Bugdh Of Ibn Taymiyyah

[Islamic Salvation]

Ibn Taymiyyah is famous for his Bugdh (hatred) for the Ahlulbayt, either by lowering their Fadhail or by discrediting them in one way or another.

But in this one he went a step too far.

He says in Minhaj as-Sunnah Vol.4 Pg. 20:

الوجه الخامس أنه يقال قد ثبت لعلى بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه والحسن والحسين وعلي بن الحسين وابمه محمد وجعفر ابن محمد من المناقب والفصائل ما لم يذكره هذا المصنف الرافضي وذكر أشياء من الكذب تدل على جهل ناقلها مثل قوله نزل في حقهم هل أتى فإن سورة هل أتى مكية باتفاق العلماء

The fifth argument: it is said that it is proven for Ali bin Abi Talib, and al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and Ali bin al-Husayn, and his son Muhammad, and Ja'far bin Muhammad of merits that are not mentioned by this Rafidhi author (Allamah al-Hilli), rather he (al-Hilli) mentioned things (of their merits) that are clear lies, which prove the ignorance of the one who quotes them, like his (al-Hilli's) saying: it was revealed in their right (i.e. the Ahlulbayt) - the Surah 'Hal Ata' - but this was a Surah revealed in Makkah by the agreement of the Ulama.

Now in trying to prove Allamah al-Hilli's ignorance, he himself falls into a bigger pit, for Surah al-Dahr is Madaniyyah by consensus of the majority of scholars, even you can open your Qur'an today and look at whether it is Makki or Madani.

Now is he lying or ignorant? I leave the decision to you.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Islamic Salvation]

And he did not stop there

In another place in Minhaj as-Sunnah Vol. 7 Pg. 179

وسورة "هل أتى" مكيّة باتفاق أهل التفسير والنقل، لم يقل أحد منهم: إنها مدنية

And the Surah 'Hal Ata' is Makiyyah by the agreement of Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql, NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS THAT IT IS MADANIYYAH.

In another place in Minhaj as-Sunnah Vol. 8 Pg. 553

والجواب: أمّا نزول: (هَلْ أَتَى) في عليّ، فمما اتفق أهل العلم بالحديث عَلَى أنه كذب موضوع ، وإنما يذكره من المفسّرين من جرت عادته بذكر أشياء من الموضوعات. والدليل الظاهر على أنه كذب: أن سورة (هل أتى) مكيّة باتفاق الناس نزلت قبل الهجرة

The answer: As for the revelation of 'Hal Ata' being about Ali, then this is something that all the Ahl al-Ilm of Hadith agree upon it being a lie, fabricated.

And it is only mentioned by the Mufasirin whose habit it has been to mention things from the Mawdhuat (fabricated), and the OPEN DALIL that it is a lie is that - Surah Hal Ata is Makiyyah by agreement of the people, revealed before Hijrah.

All these are lies, since the Jamhur are agreed that it was revealed in Madinah.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Haydar Karrar]

This is not all, This Khabeeth ibn Taymiyyah was a HUGE Nasibi and hated the Ahlul Bayt (as) beyond limits.

He also said that it was a greater crime of Shaykh Mukhtar (ra) to take the blood of 'Umar ibn Sa'ad (la) than it was for ibn Sa'ad to take the blood of Imam Husayn (as) ......

Then, he cursed Abu Lu'lu as a Kafir (which he was, and was a very bad man, but not nearly as bad as ibn Muljam), And later defended ibn Muljam (la)!!!

This Kadhaab was such a nuisance who started years of Fitna and Fasad....

How can one have so much hate?!?!

He must have KRAPPED his pants when he saw Imam 'Ali (as) was Qaseem ul Jannah wal Nar!

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

What he says about Allah [swt] in that book is more vile and disgusting than his Nasb.

في امان الله

[Islamic Salvation]

To prove what some of the scholars said about the place of revelation of this Surah, and these are scolars before Ibn Taymiyyah

1) In Tafsir al-Baghawi (d. 516)

(قال عطاء هي مكية، وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية وقال الحسن وعكرمة هي مدنية إلا آية وهي قوله (فأصبر لحكم ربك

Ata said it is Makiyyah, and Mujahid and Qatada said Madaniyyah, and al-Hasan and Ikrimah said it is Madaniyyah except for one Ayah - and it is the words of Allah - 'So wait for the Hukm of your Rabb'.

2) Za'ad al-Masir fi Ilm Tafsir of Ibn Jawzi (d. 597) under the Tafsir of this Surah

سورة هل أتى ويقال لها سورة الإنسان وفيها ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها أنها مدنية كلها، قالها الجمهور منهم

Surat Hal Ata, and it is also called Surat Insan, and about it are three opinions, one of them is that it is Madaniyyah fully, and this is what was said by the majority of the (Salaf).

3) Tafsir al-Qur'an by Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 660) under the Tafsir of this Surah

مدنية عند الجمهور

Madaniyyah according to the majority.

4) Al-Jami fi Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Qurtubi (d. 671)

سورة الإنسان مكية في قول ابن عباس ومقاتل والكلبي، وقال الجمهور مدنية

Suratul Insan is Makiyyah in the opinion of Ibn Abbas and Muqatil and al-Kalbi, but the majority said it is Madaniyyah.

To be contd ...

[pyaro]

Salaam Alaykum,

I remember coming across his this statement of trying to deceive the readers that it is a Makki Sura while watching the series of SAyyed Kamal Haydari.

Sayyed later went on to show how even the Quran published from audi Arabia says it is a Madani Sura.

He certainly was a Nasibi bila shak!

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam Alaykum,

I remember coming across his this statement of trying to deceive the readers that it is a Makki Sura while watching the series of SAyyed Kamal Haydari.

Sayyed later went on to show how even the Quran published from audi Arabia says it is a Madani Sura.

He certainly was a Nasibi bila shak!

Indeed my source is Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari.

Even the King Fahd Complex Qur'an [of the Wahhabi establishment] lists Surat Insan as Madaniyyah.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

He says in Minhaj as-Sunnah Vol.4 Pg. 20:

الوجه الخامس أنه يقال قد ثبت لعلى بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه والحسن والحسين وعلي بن الحسين وابمه محمد وجعفر ابن محمد من المناقب والفصائل ما لم يذكره هذا المصنف الرافضي وذكر أشياء من الكذب تدل على جهل ناقلها مثل قوله نزل في حقهم هل أتى فإن سورة هل أتى مكية باتفاق العلماء

The fifth argument: it is said that it is proven for Ali bin Abi Talib, and al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and Ali bin al-Husayn, and his son Muhammad, and Ja'far bin Muhammad of merits that are not mentioned by this Rafidhi author (Allamah al-Hilli), rather he (al-Hilli) mentioned things (of their merits) that are clear lies, which prove the ignorance of the one who quotes them, like his (al-Hilli's) saying: it was revealed in their right (i.e. the Ahlulbayt) - the Surah 'Hal Ata' - but this was a Surah revealed in Makkah by the agreement of the Ulama.

Now in trying to prove Allamah al-Hilli's ignorance, he himself falls into a bigger pit, for Surah al-Dahr is Madaniyyah by consensus of the majority of scholars, even you can open your Qur'an today and look at whether it is Makki or Madani.

The majority of scholars, now, believe that this Surah was revealed in Madeenah, but there isn't a consensus on this. Many top Mufassirs of the Sunnis believed that Surah al-Insaan was revealed in Makkah, such as Ibn `Abbas, Muqaatil, al-Duhhaak, al-Kalbi (one of its verses), `Ataa', and others.

Look at what al-Qurtubi says in his al-Jaami` li-Ahkaam al-Qur'aan:

سورة الإنسان وهي إحدى و- ثلاثون آية مكية في قول ابن عباس و- مقاتل و- الكلبي. و- قال الجمهور: مدنية. و- قيل: فيها مكي، من قوله تعالى: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنا عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ تَنْزِيلًا «1» [الإنسان: 23] إلى آخر السورة

Surah al-Insaan is 31 verses, it is a Makki according to the statements of Ibn `Abbas, Muqaatil, and al-Kalbi, and the Majority say it is Madeenah. It is said that in it (Surah al-Insaan) it is a Makki from His, the Most High's saying of verses 23 - the end of the Surah.

Source:

al-Qurtubi, Jaami` li-Ahkaam al-Qur'aan, vol. 20, pg. 118

Actually, al-Toosi, a Shee`ah Mufassir says pretty much the same thing in his al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer al-Qur'aan:

و تسمى سورة الإنسان، و تسمى سورة الأبرار، و هي مكية في قول ابن عباس و الضحاك و غيرهما. و قال قوم: هي مدنية و هي احدى و ثلاثون آية بلا خلاف

And it is named Surah al-Isnaan, (another) name is Surah al-Abraar. It is a Makki according to the statements of Ibn `Abbas, al-Dhahhaak and other than them. And the people say it is Madeenah. It has 31 verses, and there is no disagreement [about the number of verses in this Surah]

Source:

al-Toosi, al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer al-Qur'aan, vol. 10, pg. 204

So there doesn't seem to be a consensus on where it was revealed as it is believed, but for Ibn Taymiyyah to claim "an agreement" on the issue and make it seem as if there is no disagreement is asinine.

(salam)

Edited December 21, 2012 by Nader Zaveri

[kalaam]

This is one of the reasons he gave for the fabricated narration brought by the Shia scholar in his book. If you want to refute him, refute all his points, not just one.

Secondly,

1. It is mentioned in Tafsir Kashaf 4/194

سورة الانسان مكية. وهى إحدى وثلاثون آية

2. It is mentioned in Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulayman 3/425

سورة الإنسان مكية، عددها إحدى وثلاثون آية

3. Tafsir al Razi, 30/235

سورة الإنسان إحدى وثلاثون آية مكية

4. Tafsir Alusi 29/150

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر

5. Tafsir Baidhawi 5/425

سورة الإنسان مكية وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية

6. Tafsir Nasafi 4/302

سورة الانسان مكية وهي احدى وثلاثون آية

7. Durr al manthur 6/296

سورة الانسان مكية

8. Tafsir Tha'alabi 10/93

سورة الإنسان (الدهر)) مكية، وهي ألف وأربع مائة وخمسون حرفا، ومائتان وأربعون كلمة، وإحدى وثلاثون آية

9. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 8/285

تفسير سورة الإنسان وهي مكية

10. Tafsir ibn abi Zamaneen 2/289

تفسير سورة هل أتى على الإنسان وهي مكية كلها

Even though after these ten tafasir which have declared this surah to be makki, lets turn our attention to the narration in reply to which Ibn Taymiyyah said this as his point number five, lets talk on the main issue, the narration in reply to which Ibn Taymiyyah said this ,whether it is sahih or not. Prove it sahih, and you will give a huge refutation to Ibn Taymiyyah's answer. Otherwise accept that his answer as a whole is unrefutable for you people.

Edited December 21, 2012 by kalaam

[Islamic Salvation]

(salam)

(bismillah)

The majority of scholars, now, believe that this Surah was revealed in Madeenah, but there isn't a consensus on this. Many top Mufassirs of the Sunnis believed that Surah al-Insaan was revealed in Makkah, such as Ibn `Abbas, Muqaatil, al-Duhhaak, al-Kalbi (one of its verses), `Ataa', and others.

Akhi, I chose my words carefully, I said that the consensus of the majority of scholars is that Surat Insan is Madaniyyah.

And I have shown this from four of the Tafasir before Ibn Taymiyyah's time, all of which say that the Jamhur (mojority) consider it Medinian in revelation.

So the majority position then and now is that it is Madani.

Look at what al-Qurtubi says in his al-Jaami` li-Ahkaam al-Qur'aan:

سورة الإنسان وهي إحدى و- ثلاثون آية مكية في قول ابن عباس و- مقاتل و- الكلبي. و- قال الجمهور: مدنية. و- قيل: فيها مكي، من قوله تعالى: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنا عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ تَنْزِيلًا «1» [الإنسان: 23] إلى آخر السورة

Surah al-Insaan is 31 verses, it is a Makki according to the statements of Ibn `Abbas, Muqaatil, and al-Kalbi, and the Majority say it is Madeenah. It is said that in it (Surah al-Insaan) it is a Makki from His, the Most High's saying of verses 23 - the end of the Surah.

Source:

al-Qurtubi, Jaami` li-Ahkaam al-Qur'aan, vol. 20, pg. 118

I had already quoted al-Qurtubi, whence he said that the 'Majority say it is Medinian in origin.

Actually, al-Toosi, a Shee`ah Mufassir says pretty much the same thing in his al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer al-Qur'aan:

و تسمى سورة الإنسان، و تسمى سورة الأبرار، و هي مكية في قول ابن عباس و الضحاك و غيرهما. و قال قوم: هي مدنية و هي احدى و ثلاثون آية بلا خلاف

And it is named Surah al-Isnaan, (another) name is Surah al-Abraar. It is a Makki according to the statements of Ibn `Abbas, al-Dhahhaak and other than them. And the people say it is Madeenah. It has 31 verses, and there is no disagreement [about the number of verses in this Surah]

Source:

al-Toosi, al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer al-Qur'aan, vol. 10, pg. 204

Again, he shows that some say it is Makki and others that it is Madani, but the majority position is definitely that it is Medinian.

Having said this, my point is not to debate whether the Surah is Makki or Madani, my point is just to demonstrate the Tadlis of Ibn Taymiyyah in such a case, where he claims agreement among scholars that it is Makki, and that 'NO ONE from Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql says it is Madani'.

This is one of the reasons he gave for the fabricated narration brought by the Shia scholar in his book. If you want to refute him, refute all his points, not just one.

My aim is not to refute whether Surah al-Dahr was revealed for the merit of Ahlulbayt or not, NOR is it to prove that Surah Dahr was revealed in Madina.

I have demonstrated either ignorance or most probably Tadlis and lies of Ibn Taymiyyah in this argument,

Whereby he said first

فإن سورة هل أتى مكية باتفاق العلماء

but this was a Surah revealed in Makkah by the agreement of the Ulama.

then he said

مكيّة باتفاق أهل التفسير والنقل، لم يقل أحد منهم: إنها مدنية

Makiyyah by the agreement of Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql, NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS THAT IT IS MADANIYYAH.

Then he said

والدليل الظاهر على أنه كذب: أن سورة (هل أتى) مكيّة باتفاق الناس نزلت قبل الهجرة

And the OPEN DALIL that it is a lie is that - Surah Hal Ata is Makiyyah by agreement of the people, revealed before Hijrah.

Secondly,

1. It is mentioned in Tafsir Kashaf 4/194

سورة الانسان مكية. وهى إحدى وثلاثون آية

2. It is mentioned in Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulayman 3/425

سورة الإنسان مكية، عددها إحدى وثلاثون آية

3. Tafsir al Razi, 30/235

سورة الإنسان إحدى وثلاثون آية مكية

4. Tafsir Alusi 29/150

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر

5. Tafsir Baidhawi 5/425

سورة الإنسان مكية وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية

6. Tafsir Nasafi 4/302

سورة الانسان مكية وهي احدى وثلاثون آية

7. Durr al manthur 6/296

سورة الانسان مكية

8. Tafsir Tha'alabi 10/93

سورة الإنسان (الدهر)) مكية، وهي ألف وأربع مائة وخمسون حرفا، ومائتان وأربعون كلمة، وإحدى وثلاثون آية

9. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 8/285

تفسير سورة الإنسان وهي مكية

10. Tafsir ibn abi Zamaneen 2/289

تفسير سورة هل أتى على الإنسان وهي مكية كلها

Even though after these ten tafasir which have declared this surah to be makki,

Are you joining Ibn Taymiyyah in Tadlis?

For example, in Tafsir Alusi, he goes on to say some more [and infact that it is Madani is his real position]

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في " البحر " وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية كلها وقال الحسن وعكرمة والكلبي مدنية إلا آية واحدة فمكية وهي ولا تطع منهم آثما أو كفورا وقيل مدنية إلا من قوله تعالى فاصبر لحكم ربك إلى آخرها فإنه مكي وعن ابن عادل حكاية مدنيتها على الإطلاق عن الجمهور وعليه الشيعة وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية بلا خلاف والمناسبة بينها وبين ما قبلها في غاية الوضوح

So why do you not quote the whole statement.

I am sure this is the case with some of the rest of your quotings, where you take only one portion.

Lets turn our attention to the narration in reply to which Ibn Taymiyyah said this as his point number five, lets talk on the main issue, the narration in reply to which Ibn Taymiyyah said this ,whether it is sahih or not. Prove it sahih, and you will give a huge refutation to Ibn Taymiyyah's answer. Otherwise accept that his answer as a whole is unrefutable for you people.

Stick to the topic, I don't care whether the narrations about revelation of Dahr being in Fadhail of Ahlulbayt are Sahih in your sources or not, they are not a Hujjah to me, infact I dont care whether this Surah was Makki or Madani in your sources.

The truth is that the majority of sunni scholars believe that it is Madani, and Ibn Taymiyyah by using such an argument [i.e. No one says it is Madani, and there is agreement among the Ulama of it being Makki, all the people believe it is Makki) has either lied (which is much more closer to truth), or is ignorant of this scenario.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

May Allah's curse be on the liars and the pretenders.

[kalaam]

Are you joining Ibn Taymiyyah in Tadlis?

For example, in Tafsir Alusi, he goes on to say some more [and infact that it is Madani is his real position]

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في " البحر " وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية كلها وقال الحسن وعكرمة والكلبي مدنية إلا آية واحدة فمكية وهي ولا تطع منهم آثما أو كفورا وقيل مدنية إلا من قوله تعالى فاصبر لحكم ربك إلى آخرها فإنه مكي وعن ابن عادل حكاية مدنيتها على الإطلاق عن الجمهور وعليه الشيعة وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية بلا خلاف والمناسبة بينها وبين ما قبلها في غاية الوضوح

So why do you not quote the whole statement.

How can I be doing tadlis when what I have mentioned is a conclusive proof that according to the mufassir himself, it is Makki, and the rest is the mentioning of difference in the opinion regarding it. It doesn't affect what the mufassir himself said in his book. And I mentioned only what the author of the book himself declared. I didn't bother about what he discusses afterwards regarding who considered it makki, and who didn't. So these ten mufassireen considered the surah to be makki, so how can the claim of jamhoor considering it as madani surah be considered right? Who is the jamhoor, ten major mufassireen consider it to be makki. The claim of jamhoor to be considering it madani is absolutely wrong in the light of what I mentioned. Apart from what is mentioned in Tafsir Alusi that jamhoor consider it to be makki, I didn't mention it, but if you say with reference to few books that jamhoor consider it to be madani, so remember that it is also mentioned in some books, that jamhoor consider it to be makki.

And I really don't know why do you need to enlarge the size of text to such an extent for posting.

Stick to the topic, I don't care whether the narrations about revelation of Dahr being in Fadhail of Ahlulbayt are Sahih in your sources or not, they are not a Hujjah to me, infact I dont care whether this Surah was Makki or Madani in your sources.

The truth is that the majority of sunni scholars believe that it is Madani, and Ibn Taymiyyah by using such an argument [i.e. No one says it is Madani, and there is agreement among the Ulama of it being Makki, all the people believe it is Makki) has either lied (which is much more closer to truth), or is ignorant of this scenario.

Yeah, since you can't prove it sahih, hence the better thing is to say 'I don't care'. Nice try. By the way, this is also one of the funny refutations to Ibn Taymiyyah I have read online. This shows that his answer as a whole is unrefutable for the Shias, and ultimately he wins the argument that the narration is not sahih.

[Islamic Salvation]

How can I be doing tadlis when what I have mentioned is a conclusive proof that according to the mufassir himself, it is Makki, and the rest is the mentioning of difference in the opinion regarding it. It doesn't affect what the mufassir himself said in his book. And I mentioned only what the author of the book himself declared. I didn't bother about what he discusses afterwards regarding who considered it makki, and who didn't.

Do you know arabic!?

This is not the claim of al-Alusi,

He says:

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر

Sura al-Insan, and it is called Sura al-Dahr, and al-Abrar, and al-Amshaj, and 'Hal Ata', and it is Makiyyah in the view of the Jumhur according to what is in the book 'al-Bahr', and Mujahid said...

So how is this the opinion of al-Alusi?

Adding to the list of scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah who said that this Surah was Medinian in origin

1. Tafsir al-Tabari (d. 310) Vol. 29, Pg. 251

سورة الانسان : مدنية

Sura al-Insan: Madaniyyah

2. Nasikh and Mansukh of Ibn Hazm (d. 456) Pg. 61

سورة الانسان : مدنية

Sura al-Insan: Madaniyyah

So these ten mufassireen considered the surah to be makki, so how can the claim of jamhoor considering it as madani surah be considered right? Who is the jamhoor, ten major mufassireen consider it to be makki. The claim of jamhoor to be considering it madani is absolutely wrong in the light of what I mentioned

Because the ones claiming that the Jamhur say it is Madaniy are more earlier than most (if not all) of these Mufasirin you quote.

Also, not one of the Mufasir you bring says that it is the Majority opinion.

This is assuming that what you quote is the whole sentence, since you have already shown that you pick parts of the sentence.

Remember, I am not the one claiming that the Jamhur say it is Madaniy, some of the earlier scholars of Tafsir from your sect are:

1) In Tafsir al-Baghawi (d. 516)

(قال عطاء هي مكية، وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية وقال الحسن وعكرمة هي مدنية إلا آية وهي قوله (فأصبر لحكم ربك

Ata said it is Makiyyah, and Mujahid and Qatada said Madaniyyah, and al-Hasan and Ikrimah said it is Madaniyyah except for one Ayah - and it is the words of Allah - 'So wait for the Hukm of your Rabb'.

2) Za'ad al-Masir fi Ilm Tafsir of Ibn Jawzi (d. 597) under the Tafsir of this Surah

سورة هل أتى ويقال لها سورة الإنسان وفيها ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها أنها مدنية كلها، قالها الجمهور منهم

Surat Hal Ata, and it is also called Surat Insan, and about it are three opinions, one of them is that it is Madaniyyah fully, and this is what was said by the majority of the (Salaf).

3) Tafsir al-Qur'an by Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 660) under the Tafsir of this Surah

مدنية عند الجمهور

Madaniyyah according to the majority.

4) Al-Jami fi Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Qurtubi (d. 671)

سورة الإنسان مكية في قول ابن عباس ومقاتل والكلبي، وقال الجمهور مدنية

Suratul Insan is Makiyyah in the opinion of Ibn Abbas and Muqatil and al-Kalbi, but the majority said it is Madaniyyah.

Apart from what is mentioned in Tafsir Alusi that jamhoor consider it to be makki, I didn't mention it, but if you say with reference to few books that jamhoor

Which books mention that the Jamhur say that it is Makki!?

al-Alusi is quoting from author of al-Bahr al-Muhit (Ibn Atiyyah).

So that is one book, against all those that I mentioned?

The same Alusi quotes the following, in the very same sentence

وعن ابن عادل حكاية مدنيتها على الإطلاق عن الجمهور

And on the authority of Ibn A'dil there is a quotation about it being Madaniyyah with certainity (or all of it) [in the opinion] of the Jamhur.

But leave this meandaring, I ask you --> what is the opinion even today, the majority of the Sunni scholars say it is Madaniy, and the majority of the Sunni published Mashif say that it is Madaniy.

Finally, and more importantly, let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a difference between who are the majority - those who say Makki or Madani, how do you defend him saying the following:

مكيّة باتفاق أهل التفسير والنقل، لم يقل أحد منهم: إنها مدنية

Makiyyah by the agreement of Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql, NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS THAT IT IS MADANIYYAH.

Is this not lies, or are all those saying it is Madani not Ashab al-Tafsir and Naql.

Or him saying

والدليل الظاهر على أنه كذب: أن سورة (هل أتى) مكيّة باتفاق الناس نزلت قبل الهجرة

And the OPEN DALIL that it is a lie is that - Surah Hal Ata is Makiyyah by agreement of the people, revealed before Hijrah.

Are these who say Madani not people?

Yeah, since you can't prove it sahih, hence the better thing is to say 'I don't care'. Nice try. By the way, this is also one of the funny refutations to Ibn Taymiyyah I have read online. This shows that his answer as a whole is unrefutable for the Shias, and ultimately he wins the argument that the narration is not sahih.

The topic is about the claim of Ibn Taymiyyah that NO ONE from the Ashab al-Tafsir and Naql says it is Madaniy, and that there is agreement among the Ulama and the people that it is Makki.

It is proven without doubt that there are those who say it is Madani (infact the majority of your scholars, then and today: Pick any Mushaf and check), and the Ulama are at the least not agreed.

I repeat: Either he is lying for the sake of debate, or he is ignorant of this fact (something I do not buy).

So what if the Sunni narrations that say that the Surah was revealed for Ahlulbayt are weak, am I taking my religion from Sunni books?

Edited December 22, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Khadim uz Zahra]

(bismillah)

What he says about Allah [swt] in that book is more vile and disgusting than his Nasb.

في امان الله

What does he say? Are you referring to those famous things about God wing a young man without a beard or something else?

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah(

What does he say? Are you referring to those famous things about God wing a young man without a beard or something else?

Lots of things related to tashbeeh (likening Allah [swt] to His creation) and tajseem (anthropomorphism).

نعوذ بالله من الشرك والضلالة

في امان الله

[kalaam]

This is not the claim of al-Alusi,

He says:

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر

Sura al-Insan, and it is called Sura al-Dahr, and al-Abrar, and al-Amshaj, and 'Hal Ata', and it is Makiyyah in the view of the Jumhur according to what is in the book 'al-Bahr', and Mujahid said...

So how is this the opinion of al-Alusi?

He mentioned his view based on the saying of jamhur according to what is mentioned in al bahr, and then went on to discuss the other opinion regarding it.

And I don't know from where do you consider that his real position is that it is madani, prove it.

For example, in Tafsir Alusi, he goes on to say some more [and infact that it is Madani is his real position]

This is absolutely not his view at all.

Remember, I am not the one claiming that the Jamhur say it is Madaniy, some of the earlier scholars of Tafsir from your sect are:

1) In Tafsir al-Baghawi (d. 516)

(قال عطاء هي مكية، وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية وقال الحسن وعكرمة هي مدنية إلا آية وهي قوله (فأصبر لحكم ربك

Ata said it is Makiyyah, and Mujahid and Qatada said Madaniyyah, and al-Hasan and Ikrimah said it is Madaniyyah except for one Ayah - and it is the words of Allah - 'So wait for the Hukm of your Rabb'.

This is wrong, since I showed that nine scholars of the past absolutely declared it makki, and it is also mentioned in some books that jamhoor consider it to be makki, so your presenting one side of the argument is highly misleading, and deceptive.

Which books mention that the Jamhur say that it is Makki!?

al-Alusi is quoting from author of al-Bahr al-Muhit (Ibn Atiyyah).

So that is one book, against all those that I mentioned?

The same Alusi quotes the following, in the very same sentence

وعن ابن عادل حكاية مدنيتها على الإطلاق عن الجمهور

And on the authority of Ibn A'dil there is a quotation about it being Madaniyyah with certainity (or all of it) [in the opinion] of the Jamhur.

To say that it is the view of jamhur that the surah is madani is totally wrong, since I showed major mufassireen declaring the surah to be makki. So it would be better to accept the view of what is mentioned in al bahr that jamhur actually considered it to be makki.

But leave this meandaring, I ask you --> what is the opinion even today, the majority of the Sunni scholars say it is Madaniy, and the majority of the Sunni published Mashif say that it is Madaniy.

This is totally wrong. It is mentioned in Tafsir Maariful Quran Vol. 8, p. 661, that this surah is makki.

Sayyid Qutub says in 'fi zilal al Quran'

في بعض الروايات أن هذه السورة مدنية ، ولكنها مكية؛ ومكيتها ظاهرة جداً

In some narrations, this surah is declared madani, but it is makki, and it being a makki surah is very obvious.

And similarly in tafsir tahreer wal tanweer, it is declared makki surah, and Maududi has also declared the surah to be makki.

So these are the contemporary scholars who declared the surah to be makki, so how do you say majority of sunni scholars today say the surah is madani?

Finally, and more importantly, let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a difference between who are the majority - those who say Makki or Madani, how do you defend him saying the following:

مكيّة باتفاق أهل التفسير والنقل، لم يقل أحد منهم: إنها مدنية

Makiyyah by the agreement of Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql, NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS THAT IT IS MADANIYYAH.

Is this not lies, or are all those saying it is Madani not Ashab al-Tafsir and Naql.

If you can't differentiate between mistake and lies, than ask me, and I will provide many such lies from the mouth of shia scholars.

Edited December 22, 2012 by kalaam

[Islamic Salvation]

He mentioned his view based on the saying of jamhur according to what is mentioned in al bahr, and then went on to discuss the other opinion regarding it.

And I don't know from where do you consider that his real position is that it is madani, prove it.

This is absolutely not his view at all.

How do you read from the Arabic that his view is what he first mentioned.

He is just elucidiating the different opinions.

This is wrong, since I showed that nine scholars of the past absolutely declared it makki, and it is also mentioned in some books that jamhoor consider it to be makki, so your presenting one side of the argument is highly misleading, and deceptive.

Firstly, these are late scholars.

Secondly, if it is proven, then it is their opinion, and they have not claimed that it is the opinion of the Jamhur.

Not some books, you have not brought any, just what al-Alusi quoted from Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi in al-Bahr, that's it.

To say that it is the view of jamhur that the surah is madani is totally wrong, since I showed major mufassireen declaring the surah to be makki. So it would be better to accept the view of what is mentioned in al bahr that jamhur actually considered it to be makki.

Tell that to your scholars:

Za'ad al-Masir fi Ilm Tafsir of Ibn Jawzi (d. 597) under the Tafsir of this Surah

سورة هل أتى ويقال لها سورة الإنسان وفيها ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها أنها مدنية كلها، قالها الجمهور منهم

Surat Hal Ata, and it is also called Surat Insan, and about it are three opinions, one of them is that it is Madaniyyah fully, and this is what was said by the majority of the (Salaf).

Tafsir al-Qur'an by Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 660) under the Tafsir of this Surah

مدنية عند الجمهور

Madaniyyah according to the majority.

Al-Jami fi Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Qurtubi (d. 671)

سورة الإنسان مكية في قول ابن عباس ومقاتل والكلبي، وقال الجمهور مدنية

Surat Insan Makiyyah in the words of Ibn Abbas and Muqatil and Kalbi, and the Jamhur said Madaniyyah.

This is totally wrong. It is mentioned in Tafsir Maariful Quran Vol. 8, p. 661, that this surah is makki.

Sayyid Qutub says in 'fi zilal al Quran'

في بعض الروايات أن هذه السورة مدنية ، ولكنها مكية؛ ومكيتها ظاهرة جداً

In some narrations, this surah is declared madani, but it is makki, and it being a makki surah is very obvious.

And similarly in tafsir tahreer wal tanweer, it is declared makki surah, and Maududi has also declared the surah to be makki.

This is individual view of Qutb and Mawdudi.

If you want to know what is the famous opinion today, open any Mashaf from your beloved Saudi or Pakistan and see what they list al-Insan under.

So these are the contemporary scholars who declared the surah to be makki, so how do you say majority of sunni scholars today say the surah is madani?

As ash-Shawkani said

فتح القدير - الشوكاني - ج 5 - ص 343 تفسير سورة الإنسان هي إحدى وثلاثون آية قال الجمهور : هي مدنية

Fath al-Qadir Vol. 5 Pg. 343

The majority said: It is Madaniyyah.

If you can't differentiate between mistake and lies, than ask me, and I will provide many such lies from the mouth of shia scholars.

Now you have come to the point, Ibn Taymiyyah claimed Ijma'a that there is an agreement of the scholars and the people that it is Makki, and that no one said that it is Madani, and I have shown those who say it is Madani, now you say it is a MISTAKE.

But this is Shaykh al-Islam in your opinion, in fact he himself says the best Tafasir are that of at-Tabari and al-Baghawi which he uses to reference alot.

Do you tell me he did not know that at-Tabari considers it Madani.

and that al-Baghawi had said

(قال عطاء هي مكية، وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية وقال الحسن وعكرمة هي مدنية إلا آية وهي قوله (فأصبر لحكم ربك

Ata said it is Makiyyah, and Mujahid and Qatada said Madaniyyah, and al-Hasan and Ikrimah said it is Madaniyyah except for one Ayah - and it is the words of Allah - 'So wait for the Hukm of your Rabb'.

So how can you say that it was a Mistake.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[kalaam]

How do you read from the Arabic that his view is what he first mentioned.

He is just elucidiating the different opinions.

This is very logical, for he mentioned his view as mentioned in some books, and then also mentioned the difference of opinion regarding it. And how do you say that the surah being madani is his actual position? Similarly your mentioning of Tafsir al Baghawi shouldn't count here, since he mentioned the difference of opinion here only.

Firstly, these are late scholars.

Secondly, if it is proven, then it is their opinion, and they have not claimed that it is the opinion of the Jamhur.

Not some books, you have not brought any, just what al-Alusi quoted from Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi in al-Bahr, that's it.

Ibn Abi Zamaneen (d. 399 H) is a much earlier scholar than any of the mufassireen except for Imam tabari (d. 310) that you have mentioned, and Zamakhshari (d. 438 H) is also a much earlier mufassir than any of the scholars except Imam Tabari that you have mentioned. And many of the rest are contemporary to the scholars you mentioned. So you don't have any right to talk about it being said by early or late scholars. And as I mentioned, to say that jamhur said it is madani is wrong, ten major tafasir say it is makki. And it is mentioned in al bahr al muheet that jamhoor considered it makki, so don't say again and again that jamhoor has declared it madani. It is totally wrong. Or else, I will also start repeating that al bahr al muheet mentions that jamhoor has declared it makki.

Tell that to your scholars:

Za'ad al-Masir fi Ilm Tafsir of Ibn Jawzi (d. 597) under the Tafsir of this Surah

سورة هل أتى ويقال لها سورة الإنسان وفيها ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها أنها مدنية كلها، قالها الجمهور منهم

Surat Hal Ata, and it is also called Surat Insan, and about it are three opinions, one of them is that it is Madaniyyah fully, and this is what was said by the majority of the (Salaf).

Tafsir al-Qur'an by Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 660) under the Tafsir of this Surah

مدنية عند الجمهور

Madaniyyah according to the majority.

Al-Jami fi Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Qurtubi (d. 671)

سورة الإنسان مكية في قول ابن عباس ومقاتل والكلبي، وقال الجمهور مدنية

Surat Insan Makiyyah in the words of Ibn Abbas and Muqatil and Kalbi, and the Jamhur said Madaniyyah.

You know, I highly dislike repetitions, if you don't have anything new to bring forth, then say it. But since you love repetition, so let me ask, how is the saying of jamhoor right when the major tafasir say it is a makki surah. Look at a small piece of it

1. It is mentioned in Tafsir Kashaf 4/194

سورة الانسان مكية. وهى إحدى وثلاثون آية

2. It is mentioned in Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulayman 3/425

سورة الإنسان مكية، عددها إحدى وثلاثون آية

3. Tafsir al Razi, 30/235

سورة الإنسان إحدى وثلاثون آية مكية

4. Tafsir Alusi 29/150

سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر

5. Tafsir Baidhawi 5/425

سورة الإنسان مكية وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية

6. Tafsir Nasafi 4/302

سورة الانسان مكية وهي احدى وثلاثون آية

7. Durr al manthur 6/296

سورة الانسان مكية

8. Tafsir Tha'alabi 10/93

سورة الإنسان (الدهر)) مكية، وهي ألف وأربع مائة وخمسون حرفا، ومائتان وأربعون كلمة، وإحدى وثلاثون آية

9. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 8/285

تفسير سورة الإنسان وهي مكية

10. Tafsir ibn abi Zamaneen 2/289

تفسير سورة هل أتى على الإنسان وهي مكية كلها

This is individual view of Qutb and Mawdudi.

If you want to know what is the famous opinion today, open any Mashaf from your beloved Saudi or Pakistan and see what they list al-Insan under.

This is not only the individual view of Sayyid Qutub (Egypt) and Mawdudi (Pakistan), but of Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Pakistan) , Shaykh Muhammad Tahir ibn Ashur (Tunisia), Abdur rahman ibn Nasir al Sadi (Saudi Arabia) as well. And all these are contemporary scholars.

You know what, I am a hanafi, I am not a salafi, but I will defend any scholar from the wrongful accusations. And Shias are blind in their accusations upon the scholars of ahlus sunnah, and this is what I have exposed here. This topic is not the bugdh of Ibn Taymiyyah, but it is the bugdh of Shias.

Now you have come to the point, Ibn Taymiyyah claimed Ijma'a that there is an agreement of the scholars and the people that it is Makki, and that no one said that it is Madani, and I have shown those who say it is Madani, now you say it is a MISTAKE.

But this is Shaykh al-Islam in your opinion, in fact he himself says the best Tafasir are that of at-Tabari and al-Baghawi which he uses to reference alot.

Do you tell me he did not know that at-Tabari considers it Madani.

and that al-Baghawi had said

(قال عطاء هي مكية، وقال مجاهد وقتادة مدنية وقال الحسن وعكرمة هي مدنية إلا آية وهي قوله (فأصبر لحكم ربك

Ata said it is Makiyyah, and Mujahid and Qatada said Madaniyyah, and al-Hasan and Ikrimah said it is Madaniyyah except for one Ayah - and it is the words of Allah - 'So wait for the Hukm of your Rabb'.

So how can you say that it was a Mistake.

If your raeesul muhadditheen Baqir Majlisi can commit mistakes in dozens of ahadith by grading their chain mutabar but when we present it to Shias, they say it is weak, that is a much bigger trouble than this single mistake that you guys are getting crazy about. Last words, Ibn Taymiyyah's book is a classic refutation of Shias, and Shias can't do anything but trying to find a few mistakes in it. They can't refute it, and I can find more errors in any book of Baqir Majlisi then they can in the book of Ibn Taymiyyah, 'minhaj us sunnah'.

Edited December 24, 2012 by kalaam

[Islamic Salvation]

You do not like repetitions, and then repeat the list you posted before!?

I am repeating because you are not getting it, this is not a competition of whether it is Madani or Makki (as you are trying to engage in), I know that there are those who say it is Makki.

Stick to defending Ibn Taymiyyah's three claims, if you cannot - call it a 'mistake' and move on.

Note also that I am not the one who is saying that the Jamhur say it is Madani, your scholars are, so don't tell me not to say it, say it to your scholars (such as Ibn al-Jawzi, Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Abi A'dil, ash-Shawkani), and tell these scholars that they are wrong when they said that the Jamhur say it is Madani (so as you can save Ibn Taymiyyah).

And you are ignorant to believe that when they say the Jamhur they mean your petty list of latter-day Tafsir scholars, they mean the Salaf whose views are what is the basis for all of this.

Ask yourself this question --> what am I trying to prove by bringing my list, does it defend Ibn Taymiyyah's three claims (I have noted them before, but will repeat below).

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

1. There is an agreement amongst scholars that it is Makki.

2. No one from Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql says it is Madani

3. Agreement of the people is that it is Makki.

I do not need to go far to prove him wrong, I can just bring one scholar, and his whole argument falls apart, exposing him as a liar.

And I have already done that and more.

Furthermore, most of the Sunni published Masahif today contain it as Madani, so try to explain that fact.

If your raeesul muhadditheen Baqir Majlisi can commit mistakes in dozens of ahadith by grading their chain mutabar but when we present it to Shias, they say it is weak, that is a much bigger trouble than this single mistake that you guys are getting crazy about. Last words, Ibn Taymiyyah's book is a classic refutation of Shias, and Shias can't do anything but trying to find a few mistakes in it. They can't refute it, and I can find more errors in any book of Baqir Majlisi then they can in the book of Ibn Taymiyyah, 'minhaj us sunnah'.

Are you comparing mistakes in Ijtihad of grading Ahadith [they are not mistakes to him] to this.

More importantly, this is not a mistake, rather a lie, do you want to tell me that he did not know the opinion of at-Tabari [whom he considers as the best of Tafasir], or the declaration of al-Baghawi [whom he also considers as one of the best of Tafasir] that there are great figures who consider it Madani (Mujahid and Qatada (the whole Surah) -- Hasan and Ikrimah (except for one Ayah)).

Edited December 24, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[kalaam]

You do not like repetitions, and then repeat the list you posted before!?

I am repeating because you are not getting it, this is not a competition of whether it is Madani or Makki (as you are trying to engage in), I know that there are those who say it is Makki.

Stick to defending Ibn Taymiyyah's three claims, if you cannot - call it a 'mistake' and move on.

Note also that I am not the one who is saying that the Jamhur say it is Madani, your scholars are, so don't tell me not to say it, say it to your scholars (such as Ibn al-Jawzi, Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Abi A'dil, ash-Shawkani), and tell these scholars that they are wrong when they said that the Jamhur say it is Madani (so as you can save Ibn Taymiyyah).

Since you want to prove your claim by hook or crook, so you will never bother to look at my arguments. Do you even remember our last discussion, Majlisi had graded a narration as hasan, which means he authenticated it, and you said it is weak, because of this and that problem with it, now how would it be if I said, don't tell me the hadith is not authentic since Majlisi authenticated it? Now here I am proving that the saying of jamhur considering it madani is not correct, and I am giving evidences, and you are telling me that I should not tell you that this opinion is wrong? That is a big joke, and well, I am also not going to waste time on it again. Just wanted to show your deep hypocrisy and illness of heart that you are infected with.

Ask yourself this question --> what am I trying to prove by bringing my list, does it defend Ibn Taymiyyah's three claims (I have noted them before, but will repeat below).

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

1. There is an agreement amongst scholars that it is Makki.

2. No one from Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql says it is Madani

3. Agreement of the people is that it is Makki.

I do not need to go far to prove him wrong, I can just bring one scholar, and his whole argument falls apart, exposing him as a liar.

And I have already done that and more.

As I said, it is also mentioned in books that jamhoor considered it makki, so Ibn Taymiyyah said nothing unique. And as far as the rest of the two points, he is mistaken, just like Majlisi got mistaken in dozens of ahadith, and just like when Nematullah jazairi says in his book anwar al numania that the traditions of tahreef in Quran are mutawatir, you don't declare him liar, but you say 'Oh he is mistaken here'.

Furthermore, most of the Sunni published Masahif today contain it as Madani, so try to explain that fact.

I already mentioned five very well known tafasir of the present day which declared the surah to be makki, and you still repeat funnily that most of the present day tafasir mention it as madani. I know many masahif today declare this is as madani, but many masahif today declare it as makki as well. And if you want to go on verse by verse on the surah on how its verses are makki, so tell me, and lets begin reading verse by verse. You will know that either we have to accept that the whole surah is makki, or it is partly makki and partly madani. And why should you even care about the present day masaahif when you don't give weightage to the medieval tafasir by the late scholars?

Are you comparing mistakes in Ijtihad of grading Ahadith [they are not mistakes to him] to this.

More importantly, this is not a mistake, rather a lie, do you want to tell me that he did not know the opinion of at-Tabari [whom he considers as the best of Tafasir], or the declaration of al-Baghawi [whom he also considers as one of the best of Tafasir] that there are great figures who consider it Madani (Mujahid and Qatada (the whole Surah) -- Hasan and Ikrimah (except for one Ayah)).

Mistake in ijtihad? Declaring the ahadith of tahreef in Quran as mutawatir like that of ahadith in imamate is a mistake in Ijtihad of Majlisi and al Jazairi and Nuri al tibrisi? Show me five sahih shia ahadith regarding tahreef of Quran, if ther are not even five sahih shia traditions regarding tahreef of Quran, and still these grand scholars of Shias claim to say that the narrations regarding tahreef of Quran are mutawatir, they are doing a much more huge blunder then Ibn taymiyyah in this case. Since you are not able to answer my arguments rightly, you are raising useless arguments for no valid reason. Simply considering any tafsir to be the best doesn't mean that a person would have read every word of it. Just like many Muslims consider Quran to be the best book but alot of them haven't read evey word of it, or don't remember every word of it. And again, he might have read in some tafsir that jamhur considers it makki, as well as the tafsir of ibn zamaneen, and few others as i mentioned and besides them as well in which the verse was declared madani.

Now the only option on which I will agree with you to discuss further is to go on verse by verse of the surah and see whether they are makki or madani. Otherwise, I am not going to waste my time on this topic any more.

Edited December 24, 2012 by kalaam

[Islamic Salvation]

Since you want to prove your claim by hook or crook, so you will never bother to look at my arguments. Do you even remember our last discussion, Majlisi had graded a narration as hasan, which means he authenticated it, and you said it is weak, because of this and that problem with it, now how would it be if I said, don't tell me the hadith is not authentic since Majlisi authenticated it? Now here I am proving that the saying of jamhur considering it madani is not correct, and I am giving evidences, and you are telling me that I should not tell you that this opinion is wrong? That is a big joke, and well, I am also not going to waste time on it again. Just wanted to show your deep hypocrisy and illness of heart that you are infected with.

You have a deep problem with logic.

al-Majlisi said a Hadith is Hasan, I said he was wrong because I considered one narrator Majhul, while he considered the same narrator at the level of Husn.

al-Majlisi has a right to his opinion, even if in my opinion he is wrong.

This is because that Isnad is available for investigation.

But can you attempt to prove 'saying of jamhur considering it madani is not correct'.

How is this not correct, have you demonstrated its incorrectness, even if you bring fifty late Tafasirs that say it is Makki, you will not repel the words of your earlier scholars who said the majority consider it Madani (since they are speaking from their time going backwards).

If you want me to consider them incorrect, bring me better sources concurrent or before their time that say the Jamhur consider it Makki.

Izz al-Din al-Dimashqi, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn al-Jawzi (who are before Ibn Taymiyyah) are saying -- the Jamhur say it is Madani, so in your opinion are they lying or ignorant? (how can you be ignorant of what the majority are saying?)

[Note that I need just one scholar to disprove Ibn Taymiyyah's ridiculous claim]

As I said, it is also mentioned in books that jamhoor considered it makki, so Ibn Taymiyyah said nothing unique. And as far as the rest of the two points, he is mistaken, just like Majlisi got mistaken in dozens of ahadith, and just like when Nematullah jazairi says in his book anwar al numania that the traditions of tahreef in Quran are mutawatir, you don't declare him liar, but you say 'Oh he is mistaken here'.

I would not have a problem with Ibn Taymiyyah if he had said, It is Makki according to me, OR that the majority of the scholars said that it is Makki, rather he claims that there is no one from Ahl al-Tafsir who says that it is Madani.

I already mentioned five very well known tafasir of the present day which declared the surah to be makki, and you still repeat funnily that most of the present day tafasir mention it as madani. I know many masahif today declare this is as madani, but many masahif today declare it as makki as well. And if you want to go on verse by verse on the surah on how its verses are makki, so tell me, and lets begin reading verse by verse. You will know that either we have to accept that the whole surah is makki, or it is partly makki and partly madani. And why should you even care about the present day masaahif when you don't give weightage to the medieval tafasir by the late scholars?

Again, Whether this Surah is Makki or Madani is not the point of this discussion. Why don't you understand!?

The point is about whether there are any scholars who believed that it was Madani. And I have demonstrated that there are.

This is because Ibn Taymiyyah makes three claims:

1. There is an agreement amongst all scholars that it is Makki [he does not mention that there are those who consider it Madani]

2. No one from Ahl al-Tafsir and Naql says it is Madani

3. Agreement of all the people is that it is Makki [he does not mention that there are people who consider it Madani]

Are the above three true?

If you say yes, then that is the end of the discussion, since you would have lied like your Ibn Taymiyyah, if you say No, then is Ibn Taymiyyah lying, or did he not come across the scholars who said it is Madani (he was ignorant)?

Mistake in ijtihad? Declaring the ahadith of tahreef in Quran as mutawatir like that of ahadith in imamate is a mistake in Ijtihad of Majlisi and al Jazairi and Nuri al tibrisi? Show me five sahih shia ahadith regarding tahreef of Quran, if ther are not even five sahih shia traditions regarding tahreef of Quran, and still these grand scholars of Shias claim to say that the narrations regarding tahreef of Quran are mutawatir

Stick to the topic, this is about Ibn Taymiyyah, if you want to point out mistakes of our scholars open a thread for it.

As a sidenote: once something is Mutawatir we do not look at individual chains.

they are doing a much more huge blunder then Ibn taymiyyah in this case.

Now you have spoken the truth, Ibn Taymiyya is according to you mistaken in his three claims, but I consider them lies.

Simply considering any tafsir to be the best doesn't mean that a person would have read every word of it. Just like many Muslims consider Quran to be the best book but alot of them haven't read evey word of it, or don't remember every word of it. And again, he might have read in some tafsir that jamhur considers it makki, as well as the tafsir of ibn zamaneen, and few others as i mentioned and besides them as well in which the verse was declared madani.

So Shaykh al-Islam can make a claim that no one says that it is Madani, without reading two of the best of Tafasirs according to his own view.

Or by reading somewhere that it is Madani.

Either he makes quick decisions without study, or just wanted to add this argument against al-Hilli purposely and knowingly (basically Tadlis).

Now the only option on which I will agree with you to discuss further is to go on verse by verse of the surah and see whether they are makki or madani. Otherwise, I am not going to waste my time on this topic any more.

For what purpose.

I just wanted to show that Ibn Taymiyyah was either ignorant or lied when he said that 'No one says that it is Madani', and you personally have accepted that it was his 'ignorance'.

Personally, I, and others who recognize his ploys will consider it lies.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Islamic Salvation