Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MuhammedAli

Hadhir Nazir (Shahid/witness) Discussion With Haq3909

29 posts in this topic

The following discussion took place here: #1 (please click to view the thread). The discussion on Hadhir Nazir (i.e. Shahid/Witnessing) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) branched into two discussions. The main Urdu discussion was between learned and honourable brother Khalil Rana and our equally learned and honourable brother Saeedi and our Deobandi antagonist, Haq3909. May Allah reward both of them for their effort and elevate their ranks, Ameen, and guide brother Haq3909 to the understanding of Islam, Ameen. The English discussion was between my self and Mr Haq3909. It is essential that some back ground information is provided so readers have a beginning point and clear image from which they can begin with. The objective is not to gloss over my personal faults and highlight Mr Haq3909's faults but merely to represent both understands as neutrally as possible.

Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) states that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has been sent as a Shahid (i.e. Witness or Hadhir & Nazir) and in another verse it states he has been sent as a Shahid upon you (i.e. Muslims/Mankind). The Deobandi's and Wahhabi's believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not a seeing/hearing type of Shahid. Instead he will bearing witness on the day of judgment on events which he has not seen/heard but has been informed in the Quran by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) that following things have taken place. On the opposite the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat all over the world believe that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a Shahid upon us therefore he is hearing/seeing type of witness and he will bear witness to events which he has seen/heard. From this main disagreement other understands branch of but it is not important to point them out because the readers will get to read them as the discussion develops.

Here I will be quoting all the material quoted by brother Haq3909 and material which is written by me in response to him. Note at the end of it each post will have a blue number if you click on that it will take you to the original post and you can verify yourself if the material is quoted honestly and truthfully. I would advise the readers to note which out of us two has actually answered the points and who has avoided answering the crucial aspects of the discussion. At the end of dicussion there will be oppurtunity for the readers to question myself and Mr Haq3909. Note I will explicitly state when the dicussion comes to an end so until then avoid commenting. As addition of others commenting will only make the dicussion more complex and difficult for the readers to follow the dicussion. In time of this fitna and lack of knowledge it is important that readers have easy access to knowledge and something easy figure out. Please the end abstain from commenting, thank you.

Please Note Where Ever Mr Haq3909 Lacked Decency To Format His Response Appropriately I Would Be Formatting The Response On His Behalf. If I Reference A Post Number Please Note This Number Is Refering The Posts In The Original Thread And Not This Thread.

Muhammad Ali Razavi.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Please Open Another Tab With Same Thread And On It Click On The Links To View Them While You Read The Discussion. Alternatively Please Click On This Link And It will Take You Direct To The Post Where Images Are Visible; #3, Thank You.

 

Assalam u Alaikum,

Meri Post mostly English may hogi kyon kay mujhay urdu type karnay may dushwari hoti hay.

 

Aap nay jo hawala diya hay , us say mujhay bilkul tasali nahu huwi.Aye pehlay Surah Baqara ki ayat 143 parthay hay.

 

attachicon.gif2_143.png

 

Ab aye khud is ki tafseer AAP Salallaho ALayhi Wa Sallam say suntay hay.

 

attachicon.gifgawah.PNG

 

Ab aye Surah Al-Nisa Verse 41 ki taraf.

 

attachicon.gif4_41.png

 

According to the Tafsirs, there are two possible meanings of “witness” when used in these verses (4:41, 2:143 and others).

 

1. He bears witness that he conveyed the message based on his knowledge of himself, and he witnesses that the earlier prophets conveyed the message based on the knowledge he received from revelation. This interpretation is consistent with other verses of the Qur’an (7:6, 28:85 and others) which show the Prophet will bear witness that he conveyed the message. This ummah will bear witness that the previous prophets conveyed the message, and it is clear this “witnessing” is not by means of having seen Nuh (‘alayhissalam) and the other Prophets, but by the knowledge this ummah has received from revelation. If this interpretation is taken, it cannot possibly be used to mean that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is Hazir o Nazir.

2. A second interpretation is that he witnesses over his ummah in terms of their acceptance or rejection of him. However, this meaning is applicable only for as long as he lived amongst them (i.e. only for the Sahabah and the disbelievers of his time), but when he passed away this type of “witnessing” ended, as explicitly mentioned by the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself in the explanation of this verse:

In the commentary of 4:41, al-Tabari narrates with a sound chain from the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said after this verse was recited to him by ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, quoting the statement of ‘Isa (‘alayhissalam):

شهيدا ما دمت فيهم فلما توفيتني كنت أنت الرقيب عليهم وأنت على كل شيء شهيد

“I was a witness over them for as long as I was among them, and when You took me (i.e. when I passed away), You was the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things.” (Qur’an 5:117)

 

Sanad: [ 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Zuhri, thiqah acc. to Abu Hatim and al-Nasa'i - Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, undisputed hadith master - 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Utbah al-Mas'udi, thiqah acc. to many hadith critics - Ja'far ibn 'Amr ibn Hurayth, a narrator in Sahih Muslim, declared thiqah by al-Dhahabi - Sahabi, 'Amr ibn Hurayth]

 

There is another hadith which states :

 ثنا يونس بن محمد بن فضالة الأنصاري، عن أبيه قال: وكان أبي ممن صحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أتاه في بني ظفر، فجلس على الصخرة التي في بني ظفر اليوم، ومعه ابن مسعود ومعاذ بن جبل وناس من أصحابه، فأمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قارئا فقرأ، فأتى على هذه الآية: فكيف إذا جئنا من كل أمة بشهيد وجئنا بك على هؤلاء شهيدا فبكى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى ضرب لحياه وجنباه فقال: يا رب هذا، شهدت على من بين ظهري، فكيف بمن لم أره 
It states that when this verse was recited then Prophet peace be upon him shivered and said "O Allah I am witness upon the people in which i am (living). How can I be witness of those to whom I have not seen?[Tafseer Ibn Abi Haatim 3/956, Tabrani is Mojam alKabeer 19/243, Wahidi in his Tafseer 2/55, Abu Nuyeem in Muarifa tul Sahaba no: 63]
 
Imam Haythamee said:
.رَوَاهُ الطَّبَرَانِيُّ، وَرِجَالُهُ ثِقَاتٌ
Narrated by atTabrani and Narrators are trustworthy[Majma az-Zawaid 4/7]

 

 

A narration found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mention that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) in fact repeats this statement of ‘Isa (‘alayhissalam) on the plains of Resurrection when he is told that he has no knowledge of what some people from his ummah innovated after him.

 

Hence it says:-

 

attachicon.gifhadith.PNG

This is, therefore, clear proof from the words of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself in authentic hadiths that if we take the meaning of witnessing the response of his ummah from the characteristic of “witness” it only applies to his companions, those with whom he directly interacted, and it does not extend beyond them.

 

In explaining verse 4:41, al-Razi said:

واستشهدك على هؤلاء يعني قومه المخاطبين بالقرآن الذين شاهدهم وعرف أحوالهم ثم إن أهل كل عصر يشهدون على غيرهم ممن شاهدوا أحوالهم وعلى هذا الوجه قال عيسى عليه السلام: وكنت عليهم شهيدا ما دمت فيهم
 

“Allah will make you [the Prophet] witness over these, meaning his people that were addressed by the Qur’an who he saw and knew of their conditions. Furthermore, the people of every age will bear witness over other than them from those whose conditions they saw. Based on this, ‘Isa, peace be upon him, said: I was a witness over them for as long as I was among them.’”

Al-Qurtubi says of this verse that the intent is that he will be witness over the Kuffar of Quraysh. Then he said “it was said: the demonstrative noun is for the whole ummah,” but he alludes to this being a weak view by using the phrase “it was said.” Also he presented as proof of this view a narration that is clearly weak (as there is a majhul narrator in the chain, and it is maqtu‘ anyway).

 

Moreover, there is clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not know how all of his ummah responded:

 

First, the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam)’s repetition of ‘Isa’s statement for himself both in this world and in the afterlife, as explained above.

 

Second, verse 5:109 of the Qur’an indicates according to some interpretations that the prophets (all of them) are unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, which is why they said “We have no knowledge.” In fact, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari said in the exact place where Haddad quotes him from his commentary of Mishkat:

“This [witnessing] does not negate His statement: “the day when Allah will assemble the messengers and will say to them, “How were you responded to?” They will say, “We have no knowledge. Surely You alone have the full knowledge of all that is unseen” because response is different to conveying, and it (i.e. the response of their peoples) requires details the essence of which is comprehended only by Allah, as opposed to conveying itself which is from obvious necessary knowledge.”

 

Third, the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is told about some of the innovators from his ummah on the plains of Resurrection by the angels إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك and لا علم لك (“You do not know” and “You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you”), as recorded in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim, which is clear evidence that even after death and on the plains of resurrection, he is unaware of the actions of some of his ummah. This is also proven by the hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim which say he will only recognise his ummah by the white marks on them (ghurran muhajjalin) from the traces of wudu’ (and not from his previous knowledge of them).

 

Fourthly, in a hadith al-Tirmidhi said is “sahih,” he narrates the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: لا أراكم بعد عامي هذا (Perhaps I will not see you after this year of mine).

Fifthly, with respect to the earlier peoples, there are many verses of the Qur’an which explicitly say the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was NOT present where certain significant events happened to earlier peoples and prophets:

“And (O prophet,) you were not there at the Western side (of the mount Tur) when We delegated the matter to Musa, nor were you among those present… And you were not dwelling among the people of Madyan, reciting Our verses to them, but it is We who do send messengers. And you were not at the side of (the mount) Tur when We called (Musa)” (28:44-5)

“Nor were you among those present” – the word used for present here is “shahid.” So this verse clearly negates the meaning of shahid as being present and witnessing. And when it affirms “shahid” for him in other verses it is either according to another meaning of “witness” or restricted to those he interacted with.

Ibn Kathir says under the commentary of this verse:

أي وما كنت حاضرا لذلك ولكن الله أوحاه إليك

“You were not present (haadir) at that [event], but Allah inspired it to you.”

As Ibn Kathir mentions under the commentary of this verse, this is in fact proof of the Prophethood of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) as he was not present amongst earlier peoples, and yet related their tales. Ibn Kathir quotes similar verses:

“You were not with them when they were casting their pens (to decide) who, from among them, should be the guardian of Maryam, nor were you with them when they were quarrelling.” (3:44)

“You were not with them when they determined their object, and when they were planning devices.” (12:102)

Hence, the verses of the Qur’an explicitly state that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) was not present with Musa (‘alayhissalam), Maryam (‘alayhassalam), Shu‘ayb (‘alayhissalm) and Yusuf (‘alayhissalam) at significant events in their lives.

 

Balkay AAP Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam ke yay Hadeeth bhi dekhiyay.

 

attachicon.gif3gawa.PNG

attachicon.gifcap3333.PNG

 

Mazeed Eik aur hadeeth dekhay:

It is mentioned in Mawatta Imam Maalik:

 

attachicon.gifcapture10.PNG

 

So when Sahaba asked how will you recognise? Saadiq al-Masqood peace be upon him never said because i am witnessing and present untill the day of judgement.

 

Ab eik aur hadeeth:
 

attachicon.giflast.PNG

 

Agar AAP Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam Hazir o Nazir hay , to yay kyon farmaya kay may nay unhay nahi dekha?

 

attachicon.giffinally last.PNG

 

Bas Sabit huwa kay AAP Sallallaho Allayhi Wasallam kay liyay Shahid say har jaga Hazir o Nazir ka matlab lena ghalat hay.Wassallam.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Post: #10

 

Haq3909, on 23 Mar 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:snapback.png

...

Most of the material which you have brought up has been discussed in the following dicussion with a brother. Just visit the thread, and if you have any specific text, hadith, verse which you think is strong proof against Hadhir Nadhir please refer it to me via private message. Note I will not be dealing with copy paste jobs. I know exactly where you copied the English material from and trust me its not very impressive. For sake of your hereafter stop copy pasting material and give the brain a chance to understand the matters your self: http://www.islamimeh...-hadhir-nadhir/ Most of the material which you have copy pasted has been already been discussed in the link.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post: #11

 

 

Most of the material which you have brought up has been discussed in the following dicussion with a brother. Just visit the thread, and if you have any specific text, hadith, verse which you think is strong proof against Hadhir Nadhir please refer it to me via private message. Note I will not be dealing with copy paste jobs. I know exactly where you copied the English material from and trust me its not very impressive. For sake of your hereafter stop copy pasting material and give the brain a chance to understand the matters your self. http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/20344-discussion-hadhir-nadhir/ Most of the material which you have copy pasted has been already been discussed in the link.

 

Assalam u Alaikum,


 

No matter from where I took the material , the aqeeda is same for me and them.Please check the "Book of Funerals" hadith in my link.It is a strong proof against Hazir o Nazir. Moreover our Holy Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wasallam has himself explained the verse 143 of Surah Baqara hence presenting another Tafseer , that goes totally against it is unacceptable.Moreover I have understood the matter fully and you seem to be confusing the concept of "Ilm Ghayb" , "Hazir O nazir" and " Miracles".For e.g. you quoted the following Hadith in the above link:-

 

"Make your rows straight for I can see you behind my back"- Mishkaat, Baabu Taswiyatis-saff

 

However what you didn't understand is that this does NOT mean that he always sees what's behind in the state of Prayer.

 

attachicon.gifnewsest.PNG
 

Moreover all the Hadith which I have posted are against the concept of Hazir O Nazir i.e. Holy Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wa Sallam was unaware of some of the actions of his Ummah even uptil the day of judgement.If you disagree then please refute the above Hadith in short. Wasallam.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post: #13
 

...

 

Assalam u Alaikum,

No matter from where I took the material , the aqeeda is same for me and them.Please check the "Book of Funerals" hadith in my link.It is a strong proof against Hazir o Nazir. Moreover our Holy Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wasallam has himself explained the verse 143 of Surah Baqara hence presenting another Tafseer , that goes totally against it is unacceptable. Moreover I have understood the matter fully and you seem to be confusing the concept of "Ilm Ghayb" , "Hazir O nazir" and " Miracles".For e.g. you quoted the following Hadith in the above link:-

...

 

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave interpretation of the verse but did he negate the hearing and seeing type of witnessing? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stated people will bear witness in defence of Prophets and he will bare witness upon the people. How does that mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not hearing seeing type of witness? How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go against the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave? Comming to the point in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked the companions who recited the phrase while he was leading the prayers. Does every question indicate that one needs to gain knowledge? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asked Musa (alayhis salaam) what do you have in your hand and he replied a staff. Does that mean Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) didn't know what Musa (alayhis salaam) had in his hand and by asking Musa (alayhis salaam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) learnt that it was a staff. Or should we assume that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows everything else but Allah didn't knew Musa (alayhis salaam) was carrying a staff? The hadith of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam), when he came in the form of human and enquired about, Emaan, Ihsan, etc. When Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) left then Prophet told the companions that this was Jibraeel and he came to teach you deen. Point is some time question is not asked to gain knowledge but question is asked for other purposes. In case of Musa (alayhis salaam) it was to make Musa (alayhis salaam) realize what he was carrying. Then he was asked to throw it upon the floor and the staff turned to a snake and left the area. In case of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) he questioned Prophet (sallallahu aalyhi was'sallam) so the companions can learn about important aspects of deen. In case of Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) the question was asked so he steps up and companions recognize him and to tell him the good news how angels responded to his praiseworthy innovation. Imagine this, you live in a village and you perform prayers five times a day. In small village areas people know each other and recognize each other. It would be impossible for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) not to know and recognize the person and his voice because they live in same city and the companions performed prayers behind Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) I see at the back has i see in the front and your outward sincerity and your inner-sincerity are not conealed from me. This is state of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) all the time and we interpret evidence contrary to it in light of other examples. In this case we interpreted the questioning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in light of questioning of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Jibraeel (alayhis salaam).

Let me explain the methodology involved in interpreting, we believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows all ghayb and all that is apparent and this is fundamental belief. Therefore any evidence which indicates that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) did not know something we interpret it to conform to fundamental teaching of aqeedah so it accords the fundamental aqeedah and not refutes it. Similarly the fundamental aqeedah regarding Prophet knowledge is that he sees at the back as he sees at the front and he knows sinerity in the hearts of believers. Now any hadith which contradicts this fundamental aqeedah we interpret it to conform to teaching of Islam. Your methodology is shaytaani methodology because you are attemtping to undermine a fundamental aspect of aqeedah with indirect evidence. Why don't you undermine Allah knowing everything by point of Musa (alayhis salaam) carrying staff in his hand? You will not undermine basic aqeedah of Allah knowing evryhting with Musa (alayhis salaam) example but you are willing to and wanting to undermine the basic/fundamental aqeedah regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) by using his question as example? Foolish people like you who do not know the asool of religion engage in such foolishness. We the Muslims understand that if a verse/hadith goes against fundamental aqeedah we interpret the verse/hadith to conform to fundamental aqeedah. We the Muslims do not refute the fundamental aqeedah as a result of verse/hadith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Haq3909 Did Not Format His Response Properly Hence To Make It Easier For The Readers To Distinguish Between What I Wrote And He Wrote I Formatted It On His Behalf.

Post: #16

 

MuhammedAli, on 23 Mar 2014 - 6:52 PM, said:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave interpretation of the verse but did he negate the hearing and seeing type of witnessing? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stated people will bear witness in defence of Prophets and he will bare witness upon the people. How does that mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not hearing seeing type of witness? How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go against the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave?

 

Did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) approve of the hearing and seeing type of witnessing if not negate it? How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go in favour of the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave? I mean how can you deduce the meaning of Hazir o Nazir for the word "Shahid" from  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam')'s own Tafsir when he did not give such a meaning himself?Moreover the other hadith which i have quoted substantiates my proof of using the word, "Shahid" to mean Witness based on the previous knowledge that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received through revelation and not "Actual" witnessing in the sense that you refer to. Please read the following hadith once again.

Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 533 : Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet stood up among us and addressed (saying) "You will be gathered, barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised (as Allah says): 'As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it..' (21.104) And the first human being to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be (the Prophet) Abraham Al-Khalil. Then will be brought some men of my followers who will be taken towards the left (i.e., to the Fire), and I will say: 'O Lord! My companions whereupon Allah will say: you do not know what they did after you left them. I will then say as the pious slave, Jesus said, And I was witness over them while I dwelt amongst them...(up to) ...the All-Wise.' (5.117-118). The narrator added: Then it will be said that those people (relegated from Islam, that is) kept on turning on their heels (deserted Islam).

 

Moreover can you Quote me any major Tafseers which take the meaning of "Shahid" used in the above verses in the Hazir o Nazir sense.From most of the Tafseers which i have come across , all take the meaning of Shahid in the sense which i have stated.You need to produce strong proof to show that, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stating that people will bear witness in defence of Prophets and he will bare witness upon the people is ACTUALLY the hearing seeing type of witness and NOT the witness based on Previous Knowledge and the news that He (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received from the Holy Quran(i.e. the News that Allah Ta'ala has already foretold that the Prophets Alayhi Salam had indeed convyed the messages.)
 

Comming to the point in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked the companions who recited the phrase while he was leading the prayers. Does every question indicate that one needs to gain knowledge? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asked Musa (alayhis salaam) what do you have in your hand and he replied a staff. Does that mean Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) didn't know what Musa (alayhis salaam) had in his hand and by asking Musa (alayhis salaam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) learnt that it was a staff. Or should we assume that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows everything else but Allah didn't knew Musa (alayhis salaam) was carrying a staff? The hadith of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam), when he came in the form of human and enquired about, Emaan, Ihsan, etc. When Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) left then Prophet told the companions that this was Jibraeel and he came to teach you deen. Point is some time question is not asked to gain knowledge but question is asked for other purposes. In case of Musa (alayhis salaam) it was to make Musa (alayhis salaam) realize what he was carrying. Then he was asked to throw it upon the floor and the staff turned to a snake and left the area. In case of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) he questioned Prophet (sallallahu aalyhi was'sallam) so the companions can learn about important aspects of deen. In case of Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) the question was asked so he steps up and companions recognize him and to tell him the good news how angels responded to his praiseworthy innovation. Imagine this, you live in a village and you perform prayers five times a day. In small village areas people know each other and recognize each other. It would be impossible for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) not to know and recognize the person and his voice because they live in same city and the companions performed prayers behind Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam).

 

I remember the same type of anaology was first put up by Mufti Ahmed Yar Khan Naeemi in His Ja Alhaq and similarly by Molvi Mohammad Umar Acharvi Sahab in his Miqiyas E Hanafiyat a long time ago and you seem to follow in their footsteps.However, what you and they don't realise is that anaology cannot be used in matters of aqeedah.Maklook ko Khaliq bay bilkul bhi Qiyas nahi kiya jasakta.It is here where Shirk starts to pour in.Remember that matters related to aqeedah cannot be treated using anaology , similitudes or parables.Textual Proof and Clear evidence is a must.Now coming back to the point which you raised : Does every question indicate that one needs to gain knowledge? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asked Musa (alayhis salaam) what do you have in your hand and he replied a staff. First of all every Intellectual and Just Muslim has no doubt regarding Allah Ta'ala that He is always looking at everything and He is the All-Knower of Everything .[He knows what is in the heavens and on earth, and He knows what you conceal and what you reveal. And Allah Ta'ala is the All-Knower of what is in the breasts (of men).(Surah Al-Taghabun, 64: 4)]. Hence, when Allah Ta'ala Asks/Inquires about something , then it is definitely based on Hikmah(Wisdom) as opposed to the Prophets Alayhim Sallato Wasallam and Auliya Karam(Rehma Ulla) , regarding whome our aqeeda is that they are NOT ALIM UL GHAYB and hence they do not know in advance. However, when it is established through incisive proof that the answer to a Question that they inquired/asked about was already known to them in advance , then ONLY that particular question will be based on Hikmah and not generally all questions.Know I request to you to show me a Saheeh and Explicit Hadeeth in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked a question related to a Non-Shariah matter and he already knew the answer to it as opposed to Allah Ta'ala who already knows everything in advance.However need not to but I will still pose a hadith from which it is clearly proven that Allah Ta'ala alreadys knows in advance about something which He asks about.

 

attachicon.gifangels.PNG

Know can you show me any Saheeh and Explicit hadeeth in which the words , " وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ(he knows best)" were used for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) when he asked a question? On the contrary you will find many hadeeth in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked questions about matters that were unknown to him previously. Now lets look at the following Hadeeth:

attachicon.gifproof2.PNG

This hadith clearly shows that after the telling of the Sahaba Radiallahu Anhum , the  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallamrecognized her and the proof is " Whom Messenger of Allah knew (فَعَرَفَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم).Now can you show me any proof where Allah Ta'ala asked a question regarding something and upon receiving an answer , Allah Ta'ala knew( فَعَرَفَهَا اللَّهِ تَعَالَى) or recognized(MazAllah)?Any Quranic verse or explicit hadeeth?


Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) I see at the back has i see in the front and your outward sincerity and your inner-sincerity are not conealed from me. This is state of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) all the time and we interpret evidence contrary to it in light of other examples. In this case we interpreted the questioning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in light of questioning of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Jibraeel (alayhis salaam). Can you provide proof for your claim that this State is all the time?On the contrary we find the following hadith.

 

Narrated Um Salama: The Prophet heard the voices of some people quarreling near his gate, so he went to them and said, "I am only a human being and litigants with cases of disputes come to me, and maybe one of them presents his case eloquently in a more convincing and impressive way than the other, and I give my verdict in his favor thinking he is truthful. So if I give a Muslim's right to another (by mistake), then that (property) is a piece of Fire, which is up to him to take it or leave it." [Sahih Bukhari Book #89, Hadith#295]
 

Let me explain the methodology involved in interpreting, we believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows all ghayb and all that is apparent and this is fundamental belief. Therefore any evidence which indicates that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) did not know something we interpret it to conform to fundamental teaching of aqeedah so it accords the fundamental aqeedah and not refutes it. Similarly the fundamental aqeedah regarding Prophet knowledge is that he sees at the back as he sees at the front and he knows sinerity in the hearts of believers. Now any hadith which contradicts this fundamental aqeedah we interpret it to conform to teaching of Islam. Your methodology is shaytaani methodology because you are attemtping to undermine a fundamental aspect of aqeedah with indirect evidence. Why don't you undermine Allah knowing everything by point of Musa (alayhis salaam) carrying staff in his hand? You will not undermine basic aqeedah of Allah knowing evryhting with Musa (alayhis salaam) example but you are willing to and wanting to undermine the basic/fundamental aqeedah regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) by using his question as example? Foolish people like you who do not know the asool of religion engage in such foolishness. We the Muslims understand that if a verse/hadith goes against fundamental aqeedah we interpret the verse/hadith to conform to fundamental aqeedah. We the Muslims do not refute the fundamental aqeedah as a result of verse/hadith.

 

Can you please tell me about this fundamental aqeeda which i have highlighted in red?Can you please show me this aqeedah in the books of Aqaid? On the contrary I have quoted the above hadith.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Post: #18

 

Did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) approve of the hearing and seeing type of witnessing if not negate it? How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go in favour of the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave? I mean how can you deduce the meaning of Hazir o Nazir for the word "Shahid" from  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam')'s own Tafsir when he did not give such a meaning himself?Moreover the other hadith which i have quoted substantiates my proof of using the word, "Shahid" to mean Witness based on the previous knowledge that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received through revelation and not "Actual" witnessing in the sense that you refer to. Please read the following hadith once again.

Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 533 : Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet stood up among us and addressed (saying) "You will be gathered, barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised (as Allah says): 'As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it..' (21.104) And the first human being to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be (the Prophet) Abraham Al-Khalil. Then will be brought some men of my followers who will be taken towards the left (i.e., to the Fire), and I will say: 'O Lord! My companions whereupon Allah will say: you do not know what they did after you left them. I will then say as the pious slave, Jesus said, And I was witness over them while I dwelt amongst them...(up to) ...the All-Wise.' (5.117-118). The narrator added: Then it will be said that those people (relegated from Islam, that is) kept on turning on their heels (deserted Islam).

