A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Manual of Islam |
|---|
| haaris |
| 07/11/02 at 12:18:15 |
| Asalaamu Aleikoum wa rahmatullah brothers and sisters I'll start this thread in this forum becuase, well, I didn't want to hijack another post elsewhere. Has anyone (I know of at least one other person) else read Imam An Nawawi's Manual of Islam (tr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, pub. Islamic Texts Society)? I've just finished reading it, Masha Allah, and I found it excellent. It's very "high level" but contains all of the knowledge that we should, Insha Allah, have more or less at our fingertips. I can imagine that it would be a fantastic book around which to base a halaqah or programme of study. It sets out the basics and from that you can build greater knowledge. Anyone else have any comments? If you have read it and think like I do, which book would you recommend to read afterwards? Wa salaam |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| falasteen |
| 07/11/02 at 18:54:31 |
| asalamu alaikum... i have read al-nawawi's "manual of islam" and found it to be an excellent source of information, regardless of one's madh'hab. we actually used the text as the main "study guide" in our halaqa. most of it was quite easy to understand, however when questions arose, we would collect them and direct them to our community's imam who met with us on a monthly basis for the specific purpose of clearing up any confusion and answering our questions. subhanallah, while reading the book, i found SO many things that i didn't know before, but should have. even now, i often find myself referring back to the book for answers. masha'allah, the author did a wonderful job of translating. our halaqa started out using a translation of "minhaj al-talibin" (i forgot who actually translated it) but it was so terribly difficult to understand, it left us all frustrated and confused rather than enlightened. as far as recommendations for a follow-up to this book, although i have yet to read it myself, i would most definitely make an effort to read "reliance of the traveler," a translation of which nuh ha mim keller has written, as well, alhamdulillah :) by the way, does anyone have any recommendations for summer reading? i've exhausted my personal library and am looking to add a few more titles to it.... jazakum allahu khairan... |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 07/11/02 at 21:49:37 |
| [slm] I would be very careful of reading Nuh Keller's version of Reliance of the Traveller. Yes it is a shafi fiqh book, but it has his sufi commentary in there (he belongs to the shadilli tariqah), mostly in chapter W and maybe in other places (i forgot now). It contains extremist sufi views, such as wahdat al wujud (union with the Creator). The book is a good reference, if you ignore his commentary. In fact a whole book was written about Nuh Keller's commentary in Reliance of the Traveller and takes it apart completely. A chapter on the dispraise of al-Hawaa by Ibn Qayyim. http://store.yahoo.com/talkislam/b4486.html While the first 50 or so pages of the above book deal with Ibn Qayyim, the rest of the book (almost 200 more pages), deals with Nuh Keller's commentary of Reliance of the Traveller, and discusses in great detail all the people that Keller references including their books and some of the strange practices they did, with references from their books. If anyone wants I have Reliance of the Traveller in text file format with the sufi commentary edited out, in fact a major publisher obtained this text file from me and include it in their CDs that they are selling. I'll be happy to email it to you. Putting the sufi stuff aside, the one thing I wish it had was the daleel (evidence) used for why a matter is such a way. It is just mentioned what the view of the shafi madhab is on numerous issues, which is good in itself, but it should have proofs. Other good books translated are Fiqh Us Sunnah and The Distinguished Jurist Primer (althought this doesn't mention proofs either but gives the views of some scholars), and for Hanafi fiqh there is Al-Hedaya (but this is written in very poor English, from like the 18th century). There are some other books that will be coming out soon, but haven't yet. |
| 07/11/02 at 22:26:54 |
| bhaloo |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| muslimah853 |
| 07/15/02 at 15:47:09 |
