On 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:

Here we go again. first I would request our poor friends to read the
page they are responding to first. Which I don't think it requires any
change at the moment.

Here is first the short and general answer for their blank response,
this is actually a summary of what have been already provided on the
page <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html> :

Ibn Sarh first converted to Islam *in Madina* as shown in the
reference of Usud ALghab, where all the Meccan Chapters have been all
**revealed**  a long time ago.

Why is this important?

Because the great part of the response the author [Jochen's friend]
sent was dealing with the quotations of  interpretations of Meccan
Chapters where Ibn Sarh was *proven* has not been a Moslem yet
therefore he *couldn't* be the subject of a meccan verses. and this
answers most of the message. That's was easy right? but hey this is
already have been answered on the above quoted page, it require only a
careful reading the author's part. So we are repeating it again.

Why did the interpreters of the Quran then spoken about Srah? because
first they are not error free. second they have given many other
nominees for the verses in question. and that what the word
*interpretation* stand for. by other words they are saying; this verse
might be speaking about this person or that etc. they are trying to
*interpret* the Quran. so they are copieng from each other this part
of the interpretation so search for the report not who copied it :-)

Let me give you this example; There is a verse in the Quran which the
interpreters say it speaks of call to prayers (azan), most of them
agree on it. but after the famous Ibn katheer came he had proven all
of them wrong when showing that the chapter in question is meccan and
call to prayer was not established in mecca but rather in Madina after
all the meccan chapters were revealed. So the verse wasn't speaking
about call to prayers (azan). and Similarly we it has been proven from
the most reliable sources that Ibn Sarh was not a Moselm in the Meccan
era. So how can a Meccan verse speak of him while he wasn't yet a
Moslem???

Did you get the picture yet?

Secondly, you have been proven of, shamelessly, putting words into the
mouth of our scholars, and I mean in this instance Aliraqi, and this
by itself discredit you period. and I am concentrating on this point
to show you before the readership of SRI that who ever resort to such
an act is a worthless person. We have borough the Quotation of Aliraq
on the page:

<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html>

and it is there for everybody to see and to compare with what's on
Jochen's page. And I repeat what I have previously said, if it was me
who was caught in this disgracing act, I would rather not to be called
a Moslem.

So instead of wasting your time on bringing what have been already
known and acknowledged by us and by all the scholars 1000 years ago
try to bring the correct quotation of Aliraqi, and read one more time
what is on the above mentioned page.

=====REQUEST=====
And finally a request of clarification on yet another strange comment:
you have mentioned that there are *many* hadith that speaks of Sarh so
here I am telling you I only know of one [ I am a simple person] and
it is in Abu Daoud complete collection of hadith, and it is marked
"weak" which means unreliable. so please gives us the list of the
*many* hadith that you have so we can verifiy <smile>

so don't forget this time.
================

And now let us look into the so called answer of Jochen and friend.

[intro. deleted]

At least here we had a partial confession. and we are waiting for the
full one, if you still have traces of faith. thank you.

But it is totally absurd and childish, and unfair to be comparing the
brothers and describing them with the shameful act you have done here.
let me remind you again about Aliraqi whom you have inserted into his
mouth a complete pargraph and attributed it to un shamefully thinking
it wouldn't be verified. but that's your trade mark and I raise my
brothers from such standard. these are not our ethics. sorry!

First here is what have been established, The above chapter is a
meccan chapter, and Ibn Sarh was not Moslem until later on when all
the meccan chapters were revealed, isn't that a satisfactory answer?

So the author go on listing the interpretations of the mentioned
scholars which have already been answered on:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/sarh.html>

So I'll skip it.

That is pure imagination from the author, these are already
acknowledged and answered in the above site, so read about when Sarh
first became a Moslem. unless you want a glasses to read it.

The only quotation from Usud ALghab we have brought was where it
speaks about when Srah came to Islam, to establish that all the Meccan
chapters weren't talking about him.

so we supposed the author, by saying the above,  will give another
date in his reference. But reading it we find there is nothing but
repetition of the same argument that have been already answered
nothing more.

What did the author add? NOTHING

So I'll skip, if you want to read then go back the message.

ask yourself ;-)

Will here we go again. Can you name me one Saheeh hadith of the story?
the story can be found in Ibn Daoud complete collection of hadith and
it has been marked ***weak*** so can you tell us what do you mean by
Many? and at least tell us where we can find these many hadith?

You are poor in this my dear, any way we will be waiting for an answer
for this too, so don't forget??

Salam for now

Khalid...

<laughing>