Post by sayyidmuhamammad on Dec 20, 2017 14:23:52 GMT
Clarification on the passage of Hifz al-Iman:
Accusation:
Mawlana Ahmad Rida Khan wrote in his book Hussam al-Haramayn:
A person can easily infer from this that Ahmad Rida claimed that Mawlana Thanawi equated the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) knowledge to beings of inferior status. This means that Mawlana Thanawi considered the knowledge to be equal to the knowledge of other beings.
About Hifz al-Iman:
Hifz al-Iman is a short treatise written by Mawlana Thanawi and includes three discussions. The third discussion was regarding calling the messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) “knower of unseen”. Mawlana Thanawi, in response, said that there are certain terms specific to Allah and this term is specific to Allah. He mentioned two defects of calling the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) Alim al-Ghayb:
1. Resemblance with a belief of shirk: This term generally means that the possessor of this term knows everything without any medium. Thus, to refer to anyone as “knower of the unseen” besides Allah without an indication by which is known that the intent of the speaker is not knowledge that is without means, is, therefore, incorrect as there is resemblance with a belief of shirk. This was Mawlana Thanawi’s first evidence.
2. Defiling the rank of prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace): The upshot of this is that a person, for example Zayd, who unqualifiedly uses “knower of the unseen” for the holy essence of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and refers to him as “knower of the unseen,” says this either because according to him the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has knowledge of some knowledge of unseen or because he has knowledge of full knowledge of unseen. Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) cannot have complete knowledge of unseen as it is proven from textual and rational evidences. And if someone says this due to some knowledge of unseen, then this is not a special attribute of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as such knowledge is also granted to inferior beings such as animals. Since it is not a special attribute of the prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), claiming it for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is considering the rank of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to be like the rank of inferior beings. For example, a person praises the King in front of him only because he “eats”. This would not be a statement of praise but it would defile the status of the King. The reason is that this attribute is also an attribute of animals and other beings. Hence, there is no merit of the King in this. Nobody will appreciate being praised due to such attributes. The rank of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) does not deserve being praised due to such attributes.
The passage of dispute:
Mawlana Thanawi said in his treatise:
Mawlana Ahmad Rida Khan wrote in his book Hussam al-Haramayn:
“From the seniors of these Satanic Wahhabis is another man from the scions of Gangohi (Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi) called Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi. He compiled a small treatise that does not reach four pages and stated clearly therein that the equivalent of the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) knowledge of the unseen has been acquired by every child and every madman, rather every animal and every beast. These are his accursed words: “If the assessment of the knowledge of unseen for the holy essence of the prophet is valid as said by Zayd, it will be asked: What did he intend by this – is it part of the unseen or all of it? If he intended part, what speciality is there in this for the Revered Messenger, for indeed the equivalent of this knowledge of unseen has been acquired by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts; and if he intended all whereby no part is excluded, its invalidity is established by transmission and reason.” I say: Look at the effects of the seal of Allah Almighty – how he equates [the knowledge of] the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace) and [the knowledge of] such-and-such and such-and-such!”
About Hifz al-Iman:
Hifz al-Iman is a short treatise written by Mawlana Thanawi and includes three discussions. The third discussion was regarding calling the messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) “knower of unseen”. Mawlana Thanawi, in response, said that there are certain terms specific to Allah and this term is specific to Allah. He mentioned two defects of calling the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) Alim al-Ghayb:
1. Resemblance with a belief of shirk: This term generally means that the possessor of this term knows everything without any medium. Thus, to refer to anyone as “knower of the unseen” besides Allah without an indication by which is known that the intent of the speaker is not knowledge that is without means, is, therefore, incorrect as there is resemblance with a belief of shirk. This was Mawlana Thanawi’s first evidence.
2. Defiling the rank of prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace): The upshot of this is that a person, for example Zayd, who unqualifiedly uses “knower of the unseen” for the holy essence of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and refers to him as “knower of the unseen,” says this either because according to him the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has knowledge of some knowledge of unseen or because he has knowledge of full knowledge of unseen. Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) cannot have complete knowledge of unseen as it is proven from textual and rational evidences. And if someone says this due to some knowledge of unseen, then this is not a special attribute of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as such knowledge is also granted to inferior beings such as animals. Since it is not a special attribute of the prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), claiming it for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is considering the rank of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to be like the rank of inferior beings. For example, a person praises the King in front of him only because he “eats”. This would not be a statement of praise but it would defile the status of the King. The reason is that this attribute is also an attribute of animals and other beings. Hence, there is no merit of the King in this. Nobody will appreciate being praised due to such attributes. The rank of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) does not deserve being praised due to such attributes.
The passage of dispute:
Mawlana Thanawi said in his treatise:
آپ ﷺ کی ذات مقدسہ پر علم غیب کا حکم کیا جانا اگر بقول زید صحیح ہے تو دریافت طلب امریہ ہے کہ اس غیب سے مراد بعض غیب ہیں یا کل غیب۔ اگر بعض علوم غیبیہ مراد ہیں تو اس میں حضور ﷺ کی کیا تخصیص ؟ایسا تو زید و عمرو بلکہ ہر صبی و مجنون بلکہ جمیع حیوانات و بہائم کے لئے بھی حاصل ہے کیونکہ ہر شخص کو کسی نہ کسی ایسی بات کا علم ہوتا ہے جو دوسرے شخص سے مخفی ہے تو چاہئے کہ سب کو عالم الغیب کہا جاوے۔
“If according to the statement of Zayd, it is valid to apply the ruling of the knowledge of ghayb to his holy essence, then he will be asked: “From this ruling, is the ‘ghayb’ intended as some ghayb or full ghayb?” If some knowledge of ghayb is intended what distinction is there in this for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)? Such knowledge of the ghayb is available to Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather even all animals and quadrupeds; because every person has knowledge of such and such a matter which is hidden from a second person; then all should be called “knower of the ghayb”.”
An example to the content of this passage was given by Mawlana Manzoor Nomani in Faysala Kun Munazra:
“Suppose that the king of a country is extremely generous. Here he operates a public kitchen, and he feeds thousands of needy and poor people in the morning and evening. Now, some idiot, for example Zayd, calls that king raziq (sustainer). A second person, say ‘Amr, asks him: “Brother, why do you refer to the king as raziq? Is it because he gives sustenance to all creation? Or is it because he feeds some people? The first is obviously false, so only the second option remains, which is that the king is called raziq because he feeds some people. In this, there is no distinction for him because even a poor man and an unimportant labourer at least fills the bellies of their children, and people being people they will certainly have concern for their children but even small birds feed their chicks, so according to this principle of yours, everyone will be called raziq
It should be asked, did ‘Amr mean by this statement that the generous and beneficent king and every poor and unimportant labourer are equal in their generosity? It is obvious that this understanding is the idiocy of the one who understood it. Thus, whatever was said in Hifz al-Iman is nothing more than this.”
It should be asked, did ‘Amr mean by this statement that the generous and beneficent king and every poor and unimportant labourer are equal in their generosity? It is obvious that this understanding is the idiocy of the one who understood it. Thus, whatever was said in Hifz al-Iman is nothing more than this.”
An objection:
Those who defend this slander on Mawlana Thanawi claim that Mawlana Thanawi first claimed a specific attribute for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and then claimed it for inferior beings such as animals which is an apparent error. For example, a person prays daily and his son, Zayd, tells this to his friend saying that my father is a good Muslim due to it. If his friend, Amr, responds by saying “What is good in this? Even the shoemaker of my area prays daily”, will it be accurate?
So the response to this is that the condition in this example is completely different. What Amr said is inaccurate because it appeared to be erroneous because he tried to disprove any merit in the act of Zayd’s father. Praying daily is obviously good. If Zayd’s father prays it or the shoemaker, it does not make any difference. The act of both people is good. Having some knowledge has no merit at all because it is an attribute of every person or creature while every person does not pray daily. Praying daily is a specialty of pious people and people who are away from the path of Allah do not perform this act. Praising due to it is obviously accurate. Yes, if Zayd said that my father is the best Muslim because he prays daily. Then, this is wrong as there are many people who pray. This doesn’t mean that he is the best among Muslims because of this. If this was accepted, everyone who prays daily would be considered best without seeing his other acts. Hence, praising due to having some knowledge of unseen does not seem to be accurate and this example is completely different.
Those who defend this slander on Mawlana Thanawi claim that Mawlana Thanawi first claimed a specific attribute for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and then claimed it for inferior beings such as animals which is an apparent error. For example, a person prays daily and his son, Zayd, tells this to his friend saying that my father is a good Muslim due to it. If his friend, Amr, responds by saying “What is good in this? Even the shoemaker of my area prays daily”, will it be accurate?
So the response to this is that the condition in this example is completely different. What Amr said is inaccurate because it appeared to be erroneous because he tried to disprove any merit in the act of Zayd’s father. Praying daily is obviously good. If Zayd’s father prays it or the shoemaker, it does not make any difference. The act of both people is good. Having some knowledge has no merit at all because it is an attribute of every person or creature while every person does not pray daily. Praying daily is a specialty of pious people and people who are away from the path of Allah do not perform this act. Praising due to it is obviously accurate. Yes, if Zayd said that my father is the best Muslim because he prays daily. Then, this is wrong as there are many people who pray. This doesn’t mean that he is the best among Muslims because of this. If this was accepted, everyone who prays daily would be considered best without seeing his other acts. Hence, praising due to having some knowledge of unseen does not seem to be accurate and this example is completely different.