| [quote author=bhaloo link=board=kabob;num=1026404295;start=0#2 date=07/11/02 at 21:49:37] It contains extremist sufi views, such as wahdat al wujud (union with the Creator). [slm] Actually, the section of the Reliance that discusses wahdat al wujud is a translation from a work of Imam al Ghazali (rahimahullah) detailing why this belief is *not* correct Islamically. And if once checks the sections of the Reliance that deal with 'aqidah, books U & V, one will clearly see that the concpet of divine indwelling is *not* espoused by Sh. Nuh. There are many other places, in writing, and on audio, where a person can read for oneself that Sh. Nuh does not teach divine indwelling as a legitmate concept. [wlm] |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 07/15/02 at 22:18:53 |
| [slm] Sister I will insha'Allah show you just some of the references to these extremist beliefs. Remember there are over 200 pages in this book responding to Nuh Keller's commentary of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri's Reliance of the Traveller. Dr. As-Saleh spoke well of the book, with the exception of Keller's commentary. [quote author=muslimah853 link=board=kabob;num=1026404295;start=0#3 date=07/15/02 at 15:47:09] There are many other places, in writing, and on audio, where a person can read for oneself that Sh. Nuh does not teach divine indwelling as a legitmate concept. [/quote] 1). The following I'm taking from Dr. Saleh As-Saleh's book p.85 (in fact for this discussion I will only be using his book). Sayyed Hossen Nasr, a Sufi enthusiast to Sufism and well known by Nuh Ha Miim Keller (see section x323, p.1095 of Reliance of the Traveller, here is a bit from Reliance: ..."While from a Shiite background, Hossein Nasr has a firmer footing in traditional Islamic Knowledge than any other western interpreters of Islam, Muslim or non-Muslim, and his works are generally free of mistakes in detail found in others' books, though some passages are occasionally colored by the comparative religions approach that mars the writings off a number of contemporary Muslim intellectuals...) said, "All that we can do is to stress that the Sufi teachings center upon two fundamental creeds: Wahdat Al-Wujud (the Unity of Existence) and Al-Insaan Al-Kaamil" (Kashf, p. 100 quoting As-Sufiyyah Bayna Al-Ams wal Yawm, by Sayyed Hossein Nasr, p. 22, translated by Kamaal Khaleel Yaazijee (1st edition), 1975.) 2). Muhammad Ameen Al-Kurdi reported that Al-Faaruqi An-Naqshabandi (a sufi from the naqshbandi order) said, "I found that Allah is the essence of things as was told by the master of At-Tawheed Al-Wujudi (those who propagated the concept of Wahdat Al-Wujud) from those of the Sufis of the later times..." (See Damashqiyyah's An Naqshbandiyyah, p. 59 quoting from Al-Mawaahib As-Sarmadiyyah, p.182, by Muhammad Ameen Al-Kurdi, Matba'at As-Sa'aadah (Egypt) (1st edition), 1910. Nuh Ha Mim Keller described Al-Kurdi as a scholar "who was among the greatest Naqshbandi masters of the last century" (Reliance of the Traveller x254, p. 1076). Muhammad Ameen Al-Kurdi said: "And know that the way of the Naqshbandi masters is the creed of Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaa'ah and it is the way of the Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them in its original (way). They didn't add to it nor did they omit from it" (An-Naqshbandiyyah, p.37, quoting Al-Mawaahib As-Sarmadiyyah, p.5) Al-Kurdi states that if the Mureed: "turly strives in the Thikr" he would attain a state of observance of Allah whereby "he would witness [Allah] without a veil" !!! (An-Naqshbandiyyah, p. 36, quoting Al-M. As-S. p. 317) (p. 119-121 of Dr. Saleh's book) 3). Nuh Ha Mim Keller said "As no age is without pretenders to Sufism, the following texts will hopefully be useful in letting some principle Sufis describe in their own words the delusions of those who consider themselves 'above the Sacred Law." (Keller's Reliance... s4.4, p. 789) One of the "Principle Sufis" who Keller refers the reader to is Abdul Kareem Al-Jeeli, Keller quoted the following of Al-Jeeli's own words: "...I have traveled to the remotest cities and dealt with all types of people, but never has my eye seen, nor ear heard of, nor is there any uglier or father from the presence of Allah than a certain group who pretend they are accomplished Sufis, claiming for themselves a lineal spiritual tradition from the perfected ones and appearing in their guies, while they do not believe in Allah, His Messengers, or the Last Day, and do not comply with the responsibilities of the Sacred Law, depicting the states of the prophets and their messages in a manner that no one with a particle of faith in his heart can accept, let alone someone who has reached the level of those to whom the unseen is disclosed and who have Gnostic insight. We have seen a great number of their lumibnaries in cities in Azerbaijjaan, Shirwaan, Jilaan, and Khurasaan, may Allah curse them all." (Keller's Reliance, s4.9, p. 791) Dr. As-Saleh says, this is a plain statement from a "principle" Sufi that there are members of the Sufi order to "whom the unseen is disclosed"!!! A reminder that Allah said on the tongue of the most honourable Messenger (SAW): "Say (O Muhammad (SAW)): "I posses no power of benefit or hurt to myself except as Allah will. If I had the knowledge of the Ghayb, I should have secured for myself an abundance of wealth, and no evil should have touched me. I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings unto people who believe." Quran 7:188 The so called "states" of the Sufis contrast with the state of the Prophets regarding the belief in Al-Ghayb and its disclosure. (p.113-114) I'll cut this short but will be happy to put up a lot more if people want it, or better yet buy the book yourself. Also I was just flipping through Keller's Reliance, p.1080, x265, and it mentions Ibn Arabi and calls him The Greatest Sheikh and says he is a friend of Allah, and foremost representative of wahdat al-wujud!!!!! And we all know what the scholars have said about Ibn Arabi, scholars such as Ibn Hajar, Ibn Khaldoon, Al-Subki, Ibn Taymiyyah, and countless more. |
| 07/15/02 at 22:21:03 |
| bhaloo |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| muslimah853 |
| 07/16/02 at 00:21:57 |
| [slm] Brother, While I appreciate the effort, what you quoted is not Sh. Nuh saying that he believes in or defends the concept of wahdat al wujud, nor actual passages from Reliance of the Traveller which teach that this concept is legitimate. What you posted says that Nuh Keller mentions other people in the volume who have quotes attributed to them endorsing this concept (I really don't know if the persons in question espoused this belief or not)--and not necessarily in relation to this particular idea. In the section of the book in which this matter is discussed--and though the work is quite large it is really easy to find all the places in the book where wahdat al wujud--or any other topic or any particular individual for that matter-- is discussed--the work happens to be very well indexed and cross referenced, masha'allah, there is no mention of those two individuals. This is significant because it seems that if he shared their 'alleged' (I'm not saying this to be facetious--just that I personally haven't verified that either person mentioned above actually believes this) beliefs on the topic he would have mentioned so in the sections devoted to that popic. It is entirely possible to agree with a person on certain points, and respect what good they have to offer even if that very same individual has beliefs that one strongly disagrees with. Take the good and leave the rest alone. Case in point--I have heard Louis Farrakhan say some absolutely brilliant and true things--but at the same time I also couldn't disagree more strongly with his 'aqidah. I don't really have the time or the energy to type in the relevant sections from his works, but they are available for anyone who wishes to go and check for themselves what Sh. Nuh himself says. And what I said still stands, the section of Reliance that specifically deals with the concept of wahdat al wujud is devoted to debunking the concept as a legitimate belief in Islam or Sufism. In the books of Reliance dealing with 'aqidah, in no uncertain terms, it is spelled out that Allah Ta'Ala is one in His Essence, Attributes, that nothing dwells in Him, He is separate from His creation, and so on. There is a short section in Al Maqasid, the book which this thread is all about, stating the same thing. In Al Maqasid and the Reliance, he also outlines what his definition of Sufism is, and neither description contains a reference to becoming one with the Creator. There are articles available on Mas'ud Khan's website by Sh. Nuh which deal with similar topics (sufism, anthropomorphism and such) in which this idea is referred to and clearly not endorsed. Audio tapes of talks of his in which he addresses this idea and makes it clear that it is not correct Islamically. I hope no one is offended--and it is not my wish to start one of those never ending controversies. In fact, I won't post on this topic further. But I think it's important to be clear--there is ample evidence for anyone who wishes to check it out--the clearest indicator of what a person believes is what they explicitly say (or write). In my humble opinion, which admittedly ain't worth a whole heck of a lot, that is much more reliable than the indirect 'guilt by association' type of thing. |
| 07/16/02 at 02:24:47 |
| bhaloo |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| UmmZaid |
| 07/16/02 at 01:42:27 |
| [slm] **Keep in mind I'm not trying to attack anyone personally here... I would just like you to really think about this issue** Leaving aside the issue of Sh. Nuh's 'Aqida (which, as Muslimah pointed out, anyone who is interested in can read about at Mas'ud's site or in a number of other places), I have to say that, as a writer, I am somewhat disturbed by the idea of any Muslim selectively editing texts and then turning around and selling CDs of these texts. Does Nuh Keller get any share of the money made from selling these CDs? Did he give his permission for his translation and commentary to be edited, and for CDs of this material to be made and distributed for money? (Based on the situation, I'm going go guess that the answer is "No.") The fact that a "major publisher" is acting in ignorance of or direct and knowing violation of the Berne Convention is disturbing. If Sh. Nuh did not give permission, it is copyright violation and this publisher and others involved in this violation can be rightly sued by Sh. Nuh (regardless of whether or not they knew about copyright laws). It doesn't matter if the material is distributed for free, **material which has been copyrighted can not be altered or distributed without the express, written consent of the author and / or translator and / or publisher.** Even if no clearly written copyright is visible in the text, the copyright is assumed. (And in the case of Reliance, there is a copyright clear as day in the book). Islam Q & A has dealt with this issue: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21899&dgn=3 Question: What do the Muslim fuqaha’ say about intellectual property rights such as trade names, trademarks, copyright and patents? Answer: Firstly: Trade names, trademarks, copyright and patents are all rights which belong exclusively to their owners. In modern times they have come to have a considerable financial value. These rights are recognized according to sharee’ah, and they should not be violated. Secondly: It is permissible to buy or sell a trade name or a trademark, and to transfer any of them in return for monetary compensation, so long as there is no cheating or deception. Thirdly: Copyright and patents are protected by sharee’ah. Their owners have the right to buy or sell them and nobody has the right to violate these rights. And Allaah knows best. Qaraar Majlis al-Fiqh al-Islami al-Khaamis, 1409 AH (www.islam-qa.com) It matters not if you like Sh Nuh or you don't, or if you agree with him or you don't, the fact is that the people involved in the selective editing, copying, and distributing of this material have broken the law, and have violated Sh. Nuh's Islamic rights. Sh. Nuh, whether you like him or you don't, makes his living and supports his family off of the money he earns from translating and writing. When you copy his materials, selectively edit them, and then sell or distribute them for free without his permission, or without giving him a portion of the proceeds, you are taking money from his pocket and his family. This has been a personal issue of mine ever since I had *MY* original materials copied without permission, distributed without permission (sometimes without my credits), plagarized, and I was even harassed by someone who was angry at me for copyrighting my stuff. Every single time I was told that I should let people do it b/c I'm a Muslim and they're Muslims, and I have no right to hold copyrights when it comes to other Muslims. My right to protect my intellectual property, my name, and my living were not considered. You would not dream of taking a dress from an Islamic dressmaker and giving it to someone for free or selling it without the dressmaker's permission, and without giving her a cut for her work. So why would it be "okay" to do this to a Muslim writer? |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 07/16/02 at 03:30:00 |
| [slm] [quote author=UmmZaid link=board=kabob;num=1026404295;start=0#6 date=07/16/02 at 01:42:27] I am somewhat disturbed by the idea of any Muslim selectively editing texts and then turning around and selling CDs of these texts. Does Nuh Keller get any share of the money made from selling these CDs? Did he give his permission for his translation and commentary to be edited, and for CDs of this material to be made and distributed for money? (Based on the situation, I'm going go guess that the answer is "No.") [/quote] Although at the start of your post you claim you are not attacking anyone personally, your post certainly does not imply this and is seen as a personal attack. You make many assumptions in your post, without giving your brother the benefit of the doubt. No where did I say who translated the text, but you assumed it was Nuh Keller, nor did I mention the source from where I got the text file from. The irony of this is that your words are very similiar to the words of someone VERY close to Nuh Keller, who approached me about this matter a few years ago. At the time I was greatly offended, and made sure I let him know how I felt along with his hypocrisy. Namely, who asked Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri if they could translate his work? Who said they could add sufi commentary to his work? What about his Islamic rights and other scholars as well whose rights are infringed? I did not receive a satisfactory explanation at that time but I did receive an apology and we parted ways. |
| 07/16/02 at 22:20:32 |
| bhaloo |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 07/16/02 at 03:54:05 |
| [slm] [quote author=muslimah853 link=board=kabob;num=1026404295;start=0#5 date=07/16/02 at 00:21:57] . But I think it's important to be clear--there is ample evidence for anyone who wishes to check it out--the clearest indicator of what a person believes is what they explicitly say (or write). In my humble opinion, which admittedly ain't worth a whole heck of a lot, that is much more reliable than the indirect 'guilt by association' type of thing.[/quote] Sister, I appreciate your good manners in this thread and taking the time to reply. Unfortunately, I think you didn't see what I mentioned in point 3 above in my post (the concept of the Unseen held by many sufis where their sheikhs are in direct contact with Allah, and I have had first hand experience talking with a prominent sufi writer in the english language where we got into a discussion about this) and the part below it. I think especially Nuh Keller's comments about Ibn Arabi in the Reliance of the Traveller index should be enough. How can Keller call this man the Greatest Sheikh, and the foremost representative of wahdat al wujud? Reliance of the Traveller, p.1080. So many famous scholars from the past declared Ibn Arabi a kafir, I would think this would make anyone fearful of wanting to go even near Ibn Arabi's works or anyone associated with him. How can Keller call Ibn Arabi the Greatest Sheikh, let alone Muslim (considering what these other scholars said about Ibn Arabi, it would be best to not even mention controversial people, for fear of misguiding someone). I mentioned a few of these scholars in another thread some months back. Here is what Ibn Khaldoon (1332-1406) the famous historian said, he stated that the sufi books of Ibn 'Arabi, Ibn Sab'een, Ibn Barrajaan, Ibn Al-Faarid, Al-'Afeef Al-Tilmisaanee and the like which "are filled with plain kufr" are "tawaaleef (bad, worthless, good-for-nothing)" that should be "burned with fire and then washed with water to eliminate the trace of the inscription." He streessed that, "The elimination of such misleading creeds" should be done "for the general good of the Deen." This was reported by Shaykh Taqi-ed-Deen Al-Faasee (The Imaam, historian, and student of Ibn Khaldoon) in his book Al-'Iqd Ath-Thameen Fee Taareekh Al-Balad Al-Ameen, V.2, pp. 178-181, published by Muassasatur-Risaalah, Beirut, 1986. (take from p.170 of Dr. As-Saleh's book, and there are other scholars as well) This is why I recommend people not get Keller's version of Reliance of the Traveller, because it praises people such as Ibn Arabi and other sufis that were strong proponents of wahdat al wujud, not to mention other items which I have not gone into yet in this discussion (in order to keep things short). I strongly recommend you get this book and see for yourself. Read it with an open mind, and if you still feel it is safe for an ordinary person to read Reliance of the Traveller then do so. The idea of "guilt by association" is not something that you can easily dismiss, Dr. Saleh talks about the prominent sufis within the shadilli order as well (which is the sufi order that Keller belongs to) and mentions some of the strange beliefs and practices they had referencing their books. |
| 07/16/02 at 20:50:05 |
| bhaloo |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| UmmZaid |
| 07/18/02 at 16:58:22 |
