Post by loveprophet on May 28, 2016 21:12:03 GMT
Thanks for the Alusi quote Mufti Zameelur. But I must tell you that Alusi's tafsir is HEAVILY tampered with by "salafis". See Shaykh GF Haddad's discussion in www.livingislam.org/k/strm_e.html# (so that people don't fall for other tamperings, there is a bunch of them discussed here www.livingislam.org/n/slfm_e.html)
For the benefit of everyone, I will quote the Alusi discussion on Ruh al-Ma'ani here:
Further proof that Alusi's tafsir has been tampered with is the fact that the arguments used in the quote by you are absurd (e.g. using proof from the Hadith about only asking Allah. The arguments are the same arguments "salafis" use against tawassul i.e. it is like it is taken straight from their playbook)
Also what is your proof that the Istigatha that Subki etc referred to, is not what is istigatha now? The quote you provided by the Hanafi scholar is not proof (one reason is because it was not Subki etc). If you read the very early biographies of shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Gili or Gilani), you will see istigatha mentioned in very similar terms as used in modern days. An example of his biography is by the Hanbali Muhammad ibn Yahya at-Tadifi called Qawa'id al-Jawahir.
Of course the Shafi'i website says (from the Bughya):
Also the next line of the quote you mentioned from the Bughya (when you said "A twelfth century Shafi'i scholar wrote:") mentions that there is no proof for prohibition if someone says the likes of "Ya X, give a thing for Allah" in istigatha. This strongly indicates that the use of the word qabih (which is the word you quoted in the Arabic), isn't for meaning haram or impermissible.
I think there is another way to read the quote you gave from Kurdi. That way is "per the dominant opinion, it is not kufr, even if the action appears ugly".
Zeeshan also proposed that the next line of the quote (after the end of your quote) is from another author.
Allahu A'lem
For the benefit of everyone, I will quote the Alusi discussion on Ruh al-Ma'ani here:
A sharp reader and unparalleled expert in rare books and manuscripts, Imam al-Kawthari long ago revealed that the printed version of Imam Mahmud ibn `Abd Allah al-Husayni al-Alusi al-Baghdadi's (1217-1270) tafsir entitled Ruh al-Ma`ani published by his "Salafi" son Nu`man al-Alusi in Bulaq (Egypt) in 1301 (then again twice by the Damascene "Salafi" Munir `Abduh Agha at his Muniriyya Press in Egypt) contained alterations and accretions from foreign hands, responsibility for which al-Kawthari laid squarely at the feet of Nu`man: "He cannot be trusted over the publication of his father's commentary, and if someone were to compare it [the latter edition] with the [autograph] manuscript kept today at the Raghib Basha library in Istanbul, which is the manuscript gifted by the author to the Sultan `Abd al-Majid Khan, one would certainly find in it what will make him certain of that."(1)
In his 1968 372-page book al-Alusi Mufassiran, Muhsin `Abd al-Hamid(2) petulantly denied the charge that there had been any tampering with the Tafsir as "a bizarre fiction," claiming he had compared the manuscript kept at Baghdad's general Awqaf library and found no discrepancies, and that he consulted with [the "Salafi"] Muhammad Bahjat [al-Baytar] and Munir al-Qadi who were of one mind with him.
Recently, in an internet communication on February 26, 2006 the Riyadh genealogist and historian of scholarship Dr. Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah Aal Rashid mentioned all of the above and commented:
"This claim [by Muhsin `Abd al-Hamid] avails us nothing, since al- Kawthari very precisely referred to the autograph manuscript and its location. In the Hajj of the year that just passed (1426) I met the researcher and teacher Ah.mad ibn `Abd al-Karim al-`Ani who informed me that the Imam al-A`zam Faculty in the city of Baghdad had tasked thirty Master's candidate students to prepare a critical edition of al-Alusi's commentary, Ruh al-Ma`ani, Ustadh al-`Ani being one of those students... and they were basing themselves on the manuscript indicated by Shaykh al-Kawthari. He told me that the printed version was indeed filled with alterations, tamperings, gaps and suppressions in many places, which confirms the words of Shaykh al-Kawthari that the printed version which is in circulation contains tamperings and suppressions."(3)
Notes
(1) Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 344) and marginalia on al-Subki's al-Radd `ala al-Nuniyya (p. 108)
(2) He also authored the 1983 book Jamal al-Din al-Afghani: al-Muslih. al-Muftara `alayh (Mu'assasat al-Risala).
(3) Muhammad Aal Rashid: www.elnafeas.net/montada/index.php?showtopic="38.
Was-Salam,
gibril
In his 1968 372-page book al-Alusi Mufassiran, Muhsin `Abd al-Hamid(2) petulantly denied the charge that there had been any tampering with the Tafsir as "a bizarre fiction," claiming he had compared the manuscript kept at Baghdad's general Awqaf library and found no discrepancies, and that he consulted with [the "Salafi"] Muhammad Bahjat [al-Baytar] and Munir al-Qadi who were of one mind with him.
Recently, in an internet communication on February 26, 2006 the Riyadh genealogist and historian of scholarship Dr. Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah Aal Rashid mentioned all of the above and commented:
"This claim [by Muhsin `Abd al-Hamid] avails us nothing, since al- Kawthari very precisely referred to the autograph manuscript and its location. In the Hajj of the year that just passed (1426) I met the researcher and teacher Ah.mad ibn `Abd al-Karim al-`Ani who informed me that the Imam al-A`zam Faculty in the city of Baghdad had tasked thirty Master's candidate students to prepare a critical edition of al-Alusi's commentary, Ruh al-Ma`ani, Ustadh al-`Ani being one of those students... and they were basing themselves on the manuscript indicated by Shaykh al-Kawthari. He told me that the printed version was indeed filled with alterations, tamperings, gaps and suppressions in many places, which confirms the words of Shaykh al-Kawthari that the printed version which is in circulation contains tamperings and suppressions."(3)
Notes
(1) Al-Kawthari, Maqalat (p. 344) and marginalia on al-Subki's al-Radd `ala al-Nuniyya (p. 108)
(2) He also authored the 1983 book Jamal al-Din al-Afghani: al-Muslih. al-Muftara `alayh (Mu'assasat al-Risala).
(3) Muhammad Aal Rashid: www.elnafeas.net/montada/index.php?showtopic="38.
Was-Salam,
gibril
Further proof that Alusi's tafsir has been tampered with is the fact that the arguments used in the quote by you are absurd (e.g. using proof from the Hadith about only asking Allah. The arguments are the same arguments "salafis" use against tawassul i.e. it is like it is taken straight from their playbook)
Also what is your proof that the Istigatha that Subki etc referred to, is not what is istigatha now? The quote you provided by the Hanafi scholar is not proof (one reason is because it was not Subki etc). If you read the very early biographies of shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Gili or Gilani), you will see istigatha mentioned in very similar terms as used in modern days. An example of his biography is by the Hanbali Muhammad ibn Yahya at-Tadifi called Qawa'id al-Jawahir.
Of course the Shafi'i website says (from the Bughya):
The erudite scholar and shafiʿi jurist , sayyid Alawi al-Jufri (d.1273H) said:
"When a person says, in a situation of need, " Ya Fulan!," he is seeking the person being called as a means to ask Allah (subḥanahu wa taʿala) for help, and the fact that he calls out to the person and not Allah is what is known in Arabic as majāz (metaphor). The meaning of the Arabic term 'Ya Fulan! [Help me]' is:
"O so-and-so, I seek you as a means to ask my Lord to help me."
"When a person says, in a situation of need, " Ya Fulan!," he is seeking the person being called as a means to ask Allah (subḥanahu wa taʿala) for help, and the fact that he calls out to the person and not Allah is what is known in Arabic as majāz (metaphor). The meaning of the Arabic term 'Ya Fulan! [Help me]' is:
"O so-and-so, I seek you as a means to ask my Lord to help me."
I think there is another way to read the quote you gave from Kurdi. That way is "per the dominant opinion, it is not kufr, even if the action appears ugly".
Zeeshan also proposed that the next line of the quote (after the end of your quote) is from another author.
Allahu A'lem