 

You questioned: "Did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) approve of the hearing and seeing type of witnessing if not negate it?" No Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) did not explicitly state that he will be hearing seeing type of witness in that Tafsir. And why are you even asking me this question any way? Did I claim that this Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) refutes those who say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not Hazir Nazir? You employed the Tafsir issue: "Moreover our Holy Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wasallam has himself explained the verse 143 of Surah Baqara hence presenting another Tafseer , that goes totally against it is unacceptable." to argue that a Tafsir of verse which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is Hadhir Nadhir/hearing seeing type of witness is unacceptable. It can only be unacceptable to a Muslim when the Tafsir we the Muslims present contradicts what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) interpreted. When i questioned: "Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave interpretation of the verse but did he negate the hearing and seeing type of witnessing?" Purpose was that you will realize that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has not negated the hearing seeing type of witnessing. Which you know that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has not negated this. So how can you reject the Tafsir of Muslims when it does not contradict what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has stated. How can a Tafsir of Quran which is supported by Quran be unacceptable to you when it is not in contradicting what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stated? You don't need to question me if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) proved hearing seeing type of witness from this tafsir because I didnt present it has evidence to prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is seeing hearing type of witness. I questioned you to establish the reality of the meaning of verse, to prove to you that you have rejected Prophet being Hadhir Nadhir based on evidence which does not contradict or refute Hadhir Nadhir. Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) would only refute Hadhir Nadhir if he stated he is not hearing seeing type of witness. Nature of Quran is Jawami Al Kalim meaning it is written short but has widest meanings: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim, and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand." Muhammad said, Jawami'-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet." [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141] Interpreting verses of Quran in light of other verses is not going against the interpretation of Quran. But interpreting verses of Quran in light of Quran is according to Jawami al Kalim nature of Quran. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) only gave one interpretation from Quran from the wide meanings he explained one. We cannot limit restrict to one meaning which Prophet gave. The Rawafiz - Shia they take the ahadith of cloak in whch Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) covered Hadhrat Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, Hussain (Allah be pleased with all of them) and recited the verse of tatheer. They say on basis of this that these people were the intended members of Ahli bayt and not wives of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). To prove to them that wives of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) are also Ahli Bayt what do you and what do we the Muslims do? We go back to Quran and not restrict our selves to hadith only. We quote the entire verse 33:33 and say wives are also Ahli Bayt. Just to refute the creed of Muslims you have adopted the methodology of Rawafiz. That you want to stick to hadith only and ignore the book of Allah.

Your question: "How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go in favour of the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave?" Who said it goes in favour and who presented it as evidence to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is a hearng seeing type of witness? No one, then why are you questioning me. I questioned you to establish your fault because you was using this Tafsir to refute seeing hearing type of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) saying that any tafsir other then the one in hadith is against Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) tafsir. My objective was to establish the Tafsir does not refute our aqeedah hence why would you consider anything unacceptable when it does not contradict Prophetic Tafsir. I established that Quran has many meanings a verse can be interpreted to mean many things. If our tafsir contradicts what Prophet said then you have a point but if it doesnt and which it doesnt contradict then how can you say aqeeday of hazir nazir is unacceptable.

You wrote: "I mean how can you deduce the meaning of Hazir o Nazir for the word "Shahid" from  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam')'s own Tafsir when he did not give such a meaning himself?" Here pay attention let me establish something for you. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) states in Quran: “One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] Because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be bearing witness on the day of judgment, Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has sent him to earth to be a witness with eyes, and ears, hearing and seeing: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Or are you going to argue Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a witness without eyes, ears and without the ability to hear and see? O now you can interrogate me how these two verses mean seeing hearing type of witness. Now because he was sent as a WITNESS Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) questions Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) about what the angles are arguing about. And Allah the all knower didnt ask because Allah didnt know, Allah asked for a purpose. Prophet said he doesnt know what they are arguing about. The rest read the hadith: Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted all the knowledge in earth and universe to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in an instant and then asked again but this time he knew all: He (i.e. Allah) said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? I said: Going on foot to join congregational prayers, sitting in the mosques after the prayers, performing ablution well despite difficulties. He again said: Then what do they contend? I said: In regard to the ranks. He said: What are these? I said: Providing of food, speaking gently, observing the prayer when the people are asleep. He again said to me: Beg (Your Lord) and say: O Allah, I beg of Thee (power) to do good deeds, ..." [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Mukhtasar, Prophet has been sent as a witness to earth and he has been made witness to all the events in an instant.

You wrote: "I mean how can you deduce the meaning of Hazir o Nazir for the word "Shahid" from  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam')'s own Tafsir when he did not give such a meaning himself?" To answer you question. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] First of all lets be logical and not closed and narrow minded. Lets take Shahid in meaning of Witness. A witness must possess atleast two qualities and a kamil will have three essential qualities. A witness must be hazir/present and must be able to see/nazir the events he is witness on. You are witness to the discussion we are having on IslamiMehfil because you are Hazir and because you are Nazir. If you was not Hazir as a creation as a human/Jinn/animal/insect/bird/ etc... that will mean you don't exist. Therefore two most essential qualities for a WITNESS are being HAZIR and NAZIR. In dua of Janaza the word Shahid has been used to mean opposite of ghayb - present. Dua begins, Allahum maghfirli hayyitina wa mayyitina wa shahidina wa ghaybina wa sagheerina wa kabeerina ... which means Allah forigve our alive and dead and present and absent and young and old, those who are males and females. Note here the opposite are mentioned, opposite of dead is alive, opposite of young is old, opposite of male is female, opposite of ghayb (i.e. absent) is present (i.e. Shahid). And note the word Shahid was used for the living who are present in the funeral and ghayb for those who are not. Now tell me when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) bare witness in defence of the Ambiyah will he not be present and will he not be seeing/hearing? From the Tafsir which he gave isn't it obvious that he has to be present and hearing/seeing/speaking/understanding/knowing  on the day of judgment and as result of these he will testify on the day of judgment. You claimed to have study concept of Hazir Nazir and fact is you don't know head or tail of the issue. You don't know with what part of Hazir Nazir you should agree or what you should disagree with. Pay attention to this, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) said he will bare witness on the day of judgment. This means he will be Hazir on the day of judgment and seeing, hearing, talking, speaking, answering, understanding, and defending the Prophets. Every creation which is Shahid must also be HAZIR in the creation in some form. Metaphorically speaking you are barking up the wrong tree. The issue of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in aakhirah being Hazir is not even contented by the foolish I think you are pretty reasonablly educated so why would you contend this beats me. I am ex-Deobandi my advice to you is first learn the real issue of IKHTILAF and then come to argue over it.

You wrote: "Moreover the other hadith which i have quoted substantiates my proof of using the word, "Shahid" to mean Witness based on the previous knowledge that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received through revelation and not "Actual" witnessing in the sense that you refer to. Please read the following hadith once again." It doesnt really matter if you take the word to mean Shahid or Hazir or Hazir/Nazir. The point is it can be easily established and no reasonable or rational or educated can contend with it. Shahid = Witness and witness has to be HAZIR/NAZIR. You don't even know this basic aspect and you earlier claimed that you have studied the subject. Witnessing is dependant upon two factors either you hear or you see then you can bear witness. Here the verse attests to witnessing after seeing: "He said: "It was she that sought to seduce me - from my (true) self. "And one of her household saw (this) and bore witness, (thus):- "If it be that his shirt is rent from the front, then is her tale true, and he is a liar!" [Ref: 12:26] And seeing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is stated: And say: "Do deeds! Allah will see your deeds, and (so will) his Messenger and the believers. And you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Then He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:105] There are two possible things which you may have alluded to one, angels saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam): "Don't you know what they did after you!" and this issue has thoroughly answered and explained in this dicussion: http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/19739-hadhir-nadhir-objection/ The other is the issue of Prophet Isa alayhis salaam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) saying that he will say like Prophet Isa (alayhis slaam) will say. And I will explain this issue in detail because this has not been dicussed. Question is why did Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) will say what is recorded in Hadith. When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) will ask the Prophets about what response they recieved from their Ummats the Prophets will say they have no knowledge: "[be warned of] the Day when Allah will assemble the messengers and say, "What was the response you received?" They will say, "We have no knowledge. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen" [Ref: 5:109] Question is why would the Prophets will when that they have no knowledge when they know what happened. All the Prophets will know exactly how their nations replied to them but on the day of judgment they will say THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) when he comes back the second time he will know exactly what his Ummah did after him. He will read the Quran and he will learn that people have made him into a god and a son of god. Yet on the day of judgment all the Prophets will say we have no knowledg. Will they be lieing to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala)? They will deny their own knowledge due to humility. They know exactly what happened but the one asking is Allah the Rabb of Alameen, the Knower of Ghayb and the Shahada, therefore they in humility and in submission and in respect and honor of Allah will say o Allah we have no knowledge you o Allah know everything you are the knower of Ghayb. It is established that Prophets were not lieing but they were being humble and respectful to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) by denying their own knowledge. We will come back to this topic of saying of Isa (alayhis salaam) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam).

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is reported to have said that deeds of believers are presented to him: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you. [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] Bakr bin ‘Abdullah (رضي الله عنه) also reported that the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2: 194); ‘Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma‘-uz-zawa’id (9:24)] In addition to this the already quoted ahadith establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was shown everything: "Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Now when it is established that deeds are presented to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) therefore he would indeed know what has happened after him. And he also was given the power to see everything as the ahadit of Tirmadhi indicate. Also Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) seeing the deeds of people is proven from these two verses "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] These two verses prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a witness to see/hear about the deeds which he will bear witness about. With all this evidence now we go back to hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will say like Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam): "Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, "You will be gathered (on the Day of Judgment), bare-footed, naked and not circumcised." He then recited:--'As We began the first creation, We, shall repeat it: A Promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it.' (21:104) He added, "The first to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection, will be Abraham, and some of my companions will be taken towards the left side (i.e. to the (Hell) Fire), and I will say: 'My companions! My companions!' It will be said: 'They renegade from Islam after you left them.' Then I will say as the Pious slave of Allah (i.e. Jesus) said. 'And I was a witness Over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up You were the Watcher over them, And You are a witness to all things. If You punish them. They are Your slaves And if You forgive them, Verily you, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (5.120-121) [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H568] "Narrted Ibn Abbas: Allah's Apostle said, "You will be resurrected (and assembled) bare-footed, naked and uncircumcised." The Prophet then recited the Divine Verse:-- "As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it: A promise We have undertaken. Truly we shall do it." (21.104) He added, "The first to be dressed will be Abraham. Then some of my companions will take to the right and to the left. I will say: 'My companions! 'It will be said, 'They had been renegades since you left them.' I will then say what the Pious Slave Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them; when You did take me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if you forgive them, You, only You are the All-Mighty the All-Wise.' " (5.117-118) Narrated Quaggas, "Those were the apostates who renegade from Islam during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who fought them." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H656] It is clearly establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is witness upon the actions and deeds of people but the two ahadith prove contrary to the established fact. So is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) lieing about being shown everything and deeds being presented to him and did Allah die about sendin Prophet has a witness? Answer is emphatic no, all of these facts are true and fundamental part of aqeedah of Muslims and we the Muslims make no Taweel of fundamental aqeedah based on circumstantial or implicit evidence. Just as we the Muslims will not accept Allah being Trinity on basis of plurals such as We, Us, Our which are found in Quran and used by Allah for himself. Point is here Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be using the words of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) while adopting humility and submissiveness of Hadhrat Isa (alayhis salaam). Here he will be immitating the humility and humility and the words will not indicate his reality. If one argues the word will indicate the reality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) then my argument is was Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) raised like Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam)? Isa (alayhis salaam) was taken up this is why he will say: "... when you did take me up you were the witness ..." but what about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam)? Was he taken up and will he return like Isa (alayhis salaam)? Point here is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be emulating a Sunnah of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) like we the Muslims emulate the Sunnah of Ibrahim (alayhis salaam). Like we emulate the Sunnah of Hajirah (alayhis salaam) the mother of Ishmaeel (alayhis salaam) by running on the two mountains doing Sai on the Hajj. Like we emulate her Sunnah and stone the Jamras during Hajj. These actions in reality are of other people and they have no real connection with us nor there is actual need to stone or do these things apart from symbolical and worship perspective in our Sharia. We just emulate the actions because we are instructed to. Similarly Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will emulate the SUNNAH OF PROPHET ISA (ALAYHIS SALAAM) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING HUMILITY TO ALLAH (SUBHANAHU WA TA'ALA) while in reality the words will have no connection with his own actual state. You may say, ARE YOU SAYING PROPHET WILL TELL A LIE? I say didn't the Quran say when Allah asked the Prophets how the Ummats recieved them and they will all say we have no knowledge. Will they then be lieing? Nope, humility and I say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) show humility and respect by adopting the Sunnah of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam).

[To Be Continued ...]

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post: #19

 

Moreover can you Quote me any major Tafseers which take the meaning of "Shahid" used in the above verses in the Hazir o Nazir sense.From most of the Tafseers which i have come across , all take the meaning of Shahid in the sense which i have stated.You need to produce strong proof to show that, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stating that people will bear witness in defence of Prophets and he will bare witness upon the people is ACTUALLY the hearing seeing type of witness and NOT the witness based on Previous Knowledge and the news that He (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received from the Holy Quran(i.e. the News that Allah Ta'ala has already foretold that the Prophets Alayhi Salam had indeed convyed the messages.)

 

I don't think anyone with an ounce of brain will contest that Shahid means is one who is Hazir as well as Nazir. This is so basic and it was so undisputed that I doubt anyone ever even concieved challenging this prior to emergence of Wahhabism in India and Deobandism. In Taskeen al Khawatir Fi Masla Hadhir wa Nazir, the refferences are presented: http://www.mediafire.com/download/it10o181lsylm8k/taskeenul+khwater.pdf Is there any stronger proof then these two verses which prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] These two verses talk about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) being sent as a witness upon the earth as a human. Allah (subhanhu wa ta'ala) states: "Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you as a Messenger to mankind, and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness." [Ref: 4:79] This is also attested in the Hadith of Muslim: Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon hlmg) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship;I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me. [Ref: Muslim B4, H1062] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) being sent as a witness to entire mankind is established and his seeing their deeds and actions is established because he was sent as a witness with eyes, ears, which posesses super natural abilities. He saw at the back as he saw at the front and from him not even the sincerity in the hearts was concealed. Allah showed him everything and he came to know everything instantly, he became witness upon entire mankind because he was sent as a witness. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) being sent as a witness is like I or anyone else goes to a religious convention as a WITNESS. Or I am or anyone else is sent as a WITNESS. If i am sent as a witness to a convention  will I not see the events taking place? Will I not hear the events taking place? Me going there as a witness and being a WITNESS means that I see and i ge to hear the events at the convention. You agree? So when Allah the all mighty sent his Prophet as a WITNESS to entire mankind do you think he sent the Rehmatal Lil Alameen AS A BLIND DEAF DUMB? Where is your brain? We Muslims call you to Islam, will you then not accept Islam, when it is so clear and irrefutable?

Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard. You have used qiyaas to infer this non-sense. There is only proof that Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'salam) will bare witness based on what they were told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam): “... ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’ That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] The underlined proves that Ummah will bare witness on account of being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran? You have deduced based on Qiyas that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the knowledge he has recieved from Quran. There is not a single hadith or verse of Quran which states this.

You may present the following Hadith to argue that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) ko ilm nahin hoga keun kay un ka farmaan heh: "It states that when this verse was recited then Prophet peace be upon him shivered and said "O Allah I am witness upon the people in which i am (living). How can I be witness of those to whom I have not seen?" [Ref: Tafseer Ibn Abi Haatim 3/956, Tabrani is Mojam alKabeer 19/243, Wahidi in his Tafseer 2/55, Abu Nuyeem in Muarifa tul Sahaba no: 63] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is asking question this does not mean he won't be able to see its just a question to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). In answer to this question Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) showed him everything like Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) showed everything to Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salaam): "Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] So Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) informed him how he will be able to bare witness on those he does not see. Imam Qastallani (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala) records: "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia] I rest my case on these that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asking Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) about he will bare witness on those he has not yet seen does not mean he was not given the knowledge and shown everything.

[ To Be Continued ...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post: #21

Your wrote: "I remember the same type of anaology was first put up by Mufti Ahmed Yar Khan Naeemi in His Ja Alhaq and similarly by Molvi Mohammad Umar Acharvi Sahab in his Miqiyas E Hanafiyat a long time ago and you seem to follow in their footsteps." Stating that I have followed the footsteps of Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat is no sufficent ground to reject what I have presented. I presume you intended to refute the creed of Muslims by writing the above because Wahhabi's and Deobandi's both are conditioned to refute the Ahle Sunnat by arguing you are only following ancestors. Commonly these verses are employed to argue against following the religion of ancestors: "Then have they not reflected over the Qur'an, or has there come to them that which had not come to their forefathers?" [Ref: 23:68]  "And when it is said to them, "follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?" [Ref: 2:170] These verses were revealed regarding the polytheists of Makkah the disbelievers of Makkah and Arabian Peninsula in general. Applying the text of these verses upon Muslims and refuting their belief by association with ancestors is irreligious. Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta'ala anhu) has reported stated: “... and the Mulhidun (heretical) after the establishment of firm proof against them:"And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' [9:115] And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers." [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing The Khawari] Now Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is reported to have said: "Abu Hurayrah said, “The Prophet said, ‘There will be “dajjals” and liars among my Ummah. They will tell you something new, which neither you nor your forefathers have heard. Be on your guard against them, and do not let them lead you astray.’” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad] This establishes that people will come and invent lies which the Muslims in previous generations have not heard before. And by default this establishes chain of a particular aqeedah, if what i narrate is narrated by previous generation and they narrate by what was narrated by previous generation and each generation narrates what it heard from previous then eventually the sanad of creed will go back to a Sahabi and even back to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Hence following the ancestors i.e. scholars of past is nothing negative in fact it is a tool with which authenticity of a creed or concept is established. If what I have written is mentioned by the Ulamah of past then praise be to Allah who guided me to Islam and guided me to correct understanding which is testified by those who succeeded me.

You wrote: "However, what you and they don't realise is that anaology cannot be used in matters of aqeedah.Maklook ko Khaliq bay bilkul bhi Qiyas nahi kiya jasakta.It is here where Shirk starts to pour in.Remember that matters related to aqeedah cannot be treated using anaology, similitudes or parables.Textual Proof and Clear evidence is a must." I am absolutely astonished at this statement of yours. Did you even understand what you wrote? Where did I make analogy on matter of aqeedah? What was the analogy in matter of aqeedah? If I had written: "Allah sees and like Allah Prophet sees" then if you wrote i am making analogy with Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) seeing and between Allah's (subhanahu wa ta'ala) seeing and then if you said from this shirk pours in then I would understand. Give you benefit of the doubt that you have misunderstood because my lack of writting. But I made no Qiyas and no analogy between Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). I didnt say, Allah knows all therefore  Prophet knows all, I didnt say, Prophet is Hazir Nazir  because Allah is Hazir and Nazir, i didn't say the way Allah is Hazir Nazir in the same way Prophet is Hazir Nazir. If I said something like this then at least your comment about me drawing analogy and your comment about Shirk pouring would be understood. I stated no such a thing and you have grossly and senslessly wrote which has no connection with what I written. Briefly, i wrote there is fundamental aqeedah which is essential to be Muslim and evidence that goes against it or something which insinuates something againsts that aqeedah we harmonize it so it accords the fundamental aqeedah. Then I wrote fundamental aqeedah in reqards to Prophet is that he saw front back and new sincerity of hearts. Then the evidence which you presented to refute it I harmonized it as per the mentioned rule. There is no analogy between Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) or Prophet (sallallahu alyhi was'sallam) in this. The commonality is of principle, we have a fundamental aqeedah and we explain all evidence against this fundamental evidence in ways which removes the contradiction. Let me illustrate the point with another example, we the Muslims believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is not dead but he was raised and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) died. These two are our fundamental creeds, do you agree! In this Hadith which you also presented in post three from Sunnah.com. It is written that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) wil say like Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam): "...  will take to the right and to the left. I will say: 'My companions! 'It will be said, 'They had been renegades since you left them.' I will then say what the Pious Slave Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them; when You did take me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if you ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H656] Please take note of underlined Qadiyani's argue on the basis of this Hadith that if Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is alive and taken up to heaven then here too tawaf-faytani means taking up  which means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was-sallam) did not also die but was raised to heaven. Or they argue if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is dead and he used this same word and it will mean that he died then why is Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) thought to be alive. We the Muslims defend the death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and raising of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) alive and interpret the hadith in a fashion that it supports both fundamental creeds i.e. death of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and raising alive of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam). Point was that we defend the fundamental creeds from evidence which does not conform to the fundamental creeds even if the evidence seems to contradict it. I cannot comprehend how you managed to lay the foundation of qiyas between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and then write this. There was no qiyas being made I merely established and stated the principle of; explaining the evidence in a way that it conforms to fundamental creed, and no sane person would even contest this leave alone lecture me about qiyas and pouring of Shirk. Creed of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) being hearing, seeing type of Witness and his being sent as hearing, seeing type of Witness has been firmly established with clear and explicit Quranic evidences.

You wrote: "Now coming back to the point which you raised: Does every question indicate that one needs to gain knowledge? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asked Musa (alayhis salaam) what do you have in your hand and he replied a staff. First of all every Intellectual and Just Muslim has no doubt regarding Allah Ta'ala that He is always looking at everything and He is the All-Knower of Everything .[ He knows what is in the heavens and on earth, and He knows what you conceal and what you reveal. And Allah Ta'ala is the All-Knower of what is in the breasts (of men).(Surah Al-Taghabun, 64: 4) ]. Hence, when Allah Ta'ala Asks/Inquires about something, then it is definitely based on Hikmah (Wisdom) as opposed to the Prophets Alayhim Sallato Wasallam and Auliya Karam (Rehma Ulla), regarding whom our aqeeda is that they are NOT ALIM UL GHAYB and hence they do not know in advance. However, when it is established through incisive proof that the answer to a Question that they inquired/asked about was already known to them in advance, then ONLY that particular question will be based on Hikmah and not generally all questions." Concerning bold part, the creed of Deobandi's regarding Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) does not not until humans act. Maulvi Hussain Ali the student of Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi writes in his Tafsir Balaghatul Hiraan: "And human is independant to perform good deeds or not and Allah does not know before hand what [humans] will do. Instead Allah knows after they act and verse of Quran like ..." The Urdu quotes with scans be seen here: http://www.falaah.co...ulghatul-hairan Firstly, you are writting something which is not established from your elders. Considering one Deobandi intellectual has emphatically attributed ignorance to Allah until after the event has taken place, how definate are you that when Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asks its based on Wisdom and not based on ignorance. Now incase you choose to say; 'I don't believe that!' you will then have to atleast issue of edict of Takfir or declare the statement of Maulvi Hussain Ali is Kufr. You have stated that only after clear proof establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) then you will state that questioning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was based on Hikmah. I would purpose that a righteous believer will only assume that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) doesnt know something when there is clear explicit proof in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) clearly and emphatically declared that he did not know this when he said this or that. It would be unjust to declare that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) didn't know something based on a question because the possibility of knowing and not knowing there. Also absence of clear explicit proof for knowing something is not criteria of not knowing. Imam Bukhari wrote he knew over 600'000 but he chose 100'000 for his Bukhari. Could it not be that narrations were not passed on to us and left like Imam Bukhari left near 500'000 Ahadith. Just take the knowledge of  haroof al muqat'at there is no single narrations regarding their meaning in books of Ahadith which we possess. Based on this fact should we assume these are meaningless? Let's be sensible and not make absence of clear, explicit evidence as a evidence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) not knowing something. The possibility of knowing it but not declaring it on command of Allah is established from the verse of Quran: "Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, Taught to him by one intense in strength." [Ref: 53:2/5] Belief of Muslims is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gained perfect knowledge of Al Lawh Al Mahfooz when the entire Quran was revealed. Then all which was in Al Lawh Al Mahfooz was known by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and there is no gaurantee of knowing everything or somethings before this. Ahle Sunnat generally interpret all questions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in light of Akmaliat e Ilm of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). This Akmaliat of knowledge is also affirmed by Imam Busairi (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala) who wrote: fa inna min joodi qad dunya wa dar rataha wa min uloomika huwal lawh wal kalami. The burden of proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) rests upon who wishes to refute that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) didn't know and thats why he questioned. We the Muslims have established that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) sees behind as he saw the front and from him the sincerity of hearts was not hidden. It was you who brought the Hadith to contradict the fundamental belief of Muslims therefore its upon you to establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) did not knew who it was who recited the hamd and it was for this reason he asked.Your responsibility is to quote a hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has stated I am not always seeing at the back as I see at the front and I do not always know the sincerity in the hearts of believers. What you presented was a question and on that you made QIYAS that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) did not know. I only merely criticised your evidence and pointed flaws in your evidence and established  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has stated that he sees at the back as he sees the front and sincerity of hearts is not concealed from him and if his state had changed he would have declared it as he declared his seeing back/front and sincerity.

You wrote: "Know I request to you to show me a Saheeh and Explicit Hadeeth in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked a question related to a Non-Shariah matter and he already knew the answer to it as opposed to Allah Ta'ala who already knows everything in advance. However need not to but I will still pose a hadith from which it is clearly proven that Allah Ta'ala alreadys knows in advance about something which He asks about." ... Know can you show me any Saheeh and Explicit hadeeth in which the words , " وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ(he knows best)" were used for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) when he asked a question? On the contrary you will find many hadeeth in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked questions about matters that were unknown to him previously." What you have asked here is not really important because we the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat do not believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) knew everything before the Akmaliat of his knowledge. We believe his knowledge was perfected when the last verse of Quran was revealed to him. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) knew everything which is in Lawh Al Mahfooz. To refute our aqeedah you need to quote those Ahadith which are about incidents which happened after the Quran was completed. Please read the following two articles they explain my methodology:

- http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/22039-qull-ghayb-knowledge-of-lawh-mahfooz-al-qalam-known-to-rasoolallah/

- http://www.islamimeh...of-rasoolallah/

I have entrusted brother Saad Qadri with my articles I had to upload them due to emergency requirement.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post: #26

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Dear MohammadAli,

I will mostly ignore the first portion of your discussion since you weren't able to get the gist of my argument however I will address a few points which you have put forth.You said :"Who said it goes in favour and who presented it as evidence to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is a hearng seeing type of witness? No one, then why are you questioning me. I questioned you to establish your fault because you was using this Tafsir to refute seeing hearing type of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) saying that any tafsir other then the one in hadith is against Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) tafsir. My objective was to establish the Tafsir does not refute our aqeedah hence..." Now let me remind you who said it goes in favour. Its actually your Mullahs and whole of the deviant barelwi sect that use the "Shaheed" verses and its tafseer to prove that   Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam)  will bear witness on the Day of Resurrection because He was present and seeing all the previous Ambiya (Alayhi Salam) and their nations.[please refer to JaAlhaq and Taskeen al Kawathir]Then how does the tafseer presented by Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) NOT refute your aqeedah?I will In Sha' Allah address this issue in the next part of my argument in much more detail since you basics are not clear regarding the difference of being a Witness to an event and being actually PRESENT at that event.These two things are NOT the same.

 

You wrote: "Here pay attention let me establish something for you. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) states in Quran: “One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] Because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be bearing witness on the day of judgment, Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has sent him to earth to be a witness with eyes, and ears, hearing and seeing: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Or are you going to argue Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a witness without eyes, ears and without the ability to hear and see? O now you can interrogate me how these two verses mean seeing hearing type of witness. Now because he was sent as a WITNESS Allah..." 

 

Then again a little further , you said : "To answer you question. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] First of all lets be logical and not closed and narrow minded. Lets take Shahid in meaning of Witness. A witness must possess atleast two qualities and a kamil will have three essential qualities. A witness must be hazir/present and must be able to see/nazir the events he is witness on. You are witness to the discussion we are having on IslamiMehfil because you are Hazir and because you are Nazir. If you was not Hazir as a creation as a human/Jinn/animal/insect/bird/ etc... that will mean you don't exist. Therefore two most essential qualities for a WITNESS are being HAZIR and NAZIR. Now tell me when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) bare witness in defence of the Ambiyah will he not be present and will he not be seeing/hearing? From the Tafsir which he gave isn't it obvious that he has to be present and hearing/seeing/speaking/understanding/knowing  on the day of judgment and as result of these he will testify on the day of judgment. You claimed to have study concept of Hazir Nazir and fact is you don't know head or tail of the issue. You don't know with what part of Hazir Nazir you should agree or what you should disagree with. Pay attention to this, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) said he will bare witness on the day of judgment. This means he will be Hazir on the day of judgment and seeing, hearing, talking, speaking, answering, understanding, and defending the Prophets. Every creation which is Shahid must also be HAZIR in the creation in some form. Metaphorically speaking you are barking up the wrong tree. The issue of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in aakhirah being Hazir is not even contented by the foolish I think you are pretty reasonablly educated so why would you contend this beats me. I am ex-Deobandi my advice to you is first learn the real issue of IKHTILAF and then come to argue over it."

 

Now please read the Bold and Underlined portion of your argument atleast thrice because you have displayed complete ignorance.I wasn't expecting this from someone of your caliber however it's not your fault since you were TAUGHT this.The reason why you people have mixed up this Hazir O Nazir concept is that you think a person MUST be present and see the events he is witness on i.e. you think a person MUST be present and seeing at a crime scene in order to testify in the court however this is NOT true in this case.Now i am going to provide you with two Ahadith which will In Sha' Allah clear your concept.

 

Narrated Uncle of Umarah ibn Khuzaymah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) bought a horse from a Bedouin. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) took him with him to pay him the price of his horse. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) walked quickly and the Bedouin walked slowly. The people stopped the Bedouin and began to bargain with him for the horse as and they did not know that the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) had bought it. The Bedouin called the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) saying: If you want this horse, (then buy it), otherwise I shall sell it. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) stopped when he heard the call of the Bedouin, and said: Have I not bought it from you? The Bedouin said: I swear by Allah, I have not sold it to you. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Yes, I have bought it from you. The Bedouin began to say: Bring a witness. Khuzaymah ibn Thabit then said: I bear witness that you have bought it. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) turned to Khuzaymah and said: On what (grounds) do you bear witness? He said: By considering you trustworthy, Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)! The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) made the witness of Khuzaymah equivalent to the witness of two people.  (Abu Dawood Book #24, Hadith #3600)
✔It is clear that Khuzaymah bin Thabit was NOT present at that time but still he bore witness by considering Prophet peace be upon him as a trustworthy person.
 
Now coming to the Next hadith:
 
Narrated Ibn Abbas R.A. from Tamim Ad-Dari, regarding this Ayah: O you who believe! When death approaches any of you then take the testimony (5:106). He said: "The people are innocent of it, other than myself and 'Adi bin Badda.' We were Christians who used to frequent Ash-Sham before Islam." They went to Ash-Sham for their business, and they were approached by a freed slave of Banu Sahm, who was called Budail bin Abi Maryam, with some trade. He had a bowl they wanted made of silver, but he wanted a great deal for it. Then he became ill, and willed it to them, and he commissioned them to deliver what was left to his family. Tamim said: "When he died, we took that bowl and we sold it for one-thousand Dirham. Then 'Adi bin Badda and I divided it. When we went to his family to give them what was with us, they searched for the bowl and asked about it. We said: 'He did not leave behind other than this, nor did he give us other than this.'" Tamim said: "When I accepted Islam, after the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had arrived in Al-Madinah, I felt guilty about that, so I went to his family, and informed them about what had happened. I gave them fifty-thousand Dirham and told them my companion had the same. They took him to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) but he asked them for their proof, which they did not have, so he ordered them, to have him to take an oath in accordance with whatever the people of his religion revered, so he took the oath. Then Allah revealed: 'O you who believe! When death approaches any of you then take the testimony...' up to His saying: 'Or else they would fear that oaths will be admitted after their oaths (5:106).'" So 'Amr bin Al-'As and another man stood to take an oath, and the fifty-thousand Dirham was taken from 'Adi bin Badda.'"(Tirmidhi, Book 47 , Hadith 3336)

✔It is clear that Amr bin Al-'As and another man were NOT present nor had they seen the incident but yet they bore witness and testified by considering Prophet peace be upon him as a trustworthy person.
 
Now ofcourse Prophet (Sallalho Alayhi Wa Sallam) WILL be present and seeing on the Day of Judgement and will also bear witness that the earlier prophets convyed the messages and NEVER did I deny this fact , however this bearing witness will not be based on Him actually being present , hearing and seeing all the previous nations and events in the world but will rather be based on the knowledge he has received from revelation (i.e. Quran) and even you have admitted this fact in one of your article where you saidRasoolAllah will bare witness against previous nations, and his nation, hence Allah gave him book which explains to him everything about past present, and future nations, so by knowing the material of the book he would know exactly what had happened in past, and will happen in future, this is how his witnessing is truthful and will be accepted by Allah.   This is EXACTLY the belief of the deobandis. However in this thread , you said :

 

"Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard. You have used qiyaas to infer this non-sense. There is only proof that Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'salam) will bare witness based on what they were told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam): “... ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message. That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] The underlined proves that Ummah will bare witness on account of being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran? You have deduced based on Qiyas that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the knowledge he has recieved from Quran. There is not a single hadith or verse of Quran which states this.

 

You have severely and clearly contradicted yourself in your aqeeda. You yourself are not clear in your aqeeda. Now I advice you to learn the real issue of IKTHILAF and then come to argue instead of blaming me. Alhamdullillah I am sure about my aqeedah. Moreover ,  how does this hadith prove that Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam will NOT bare witness based on the knowledge he has recieved from Quran?Cn you show me a single hadith or ayat of the Quran which shows that the witness will be based on actually having seen the previous nations and not based on previous knowledge recieved via revelation?Moreover i will post some hadith later on which SUPPORT my stance i.e. the witness has to be based on previous knowledge.

 

Furthermore you said :"There are two possible things which you may have alluded to one, angels saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam): "Don't you know what they did after you!" and this issue has thoroughly answered and explained in this dicussion: http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/19739-hadhir-nadhir-objection/ ". I was following this discussion from the beginning and no where does it answer my questions up to the very end. Rather it would be better if we undertood this hadith in the light of the great Islamic scholars.First lets look at the different versions of the hadith:
 
Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount (al-Hawd), and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."[bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584]
 
Another hadith says:"And, behold! some persons of my Ummah would be brought and taken to the left and I would say: My Lord, they are my companions, and it would be said: You do not know what they did after you, and I would say just as the pious servant (Hadrat 'Isa) said: "I was a witness regarding them as I remained among them and Thou art a witness over everything, so if Thou chastisest them, they are Thy servants and if Thou forgivest them, Thou art Mighty, Wise" (v. 117-118). And it would be said to him: They constantly turned to their heels since you left them. This Hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Waki' and Mu'adh (and the words are): "What new things they fabricated."[ Sahih Muslim Book 040, Number 6847]
 
Imam Nawawi says:
والثاني : أن المراد من كان في زمن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ثم ارتد بعده ، فيناديهم النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وإن لم يكن عليهم سيما الوضوء لما كان يعرفه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - في حياته من إسلامهم فيقال : ارتدوا بعدك ،
The second (saying): The people meant are those who (were Muslim) at the time of the Prophet (saw) then became apostate after him, and the Prophet (saw) will call them even if they did not have the marks of Wudhu as he knew them to be upon Islam in his life, and he will be told: they turned apostate after you.[Commentary of Sahih Muslim under the hadith 247]

 

Mulla Ali Al-Qari wrote in his “Mirqat” v 10 p 227 about this Hadith:
“The Prophet further said: "I will say those people are from me” meaning from my community or my companions. “It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you'” from apostasy, as sins do not prevent from coming to the Hawd and drinking from its water. “Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me!" meaning after my death or after accepting my religion and entering my community”

 

Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in “Fath ul Bari” Kitab Riqaq Bab Kayfa Al-Hashr: 
“Firabri said that it is mentioned from Abi Abdillah Al-Bukhari from Qabisah that these (people) are those who became apostate at time of Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr fought them, meaning until they were killed and died on disbelief. Al-Isma’ili brought a full Isnad of that trough another way from Qabisah. Al-Khattabi said that none of the Sahabah did became apostate, only some hard Bedouins bringing no help to religion did became apostate, and this does not bring any blame on the famous Sahabah… 
And others said : the disbelief is on its apparent meaning, and the meaning of “my Ummah” is the Ummah of Da’wah (the community addressed by the Prophet (saw), meaning all mankind including disbelievers) and not the Ummah of Ijabah (the community who believed in the Prophet saw, meaning our community), and this is given precedence because of his saying in the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah : “Then I would say to them go away (Suhqan)” and this is also strengthened by the fact that their situation remained hidden to him, and if they were from Ummah of Ijabah, then he would know their situation as their actions are presented to him. 
And this (view) is refuted by his saying in the Hadith of Anas: “until I recognized them” (‘araftuhum) and the same in the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah. 
 
So the Prophet (saw) did recognize them, so they could not be disbelievers, rather were people he knew, and he did not know what they did after him.

Imam Abu 'Abdillah Al-Qurtubi (author of the famous Tafsir) said in his “Tazkirah fi Ahwalil Mowta wal Akhirah” after quoting the Ahadith of Al-Hawd: “Chapter: Our scholar, may Allah’s mercy be on them all, have stated: Whoever apostasies from the religion of Allah or innovates in it what displeases Allah and what Allah did not legislate, they will be pushed away and distanced from it, and the most pushed away are those who oppose the Jama’ah of Muslims and separate from their way, as the Khawarij with their difference in sects, the Rawafid with their difference in misguidance, and the Mu’tazilah with their categories of passion, all of them are people who have brought change (to the religion). And this is also the case for the darkness of people involved in tyranny and oppression and discredit of the truth and killing those who support the truth and their humiliation. The same for those who commit major sins openly and exceed the bounds in sins and the group of people of deviation and desire and innovation. Then the distance can be in a state then they can approach it after forgiveness if it is a change in actions and not in beliefs. And on this supposition, they will be recognized (by the Prophet) by the marks of their Wudhu, and then they will be told: May you perish. And if they are among hypocrites that were present at time of the Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam and they were showing faith and hiding disbelief, then he will consider them on Zahir (evident actions) and then their covers (real states) will be uncovered (to him) and he will say to them : May you perish.
 
None of the scholars above said that the Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam knew their true conditions, some said they are apostate and the Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam will recognize them according to what he knew of them being Muslim when he was alive, or they are hypocrites and the Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam will call them according to their apparent state, and he did not know their inner state, or these people are innovators and sinners the Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam will recognize them by their marks of Wudhu, or some few even said they are apostates and hypocrites, yet they will still have marks by which they will be recognized. So all of these scholars agree that the Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam was NOT aware of these people's apostatsy or innovations. 
 
Moreover have a look at the following Ahadith: Anas reported that a person was charged with fornication with the slavegirl of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ali: Go and strike his neck. 'Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. 'Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat 'Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him.[ Sahih Muslim Chapter 11, Book 37, Number 6676] Imam Nawawi made the chapter with the name of "THE EXONERATION OF THE SLAVEGIRL OF ALLAH'S APOSTLE (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM) FROM A FALSE CHARGE"

So here we come to know that Prophet peace be upon him was not witnessing or Present that is why Prophet peace be upon him did not know about the case of slave girl. Next hadith clears this issue. When Ali R.A. told Prophet peace be upon him that he has not sexual organ, Prophet peace be upon him said to Ali R.A:
 
الشاهد يرى ما لا يرى الغائب
The absent can not see what the witness see. [Musnad Ahmad 1/83, Ziaa in al-Mukhtarah 1/248, Silsilah as-Saheeha no: 1904]

It is mentioned in a hadith that Narrated An-Nu'man bin Bashir: My mother asked my father to present me a gift from his property; and he gave it to me after some hesitation. My mother said that she would not be satisfied unless the Prophet was made a witness to it. I being a young boy, my father held me by the hand and took me to the Prophet . He said to the Prophet, "His mother, bint Rawaha, requested me to give this boy a gift." The Prophet said, "Do you have other sons besides him?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Do not make me a witness for injustice." Narrated Ash-Shabi that the Prophet said, "I will not become a witness for injustice." (Bukhari Book #48, Hadith #818)


According to this hadith mentioned in Bukhari it is clear that Prophet peace be upon him will NOT become witness for injustice.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) having said this: Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people, and the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make their husbands incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the bukht camel inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be smelt from such and such distance.[sahih Muslim 2128]

The Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam clearly states that He has NOT seen them.

Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to the burial grounds and said, "peace be upon you, home of a people who believe! We shall be among you, Allah willing. I wish that I had seen our brothers!" The people with him said, "Messenger of Allah! Are we not your brothers?" "No," he said, "you are my companions. Our brothers are those who have not yet come. And I will precede them to the Hawd. (The Hawd: the watering place of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, from which he will give to the people of his community on the day of rising.)" They asked him, "Messenger of Allah! How will you recognise those of your community who come after you?" He said, "Doesn't a man who has horses with white legs and white blazes on their foreheads among totally black horses recognise which ones are his own?" They said, "Of course, Messenger of Allah." He went on, "Even so will they come on the day of rising with white marks on their foreheads, hands and feet from wudu, and I will precede them to the Hawd. Some men will be driven away from the Hawd as if they were straying camels and I shall call out to them, 'Will you not come? Will you not come? Will you not come?' and someone will say, 'They changed things after you,' so I shall say, 'Then away with them, away with them, away with them!' "  (Mawatta Maalik, Book #2, Hadith #2629)

The Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam clearly states that He has NOT seen them.

 

Quran also rejects the idea of Prophet peace be upon him being present and watching, Allah says in Surah al-Qasas addressing the Prophet peace be upon him (44. And you were not on the western side (of the Mount), when We made clear to Musa the commandment, and you were not among the witnesses.) (45. But We created generations, and long were the ages that passed over them. And you were not a dweller among the people of Madyan, reciting Our Ayat to them. But it is We Who kept sending (Messengers).) (46. And you were not at the side of At-Tur when We called. But (you are sent) as a mercy from your Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before you, in order that they may remember or receive admonition.)

 
Ibn Katheer commented: Similarly, Allah told him about Maryam and her story, as Allah said: (You were not with them, when they cast lots with their pens as to which of them should be charged with the care of Maryam; nor were you with them when they disputed) (3:44), meaning, `you were not present then, but Allah has revealed this to you.' Similarly, Allah told him about Nuh and his people, and how He saved Nuh and drowned his people, then He said: (This is of the news of the Unseen which We reveal unto you ; neither you nor your people knew it before this. So, be patient. Surely, the (good) end is for those who have Taqwa) (11:49). And at the end of the same Surah (Hud) Allah says: (That is some of the news of the towns which We relate unto you) (11: 100). And here, after telling the story of Musa from beginning to end and how Allah began His revelation to him and spoke with him, Allah says: (And you were not on the western side (of the Mount), when We made clear to Musa the commandment,) meaning, `you -- O Muhammad -- were not on the western side of the mountain where Allah spoke to Musa from the tree which was to the east of it, in the valley.' (and you were not among the witnesses.) `to that event, but Allah has revealed this to you,' so that it may be evidence and proof of events which happened centuries ago, for people have forgotten the evidence that Allah established against them and what was revealed to the earlier Prophets.(And you were not a dweller among the people of Madyan, reciting Our Ayat to them.) meaning, `you were not living among the people of Madyan reciting Our Ayat to them, when you started to tell about Our Prophet Shu`ayb and what he said to his people and how they responded.'
 
Then you said : Question is why did Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) will say what is recorded in Hadith. When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) will ask the Prophets about what response they recieved from their Ummats the Prophets will say they have no knowledge: "[be warned of] the Day when Allah will assemble the messengers and say, "What was the response you received?" They will say, "We have no knowledge. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen" [Ref: 5:109] Question is why would the Prophets will when that they have no knowledge when they know what happened. All the Prophets will know exactly how their nations replied to them but on the day of judgment they will say THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) when he comes back the second time he will know exactly what his Ummah did after him. He will read the Quran and he will learn that people have made him into a god and a son of god. Yet on the day of judgment all the Prophets will say we have no knowledg. Will they be lieing to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala)? They will deny their own knowledge due to humility. They know exactly what happened but the one asking is Allah the Rabb of Alameen, the Knower of Ghayb and the Shahada, therefore they in humility and in submission and in respect and honor of Allah will say o Allah we have no knowledge you o Allah know everything you are the knower of Ghayb. It is established that Prophets were not lieing but they were being humble and respectful to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) by denying their own knowledge. I had already explained this ayat earlier that according to some interpretations the prophets (all of them) were unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, which is why they said “We have no knowledge.”[see Tafsir Ibn Kathir] In fact, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari said in the exact place in his commentary of Mishkat: “This [witnessing] does not negate His statement: “the day when Allah will assemble the messengers and will say to them, “How were you responded to?” They will say, “We have no knowledge. Surely You alone have the full knowledge of all that is unseen” because response is different to conveying, and it (i.e. the response of their peoples) requires details , the essence of which is comprehended only by Allah, as opposed to conveying itself which is from obvious necessary knowledge).”

Now listen!When someone Knows something but yet says out of humility that ' He DOESN'T know' then what does it mean?Now there are two options:Either the prophets were lieing(MazAllah) or they were actually unaware of all the responses.The first option is impossible and the second one is probable as supported by Mulla Ali Qari Rh.Now you need to produce incisive proof that it was due to humility or else my case stands.More on this verse later.

Now comings towards the hadith you posted:

Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted all the knowledge in earth and universe to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in an instant and then asked again but this time he knew all: He (i.e. Allah) said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? I said: Going on foot to join congregational prayers, sitting in the mosques after the prayers, performing ablution well despite difficulties. He again said: Then what do they contend? I said: In regard to the ranks. He said: What are these? I said: Providing of food, speaking gently, observing the prayer when the people are asleep. He again said to me: Beg (Your Lord) and say: O Allah, I beg of Thee (power) to do good deeds, ..." [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad]

I have come across this hadeeth many times and it has been dealt with comprehensively.

 

Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut provided a detailed analysis of the various routes of this narration under the relevant hadiths in his edition of Musnad Ahmad  - in particular numbers 3484 and 22109. He shows the chains are extremely erratic (mudtarib) - though they generally centre around one individual called 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'A'ish - and due to this idtirab the hadith is weak even though a particular chain was graded strong by al-Tirmidhi. Al-Arna'ut quotes al-Daraqutni who said in his al-'Ilal after a detailed analysis of the different chains of this hadith: "Nothing in it is sahih and they are all mudtarib." And Muhammad ibn Nasr said in Ta'zim Qadr al-Salah as quoted by al-'Asqalani: "The narrators of this hadith have been contradictory in relating its chain [of transmission], and it is not established from the people of knowledge." And al-Bayhaqi said about this hadith in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat: "It was related through other routes, and all of them are weak." And Ibn al-Jawzi said in al-'Ilal al-Mutanahiyah: "The foundation of this hadith and its routes are mudtarib." Al-Dhahabi said in the biography of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'A'ish in al-Mizan regarding this hadith: "This hadith of his is strange and rare.

 

Secondly, after conceding the authenticity, they are from solitary reports which cannot override the Book.
 
Thirdly, the intent of “all things” are things apposite to that context, not all creation such that nothing is excluded from it, as is corroborated by the hadith about the vision, since the discussion was concerning what the Highest Company were arguing about and regarding this, he (upon him peace) said: “I don’t know.” Then after the placing of His (Exalted is He) palm, everything became manifest to him of this, until he knew that their dispute was over atonement.
 
Fourthly, after conceding [the literality of] “all,” the manifestation of all things to someone does not entail its encompassment in complete detail, and his knowledge of what is in the insides of things or their outsides, since the meaning of “manifestation” is “appearance,” so it may be that a large city in its entirety appears to someone when he ascends a lighthouse or a mountain and the entire city is in his field of view and it is acceptable for him to say, “I saw the entire city,” but this does not entail his encompassing knowledge of what is within it, especially of what is in the insides of houses and the different heights of the earth.
 
Fifthly, even if his encompassment of everything is accepted at the moment of the manifestation, this does not entail that it always remains. How can it remain, when the texts and hadith-transmissions of things he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was unaware of [at the time of] his death, rather even at the resurrection also, are mass-transmitted? Consider His (Blessed and Exalted is He) statement: “The day when Allah will assemble the messengers and will say to them, ‘How were you responded to?’ They will say, ‘We have no knowledge.’” (5:109) How can this be upheld when all the messengers (Allah’s blessings be on them all) will come out to the plain of resurrection without knowing the details of the deeds of their nations? Again the same hadith :Al-Bukhari has narrated from Sahl ibn Sa‘d (Allah be pleased with him), Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri and Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with them) through various chains, and the wording of Abu Hurayrah is that he would narrate that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “A group of my companions will come to me on the Day of Resurrection, and they will be driven away from the Pond, so I will say: ‘O my Lord! My companions!’ So He will say: ‘Verily you have no knowledge of what they invented after you.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Hawd, 2:974)

As for you second hadith:Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is reported to have said that deeds of believers are presented to him: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you. [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] Bakr bin ‘Abdullah (رضي الله عنه) also reported that the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2: 194); ‘Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma‘-uz-zawa’id (9:24)]This hadith does not mean the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is aware of all the actions of his entire ummah. Firstly, Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani points out in his Bawariq al-Ghayb that this hadith is clearly talking about the ummat al-ijabah only. There are two usages of “ummah”: one, all the people to whom the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was sent, believer or otherwise – this is “ummat al-da’wah”; and second, those who responded to the message and accepted it – this is “ummat al-ijabah.” The reason it is clear the hadith is only talking about the latter is that the Prophet says: “if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Allah for you.” Seeking forgiveness is not permitted for non-Muslims, so this only refers to Muslims. Therefore, all murtaddin, kuffar, munafiqin and zanadiqah are excluded from this hadith, which is a large proportion of people. Therefore, it certainly does not prove the Barelwi doctrine of Hazir Nazir. Furthermore, in order to harmonise this narration with the earlier stronger and more authentic narrations, it must be understood as a “general presentation” (‘ard ijmali) and not a “detailed presentation” (‘ard tafsili). Meaning, the actions are presented in a general way, without there necessarily being specification of the time, place, nature, doer etc. of the action. In this way the hadith is consistent with the other more authentic and stronger Prophetic sayings: “I was a witness over them for as long as I was amongst them…” (which he says both in this world and the next) and that he will be told: “You have no knowledge of what they invented after you” and “Perhaps, I will not see you after this year of mine.”
 
You then said:  It is clearly establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is witness upon the actions and deeds of people but the two ahadith prove contrary to the established fact. So is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) lieing about being shown everything and deeds being presented to him and did Allah die about sendin Prophet has a witness? Answer is emphatic no, all of these facts are true and fundamental part of aqeedah of Muslims and we the Muslims make no Taweel of fundamental aqeedah based on circumstantial or implicit evidence. Just as we the Muslims will not accept Allah being Trinity on basis of plurals such as We, Us, Our which are found in Quran and used by Allah for himself. Point is here Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be using the words of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) while adopting humility and submissiveness of Hadhrat Isa (alayhis salaam). Here he will be immitating the humility and humility and the words will not indicate his reality.First of all , it is not established that Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wa Sallam is witnessing all our actions in detail as proved above.Secondly again you're using humility to hide your beliefs.You can't just say humility,humility,humility everywhere.This is your own interpretation.You need to support your stance with scholars of Hadith to prove point or any other incisive textual proof.If His(Sallallaho Alayhi WaSallam) words are not indicating reality, then what are they indicating?I'm quiet sure you know where you're heading.
 
Then you said: I am absolutely astonished at this statement of yours. Did you even understand what you wrote? Where did I make analogy on matter of aqeedah? What was the analogy in matter of aqeedah? If I had written: "Allah sees and like Allah Prophet sees" then if you wrote i am making analogy with Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) seeing and between Allah's (subhanahu wa ta'ala) seeing and then if you said from this shirk pours in then I would understand. Give you benefit of the doubt that you have misunderstood because my lack of writting. But I made no Qiyas and no analogy between Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). I didnt say, Allah knows all therefore  Prophet knows all, i didnt say, Prophet is Hazir Nazir  because Allah is Hazir and Nazir, i didn't say the way Allah is Hazir Nazir in the same way Prophet is Hazir Nazir. If I said something like this then at least your comment about me drawing analogy and your comment about Shirk pouring would be understood. I stated no such a thing and you have grossly and senslessly wrote which has no connection with what I written. Briefly, i wrote there is fundamental aqeedah which is essential to be Muslim and evidence that goes against it or something which insinuates something againsts that aqeedah we harmonize it so it accords the fundamental aqeedah..... What you didn't realise is that i was talking about analogy in this case where you said:
Does every question indicate that one needs to gain knowledge? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asked Musa (alayhis salaam) what do you have in your hand and he replied a staff. Does that mean Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) didn't know what Musa (alayhis salaam) had in his hand and by asking Musa (alayhis salaam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) learnt that it was a staff. Or should we assume that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows everything else but Allah didn't knew Musa (alayhis salaam) was carrying a staff?  In this case we interpreted the questioning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in light of questioning of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Jibraeel (alayhis salaam).Your last line shows that you clearly used analogy.Why are using similitudes using Allah Ta'ala.Allah Ta'ala is free from all kinds of similitudes,interpretations and analogies.Never ever do this again.If Allah Ta'ala does something , it is according to his Majesty and Wisdom.The same cannot be applied on his creation.I hope you understand.
 
Next you said:

Concerning bold part, the creed of Deobandi's regarding Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) does not not until humans act. Maulvi Hussain Ali the student of Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi writes in his Tafsir Balaghatul Hiraan: "And human is independant to perform good deeds or not and Allah does not know before hand what [humans] will do. Instead Allah knows after they act and verse of Quran like ..." The Urdu quotes with scans be seen here: http://www.falaah.co...ulghatul-hairan Firstly, you are writting something which is not established from your elders.

 

This issue has already been discussed in detail.It is more important that we concentrate on our own aqeeda. Even if that person is wrong, he does not represent the whole Jammat. Moreover I can quote 100s of such statements from the barelwi creed but i won't because i have read the following hadith: "Abu Zarr reported that the Holy Prophet said: "No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kafir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him".Narrated by al-Bukhari.I hope you understand next time.


Then you said:

It would be unjust to declare that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) didn't know something based on a question because the possibility of knowing and not knowing there. Also absence of clear explicit proof for knowing something is not criteria of not knowing........ Based on this fact should we assume these are meaningless? Let's be sensible and not make absence of clear, explicit evidence as a evidence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) not knowing something. The possibility of knowing it but not declaring it on command of Allah is established from the verse of Quran: "Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, Taught to him by one intense in strength." [Ref: 53:2/5]

You have taken the wrong meaning of the bolded portion:Imam Hafiz Ibn Kathir, says in the commentary of this verse (Nor does he speak of desire), asserting that nothing the Prophet utters is of his own desire or wish,

(It is only a revelation revealed.), means, he only conveys to the people what he was commanded to convey, in its entirety without additions or deletions. Hence there is no mention of knowing it and not declaring.On the contrary we fin the following hadith in Sahih Bukhari:
وَمَنْ حَدَّثَكَ أَنَّهُ كَتَمَ فَقَدْ كَذَبَ، ثُمَّ قَرَأَتْ: {يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ} [المائدة: 67]
[صحيح البخاري 6/ 141]
Who so ever narrates to you that he (Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam) concealed, then he has indeed lied. Then she recited "O Rasul! preach to them that which has been revealed to you from your Lord".
 
Yet again we find the following hadith:
 
Kharijah bin Zaid bin Thabit narrated that Yazid bin Thabit, who was older than Zaid, said: “We went out with the Prophet (ﷺ) and when we reached Al-Baqi’, we saw a new grave. He asked about it and they said: ‘(It is) so-and-so (a woman).’ He recognized the name and said: ‘Why did you not tell me about her?’ They said: ‘You were taking a nap and you were fasting, and we did not like to disturb you.’ He said: ‘Do not do that; I do not want to see it happen again that one of you dies, while I am still among you, and you do not tell me, for my prayer for him is a mercy.’ Then he went to the grave and we lined up in rows behind him, and he said four Takbir (i.e. for the funeral prayer).”
 
This hadith clearly shows that after the telling of the Sahaba Radiallahu Anhum , the  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) recognized her and the proof is " Whom Messenger of Allah knew (فَعَرَفَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم) in another version of the hadith. Hence this hadith clearly proves that Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam is NOT Hazir o Nazir everywhere and neither has Ilm Ghayb.

 

In the end you said : What you have asked here is not really important because we the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat do not believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) knew everything before the Akmaliat of his knowledge. We believe his knowledge was perfected when the last verse of Quran was revealed to him. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) knew everything which is in Lawh Al Mahfooz. To refute our aqeedah you need to quote those Ahadith which are about incidents which happened after the Quran was completed

 

First of all , According to Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan, Hakim al-Ummah of Barelwis, our beloved Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) knew the Qur'an even before he was born. Just look at this absurdness.Now to answer your demand: Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas (r.a.) states that Surah Nasr is the last Surah of the Quran to be revealed, i.e. no complete Surah was sent down to the Holy Prophet after it.Related by Muslim Nasai, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaibah, Ibn Marduyah.

 
According to Hadrat Abdullah bin Umar (r.a.), Surah Nasr was sent down on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage in the middle of the Tashriq Days at Mina, and after it the Holy Prophet rode his she camel and gave his well known Last Sermon. Related by Tirmidhi, Bazzar, Baihaqi, Ibn Abi Shaibah, Abd bin Humaid, Abn Yala, Ibn Marduyah.
 
Baihaqi in Kilab al-Hajj has related from the tradition of Hadrat Sarra bint-Nabhan (r.a.) the Sermon which the Holy Prophet gave on this occasion. She says: "At the Farewell Pilgrimage I heard the Holy Prophet (saws) say: 'O people, do you know what day it is?' They said: 'Allah and His Messenger (saws) have the best knowledge.' He (saws) said: 'This is the middle day of the Tashriq Days.' Then he (saws) said: 'Do you know what place it is?' They said: 'Allah and His Messenger (saws) have the best knowledge.' He (saws) said: 'This is Masharil-Haram.' Then he (saws) said: 'I do not know, I might not meet you here again. Beware, your blood and your honor are forbidden, until you appear before your Lord, and He questions you about your deeds. Listen: let the one who is near convey it to him who is far away. Listen: have I conveyed the message to you?' Then, when we returned to Madinah, the Holy Prophet passed away not many days after that."
 
If these traditions are read together, it appears that there was an interval of three months and some days between the revelation of Surah An-Nasr and the Holy Prophet's (saws) death, for historically the same was the interval between the Farewell Pilgrimage and the passing away of the Holy Prophet.
 
Now look at the following Hadith:
 
post-15519-0-57409700-1396191870.png
 
Hence your aqeedah has been refuted.The End.

Wa akhiru dawana anil hamdulillahi rabbil allamin


Wasallam.
Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Latest Response To Haq3909.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that your feeble mind is unable to keep track of the discussion in its context. This same thing happened in the other discussion: http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/20344-discussion-hadhir-nadhir/ In post 11 note I am lamenting that brother keep my comments in the context of discussion. Fact is that any discussion will divide into sub discussions which are related to main discussions. As this happens it is important to keep track of the mini-discussions as they progress because they might start from a specific point but has they lengthen they become general. As they become general two things begin to happen one the discussion no longer remains strickly about the main topic and two the mini dicussions become general and as result start to confuse people involved in discussion. When discussion becomes general then always revert to point where the mini discussion started and interpret the general statements in it’s context. This time I am going to make a effort to rectify and try to restore contextual relevance. In future responses you will have to draw specificness of general comments from the genesis of discussion. Otherwise the discussion will descend into chaos and confusion which is no benefit to me or to you or to anyone else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote: “I will mostly ignore the first portion of your discussion since you weren't able to get the gist of my argument however I will address a few points which you have put forth. You said : … Now let me remind you who said it goes in favour. Its actually your Mullahs and whole of the deviant barelwi sect that use the "Shaheed" verses and its tafseer to prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam)  will bear witness on the Day of Resurrection because He was present and seeing all the previous Ambiya (Alayhi Salam) and their nations.[please refer to JaAlhaq and Taskeen al Kawathir] Then how does the tafseer presented by Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) NOT refute your aqeedah? I will In Sha' Allah address this issue in the next part of my argument in much more detail since you basics are not clear regarding the difference of being a Witness to an event and being actually PRESENT at that event. These two things are NOT the same.”

The section you quoted belongs to this part of writing and here it has been inserted in brown into its original context:

<< You questioned: "Did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) approve of the hearing and seeing type of witnessing if not negate it?" No Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) did not explicitly state that he will be hearing seeing type of witness in that Tafsir. And why are you even asking me this question any way? Did I claim that this Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) refutes those who say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not Hazir Nazir? Who said it goes in favour and who presented it as evidence to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is a hearing seeing type of witness? No one, then why are you questioning me. I questioned you to establish your fault because you was using this Tafsir to refute seeing hearing type of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) saying that any tafsir other then the one in hadith is against Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) tafsir. My objective was to establish the Tafsir does not refute our aqeedah hence why would you consider anything unacceptable when it does not contradict Prophetic Tafsir. I established that Quran has many meanings a verse can be interpreted to mean many things. If our tafsir contradicts what Prophet said then you have a point but if it doesnt and which it doesnt contradict then how can you say aqeeday of hazir nazir is unacceptable. You employed the Tafsir issue: "Moreover our Holy Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wasallam has himself explained the verse 143 of Surah Baqara hence presenting another Tafseer , that goes totally against it is unacceptable." to argue that a Tafsir of verse which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is Hadhir Nadhir/hearing seeing type of witness is unacceptable. It can only be unacceptable to a Muslim when the Tafsir we the Muslims present contradicts what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) interpreted. When i questioned: "Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave interpretation of the verse but did he negate the hearing and seeing type of witnessing?" Purpose was that you will realize that … >>

I have noticed that the response which was written regarding the Tafsir was misplaced under the following question for some reason: "How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go in favour of the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave?" The portion under this section was about the Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being employed by you to refute hearing seeing type of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). In its right context it becomes clear question was related to Tafsir and not the verse in other words:

<< Who said the Tafsir goes in favor and who presented the Tafsir as evidence to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is a hearing seeing type of witness? No one, then why are you questioning me about Tafsir. I questioned you about the Tafsir to establish fault because you are using this Tafsir to refute seeing hearing type of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) saying that any Tafsir other then the one in hadith is against Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) Tafsir. >>

Note how the ma-qabl and ma-baad fits the theme. I cannot make sense how the portion got misplaced or where the answer to the actual question went. As a result I will have to write the response to the part again
.
This refutes nothing at all nor I presented it as evidence to refute or weaken any aspect of your argument. I was only placing the quote in it's original context.

Now coming to your criticism, in post #3 you said alleged that we THE MUSLIMS use verses 2:143,4:41 to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Hazir Nazir and then you quoted Prophetic Tafsir. I in post #13 criticiszed your usage of Prophetic Tafsir to refute hearing seeing type of witnessing and I established that this Tafsir does not refute our aqeedah because other interpretations are possible. Then in post #18 I continued established the Tafsir/verses 2:143, 4:41 on its own do not establish hearing seeing type of witness. Point was that the Prophetic Tafsir and verse 2:143, 4:41 on their own do not REFUTE OR PROVE the CREED OF AHLE SUNNAT. Also in the part which you choose to ignore the argument was that since the scholars of Ahle Sunnat nor did I employ these verses and Prophetic Tafsir to prove Hazir Nazir then why are you critizing us. We didn’t present them as evidence rather YOU SAID dishonestly that these verses and Prophetic Tafsir we use to prove Hazir Nazir. Where as the truth of matter is these verses are part of package and not the main evidence on their own. They help to fill the gaps but they are not fundamental evidence for our creed of Hazir Nazir. Here have a read of it again hopefully this will make better sense:

<< You questioned: "Did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) approve of the hearing and seeing type of witnessing if not negate it?" No Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) did not explicitly state that he will be hearing seeing type of witness in that Tafsir. And why are you even asking me this question any way? Did I claim that this Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) refutes those who say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not Hazir Nazir? Who said it goes in favour and who presented it as evidence to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is a hearing seeing type of witness? No one, then why are you questioning me. I questioned you to establish your fault because you was using this Tafsir to refute seeing hearing type of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) saying that any tafsir other then the one in hadith is against Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) tafsir. My objective was to establish the Tafsir does not refute our aqeedah hence why would you consider anything unacceptable when it does not contradict Prophetic Tafsir. I established that Quran has many meanings a verse can be interpreted to mean many things. If our tafsir contradicts what Prophet said then you have a point but if it doesnt and which it doesnt contradict then how can you say aqeeday of hazir nazir is unacceptable. You employed the Tafsir issue: "Moreover our Holy Prophet Sallallaho Alayhi Wasallam has himself explained the verse 143 of Surah Baqara hence presenting another Tafseer , that goes totally against it is unacceptable." to argue that a Tafsir of verse which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is Hadhir Nadhir/hearing seeing type of witness is unacceptable. It can only be unacceptable to a Muslim when the Tafsir we the Muslims present contradicts what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) interpreted. When i questioned: "Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave interpretation of the verse but did he negate the hearing and seeing type of witnessing?" Purpose was that you will realize that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has not negated the hearing seeing type of witnessing. Which you know that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has not negated this. So how can you reject the Tafsir of Muslims when it does not contradict what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) has stated. How can a Tafsir of Quran which is supported by Quran be unacceptable to you when it is not in contradicting what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stated? You don't need to question me if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) proved hearing seeing type of witness from this tafsir because I didnt present it has evidence to prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is seeing hearing type of witness. I questioned you to establish the reality of the meaning of verse, to prove to you that you have rejected Prophet being Hadhir Nadhir based on evidence which does not contradict or refute Hadhir Nadhir. Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) would only refute Hadhir Nadhir if he stated he is not hearing seeing type of witness. Nature of Quran is Jawami Al Kalim meaning it is written short but has widest meanings: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim, and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand." Muhammad said, Jawami'-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet." [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141] Interpreting verses of Quran in light of other verses is not going against the interpretation of Quran. But interpreting verses of Quran in light of Quran is according to Jawami al Kalim nature of Quran. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) only gave one interpretation from Quran from the wide meanings he explained one. We cannot limit restrict to one meaning which Prophet gave. The Rawafiz - Shia they take the ahadith of cloak in whch Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) covered Hadhrat Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, Hussain (Allah be pleased with all of them) and recited the verse of tatheer. They say on basis of this that these people were the intended members of Ahli bayt and not wives of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). To prove to them that wives of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) are also Ahli Bayt what do you and what do we the Muslims do? We go back to Quran and not restrict our selves to hadith only. We quote the entire verse 33:33 and say wives are also Ahli Bayt. Just to refute the creed of Muslims you have adopted the methodology of Rawafiz  that you want to stick to hadith only and ignore the book of Allah. >>

You need to quote me a single Aalim of Ahle Sunnat who did only employ this Tafsir to establish aqeedah of Hazir/Nazir. The Ulamah employed the Prophetic Tafsir and supplemented this Tafsir with additional evidence and reasoning to substantiate the position of Hazir and Nazir. Would you care to quote me a single reference where a scholar of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat quoted just the Prophetic Tafsir or the verse and argued this establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Hazir/Nazir? In the first chapter of Hazir/Nazir, Pehli Fasl, Ayaat Qurania Say Saboot, Jaa Al Haq, page 146/147 Mufti Sahib quotes 33:45, 73:15 and 2:143 and another verse and then he draws conclusions from this hadith without quoting it: “… or more than that. Then his people will be called and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’ That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] Once the Ummah bears witness they will be questioned how come they know that Prophets delivered the message and they will say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) told us. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness and there will be no objection. Against their objection Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will bring Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to bear witness: “One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] The previous Ummats will not object to his witnessing because I have established previously he was sent as a witness and he had seen all. Quran explicitly states: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15]. [I am not going to deal with Taskin Al Khawatir because you have distorted about too. I will wait for you to prove to me where these scholars only used verses 2:143,4:41, prophetic Tafsir.] Note he was sent to earth as a Witness to witness the events. If these two verses refered to hereafter then Allah would have said, O Prophet truly we have sent you as a Prophet who will be witness on the judgment day. These two verses are about being witness in earthly life and 2:143, 4:41 is about judgment day Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being called to bear witness to what he witnessed in earthly life. The Tafsir on it’s own is not used as evidence for Hazir Nazir nor the verse on its own was used as evidence for Hazir Nazir but the Tasir was supplemented with other evidence which establish the creed of seeing hearing type of witnessing. The Prophetic Tafsir / verses 2:143, 4:41 on  their own are not evidence of hearing seeing type of witnessing but when they are supplemented with other evidences these then establish Hazir Nazir. The part which you did not respond to and ignored was written to establish that I did not and nor did the scholars of Ahle Sunnat employed the Prophetic Tafsir or the Verse 2:143, 4:41 on its own to prove hearing seeing type of witness and neither I employed the verses nor the scholars employed the verses and the Prophetic Tafsir to prove hearing seeing type of witness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). This was what was being questioned by me when I wrote: “Who said it goes in favour and who presented it as evidence to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is a hearng seeing type of witness? No one, then why are you questioning me. I was insinuating that the Prophetic Tafsir on its own was not used neither by me nor by Scholars of Ahle Sunnat as evidence. Then why are you carrying out Jirah as if I or scholars of Ahle Sunnat presented these two verses 2:143, 4:41 to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Hazir Nazir. And the question was which did not require answer. You failed to realize it was a rehotrical device to establish already predetermined conclusion. As part of rhetorical device I answered the questioned my self. Since we did not employ these verses and Prophetic Tafsir on their own to prove Hazir Nazir then why are you questioning me? Because it was you who attributed to us that we use these two verses 2:143, 4:41 to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Hazir Nazir. Yet the truth of matter is that these verses are part of the package which establishes Hazir Nazir creed but not fundamental evidences of Hazir Nazir as you have claimed and attributed them to us.


You wrote: "How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go in favour of the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave?" Since the answer to this question was lost only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows how it happened I am going to write the response. The understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is hearing seeing type of witness perfectly accords with the Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness in defence of Ambiyah (alayhis salam) the they will be questioned: “’Did you convey the Message?' Noah will say, 'Yes.' His nation will then be asked, 'Did he convey the Message to you?' They will say, 'No Warner came to us.' Then Allah will say (to Noah), 'Who will bear witness in your favor?' He will say, 'Muhammad and his followers. So they (i.e. Muslims) will testify that he conveyed the Message. And the Apostle (Muhammad) will be a witness over yourselves, and that is what is meant by the Statement of Allah "Thus We have made of you a just and the best nation that you may be witnesses over mankind and the Apostle (Muhammad) will be a witness over yourselves." (2.143)  [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H14] In another hadith it is recorded the Ummah will be asked how do they know Prophets delivered the message and they will say our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) told us: “… or more than that. Then his people will be called and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’ That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] This establishes the witnessing of people will be because they have been told and they have not personally witnessed the events. And because the Ummah has not seen the events Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will require Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to bear witness that Prophets delivered the message because he was made witness to the events by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and following Ahadith are evidence to this: "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) recognized everything including all that had happened and will happen. And according to another hadith he came to know everything: Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Note the verse quoted says Allah showed Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) the entire universe and in similar fashion Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know everything i.e. seeing. Imam Qastallani recorded: "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia]

You wrote this: “Now let me remind you who said it goes in favour. Its actually your Mullahs and whole of the deviant barelwi sect that use the "Shaheed" verses and its tafseer to prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam)  will bear witness on the Day of Resurrection because He was present and seeing all the previous Ambiya (Alayhi Salam) and their nations.[please refer to JaAlhaq and Taskeen al Kawathir]” After writing this and to be frank you lied that our scholars uses these verses and prophetic Tafsir to prove Hazir Nazir. In reality these verses and Prophetic Tafsir are part of the package which come with other evidences such as 33:45, 73:15, the Ahadith of Tirmadhi, and one recorded by Imam Qastallani and others … Coming back to what you wrote, after this deceitful deed some how you wrote: Then how does the tafseer presented by Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) NOT refute your aqeedah?” This indicates that you wrote what you wrote before the question as a justified refutation and based on this refutation you are asking me a question. If you had written, for this and this reason Prophetic commentary means Prophet is not seeing hearing type of witness and then questioned; Then how does the tafseer presented by Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) NOT refute your aqeedah?” Then the question will have some basis. You are asking me this question as if you have given me the greatest argument against Hazir Nazir on earth prior to this question. And in reality prior to the question there was no argument. I think I get your drift you have based this question based on my answer that the Prophetic Tafsir does not establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is hearing seeing type of witness. But I also did establish that the Tafsir which we do does not go against the Tafsir of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) because he explained that Ummah will bear witness then he will bear witness. This is proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and his Ummah will bear witness and does not prove or disprove that Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) witnessing as one who has been seeing/hearing the events. Once again I want to affirm that the Tafsir and the verses which you quoted are part of package and on their own are not proof of Hazir Nazir. I recommend that you read the following response again and think about actually dealing with the issues raised in it:


[Continued ...]

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<< Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave interpretation of the verse but did he negate the hearing and seeing type of witnessing? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stated people will bear witness in defence of Prophets and he will bare witness upon the people. How does that mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is not hearing seeing type of witness? How does the understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a hearing seeing type of witness go against the Tafsir which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) gave? Comming to the point in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) asked the companions who recited the phrase while he was leading the prayers. Does every question indicate that one needs to gain knowledge? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) asked Musa (alayhis salaam) what do you have in your hand and he replied a staff. Does that mean Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) didn't know what Musa (alayhis salaam) had in his hand and by asking Musa (alayhis salaam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) learnt that it was a staff. Or should we assume that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows everything else but Allah didn't knew Musa (alayhis salaam) was carrying a staff? The hadith of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam), when he came in the form of human and enquired about, Emaan, Ihsan, etc. When Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) left then Prophet told the companions that this was Jibraeel and he came to teach you deen. Point is some time question is not asked to gain knowledge but question is asked for other purposes. In case of Musa (alayhis salaam) it was to make Musa (alayhis salaam) realize what he was carrying. Then he was asked to throw it upon the floor and the staff turned to a snake and left the area. In case of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) he questioned Prophet (sallallahu aalyhi was'sallam) so the companions can learn about important aspects of deen. In case of Prophet's (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) the question was asked so he steps up and companions recognize him and to tell him the good news how angels responded to his praiseworthy innovation. Imagine this, you live in a village and you perform prayers five times a day. In small village areas people know each other and recognize each other. It would be impossible for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) not to know and recognize the person and his voice because they live in same city and the companions performed prayers behind Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) I see at the back has i see in the front and your outward sincerity and your inner-sincerity are not conealed from me. This is state of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) all the time and we interpret evidence contrary to it in light of other examples. In this case we interpreted the questioning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in light of questioning of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Jibraeel (alayhis salaam). Let me explain the methodology involved in interpreting, we believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) knows all ghayb and all that is apparent and this is fundamental belief. Therefore any evidence which indicates that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) did not know something we interpret it to conform to fundamental teaching of aqeedah so it accords the fundamental aqeedah and not refutes it. Similarly the fundamental aqeedah regarding Prophet knowledge is that he sees at the back as he sees at the front and he knows sinerity in the hearts of believers. Now any hadith which contradicts this fundamental aqeedah we interpret it to conform to teaching of Islam. Your methodology is shaytaani methodology because you are attemtping to undermine a fundamental aspect of aqeedah with indirect evidence. Why don't you undermine Allah knowing everything by point of Musa (alayhis salaam) carrying staff in his hand? You will not undermine basic aqeedah of Allah knowing evryhting with Musa (alayhis salaam) example but you are willing to and wanting to undermine the basic/fundamental aqeedah regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) by using his question as example? Foolish people like you who do not know the asool of religion engage in such foolishness. We the Muslims understand that if a verse/hadith goes against fundamental aqeedah we interpret the verse/hadith to conform to fundamental aqeedah. We the Muslims do not refute the fundamental aqeedah as a result of verse/hadith. >>

You wrote that being present at a event and being witness to any event is not same:  “I will In Sha' Allah address this issue in the next part of my argument in much more detail since you basics are not clear regarding the difference of being a Witness to an event and being actually PRESENT at that event. These two things are NOT the same.” You what? Whaaat! You delinquent how can a person be present and not be a witness to events or things that are in his sight or he hears? Deobandi; O! O! He’s blind and deaf that’s why he isn’t witness to events/things, sounds around him. Lol! I answered my self cause is possible you may say this. So let me rephrase the question Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being present (i.e. sitting) on Masjid Nabvi’s Mimbar. Is he not going to witness the sounds with his ears, and witness the events with his eyes, and see things with his eyes? Will he not be present and be a Witness?  What does a Deobandi say?  Deobandi: Being witness upon a event and being present at a event are two different things. You are breaking the boundaries of all rational and common sense.

You wrote: “Now please read the Bold and Underlined portion of your argument atleast thrice because you have displayed complete ignorance. I wasn't expecting this from someone of your caliber however it's not your fault since you were TAUGHT this. The reason why you people have mixed up this Hazir O Nazir concept is that you think a person MUST be present and see the events he is witness on i.e. you think a person MUST be present and seeing at a crime scene in order to testify in the court however this is NOT true in this case.Now i am going to provide you with two Ahadith which will In Sha' Allah clear your concept.”

Before I address anything you have written it is important that I quote my two full quotes which you did not respond to and you could not answer.

<< You wrote: "I mean how can you deduce the meaning of Hazir o Nazir for the word "Shahid" from  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam')'s own Tafsir when he did not give such a meaning himself?" Here pay attention let me establish something for you. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) states in Quran: “One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] Because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be bearing witness on the day of judgment, Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has sent him to earth to be a witness with eyes, and ears, hearing and seeing: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Or are you going to argue Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent as a witness without eyes, ears and without the ability to hear and see? O now you can interrogate me how these two verses mean seeing hearing type of witness. Now because he was sent as a WITNESS Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) questions Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) about what the angles are arguing about. And Allah the all knower didnt ask because Allah didnt know, Allah asked for a purpose. Prophet said he doesnt know what they are arguing about. The rest read the hadith: Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted all the knowledge in earth and universe to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in an instant and then asked again but this time he knew all: He (i.e. Allah) said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? I said: Going on foot to join congregational prayers, sitting in the mosques after the prayers, performing ablution well despite difficulties. He again said: Then what do they contend? I said: In regard to the ranks. He said: What are these? I said: Providing of food, speaking gently, observing the prayer when the people are asleep. He again said to me: Beg (Your Lord) and say: O Allah, I beg of Thee (power) to do good deeds, ..." [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Mukhtasar, Prophet has been sent as a witness to earth and he has been made witness to all the events in an instant. >>

Because there were two angles from which your above questioned needed to be addressed I addressed the second angle below:

<< You wrote: "I mean how can you deduce the meaning of Hazir o Nazir for the word "Shahid" from  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam')'s own Tafsir when he did not give such a meaning himself?" To answer you question. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] First of all lets be logical and not closed and narrow minded. Lets take Shahid in meaning of Witness. A witness must possess atleast two qualities and a kamil will have three essential qualities. A witness must be hazir/present and must be able to see/nazir the events he is witness on. You are witness to the discussion we are having on IslamiMehfil because you are Hazir and because you are Nazir. If you was not Hazir as a creation as a human/Jinn/animal/insect/bird/ etc... that will mean you don't exist. Therefore two most essential qualities for a WITNESS are being HAZIR and NAZIR.  In dua of Janaza the word Shahid has been used to mean opposite of ghayb - present. Dua begins, Allahum maghfirli hayyitina wa mayyitina wa shahidina wa ghaybina wa sagheerina wa kabeerina ... which means Allah forigve our alive and dead and present and absent and young and old, those who are males and females. Note here the opposite are mentioned, opposite of dead is alive, opposite of young is old, opposite of male is female, opposite of ghayb (i.e. absent) is present (i.e. Shahid). And note the word Shahid was used for the living who are present in the funeral and ghayb for those who are not. Now tell me when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) bare witness in defence of the Ambiyah will he not be present and will he not be seeing/hearing? From the Tafsir which he gave isn't it obvious that he has to be present and hearing /seeing/ speaking/ understanding/ knowing on the day of judgment and as result of these he will testify on the day of judgment. You claimed to have study concept of Hazir Nazir and fact is you don't know head or tail of the issue. You don't know with what part of Hazir Nazir you should agree or what you should disagree with. Pay attention to this, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) said he will bare witness on the day of judgment. This means he will be Hazir on the day of judgment and seeing, hearing, talking, speaking, answering, understanding, and defending the Prophets. Every creation which is Shahid must also be HAZIR in the creation in some form.
>>

In the first part I explained the technical side of Hazir Nazir with evidences and in the second part I explained how the word Shahid means Hazir Nazir. Readers please note of my second quote especially the purple part of the quote because you will have to find this in what Haq3909 quoted from me. Here is what Mr Haq3909:

<< "To answer you question. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] First of all lets be logical and not closed and narrow minded. Lets take Shahid in meaning of Witness. A witness must possess atleast two qualities and a kamil will have three essential qualities. A witness must be hazir/present and must be able to see/nazir the events he is witness on. You are witness to the discussion we are having on IslamiMehfil because you are Hazir and because you are Nazir. If you was not Hazir as a creation as a human/ Jinn/animal/ insect/bird/ etc... that will mean you don't exist.Therefore two most essential qualities for a WITNESS are being HAZIR and NAZIR. Now tell me when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) bare witness in defence of the Ambiyah will he not be present and will he not be seeing/hearing? From the Tafsir which he gave isn't it obvious that he has to be present and hearing/seeing/speaking/understanding/knowing  on the day of judgment and as result of these he will testify on the day of judgment. You claimed to have study concept of Hazir Nazir and fact is you don't know head or tail of the issue. You don't know with what part of Hazir Nazir you should agree or what you should disagree with. Pay attention to this, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) said he will bare witness on the day of judgment. This means he will be Hazir on the day of judgment and seeing, hearing, talking, speaking, answering, understanding, and defending the Prophets. Every creation which is Shahid must also be HAZIR in the creation in some form. Metaphorically speaking you are barking up the wrong tree. The issue of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) in aakhirah being Hazir is not even contented by the foolish I think you are pretty reasonablly educated so why would you contend this beats me. I am ex-Deobandi my advice to you is first learn the real issue of IKHTILAF and then come to argue over it." >>

Mr Haq420 deliberately and deceptively omitted the crucial part because it explains how the word Shahid has been used in dua of Janaza to mean Hazir. In future if you going to quote and leave something out do so by indicating it via three dots […] in brackets.

You wrote: “Now please read the Bold and Underlined portion of your argument atleast thrice because you have displayed complete ignorance.” I read it three times Mr Deobandi writes I have displayed ignorance and because he can never be wrong therefore I have displayed ignorance. Since you never lie and you can never be wrong in what you say and you always understand everything it must be that I have displayed ignorance. I displayed ignorance when I beautifully established the creed of Muslims from Quran and Ahadith. I displayed ignorance when YOU deliberately omitted what I wrote to conceal from readers that Shahid means Present/Hazir and I displayed ignorance because YOU have intelligence and sense of a infant. If you had any sense or ability to evaluate the evidences of Quran and Hadith you would have understood that truth has come and your batal can not refute it. This is why you have ignored everything that I have wrote and not answered a single point instead you have been making stupid and irrational statements. You are a typical Deobandi who cannot and will not reply to evidence of Ahle Sunnat therefore chooses to ignore presented evidence and instead argues on and on. You ignored the evidence which is from Tirmadhi Shareef, these two Ahadith establish Prophet (sallallahu  alayhi was’sallam) was shown all there was and will be. I quoted Hadith from Imam Qastallani’s Muwahid Al Ladunia in which Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will witness all the events till the judgment day. These evidences can solve the entire issue of Hazir Nazir but instead of being a seeker of truth you are one of those people who do not want to believe in Islam instead they have chose for themselves Kufr and no matter how clear the evidence is you will not believe because you have already decided what TRUTH is. You are shameless and senseless. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has blackened your heart with Kufr and destined for you death upon Kufr and you will not believe in Islam regardless of how hard we the Muslims attempt to convince you truth of Islam.

You wrote: I wasn't expecting this from someone of your caliber however it's not your fault since you were TAUGHT this. The reason why you people have mixed up this Hazir O Nazir concept is that you think a person MUST be present and see the events he is witness on i.e. you think a person MUST be present and seeing at a crime scene in order to testify in the court however this is NOT true in this case.Now i am going to provide you with two Ahadith which will In Sha' Allah clear your concept.We the Muslims believe to be a truthful and actual witness in court of law the witness must see/hear the events he is bearing witness about otherwise he is not truthful witness. In other words one does not have to be in the vicinity where the event is taking place he could be any where but as long as he sees the actions he can bear witness. We believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has been granted the supernatural powers of hearing/seeing by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with which he hears/sees all the actions that take place, this is supported by the following narrations: "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia] This hadith itself is supported by Hadith in Bukhari which establishes that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) becomes eyes, ears, hands, feet of a believer when he becomes a Muqarrib: "Allah said, 'I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection, I will protect him; and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not literally become eyes, ears, hands, feet of any creation rather Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants his beloved servants the supernatural abilities of hearing, seeing, giving, and traveling. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted these supernatural abilities to his beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) hence he saw and heard what can not be known by common person with their eyes/ears. Coming back to what you wrote, we do believe that one bearing witness about the criminal/sinful activities must see/hear the events to be truthful witness. Other type of witnessing of Eman, conviction like of which we bear in Call-To-Prayer; I bear witness there is no god by Allah, I bear witness that Muhammad is Messenger of Allah, this type of witnessing is witnessing of ones on belief Eman and conviction. He declares what is in his heart and in reality he is only human who can be witness to his own belief, eman therefore the Muazzin bears witness to his own belief. You see you believe that one can bear witness without hearing/seeing the events. I say to you; I bear witness that your mother was engaged in illicit sexual activity for money. Now on account of my witnessing will you stone your mother to death? I am bearing witness to your mothers prostitution on account of being told by someone who is reliable and truthful in my judgment. Now what will you go and stone her? Will you allow us to stone your mother to death for a crime which only reliable people have narrated but not seen by the witnesses? Do you think the court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will be a joke on the judgment day?  You or anyone else in this earth will not allow someone to be stoned to death on account of reliable truthful witnesses but you think Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will permit the testimony of people who have not seen or heard the events and then send people to hell. Who is more just in judging, you or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? How can you be more strict and demand that a witness should see/hear to what he bears witness about when to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you attribute a court system which is neither reasonable nor just. La hawla wala quwwata …

You quoted the following Hadith to prove that one can bear witness to events which he has not seen: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) bought a horse from a Bedouin. The Prophet (peace be upon him)  took him with him to pay him the price of his horse. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) walked quickly and the Bedouin walked slowly. The people stopped the Bedouin and began to bargain with him for the horse as and they did not know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had bought it. The Bedouin called the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) saying: If you want this horse, (then buy it), otherwise I shall sell it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stopped when he heard the call of the Bedouin, and said: Have I not bought it from you? The Bedouin said: I swear by Allah, I have not sold it to you. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Yes, I have bought it from you. The Bedouin began to say: Bring a witness. Khuzaymah ibn Thabit then said: I bear witness that you have bought it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) turned to Khuzaymah and said: On what (grounds) do you bear witness? He said: By considering you trustworthy, Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)! The Prophet (peace be upon him) made the witness of Khuzaymah equivalent to the witness of two people.” [Ref: Dawood, B24, H3600] Before actually answering the point it would be best to narrate Quranic material related to this incident. The following verse of Quran states that transactions carried out on the spot require no writing or witness: “O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so let him write. Let him (the debtor) who incurs the liability dictate, and he must fear Allah, his Lord, and diminish not anything of what he owes. But if the debtor is of poor understanding, or weak, or is unable to dictate for himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her. And the witnesses should not refuse when they are called (for evidence). You should not become weary to write it (your contract), whether it be small or big, for its fixed term, that is more just with Allah; more solid as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves, except when it is a present trade which you carry out on the spot among yourselves, then there is no sin on you if you do not write it down. But take witnesses whenever you make a commercial contract. Let neither scribe nor witness suffer any harm, but if you do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So be afraid of Allah; and Allah teaches you. And Allah is the All-Knower of each and everything.” [Ref: 2:282] It seems that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and the Bedouin verbally agreed the sale and the payment was yet to be made but the Bedouin tracked back on his verbal agreement. Understand that no one carry’s the amount of money to buy a car in his pocket. Maximum the money one carry’s is about hundred to two-hundred pounds in pocket. Same in Prophet’s time he must not have carried the large sum of money on him and when he liked the horse he agreed to purchase it but must have agreed that he will pay the money when he gets home and while on the way home the Bedouin back tracked on the agreement. First Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) had a verbal agreement and no written record and secondly the sale was not carried out on the spot. The money and the horse was not exchanged on the spot. The rule for revelation is that a incident must take place before the verse regarding it is revealed. After this incident the verse was revealed and writing of long and short term agreements became the rule. Witnessing of Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was affirmation of his own trust and faith in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) just as a Muazzin states: I bear witness there is no god but Allah. I bear witness Muhammad is Messenger of Allah. Muazzin only affirms his own faith in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and in Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) Messenger-ship. Due to his truth and faith Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) granted him the status of two witnesses because he knew a time will come when he will be the only witness to verse of Quran which everyone else will forget. So while gathering the text of Quran one verse was found on him but no one other but him knew it. This verse was added into Quran because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) had granted Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) status of two witnesses.

Coming to the main point, the Bedouin demanded a witness for the agreement and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not have a witness. Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) bore witness that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) bought the horse: “I bear witness that you have bought it.” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) asked: “On what (grounds) do you bear witness?”  To which he replied: “He said: By considering you trustworthy, Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)!” This indicates the companion was not a FIRST HAND witness to the deal but he was merely bearing witness because he believed that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is truthful hence his claim to purchasing the horse will not be a lie. If someone who is first-hand witness to a event and then faithfully tells another of the event which he witnessed with his eyes. Then the second person can only bear witness saying: I was told by him [i.e. the first hand witness]. But he cannot claim to be FIRST-HAND witness to the event and bear witness as it. Such witnessing will not be considered eye-witness account rather it will be taken as supplementary evidence which corroborates eye-witnesses story.

There is no evidence in a single HADITH in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) accepted the WITNESSING of Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and said: On the account of Khuzaymah’s witnessing it has been proven that I had purchased the horse. Please quote me a single hadith which establishes Hazrat Khuzaymah’s witnessing was accepted by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Just mere witnessing of Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is not proof that one can bear witness without seeing the event and his witnessing is accepted. Where is the evidence which proves that after bearing witness, without seeing the deal, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said your witnessing is accepted. More importantly, LETS SUPPOSE PROPHET (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) DID ACCEPT HIS WITNESSING TO BE WITNESSING OF EYE-WITNESS. My question is how can this hadith be interpreted to mean that on the judgment day Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness without seeing the events! The answer is via Qiyas, you employ qiyas and argue Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) bore witness without seeing so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will also bear witness without seeing the event. About Qiyas you told me: “… Acharvi Sahab in his Miqiyas E Hanafiyat a long time ago and you seem to follow in their footsteps. However, what you and they don't realise is that anaology cannot be used in matters of aqeedah. Maklook ko Khaliq bay bilkul bhi Qiyas nahi kiya jasakta.It is here where Shirk starts to pour in. Remember that matters related to aqeedah cannot be treated using anaology, similitudes or parables. Textual Proof and Clear evidence is a must. Now coming back to the point which you raised : …” [Ref: Post #16] But my furry friend is now ignoring what you was preaching. In matter of aqeedah indeed no Qiyas is accepted and Alhamdulillah I have presented evidence for every aspect of aqeedah of Ahle Sunnat and you have so far used Qiyas to refute it. You cannot refute Nass e Qatti with Qiyas my friend you should know this. Provide clear explicit text of Quran or Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness on the judgment day even though he hasn’t seen or heard anything.

Suppose you and someone are arguing. Someone says he saw your mother engaged in illicit sexual intercourse. You ask him where are the witnesses? Few people walk pass and upon finding out the argument they say we bear witness your mother committed illegal sexual intercourse. You ask them: Was you witness to the event. They say we say it cause we trust this person he is reliable and has never lied to us. Will this witnessing be accepted by you and will then proceed to stone your mother to death? If not, then I rest my case, because we know such witnessing is not acceptable in deen of Islam nor such witnessing can be used to punish anyone. Quran states that a witness must be first-hand witness: “Turn ye back to your father, and say, 'O our father! behold! thy son committed theft! we bear witness only to what we know [from first hand experience] and we could not well guard against the unseen!" [Ref: 12:81] And seeing is essential to witnessing, as it is indicated in the following verse: “He said: "It was she that sought to seduce me - from my (true) self. "And one of her household saw (this) and bore witness, (thus):- "If it be that his shirt is rent from the front, then is her tale true, and he is a liar!"[Ref: 12:26] Witness must be present and first hand witness to the events to be truthful witness: “Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things." [Ref: 5:117] Hazrat Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not first hand witness, he did not see the deal taking place and he was not present as a witness while the agreement was being made. Instead he was merely affirming it after hearing it from the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as EVERY MUSLIM WILL TRUST AND AFFIRM WHAT PROPHET (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) STATES without doubting it. Witnessing of Hazrat Khuzayman (radiallah ta’ala anhu) contradicts the three quoted verses hence it is not valid Shara’i witnessing which can be taken as proof of event.

You quoted the following Hadith: Narrated Ibn Abbas R.A. from Tamim Ad-Dari, regarding this Ayah: O you who believe! When death approaches any of you then take the testimony (5:106). He said: "The people are innocent of it, other than myself and 'Adi bin Badda.' We were Christians who used to frequent Ash-Sham before Islam." They went to Ash-Sham for their business, and they were approached by a freed slave of Banu Sahm, who was called Budail bin Abi Maryam, with some trade. He had a bowl they wanted made of silver, but he wanted a great deal for it. Then he became ill, and willed it to them, and he commissioned them to deliver what was left to his family. Tamim said: "When he died, we took that bowl and we sold it for one-thousand Dirham. Then 'Adi bin Badda and I divided it. When we went to his family to give them what was with us, they searched for the bowl and asked about it. We said: 'He did not leave behind other than this, nor did he give us other than this.'" Tamim said: "When I accepted Islam, after the Messenger of Allah had arrived in Al-Madinah, I felt guilty about that, so I went to his family, and informed them about what had happened. I gave them fifty-thousand Dirham and told them my companion had the same. They took him to the Messenger of Allah but he asked them for their proof, which they did not have, so he ordered them, to have him take an oath in accordance with whatever the people of his religion revered, so he took the oath. Then Allah revealed: 'O you who believe! When death approaches any of you then take the testimony...' up to His saying: 'Or else they would fear that oaths will be admitted after their oaths (5:106).'" So 'Amr bin Al-'As and another man stood to take an oath, and the fifty-thousand Dirham was taken from 'Adi bin Badda.'" [Ref: Tirmidhi, B47, H3336]

[Continued ...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly the hadith states two upon receiving the bowl Tamim ad-Dari (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Adi bin Badda which was sold for the price of ONE thousand Dirhams. This one thousand Dirhams were divided by them which if divided between the two would be five hundred Dirhams each. Tamim ad-Dari (radiallah ta’ala anhu) returned his share to the family who the money belonged. The amount which he should have returned should be what he received by selling the bowl i.e. five-hundred Dirhams but the figure which he returned is stated to be fifty-thousand Dirhams and also note from Adi bin Badda it is stated that fifty-thousand Dirhams were taken. How can they return the family what they did not gain by selling? The bowl was sold for ONE THOUSAND Dirhams and each got five-hundred. Hence the right of family was not one-hundred-thousand but only a one-thousand Dirhams. This does not bid well for the authenticity of the Hadith and Hadith is unreliable account of historical event. I just checked the Hadith on Sunnah.com and discovered that Hadith is stated to be fabricated (i.e. Maudu). Urdu translation published by Shabirbrothers and translated by Muhammad Muhayyud-din Jhangeer, page 323, hadith 2985, there the hadith is classified as Ghareeb (i.e. strange/Scarce). Therefore the Hadith is no evidence and cannot be utilized as evidence on matters of Fiqh or Aqeedah.

Secondly, lets ignore for the sake of argument the faults established above. When Tamim ad-Dari (radiallah ta’ala anhu) returned the returned the money he told the family that Adi bin Badda  also received half of the money. The hadith says the family took Adi bin Badda to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to retrieve the money from him when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) asked them for proof that Adi bin Badda  received the money: They took him to the Messenger of Allah but he asked them for their proof, which they did not have, …” So Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed them to take oath Adi bin Badda to take the oath which he did. Then two witnesses got up and took oath as witnesses and the fifty-thousand/five-hundred Dirhams were taken from Adi bin Badda. The draw down, Tamim ad-Dari (radiallah ta’ala anhu) bore witness to that Adi bin Badda received the half of the money as well. He therefore bore witness to a event which he himself was WITNESS to. He was the partner in crime and he bore witness against his partner that his partner had received five-hundred/fifty-thousand Dirhams.

Thirdly, there are Sahih Ahadith on this issue: “A man from Banu Sahm went out with Tamim ad-Dari and Adi ibn Badda'. The man of Banu Sahm died in the land where no Muslim was present. When they returned with his inheritance, they (the heirs) did not find a silver cup with lines of gold (in his property). The Messenger of Allah administered on oath to them. The cup was then found (with someone) at Mecca. They said: We have bought it from Tamim and Adi. Then two men from the heirs of the man of Banu Sahm got up and swore saying: Our witness is more reliable than their witness. They said that the cup belonged to their man. He (Ibn Abbas) said: The following verse was revealed about them: "O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you....." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B24, H3599] "A man from Banu Sahm went out with Tamim Ad-Dari and 'Adi bin Badda. The Sahmi man died in a land in which there were no Muslims. When they arrived with what he left behind, they searched for a bowl made of silver which was inlaid with gold. The Messenger of Allah had the two of them take an oath. Then they found the bowl in Makkah, and the person said: 'We purchased it from Tamim and 'Adi.' So two men among the relatives of the Sahmi man stood to take an oath by Allah that they (his family) had more right to it than them." He said: "So it was about them that the following was revealed: “O you who believe! (When death approaches any of you then) take the testimony (5:106)." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3060] The actual issue was that one party claimed to have purchased the bowl and other party said the bowl is ours. Both parties were telling the truth hence no judgment was passed on the issue because both parties produced witnesses. One party said bowl belonged to x hence we are its heirs and on this they presented witnesses to prove the bowl belonged to their x hence they should be its heirs. The other party said we purchased it from Adi bin Badda and Tamim ad-Dari (radiallah ta’ala anhu) therefore it is our. They presented witnesses to support their claim as well. It was then that: “… relatives of the Sahmi man stood to take an oath by Allah that they (his family) had more right to it than them.” They started taking oaths instead of producing witnesses which proves other party did not purchase the bowl but usurped, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reminds them that take testimony of a witness. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not give the bowl to them on the account of oath. This proves nothing for you in refutation to Hazir Nazir.

Fourthly, aqeedah of Hazir Nazir is fundamental aspect of Quran evidences of which have been discussed previously and in sha’allah at the end of this response I will add a comprehensive explanation of Hazir Nazir. You are trying to refute aqeedah of Hazir Nazir with Qiyas and Qiyas is not proof against Nass e Qatti and worst part is the Hadith on which you based your Qiyas on is maudu/ghareeb. Quran has explicit evidence which proves Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows all at all times. We cannot employ Qiyas – LIKE on the issue of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asking Musa (alayhis salaam) and over turn the meaning of Nass e Qatti. Your aqeedah is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is not hearing/seeing type of witness and he will bear witness on judgment day without seeing actions of Jinn, mankind and previous Ummats. You are trying to imply from the Hadith that people bore witness ‘without’ seeing in this Hadith therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will also bear witness without hearing/seeing. Even more disgraceful aspect is that the Hadith is fabricated. Yet you are using it for Qiyas to support your Aqeedah that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has not seen the events to events which he will be bearing witness about.

Finally, now I am going to argue my case that these two Ahadith which you quoted help to establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sees and saw the events about which he will bear witness on judgment day.  Tamim ad-Dari saw the event and told the family that Adi bin Badda received half of the bowls price. [Ref: Tirmidhi, B47, H3336] Witnessing of Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) who had heard from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) that he had bought the horse. [Ref: Dawood, B24, H3600]  In both these cases at least one person has actually seen the events and others are bearing witness or claiming based on what that one eye-witness told them. Now, the time for magic has come the time to pull the truth out of hat. From the above two mentioned Ahadith of Tirmadhi, Abu Dawood we deduce that there be at least one person who is EYE-WITNESS and if he is truthful and if he has told others then others can bear witness to a event and there witnessing will be accepted. You see the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness because they were told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Which is established in this Hadith: “...He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’ That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164] Then based on the principle we derived from the two Ahadith of Tirmadhi and Abu Dawood it must be that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is EYE-WITNESS. The principle derived indicates at least one should be EYE-WITNESS and we the Muslims believe that one witness from all the chain is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Our belief is supported by the following Ahadith: "Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia]


You wrote [in read] and quoted my material [in green]: “Now ofcourse Prophet (Sallalho Alayhi Wa Sallam) WILL be present and seeing on the Day of Judgement and will also bear witness that the earlier prophets convyed the messages and NEVER did I deny this fact, however this bearing witness will not be based on Him actually being present, hearing and seeing all the previous nations and events in the world but will rather be based on the knowledge he has received from revelation (i.e. Quran) and even you have admitted this fact in one of your article where you said: RasoolAllah will bare witness against previous nations, and his nation, hence Allah gave him book which explains to him everything about past present, and future nations, so by knowing the material of the book he would know exactly what had happened in past, and will happen in future, this is how his witnessing is truthful and will be accepted by Allah. This is EXACTLY the belief of the deobandis. However in this thread you said: "Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard. You have used qiyaas to infer this non-sense. There is only proof that Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'salam) will bare witness based on what they were told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam): “... ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message. That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] The underlined proves that Ummah will bare witness on account of being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran? You have deduced based on Qiyas that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the knowledge he has recieved from Quran. There is not a single hadith or verse of Quran which states this.” You have severely and clearly contradicted yourself in your aqeeda. You yourself are not clear in your aqeeda. Now I advice you to learn the real issue of IKTHILAF and then come to argue instead of blaming me. Alhamdullillah I am sure about my aqeedah. Moreover, how does this hadith prove that Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam will NOT bare witness based on the knowledge he has recieved from Quran? Can you show me a single hadith or ayat of the Quran which shows that the witness will be based on actually having seen the previous nations and not based on previous knowledge recieved via revelation? Moreover i will post some hadith later on which SUPPORT my stance i.e. the witness has to be based on previous knowledge.”

Let’s go through the first statement of mine which you quoted in the context of the article. The first quote was from this article: http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/22039-qull-ghayb-knowledge-of-lawh-mahfooz-al-qalam-known-to-rasoolallah/ Readers can find the references on this link I won’t quote them here. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "... every dry or green object their mention as been made in kitab al mubeen (i.e clear book)." In another verse: "...what ever big or small object their mention has been make in kitab al mubeen (i.e clear book)." Another verse states: "There is no moving creature on earth but its sustenance dependeth on Allah. He knoweth the time and place of its definite abode and its temporary deposit: All is in kitab al mubeen (i.e clear book)." Another verse records: "…by Alim Ul Ghayb { i.e. Allah} from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the kitab al mubeen (i.e clear book)." And finally another verse: "And what ever Ghayb there is in HEAVENS and EARTH it mention has been made in kitab al mubeen (i.e clear book)." And in this article I established name of Quran is Kitab Al Mubeen, which is established from this verse: "... there as come to you from Allah a Noor and Kitab al mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 5:16] In other words the knowledge in the Preserved Tablet and the Pen to which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said write, and it asked what shall I write, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said write everything that is to take place till judgment day, hadith: “… of faith until you know that what has come to you could not miss you, and that what has missed you could not come to you. I heard the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) say: The first thing Allah created was pen. He said to it: Write. It asked: What should I write, my lord? He said: Write what was decreed about everything till the Last hour comes. O Bunai! I heard the...” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B41, H4683] All this knowledge is written by the Pen in the Preserved Tablet is in the Quran. In this context this was written: RasoolAllah will bare witness against previous nations, and his nation, hence Allah gave him book which explains to him everything about past present, and future nations, so by knowing the material of the book he would know exactly what had happened in past, and will happen in future, this is how his witnessing is truthful and will be accepted by Allah.” Now let me explain to you what the statement actually means, I wrote that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave him a book (i.e. Quran) which explains everything about that has happened in past, everything will happen in future and everything which is happening at present. This everything is not everything that you and me can read in translations of Quran. Instead this everything includes all the events which happened from the beginning of creation and will happen till the judgment day. Hadith explains what type of everything was meant; everything Zahir from Quran or everything from the beginning to judgment day. Here this was the Hadith: “Narrated 'Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B44, H414] To conclude, all that exists in creation which we consider dry or green, dry or wet, big or small, and all that we consider Ghayb all this is mentioned stated in the Quran. Your computer keyboard do you consider it big or small, dry or green, wet or green, and all that happens behind your back and out of your site and hearing, far or near, in your body or out of your body, do you consider it Ghayb or not? All that you and I, and we all human beings classify big is mentioned in Quran be it computer or anything else. Coming to Hadith, it establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) told of everything that was to take place from beginning of creation till the judgment day and till they go to hell and paradise. The word everything in my quote was inclusive of this and in other words inclusive of knowledge of the Pen and the Preserved Tablet.

You telling me Deobandi’s believe that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knows EVERYTHING that has happened from beginning of creation and that will happen till the end of creation? I am EX-DEOBANDI, I know all what you believe and all that you don’t. You are incapable of understand what is written you lack the ability to read properly. If you actually believe what I explained you are the only Deobandi who believes in this. In fact I know you don’t believe in this because you are the same guy who is arguing against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knowing all the knowledge of the Preserved Tablet, remember!

In the second quote you have highlighted following: “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard.” and this: “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran?” To explain this I need to quote what was written by you. You wrote in post #18: “You need to produce strong proof to show that, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) stating that people will bear witness in defense of Prophets and he will bare witness upon the people is ACTUALLY the hearing seeing type of witness and NOT the witness based on Previous Knowledge and the news that He (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received from the Holy Quran (i.e. the News that Allah ta'ala has already foretold that the Prophets alayhi Salam had indeed convyed the messages.) And it was in this response to this that I enquired where is the proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness after reading the text of Quran which states Prophets delivered the messages given to them. There are Ahadith which indicate that Ummah will say our Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) told us that Prophets delivered the message given to them. I said give me proof in where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: ‘I WILL BEAR WITNESS BECAUSE I READ IN QURAN THAT PROPHETS DELIVERED THE MESSAGE.’ Or give me evidence in which Allah said: ‘O PROPHET MUHAMMAD (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) YOU BEAR WITNESS BECAUSE YOU HAVE READ IN THE VERSES THAT PROPHETS DELIEVERED THE MESSAGE.’ Point was that there is NO PROOF on which you believe that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness because he read in the Quran that Prophets delivered the messages given to them. Rather this is what you have deduced with QIYAS. You and I both know that Aqeedah cannot be based on QIYAS instead clear/explicit text is required. We have clear/explicit text saying Ummah will bear witness because of being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and we the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat believe this because the explicit/clear hadith states this. Can you quote me one hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said in Hadith or Verse that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness due to being told? Coming back to what I wrote, the news being discussed in these quotes is that Prophets delivered the message. In Quran there is no verse in the Quran or atleast not in my knowledge which states explicitly that Prophets delivered there message. I know of only one verse of the Quran which instructs Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to say: “O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” [Ref: 5:67] So to assume that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will has read the Quran due to it he will know Prophets delievered the messages given to them is stretch. Suppose, I say Zahid read the book; ‘Ali Baba And The Forty Thieves’ and because of that he knew: “Say: Allah is One …” to the end. [Ref: Surah Ikhlas]. To establish this first we need to establish first he has got the book, two he can read and understand book and three the quote which I alleged Zahid read is in the book  i.e. - “Say: Allah is One …” [Ref: Surah Ikhlas] If it’s in the book then we have reasonable assumption to conclude that he did read it. If it’s not even in the book then what I alleged is baseless. Now if the quote is in the book, then we have probale base now we only have to establish that he read it from the book and not heard it from someone else. Now first we need to establish that there are verses which state Prophets delivered the message to their respective nations. Then we have probale cause and if they are in the Quran then I will concede and agree that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) read them in the Quran. Then you will have to establish that he will bear witness due to reading these verses. Remember NO QIYAS and NO LOGIC in matters of Aqeedah. Once we have this then we will see if it contradicts and refutes all our evidence or does it supplement our understanding.

You wrote: “You have severely and clearly contradicted yourself in your aqeeda. You yourself are not clear in your aqeeda. Now I advice you to learn the real issue of IKTHILAF and then come to argue instead of blaming me. Alhamdullillah I am sure about my aqeedah.” Both of my quotes have absolutely nothing to do with each other they are totally unrelated. One talks about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knowing the all that is in the Preserved Tablet and bearing witness over the actions of entire mankind from Adam (alayhis salaam) to the last man because he knows all what they did and will do, he will all their deeds good and the bad. Ibn Kathir establishes this in his Tafsir: “as witness” means, a witness to Allah's Oneness, for there is no God except He, and a witness against mankind for their deeds on the Day of Resurrection. “and We bring you as a witness against these people” (4:41). This is like the ayah: “that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you” (2:143)“and a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner.” means, a bearer of glad tidings to the believers of a great reward, and a warner to the disbelievers of a great punishment.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 33:45] The other quote is about evidence which I have explained in ‘Ali Baba Forty And The Thieves’ discussion. So here go the quotes again: “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard.” “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran?” Now I have explained to you like a little ten year old I think the question is warranted; where is there a contradiction between these two statements of mine? Only senseless brain of your could percieve this to be contradiction because it has not learnt how to read and understand a book.

Aqeedah of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat is that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) consists of mainly of two categories; 1) knowledge via Quran, 2) and knowledge via seeing/hearing the actions of mankind and Jinkind as they happened. Knowledge via Quran is two types, the Zahir, and the Batin. The knowledge of Zahir of Quran can be gained by anyone and depends upon effort and capacity. The knowledge of Batin of Quran is reserved for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The Batin knowledge of Quran is of the Preserved Tablet and the Pen, which only the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and elect from Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have access to. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was given all the knowledge of the Preserved Tablet and the Pen via Quran. The second aspect of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knowledge is Mushayda Alal Ghayb (i.e. Seeing Of Ghayb). This is of three types ; one, where Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed him EVERYTHING, (Ahadith Tirmadhi). Second, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) seeing the actions of Mankind and Jinn-kind as the events takes place. Thirdly, the presenting of deeds to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) by the angels and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) seeking forgiveness for sins and praises Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in happiness if he sees good. I believe in all these sources are for Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knowledge and I do not deny or disbelieve in any of them. Once again let’s bring you back to my statement, I wrote: RasoolAllah will bare witness against previous nations, and his nation, hence Allah gave him book which explains to him everything about past present, and future nations, so by knowing the material of the book he would know exactly what had happened in past, and will happen in future, this is how his witnessing is truthful and will be accepted by Allah.” Before you go on the read ahead I want you to utilize the spongy sack between your ears and try to draw conclusion based on what I have stated in the above paragraph. Try to answer these questions; did Muhammad Ali, al Qadri, al Razavi, al Akhtari contradict his own Aqeedah according to what he wrote in this paragraph? Or did Muhammed Ali al Qadri, al Razavi, al Akhtari state his Aqeedah and the Aqeedah of his predecessors and the Muslims? Don’t use your brain let me answer it for you save it for something else. My above quote is related to Batini aspect of Quran – the Preserved Tablet & Pen, and my other statement is related to Zahiri aspect of Quran which you and I can access. And in that quote I was merely asking you to quote me a single Hadith/Ayaat in which it is written that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness upon being told like Ummah was told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Coming to the following statement: “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard.” “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran?” [Note; Please refer to full quote if you wish, I am not going to quote it full, just what you underlined.] You believe that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness due to the news which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) received clearly and explicitly and apparently. Hence I asked where is the proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness based upon the Anba Al Ghayb (i.e. news of unseen) given to him in [Zahir of] Quran. You are a Deobandi and you do not believe in Batini meanings of Quran yet you believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness based upon the news of Ghayb he has received in Quran. Hence my question was asking you to quote me a single clear/explicit verse of Quran or Hadith which establishes your Aqeedah. These two statements are completely unrelated and opposite of each other.

In a nutshell for these two statements to establish contradiction in my Aqeedah, both these statements need to be related to either Zahiri aspect of Quran or Batini aspect of Quran. If the both statements were about Zahiri aspect then there will be contradiction in my Aqeedah or if both statements were about Batini aspect then there will be contradiction in my Aqeedah and more importantly the statements have to be on the same topic/individual/thing. It is clear that both of these statements are unrelated and have nothing in common with each other. Coming to the quote; RasoolAllah will bare witness against previous nations, and his nation, hence Allah gave him book which explains to him everything about past present, and future nations, so by knowing the material of the book he would know exactly what had happened in past, and will happen in future, this is how his witnessing is truthful and will be accepted by Allah.” I concluded this because I quoted the following verse in the article, just before the quote: One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] Hence it would only make sense if I conclude the subject mentioning the witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Note this verse 16:89 is reply to the following: "It states that when this verse was recited then Prophet peace be upon him shivered and said "O Allah I am witness upon the people in which i am (living). How can I be witness of those to whom I have not seen?" [Ref: Tafseer Ibn Abi Haatim 3/956, Tabrani is Mojam alKabeer 19/243, Wahidi in his Tafseer 2/55, Abu Nuyeem in Muarifa tul Sahaba no: 63] The verse 16:89, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness about the events [that have taken place in past, will take in future] because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has sent a book which explains all things (i.e. tibyanilli qulli shay’i) and as a result of this Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will be able to bear witness.

Basicly the article was written to establish the following Aqeedah of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has been granted knowledge of the Preserved Tablet and the Pen. This verse 16:89 was part of evidence and the verse also connected with Hadhir Nazir topic. Hence I concluded the all the evidence up to that point in the context of the verse as well as the other evidence. I merely stated one aspect of my Aqeedah because it is was directly connected with the subject of article and did not mention aspect of Mushayda Alal Ghayb because it was not connected with the topic I was writing about. This ikhtisar in stating my Aqeedah you interpreted as a contradiction in my Aqeedah. I wonder how would you judge Ahadith in which some details are omitted but mentioned in another Hadith! Contradictions, I believe! Or would you be intelligent enough to realize ikhtisar in one place is not proof of contradiction if more details is found in another place. If one person says; I believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ahad and week later you also hear him says; I believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Samad. Will you go charge of having contradiction in his Aqeedah? Or will you be intelligent enough to realize he believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ahad as well as Samad. Will you realize that he affirmed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being Ahad because this was part of that conversation and in the second conversation he affirmed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being Samad because it was requirement of what he was discussing at that time? Have you grasped the point I am making or do I need to spell it out? I am not going to trust your judgment I rather explain it myself. Point being made is that something maybe affirmed in one place and something else being affirmed in another place about same topic/individual/thing is not contradiction. Let me tell you how to establish a contradiction in a statement. The contradiction is if one says; ‘Allah is One!’ and then on another occasion says; ‘Allah is not One!’ or says; ‘Allah is Two not One!’ Now if you employ what you learnt from this lesson I would like to ask you how I have contradicted my own Aqeedah in the following two quotes: RasoolAllah will bare witness against previous nations, and his nation, hence Allah gave him book which explains to him everything about past present, and future nations, so by knowing the material of the book he would know exactly what had happened in past, and will happen in future, this is how his witnessing is truthful and will be accepted by Allah.”, and in this quote; “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness based on the news which he has recieved from Quran. There is no proof what so ever in this regard.” “Where is your proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will bare witness on account of reading it in the Quran?” [Note; Please refer to full quote if you wish, I am not going to quote it full, just what you underlined.] Where did I state Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) does NOT know Ghayb of past, present, future hence he will NOT be witness? Based on my explanation of second statement [which did not require explanation it is clear and emphatic enough for a two year old] how did you conclude that it contradicts the first one?

What I advise you is to read and think and ask questions about what you read to make sure that you have understood correctly. I was not jibing you when I said you need to learn the real issue and I am not jibing you right now when I wrote read and think. Reading books or material will not make you understand it. Spending time on your own and thinking about what you read and listening to your mind will make you understand. I have absolutely no doubt or confusion or contradiction in my Aqeedah. I advised you before and I advised you now because it hurts me to see people ruin their own selves. I know no one heeds advice given ulta logh bewaqoof kehtay hen for advising them but it is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to give good advice. It is entirely upon you to act on it or throw it right on my face and spit on my face and say; that’s your advice and that’s the payment of it. I am a Muslim and compassion is part of my nature and as long as I have this compassion in my heart I will advise. At certain times I would say harsh and even use insulting tone and you will have to forgive me for that and bear with me as I bear with you.

You wrote: “Moreover, how does this hadith prove that Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam will NOT bare witness based on the knowledge he has recieved from Quran?” While refering to this hadith: “... ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his ummah.’ So Muhammad and his ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes!’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’ That is the words of Allaah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] This hadith proves that Ummah will bear witness on account of being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). It does not prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness on account of reading in the Quran because of three reasons. 1) The Hadith does not state that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness because of reading it in the Quran. 2) On this Hadith you have assumed that; since Ummah will bear witness upon being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), hence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) must also bear witness due to being told by  someone else – i.e. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Even though the Quran doesn’t explicitly state that Prophets delivered the message. Even if we suppose there is a verse which states; Prophets delivered the message, which I don’t know about, even then it will be Qiyas.  3) Qiyas is not the criteria to base Aqeedah on and your Aqeedah that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness by reading the Quran is pure speculation for which you have no clear/explicit proof. These three reasons establish soundly why the Hadith in discussion is not proof for your Aqeedah.

You wrote: “Can you show me a single hadith or ayat of the Quran which shows that the witness will be based on actually having seen the previous nations and not based on previous knowledge recieved via revelation?” I have quoted enough evidence to prove my case that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness because he is seeing/hearing type of witness. It will be too much repition as a result I won’t but near the end in sha’allah I will write a comprehensive account of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being hearing/seeing type of witness. One thing which I have not already mentioned is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is said to have been sent as a Shahid and naturally one who is Shahid must also be present, hearing and seeing otherwise he cannot be Shahid. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Say, "O People of the Scripture, why do you disbelieve in the verses of Allah while Allah is witness over what you do?" [Ref: 3:98] Quran addresses the Jews and Christians and calls them people of scripture, ahlul kitab. How about if I argue; they are ahlul kitab because they have not received a book,  no book was given to them! Can it be possible that they be Ahlul Kitab without ever receiving a single word of guidance inform of book? I am sure you will agree that it is impossible. Or what if I say: ‘O educated people, I want to give you some advice.’ Then I say educated doesn’t mean educated it means one who never went to school and can’t read or write. Will you call accept that this is definition of ‘educated people’? What I am trying to point out is that using a word which means one thing but I declare it means this. Would you call this interpretation or mutilation? When Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated O Prophet we have sent you as a Shahid, you are saying no Shahid at all. If he has been sent as a Shahid and neither heard or saw about what he was going to bear witness about then what kind of Shahid is he. Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not know what the word Shahid means and what the phrase; We have sent you as a witness, means? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the knower of all knew well that the phrase means hearing/seeing type of witness and not deaf, blind type of non-witness.

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has said: “O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has been sent as a witness upon us: “And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [it is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness upon you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give Zakah and hold fast to Allah. He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.” [Ref: 22:78] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was sent as a witness seeing/hearing type witness and he also currently witnessing our deeds because the verse says:  “… and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness upon you …” Who is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) witness upon? He is witness upon two groups of people the Muslims and non-Muslims because he has been sent to entire mankind as Prophet/Messenger: “Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon hlmg) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship;I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me. [Ref: Muslim B4, H1062] As a result of his being sent to entire mankind the following part of verse 22:78 means: “… and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness upon you [i.e. O Mankind] …” This is why Ibn Kathir stated in verse 33:45 that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will bear witness against mankind for their deeds: “as witness” means, a witness to Allah's Oneness, for there is no God except He, and a witness against mankind for their deeds on the Day of Resurrection.and We bring you as a witness against these people” (4:41). This is like the ayah: “that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you” (2:143)“and a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner.” means, a bearer of glad tidings to the believers of a great reward, and a warner to the disbelievers of a great punishment.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 33:45] This proves that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witness upon all that takes place at present and will be tile the judgment day, which is also clearly established in the following Hadith: "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia]


[Continued ...]

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wrote in response to my quote: Furthermore you said: "There are two possible things which you may have alluded to one, angels saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam): "Don't you know what they did after you!" and this issue has thoroughly answered and explained in this dicussion: http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/19739-hadhir-nadhir-objection/ .[...] [bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584] […] [sahih Muslim Book 040, Number 6847] […] So the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did recognize them, so they could not be disbelievers, rather were people he knew, and he did not know what they did after him.”

The issue is answered of: "Don't you know what they did after you!" and everything related to the topic has been explained in the mentioned discussion. Link; http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/19739-hadhir-nadhir-objection/ The entire discussion is essential but certain posts which I think are very important. I will list some posts which you should focus on reading; #8, #9, #10, #17, #23, #27, #29 and etc. You have stated the people who visited Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) on hawd al kauthar could not be Kafirs. I did not say they are disbelievers I wrote they would be apostate-disbelievers. You can check the linked discussion again. I suppose you are saying they will not be apostates. Lets analyze who the people were apostates or not. You quoted with screen print the following hadith in your post
#3, here: “It was narrated that Ibn Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah stood up to give an admonition and he said: 'O people, you will be gathered to Allah naked."' (One of the narrators) Abu Dawud said: "Barefoot and uncircumcised." (The narrators) Waki and Wahb said: "Naked and uncircumcised: As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. The first one to be clothed on the Day of Resurrection will be Ibrahim, peace be upon him. Then some men from among my Ummah will be brought and will be taken toward the left. I will say: 'O Lord, my companions.' It will be said: 'You do not know what they innovated after you were gone,' and I shall say what the righteous slave said: 'And I was witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them, verily, You, only You, are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.' And it will be said: 'These people kept turning away since you left them.'" [Ref: Nisa’i, B21, H2089] Then in your post #16 you quoted another version of same Hadith: “Narrated by Ibn Abbas: The Prophet stood up among us and addressed (saying) "You will be gathered, barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised (as Allah says): 'As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it..' (21.104) And the first human being to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be (the Prophet) Abraham Al-Khalil. Then will be brought some men of my followers who will be taken towards the left (i.e., to the Fire), and I will say: 'O Lord! My companions whereupon Allah will say: you do not know what they did after you left them. I will then say as the pious slave, Jesus said, And I was witness over them while I dwelt amongst them...(up to) ...the All-Wise.' (5.117-118). The narrator added: Then it will be said that those people (relegated from Islam, that is) kept on turning on their heels (deserted Islam). [Ref: Bukhari,  B76, H533] Hence even from your own evidence it is clear that the Ahadith you presented were about apostates. You quote the Ahadith about apostates I also quoted other two Ahadith which are connected with the same topic out which one clearly established these people were apostates: "Narrted Ibn Abbas: Allah's Apostle said, "You will be resurrected (and assembled) bare-footed, naked and uncircumcised." The Prophet then recited the Divine Verse:-- "As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it: A promise We have undertaken. Truly we shall do it." (21.104) He added, "The first to be dressed will be Abraham. Then some of my companions will take to the right and to the left. I will say: 'My companions! 'It will be said, 'They had been renegades since you left them.' I will then say what the Pious Slave Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them; when You did take me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if you forgive them, You, only You are the All-Mighty the All-Wise.' " (5.117-118) Narrated Quaggas, "Those were the apostates who renegade from Islam during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr who fought them." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H656] The Ahadith you quoted prior to your #26 were both about apostates. So obviously those people who Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will recognise would have been Muslims in his life time like Musailimah, Ansi, Saajjah, and Khawarij. But after his death these people became apostates and deserted Islam and became disbelievers again.

You have admitted that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will recognise the leaders of heretics by their faces and they will recognise him. You are contesting that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knowing what they did after him, so lets judge this on basis of Hadith. It is important that base of explanation is laid before I proceed to explain the issue, the base. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is reported to have informed: “I swear by Allah, I do not know whether my companions have forgotten or have pretended to forgot. I swear by Allah that the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) did not omit a leader of a wrong belief (fitnah)--up to the end of the world--whose followers reach the number of three hundred and upwards but he mentioned to us his name, his father's name and the name of his tribe.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B35, H4231] When these leaders will go to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) he will say my companions, my companions the angels will point out that they invented innovations after you [those who invent innovations are leaders of the sects]: “'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying; I shall be there at the Reservoir {Al Kauthar} before you, and I shall have to contend for some people, but I shall have to yield. I would be saying: My Lord, they are my friends, they are my friends, and it would be said: You don't know what innovations they made after you?” [Ref: Muslim, Book 30, Hadith 5690] "... therefore, be cautious lest one of you should come (to me) and may be driven away like a stray camel. I would ask the reasons, and it would be said to me: You don't know what innovations they made after you? And I would then also say: Be away.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5686] Now lets use Ahadith to find out if Prophet (sallallahu alayhiwas’sallam) knew what the leaders of innovators invented and who the innovators were. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) clearly about the kufr of Khawarij that they will kill muslims [killing muslims is kufr] and that they will appear in Iraq, they will read Quran but will go out of Islam as an arrow goes through a target, meaning a little sign of Islam will be upon them etc. Their leader Abdullah bin Dhil Khuwaisira, the Tamimi, the Najdi, the Khariji, the Kafir came to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) accused him of being unjust and not fearing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in distributing the spoils of war. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) foretold about him that he has companions and also foretold that from his progeny a group of people would rise who would read Quran … till end: “He again looked at him and he was going back. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: There would arise a people from the progeny of this (man) who would recite the Qur'an glibly, but it would not go beyond their throats; they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) religion just as the arrow passes through the prey. I conceive that he (the Holy Prophet) also said this: If I find them I would certainly kill them as were killed the (people of) Thamud.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2319] He foretold about Musailmah and the Hadith clear states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said to him: “Narrated Ibn 'Umar: That the Messenger of Allah said: "In Thaqif there is a liar and a destroyer." [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol1, B46, H3944] Bani Thaqif was located in Yamama and Musailimah the Liar claimed Prophethood from this tribe: “It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “I saw wristbands of gold on my arms, so I blew into them, and I interpreted them as being these two liars, Musailimah and ‘Ansi.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol 1, B35, H3922] In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) pin pointed who will claim Prophethood: “Allah's Messenger said, "While I was sleeping, I was given the treasures of the earth and two gold bangles were put in my hands, and I did not like that, but I received the inspiration that I should blow on them, and I did so, and both of them vanished. I interpreted it as referring to the two liars between whom I am present; the ruler of Sana and the Ruler of Yamama." [Ref: Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 660] These Ahadith establish that people Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will know exactly what these leaders [and their followers] were engaged in. Therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not be unaware of their deviations but he will know what they did. Importantly Ahadith establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is presented the deeds of believers and he praises Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if he sees good and seeks forgiveness for the believer if he sees sins, see: “My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you.” [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] So how could he be unaware of the deeds of Muslims? Also the following Hadith narrated by Imam Qastallani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia, Volume 7, Page 204]

To conclude the discussion on this topic Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) recognised the leaders of Khawarij and foretold what the Khawarij will do. He foretold what Musailimah the Liar will do (i.e. claim Prophethood), told about Sajjah the Liar (i.e. false Prophetess) and told about Ansi of Yemen from capital Sana. He told about the Khawarij and the reasons for there apostasy everything he told in his life time. He told about the Rawafiz, that they will curse my companions. He warned about getting invovled on issue of Taqdeer because he knew this will be cause of tribulation. He foretold there will be thirty liars, false claimants of prophethood. All these people Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) recognised and he knew about all of them who would emerge till the judgment day. Then the Ahadith are evidence that all the deeds of Muslims are presented to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and in another hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) says that he will see the deeds of people that take place till judgment day. Yet, you say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not know what the apostates and heretics and me and you and everyone else did after him. Shameless ignorance of Quran and Ahadith and black hearted people with Kufr filled hearts will ignore the truth of creed of Ahle Sunnat and falsehood of your creed. As supplementary reading for you I recommend two of my articles which also deal with issues related to the issue of apostates and heretics:

- Further Clarifying Hadith Of; O My Lord They Are My Companions.

- Studying Phrase Of Hadith; O Lord My Companions! It Will Be Said: They Introduced New Things Into Religion After You.

You wrote: “None of the scholars above said that the Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam knew their true conditions, some said they are apostate and the Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam will recognize them according to what he knew of them being Muslim when he was alive, or they are hypocrites and the Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam will call them according to their apparent state, and he did not know their inner state, or these people are innovators and sinners the Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam will recognize them by their marks of Wudhu, or some few even said they are apostates and hypocrites, yet they will still have marks by which they will be recognized. So all of these scholars agree that the Prophet sallallho alayhi wa sallam was NOT aware of these people's apostatsy or innovations.”

Firstly, you quoted Imam Nawavi (rahimullah), Mullah Ali Qari (rahimullah), Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimullah) and Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.” [Ref: 4:59] Therefore it is against my methodology to refer to the Ulamah on which we dispute. When the Ahadith and Quran is clear then there is no need to dicuss what the Ulamah have written. My methodology is to establish with evidence from Quran and Ahadith and then if there is need to back a aqeedah up with quotes from Ulamah. Part of methodology is that while commenting on a single Ayat/Hadith a commentator may state something which maybe related to that verse individually and not in wider context or in context of specific verse. When a verse/tradtion is interpreted in wider context or in context of specific verse/tradtion then the meaning may change. Hence what the commentators have stated is in context of specific Hadith and not considered wider context. To establish my statement I would like to present the following verse: “Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful.” [Ref: 3:144] Tafsir Al Jalalayn, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and others did not interpret the word ‘killed’. Those who are killed in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are matyrs hence from wider theological point of view the verse is saying: ‘So if he was to die or be matyred, would you turn back on your heels?’ Point is commentators commented explained without employing the wider context of the Quranic Ayaat. Nor they considered theological implications rather they only explained the immediate text of a Ayaat. Similarly the commentators of Hadith might comment either directly at the content of Hadith while ignoring the wider context and ignore the theological implications. Hence we cannot limit restrict the interpretation of verses of Quran or Ahadith according to what they have stated. We are permitted to interpret the Quran and Ahadith and give new interpretations which our predecessors have not given and as long as our interpretations are in accordance with Quran and Sunnah they are valid. Coming to the issue of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) the evidence which proves Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knows sees/hears the actions of his Ummah and mankind. What the Mullah Ali Qari, Imam Nawavi have written does not contradict or refute any aspect of Hazir Nazir because they have commented on a individual Hadith and not related the text of Hadith to wider context of Ahadith and Quran. Hafiz Ibn Hajr’s and Al Qurtubi’s commentaries state nothing contradictory to hearing/seeing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam).

With regards to what the commentators wrote did they conclude that based on this it is established that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not know the innovations and apostasy of people? Or are you implying this from what they have written? As I understood is that they have commented on individual Hadith without relating to theological implications of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knowing the deeds. If you assume that these scholars have written and their commentaries refute Hazir Nazir please clearly and emphatically argue your case explaining to me how you assumed or understood what you did. My intellect cannot comprehend how these quotes in anyway refute Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being Hazir and Nazir. The scholars have written many things and this was also written by a scholar: "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia, Volume 7, Page 204] Commentator Sahih Al Bukhari, Imam Ibn Hajr Al Asqalani (rahimullah) writes, I quote Urdu translation from, ‘Buzurgoon Kay Aqeedeh’, quote: “Hamaray Ulama e kiram nay farmaya ke Hazoor sallallahu alayhi was’sallam ki zindgi aur wafat meh kohi farq nahin voh apni Ummat ko dekhtay hen aur un ki halatoon, niyyatoon aur raazoon aur dil kee batoon ko jantay hen aur yeh aap per bilqul zahir hen,  is meh kohi poshidgi nahin.” [Ref: Muwahid Ladunya, Volume 2, Page  387] Also please check on the following pages 77 onwards to 83. Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9674825/Haq-Par-Kaun-Urdu Some are strong and directly related to the Hazir Nazir others are supplementary evidence.

You presented the following: “Moreover have a look at the following Ahadith: “Anas reported that a person was charged with fornication with the slavegirl of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ali: Go and strike his neck. 'Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. 'Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat 'Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him.” [Sahih Muslim Chapter 11, Book 37, Number 6676] Imam Nawawi made the chapter with the name of;  "THE EXONERATION OF THE SLAVEGIRL OF ALLAH'S APOSTLE (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM) FROM A FALSE CHARGE” So here we come to know that Prophet peace be upon him was not witnessing or Present that is why Prophet peace be upon him did not know about the case of slave girl. Next hadith clears this issue. When Ali R.A. told Prophet peace be upon him that he has not sexual organ, Prophet peace be upon him said to Ali (ra): “The absent can not see what the witness see. [Musnad Ahmad 1/83, Ziaa in al-Mukhtarah 1/248, Silsilah as-Saheehah no: 1904]

First of all, you shamelessly plagiarized the material from another website and only your contribution in the above quote is the first underlined part, also removing of ‘5thly’. Have moral spine and at least give the credit to those whom you copy/paste from because this is not good system of life. The intelligent people don’t plagiarize and if they do they state its not from them and also plagiarize from those who know. Secondly, this Hadith is against what is stated in the Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Fasiqun (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allah).” [Ref: 24:4] In another verse: “And for those who accuse their wives, but have no witnesses except themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies (i.e. testifies four times) by Allah that he is one of those who speak the truth.” [Ref: 24:6] Another verse: “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they (the slanderers) have not produced witnesses! Then with Allah they are the liars.” [Ref: 24:13] Four witnesses are required for Zina yet according to the Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is reported to have instructed killing of man without four witnesses being presented. Therefore this Hadith is clearly against what Quran teaches and one cannot expect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to disregard teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore to take this Hadith as evidence for anything in religion is transgression and it’s evidence is invalid. There are Ahadith which clearly indicate the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) that he took four witnesses in cases of Zina: “A man came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque, and called him, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but when the man gave four witnesses against himself, the Prophet said to him, "Are you mad?" The man said, "No." So the Prophet said (to his companions), "Take him away and stone him to death. " [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H280] Another much longer Hadith records that a companion saw his wife engaged in illicit sexual intercourse  but the companion could not provide four witnesses hence Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not carry out the punishment on the basis of accusation. Hadith states: “Hilal bin Umaiya accused his wife of committing illegal sexual intercourse with Sharik bin Sahma' and filed the case before the Prophet.” Prophet said to the Sahabi:  "Either you bring forth a proof (four witnesses) or you will receive the legal punishment (lashes) on your back." To which the Sahabi replied: "O Allah's Apostle! If anyone of us saw a man over his wife, would he go to seek after witnesses?" But Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) continously repeated: "Either you bring forth the witnesses or you will receive the legal punishment (lashes) on your back." Then the companion took an oath: "By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I am telling the truth and Allah will reveal to you what will save my back from legal punishment." Then the verse of Quran was revealed regarding Sahabi and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) recited it: “As for those who accuse their wives...'  '... (her accuser) is telling the truth.' Hadith records: “Then the Prophet left and sent for the woman, and Hilal went (and brought) her and then took the oaths (confirming the claim). The Prophet was saying, "Allah knows that one of you is a liar, so will any of you repent?" Then the woman got up and took the oaths and when she was going to take the fifth one, the people stopped her and said, "It (the fifth oath) will definitely bring Allah's curse on you (if you are guilty)." So she hesitated and recoiled (from taking the oath) so much that we thought that she would withdraw her denial. But then she said, "I will not dishonor my family all through these days," and carried on (the process of taking oaths).” After which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: "Watch her; if she delivers a black-eyed child with big hips and fat shins then it is Sharik bin Sahma's child." Later she delivered a child of that description. So the Prophet said, "If the case was not settled by Allah's Law, I would punish her severely."  [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H271] Number of things are established from this Hadith, a) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) demanded four witnesses, b.) he did not accept the oath taken by companion, c) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knew if she took the fifth oath Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will punish her. d) He gave description of child which if met would establish the accusation against her, e) the child born was as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) which established the charge against the woman was truth. f) Despite this incriminating evidence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not impliment the punishment upon her because of lack of witnesses. Hence conclusion the Hadith of slavegirl is unreliable because it contradicts a established verse of Quran as well as Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam).

You also quoted the following: “The absent can not see what the witness sees.” Once, again this Hadith is connected with the Hadith of Muslim and same inconsistency exists between the Quran and the Hadith. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “What the witness sees the absent cannot see.” I believe from this you’re insinuating that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was not Hazir/Nazir upon the actions of people. Your logic is, if he was, then he would have known the incident has not taken place and he would have known that the accused is missing sexual organ. As a note, this is the last time I would inferred your position from the material you write or plagiarize. So in future if your argument is not presented and coherently, logically argued I will not derive it on your behalf. It’s your responsibility to present your case not mine to infer. Otherwise I would quote about fifty Ahadith and Verses and let you derive my arguments from them. Coming back to the topic, to answer your argument there are number of things you need to know. Firstly, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not see the actions of mankind immediately after the verses of Shahid were revealed rather this station was improved gradually and this station was perfected when the last and finale verse was revealed. Therefore before the perfection was achieved there is no guarantee that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knew/saw everything. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has referred to the Quran as a Book without doubt and that he will protect it from alterations but note this was before the Quran was completely revealed. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declared about the entire book that He will preserve it even before it was revealed. Similarly Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declared: “O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declared:“And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [it is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give Zakah and hold fast to Allah. He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.” [Ref: 22:78] But being declared as a witness and as a witness over us, does not mean he became witness instantly. Instead the station of Shahid was improved until it was perfected in him, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declared this: “And verily the latter portion will be better for thee than the former. And verily thy Lord will give unto thee so that thou wilt be content.” [Ref: 93:4/5] In his life best station of Ilm/Shahid of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was upon which he died on. But the seeing of deeds and actions continued after his death: “And say: "Do deeds! Allah will see your deeds, and (so will) his Messenger and the believers. And you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Then He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:105] ”They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you: It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did.” [Ref: 9:94] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) seeing the actions of mankind is established from these Ahadith as well: “My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you. [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] “Bakr bin ‘Abdullah also reported that the Holy said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2: 194); ‘Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma‘-uz-zawa’id (9:24)] Long story short, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) improved in his knowledge and in his mojzaati ability of seeing/hearing throughout his life and he reached perfection of seeing/hearing i.e. – being witness, near the end of his life. Hence he could not have seen/heard everything. Therefore this hadith does not refute our Aqeedah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) witnessing deeds of believers. My assumption is these two even though they are contradictory to Quran and Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) it could be that the incident narrated in them is prior to revelation of verses which require four witnesses. If this was/is the case this would automatically vindicate the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat’s Aqeedah of Hazir/Nazir because this would establish the incident took long before the finale part of life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) hence its evidence against our Aqeedah is pointless. [Note: Material Seperated - Three arguments Against Hadhir Nazir]

Anotherly (lol!), the following Hadith is in favour of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat; “What the witness sees the absent cannot see.” Before I present the explanation how this Hadith supports the Aqeedah of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat the base of explanation has to be laid. Allah said that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has been sent as a Apostle to be witness over mankind: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] This is further attested in the following verse, which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witness over mankind: “And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [it is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give Zakah and hold fast to Allah. He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.” [Ref: 22:78] This Hadith establishes that a witness is one who is able to see and if cannot see he is absent (i.e. literally Ghayb). Hence if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witness over mankind and he was sent as a witness to mankind then he must be able to see the actions. Otherwise he was/is not hearing seeing type of witness and if he is not hearing/seeing type of witness then he is not witness but absent and if he is absent then why did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said he is witness then how can you attribute to him qualities which are not of a Shahid but qualities of Ghayb – i.e. not being present, hearing, seeing?  If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent him as a Shahid Rasool over mankind and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did know meaning of Shahid then why do you disbelieve in what He stated and instead you have believed in Kufr and follow the footsteps of apostates i.e. your elders, and not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His most excellent Messenger Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam)? Believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who has sent his beloved Messenger Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as a Shahid over us as He sent Messenger to Firawn. Believe that he is Shahid over us with the qualities of Shahid and not with qualities of Ghayb if you are from Muslims.

 

You quoted the following Hadith: It is mentioned in a hadith: Narrated An-Nu'man bin Bashir: My mother asked my father to present me a gift from his property; and he gave it to me after some hesitation. My mother said that she would not be satisfied unless the Prophet was made a witness to it. I being a young boy, my father held me by the hand and took me to the Prophet.  He said to the Prophet, "His mother, bint Rawaha, requested me to give this boy a gift." The Prophet said, "Do you have other sons besides him?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Do not make me a witness for injustice." Narrated Ash-Shabi that the Prophet said: "I will not become a witness for injustice." [Ref: Bukhari, Book 48, Hadith 818] According to this hadith mentioned in Bukhari it is clear that Prophet peace be upon him will NOT become witness for injustice.”

The Hadith is pretty self explanatory but I will write a brief account. A companion wanted to gift his son. His mother recommended that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) should be witness to the event. Hence the father bought the son in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and wished to give his son a gift making Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) a witness. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) enquired the companion had any other children and the companion affirmed upon which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: "Do not make me a witness for injustice. Implying that giving a gift to one child and ignoring the others is injustice hence he does not wish to be witness of the injustice. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: “Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Fear Allah, and observe equity in case of your children. My father returned and got back the gift.” [Ref: Muslim, B12, H3965] “I narrated this hadith to Muhammad (the other narrator) who said: Verily we narrated that (the Holy Prophet) had said: Observe equity amongst your children.” [Ref: Muslim, B12, H3970] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H79] Here Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) saw one child being preferred over the others and he declared this is injustice and he spoke out against it because it was appropriate for him to do so.

You have taken the following portion out of its natural context: "Do not make me a witness for injustice.", to argue Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not see injustice i.e. major and minor sins. This implies that he is not seeing/hearing actions. I understand the speech of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as part of Jawami Al Kalim in other words, short expression widest in meaning, hence it is not an issue with me even if you isolate the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam).  The issue is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has stated: "Do not make me a witness for injustice. … “I will not become a witness for injustice." If you take the statement the following statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to mean: “I will not become a witness for injustice.", that he will never be witness to injustice taking place then this is incorrect and it contradicts Ahadith. Here something which we both do agree on: “My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you.” [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] “Bakr bin ‘Abdullah also reported that the Holy said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2: 194); ‘Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma‘-uz-zawa’id (9:24)] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will see in his life time major and minor sins of his Ummah and he will then supplicate Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for forgiveness. The following verses are also evidence that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will see the actions of believers: “And say: "Do deeds! Allah will see your deeds, and (so will) his Messenger and the believers. And you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Then He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:105] ”They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you:It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did.” [Ref: 9:94] Therefore the interpretation that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not and did not see injustices taking place is refuted.

Why did the companion wanted to make him Witness for the event in the first place? The answer is they believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witness upon their deeds as a result they wanted to make him eye witness to act of father being good to his son. Then on the judgment day he will testify to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that they did good deeds. Father wanting to gift his son is good deed but to ignore the others is sinful and injustice. As a result when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) would be bearing witness against these people in the court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It was for this reason Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: "Do not make me a witness for injustice.”

If they make him witness to sins then he will bear witness against them. Secondly considering that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Shahid upon us, according to Quran, the phrase could mean; “Do not commit injustices.” As a father says to son who has been caught smoking/drinking; “Do not ever make me ever witness this sinful act again.” This does not mean that father wishes for the son to engage sinful acts in secret rather means: “Do not ever engage in such sinful acts.” Implication is if you make me witness upon your deeds [which I inevitably will because deeds are presented to me] then I will bear witness against you. Hence the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) in reality is teaching not to engage in acts which are sinful. Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) saying: "I will not become a witness for injustice." Now if we take the literal meaning of quote then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) indeed did not become witness for injustice because he spoke against it and prevented the companion from only gifting his one son and ignoring the other. So in the specific context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not be a witness to injustice. If you take the phrase literally and generally then this is contradicted by those Ahadith which establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witnesses the actions of people and seeks forgiveness for Muslims for their sins and praises Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for the good deeds. Apart from these Ahadith if I will with mercy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I can quote twenty-five Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) witnessed injustice taking place. The phrase of Hadith; "I will not become a witness for injustice." means; "I will not become a witness for injustice [and remain silent over it]." or could mean; "I will not become a witness for injustice [and not censor and correct it].” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) censored the injustice and suggested correction i.e. – treating all children equally.

You have employed this Hadith in refutation to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being hearin/seeing type of witness. Nothing could be more unjust then your belief that Ummah will bear testimony in defence of Prophets based on being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) who hasn’t seen/heard the events which has told his Ummah about. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is the most just from creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the most truthful in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). As such he will bear witness in defence of Ambiyah (alayhis salaam) because he has seen/heard the events of all Ummats. It would be injustice and lie if he bears witness in defence of Ambiyah (alayhis salaam) without seeing/hearing the events. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) does not lie and is not unjust to anyone because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has sent him as truthful Prophet [who is from amongst truthful Prophets]: “That He may ask the truthful about their truth. And He has prepared for the disbelievers a painful torment.“ [Ref: 33:8] Yet you are adamant that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is going to bear witness even though he has not seen or heard anything. Did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) not say that not to make him witness for injustice and that he will not be witness for injustice, here: "Do not make me a witness for injustice." … "I will not become a witness for injustice." Instead of him being witness to injustice he will be committing injustice according to your belief if he has not seen/heard the events himself. You force this injustice upon the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) despite the fact that our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has negated injustice for himself and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has declared him to be truthful. Are you without shame and do you not have fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Will you not then believe in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) like we the Muslims believe? Will you not believe in him as a truthful and just Prophet, and reject/disbelieve in the Kufr you hold to, and walk on the straight path and leave innovations which have lead you away from the path of Islam?

Finally, your argument against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being hearing/seeing type of witness is that because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said that he will not be witness to injust therefore he is not hearing/seeing type of witness. This argument is based on Qiyas and Qiyas is not evidence on issues of creed. The Qadiyani’s employ your methodology to support their argument that Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) has died. They quote all the verses in which the word ‘rafa’ has been used to mean raise in honor and status. Therefore in the verse “… bal rafa’ullahu alayhi …” [Ref: 4:158] the raising of Isa (alayhis salaam) isn’t in meaning of physical raising but rising in status. You are following footsteps of heretics who have always sought to distort the meaning of Quran by inferring from other verses while completely ignoring tons of Ahadith. We Muslims follow the methodology of Ahle Sunnat and we interpret the verses according to what the Ahadith indicate and apply a meaning to a verse which is in harmony with the Ahadith. In order to clarify the methodology of Ahle Sunnat I will provide a example. ‘Rafa’ according to Quran can meaning and does mean rising of status but Ahadith indicate and the verse indicates Isa (alayhis salaam) did not die. The verse states neither they killed him on cross nor they killed him by other means: “And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; …” [Ref: 4:157] The Hadith state Isa (alayhis salaam) will return and die. Quran states, death is twice, birth is twice [Ref: 40:11]. Period before birth is one death, birth, then death and then life again, that’s two deaths two lives [Ref: 2:28]. Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) if he was born, died, will come to life again to during time of Imam Mahdi, die again and will come to life again for judgment day. This is; death, life, death, life, death, life, that’s three, deaths three lives, this contradicts Quran, therefore it cannot be correct. Therefore if we take Ahle Sunnat’s Aqeedah, period before his birth equales death, then birth – grew up – raised alive, will return – die, and then will be raised for judgment day, this is total two deaths two life, as it should be. Hence based on all this data the only feasible meaning of ‘Rafa’ is Isa (alayhis salaam) being raised alive. We the Muslims consider and account for all the details and according to these details assign a meaning to a verse/word.  The heretics disregard the all the evidence and infer the meanings of words from other verses where the word has been used in different meaning. On basis of this difference they attack a clear explicit understanding of verse like you have been doing. Our position on Hadhir Nazir is based on complete analysis of all the available evidences and we do not disregard any evidence. Nor we distort the meaning of verses of Quran by employing the methodology of enemies of Islam. If the methodology of enemies of Islam was the correct methodology then the fundamental aspects of creed will be in danger. If the methodology of refuting the fundamental by indirect means was correct then how would we the Muslims establish that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has knowledge for everything, all the time, when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) questioned Musa (alayhis salaam) about his staff? To refute the fundamental with indirect means and then to determine a new fundamental position which contradicts the verse is not Tafsir but distortion of Quran and one who distorts the Quran with Tafsir bir’ra’i is Kafir according to one Hadith and according to other one destined to hellfire. Save your self from the Kufr and fire of hell and do not distort the book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

[Continued ...]

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You quoted the Hadith and wrote [in red]: “Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger having said this: Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people, and the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make their husbands incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the bukht camel inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be smelt from such and such distance.” [Arabic: Sahih Muslim 2128] “The Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam clearly states that He has NOT seen them.”

Regarding your statement that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) you wrote; “The Prophet Sallallho Alayhi Wa Sallam clearly states that He has NOT seen them.” Not seeing does not mean he will not see in future it means he has not seen up to the time he made the statement. If I say; ‘I have not seen a idiot like you Haq3909 in my life.’ Will that mean that up to current stage of my life I have not seen idiot like you or I will never see idiot like you? Not seeing at the moment of statement does not mean that I won’t meet anyone more idiotic then you. We do not believe that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) saw/heard everything ever moment of his life or straight after the revelation of Shahid verses. Rather we believe maqam of Shahid was perfected gradually until he reached the stage where he saw deeds of all mankind.

There are four Ahadith on this topic all of which are found in Sahih of Imam Muslim. Here is English translation reference for the above hadith: “Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people, and the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) ...” [Ref: Muslim, B24, H5310] Characteristic of Ox tail is that it is thicker in one side and thinnest the other. Other type could resemble the end of ox tail. Ox tail at the end becomes like a dusting brush. A similar version of that whip also exists where a small wooden handle is attached strands of rope or leather or chain hanging. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/18/article-1046370-0226A53F0000044D-269_468x354.jpg This version is commonly used by the Shia to beat themselves to ‘mourn’ the martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu) on annual 10th Muharram festival of - beating the crap out of your own self. The first one existed in our times, and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and his followers engaged in whipping Muslims with something which resembled ox’s tail. The TTP which is a Deobandi Khariji terrorist group in Pakistan was engaged in it. A minor was whipped in public her kameez was lifted from her back side and whipped her with a whip resembling tail of ox. The Somalian Wahhabi group Al-Shabab whips with something which resembles entire Ox tail. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: “There are two types of residents of hell whom I did not see; people having flogs like tails of ox …” The purpose was to inform the audience that they are not alive right now but they will be born later. Had these people existed then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) would have seen them with his own eyes. The following Ahadith affirm that the people who Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) described did not exist, here : “If you live for a time, you would certainly see people get up (in the morning) in the wrath of Allah and getting into the evening under the curse of Allah, and there would be in their hands (whips) like the tail of an ox.” [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6842] If you survive for a time you would certainly see people who would have whips in their hands like the tail of an ox. They would get up in the morning under the wrath of Allah and they would get into the evening with the anger of Allah.” [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6841] In these two Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) stated that if the companions lived for long enough they would see with their own eyes. Hence he was merely stating that he has not seen them with his own eyes. The Hadith which you quoted is part of the Hadith quoted by me. Hence the full text of the Hadith would be: Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people. … If you survive for a time you would certainly see people who would have whips in their hands like the tail of an ox. They would get up in the morning under the wrath of Allah and they would get into the evening with the anger of Allah.” The basic line is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has not yet seen them with his own eyes because they do not live. But if the companions lived long enough they would see them with their own eyes. Not seeing the actions of people at that moment does not mean he will not get to see their actions. We all agree that deeds of people are presented to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), evidence here:  Bakr bin ‘Abdullah also reported that the Holy said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2: 194); ‘Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma‘-uz-zawa’id (9:24)] Hence, seeing of the deeds of these people is established.

Regarding the women dressed yet naked, it refers to two things, thin clothes through which the bodies can be seen, which are a modern phenomena and wearing of tight clothes. Tight clothes also come into this because purpose of clothes is to cover your body parts but tight clothes reveal the shape of these parts hence such clothes defeat their Shara’i purpose. The camel hump refers to two types of women the Kufar and Muslim. The Kuffar are models who design their hair frequently as camel humps and walk on stages wearing designer clothes, prostituting their bodies for money. The Muslims are those who are heavily influenced by Western culture and have no Haya in their hearts, eyes, ears but out need of looking ‘cute’ or fashionable or fake impersonation of modesty wear Hijab and make camels humps on their heads. All you have to do is in google image search ‘Camels hump Hijab’ and you will see it. The bottom line is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not get to see these women because they were not born but he will definitely get to see their actions which they are presented to him. Not seeing them at the moment is no proof that he will never get to see them. The following Hadith states the deeds of people will be presented to him: “My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you. [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] This establishes that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will get to see the deeds of these Muslim women and he will seek forgiveness for them. The maqam of Shahid was perfected for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) he has reported to have said: "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib-e-Ladunnia] This Hadith is also supported by the following verses in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is stated to have been sent as a witness over mankind: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] “And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [it is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give Zakah and hold fast to Allah. He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.” [Ref: 22:78] Being witness over mankind means that should be seeing/hearing the deeds of mankind otherwise he is not witness over mankind. Therefore the deeds of mankind and the type of women in discussion all are witnessed by him.

[Continued ...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Will Continue My Response Once I have Completed Posting Five Article Material Regarding Qawa'id Al Arba's Second Principle. All The Material Is Written But It Needs Finale Touches. Hence I Have Decided Not To Pursue My Debate Response Until The I Have Completed Posting Those Articles. I Believe Topic Of Hadhir Nazir Has Been Completely Exhausted From A Debate Point Of View And Much Of The Material Will Be Just Repetition. But There Are Some Important Points Which Need To Be Adressed And In-Sha-Allah I will Adress Them This Week. I Have Been Extremely Busy With My Work As A Result Abandoned Long Project Of Debate Response Which I Will Start Again. Until Then I Will Be Adding Finale Touches To Already Written Material To Make It Available For Readers. Thank You For Your Paitence.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just completed my five articles on Qawa'id Al Arba's second principle, in sha Allah I will now start completing the response on Hadhir Nadhir. Thank you for your paitence Mr Haq3909.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some aspects of the discussion were ambigous and not clearly stated. Hence I added elaborative words which reveal in which context the statements were about.

