First of all, thank you Mufti Zameelur for taking the time to reply.
There are many things that are incorrect in your reply Mufti Zameelur.
A key thing to note is that you can’t declare a belief “mainstream Berelvi beliefs” just because you quote one or two Berelvi scholars. The reasoning is just as fallacious as saying “Islam supports honour killings because X, Y and Z said so”. How do you determine if a belief is “mainstream berelvi belief”?
Secondly I am not Berelwi. I am neutral on the Deobandi and Berelvi conflict.
1) On the final hour and the knowledge of the 5 you said:
Of course those "late scholars" were major scholars and based themselves on clear hadith evidence, as shown by Ghumari's analysis on the issue. This shows that the belief is not only amongst Berelvis. Of course it wasn't clear or "clearly kufr" for the likes of Imam Suyuti, who acknowledged a legitimate difference of opinion on the issue. Whether you accept the evidences or not, is besides the point. What matters is that the Aqidah specialists and the mujtahids like Imam Suyuti, acknowledged it as a valid opinion and the issue is a matter of dhanni evidence on both sides.
Imam Alusi (Ruh al Ma’ani) also accepts that such a belief is permissible.
Or you can ask shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Dabbagh, why did he say ““How can the five Unseens be concealed from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)…” (see his Ibriz where he affirmed them for the Prophet). He makes it very clear that the Prophet knew it, and to suggest the opposite is absurd. Perhaps you can challenge him on why he held such a “blatantly kufr” position? Note that shaykh Abdul Aziz Dabbagh was defended by various senior Deobandi scholars such as Khalid Mahmud. If Khalid condemns the Berelvis for knowing the 5 things, then he must also condemn shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Dabbagh.
As for whether the opinion was held by scholars from the Salaf, I don't know enough about that. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, it is a topic for research. Certainly the opinion is based on hadiths, which are obviously from the Salaf.
2) Has detailed knowledge of all things till qiyamah-
You said:
And you said:
Assuming that you have quoted correctly, the natural question is:
“Did Imam Ahmed Rida Khan believe that the knowledge of the Prophet was equal to the knowledge of Allah Most High?”
If he didn’t believe that, then it isn’t a bid’a that takes one outside of the Ahlus Sunnah.
However I will make this question easier for you. Imam Ahmed Rida Khan said:
“From this research, it is clear that no Muslim can even think that if the knowledge of the whole of creation is on one side, it can be equal to the knowledge of Allah. Can the blind not see that there are many differences between the knowledge of Allah and the knowledge of the Prophet… The reality is that the comparison of the knowledge of the whole of creation to the knowledge of Allah is not even like a drop in the seven oceans. Even if this comparison is made, it is only to allow comprehension, otherwise a drop and an ocean are both limited and comparison between them is a comparison of two limited entities whereas there can be no such comparison between the knowledge of Allah and His creation because the knowledge of creation is limited and the knowledge of Allah is unlimited. The relationship between them is like the relationship between limited and unlimited….” al-Dawlah al-Makkiya, pg 212
To see the berelvi beliefs on the issue, see their book written in:
www.scribd.com/doc/35055549/Knowledge-of-UnseenFurthermore in terms of the belief of the berelvis in terms of how much the Prophet knew, it is discussed and supported by Ghumari (in the link I provided earlier i.e.
marifah.net/hadith-categories-55/100-i-was-given-the-keys-to-everything-except-five) through various sahih hadiths.
Imam
Kattani (the great Muhaddith) whilst supporting the general proof texts on the vast knowledge (that includes
the knowledge of every event till the last day and its exact time) said "this is the accurate view about which no fair person can have doubt, and none other than someone laggard and deliberately oblivious shall disagree after having read its evidences
in this risalah" (Jala al-Qulub vol. 1, p.
201] clearly stating that the evidences were not only ample but also unchallengeable.
3) On the issue of reading and writing you said:
It is interesting that you have not quoted from any of the prominent berelvis. If you have any references, please provide from past leading berelvi scholars (I don’t want the modern Pirzada group since they are controversial and not accepted by many Berelvis). It is clear that only some berelvis hold the view that he learnt how to read/write.
If you ever want to get the views of berelvi scholars, good places to start are directly from the works of Imam Ahmed Rida Khan or you should read the works of Allama Ghulam Rasool Saeedi. Masha Allah his sharh (commentary) of Sahih Muslim is one of the best in 21st century. See his discussion on the beginning of revelation from page 649 and onwards in volume 1 (https://archive.org/details/SharahSahihMuslimUrduByAllamaGhulamRasoolSaeedi ), on the issue of the Prophet being Ummi per the definition of the majority of Sunni scholars. He adopts the majority Sunni position. See also his discussion in his tafsir Tibyan al Quran v 4, from 394 and onwards (https://archive.org/details/TafsirTibyan-ul-quranUrdu ) where he discusses Ummi in more detail. I have also attached parts of them here.
Yes some scholars did takfir against al-Baji for his view on the issue. However other scholars defended him.
From earlier, the Hafiz and Sira historian Ibn Shabba (d. 262) affirmed reading and writing in his book al-Kitab on the basis of the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud: "The Prophet did not die before he could first write and read." “Al-Sha`bi is related to have commented on this report: "True! We have heard many of them mention this.” See Tafsir Ibn Atiyya (surah Ankabut, versus 47-49). In fact, Qurtubi also mentions this position in his tafsir.
Maybe you can even ask the leading Muhaddith of today, shaykh Nur al-Din al-Itr about why his position contradicts what you think is clear.
As for Baji, you can read his own work Tahqiq al-Madhhab, where he discusses his view (you're right he said the writing was a mu'jiza, I didn't deny that)
And finally, check Qadi Ibn al-Arabi’s work Siraj al-Muridin, where he discusses this.
Note I don’t say that the Prophet learnt how to read and write. I follow the majority Sunni position.
Generally berelvis don’t like to say “He couldn’t read or write” because many people use it as a defect. Since they are careful in talking about the Prophet with adab, some people without adab towards the Prophet, can think they’re violating the majority position of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Since many modern Muslim "scholars" don't know much in terms of adab in talking about the Prophet, I will try to post (either here or elsewhere), works from classical scholars on the topic. In the mean time, everyone should be careful in their wordings.
4) On the issue of the Prophet being a human, you said:
I checked the Kanzul Iman (tafseer of the Qur’an) by Imam Ahmed Rida Khan and it mentions the Prophet physically being a human. It doesn’t deny that he was a human. I am surprised that you said he “alluded to it”, when he didn’t. Muslims are forbidden from conjecture, subhanAllah! This is especially so when trying to accuse another group of kufr or a major bid’a which takes one out of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Imam Ahmed Rida Khan also said:
“Whoever totally denies the Bashariyah (humanity) of the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam is a Kafir. Allah says: Say: Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man – a messenger?” (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, v.6, p.67)
Will you now take back your accusation against the Imam?
As for the Ahmad Yar Khan points you mention, that is a secondary source and a paraphrase. I don’t know what he actually said.
As for the Umar quote, he hasn’t denied that he was human. He just said that his reality was nur (which is similar to the shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanwi scans I showed you). Or in simplistic terms, he was both a human and created from light.
In terms of Berelvi beliefs, what is clear and explicit is this, from their own mouths:
The Berelvi scholar Abdul Hakim Sharf Qadri said “It is our belief that the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam is certainly a human; but he is Afdal al-Bashar and Sayyid al-Khalq , he is Imam al-Anbiya and Muqtada al-Rusul and he is the light sent by Allah to creation”
(source:
www.scribd.com/doc/79396003/The-Light-of-the-Prophet-Muhammad-NOOR-e-MUHAMMAD-Sallalahu-Alayhi-Wasallam-the-Hadith-of-Jabir-by-Mawlana-Abdul-Hakim-Sharf-Qadri)The Berelvis have similar understanding to the shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanwi scan I put up (i.e. that the first creation from the Light/Noor of the Prophet. It wasn't literally from Allah Most High).
5) On the hearing of the Prophet, you said:
I found Mufti Monawwar Ateeq’s article here:
scholarsink.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/glad_tidings.pdf He has done an analysis of the isnad of the hadith you mentioned, and he concluded it is at least hasan. But he also relies on numerous other hadiths (as seen in that link) to say that the Prophet can hear from far away i.e. he has tried to reconcile the various texts.
So even if they believe that the Prophet hears the sounds of people far away, because of Allah Most High giving him that ability, or making him hear, what is the issue that makes it a bid’a which takes one out of the Ahlus Sunnah? Is this muhal aqlan or muhal shar’an? Obviously this is not equal to the Hearing of Allah Most High, so it can’t be shirk or kufr.
As a final point on that, what do you make of the statement of shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Dabbagh (see his Ibriz):
“Things began to unveil themselves to me and to appear as if they were right in front of me. I saw all the villages and towns, everything in this land and the Christian woman breast-feeding her child sitting in her lap. I saw all the oceans, the seven continents and everything in them, the beasts and all creatures. I saw the sky as if I were above it looking at what was in it.”
Is that statement also a bid’a which takes one outside of the Ahlus Sunnah? If the Berelvis make statements about the Prophet hearing far, what is the issue? The status of the Prophets is greater than the Awliya.
6) On the issue of the Prophet’s complete authority, you said:
You will find the understanding of the Berelvis, in the hadith qudsi in Sahih Bukhari:
“Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.”
The belief of the Berelvis is based off the above hadith and is essentially that the Prophet only wishes that which Allah Most High wants. You can also find proof in the Qur'anic verse "Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire" (53:3). Also when the Prophet asks Allah Most High, Allah Most High fulfils the request. They also believe that the Prophet can change laws, but not independently of Allah Most HIgh.
Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (I got the following from a study of his works) presents the following examples from the Ahadith literature: ‘Once the Prophet of Islam was asked if the Hajj was compulsory every year, the Prophet replied by saying, ‘If I said yes, then it would become obligatory upon you every year’. Anas bin Malik has reported that the Prophet said to him, ‘If I say something it becomes wajib (obligatory) and if it becomes obligatory and you don’t do it then you will be in sin’. This is reported by Anas b. Malik and related by Ibn Majah, Sahêh Muslims, and Sunan Nisâî has related the same hadith reported by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said, ‘If I had said yes, then it would become compulsory upon you annually and then you surely would not have been able to do it.’ Al-Amnu wal Ulla. p. 135[…]‘Imam Qastallânî has written in his book Mawahib-ul-laduniyyah, ‘among his (i.e. The Prophet’s) specialities is that he could exempt anyone and anything from minal-ahkâm (general rulings)’, while Allâma Zarqânî commented upon minal-ahkaan, ‘It is not related to rulings. He had the authority to specify anything and anyone at anytime’. And Imam Jalâl Uddîn Suyûtî in his book Khasâis-ul-Qubra has dedicated a whole chapter on the subject with the heading, ‘Ikhtisasihi-bi-annahu-yakhussu-man-shaa’a-bi-ma-shaa’a-minal-ahkaam’ (the chapter concerning the speciality of the Prophet that he can specify whatsoever and whosoever from any of the rulings he wants).’ Amnu wal Ulla. p. 136 […]‘It is narrated in Musnad Imam Ahmad through a strong chain, narrated by trustworthy men cited by Sahêh Muslim. Muhammad bin Ja’far has narrated to us that Shu’ba has narrated from Qatada who in turn narrated from Nasr bint Ásim, who narrated from a companion that he came to the Prophet and accepted Islam on the condition that he could only pray twice a day (instead of five) and the Prophet agreed to this’. Amnu wal Ulla. p. 149.
It is also similar to Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s statement:
““He is such a great vicegerent of Allah that Allah Almighty has given him the authority over the treasures of His generosity and His bounties and he may grant from them to whomsoever he desire,
and not give to whomsoever he displeases.” (al-Jawhar al-Munazzam)
Shaykh Nuh Keller explains it well as :
“Allah made the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) the most influential human being who ever lived. To obey him was to obey Allah, Master of the entire universe, and to disobey him was to disobey Allah. By creating paradise and hell and revealing the religion of Islam, Allah made the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) the gateway for all time to the greatest part of human existence. Alongside this momentous effect upon every human being’s destiny, and with the inimitable miracles (mu‘jizat) vouchsafed to him in this life, the answering of his prayers, and his being the dearest of creation to God—it can be asked: What else did Allah place at his disposal in this world? Was he someone for whom Allah effected anything he chose (mukhtar al-kull)? The Barelwis believed so, adducing that the Prophet’s will (Allah bless him and give him peace) though created by Allah and without any causal effect in and of itself, was in conformity with Allah’s will in every particular; while Deobandis say that it is unbelief to affirm that Allah has granted complete control over creation to anyone besides Himself.”
Many of the things discussed above, are discussed in shaykh Nuh Keller’s article (I highly recommend that everyone read it as the author is not biased. In fact he was helped by former Deobandis in writing this):
www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/imanktak.htmHe explains that neither of the beliefs of the berelvis are genuine aqidah issues, as he says “The point of mentioning these six questions is that not one of them is a genuine ‘aqida issue, in the sense of being a central tenet of faith that no one can disagree about and remain a believer. Rather, all of the main ‘aqida-related issues the Barelwis and Deobandis disagree about can be legitimately debated and differed upon by Muslims without either side having left Islam.”
Although he said they don’t leave Islam, it is clear that he also means that the berelvi beliefs don’t make one leave the Ahlus Sunnah. Note that Shaykh Nuh’s specialty and mastery is kalam and aqidah, and neither of us have mastered or specialised in kalam, so we shouldn’t be quick to kick people out of the Ahlus Sunnah.
7) As for knowing innermost feelings, you said:
Do you know Urdu? That translates as “no ruh, heart or nafs is hidden from him”, which isn’t what you translated it as.
I couldn’t find your quotation in his work. Can you show me where it says in the Urdu work please? Here is the work to make it easy for you (don’t confuse the words of the commentatory/editor with the Imam):
www.alahazratnetwork.org/data/01-alahazrat_books/01B-alahazrat_books_pdf/193-khaalis_al_iytiqad.pdfI checked the work in English and it says “The Beloved Messenger also has knowledge of the ḥaqīqah [reality] of the rūḥ”. You can find the work here:
www.scribd.com/doc/314085004/Knowledge-of-the-Unseen-Khalis-ItiqadNote what Imam Ahmed Rida Khan said in the above:
“Allah has given the knowledge of certain matters of the Unseen [ilm ghuyūb] to His Messenger and the other Prophets”
Shaykh Nuh Keller has also defended the validity of the Berelvi position on the knowledge of the Prophet (see
www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/imanktak.htm), for example:
“Certain Deobandi ulema felt that Ahmad Reza Khan wanted to say that the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) went beyond the relative unseen, that the Prophet knew the particulars (juz’iyyat) of all being, as only Allah does. They regarded this as tantamount to associating others with Allah (shirk) and a grave innovation (bid‘a). Their response was strident and hyperbolic, comparing the knowledge of Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to that of various lower creatures in a way that probably no Muslim had ever compared him before, and giving the offense whose kufr or iman we are discussing in this section.
The words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) at this tremendous event, “and lo, everything was revealed to me, and I knew,” [Sahih as in Tirmidhi] were understood by Ahmad Reza Khan to mean just that: that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had been endowed with such vast knowledge of the unseen that he knew even what the Supreme Assembly of archangels were speaking about….
The Deobandis’ impression however seems to be wrong that Ahmad Reza Khan wanted to go beyond this and say that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) knew the particulars (juz’iyyat) of all being, as Allah alone does.[25] It is certainly not borne out by Reza’s major work on the question al-Dawla al-Makkiyya li al-madda al-ghaybiyya [The Meccan realm: on the matter of the unseen], in which he plainly says” (end of shaykh Nuh quote)
If you look at the various issues of conflict about the Prophet, an important thing is noted:
- One side is affirming things for the Prophet, almost always based on the Qur'an or hadiths (either the evidences can be qat'i or dhanni, sahih or not sahih), whilst another side is negating them.
The key thing to note is that the reality and nature of the Prophet is very vast. Even if the proofs the Berelvis give are not sufficient (note that weak hadiths can be used for descriptions about the Prophet), it is no proof that he didn't have them. To say that he didn't have them would need
qat'i evidence. Since there normally isn't qat'i evidence to negate the Prophet's characteristics (such as his vast knowledge or hearing far), the max one can then say is "we will keep our mouths shut and not give an opinion". This is required by adab towards the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).
If you gave the Berelvis and Imam Ahmed Rida Khan the excuses that you and others give for the various words and statements and positions of Ibn Arabi and Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Dabbagh, then so much disunity and fitna can be avoided.
Note that the Berelvis also make many accusations against the Deobandis, and use that as a reason to kick them out of the Ahlus Sunnah. However I haven't quoted them here. Many of them are also misrepresentations (there are misrepresentations on both sides). Hence it is important to be fair and read the works of both sides directly, and try to understand what they are saying. Don't put your own meanings into their words. It is obligatory for Muftis and scholars of the modern world to strive their utmost to unify the Muslims and not create fitna and disunity over trivial things, or misunderstandings or false accusations.
A final note since you are so quick to kick the Berelvis out of the Ahlus Sunnah and make statements about ijma. What do you make of the fact that Imam Tabari had really odd opinions. Aren't they kufr? Or what about Ibn Arabi’s very odd views in some things in fiqh…. Maybe you should focus on refuting things like that, because orientalists and modernists use them to attack Islam, instead of wasting your energy on misunderstanding the Berelvis. I don't want to mention those specific issues of Tabari or Ibn Arabi because I don't want to confuse others (I can happily provide them to you by private message).
Attachments:
