Blog Home Member's Area  AastanaBlog: AASTANA.COM 

Join AASTANABLOG
Share your Quranic thoughts, research and knowledge with other's.
It's free, easy and only takes a minute.
Sign up Now

TRANSLATION OF QURAN
BY DR. QAMAR ZAMAN
Translation Status
آیات
سورۃ
نمبر
1-7 الفَاتِحَة -1
1-286 البَقَرَة -2
1-200 آل عِمرَان -3
1-176 النِّسَاء -4
1-120 المَائدة -5
1-165 الاٴنعَام -6
1-206 الاٴعرَاف -7
1-75 الاٴنفَال -8
1-129 التّوبَة -9
1-109 یُونس -10
1-123 هُود -11
1-111 یُوسُف -12
1-43 الرّعد -13
1-52 إبراهیم -14
1-99 الحِجر -15
1-128 النّحل -16
1-111 بنیٓ اسرآئیل / الإسرَاء -17
1-110 الکهف -18
1-98 مَریَم -19
1-135 طٰه -20
1-112 الاٴنبیَاء -21
1-78 الحَجّ -22
1-118 المؤمنون -23
1-64 النُّور -24
1-77 الفُرقان -25
1-227 الشُّعَرَاء -26
1-93 النَّمل -27
1-88 القَصَص -28
1-69 العَنکبوت -29
1-60 الرُّوم -30
1-34 لقمَان -31
1-30 السَّجدَة -32
1-73 الاٴحزَاب -33
1-54 سَبَإ -34
1-45 فَاطِر -35
1-83 یسٓ -36
1-182 الصَّافات -37
1-88 صٓ -38
1-75 الزُّمَر -39
1-85 المؤمن / غَافر -40
1-54 حٰمٓ السجدة / فُصّلَت -41
1-54 القَمَر -54
Read Now


»«
ISLAM
HADITH
Add Your QuestionView More QuestionsEmail this DiscussionPrinter Friendly View
How hadees came into existence
Add Your Comments  Question by: REHAN_KHAN On 06 January 2010
Comments by: aurangzaib On 17 January 2010Report Abuse
dear brother Rehan,  
You question involves a great deal of detailed history. I would try to shorten it and sum up the material in a nut-shell so that you do not remain unanswered for long.  
Hadees is equivalent to conversation, sayings, dialogues as well as it is the opposite of the word 'Old', meaning the modern, new, latest. I cannot pass any ruling upon its etymological details - Dr. Qamar Zaman, a formidable linguist in Arabic , can do so - but this is the generally practiced and accepted meaning of the word and must suffice for our purpose.  
Our history says that some companions, out of their reverence for my Lord pbuh, started writing and recording His sayings. Upon Knowing this fact, my Lord expressed his disapproval to this practice and forbade the companions from doing so, saying that the earlier communities did the same and subsequently, resultantly, abandoned the divine revelation and stuck to following those sayings and went astray. This fact clearly proved that any sayings by any personality of any high standing, cannot be regarded as equal in stature to divine revelation (Wahi), or liable to obedience. This also proves that the source of Ahadith, the Prophet, himself denied authenticity to them. The two companion caliphs, after the Prophet, actually recalled whatever they knew of the collections of hadith existing with companions and they burnt that material declaring it improper.  
Came AH40; the capital of God's kingdom moved far away from its roots - to Damascus. Instead of the benevolent Kingdom of God, the dynastic autocracies took over the empire. The elders of the nation were abandoned far behind in Medina and Makkah. Subsequent raids, attacks and massacres by Umayyad royal armies rendered the once thriving Islamic capitals in a state of terror, desolation and misery. The hub of political, diplomatic and economic activity transferred to Damascus. The affairs of trade and government as well as the army were moved into the hands of new converts of different nationalities. True Islamic spirit started fading away. Much hue and cry was raised against the new tyrannical rule. Quranic voices were raised against the new despots. They not only dealt with the true Islamic spirit with iron hands but for their vicious designs they thought of transforming the shape and form of Quranic texts to suit their vested interests.  
That was no easy job. The problem was quite substantial. Quran was not possible to be recalled from all width and breadth of the empire and amended. At last, with the help of the Jews an alternate policy was formulated which boiled down to raising a doctrine parallel to Quran which would give a divine right to the despotic kings to rule the Muslims by sword and would go against the teachings of Quran in all spheres of life. That parallel doctrine was based on concocted rivayaat (hadith), connecting them every time to the narration of the Prophet himself, with the aim of affording it a sanctity equal to divinity. The Jews and the Zoroastrians fulfilled their long awaited dreams through this doctrine. They appointed thousands of fake narrators to invent new and novel rivayaat in the name of the Prophet each day, annex fake names of subsequent narrators and the made-to-order material was publicized far and wide with the help of government establishments. A storm of insults, obscenities and libel was unleashed against the holy souls of Islam through these stories, starting the Banu Umayyad period and afterwards. The Jews conducted the campaign with a fervor, caution and vigor unmatched in the history of mankind. They stayed on in the Islamic communities for around 250 years. When they eventually left around 900 AD, they had made sure that they were no longer needed to conduct and perpetuate the No.2 Islam; and they had prepared out of Muslim nobility a caste and creed of their followers who were never going to back out from the path that their Jewish elders had taught them to follow. The writing of these Ahadith in book form had started during Umayyad period viz., the end of 1st and during 2nd centuries AH. However, big collections by the six famous Imaams of Hadith came into existence at the start of the third century AH.  
This is briefly 'how' hadith came into existence. And in bonus, you get "WHY" and "WHEN" it came into existence. You also know now that the material did not enjoy the approval of my Lord pbuh.  
More answers highlighting other aspects of the issue are welcome.  

Comments by: Rehan_Khan On 17 January 2010Report Abuse
Respected brother Aurangzaib Sahab,  
 
In paragraph-4 of your comments on my question "How hadees came in to existence?"  
you stated that autocratic kingship started from 40A.H,definitely Hazrat Muawia(R)will be  
the first person who started kingship.Hazrat Muawia(R) is well known sahabi and one of  
writer of divine revealation of quran.It is also historically proved that when Hazrat Muawia(R)  
became khalifa, considerable number of sahaba ikram gave their approval to Hazrat  
Muawia(R).So do you want to blame Hazrat Muawia(R) and other sahaba ikram(R) for  
introducing kingship in Islam?I want to remind you Quran approved iman of sahaba ikram(R).  

Comments by: aurangzaib On 18 January 2010Report Abuse
Dear Brother Rehan,  
History is hard facts. You may take it or leave it. To reject it, you need equally authentic facts surfacing through modern scientific discoveries. Until now we do not find any alternative history to be able to absolve Amir Muawiya of what our history says he did. Out of our reverence for the Companions, we cannot overlook the history where it says that Hazrat Muawiya did not accept the Caliphate of Hazrat Ali. Declared his autonomy in Demascus. Ruled independently over a larger part of the Kingdom during Hazrat Ali's tenure. Started separatism and rift. Fought wars against the Caliph Ali. Purchased the loyalty and allegiance of many senior Companions through lavish grants and award of big posts and offices. Paid the highest bribes in history to purchase the political patronage and favors of Hazrat Hassan and Hussain. Nominated his son Yazeed to succeed him to start a dynasty, etc. etc. Can you deny all these facts of our history? Our books are full of such deviations from the right path on the part of Amir Muawiya! Does Quran allow such acts of extravagance, squander of Baitul Maal, revolt and unfair political manipulation? You can decide for yourself and have every right to disagree.  
Alternatively, we can exclude his rule from our list of tyranny and start our research from AD60/63 onwards - I mean, if worshipping the personalities does not allow us to be strictly impartial. A 20+ years jump ahead won't harm our conclusions much. We can start with, say, Marwaan, also an Umayyad, a cousin and confidant of Caliph Hazrat Usman. He was the one who established the Umayyad dynasty afresh. What would you say if I tell you that he was also a Sahabi? Was ousted by Abdallah bin Zubair from Hijaz. Became Head of State in Syria, while Ibn Zubair was already ruling from Makkah. The 20 years of Abdul Malik bin Marwan, faced the parallel rule of Ibn Zubair, for 9 years, on a part of the Kingdom including Egypt.  
However, as I wrote earlier, we welcome other opinions on this subject and should not be disposed to hardliner attitudes. This is not Quran, but history. It is only the Quran where we have to be precise and perfect.  
The word 'Sahaba' also needs investigation. Whoever has seen my Lord pbuh during his life span, is erroneously called a sahabi. How reasonable it is that many enemies of Islam also had seen and met my Lord. Even Abu Sufyaan who remained a Mushrik and enemy of Islam until he saw his doomsday coming at hand clearly on the occasion of Makka victory, had seen and met my Lord. Would you call him a sahabi? I do think that my Lord's consultative body of elders alone can be attributed the title of sahaba. Again, we can have different opinions on this subject.  
In the end, my dear, being a researcher precludes any kind of sentimentalism. We have to give up all kinds of sanctities, affiliations and reverences if we need to be impartial, objective and purely research oriented. Sentimentalism won't let you reach the ultimate truth and reality. It essentially keeps your intellect dormant. If intellect remains unripe, your quest for knowledge and truth may remain insatiate. I had to be very cruelly objective in surrendering my self to my Lord pbuh, because he was a man too, and to surrender before a man is SHIRK. It was only through a merciless probe and deep intellectual investigation that I reached the stage of believing him to be the sole Representative of the Almighty - his Viceroy - on earth, in his life time, and an infallible and great personality among human beings.  
By the way, did you note dear Brother that our discourse has crossed the borders of the Chapter of Hadith and has fallen into the parameters of Islamic History?  
God bless you.  

Comments by: Rehan_Khan On 19 January 2010Report Abuse
Respected Brother Aurangzeb Sahab,  
Salam,  
In reference to your previous comments on my question,  
 
You have depicted Hazrat Muawia(R) as today's politician,who can use method whether  
legal or illegal to gain power,on the basis of history.But all these blame games about Hazrat Muawia  
came from so called histoy "TARIKH-E-TABRI",after it all other literary work on history  
merely derivative of it.It was written by imam Tabri.It is proved by modern scholars like  
Tamanna Imadi,Mahmood Abbasi and Habib-ur-Rehman Kandhelvi that Tabri was  
Rafzi Shia.So do you believe in the history written by such person?

Comments by: aurangzaib On 19 January 2010Report Abuse
Dear Brother Rehan,  
 
I quote from my previous comments:  
 
""History is hard facts. You may take it or leave it. To reject it, you need equally authentic facts surfacing through modern scientific discoveries. Until now we do not find any alternative history to be able to absolve Amir Muawiya of what our history says he did.""  
 
I quote again another sentence:  
 
""Alternatively, we can exclude his rule from our list of tyranny and start our research from AD60/63 onwards - I mean, if worshipping the personalities does not allow us to be strictly impartial. A 20+ years jump ahead won't harm our conclusions much. We can start with, say, Marwaan, also an Umayyad, a cousin and confidant of Caliph Hazrat Usman. He was the one who established the Umayyad dynasty afresh.""  
 
So, you see, I don't have a hardliner attitude about our history. Allama Tamanna Imadi and Allama Kandhelvi are my heroes too in their respective fields. The fields mainly were "Probe and Investigation into Rivaayaat". They excelled in their hard work and knowledge. However, Mahmood Abbasi wrote everything in an anti-Shiite stance.  
And sectarian prejudice is manifest all over. Being a Quranic follower, I abhor secretarian hatred and bias and do not stand in favour of Abbasi Sahib very much in this respect.  
 
Many many people in that age have been very sacred for us. But, tell me dear, who tells us that they were sacred?  
What is the basis of our respect and reverence for them? The same Tibri and Company, or not? So, why reject a part of Tibri and accept other parts of Tibri? Why accept only those facts which please you and enhance your beliefs and promote your choices? And why reject those facts which discredit your favorite ones?You know what I mean? We have to follow a uniform policy about Tibri and our History. And for discussing our history, we have to stand somewhere. And for discussions we have only Tibri's stand available. Some corrections that have been made in our history by brother Dr. Shabbir Ahmed and his panel of scholars, are of a very minute nature and of a very small scale. Or alternatively, do not discuss history at all. But that won't be possible. The subject comes up in the discussions regularly and essentially. So Tibri is there for us. Accept him or reject our whole historical legacy.  
 
So Brother, I keep myself flexible. As the journey of time unfolds itself before us and offers new horizons of knowledge and thought, we try to grasp every thing, analyze the same and then decide about their acceptance or otherwise.  
Again, I emphasize, history is not part of our BELIEFS. Quran is. We should not make history as a point of split between us. We can keep our own respective convictions and still remain in search of more accurate facts.  
 
And please remember, you wrote: "You have depicted Hazrat Muawia(R) as today's politician....". No my dear, I haven't. Our existing history has. And the overwhelming majority of human beings (including Muslims) goes according to that history. I hope I have made myself amply clear.  
 
 
 
 
 

Comments by: Maniza On 22 January 2010
Peace and Blessings..  
dear brother aurangzaib .. . one thing is that you address the Prophet Mohammed saw.. as My Lord.. dear sir this title is only for God Al-Mighty who is Lord of the heavens and the earth.. Rub is translated as Lord in english...  
as for Hazrat Mawia what we get is information written by the shia and persian writers of that time. so we cannot be sure that it is all true.. we get such history or rawayaat which are so dirty that they dont even leave Allah or His Prophets or other good people alone .. so Allah swt will be the judge of Ammir Mawia. But it is hard to beleive that he was bad cos he spent so much time with the other companions and the prophet saw.. wrote the Quran. .and as the Quran states.. Allah seh wo razi aur Allah unsay razi..  
otherwise it is great to read from you.. you have immense amount of knowledge and i hope we will benefit from it again and again on this forum..

Comments by: Maniza On 22 January 2010
Peace and Blessings to brother aurangzaib.. i forgot to make a point.. as far as i know a historian by the name of Waqdi wrote history of that period but we dont have his writings.. it seems ibn ishaq took from him and then tibri who took from ibn ishaq.. further more there are many contraversies against our companions in these self said written books.. so i think we need to keep an open mind about our sohaba. .it is upon Allah swt to judge them and we should keep oursleves involved in the Quran and what it teaches us..  
sorry for any hurt .. it is just ment as point of discussion.

Comments by: aurangzaib On 23 January 2010Report Abuse
Dear Sister Muniza,  
My gratitude to you for writing, as I was praying for other brethren to come up and answer the questions. Your participation would afford more life to this blog.  
First of all I may again clarify that history is not part of our Faith and Belief (while Quran is) and should not be allowed to play the role of a point-scoring and ego-strutting exercise. I do not think we are passing judgments or issuing edicts here. Nor are we on a blame game paradigm. We only are replying to questions and analyzing the available facts and thus, imparting whatever knowledge we have gathered. I would repeat again what I wrote earlier that it was my opinion, and other opinions from brothers are welcome. That should have settled the issue.  
You talk about ‘open mind about Sahaba’. My previous and present words are again a proof of my open mind. I would again reiterate that I am totally flexible on this subject and harbor no enmity or preferences towards personalities. But, at the end of the day, when we talk on history, the only available stuff to talk about is Tibri. Would you suggest that we should stop all discussion in Islamic History as it is all concocted and corrupted? Let us then ban the subject here?  
Say, how many facts are we going to deny? Can we deny that Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiya were simultaneously ruling parts of the empire? Can we deny that Ibn-e-Zubair and Abd al-Malik bin Marwan were also simultaneously ruling the parts of the empire for about 9 years, out of the 20 years of Abd al-Malik’s rule? Can we deny that Omar bin Abel Aziz had to initiate and carry out fundamental reforms in the ruling class by recovering the heaps of wealth, prime estates and palaces usurped and built by the Ummayad Royalty out of their tyranny? If Umayyads were not corrupt despots, why would Omar bin Abdel Aziz undertake large scale fundamental reforms in the Royal family? And why would he change most of the exploitative rules and regulations enforced by the Umayyads? Why was he poisoned by his own family, the Umayyad Royalty? Why do we believe these facts from Tibri, rejecting at the same time what does not please our own flights of thoughts? Very paradoxical, I’m afraid!  
 
I quote you as writing “ But it is hard to beleive that he was bad cos he spent so much time with the other companions and the prophet saw.. wrote the Quran. .and as the Quran states.. Allah seh wo razi aur Allah unsay razi..”, and may I ask as to who has said these words that you so honestly believe in? The same Tibri & Co. Isn’t it? And the word “Sahaba” needs to be investigated. You also seem to believe in some of the Tibri and reject some of the Tibri! I think that we do not have a uniform policy about Tibri and do need to formulate one soon. Facts are there. If some of them are hard to believe because of our dislikes, then where are the alternative facts to be believed in? We are ready to equally deliberate on them.  
Why I address the Prophet Muhammad as My Lord?  
Purely personal preference at first. Secondly, this is reflective of the highest degree of my reverence for my Rasool, out of the known and admitted fact by the Muslims that he was the sole representative and Viceroy of the Lord of the Universe on this earth, in his life time, and was nominated to establish the Kingdom of God. He was the proxy King, the Khalifatullah and he held the sole mandate from God to translate and incorporate his attributes of the Nourisher, the Sustainer and the Provider into practical and material shape for the benefit of mankind. I knew about Allah and His mandate only through my Lord pbuh. Allah was to shower his Rabubiyat upon the human beings, as a glittering example, through his sacred self. Among all human beings, he stood high and aloof and enjoyed the greatest stature (Mi’raaj-e-insaniyat). So he fully justifies in being attributed the title of my Lord by virtue of being the proxy Lord of Allah. Allah is the Lord of the Universe, no doubt. And dear Sister, it’s again my own conviction and should not be binding upon anyone.  
Allow me to very humbly correct you on Waqidi. Mohammad bin Omar al Waqidi (died 208 AH/822 AD) was the writer of a book called “kitaab al-Maghazi”. He is regarded as an authority as Historian. Contrary to your contention, his Book was the only one that reaches us in complete form. Has been published by Oxford University Press in 1964. An earlier edition was published in 1281AH/1858AD from Calcutta. And, Ibn Ishaq did not take from him. It was the other way around. Ibn Ishaq was his senior and died 150AH. His book Al-Maghazi is more famous and has been recovered by Dr. Hameed Ullah (Paris) and got translated and published in Urdu during 1990s by Naqosh. This Book is the basis of the famous Seerat Ibn-e-Hasham, easily available in every other bookshop. Waqidi took history and rivayaat from Ibn-e-Ishaq. Ziyad al-Bakai and Salamatul Abrash also took from Ibn Ishaq. And Tibri took everything from them all, and added his own findings as well.  
This was my humble clarification and I am all thanks for your nice comments. Being a humble student of Quran and history, I come forward when I see nobody is answering those who seek evolution through knowledge. And we have to equip our younger generations with intellect and vision and make them purely research-oriented – not to let them linger far behind, in this journey of time, with baseless beliefs, affiliations and personality worships.  
God bless you.  

Comments by: aurangzaib On 24 January 2010Report Abuse
In continuation of the above, one more thing. See the meaning of the Lord, accoding to Cambridge Advanced Learners’s Dictionary:  
lord noun  
/lɔːd/ /lɔːrd/ [C]  
•  
a male peer  
•  
INFORMAL a man who has a lot of power in a particular area of activity.  
 
So, the word Lord alone, in itself, is not necessarily an attribute of God Almighty. And no sacrilege to God is committed by calling the Prophet pbuh a Lord. There is a House of Lords in England. The honourable Jutices are also called My Lord. The word Lord Mayor is commonly used, etc.  
God bless you.  

Comments by: Maniza On 25 January 2010
Aswrwb ..  
dear brother aurangzaib,, thankyou.

Comments by: Zubair On 28 January 2010
Dear Brother Aurangzaib,  
 
First, I applaud you for investing so much time in digging up our past history and educating us.  
 
Second, since becoming a student of the Quran, I do not accept or follow any information blindly. Hence, I have difficulty accepting the narratives of Tabri and company. I am not sure if you have read Brother Dr. Shabbir Ahmed’s book “Karbala: Fact or Fiction”. It was Tabri who manufactured this strange fiction. He sounds a pathetic liar same like the Hadith collector Bukhari. Below is an excerpt from Dr. Shabbir Ahmed’s blog titled STARTLING CONFESSIONS BY THE “IMAMS”.  
 
IMAM TABARI’S STRANGE CONFESSION:  
 
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all errors or blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.” So, Tabari wrote nothing but hearsay.  
 
Tabari’s Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) popularly called “Mother of All Histories” is the first ever “History of Islam” written by ‘Imam’ Tabari (839-923 CE) at the junction of the third and fourth century AH. He died in 310 AH, 3 centuries after the Prophet (S). What were his sources? Not a scrap of paper! “He told me this who heard it from him who heard it from so and so,” and so on. By compiling his 13 volume History and his 30 volume Exposition of the Qur’an under royal patronage, he became the Super Imam. The later historians until this day have persisted in following the trails of the Super Imam.  
 
You can read Dr. Shabbir Ahmed’s complete blog on this topic at the following address.  
 
http://ourbeacon.com/index.php?p=29531  

Comments by: aurangzaib On 28 January 2010Report Abuse
 
Dear Brother Zubair,  
 
Peace and blessings.  
I have already assured my readers that I follow the same policy of not accepting blindly Mr. Tibri and Co., just as you do. And the fact has also been made clear that when we are required to talk about history, the only platform open to us is that of Tibri. But since you still have brought up the question again, I assume you need some more clarification in this context. And I would gladly do that.  
 
We can get rid of Tibri only if we do not talk on our history at all. Is that possible? I am afraid, No? The subject comes up regularly and will continue coming up. Now, can you help in providing us with an alternative history so as not to dwell upon Tibri, declare him null and void and start quoting from somewhere else? Not possible. Nobody has been able to do it yet.  
 
Long time ago, I had read “Karbala ki Haqiqat” and had rejected Tibri in as much as Dr. Shabbir and his panel had proved him wrong and had brought into light alternative facts, supported by documentary evidence. I support fully their research work. Unfortunately, their corrective efforts encompassed a very small area of our history and consisted mostly of uncovering the aspects of assassinations of some of our holy personalities. Dr. Shabbir, or other researchers for that matter, have not advanced much in their corrective research or, rather, they seem to have neglected the work altogether afterwards, and have left us in a controversy revolving around Tibri. They have not been able to explore, discover and prove any alternative facts of history beyond the death of Hazrat Imam Hussain (61 AH). Why have they discontinued the good work is anybody’s guess. They must have faced difficulties in the way, e.g., non-availability of supportive source material, lack of resources and interest, etc., I don’t know! But they did start a work, went ahead a very little bit, shook our concepts from their foundations and left us in the darkness of confusion for most part of our history. We still feel compelled to depend upon what is available. In the end you would agree that the best policy is to discuss history but not to make it a part of our belief and should remain flexible. That is what I am writing again and again.  
 
We all Quranic people hate Tibri. But we do not try to explore the true version of our history in order to be able to forcefully – and totally - reject him. Our hatred for him goes beyond the realm of reason and we do make an exaggerated claim that he had “not a scrap of paper” as a source. This is not true my friend. A student of history has to be very impartial and not a victim of sentimentality. See the SOURCES (books of Seer and Maghaazi and Tafaseer and History) that were available and within the reach of Mr. Tibri when he set out from Tibristaan, at the age of 12, in 236 AH, to become a scholar of Tafseer and History (only names of the authors are given whose books were available):-  
 
1. Urwah bin Zubair (d.92ah) 2. Abaan bin Othman bin Affan (d.105 AH) 3. Sha’abi (d.109 AH) 4. Wahab bin Mambah (d.114 AH) 5. Aasim bin Umar bin Qatadah (d.121 AH) 6. Sharjeel bin Saad (d.123 AH). 7. Ibn Shahaab al-Zohri (d.124 AH). 8. Yaqub bin Atbah Thaqafi (d.128 AH). 9. Abd Allah bin Abi Bakr bin Hazam (d.125 AH). 10. Moosa bin Aqabah (d.141 AH). Hasham bin Urwah bin Zubair (d.146 AH). 12. Mohammad bin Ishaaq (d.150 AH). 13. Muammar bin Rashid (d.152 AH). 14. Abd al Rahman bin Abd al Aziz (d.162 AH). 15. Mohammad bin Saleh bin Dinaar (d.168 AH). 16. Abu Ma’ashar najih al Madni (d.170 AH). 17. Abd Allah bin Jaafar Makhzoomi (d.170 AH). 18. Abd al Malak bin Mohammad Ansaari, (d.176 AH). 19. Ziyaad bin Abd Allah al Bakai (d.173 AH). 20. Salma bin Al Fazal (d.191 AH). 21. Yahya bin Saeed bin Abaan (d.194 AH). 22. Walid bin Muslim al Qarshi (d.195 AH). 23. Yunus bin Bakir (d.199 AH). 24. Mohammad bin Omar al Waqidi (d.207 AH). 25. Yaqub bin Ibrahim Zohri (d.208 AH). 26. Abd al Malak bin Hasham (d.213/18 AH). 27. Ali bin Mohammad al-Madaini (d.225 AH). 28. Mohammad bin Saeed (d. 230 AH). 29. Ibrahim bin Ishaaq (d. 285 AH). 30. Abu bakr Ahmed al-Baghdadi (d.277 AH).  
 
Still I have not included the books by five Imaams of Fiqh and six Imaams of Hadith that were also available for Tibri and, you know, our history is mixed and inter-linked with books of Ahadith and others as Brother Dr. Shabbir rightly clarified..  
 
What Tibri actually did was to pick up all the available smaller writings and collections and gave them a comprehensive form. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility of him adding some of his own venom into it too.  
 
I hope, Brother, this is enough to investigate into Tibri in an unbiased and research-oriented paradigm, avoiding blind sentimentality, dogmas, creeds and myths.  
 
Please continue with your valuable contribution to this blog.  

Comments by: Mubashir On 15 April 2010Report Abuse
Dear Mr Aurangzeb, The Qur'an does not allow Muhammad (S) to be a lord to any one, but regards him to be the servant of THE LORD (Allah SWT). Muhammad was a kind teacher not master (Aaqa).  
 
Kindly stand corrected as your example may mislead others.

Comments by: aurangzaib On 16 April 2010Report Abuse
Dear brother Mubashir,  
 
If you carefully go through my comments you will find that I have avoided making this a question of faith, belief or conviction. I said that it was a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE.  
And after that I also explained the technicalities of this title. I do not think it is a matter of debate. And it is not a matter at all of dispute. You are free to call my Lord pbuh, as you would deem best according to your own level of love and reverence for him.  
 
As a matter of fact, brother, we would prefer keeping this blog free from confrontations of any kind. Neither we are rigid and stubborn, nor authoritative. We love peace and impart the message of peace.  
 
I thank you for expressing your difference of opinion. This is a friendly blog and everybody can express his opinion freely. Of course, keeping a civilized, honest and friendly profile.  
 
Moreover, I have not set an example, so the question of misleading does not arise.  
 
What we Muslims have been missing all along is the fact that my Lord pbuh was given the mandate to establish the Kingdom of God and to rule it, as all other Messengers had been given. We have been misled into thinking that he was only a teacher/preacher in morality. My opinion is that your objection arises from this misunderstanding, as is evident from your first sentence which, according to Quran, is only partly true. I can quote many Ayaat from Quran confirming the role of Kings on the part of Messengers. But, as I said, we wouldn’t prefer making the personality of my Lord pbuh a topic of discussion. We can all love him according to our own personal concepts.  
 
I have explained from the dictionary too, that the word Lord is not always 'Aqaa'. Please check that comment above.  
 
God bless you.  
 

Comments by: moazzam On 21 April 2010
Dear all the historians can debate on history ,some past event might be right or wrong, the man written nefarious history has nothing to do with the true interpretation of Quraan(the islamic idiology source).This is the pitch of mazahib,where the "mazhabi paishwas plays to validate their rituals".My dear all, don't waste your valuable time at this garbled,instead try to understand and make understand, the holy Quraan by Quraan ,major part of our debate should remain in the frame work of this divine book .This is a humble suggestion.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 15 June 2011Report Abuse
Salaamun Alaikum, Aurangzaib and Mubashir,  
 
AURANGZAIB *** So, the word Lord alone, in itself, is not necessarily an attribute of God Almighty. And no sacrilege to God is committed by calling the Prophet pbuh a Lord. There is a House of Lords in England. The honourable Justices are also called My Lord. The word Lord Mayor is commonly used, etc. God bless you…***  
 
AURANGZAIB *** If you carefully go through my comments you will find that I have avoided making this a question of faith, belief or conviction. I said that it was a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE. And after that I also explained the technicalities of this title. I do not think it is a matter of debate. And it is not a matter at all of dispute. You are free to call my Lord pbuh, as you would deem best according to your own level of love and reverence for him. As a matter of fact, brother, we would prefer keeping this blog free from confrontations of any kind. Neither we are rigid and stubborn, nor authoritative. We love peace and impart the message of peace.***  
 
MUBASHIR ***Dear Mr Aurangzeb, The Qur'an does not allow Muhammad (S) to be a lord to any one, but regards him to be the servant of THE LORD (Allah SWT). Muhammad was a kind teacher not master (Aaqa). Kindly stand corrected as your example may mislead others.***  
 
I have to agree with Mubashir on this one for the following Quran reasons:  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord; there is no god but He; and turn away from the polytheists.  
 
10:15 And when Our clear messages are recited to them, those who have no hope of meeting with Us say: Bring a Quran other than this or change it. Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I follow nothing but what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day.  
 
3:64 Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).  
 
9:31 They take their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were enjoined that they should serve one God only — there is no god but He. Be He glorified from what they set up (with Him)!  
 
 
1. Ayat 6:106 tells the Last Prophet to follow what is revealed from him from his Lord/Rabb.  
 
2.In Ayat10:15 the Last Prophet states that he followed nothing but what revealed to him.  
 
3. With ayats 6:106 and 10:15 in mind then, we can now examine the rightness or wrongness of referring to the Last Prophet as--- lord.  
 
4. We can now ask ourselves, in regard to 6:106, does the revelation/Al-Quran ever refer the Last Prophet as—lord? Of course, the answer is no. According Al-Quran/The Words of Allah, Allah has reserved the title Lord for Himself.  
 
5. Ayat 3:64 puts the final word to this matter when it states……“THAT NONE OF US SHALL TAKE OTHERS FOR LORDS BESIDES…”  
 
6. Ayat 9:31 shows that others did take lords/arbabs besides Allah and, by doing so, committed shirk. You wrote: “There is a House of Lords in England. The honourable Justices are also called My Lord. The word Lord Mayor is commonly used…”. While this is true, ayat 3:64 precludes lord as a title from being given to the Last Prophet.  
 
7. Ayat 6:106 states to “follow what is revealed from your lord”. If the Last Prophet can be referred to as lord, then it makes him prone to be followed along with Allah as an arbab/lord. Of course this is what the sunni/shia world has done anyway.  
 
8. We can now ask ourselves, in regard to ayat 10:15, did the Last Prophet refer to himself —lord? Of course, again, the answer is no, because to have done so would have put him opposition to ayats 6:106; 3:64; 9:31; and 10:15.  
 
To be Quran only and alone for our guidance, that is, be muslins, we must rid ourselves of the habit of assigning things to Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Prophets, and His Messengers which Allah did not authorize, to wit:  
 
7:33 Say: My Lord makes haram only indecencies/fahish,…and that you associate with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and that you say of Allah what you know not.  
 
A couple of examples in this regard are the popular use of P.B.U. H/ SAWAS and Allah is GreaterAllahu Akbar. Nothing in Quran supports these thing. They are from man, hence, they are bida--innovation and shirk.  
 
I hope this has resolved the issue.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: Maniza On 15 June 2011
Dear Dhulqurnain,  
 
The reason I wrote thanku was that I did not deem appropriate to go into more discussion when I had stated my view, so I just said thanku.  
 
Aya nr 2:285 is also an example

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 16 June 2011Report Abuse
Salaamun, Maniza,  
 
Is you... thank you directed at me or Aurangzaib?  
 
 
***MANIZ, wrote:: dear brother aurangzaib .. . one thing is that you address the Prophet Mohammed saw.. as My Lord.. dear sir this title is only for God Al-Mighty who is Lord of the heavens and the earth***  
 
***MANIZA, wrote: instead try to understand and make understand, the holy Quraan by Quraan ,major part of our debate should remain in the frame work of this divine book .This is a humble suggestion.***  
 
I agree agree with your above statements, but now I must ask you the following:  
 
1. Why do you put SAW after mentioning the Last Prophet?  
 
2. Why do you put HOLY in front Al-Quran?  
 
I ask you these questions, because nowhere does Allah command us to put SAW after mentioning the Last Prophet, nor does Allah use SAW after mentioning the Last Prophet. Allah never refers to His Quran as…HOLY, either.  
 
If you truly mean the following: “our debate should remain in the frame work of this divine book (Quraan by Quraan) .This is a humble suggestion”, then you must abandon assigning things to Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and His Prophets, unless, Allah has given His authority in the matter. You are as incorrect for using “SAW” and ”HOLY” as Aurangzaib is for using “lord”.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 

Comments by: Maniza On 17 June 2011
Dear brother Dhulqurnain,  
 
I stand corrected :) you are right!  
 
Regarding your comment if you saw I made the first comments in January 2010. Since then many things have been understood regarding such matters.  
 
Secondly,the comment of 2010 of saying thanku to brother Auranzaib was a"thanku" cos I did not want to press the matter further, I had already stated my stance.  
 
Second thanku, was to you, june 2011, for making it more clear to brother Aurangzaib, because of h respect for your abilities , (even though I had personaly in a meeting with him in January taken up this matter, even quoteing the above aya.) So plz read my last " thanku " and surely you will understand.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 17 June 2011 Edit DeleteReport Abuse
Good deal, Maniza.  
 
I can really talk to you, because you, as with myself, will admit a mistake, give credit, change your position, and move on. How...cool.  
 
Looking forward to future chats.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

»«
OTHER QUESTIONS ON
HADITH
ASAK, QURAAN-E-PAAK Mohammed(s.w.) par nazil hua jo ki "ALLAH" ka kalam hai... per HADITH kis ka kalam hai..? Question by: Tamanna kamil From INDIA (FIROZABAD) On 24/04/2011
 
Aurangzaib Bhai,Aastana Members! COULD HISTORY HELP TO UNDERSTAND THE QURAN. PLZ REPLY AFTER READING CAREFULLY THE LINK GIVEN.http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=4&SID=27 Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 10/05/2011
 
Who is "DAJJAL"(Some body asked me),any one can reply please. Question by: Mujeeb From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 10/11/2011
 
Comments...
Blog Home Question Explorer Member's Area Mission & Vision Join AASTANABLOG
© 2006-2010 Aastana e Research and Understanding Quran. All Rights Reserved
www.aastana.com