of the Tafsir by Baidawi.

So I understand that he has the Tafsir within reach. So please do us a favour
and provide either a graphic file of the relevant page or a paper copy of it.
Thanks in adcance.

[...]

> I know the people behind Light of Life, I have met several of them
> and they are very sincere and honest people as far as I can tell.
> But everyone can make mistakes. I will find out what the issue is
> with this one.

My experience with one of your acquaintances does not allow me to be so
optimistic. JesusIslam (I remember that you said you knew him and that he was
a sincere convert and a real Egyptian etc.) claimed that he had Al-Itqaan fi
Uluum il-Quran in Arabic at home (he even emphacized: "how could I leave
Egypt without taking that valuable book with me"), and when I asked him for
the title of the section from which he quoted a paragraph, he was not able to
provide it. Not only didn't he answer a very simple request, but he did not
answer at all a couple of emails where I insisted on having the title and
where I explained why I needed it. But this is off the subject of Ibn SarH
anyway.

> ========================================================================
> } i asked for a complete quote of that section. nothing more, nothing less.
>
> And I gave you the complete quote and you call me a liar.
> So what is the point asking for the complete quote
> if you are not going to believe it when I do?

I gave you a very honest offer that will certainly solve that problem. So
please do the necessary.

Best regards,

wassalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.

Mohammad Ghoniem email: gho...@eleve.emn.fr

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

mgho...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Hello Jochen,

I noticed that in your last post you reacted to the passage about Baidawi's
quotation only. So I guess you have nothing to say about the rest of my
previous post. Is that a sign of agreement or only a delay?

regards,

Dr. M S M Saifullah

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

In article <6n0vpl$brh$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Jochen Katz
<jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> This statement does not come to any surprise. :-)

Yes, this is because you guys do not have the brains to understand the
clear argument.

> But patience is a virtue, and with a bit of delay we will
> continue this discussion until all the issues are on the
> table.

No problems, inshallah. We will deal with all the issues on Ibn Sarh. We
have already seen the quote from al-Iraqi which gave sufficient proof of
how Arab Christians work with the books of Muslims. And after that they
say: Muslims say such and such, whereas Muslims never said such and such
after the references are verified.

> Both, the author and the translator are converts by the
> way, who have a solid Islamic education. Not so easy to
> fool.

And let us also see how solid is their Islamic education. And by the way,
do not scare Muslims by those hyperboles. We have seen enough of those "my
learned Arab friend", "ex-Muslim" etc. and now some guy with 'solid
Islamic education'.

After all the same can be said about Farrell Till. He is a convert to
atheism from Christianity and knows his ex-scriptures well and hence can
not be easily fooled. At least, the history on MCAD shows that. So, do not
come up with those pathetic statements of guy with 'solid Islamic
education' types.

So, the first round was not impressive from the guy with 'solid Islamic
education'.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages