I came across an interesting interpretation by Ibn Abbas today which pushed me to ponder about the Prophet's ﷺ relationship with the Jews of his time.
Ibn Abbas says that the verse below is about the Jews hiding the punishment of stoning adulterers. (al-Mustadrak #8069)
At the time, the Jews of Arabia only lashed adulterers.
Ibn Omar narrates that when the Jews were asked about the punishment for adultery, they mentioned lashings.
al-Bukhari #6819
An additional punishment is mentioned in this report and in others.
This report mentions that they have their faces blackened with charcoal. Another report mentions that the couple were placed on a donkey and were sent around town in shame.
Either way, this punishment wasn't in any way as severe as stoning, so the Jews were satisfied with it.
The narration in al-Bukhari concludes with Abdullah bin Salam making the Jews open up the Torah.
Upon bringing it, a Jew placed his hand on the section that spoke about stoning. Abdullah bin Salam made him remove his hand to uncover the law.
The adulterers were then stoned.
There is a lot here that I find intriguing, but at the moment I'd like to focus on one aspect.
Notice how the Prophet ﷺ couldn't care less about appeasing the Jews. He held them to the law that was revealed upon them and gave little consideration to their desires.
Today, accusations are made against him that his message, as a whole, was created to appeal to Jews and Christians. After all, he did accepted their God, believed in their prophets, and claimed to be a continuation of the messengers.
However, would a false prophet act like this?
A false prophet would've told them that this was an old law or that it was abrogated, in order to appease the Jews.
Instead, he alienated them completely and stoned a couple, in order to revive a law found in the Torah.
Once again, the verse:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
During my first year of college, my roommate was the nicest person in the world.
He was a religion brother. Super friendly. Almost every time he'd pass by, he would have a chocolate bar or something and would offer it to me, for no reason other than to be nice.
He had such an--
odd sense of humor though. In the middle of a conversation, he would abruptly calculate the cost of something.
If I would drop a friend to class, he'd pretending to calculate the fuel expenses, wear and tear of the short trip, time costs, etc, then give a ridiculously large--
number as the final price. He did it very often. I was forced to tolerate it and smile, BECAUSE HE WAS SO NICE!
You know the type, right? The old shaikh in the masjid that makes the lame pun, but you feel obligated to laugh along to not make him feel bad. Yeah, that.
-=[On this day, around 1200 years ago, Shia claimed that the "Mahdi" was born in Samarra'.]
However, his father, Al-Hasan, feared for his life from the tyrant Abbasids, and thus, his son was sent to Madinah and was hidden away.
He still remains hidden today.
Sunnis reject the existence of Mohammad bin Al-Hassan, due to the lack of evidence for his birth.
Ja'afar bin Ali Al-Zakee, the uncle of the "Mahdi", also denied that his brother, Al-Hassan, had a son.
Shias refer to him as "Ja'afar the Liar" due to this.
This wasn't merely the opinion of Ja'afar though. This was a common view. Al-Amri, the "representative" of the "Mahdi" would conceal his name for "they think that the lineage has halted."
Perhaps the first lesson that I learned in my journey into editing manuscripts is "to bring forth the text in the way the author intended."
Not as simple as it sounds.
In this thread, I'll be providing an example of how an editor ignores this rule due to his ideological bias.
Below is a screenshot from Mukhtaṣar Baṣā`ir Al-Darajāt p. 79.
The text says: When Al-Ḥusayn did what he did, Allah the most majestic made upon himself to not place the wasiyyah and Imamate anywhere but within the progeny of Al-Ḥusayn (peace be onto him).
The editor points out that this is based on one manuscript.
Two other manuscripts instead say:
When Al-Ḥassan (peace be upon him) did what he did with Mu`āwiyah (may Allah curse him), Allah the most majestic made upon himself to not place the wasiyyah and Imamate... etc.
Code names for Abu Bakr in old Shia texts include:
Abu Al-Shuroor: Father of evils
Abu Al-Faseel: Father of baby camel
Abu Rakb: Bakr backwards
Abu Ja'd: Father of curly hair
Abdul Ka'aba: Worshiper of the Ka'aba
Abdul Laat: Worshiper of the idol Uzza
Al-Taymi: His tribe
Al-A'arabi: The Bedouin
Al-Awal: The first (caliph)
Al-Insan: The human
Al-Jibt: The idol
Al-Ateeq: The old
Al-Ha'id: The one who has left the path
Al-Fasha': The one who spread the secret
Qabee': The snort of a pig
Habtar: The short man
Yaghooth: An idol
Aakil Al-Dhubaan: Eater of flies
Fir'awn: The Pharaoh
The list can be found in Ibn Shahr Ashoub's Mathalib Al-Nawasib 1/179. Naturally, he wasn't expecting Sunnis to come across this book that was written in the 6th century AH.
Lectures about the migration of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to Makkah often include that he was received by the people of Madinah singing طلع البدر علينا (The full moon rose upon us from Thaniyat Al-Wada').
However, there is a problem with this narrative...
Well, the very first verse is quite problematic itself since Thaniyat Al-Wada' is located on the Eastern part of Sal' mountain, which is on the North Western side of Madinah.
Remember, Makkah is towards the South.
With that in mind, why would the Prophet (peace be upon him), who came from Makkah, go all the way around the Sal' mountain to enter Madinah, through Thaniyat Al-Wada'?
Historians rejected this notion due to this view alone.