| Salaam 'Alaikum Bhaloo: I'm sorry that you refuse to take my statement at face value, as I wasn't intending to attack you personally, just as I said I wasn't. Perhaps I need to do cartwheels and a headstand to prove to you that I said what I meant, since you obviously assumed that my intentions were bad anyway. You are right, you didn't claim that you took from Sh. Nuh's translation (although you did imply it, IMO). Sh. Nuh aside, I was just raising an issue (plagarizing or stealing of intellectual property by Muslims) for people to think about (and even though *you personally* did not plagarize or suggestively edit Sh. Nuh's work, I hope that you are willing to admit that it has been done and continues to be done to him and other authors-- living and dead -- by people who didn't like what the person said). In the future, I shall try to write very, very clearly and simply so that you understand me completely. I shall definitely not dare to try and open a side discussion based on a fragment of a conversation when you are involved, as I wouldn't want you to take it the wrong way. In the future, I hope that you write very clearly and simply so that people don't believe what seems to be obviously implied in your speech and get the wrong idea about you. You speak about giving the benefit of the doubt, and then refuse to give it to me, even though I *said* that I wasn't attacking you personally. Is my word as a Muslim not good enough for you or something? (And insinuating that anyone who dares raise this topic with you is a hypocrite? How nice of you, brother). For the record, I'm not "very close, " or close at all to Sh. Nuh, as I don't even know him, and have never seen him or met him. Nor am I one of his murids. As for works by authors who have been dead for 7 centuries and can no longer give express, written persmission regarding their works (or have no trust which retains the rights to their works), I believe (from what I remember) the Berne Convention does deal with that, and the text of the Berne Convention is available online if you care to read it. |
| Re: Speaking on Alleged Deviancies |
|---|
| UmmZaid |
| 07/18/02 at 17:02:36 |
| [slm] Wallahi, I swear by my Creator, this is something I am honestly, truly interested in. Br. Bhaloo, I am wondering by what authority you speak on the deviancies of the 'aqida of other Muslims? No, REALLY, I am interested, and I hope that is clear to you. (I'm always interested to hear about where and what and with who people have studied!) Where have you studied, and with who? What did you study? What have you taken ijaza in? What subjects and where and with who do you hope to study in the future? I hope that you would agree that if a Muslim is recommending or warning people against another Muslim and his or her works, that this Muslim should be more than willing to let people know who he or she is and why we should take their opinion. You may believe that I am some die-hard Kellerite, but I'm not. If there is something wrong in what he has said, I would want to know about it, Wallahi, I do. But I would like to know who it is that is telling me this information, YKWIM? Umm Zaid, who is REALLY HONESTLY INTERESTED AND NOT TRYING TO ATTACK ANYONE |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| UmmZaid |
| 07/18/02 at 17:27:49 |
| [slm] Bhaloo, you've said that you aren't working from Sh. Nuh's translation of the 'Umdat, and I'm curious... who did the translation of the one you are working with? I honestly wasn't aware there is another one out there (so I guess you can see where I would have automatically thought that you were talking about the Sh. Nuh version). Or are you doing the translation yourself? (What a great, albeit frustrating, job that must be -- to sit all day with the great books of Islam and work to make them accessible to people who don't know Arabic). If so, how long have you been working on it? Is anyone working on it with you? Is it something you did as a personal project or under contract from a publisher? If you aren't the person translating, can you share with everyone who is the translator, the publisher, year published, where you got it, price, etc? I think that since you've spent so much time warning everyone away from Sh. Nuh's version, you would definitely want to point seekers to another version in English, if it is available. Or at least, tell us when it will be available and from what publisher. Speaking of this, I am curious about something else you said... You write: >>If anyone wants I have Reliance of the Traveller in text file format with the sufi commentary edited out, in fact a major publisher obtained this text file from me and include it in their CDs that they are selling. I'll be happy to email it to you.