Mischievous barelwi accusations

[iqadeer]

Sidi love4all,

This is the way of Sunni scholarship. We don't just say, 'hold on a minute! what did he say?! Oh, never mind, let me ignore it...' We clarify - there is always a clarification.

It is not at all what I am saying to you. By all means, we should try to get the answer for it. However, this shouldn't be at the expense of making attacks on the honorable imam. If certain Barelvi brothers have made this startling discovery, it would behoove them to approach a Deobandi scholar instead of hashing it out among themselves. I sincerely believe that its best to keep these issues between the ulema since public discussion will eventually lead to defamation of a noble scholar. I hope you understand my concern.

The point of my posting was: have the courage in your convictions to explain such troublesome issues, as bro Omar posted before.

It is not merely the 'courage of conviction' that is needed to resolve this problem but rather scholarly analysis of what was actually said and under which context. As I have said before, I will excuse myself from this task since I don't find myself capable of this. However, it would have been more appropriate if this issue was put forth to a Deobandi scholar privately instead of publishing it on a forum as some sort of an expose of the noble Shaykh.

[skeptic sunni]

all i am asking for was clarification by a deobandi aalim. how is that in any way disrespecting the scholar kashmiri sahib?

if, tazkiyyah bhai, the last paragraph is jumbled english then that is probably due to the arabic being obtuse too. if someone can translate the last bit so it makes sense then that'll be even better. don't blame the translator.

btw, for someone who makes a big deal about respecting scholars, what suddenly has happened to your respect for shaykh sa'eed asad? what exactly is his crime? drawing attention to this work?

btw, i personally was not aware of this until i saw it on the internet. we don't spend our time trawling through deobandi books looking for such 'incriminating' articles whatever you may believe!

i personally hope that a brother will explain kashmiri sahib's words so that it makes sense and that no allusion to tahrif in the koran remains.

[eTeacher]

Assalamu Alaikum,

I've been following this thread for the last few days. I've found some time to respond to the concerns brought forward by some people. I'll try to allay their concerns in the upcoming paragraphs.

First things first....When we mention the word Tahreef, it's connotation is really bad Islamically because it means changing the heavenly books or interpolating and altering them. (one sec...let me just see what the score is between France and Portugal.....k...cool)

Every Muslim undoubtedly believes that the Quran has not been altered and no 'Tahreef' has occurred in it.

Now the issue is about the other heavenly books...have they been altered and tampered with or not? Have they been Tahreefafied or not?

The following is what is being discussed....Have the heavenly books prior to the Quran been interpolated or not? The discussion in Arabic and the various opinions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL TO DO with the interpolation of the Quran.

How can the three opinions have to do anything with the Quran? Otherwise it would imply that many scholars hold the erroneous belief that the Quran has been altered with as is mentioned in the first opinion. And if the Arabic discussion had anything to do with the Quran then according to the second opinion, there have been minor slight changes in the Quran and that opinion would be attributed to Ibn Taymiyah and others.

The point is, the discussion in Arabic has NOTHING to do with the Quran. It is about the other heavenly revealed books and how the word Tahreef applies to them.

Ok...now the first group says, Tahreef has happened both in words as well as in meaning extensively...the words have been altered and the meaning has been wrongly explained....

The second group says....yes...Tahreef has occurred...but not much....in words as well as in meaning...

The third group denies any Tahreef in words but do believe that Tahreef has occured in meaning.....(it's still 0-0...come on Zinedine...wallah...you guys wont believe it....oh shoooot...i just wrote that....then i wrote the next paragraph...checked the score...and Zidane scored.....yeah..baby...yeah. so I came back and wrote these couple of lines...dude..if only i had asked for .........)

Ok..so where were we?....Now when the writer says 'Qulto Yalzamu'...he is trying to say that the third opinion is wrong otherwise we will also have to believe that Tahreef has occurred in the Quran if we take the meaning of Tahreef to be that only in which the meaning has been altered with....He is trying to say we can't take the meaning of Tahreef to be only meaning wise... You have to know Arabic properly to understand that sentence structure...It's like in English we say....If we believe this...then that would mean that...blah...blah...blah...and since the second meaning is wrong..the first one is wrong as well.....

Then the author negates that third opinion and goes on to say that Tahreef has not only occurred in the meaning but it has also occurred in the wordings as well. And he mentions that Tahreef in both words as well as in meaning either occurred intentionally or by mistake...

Nowhere is the author trying to say that Tahreef has occurred in the Quran wording wise....He is counting himself from the first two groups which mention that Tahreef has occurred wording wise as well as meaning wise...and that the word Tahreef, when used, must be applied to both wording wise as well as meaning wise....because if the word Tahreef (which carries a bad meaning Islamically) is only applied to meaning wise..then we would have to say that Tahreef has occurred in the Quran as well....because
there have been changes in the Quran meaning wise...not wording wise... So Tahreef is both in wording as well as in meaning....

Now there is one sticking point here...and that is the pronoun 'he' in the word 'fee hee'....hee is only singular and the religious books are plural..so why did the author use the singular pronoun? This is where the likes of Shias and Brelwees try to make it sound as if the author believes that the Quran has been tampered with wording wise....

There could be a couple of reasons for using the singular pronoun. It could be a mistake on the authors part that instead of writing it as Feeha or Feehim, he wrote Feehe. He made a mistake. Also, we do not find in any of his other writings where he mentions that the Quran has been tampered with wording wise...Hence we will understand that the author does not hold the belief that the Quran has been interpolated with wording wise. Therefore, we will state that the author made a mistake in writing Feehe instead of Feeha or Feehim.

The other reason it's written as 'Feehi' is because of a typo. The writer who wrote out the book, wrote it out wrong. Many times, publishers will have Jahils and illiterate people write out books which were written in the past. These writers have very little Islamic knowledge. They just go on copying and copying and at times, they make a mistake because they didn't get their chai on time. I have a Quran published by Darus Salam in which there is a mistake in it. The letter Thaal has been written as zaa. So yeah...many Islamic books are littered with typos. Just yesterday, Br. Goldi, posted a link to the upcoming translation of the Fiqh Alal Mazaahibil Arbaa. The translator writes that they came across quite a few different versions of the book in Arabic. So we will believe that the publishers/writers/copiers wrote it wrong. It should be Feeha or Feehim instead of Feehe.

That's enough for now....

As far as the likes of Shias and Brelwis goes, the Deobandis don't really care about them. They both are a non-issue to them. The Deobandis don't care what the Shias or the Brelwis are upto. If you want to see a filthy, dirty, hate mongering, animosity filled forum...go and check out the Ya Nabi forum...you wont last longer than a few minutes on there after reading all the hate they spew towards Deobandis....Wallah...it just shows how important the folks there need some spiritual rectification including the admins and mods there for allowing all that stuff to be on their forum....if they had as much hatred for shaytan as they have for deobandis, they would be ...fill in the blank here........


We do not want Sunniforum to turn into the hate filled Ya Nabi forum....so please stop bringing up the Deobandi/Barelwi issue....

If you want to read my whole take on the Deobandi/Barelwi issue, read the following post:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...2&postcount=31

France is still leading 1-0..... .....

The following is the Arabic paragraph of the topic of discussion in this thread...

قولہ: [ و قال ابن عباس ] الخ ، و اعلم أن فی التحریف ثلاثۃ مذاھب: ذھب جماعۃ

الی أن التحریف فی الکتب السماویۃ قد وقع بکل نحو فی اللفظ و المعنی جمیعاً ، و

ھو الذی مال الیہ ابن حزم ، و ذھب جماعۃ الی أن التحریف قلیل ، و لعل الحافظ

ابن تیمیۃ جنح الیہ ، و ذھب جماعۃ الی انکار التحریف اللفظی رأساً ، فالتحریف

عندھم کلہ معنوی ، قلت: یلزم علی ھذا المذھب أن یکون القرآن أیضاً محرفاً ، فان

التحریف المعنوی غیر قلیل فیہ أیضاً ، و الذی تحقق عندی أن التحریف فیہ لفظی

أیضاً ، أما انہ عن عمد منھم أو لمغلطۃ ، فاللہ تعالی أعلم بہ

[godilali]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...2&postcount=31

Not much has changed since this post, besides the fact the Omar now has nearly 5000 posts instead of 2000.

[eTeacher]

"
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/sho...12&postcount=31"

Not much has changed since this post, besides the fact the Omar now has nearly 5000 posts instead of 2000.

lol....at the 5000

that nothing much has changed...and the scary thing now is...it's slowly starting in Toronto as well....

[OneLife]

Very good explanation of the information Maulana. And though I really don't want to talk about it, the disputes will be there for a while because there are secondary belief issues related to the matter. And both groups do indeed talk about each other, it's just that one mentions the name of the other group, and the other speaks about it generally.

[skeptic sunni]

to the aalim from deoband who is a Zidane fan!

Thank you for finally writing a sensible reply which makes sense for most part. i hope it wasn't difficult for you to type that a deobandi aalim might have made a mistake or that it might have been a typo. The only thing that comes to mind is that surely in the 100 odd years since this book has been in print, someone could have spotted the typo and corrected it. one typo could have caused so much trouble between fellow Muslims.
My good Sir, why don't you point out this typo to the publishers and make sure that in the next edition it is corrected.
jazak allah for your unemotional reply.
as far as i'm personally concerned this matter is settled and i will accept your explanation and give kashmiri sahib the benefit of the doubt as we should have husn i zann towards our fellow men.

