Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ridawi Press' started by SaadSohail, Nov 20, 2019.
please use a smaller picture or a thumbnail - those who want to see full can click on it.
May Allah (Azza Wa Jall) send His endless peace and blessings on Sayyiduna RasulAllah
(SalAllahu alayhi wassalam).
Understood, had no idea that Haadith (something created) translated into English was accident, or that accident had the secondary meaning. I had the common usage of accident in mind, basically that which occurs unintentionally.
From the Oxford dictionaries:
For a commoner reading this most definitely would require a footnote or using the word Haadith in the same way Mawlana Cassim Afthab sahib did in his Bahar e Shariat translation. Otherwise, I fear someone may get the wrong idea, according to the common usage of the word.
If my belief is unclear then I most definitely believe that the universe is Haadith, and as a caution I do tawbah, ruju and tajdeed e iman if my words were seen as kufriyya as that was not my intention,
Ashadu An La Ilaha Il Allah Wa Ashadu Anna Muhammadan Abduhu Wa Rasuluh.
May Allah (Azza Wa Jall) send His endless peace and blessings one Sayyiduna RasulAllah
(SalAllahu alayhi wassalam).
late 14c., "an occurrence, incident, event," from Old French accident (12c.), from Latin accidentem (nominative accidens), present participle of accidere "happen, fall out, fall upon," from ad- "to" (see ad-) + cadere "fall" (see case (n.1)). Meaning grew from "something that happens, an event," to "something that happens by chance," then "mishap." Philosophical sense "non-essential characteristic of a thing" is late 14c. Meaning "unplanned child" is attested by 1932.
from the book 'Dictionary of Islamic Philosophical Terms'
‘ard (pl. a‘rad)
Accident. As one of the predicables (al-alfaz al-khamasa) ‘ard is that quality which adhere to a subject (maudu, q.v.), but–opposed to property –it neither constitutes its essense, nor does it necessarily flow form it, e.g. the color of man. According to the Peripatetics (al-Mashsha’un, q.v.), accidents may change, disappear, or be added, while substances (jauhar, q.v.) remains the same. Accident, thus, has no independent existence, but exists only in another being, a substance or another accident. According to the Mutakallimun, more particularly the Ash‘arites, however, an accident cannot exist in another accident but only in a substance. But no substance can ever exist apart form its qualities or accidents. Hence, the substance being inseparable from its accidents, like the latter, is also merely transitory, i.e. has only a momentary existence. Everything that exists, thus, consists of mere transitory units (atoms) having only a moment’s duration and needs must, therefore, be perpetually re-created by the will of God. See also alfasl al-khass and al-fasl al-‘amm.
Lit. "jewel"; technically substance, one of the fundamental terms with the philosophers: the first of the ten Aristotelian categories (al-maqulat al-‘ashr, q.v.). As a general term jauhar signifies everything that exists in reality, all bodies and parts of bodies, the sky and the stars and the earth, water and fire and air, plants and animals, in short all things in the visible world. According to the Mutakallimun, particularly the Ash‘arites, jauhar is merely a bearer of accidents, and as a substratum of accidents it is constituted of atoms which by their aggregate compose the body.
hadith or haadith
The three dimensions of a material body: length, width, and depth. These dimensions do not enter into the definition of a thing; they are just some of its accidents and not part of its existence, even though they determine its state.
it's obvious that in TKM the word 'accident' has been used in the sense of 'an event' i.e something that came into existence without having existed prior to this i.e a created thing.
A link to this book was posted by Hamoudeh of marifah forum. I do not vouch for it's accuracy or authenticity except that it's a handy ref for a quick look-up.
hope this helped.
haadith = accident = something created. the universe has not always existed and is therefore an accident.
As Salamu Alaykum, making notes as I go through the book but I wanted to also clarify the following passage.
Shouldn't it say 'Essentials of faith such as: the universe is not an accident...'?
Jazak Allah Khair for the clarification and swift reply.
that means, when the kafir does tawbah in this world - it is accepted here in this world (sparing him death-penalty), and this (tawba from this world) will also help him in the hereafter.
it is among preliminaries that tawbah, repentance or remorse done after death or in there hereafter is of no use. the qur'an tells us of kafirs who will repent on judgement day and ask for one more chance, which will be rejected.
this clause is specifically mentioned in ashbah, because some maliki jurists (such as qaDi iyaD) say that the tawbah of a blasphemer is inadmissible near Allah ta'ala [ghamz uyun al-baSayin sh. al-ashbah wa'n nazayir, 2/190 ]
Allah ta'ala knows best.
in sha'Allah, a note will be added in the next edition; the book is still being reviewed.
As Salamu Alaykum,
I wanted to get clarification on something I read in one of the appendices, where it is stated 'The repentance of every kāfir is admissible in this world and the hereafter...'
There is a mistake in the bibliography (point 96).
"impetuousity" should be "impetuosity" (p.200)
on page 201, it says "the right of RasūlAllāh ﷺ.;", it should be "the right of RasūlAllāh ﷺ;" (without the dot)
In footnote 759 it says "our madh'hab", maybe it is better to just say "Hanafi madh'hab" to avoid confusion
I think this is a double negation: "or denies that the Prophet ﷺ did not live in Tihāmah"
BTW, I'm only pointing the typos/mistakes out for that it can be improved in the next version. May Allah reward all people who contributed in any way to this work abundantly. I learned a lot from it.
thanks for highlighting those errors.
just letting you know i am currently reviewing TKM and a revised edition with corrections will be released shortly.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
one example: i wanted to ascertain the proper pronunciation of the surname kattani, because, the book jala'a al-qulub marks it kittani. shaykh yaqubi has said kattani (see my transcription of his talk earlier). in the end, i forgot to look up and ascertain and as a result, there about 22 instances in TKM. the name is kattani, as mentioned on his other book risalah al-mustaTrafah edited and published by his grandson shaykh muntasir.
and indeed, it is mentioned as kattani (about ancient scholars; obviously not the ones we are talking of) [see k-t-n; taj al-arus 36/42]
we will fix this and other mistakes in the next ed. in sha'Allah.
This seems to me a double negative:
"if he rejects that there is no basis for witr or sacrifice"
"Scholars differed concerning the kufr of a person who believes that a Friend of Allāh can travel long distances in a very short span of time."
Those Ulama who believed this to be kufr, what was their basis? Is it not in the Qur'an that a wali from the ummah of Sayyiduna Sulayman aleyhissalaam instantly gets the throne of Bilqis (which is at a very far distance)?
In the appendix, this passage is cited from Tafwiyat-ul-Iman:
"...it can be understood from this verse, that prophets and saints whom Allāh táālā has made high [baȡā]"
Maybe I'm missing the point, but what is wrong with this passage specifically?
In footnote 543, one of the years of the passing away of the Shaykh is incorrect
I think footnote 379 is not complete.
On page 83, there is a typo "or it did it not occur".
Page 20, point 27: there is no closing parenthesis.
Page 22: "His ﷺ station near Allāh táālā is higher than we can probably imagine": I think it is better to delete "probably" in this sentence
What is the difference between these two?
this is actually a good point against muhannad and refutes the claim of its proponents that scholars of haramayn 'were disturbed' and 'asked for clarifications' which resulted in muhannad. those who answered seem to be oblivious of who asked those questions - why did they not mention in those attestations that "yes, we are now satisfied. you have answered OUR queries."
moreover, this is a loaded question. it has to be emphasised that only two scholars who have attested husam al-haramayn figure in the attestations of muhannad. of course, there are two others but by muhannad's own admission, they took back those 'attestations' citing an excuse.
shaykh asrar's comment in the clip is an inconsequential slip; and except for the name of the book, what he says is correct - devbandis use the attestations for kamal al-tathqif (of barzanji) as attestations for muhannad.