<< Now, I was under the impression that you were saying that all of the Sufi stuff comes from Sh. Nuh "adding things" (for lack of a better term) into Imam al Misri's original text (or even if you didn't say that specifically, I gotta tell you bro, it sure did come across that way) when he translated it into English. But re-reading this, and in light of you saying that you weren't talking about Sh. Nuh's translation, I am REALLY HONESTLY curious about the Sufi commentary you are mentioning. I was under the impression that the sections of the book written only by Imam al Misri dealt with fiqh, and not with tasawwuf. One of your responses gives the impression that someone added in the Sufi commentaries. So, did Imam al Misri quote other scholars, like this ibn 'Arabi you are mentioning (I know there are two ibn 'Arabis, one who was a Sufi and the other who was a Maliki jurist)? Or did Imam al Misri write things himself that you have found objectionable? Or, did other people add in the Sufi commentaries in subsequent Arabic language editions of the book over the centuries? If so, do you know who they are, and does anyone have an original text by Imam al Misri to compare it to (ie, to know what was added in and what wasn't?) I'm hoping that you can take the time to post some examples for us, as I think I'm probably not the only one here who doesn't have a copy of the Reliance (as translated by Sh Nuh or anyone else) at their fingertips to check out. Now, not to bring up intellectual property rights and copyrights with you again, as that seems to be a sore point, but you also say "Sufi commentary edited out." Who did the "editing out?" If the "Sufi commentary" are the original words of Imam al Misri, or if they are things written by others that he himself included in the text of his works, I would hope that any major publisher or anyone who even e-mails the file like you have includes that this work is now abridged, just to make sure that people don't fall under the impression that it is the complete work as written by Imam al Misri. (I don't know if you know this, but some publishing houses in the Arab world do this, and don't tell people that they are reading abridged versions of the original text, and it's something that I find very annoying, YKWIM? The most honest route, to avoid any confusion, is just to let people know that it's abridged, YK?) If the "Sufi commentary" is stuff that was added in over the years by other publishers or editors or what have you, and this major publisher is not including that stuff in a new edition, I think it would be wise to include information to this effect in the preface or notes (b/c inevitably, people will compare different translations / editions and become confused or have lots of questions). |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| UmmZaid |
| 07/18/02 at 17:36:28 |
| [slm] >>Putting the sufi stuff aside, the one thing I wish it had was the daleel (evidence) used for why a matter is such a way. It is just mentioned what the view of the shafi madhab is on numerous issues, which is good in itself, but it should have proofs.<< Brother, I am surprised. I would have thought, based on your warnings and other information about the Sh. Nuh translation, that you would have read it cover to cover. I know you mentioned a book by Dr. Saleh... is all the information you are passing to us on the NK translation taken from his book? B/C I thought it was you sharing things that you yourself read in the NK translation?? Anyway, I mention this b/c it is written in Imam al Misri's introduction (in the Arabic text at the back and in the English translation at the front) that Reliance is a fiqh handbook for everyday people based on the Majmu' of Imam Nawawi. (I am pretty sure it is Imam Misri who mentions this, and not Sh. NK. I'm hoping that someone with the NK version at their disposal can look this up and verify it and tell us the page numbers where the Arabic and English versions of this appear). Anyway, if you wanted to look at a book that has all the dalil for the rulings, the Majmu' is the one you want. I think it is something like 9 volumes long, and it isn't available in English (psst -- if you are a translator, this would be a REALLY AWESOME task to undertake, and a lot of people would be so happy for it -- hint hint). I've not seen the Majmu' myself, but I understand it is very, very detailed and gives every possible proof for the rulings, and it is these rulings that Imam al Misri includes in his book. :) |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| ahmer |
| 07/18/02 at 20:10:08 |
oopss... does the constitution apply here??!!! ??? ??? ??? One of the unfortunate and needless arguments... here we go again...! :( |
| Re: Manual of Islam |
|---|
| jannah |
| 07/18/02 at 22:04:44 |
| [slm] Good point ahmer. I think everyone has a right to ask these questions, but I don't feel it's beneficial for the board. Perhaps the debate can be taken offline (in private email or message). Jazakallah khair. |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |