In al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah and its footnotes, Ahmad Rida Khan addresses the belief that the Prophet ﷺ was granted knowledge equal to Allah (in full detail and without any exceptions). He considers whether this belief – i.e. that the Prophet ﷺ possesses complete knowledge of everything known to Allah, including the full details of Allah’s essence and attributes – is kufr or not?
In one place (in his footnotes to al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah), he defends this belief from the charge of kufr. He refutes Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari’s assertion that it constitutes obvious kufr by consensus. Ahmad Rida Khan claims that some “saints” held this view. He disagrees with it, deeming it an error, but claims that it should not be considered disbelief because some “saints” held this view and they acknowledged the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge is contingent as opposed to Allah’s (which is eternal). In his opinion, the mere fact that it is rationally impossible is also not a basis for deeming it to be kufr. [See Excerpt One below]
Kiya yeh durust hai AlaHazrat ne kaha k Allah k barabar ilm khena kufr ni hai? Likin dursri jaga par
But then, in a different section of the same work, Ahmad Rida Khan explains the concept of “‘Ilm Mutlaq Tafsili,” which he says belongs exclusively to Allah. “‘Ilm Mutlaq Tafsili” means complete and detailed knowledge of all things that can possibly be known, a quality that he says cannot be affirmed for any creature. After saying ‘Ilm Mutlaq Tafsili belongs exclusively to Allah (and is negated for creation), he says: “Everything we just mentioned is established from the din by necessity whereby anyone who rejects any of it has rejected the din.” [See Excerpt Two below]
He further says that to claim encompassing knowledge like Allah is kufr. [See Excerpt Three below] He further says: “As for ‘all’ in the sense of actual encompassment of all things known to Allah in detail, we have informed you that it is undoubtedly and definitively impossible for creation, rationally and scripturally.” [See Excerpt Four below]
Hence, in one place he claims equating the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge with Allah’s (in terms of quantity) is not kufr. In another place, he says it is kufr. Which is it? This is not a minor contradiction. If something is ma’lum min al-din bi ‘l-darurah, then to believe it is not kufr is itself kufr, as Ahmad Rida Khan and Barelwis are well aware.
A request to Barelwis to resolve this contradiction.
Ab jawab dain ap log