Nahjul Balagha by Muhammad al-Ghazali?

[Omar HH]

Assalam Alaykum,

I bought a copy of Nahjul Balagha from Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali, a Sunni, from Halab (Aleppo) Syria. The people in the bookstore had Sufi influences and told me that this was the only non-Shi'a version and it was weeded out of all Shi'a forgeries insha Allah (he only left stuff in there that he was sure Sayyidina Ali Karam Allahu Wajjahu said).

Have you all heard anything about this?

[traveler]

:o Najhul Balaghah by Muhammad al Ghazali? :D it surprised me a little when i read the thread title as i've never heard of that book by Hujjatul Islam Imam al Ghazali.. so it was by someone else of the same name :$

[Yusuf]

I've got that with a english translation from Iran- dont know how shi'ified it is, havent taken a look at it yet :$ .

[Omar HH]

No it's some Egyptian scholar named Muhammad al-Ghazali.

I think at least.

Maybe it says Muhammad 'Abduh, I left it at home.

But it's like he went through and took out every narration that he was not 100% sure came from the mouth of Sayyidina Ali (RA)

[shadowcaster]

Salam

Although nahjulbalagha comes with shia commentary there is a very famous commentary by a sunni called ibn hadid in his book called sharh nahjulbalagha (explaining the peak of eloquence). Shia Muslims still recommend sharh as a very good commentary on the work and recommend all to read it, and anyway all the Shia commentaries are based on it. I have a digital copy of the book and my mate ordered his hard-copy from amazon.

ps. see http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/

[jello]

Although nahjulbalagha comes with shia commentary there is a very famous commentary by a sunni called ibn hadid in his book called sharh nahjulbalagha (explaining the peak of eloquence).

I would like to ask, since when was Ibn Hadid a member of the Sunni community ???

If we were to accept Ibn Hadid as a "Sunni", why do we not go ahead and accept the likes of Khomeini, Sistani, Al-Khoei, Khamenei, Subhani, etc. as "Sunnis" as well (I am sure these Shia "scholars" will become "Sunni" for Shia propaganda reasons in a few centuries) ???

[jello]

Oh, by the way, the site http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/ is an Imaami Shia site, so I ask my Sunni brethren to remain vigilant...

[shadowcaster]

ibn Hadid isn't sunni? I only heard about him. :$ Yes we must remain vigilant just incase looking at a website written by shias makes us stupid. :rolleyes:

[jello]

Salam Alaykum

No, no I am not saying that we are "stupid" if we look at a Shia site. I have a number of Shia books and Tafseers and explanations that I have obtained from Shia sites... But I know they are Shia writings.

The problem is that most Sunnis have very little knowledge about Shias, so they may not even know a site or book is authored by Shia hands. This is a technique that is very useful for the Shias in the propagation of their sect.

[Muawiyah]

Shi'ites look very stupid when they pretend to be Sunnis

[shadowcaster]

Shi'ites look very stupid when they pretend to be Sunnis
And Sunnis look very stupid when they pretend to be Shi'ites. ;)

Are you guys scared of Shias? Are you afraid you might get infected by visiting a website? Scared to loose a Sunni brother who decides to become Shia? For God's sake it's only a website that talks about a book! You guys are absolutly pathetic. What, can't people decide what is wrong and right by their own mind? Do you need Sunni propaganda - image-smearing campaigns to stop the brother's realising the truth that there is so much in common between Shias and Sunnis that they needen't have a big banner on the website saying 'THIS IS A SHIA WEBSITE'? Or is it that you consider everyone else stupid enough not to think and decide for themselves?

[Muawiyah]

Why can't you shi'ites be upfront about your beliefs like we are? Why do you shi'ite missionaries lie all the time

- Why do you pretend to be Sunnis or "new muslims"?
- Why do you present shi'ite books and authors as "Sunni sources"
- Why do you misquote Sunni sources?
- Why do you hide your belief or try to make it more palatable (depending on the situation)?

Does the Haq need to be hidden? Do the people on Haq have to lie about it? If shi'ites are on the haq as they believe, then why all the sneakiness?

[shadowcaster]

Why can't you shi'ites be upfront about your beliefs like we are? Why do you shi'ite missionaries lie all the time.Because of the way we get treated, like second class muslims, untouchables, infedels even. Why do we always get accused of lying? Personally, I'm upfront about my beliefs and that is why I'm ostracized from certain circles. This is the treatment from my Sunni brothers - for Shame! Don't you dare compare us to those damn missionaries.


- Why do you pretend to be Sunnis or "new muslims"? Who's pretending anything? The reason I have my have a 'don't know' label is so that I won't be treated like dirt here. I'm virtually transparent and I get my questions answered without some half-witted takfiri extremist shouting abuse. Anyway, I'm in search of truth, and who knows, I might be interrested in becoming a hanbali for example.

- Why do you present shi'ite books and authors as "Sunni sources" ibn Hadid is not a Shia Muslim, and I was told he was a sunni since he does support the khalifah rashidah or so they say. With research you see that ibn Hadid is a mutazilite, which is an open-minded Sunni sect.

- Why do you misquote Sunni sources? Why do Sunnis misquote Shia sources? Anyway, it is a fact that the Shias take your books into context and study them because they are part of our path to knowledge and understanding Islam. We just admit that both sunni and shia sources have problems and mistakes among truthes.

- Why do you hide your belief or try to make it more palatable (depending on the situation)? The same reason why we all make some of our Islamic teachings more palatable to the jews, christians, and atheists. As Muslims we cannot 'hide' our beliefs outright. Is it not true that the Sunni scholars and whatnot hide/make-more-palatable some of the dispicable things some of the sahaba and their partners did from the students? One way they do this is to raise the level of mere human beings to saints, and they teach that whoever says anything in the least bad about them should be beaten or ostracized or labeled as a liar.


Does the Haq need to be hidden? Do the people on Haq have to lie about it? If shi'ites are on the haq as they believe, then why all the sneakiness?
Do the Sunnis need to hide the truths of history? do people on Haq need to lie/hide/belittle about the acts done by certain individuals. If the Sunnis are on the Haq why do they need to deny the truth, and do takfir on those who wish to find and study it?

[jello]

Salam Alaykum

(I knew eventually shadowcaster would come out as a Shia in this thread. We just know Shia tacticts !!!!)

In any case, about Ibn abil Hadeed, please prove to us that he was not a Shia. Reading from his statements, there is every reason to believe he was not only a Shia, but an extremist bent on ideas even most Imaami Shias would find as despicable. "Supporting the khulapha", or calling them "radhia Allahu anhum", agreeing with certain of their deeds is a technique used by countless Shia scholars to mislead the Sunni masses. And ibn Hadeed was of the same breed...

In any case, let us stick to the Nahjul Balagha and not go hither and tither about other issues, as they are irrelevant to this thread.

[shadowcaster]

Salam Alaykum

(I knew eventually shadowcaster would come out as a Shia in this thread. We just know Shia tacticts !!!!)

In any case, about Ibn abil Hadeed, please prove to us that he was not a Shia. Reading from his statements, there is every reason to believe he was not only a Shia, but an extremist bent on ideas even most Imaami Shias would find as despicable. "Supporting the khulapha", or calling them "radhia Allahu anhum", agreeing with certain of their deeds is a technique used by countless Shia scholars to mislead the Sunni masses. And ibn Hadeed was of the same breed...

In any case, let us stick to the Nahjul Balagha and not go hither and tither about other issues, as they are irrelevant to this thread.
ws.
Yeh, tactics. :rolleyes:

All I know about this Hadid guy is what i have heard about him. No need to take it out on our scholars or lie about them. At least have some respect for people with more knowledge and sense than you or I will ever have.

http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/commentaries.php


Sharh 'Izz al-Din ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu'tazili(d. 656/1258). This is the most famous commentary on which several commentaries have been written. This has been translated into Persian, French and most probably in Urdu. Its selection Iltiqat al-durar al-nukhab was compiled in 1283/1866-67. Commentaries written on it number at least fifteen, among the authors of which are such eminent names as Ahmad ibn Tawus (d. 637/1239), Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani (d. 1107/i695-96), Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani (1186!1772-3), Shaykh Muhsin Karim 'Abd al-Husayn ibn Musa, Mahmud Mallah and others. Critiques of his commentary were mainly directed against his position regarding the caliphate. Though Ibn Abi al-Hadid recognized al-Khutbat al-Shiqshiqiyyah as genuinely attributed to al-'Imam 'Ali (as), he, however, tried to interpret it in accordance with Sunni belief in the legitimacy of al-Khilafat al-Rashidah.

