Friday, January 16, 2015

Part 9: A Brief Survey: Was Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) given the Knowledge of Unseen?

From the Layman’s Desk: Islamic Article No.18:

Part 9: A Brief Survey: Was Prophet (sal Allau alayhi wasallam) given the Knowledge of Unseen?

In the Name of Allah, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful.

Knowledge of what was behind the wall:

[“Muhammad (Peace be upon him) doesn't know about his end and what is behind the wall.”

Ref: Barahin-e-Qatia (Pg51, Published By: Muhammad Ishaq Maalik Kutb khana Rahimia Saharanpur in 1365 AH, Written By: Khalil Anbethwi)]

Next, Rasheed Gangohi and his student Khaleel Ambethwi focused on denying even details of partial knowledge of what was behind the wall, among other things.  Deobandi scholars even fabricated a statement and falsely attributed it to Shaykh Abdul Haq al Muhaddith al-Dehelwi (rah) in which he has supposedly written that prophet was not aware of about what is behind the wall!  The fact is no such statement was ever written by Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith al-Dehlwi ( rh).  The Deobandis were not satisfied with this comment , so their leader Mawlana Manzoor Nomani went one step ahead and said: " If prophet could know what was behind the wall , he would have not asked Bilal (Rd) about the women standing at the door. " (Manzoor Numani, Faysala kun Munazara page 136)

At the outset, please note that the above attribution to Shaykh Abdul Haqq is a fabrication and a blatant lie.  
Shaykh `Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehelwî actually quoted it to refute it and clear doubts. He states: "Doubts are created by some narrations which state: 'I am a slave and I do not know what is behind this wall.'  These doubts are removed by the fact that this idea is baseless and the narrations are NOT authentic (riwâyat badô SaHîH na shud ast)." (`Abdul-Haqq Dehelwî, Madârijun-Nubuwwat, v. 1, p. 7)  So Shaykh `Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehelwî considered the very idea to be baseless and the narration to be unauthentic. 

So why did Môlwî Khalîl Ahmad Ambêthwî Sahâranpûrî quote it? The Muhaddithîn as a whole have rejected this narration.  Mullâ `Alî al-Qârî stated:  "qâla ibn Hajar laysa bi Hadîth." "Ibn Hajar said: This is not a Hadîth." (`Alî Qârî, al-Masnû` fil-Hadîth al-Mawdû` Lahore: Matbû'a Muhammadî, p. 22)

Môlwî Manzûr Ahmad Nu`mânî Sanbhalî, tried once again to defend Barâhîn-e-Qâti`a  by giving yet another half-quote:  "mân liyâ ke shaykh SaHib ne madârijun-nubuwwat me is riwâyat kô ghayr SaHîH or be `aSl batlâyâ he - magar ashi`atul-lam`ât me shaykh SaHib ne is riwâyat kô bilâ tanqîd naqal kiyâ he - lehâdhâ môlwî khalîl aHmad ka ye kehnâ ke shaykh `abdul-Haqq raHmatullâhi `alay riwâyat kartehê - durust he." English Translation: ["OK, we accept that Shaykh [`Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehelwî] Sâhib in his 'Madârijun-Nubuwwah' considers this narration to be inauthentic and without any foundation.  However, in 'Ashi`atul-Lam`ât', Shaykh Sâhib recorded this narration without criticising it's authenticity.  So, Môlwî Khalîl Ahmad writing: 'Shaykh `Abdul-Haqq (ra) narrates...' is certainly correct."]

(Manzûr Ahmad Nu`mânî Sanbhalî, Faysala kun Munâzara, p. 130)

Now, what has been quoted above in Faysala kun Munazar p.130 is yet more khiyânah (hiding the truth and half quoting) for in "Ashi`at al-Lam`ât Sharh al-Mishkât", Shaykh `Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehelwî (ra) yet again does comment on this narration and clarifies that if we do accept the narration, it means: "ya`nî be dânâ nîdan Haqq subhânahû." "[...I do not know what is behind this wall... that is, without being informed (independantly of) by The Truthful one - glorified is He."  This means that contrary to Môlwî Khalîl Ahmad Ambêthwî Sahâranpûrî's understanding, he (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) certainly has been informed by Allâh of what is behind a wall. There is no knowledge which the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) has except that he was informed by Allah Subhânahû wa Ta`âlâ.  In fact, there is no knowledge that Môlwî Khalîl Ahmad Ambêthwî Sahâranpûrî and his defender, Môlwî Manzûr Ahmad Nu`mânî Sanbhalî had except that Allâh made means of informing them.  So what was the point of continuing on this topic in relation to the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam)?  Why was it that Môlwî Khalîl Ahmad Ambêthwî Sahâranpûrî and his defender, Môlwî Manzûr Ahmad Nu`mânî Sanbhalî only saw this narration from Shaykh `Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehelwî's (ra) "Ashi`atul-Lam`ât" and did not mention his comments on it?  Why didn't they also see his following translation of a Hadîth and the commentary on it also in that very work?:  "'So I came to know that which is in the heavens and earth.' From this we know that he (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) has command over all the details of knowledges and their branches."  (`Abdul-Haqq Dehelwî, Ashi`atul-Lam`ât, v. 1, p. 333)

As stated, some people tend to incorrectly rely on the inauthentic tradition whereby the Holy Prophet said: "I do not know what is behind the wall."  No origin is known (la asl) for such a hadith.  Imam Asqalani has said that there is no truth in this narration (Maudhuate Kabir, page 60).  Imam Ibn Hajar Makki (reh) says: ” The chain of narration for this hadith could not be traced.” (Afdalul Qur`a)

Shaykh Kabbani says: "Even if such an improbable saying were attributable to the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam),  then its purpose would to show personal humility and not to negate such knowledge. The meaning would then be: "I do not know that on my own, nor do I have such knowledge on my own," but as far as Bestowed Knowledge is concerned, i.e knowledge given by Allah Almighty, the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) was fully equipped with it by his Creator.  The Holy Qur'an bears the testimony to this:  And We granted you knowledge of what you knew not, and the bounty of Allah for you has been infinite. (4:113)"

As against the Holy Prophet’s (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) knowledge of unseen, the Deobandis have pitted one "Diwan ji" a personal servant of Qasim Nanotwi,  as seen from the biography of the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi (Swaneh Qasim, Vol.2, page 73).  Mawlana Tayyeb narrates that, Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi had a family servant whose name was Diwanji and who was very pious and had deep attachment with the shuyookh of his Tariqa.  Mawlana Habeeburrehman (in-charge Darul Uloom Deoband) used to tell that during elavated stage,  the 'Kashf" power of Diwan ji increased so much that while he used to be in his room, he could see (though mud wall) people walking in the street. The door and wall, all these hindrances were no longer applicable to him.  This was the elevated state of a family servant of Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi. This servant" Diwan ji' could achieve such a high status due to his attachment with Mawlana Qasim and other Shaykhs of their Tariqah.  Interestingly, the same Diwan ji during his Kashf once saw 'red thread' surrounding Darul Uloom Deoband from all side. He himself explained this Kashf as "Christanity and Extremism will show its symptom' in Darul Uloom Deoband”.

So it is more than clear that the Deobandi Ulema are ready and willing to accept a New Muslim Khan's power of perception in reaching the Aalam-e-Ghaib unhindered; but regarding the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) the established belief of the Deobandis is that he (s) could not even see behind the wall. (For reference see Baraheen-e-Qatiah Page 15 of Maulvi Khaleel Ahmed Ambethvi)

As Imam Ahmad Raza considered the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the most beloved of Almighty Allah’s prophets, it followed that Muhammad Mustafa (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) must have been one of the messengers referred to in aforementioned Quranic verses. He defended his view, in addition, with quotation works of fiqh, and rejection of a hadith in which the Prophet is reported to have said that he didn’t even know what lay behind a wall. [The sources cited were Allama Khafaji’s Nasim al-Riyaz and Shihabuddin Ahmad Hajar Makki’s (d. 1565/66) Afzal al-Qura. The hadith in question was apparently mentioned in Barahin-e Qatiyya in defense of the denying that the Prophet had ilm-e ghaib. Imam Ahmad Raza maintained that this hadith was baseless (be-asl) and had been declared to be so by Abdul Haqq Muhhadis Dehlawi (d.1642) in his Madarij al-Nubuwwa.]

As for Faisla Kun Munazara (the Decisive Debate) of Manzoor Nomani al-Deobandi (1905-1997) is nothing but a futile attempt to interpret the statements of disbelief written by the four Deobandi elders. Almost all possible tricks of interpretations employed by him have been refuted by Mufti Ajmal Sambhali (Rh) (1900-1963) in addition to his refuting Husain Tandvi al Deobandi (1297/1879-1377/1957) in his masterpiece work Rad Shahāb e Sāqib bar Wahābi Khāib, (pub.1954).  Later in 1988, Mufti Sharif al Haq refuted each and every lie of Manzoor Nomāni point by point in his book, Sunni Deobandi Ikhtilāf Ka Munsifāna Jaiza (A fair analysis of the Sunni-Deobandi Dispute).

Eating Poisoned Meat at Khaybar: 

Another objection raised by the opponents of bestowed Unseen Knowledge of Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) is that if Holy Messenger had ilm-al-ghayb then why did he eat poisonous meat in Khyber? If he did  it knowingly, then this is suicide and Prophet (sal Allahu alayh wasallam) is free from this.

When Khaybar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the  Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) ordered, "Let all the Jews who are here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?'' They said, "Yes.’' The Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right."  He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father."  On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.'' Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Abul Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.  [Sahih al-Bukhari 3169]

It is to be noted that Prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) ate the meat which was poisoned because Jews had said that if the prophet was a real prophet then the poison would not affect him ( sal allahu alayhi wa sallam). [Mishkat al Masabih, Bab al- Mawjizat)

We have in an Agreed Upon Hadith shareef: A Jewish woman came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with a poisoned sheep and he ate from it. She was brought to him and it was said: Should we kill her? The Prophet said no. I continued to see the effects of the poison upon the Messenger of Allah. (Sahih Muslim 2190, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi).  Thus according to ibn Katheer:  The Jews wanted to check the prophethood and truthfulness of our prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the whole challenge was to see if prophet eats the meat.  That is why prophet chose to eat the food.  Similar is the case of mubahila in which prophet accepted the invitation because the enemies wanted to check the authenticity of prophethood.  The companion died because the poison had to show its effect on non-prophet.  The Jewess who had mixed poison in the meat was convinced by this incidence (miracle) that prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) was indeed a true prophet and she accepted islam.  [Al bidaya wan nihaya, vol 3,p 388]

Here it is to be remembered that the poison was so potent that it immediately resulted in the death of a Sahabi.    Also, as is evident from other ahadith, it is one of his miracles that the meat of the roasted sheep told Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) that it was poisoned.  The Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, remained alive for three years after eating some of this poisoned, roasted sheep at Khaybar, and years later he went on to conquer Makkah Shareef without shedding a drop of blood, and ultimately he also completed his misson of the Deen before he fell ill and passed away from this material world.  [By the way, Sunni scholars and even Qadi Shawkani and others write: Scholars agree that our Prophet, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), is alive in his grave and the earth does not eat the bodies of the Prophets. (Nayl al-Awtar chapter Hajj by Qadi Shawkani)] 

Ibn Masud (Allah be pleased with him) felt that the Prophet [peace be upon him] had died as a martyr, the delay in the poison’s effect being a prophetic miracle.  Allah Most High thus preserved His beloved Messenger until his mission was completed, and then, to honor him, caused him to die a martyr.  [Muhammad al-Zurqani, Sharh Mawahib Laduniyya]

Incident of Ifk:

An accusation was made regarding the blessed knowledge of the Unseen of the Beloved Prophet (Sal Allaho Alaihi wasallam) and a few ignorant linked it to the Quranic verse which tells us of the accusation of immorality made on our beloved Mother Umm al-Momineen Sayyidatuna Ayesha Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha.  According to them, the beloved Prophet (Sal Allahu Alaihi wasallam) was disturbed by it and didn't say anything before the revelation (wahi) was made (i.e. whether the accusation was true or not).  Wahhabis say if the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) knew the Unseen, then why did he remain silent for so many days regarding the accusation on Aisha ®?

First it needs to be stated that the scholars of Sunni Islam are all agreed that whoever, despite Allah’s ratification of Aisha’s ® innocence as mentioned in Surat al-Nur persists in slandering her is by all means a Kaafir for having rejected the verses of the Holy Qur’an.  "Allah forbids you from it [slander] and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers." [al-Noor 24:17]   Al-Haafiz ibn Katheer said, in his Tafseer:  "The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, are all agreed that whoever accuses or slanders her after the revelation of this aayah is a kaafir, because he has rejected the Qur’aan."  Slandering the family of the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) hurts and offends the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) himself, and there is no doubt that whatever hurts and offends the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) is a Kaafir by the consensus (ijmaa‘).

Now, the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari clearly states, “I know my wife to be only chaste.” [Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Maghazi, Baab Hadith al-Ifk, Hadith 4141].  This proves his knowledge.  It is also not possible for Rasoolullah (sal Allaho Alaihi wasallam)  to have been suspicious of Sayyidah Aisha ®  because Allah said to the Muslims as a rebuke, “Why did Muslim males and females not think good in their hearts and immediately said, “This is clear falsehood?” – [Surah Nur, Verse 12].  So before the revealing of innocence, it was compulsory for Muslims to think good of her and Haraam upon them to be suspicious. – And the Prophet is definitely free (ma’sum) from Haraam. Thus, he was not suspicious of Sayyidah Aisha ® in the least.  Yes, for him to say immediately that it was a clear lie was not compulsory because this was a domestic matter.

Not knowing about Hazrat Aisha's (R) innocence was not the cause of Rasoolullah SallAllaho Alaihi wa Sallam remaining silent.  People’s spreading these rumours, was also the reason for this silence.  Had the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) not waited for the revelation of the ayahs but immediately informed people of Sayyidah Aisha’s ® innocence, the hypocrites would have said, “See how he protects his family members.”  And Muslims would not have come to know of the rules of slander and wrongful accusation. Also, the method of researching cases would not have been known and Sayyidah Aisha ® would not have received the reward for the patience that she demonstrated during this time.  It is also a rule of Islamic beliefs that the wife of a Prophet cannot be immoral. Allah states in the Holy Quran.   “Impure women belong to impure men and immoral men to immoral women.” – [Surah Nur, Verse 26]  The impurity spoken of here refers to fornication (zina).  In other words, the consort of a Prophet can never be a fornicator.

So does the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) not know this rule of Beliefs (that a wife of a Prophet cannot be immoral)? Is he unaware that Sayyidah Aisha ®  is the wife of the Leader of the Prophets and that this type of behaviour cannot be displayed by her?  No, it was the Will of Allah to Himself testify to the innocence of Sayyidah Aisha ® through the ayahs revealed so that all Muslims of the entire world can proclaim her chastity and greatness, even in Salah.  Thus, if Rasoolullah (Sal Allaho Alaihi wa Sallam)  personally revealed her innocence, all of these excellences would not have been obtained.  In short, he had knowledge but did not reveal it.  The grace of this matter is that when Zulaikha laid an accusation against Hadrat Yusuf Alaihis Salam, Allah Himself did not directly reveal his innocence but revealed it through an infant.  Similarly, when Sayyidah Maryam was wrongfully accused, He revealed her innocence through the infant Ruhullah. However, when the beloved of His Beloved was accused, Allah did not proclaim her innocence through any angel or infant but Himself gave witness and recorded it in the Holy Quran!  This testimony came to be part of Iman and for the creation to understand the proximity of the Holy Prophet to Allah through it.  

Additionally, you don't have to go far to seek:  Don't we still have people this day claiming to be Muslims who cast aspersions on the character of Hazrat Aisha (R)?  This, despite the Quranic verses in favour of her innocence!!! So what would have been the state if only hadiths were to be presented in her favour with these rejecting the Sunnah of Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam)?  

According to ibn Katheer, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Allah would not have made ‘Aisha ® the wife of the Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) if she had not been good, because he (s) is better than any good person. If she had been bad, she would not have been fit to marry him from a shar‘i point of view, and Allah would never even have decreed it.."

Haji Imdadullah Makki Alaihir raHma (whom the Opponents in Indo-Pak believe to be their Spiritual Guide and Leader) says: “People say that the Prophets Alaihim as-Salam and Awliya Alaihim ar-Rahma do not possess the Knowledge of the Unseen. I say that the men of truth perceive the Unseen whenever they cast their eyes around them. In fact, this perception is the knowledge of truth. Those who say that the Holy Prophet Hadrat Muhammad Peace and Blessings of Allah be Upon Him did not know about Hudaibiyah and Hadrat Ayesha Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anha are misguided. Attention is the pre-requisite for any knowledge.” [Shamaim-e-Imdadiyah, Page 110 – Anwaar-e-Ghaibiyah, Page 125]

Thus there can be no doubt that Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) knew that the roasted meat offered by the Jewess at Khaybar was poisoned but still took a mouthful since the Jews wanted to verify the authenticity of his Prophethood; and that he (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) knew that Hazrat Aisha (R) was innocent of the aforesaid rumours.    

So do the opponents doubt even the Unseen Knowledge of Allah (swt) (though nothing is Unseen for Allah)?

Ahadith of Lake-Fount/Cistern/Al-Howd:

To continue with the opposition to Prophet’s (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) Knowledge of the Unseen, it is also common for the opponents to point out the ahadith of Al-Howd (Lake-Fount) in order to negate Prophet’s (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) being Haazir-Naazir or that he had no knowledge of those people who had left Islam or had made innovations after him.   We find such hadiths of al-Howd in Bukhari and Muslim, and the answer as to who these people are has been given by many scholars, including the Commentator of Sahih Muslim, namely, Imam Nawawi.  However, regarding the knowledge of the unseen, the immediate answer to this is: Who’s prophesying about all this? Naturally, it is Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) who has already been given this knowledge by Allah (swt) and he is telling us what all will occur near the Al-Howd.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad discusses these aspects at length and according to him, to the question why is the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, being told: "'You do not know they turned Apostates"? There are several answers to this:  “1. The Prophet's designation of them as ‘My Companions’ and the reply of the angels: "Do you not know..." are meant as didactic disclosures to the hypocrites that although they enter into his mercy in this world, they will not be allowed to enter it in the next unless they repent beforehand. The style of this disclosure is dramatic and develops as if from a state of ignorance to a state of discovery in order for the disclosure to be more effective. However, such ignorance-then-discovery are not literal for the Prophet Muhammad upon him blessings and peace. How could they be when he is the one who is prophesying that this shall take place??  2. Should we hold the view that the Prophet Muhammad upon him blessings and peace, was only prophesying the general knowledge that this will take place but does not, indeed, know the personal details of those involved, hence he calls them ‘My Companions’ literally, the answer is that the reply of the angels refers to the Murtadds of the Umma whose ridda was kept hidden from the Prophet Muhammad upon him blessings and peace, so as not to harm him. This interpretation qualifies the meaning of the hadith ‘Hayati khayrun lakum’ and thus his knowledge in the grave excludes ridda and the murtadds as this would pain the Prophet Muhammad upon him blessings and peace, to no end.” 

The actual Companions of the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, are excluded, because he retells the fount scene as part of a dream he has just seen and from which he wakes up smiling. If the dream involved the expulsion of any of his actual Companions, it is inconceivable that he would wake up in such a state of cheer and elation.  Here's the beginning of the hadith again.."The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was sitting among us then he dozed off. He then raised his head, smiling."

Of course, the Shaykh goes on giving us more details - all of which cannot be included here for brevity’s sake. Please see:  “Hayati khayrun lakum“and Lake-Fount Hadiths"

It may also be noted that:

(a) Allama Mohammad Shariful Haq Amjadi in his Sharah  Sahih Bukhari writes: In this Hadith Huzoor (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) is himself saying to his Sahabis that on the Day of Qiyamah such and such will Happen (as discussed in the hadith) and the saying of Rasullah to his Sahabi (before Qiyamah) is itself the Proof that He knew what will happen on the Day of Qiyamah.This Hadith itself is a proof for Ilm-e-gaib.
 (b) Gulam rasool Saeedi in his Sharah Sahih Muslim says that:Rasulallah calling “Au-Sihabi, Au-Sihabi” to the people who were gathered on his left side was an expression of taunt to them.which means that “They are my Sahabis! They are my Sahabis!” - they can never be my Sahabis who innovated new and bad things after me or became Murtads. 
(c) According to many Hadiths in the books of Ahadith, Rasulallah (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) said: Sinners will be holding their Aamaal in their left hands and will have dull faces, wheras Momins will be holding their Aamal in their right hands and their faces will shine.
Rasulallah (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) himself told this hadith, then how come will he not recognize his Sahabis by seeing the signs on their faces??? JUST THINK!! 
(d) Gulam Rasool Saeedi in his Sharah Sahih Muslim writes that Rasulallah (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) calling them Sahabi was in order to remind them and show them that how painful is the punishment for the sinners/innovators/Murtads because when they heard Rasulallah addressing them as Sahabis they thought that they will get the water to drink from the Hawd and when they were deprived and moved from the Cistern (Al-Hawd) their expectation and Hope broke and this resulted into more pain and Azaab(punishment).
(e) Then again, Al-Zarqani in Sharh al-Muwatta' (1:98) mentions that Ibn Shakir narrates in his Manaqib al-Shafi`i with his chain to Yunus ibn `Abd al-A`la from his teacher al-Shafi`i that the latter said his teacher Imam Malik only regretted including one hadith in the Muwatta', namely, the hadith of the lake-fount. The reason for this, and Allah knows best, is that Malik typically hated for some people to be potentially confused or, worse, misled by certain hadiths connected to doctrine; in this particular case, with regard to either the Prophet's God-given foreknowledge or the honour of his blessed Companions which the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the Consensus made categorical and obligatory knowledge.

Regarding all the above hadith, firstly the wording in nearly all of them is la tadri which to a modern arab may mean “don’t know” but in classical Arabic (see Lane’s lexicon) means you don’t know by your own ability- in other words you don’t know by your own investigation but only because Allah revealed it to you. The other point to make here is that when someone asks a question in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah it is not always because they don’t know;  it is for the sake of educating others. For example Allah asks Hazrat Musa (alahi salam) what he is holding in his hand in the Qur’aan and Hazrat Jibrial (alayhi salam) asks our beloved Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wa sallam) about Islam, Iman and Ihsan and then said “you have told the truth” after every answer, the Prophet (Salla Allahu alayhi wa salam) explained to his companions “He came to teach you about your religion.”

Please note that the aim of wahabis and Deobandis is always to show that Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam) didn’t have knowledge of the unseen.  For Muslims, we have at least seven quranic verse and eighty hadith which prove knowledge of the unseen (ghayb) given to prophet. Even if any example or understanding given by a sunni scholar to prove that  prophet had the knowledge of the unseen ( ghayb) is wrong , it will still not prove that prophet didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen. It will only prove that the particular example or understanding is wrong, because ultimately the prophetic knowledge of the unseen stands proven from the Quran and numerous Ahadith.

So, in conclusion, no this is not an evil and misguided belief, rather it is something you have not grasped as of yet,  and have been misled as to the understanding of it by bad and incorrect translations and Tafsirs.  May Allah azza wa jal open the opponents' hearts and ours to the true status and glory of the Final Messenger (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam). Ameen.

Continued in Part 10...


No comments:

Post a Comment