False accusations against =Hilali & Khan= by G.F. Haddad

[Musleemah]

Other false accusations


G.F. Haddad said here: http://www.livingislam.org/ibaz_e.html

10- Commissioning Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali with English translations of the motherbooks of Islam such as the Qur'an, al-Bukhari's Sahih, al-Zabidi's al-Tajrid al-Sarih, al-Naysaburi's al-Lu'lu' wa al-Marjan etc. when Khan was only trained as a chest doctor while the late Moroccan-born Hilali had no more than a poor mastery of the English language.13 Hence their translations are clumsy, inelegant, filled with gaps and approximations, and further corrupted by deliberate manipulations of meaning along doctrinal lines as shown by the following example in their Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 549: "Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `The Prophet said, "The people were displayed in front of me and I saw one prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, and another prophet passing by with only a small group of people, and another prophet passing by with only ten (persons), and another prophet passing by with only five (persons), and another prophet passed by alone. And then I looked and saw a large multitude of people, so I asked Gibril, "Are these people my followers?' He said, `No, but look towards the horizon.' I looked and saw a very large multitude of people. Gibril said. `Those are your followers, and those are seventy thousand (persons) in front of them who will neither have any reckoning of their accounts nor will receive any punishment.' I asked, `Why?' He said, `For they used not to treat themselves with branding (cauterization) NOR WITH RUQYA (GET ONESELF TREATED BY THE RECITATION OF SOME VERSES OF THE QUR'AN) and not to see evil omen in things, and they used to put their trust (only) in their Lord." On hearing that, `Ukasha bin Mihsan got up and said (to the Prophet), "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet said, "O Allah, make him one of them." Then another man got up and said (to the Prophet), "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet said, `Ukasha has preceded you."'"

As demonstrated in the text of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (6:137-149) on ta'wîz, there is a Jahili ruqyâ, and there is a Sunni ruqyâ. The former is made with other than what is allowed in the Religion, such as amulets, talismans, spells, incantations, charms, magic and the like: and that is what the Prophet meant in the above hadith. But the translator Khan mischaracterized it, in his parenthetical gloss, as the Sunna ruqyâ consisting in using some verses of the Qur'an or permitted du'â for treatment! Thus he suggests, in his manipulation, exactly the reverse of what the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said and practiced, and the reverse of what the Companions said and practiced both in the time of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - and after his time. One well-known probative example of the Sunna ruqyâ is the use of the Fatiha by one of the Companions to heal a scorpion-bite - and the Prophet approved of it - as narrated by al-Bukhari elsewhere in his Sahih.14

From what I know, Brother Khan and Hilali go back to tafsir of Quran and explanations of hadith before translating.

When I read this I went back to the explanation of the hadith in Fath al-Bari and Sharh Imam an-Nawawi rahimahu Allah, and I found that there are different opinions, one opinion is doing ta'weel and saying that the ruqya in this hadith means the jahilia ruqya which is haram and shirk.

And the other opinion is taking it literally (and that is opinion of Ibn Hajar and others) that it means the sunna ruqya, and the hadith means that these people who will neither have any reckoning of their accounts nor will receive any punishment, did not ask others to do ruqya on them "yastarqun", which is considered complete tawakkul on Allah. Because when one asks others to do ruqya on him he is asking for their benefit, and that is not complete tawakkul. So these people have a distinctive feature\trait than others of this ummah which is their complete tawakkul on Allah.

The hadith does not indicate that ruqya with Quran and permissable du'a is haram, but it is talking about complete tawakkul on Allah without asking the help of others, like I explained above.

This is basically what I read in the explanations of the hadith...



Note: I did not translation word for word, it is a summerized explanation, because the explanation is quite lengthy.

You can go back to the Arabic and check it yourselves, and if you want me to bring you the Arabic text, I don't mind.

---

[Musleemah]

Then he continues :

Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh)" (p. 772) as compared to Pickthall's literal (Have ye taken security from Him Who is in the heaven (fî al-samâ')( (67:16-17) and `Ali's "Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven"; etc.

Al Bayhaqi said in his book (al-I'tiqad):

وقال : ( أأمنتم من في السماء (12) ) ، وأراد من فوق السماء ، كما قال : ( ولأصلبنكم في جذوع النخل (13) ) ، يعني على جذوع النخل ، وقال : ( فسيحوا في الأرض (14) ) ، يعني على الأرض ،

and He said: (Do you feel secure that He, Who is "fi as-sama' ") He meant Who is above the "as-sama' " (the heaven), like He said - translation of the meaning-: [..and I will surely crucify you (fi) judu'ee an-nakhli (the trunks of date-palms..) (20:71)] meaning "on" the trunks of date-palms, and He said [faseehu fil-ard (Travel freely in the land) pikthal] means "on: the land.

Also he mentions in his book (al-asma' was-sifat):

باب قول الله عز و جل : ( أأمنتم من في السماء (1) ) ما جاء في قول الله عز وجل : ( أأمنتم من في السماء ) . قال أبو عبد الله الحافظ : قال الشيخ أبو بكر أحمد بن إسحاق بن أيوب الفقيه : « قد تضع العرب » في « بموضع » على « قال الله عز وجل : ( فسيحوا في الأرض (2) ) وقال : ( لأصلبنكم في جذوع النخل ) ومعناه : على الأرض وعلى النخل

Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz said: Shaykh Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Is-haq ibn Ayyub al-Faqih said:
"The Arabs might put "fi" as meaning " 'ala - on\above" ...
then he mentioned the ayat the al-Bayhaqi mentioned above in his other book.

[Musleemah]

14- The translation of verse 2:200 states: "So when you have accomplished your Manaasik, remember Allâh as you remember your forefathers or with a far more rememberance" (p. 43)!; etc.

I don't know what is wrong with this translation.
But I checked 5 or 6 tafsirs and it is the same as the translation, so I don't know where the mistake is.

Maybe someone can clarify where the mistake is?

[loveProphet]

I don't know what is wrong with this translation.
But I checked 5 or 6 tafsirs and it is the same as the translation, so I don't know where the mistake is.

Maybe someone can clarify where the mistake is?

What is the point of all this fitnah that you are doing??

Why don't you explain the false accusations by the "salafi" scholars against the Ash'aris and Sheikh Nuh Kim Keller, and other Sunnis and Madthabis??

[Abu 'Abdillah al-Maliki]

I don't know what is wrong with this translation.
But I checked 5 or 6 tafsirs and it is the same as the translation, so I don't know where the mistake is.

Maybe someone can clarify where the mistake is?

The mistake is in the grammatical construct of the English sentence, not in the meaning. It seems GF Haddad is just splitting hairs, if you ask me.

What is the point of all this fitnah that you are doing??

Let the sister speak her mind, and then if she has said something wrong, then clarify it to her.

[Musleemah]

What is the point of all this fitnah that you are doing??

Why don't you explain the false accusations by the "salafi" scholars against the Ash'aris and Sheikh Nuh Kim Keller, and other Sunnis and Madthabis??

What I am doing is refuting false accusations against our scholars, and I have the right to do that like you have the right to refute false accusation against your scholars.

As for claiming that our scholars have accused 'Ash'aris falsely or Nuh Keller, you have to bring proof for that.
Do not bring me an article written by someone on the internet who is not known, or by someone who writes in a discussion board using a nickname, or something posted in a Salafi website and the author is not mentioned.
You have to bring me something that is written by a Salafi SCHOLAR whose name is mentioned in the article in which the false accusation that you are claiming is in.
And if you bring it from a Salafi website mention the name of the website.
So I can check it myself.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

sister musleemah,

do you agree that the salafi movement has deliberately tampered/ommitted sections when translating works into english?

[Musleemah]

they did not tamper but they did omitt things in abridgments , so u know it by its title, so there is no deception there.
and the original (complete one) is available...

[lumumba_s]

Sister Musleemah, I respect your hilm and patience with people who are rude to you.

Often, Salafi publishers and translators use abridgements as ways of filtering and editing positions that they do not agree with. Take the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir for instance. They leave out the hadith narrations that are weak as well as positions/explanations that they deem to be contrary to the `aqida of the Salaf, which often are the very same explanations that the Ash'ari and Maturidi scholars have given to specific verses and ahadith. And this results in lay Salafis believing that such interpretations have no validity and reject the words of people like Shaykh Nuh Keller and `Abd al-Hakim Murad who point out that Ibn Kathir's tafasir is often in complete agreement with what is narrated by people like Imam al-Qurtubi and Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi.

And often, the original, complete version is not available to English-only speaking individuals, which is probably the whole point in abridging it in the first place. And even in Arabic, there has been more than enough evidence to prove that many of the classical texts have been tampered with without any indication that this is what has been done.

And as far as Shaykh Nuh Keller goes, it is known that the Salafi scholars and their students regard him in a certain light. I was there in New York when a certain individual said some very repugant things about him. . . It is know that the Salafis oppose his stance on a great number of issues, and have made takfir on people like Sayyid Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki for positions that Shaykh Nuh and others hold, let alone Ibn al-`Arabi and other Sufis whom most Salafis view as extreme. Just look at Dr. Saleh's book and the accusations that he makes in it. Had the Salafi scholars and their representatives not agreed with what is being said, they would have defended him the way that they have defended others whose they feel are attacked unjustly. We are not talking about some Joe Blow Ahmad who is for the most part obscure, but a man who is recognized as one of the leading da'iyees for "Traditional" Islam. And you cannot tell me that there has not been words against Reliance of the Traveler . . .

[Musleemah]

Often, Salafi publishers and translators use abridgements as ways of filtering and editing positions that they do not agree with. Take the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir for instance. They leave out the hadith narrations that are weak as well as positions/explanations that they deem to be contrary to the `aqida of the Salaf, which often are the very same explanations that the Ash'ari and Maturidi scholars have given to specific verses and ahadith. And this results in lay Salafis believing that such interpretations have no validity and reject the words of people like Shaykh Nuh Keller and `Abd al-Hakim Murad who point out that Ibn Kathir's tafasir is often in complete agreement with what is narrated by people like Imam al-Qurtubi and Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi.

Dear brother lumumba,
I read the intro of shaikh Safiyur-Rahman Mubarakpuri who abridged it (If I am not mistaken, it is the one that is translated to English)... and I don't remember him saying that he omitted text that is not a > weak hadith, the chain of narration of a hadith except for the sahabi (so the book won't be so long), or a repeated hadith (maybe I forgot something, not sure, I have to reread the intro).
Anyways, the abridgements are made for laymen mostly, because they can't distinguish between hadith sahih and weak hadith and what is correct and what is not, because they don't have much knowledge.
But students of knowledge go for the complete ones, and I am one who goes for the complete one when studying or doing research.


As for the stance of 'Ash'aris in regards to Allah's attributes... we don't see it as being valid... (doing ta'weel to Allah's attributes)... and this topic is not really our discussion here but I am just clearifying the issue to you.
And that does not mean that we view 'Ash'aris as being non Muslims...
we consider them as our fellow muslims, but believe that they have deviated from the right path on some issues.

And as far as Shaykh Nuh Keller goes, it is known that the Salafi scholars and their students regard him in a certain light. I was there in New York when a certain individual said some very repugant things about him. . . It is know that the Salafis oppose his stance on a great number of issues, and have made takfir on people like Sayyid Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki for positions that Shaykh Nuh and others hold, let alone Ibn al-`Arabi and other Sufis whom most Salafis view as extreme. Just look at Dr. Saleh's book and the accusations that he makes in it.

I think you mean "Ibn Arabi" not "Ibn al-Arabi".

Edit: Please no such comments
But what I was talking about above is the claim that our scholars made "false accusations" against him, meaning that they said that he said or believed in something that he didn't.


thanks brother for being polite in your discussions.