[Muawiyah]

ws.
Yeh, tactics. :rolleyes:

All I know about this Hadid guy is what i have heard about him

That's precisely the problem, your scholars told you Ibn Abil hadeed was a Sunni whereas they knew as well as they do that he was a Rafdhite Mu'tazili, and that neither do the Ahl us Sunnah wal Jam'ah consider the Mu'tazilah to be one of them and nor did the Mu'tazilah traditionally refer to themselves as one of the Ahl us Sunnah, rather they called themselves Ahl ut Tawheed wal `Adl. I can only think of two possible reasons for this sort of behaviour

Either the shi'ites consider lying to be a virtue Or
Shi'ites are ashamed of their real beliefs and their scholars

[shadowcaster]

That's precisely the problem, your scholars told you Ibn Abil hadeed was a Sunni whereas they knew as well as they do that he was a Rafdhite Mu'tazili, and that neither do the Ahl us Sunnah wal Jam'ah consider the Mu'tazilah to be one of them and nor did the Mu'tazilah traditionally refer to themselves as one of the Ahl us Sunnah, rather they called themselves Ahl ut Tawheed wal `Adl. I can only think of two possible reasons for this sort of behaviour.

Who said anything about a scholar telling me anything? It was just someone I know who told me that. Why can't you stop blaming our scholars for everything from the rising fuel tax to hurricane katrina. ( ;) )
No way is the guy a rafidhi since he does support the khlifah of the first 3, also, he is not a Shia and Shia don't recognise him as one of theirs. If you don't agree he is sunni, and we don't agree he is shia, then we conclude he is neither or something inbetween.


Either the shi'ites consider lying to be a virtue Or
Shi'ites are ashamed of their real beliefs and their scholars
Either the Sunnis consider lying about their Shia Muslim brothers a virtue Or
Sunnis are ashamed of their real beliefs and their scholars who hide and/or condone the actions of evil-doing people.

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

[1] Ibn Abil Hadid was a Mutazzilite, a belieif distinct from Sunni Islam.

[2] Ibn Abil Hadid himself states in the beginning of his Sharh that he wrote the book on the order of ibn Al 'Alqami. Our great Imam, Taqi Al Din Al Subki Al Ash'ari states about Alqami:

وكان شيعيا رافضياً

- He was a Shia Rafidhi.

It is also stated:

هو محمد بن أحمد بن محمد بن علي. أبو طالب مؤيد الدين العلقمي البغدادي شيعي المذهب

- He is Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn 'ali, Abu Talib Mawaid Al Din Al 'Alqami Al Baghdadi (from) the Madhab of the Shia.


Wasalam

[shadowcaster]

No way is the guy a rafidhi since he does support the khlifah of the first 3... and Shia don't recognise him as one of theirs. Hmmm :arrow_up:

[salman]

Hmmm :arrow_up:

Salamu Alaikum

It is irrelevant brother whether he confirmed the 3 Caliphs or not, the bottom line remains, whether he was a Sunni or not, he is not an authority in Sunni Islam, neither in Aqida (being a Mutazillite) nor in hadith nor in fiqh so quoting him is useless.

Wasalam

[Omar HH]

Anyways is this Nahjul Balagha which was edited and scraped down by Muhammad 'Abduh into a "Sunni version" good?

Anyways the part of Nahjul Balagha with the sayings and proverbs of Sayyidina Ali (Karam Allahu Wajjahu) are availible so many places (including some on Sunnipath) so I don't think the 2nd 1/2 of the book with the sayings is the bad part.

Anyways the fact of the matter is even with the sayings it is not authentically established to be the words of Mawlana Ali (Karam Allahu Wajjahu)

[Omar HH]

Hizmet Books says on Muhammad 'Abduh:

15. He wrote a commentary on the book Nahj al-balagha by Radi, who was the brother of 'Ali Murtada', a convert from the Jewish religion. This book, which caused faction among Muslims, had been commented on first by Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid 'Abd al-Hamid al-Mada'ini ash-Shii and then by another Shiite, Maisum al-Bahrani, Abduh's commentary was printed in Beirut in 1301 (1885).

[shadowcaster]

Salamu Alaikum

It is irrelevant brother whether he confirmed the 3 Caliphs or not, the bottom line remains, whether he was a Sunni or not, he is not an authority in Sunni Islam, neither in Aqida (being a Mutazillite) nor in hadith nor in fiqh so quoting him is useless.

Wasalam
Good arguments, rational and eloquence are not confined to a sect, a religion or a people but it is the wealth of those in search of knowledge.