Ammar AlShukry

The quote that I provided for you proves that, where he says that the correct opinion is that there were some that still existed in their original form but there were also many that were altered.
W'Allahu Alam

Ibrahim Long

__________________
wasalaam,
Ibrahim Long

sammy

Brother Maalik,

I ask if you could be so kind as to translate this for the benefit of us ignoramuses who can't read Arabic and also source this quote. :-(

Bassam Zawadi

you gotta pay attention akhi, brother Maalik in post 2 showed us where Ibn Taymiyyah said it...



brother Maalik already posted it in English for you.

Abu Amatullah

Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said.

And so, some used this hadith as an indication to show that the Torah that the Jews presented, at that time, to the prophet was all sound and correct and not being altered. However, this argument is far from correctness because even saying: ((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.) cannot be used as this saying refers to the original Torah (which was revelaed to Moses) [ Fat-h Al-Bari Fi Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari: Section of rulings of Ahlu Al-thimma]

Abu Amatullah

Sir Ahmed Syed, for those who know who he is, tried his best to prove through different scholars opinions that the Torah wasn't changed. He even used names like Ibn Abbas, Imam Bukhari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Shah Waliullah, and Imam Fakhru’d-din Razi to try and bolster his claim. His book, The Seventh Discourse, cites Imam Muhammad Isma’il Bukhari stating in his book that “there is no man that could corrupt a single word that has proceeded from God”; Ibn Taimiyyah when questioned on the meaning of tahreef stating that “doctors of former times had taken it in two senses; some maintaining that it meant an interpolation of words; and some that it meant the misrepresentation of the meaning of a subject; and that many arguments had been adduced in support of the latter opinion.”; Shah Wali Ullah in his Fuzu’l-Kabir saying that “the original text was not tampered with”;and Imam Fakhru’d-din Razi in his commentary on the authority of Ibn Abbas stating “. . . in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not practical thus to corrupt the text; because these scriptures were generally known and widely circulated having been handed down from generation to generation. No interpolation therefore could be made in them . . .”

Sir Ahmed Syed needs no introduction. The baatil he was on is clear and far from controversial and even if we accept these narrations, although they directly contradict other authentic sources, then these scholars respectable opinions would have been far outweighed by so many other scholars stating otherwise with proofs coming from both the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. The disagreement is whether or not the Torah was changed in it's meaning or in both text and meaning and "if" there exists a difference of opinion on the matter. Allahu 'Alum. More research is required to verify these statements brought forth by Sir Ahmed Syed to see "if", in fact, there is a legitimate difference in the first place. And, "if" the difference exists, then it wouldn't be the first time great scholars have differed on a certain matter. Each scholar ruled using his best judgment with what proofs were available to him/her.

May Allah have mercy on our 'Ulama

Bassam Zawadi

Imam Razi clearly held the opinion the text has been corrupt and so did Ibn Abbass. I prove this here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/e...wish_scriptures_

Waleed Basyouni

Assalam Alaikum

I am sorry that I did not answer you any sooner. When I saw your question in the beginning and I found the brothers answering you, I did not answer because you posted your question originally by saying: “For Dr. Basyouni or anyone else who can help” and since someone answered you with the right answer I did not see any need for me to further comment. Anyway, what we have here is the following:

1- Is hadeeth Ibn Umar authentic and who narrated it?

You have answered the latter part already as it is narrated by Abee Dawood. It is a sound hadeeth as I mentioned in the class. Al-Albaanee said it is Hasan as one of the brothers mentioned. Ibn Hajar, in “Fath Al-Baaree”, mentioned the hadeeth without criticizing it. His method in this book is that, if he mentions any hadeeth, it is sound unless he states otherwise, as it is well-known. If someone thinks it is weak he needs to prove that and not to say: “It is very likely to be weak” using as a reason: ”The reason why I stated this is because the same event is recorded in many other authentic narrations, yet none of them mention anything about the Prophet (peace be upon him) bringing the cushion and uttering the statement regarding the Torah!” Such a person cannot be familiar with the science of hadeeth, and that is very dangerous to have such attitude. Anyhow, if someone thinks it is weak, so let it be his opinion.


2- Did Al-Bukhaaree say that the Tahreef happened to the meaning and not the text? Yes, this is well known and you can see that in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree in the Book of Tawheed 97, chapter 55 and read what Ibn Hajar comments.

3- Did Ibn Taymiyyah adopt Al-Bukhaaree’s opinion? No, but he defended him and supported his view. However, he believes that some change happened to it but that there must be one copy remaining unchanged. That is different from what Al-Bukhaaree said.

4- Where Did Ibn Taymiyyah say that and where did he used this hadeeth and other evidence to support Al-Bukhaaree’s opinion? It was mentioned by Ibn Al-Qayyim in Igathat Al-Lahfan 2:351, and I’ll quote him in Arabic in the end. And Br. Maalik mentioned other quotes as well, but the one you are looking for is what Ibn Al-Qayyim said and it is the one I used in the class. One more thing, remember what we said in the class that Ibn Al-Qayyim’s opinion is the strongest one, not the extreme positions of Ibn Hazm or Al-Bukhaaree.



Wallaahu a’lam



This case is closed and any more questions can be emailed to me.



__________________

sammy

Thank you so much, dear sir, for taking time out of your busy schedule, to respond. You mentioned that Ibn Hajar commented on Imam Bukhari's statement that the corruption was one of interpretation, not textual. Could you be so kind as to post his comments since I do not have access to them? It would be greatly appreciated.