Comments on the Dangers of Revisionist Literature

In an utterly bizaare defense of his "position" on apostasy Majid yet again concentrates on a red herring. Instead of addressing the blatant untruths that he put forward he devotes half his response on how to understand the term "misquote".

This seems to me to be the disease of narrow minded "progressive traditionalists" who want to read positions into the classical texts at all costs.

Then this

"....That is not misquoting, it is called a second narration (Riwayah) and is common in the books of our heritage. That is why I wrote "it has been narrated", and didn't write, "so and so said....", this is perfectly consisitent with the principles of narration as elucidated in the science of Hadith('Ilm al-Hadith), and is the style utilised by our Ulema when they accept that their narration is questioned by others (the style used is known as Sighat al-Da'af in 'ilm al-Hadith). "

Ok, thank you Majid on a patronisng lesson in ilm al hadith. Is this another "new chapter" for Islamists?

Let us look at the "misquotes" again

"...are all reported to have held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. It is narrated by Sufyan al-Thawri that Ibrahim al-Nakhai'i was of the view that the apostate is not killed, rather his repentance is continuously sought"

We know that the Ta'bi3en noted clarified their position, and you did not mention that! Why would you do that Majid? There is also a supposed narration from Al Baji with this information. Now if you are telling the truth bring this narration forward.

As the Holy Quran says

"......Say: "Bring your proof:" This (the Qur'ân) is the Reminder for those with me and the Reminder for those before me. But most of them know not the Truth, so they are averse. "

So bring your proof!

Oh yeah, for the sake of your family please do not mention Sarkhasi as well!

Majid is clearly playing games! He knows very well that he is addressing an audience that would not understand the term "narrate" in the way he has understood it, but he wants to pass off the impression that these scholars had a different opinion to the consensus. Now if that is not deceit then what is? Even "apolitical" sufis like Hadaad( among others) had issues with this worrying trend among "progressive traditionalists".