(Though there was no need to make snide anti "Barelwi" marks at the end.)

wasalam
abd al Mustafa

p.s. i hope italy win on sunday!
pps aren't you the fella who comes on islam tv sometimes?
ppps *********** is a sunni site but does not represent all barelwis in all their views --just wanted to clarify that.
pppps i clicked on the link you posted and agree with most of your views about us in England and not importing the problems of the subcontinent here. the popular imams which a lot of young people now follow like sidi abd al hakim murad, shaykh yaqubi, sayyid habib ali al jifri, shaykh hamza, shaykh gf haddad etc. have the beliefs which many on this forum and others would identify with being 'barelvi' beliefs if a paki imam expressed the same views.

[love4all]

salams

shukran e-teacher, that's what I was after! we all need to learn to look for simple solutions first. Having said that, I do have knowledge of Arabic and the quote is still quite obtuse - I'm sure you'll agree. It's not as simple as a missing alif, but khair - I'm sure we all know what the Imam means...

I agree that some people have waaay too much time on their hands, and 'the devil makes work for idle thumbs' (or if you want to be a bit more authentic: 'occupy your nafs with good, else it will occupy you with evil...'

The D/B issue is not going anywhere soon, unfortunately. It's just much easier to criticize people than to turn a beady eye on yourself. And, respectfully, it is two-way. I Sit in D mosques and overhear stuff about B's, and vice versa. Hate is easier than love...

Bro Iqadeer: what?!? A Barelwi alim to go up to a Deobandi alim and ask for a clarification?!? You're not serious, are you? Don't be so... sensible!!

Just kidding. Irony doesn't come across well in html I actually do know B alims who do just that - you just tend not to hear that much about them for the same reason that the guy who helps an old lady across the road is not going to appear on the front cover of the tabloids.

Bro Slave for Allah: love you bro but wilful blindness is never pretty. Even Shaykh Faraz Rabbani admits that some of the quotes from their books 'are excessively harsh and appear to lack adab' and 'we overlook their mistakes' or something to that effect.

As for 'Ahmad Raza,' have you read Mustafa Jaane Rehmat? You know, the hundred verse poem in praise of the Holy Prophet (S) where, among other things, he compares the Prophet's (s) eye lashes to the flowers of paradise? perhaps not...

Generally, books and/or talks entitled, 'the [fill in the blank] menace' and such like are definitely no-go areas. Even the best ulama can get quite emotional and/or polemical when the ones they love and respect are dissed.

The solution is just to have

love4all!!!

PS: last comment must go to e-teacher: 7-million muslim France 2: whining Italians 0 with Zidane and Ribery to score and make 2 rakats salat as-shukr on the pitch after the game!!! Then the entire non-indigenous French team to pull on tshirts spelling out: 'Le Pen, go back to where you came from!'

Well, we can always hope...

[Husain]

As for the part about the mistake in the sentence, the reason is simple.
Ml. Anwar Shah never wrote it!

The book is a collection of his lessons on Bukhari, translated into Arabic and written out by his student Ml.Badre Alam Saheb.

Just like the lecture notes of any students, there are many mistakes in it.
Mistakes in his translation.
Mistakes in the wording.
And mistakes in his understanding ie. the Shaikh said one thing and the student misunderstood. (Don't think this to be unfair criticism on Ml.Badre Alam, remember the lofty Ilmi status of Shah Saheb and how many things he said where far above the level of many other Ulama)

The same applies to all similar books eg. arf ash-Shazzi, those books on malfuzaat which were never checked by the Shaikh himself, Dars tirmizi of Mf.Taqi etc.

Ml. Muhammad Ameen Safdar has discussed this in his book on Qirat khalfal Imam and has shown another similar mistake in Faizul Bari.

So the usage of "fihi" and the not too correct paragraph structure, are from the compiler, not from Ml.Anwar Shah Saheb.

Heres a passage from Arf ash-Shazzi, discussing the same topic and it is clear that he is saying that the preferred view is that Tahreef lafzi took place in the Taurah:

:أقول : إن في تحريف التوراة ثلاثة أقوال
قال جماعة : إن التحريف المذكور في الآية تحريف معنوي ولا تحريف لفظاً أصلاً وهو مختار ابن عباس والبخاري والشاه ولي الله ورواية ابن عباس أخرجها البخاري في آخر صحيحه
وقيل : إن التحريف اللفظي قليل واختاره الحافظ ابن تيمية وهو المختار
وقيل : إن التحريف كثير

[skeptic sunni]

Assalamu alaykum,

I'm sorry Mr. Soofie Sahib but that is the lamest defence of Anwar Shah anyone has come up with so far! It is mind-bogglingly bad!

If what you say is true then why have Deobandis been singing the praises of this book Fayd al Bari for decades and, by extension, those of Shaykh Anwar Shah then and not, as should be by rights, Mawlana Badr e Alam? Or is it a case that whilst people are praising this book we will let Anwar Shah take the praise but as soon as its dubious contents are exposed we will wash Anwar Shah's hands off it and put the blame on poor old Badr e Alam?

Such duplicity is not becoming of Muslims.


Ka'aabay kis munH se jao gay Ghalib?
Sharm tum ko magar nahin aati!


How can you show your face to the Ka'aba, Ghalib?
But alas, you are brazen-faced!