You copy & pasted: “Quran also rejects the idea of Prophet peace be upon him being present and watching, Allah says in Surah al-Qasas addressing the Prophet peace be upon him (44. And you were not on the western side (of the Mount), when We made clear to Musa the commandment, and you were not among the witnesses.) (45. But We created generations, and long were the ages that passed over them. And you were not a dweller among the people of Madyan, reciting Our Ayat to them. But it is We Who kept sending (Messengers).) (46. And you were not at the side of At-Tur when We called. But (you are sent) as a mercy from your Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before you, in order that they may remember or receive admonition.) Ibn Katheer commented: Similarly, Allah told him about Maryam and her story, as Allah said: …”

You quoted Surah Al Qasas [28] from 44 to verse 46, and you wish to establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was not Hadhir Nadhir. This verse is in same style of Surah Al Ma’idah [5] verse 15. Where in the beginning Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states, O people of book, there has come to you a Rasool who revealed what you use to hide and ignores the other, then Allah says; “There has come to you from Allah a Noor and clear book.” In the last part of the verse, the first part of verse is sumarized. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) reveals what they hide, noor reveals what is hidden, this is proof of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being reffered as Noor. In the context of dicussion, its proof that it is Sunnah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)  to sumarize the first part of verse in last part of verse. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states:  “And you were not on the Western side when We made clear to Musa the comandment ...”  This indicates the verse explicitly negates physical presence at the place when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave Musa (alayhis salaam) the commandment. If one is present physically at a event then he is witness to the event. If one is amongst the people who are present while the event is taking place then he is amongst the witnesses. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was not present while the event was taking place, but other people were present, hence he was not amongst the witnesses. Therefore the following part of the verse is emphasizing what was already stated in the first part of the verse; “… and you were not among the Shahideen.” Hence the last part of the verse was mere repition of what is stated in the beginning of the verse. In other words the last part states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was not amongst those who were present. I have already established the word Shahid [present/witness] has been used by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as opposite of Ghayb [absent/unseen] in the supplication of funeral prayers, once again the words; “Allahum maghfirli hayyitina wa mayyitina wa shahidina wa ghaybina wa sagheerina wa kabeerina ...” The suplication translates to; “ O Allah forgive our living and our dead, and our present and absent, and our minors and elders …” The part which is my interest is underlined. Therefore the last part of the verse only states; “… and you were not amongst the present [and watching/hearing].” This verse of the Quran only negates physical presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) at the event which is mentioned in the verse. The verse does not negate spiritual witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). From the logical and rational perspective Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) could not have been present on the mount because he was not born while the events were unfolding on the Western side of the mount. We the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat do not believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was present while these events were taking place. [Note, brother Saeedi and Khalil Rana Sahib I believe have already presented Tafasir in the Urdu discussion which support this interpretation.] What is the significance of this verse? Why did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) state this? Everyone knew Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was not present at the events which took place in the life time of Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) and Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam). This is explained in the few verses later; “And you were not at the side of the mount when We called [Moses] but [Wahi i.e. Ghaybi revelation was sent to you O Prophet Muhammad] as a mercy from your Lord to warn a people to whom no warner had come before you that they might be reminded.” [Ref:  28:46] Meaning even though you was not present Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted you the knowledge of events which took place long before you, but the Wahi was sent to inform you of the events which you could not have known without being present there. In other words when you inform them of these events which you could not have known this will establish your claim of Prophet-hood. Similar type of verse states; “That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal, [O Muhammad], to you. And you were not with them when they put together their plan while they conspired.” [Ref: 12:102] And also the following verses; “That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammad]. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” [Ref: 3:44] These two verses also establish that even though you wasn’t present your self, but Ghayb news inform of Wahi was given to you to educate you about the events. The purpose is to point out his absence from the event yet knowing them in perfect detail. Its like one person claims to be able to see through walls so to support his claim he sits out side a house and says this is happening behind this wall he describes eveything. Once he accurately describes what he should not know and cannot know without first seeing or while seeing, then he has established his ability of seeing through the wall. Similarly Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) claimed Prophet-hood and to support his Prophet-hood Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave him knoweldge to substantiate his claim. Like he went to Jerusalem, people doubted Allah showed him everything and his visit to Jerusalem was established. So when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) described the events of Musa (alayhis salaam), Isa (alayhis salaam) without being there this established his claim of Prophet-hood. Ibn Kathir writes; “Allah points out the proof of the prophethood of Muhammad , whereby he told others about matters of the past, and spoke about them as if he were hearing and seeing them for himself. But he was an illiterate man who could not read books, and he grew up among a people who knew nothing of such things.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 28:44] [Note, I see no need to respond to remaining part of copy & paste job because all the material is harmonized with this explanation.]

You wrote: “I had already explained this ayat earlier that according to some interpretations the prophets (all of them) were unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, which is why they said “We have no knowledge.”[see Tafsir Ibn Kathir] In fact, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari said in the exact place in his commentary of Mishkat: “This [witnessing] does not negate His statement: “the day when Allah will assemble the messengers and will say to them, “How were you responded to?” They will say, “We have no knowledge. Surely You alone have the full knowledge of all that is unseen” because response is different to conveying, and it (i.e. the response of their peoples) requires details , the essence of which is comprehended only by Allah, as opposed to conveying itself which is from obvious necessary knowledge).”

Technically, you didn’t explain anything you just copied&pasted from, you and I know from where. To resolve this difference we have to ask a question and answer this question. Question is, did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asked about the inner convictions or just outer affirmation with tongue, in the following verse; “[be warned of] the Day when Allah will assemble the messengers and say, "What was the response you received?" They will say, "We have no knowledge. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen" [Ref: 5:109]? If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired about the inner affirmation only then it would make sense that Prophets negate knowing all details regarding the belief of their nations. But there is no clear indication that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired about the inner or outer, or both, hence the interpretation is speculative. My reading of the verse tells me that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) merely enquired about the outer affirmation of faith. Meaning did your nations affirm in one-ness and your prophet-hood with their tongues, and the question of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not enquire if they inwardly, sincerely and firmly believed in the Prophets and Tawheed etc. Mullah Ali Al Qari (rahimullah) assumed that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired about absolute details regarding the response which their nations gave them. Based on the assumption that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired about complete absolute details regarding the response, Mullah Ali Al Qari (rahimullah) writes; “… because response is different to conveying, and it (i.e. the response of their peoples) requires details , the essence of which is comprehended only by Allah, …” I am not familiar with the exact position, nor the quote indicates exact position of Mullah Ali Al Qari (rahimullah) on the issue. It is not clear that Mullah Ali Al Qari (rahimullah) stated this due to his interpretation that Prophets out of respect/fear will say it or not knowing it. [Note, Ibn Kathir states same but he attributes it to chaos of judgment day, fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and respect of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). But my guess is Mullah Ali Al Qari’s (rahimullah) understanding will not definitely be due to ignorance because all those who proceded him have not stated this.]

Ibn Kathir, presents two Tafasir, one he writes: “The statement of the Messengers here; “We have no knowledge.” [their saying this] is the result of the horror of that Day, according to Mujahid, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and As-Suddi. `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ath-Thawri said that Al-A`mash said that Mujahid said about the Ayah; “On the Day when Allah will gather the Messengers together and say to them: "What was the response you received'' They will become afraid and reply; “We have no knowledge.” Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim also recorded this explanation. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on the Ayah, … "They will say to the Lord, Most Honored, `We have no knowledge beyond what we know, and even that, You have more knowledge of them than us.'' This response is out of respect before the Lord, Most Honored, and it means, we have no knowledge compared to Your encompassing knowledge. Therefore, our knowledge only grasped the visible behavior of these people, not the secrets of their hearts. You are the Knower of everything, Who has encompassing knowledge of all things, and our knowledge compared to Your knowledge is similar to not having any knowledge at all.” My Tafsir of the interpretation was that Prophets will negate their knowledge out of their respect for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Ibn Kathir has fully supported my interpretation. Even though the route which I took to arrive at the conclusion was different but the out come is same. Coming to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, he writes it was due to the confusion and chaos of judgment day and, fear and respect  of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Prophets will say; “We have no knowledge.” Ibn Kathir like Mullah Ali Qari (rahimullah) too assumed that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired about all details regarding the outer and inner faith of their followers. But he states in his Tafsir that Prophets knew the visible behaviour of the people not the inner testimony of heart; “Therefore, our knowledge only grasped the visible behavior of these people, not the secrets of their hearts.” In summary, my interpretation was that Prophets will say; “We have no knowledge.”, out of respect for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but in reality will have knowledge, which is supported by Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir stops short of saying what the Sahib e Tafsir Al Jalalayn and Tafsir Ibn Abbas wrote, that Prophets will bear witness against their communities later on; In the day when Allah gathereth together the messengers) this is on the Day of Judgement, (and saith) in some place, at the time of bedazzlement: (What was your response (from mankind)) how did people respond to you? (They say) due to the intensity of the situation, which is that place: (We have no knowledge. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden) i.e. that which is hidden from us of the response of people. But later, they answer and testify that they have delivered the message to their people.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas]

Alhasil, my interpretation that Prophets will negate their knowledge due to respect/humility of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not due to not having knowledge is supported by Ibn Kathir the very guy you quoted against me. Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir Al Jalalayn also support the position that Prophets will know [but will remember due to fear and fright of judgment day]. You quoted the verse 5:109 to establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not know what his nation did. Where as this establishes that the Prophets will know but either due to fear or due to forgetfulness caused by the sheer intensity of events, or due to respect and humility of the Prophets will say;
“We have no knowledge.” If it was forgetfulness then it was only momentary and is not proof that they will not know the when they are asked about. Hence momentary forgetfulness does not mean not having knowledge. If it’s the inner faith, then we too believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) does not know absolutely everything (- i.e. inners of hearts of people) as a witness. Instead we believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witness upon the actions NOT intentions. We believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sees the actions and he sees actions and seeks forgiveness for sins and praises Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for good deeds of his followers. Therefore this interpretation does not refute our position either. If they said we have no knowledge due to respect then it only proves they had the knowledge but the one asking was all knower, whose knowledge is limitless and required no information, hence as humble and respectful servants they negated their own knowledge as if they didn’t have any knowledge at all. What is a drop compared to the oceans of earth, nothing. When one who is master of oceans ask master of drop, what you have, he will say nothing if he knows his worth. The Prophets knew their worth and worth of their knowledge and knew who asked them, hence they in humility said we know nothing. This does not mean their this statement is taken to mean that they have no knowledge. You yourself have affirmed that the verse means Prophets had some knowledge but not equale to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); “I had already explained this ayat earlier that according to some interpretations the prophets (all of them) were unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, …” By stating this you have absolutely refuted your own position. If you argued that; this verse establishes that Prophets said we have NO KNOWLEDGE therefore it proves that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not have any knowledge hence he is not Hadhir Nazir, then is would have been your proof against Hadhir Nazir. Instead you have refuted the very basis of your possible argument. Apnay hathoon say apna qatal, mubarak ho. Knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is of Lawh Al Mafooz and of Al Qalam which wrote everything but not intentions. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sees actions as a witness and NOT intentions. Hence according to Ibn Kathir if he was to say I have no knowledge it does not mean he would not have seen/heard the events, it merely means he doesn’t know the entire details regarding faith of Muslims, but only knows their actions, words, and not inner faith. This interpretation of Ibn Kathir is not detrimenal to our Aqeedah of Hadhir Nazir rather perfectly supports it. Cause we believe as a witness Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sees, actions and is shown actions, and he has seen all that has taken place on earth from beginning to end. Therefore he knows all events but is not shown intentions of people, and inner faith of people. Last point, Ibn Kathir writes Prophets will negate knowing the faith in the heart and absolute knowledge of Ghayb compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); “…we have no knowledge compared to Your encompassing knowledge. Therefore, our knowledge only grasped the visible behavior of these people, not the secrets of their hearts. You are the Knower of everything, …” In short Ibn Kathir believes actions will be known but the Prophets will negate knowing the inner eman of heart as a act of respect to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This means that in perspective of Ibn Kathir the actions of people will be seen by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) but their intentions will remain hidden. Alhasil, Ibn Kathir supports the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammats position of issue of Hadhir Nadhir – Prophets knowing the outer actions. Now coming to the belief of Ibn Kathir that Prophets will not know the inner eman of hearts. If Ibn Kathir believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) didn’t know the issues of hearts then he was clearly wrong because many Ahadith establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knew the issues of heart. The Ahadith state; "Narrated Anas bin Malik:The Prophet led us in a prayer and then got up on the pulpit and said, "In your prayer and bowing, I certainly see you from my back as I see you (while looking at you.)" [Ref: Bukhari, B8, H411] “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said, "You see me facing the Qibla; but, by Allah, nothing is hidden from me regarding your bowing and submissiveness and I see you from behind my back." [Ref: Bukhari, B12, H708] “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said, "Do you consider or see that my face is towards the Qibla? By Allah, neither your submissiveness nor your bowing is hidden from me, surely I see you from my back." [Ref: Bukhari, B8, H410] You have answered nothing and the subject is bigger then your little head can cope with. You are Deobandi who doesn’t know what would support his position, Deobandi’s have always been arguing that the verse 5:109 means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will say I have no knowledge hence he was not Hadhir Nazir. [Ref: Yunus Nomani V.S. Maulana Saeed Assad, Ilm Ghayb Debate, youtube it, and liten to Nomani arguing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) doesn’t have any knowledge of Ghayb because 5:109 negates knowledge of Ghayb.] This verse is not your evidence, it would be only evidence if you could prove that Prophets will not know when they say; “We have no knowledge.” I laughed when I saw you quoting this in post #3 You seriously are not very bright spark. Stop copy&pasting and start using the brain and think for your self.

You wrote: “Now listen!When someone Knows something but yet says out of humility that ' He DOESN'T know' then what does it mean? Now there are two options:Either the prophets were lieing(MazAllah) or they were actually unaware of all the responses.The first option is impossible and the second one is probable as supported by Mulla Ali Qari Rh.Now you need to produce incisive proof that it was due to humility or else my case stands.More on this verse later.”

Your scenario entails that one is denying something which he knows and your scenario does not imply in anyway that the person doesn’t know all details, hence your scenario representation is wrong. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knows something, and he says he doesn’t know all details [according to interpretation of Mullah Ali Al Qari rahimullah] then how can this scenario which you presented be accurate representation of actual reality of knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) according to Mullah Ali Al Qari’s (rahimullah) explanation? Your scenario should have been; “When someone Knows something but yet says out of humility that, he doesn’t know all the responses then what does it mean?” You wrote; When someone Knows something but yet says out of humility that ' He DOESN'T know' then what does it mean?” You answered the question; “Now there are two options:Either the prophets were lieing(mazallah!) or they were actually unaware of all the responses.” The scenario you presented was, someone knows something and says he doesn’t know that something [which he knows] but out of the two choices, one is; “… or they were actually unaware of all the responses.” If they know something then how can this be one of the option? Either the option should be; unaware of some of the responses; “Either the prophets were lieing (MazAllah) or they were actually unaware of some of the responses.”, or the scenario should be; “When someone knows all responses but yet says out of humility that he doesn’t know then what does it mean?” when someone knows all responses. Therefore first of all your scenario does not accurately reflect itself and it’s contradictory in details, which I don’t expect you to realize. So if you have the following; “When someone knows something but yet says out of humility that he doesn’t know then what does it mean?” then following should be part of it; “Either the prophets were lieing (MazAllah) or they were actually unaware of some of the responses. If you have the following as the beginning; “When someone knows all responses but yet says out of humility that he doesn’t know then what does it mean?”, then this should be; “Either the prophets were lieing(mazallah!) or they were actually unaware of all the responses.” Finally, you asked: “When someone knows something but yet says out of humility that he doesn’t know then what does it mean?” Let me answer the question which you asked and failed to answer your self. When someone knows something and says he doesn’t know that something there are two options, 1) he is lieing, 2) or he is being humble. For Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) lieing is impossible therefore his saying that he doesn’t know will mean he is being humble. If someone knows something and he says he doesn’t know everything, then there is no need to say, he is lieing or being humble, that’s his reality. But if he knows something and says; I don’t know anything or says; “I have no knowledge.” Then he is either lieing, or being humble. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) doesn’t lie, no Nabi lies, therefore they were being respectfully humble about their knowledge. You also wrote: Now you need to produce incisive proof that it was due to humility or else my case stands.More on this verse later.” My argument in my previous response was incisively argued soundly established the humility of Prophets and remains irrefutable. Ibn Kathir writes: "They will say to the Lord, Most Honored, `We have no knowledge beyond what we know, and even that, You have more knowledge of them than us.'' This response is out of respect before the Lord, Most Honored, and it means, we have no knowledge compared …” Showing respect to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is always with humility. We stand in prayers with hands folded its sign of respect and our humility, we bow, its sign of respect and our humility, we prostrate, its sign of respect and our humility. Rule is show of respect to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without showing humbleness, meekness, is not possible. Ibn Kathir writes that Prophets will negate their knowledge with respect of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This automatically implies the Prophets will be respectful and humble in presence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and in state of humility and respect will deny their knowledge.

[Continued ...]

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If it’s the inner faith, then we too believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) does not know absolutely everything of inners of hearts of people. Instead we believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is witness upon the actions NOT intentions. We believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sees the actions and he sees actions and seeks forgiveness for sins and praises Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for good deeds of his followers. Therefore this interpretation does not refute our position either. If they said we have no knowledge due to respect then it only proves they had the knowledge but the one asking was all knower, whose knowledge is limitless and required no information, hence as humble and respectful servants they negated their own knowledge as if they didn’t have any knowledge at all. What is a drop compared to the oceans of earth, nothing. When one who is master of oceans ask master of drop, what you have, he will say nothing if he knows his worth. The Prophets knew their worth and worth of their knowledge and knew who asked them, hence they in humility said we know nothing. This does not mean their this statement is taken to mean that they have no knowledge. You yourself have affirmed that the verse means Prophets had some knowledge but not equale to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); “I had already explained this ayat earlier that according to some interpretations the prophets (all of them) were unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, …” By stating this you have absolutely refuted your own position. If you argued that; this verse establishes that Prophets said we have NO KNOWLEDGE therefore it proves that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will not have any knowledge hence he is not Hadhir Nazir, then is would have been your proof against Hadhir Nazir. Instead you have refuted the very basis of your possible argument. Apnay hathoon say apna qatal, mubarak ho. Knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is of Lawh Al Mafooz and of Al Qalam which wrote everything but not intentions. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sees actions and NOT intentions. Hence if he was to say I have no knowledge it does not mean he would not have seen/heard the events, it merely means he doesn’t know the entire details regarding faith of Muslims, but only knows their actions, words, and not inner faith. This is not detrimenal to our Aqeedah rather perfectly supports it. Cause we believe he sees, actions and is shown actions, and he has seen all that has taken place on earth from beginning to end, therefore he knows all events but not intentions of people, and inner faith of people. Last point, Ibn Kathir writes Prophets will negate knowing the faith in the heart and absolute knowledge of Ghayb compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); “…we have no knowledge compared to Your encompassing knowledge. Therefore, our knowledge only grasped the visible behavior of these people, not the secrets of their hearts. You are the Knower of everything, …” This means that in perspective of Ibn Kathir the actions of people will be seen by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) but their intentions will remain hidden. In short Ibn Kathir believes actions will be known but the Prophets will negate knowing the inner eman of heart. You have answered nothing and the subject is bigger then your little head can cope with. You are Deobandi who doesn’t know what would support his position, Deobandi’s have always been arguing that the verse 5:109 means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will say I have no knowledge hence he was not Hadhir Nazir. [Ref: Yunus Nomani V.S. Maulana Saeed Assad, Ilm Ghayb Debate, youtube it, and liten to Nomani arguing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) doesn’t have any knowledge of Ghayb.] This verse is not your evidence, it would be only evidence if you could prove that Prophets will not know when they say; “We have no knowledge.” I laughed when I saw you quoting this in post #3 You seriously are not very bright spark. Stop copy&pasting and start using the brain and think for your self.

 

[Continued ...]

Salam,

 

post-15519-0-20151400-1398597623_thumb.png

post-15519-0-47174800-1398597639_thumb.png

post-15519-0-98079800-1398599326_thumb.png

 

I am sick and tired of this hypocrisy day in day out.Why am i even arguing with you when you don't know the aqeedah of your elders?Secondly thanks for presenting the tafseer Ibn Kathir which totally goes against the aqeedah of the barelwis.I am not going to reply to your arguments any more aur Allah Ta'ala kay liyay barelwiyat chor do.Kya ab bhi yakeen nahi ata kay yay barelwi log kis direction may ja rahay hay?

 

Wasallam.

Edited by Haq3909

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shut it imbecile, and let me finish my response, and then write your stupidities. You will have all time time to be stupid.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shut it imbecile, and let me finish my response, and then write your stupidities. You will have all time time to be stupid.

Salam,

 

Why are you using your whole effort in replying to an imbecile? ;)

 

Wasallam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

 

Why are you using your whole effort in replying to an imbecile? ;)

 

Wasallam.

 

Because you're imbecile not the one you copy pasted everything from. I am responding to others who wrote the material, not to the one who copy pasted it. I have elaborated the content bit more clearly. Added few words to make it clear what was intended. But Thanks for high lighting it, and I will properly respond. In detail cause my belief regarding Prophet knowing about heart is already been discussed

#19 #13

These should have been enough to make u realize something was wrong while writting the response, but u wanted to get ur leg up. lol.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you're imbecile not the one you copy pasted everything from. I am responding to others who wrote the material, not to the one who copy pasted it. I have elaborated the content bit more clearly. Added few words to make it clear what was intended. But Thanks for high lighting it, and I will properly respond. In detail cause my belief regarding Prophet knowing about heart is already been discussed

#19 #13

These should have been enough to make u realize something was wrong while writting the response, but u wanted to get ur leg up. lol.

Salam,

 

 

1. ) You change colors more swiftly than a chameleon does.When i highlighted your original aqeedah , you suddenly switched gears and adopted your elders aqeedah.

 

2. ) Not only did Hafiz Ibn Kathir Rahimahullah give this tafseer but the like of it was also given in Tafseer Khazin , Tafseer Kabeer , Siraj um Muneer , Tafseer Madarik , Tafseer Baydawi , in Anwar ul Tanzeel and by Allama Abu Saud Rahimaullah in his tafseer respectively. So were all of them wrong?Are you only right?

 

3. ) Moreover the hadith that you have presented is a miracle of our Holy Prophet  (saw)  and it talks about prayer only , not about everytime.

 

4. ) Look at the following hadith:

Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet, narrated: “Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) heard some people quarrelling at the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, “I am only a human being, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favour. So, if I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of Resurrection).”[saheeh al-Bukharee, vol.3, no.638.]

 
If the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) knew the conditions of the heart, the lying but eloquent person would not be able to get the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) to rule in his favour.  
 
5. ) Yet another hadith:
 

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
`Ali bin Abi Talib sent a piece of gold not yet taken out of its ore, in a tanned leather container to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) . Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) distributed that amongst four Persons: 'Uyaina bin Badr, Aqra bin H`Abis, Zaid Al-Khail and the fourth was either Alqama or Amir bin at-Tufail. On that, one of his companions said, "We are more deserving of this (gold) than these (persons)." When that news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) , he said, "Don't you trust me though I am the truth worthy man of the One in the Heavens, and I receive the news of Heaven (i.e. Divine Inspiration) both in the morning and in the evening?" There got up a man with sunken eyes, raised cheek bones, raised forehead, a thick beard, a shaven head and a waist sheet that was tucked up and he said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Be afraid of Allah." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Woe to you! Am I not of all the people of the earth the most entitled to fear Allah?" Then that man went away. Khalid bin Al-Wahd said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Shall I chop his neck off?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "No, for he may offer prayers." Khalid said, "Numerous are those who offer prayers and say by their tongues (i.e. mouths) what is not in their hearts." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies." Then the Prophet looked at him (i.e. that man) while the latter was going away and said, "From the offspring of this (man there will come out (people) who will recite the Qur'an continuously and elegantly but it will not exceed their throats. (They will neither understand it nor act upon it). They would go out of the religion (i.e. Islam) as an arrow goes through a game's body." I think he also said, "If I should be present at their time I would kill them as the nations a Thamud were killed."[saheeh Al Bukhari  book 64 , Hadith 378]

 

6. )

Allah (Glorified be He) says:
And if you  speak (the invocation) aloud, then verily, He knows the secret and that which is yet more hidden. 
(Surah Ta­Ha, 20: 7)
 
Allah (Exalted be He) also says:
Is not Allah Best Aware of what is in the breasts of the …Alamin (mankind and jinn). 
(Surah Al-`Ankabut, 29: 10)
 
And:
And Allah knows what you conceal and what you reveal. 
(Surah Al-Nahl, 16: 19 )
 
And: 
He knows what is in the heavens and on earth, and He knows what you conceal and what you reveal. And Allah is the All-Knower of what is in the breasts (of men).
(Surah Al-Taghabun, 64: 4)
 
Allah also says: 
And your Lord knows what their breasts conceal, and what they reveal. 
(Surah Al-Qasas, 28: 69)

 

Wasallam.

Edited by Haq3909

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mr haq3909 aik wazahat farma dain.

 

quran sharif main ayyat hay us ka tarjama

 

ya nabi (saw) moumneen kee janoon say bhee ziada un k qareeb hay.

 

hadees sharif

 

aap (saw) nay farmya  main moumneen kee janoon  say bhee ziada qareeb hoon. o kama kaal

 

is ke wazahat farma dain kia matlab ho ga

 

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

Salam alayqum,

 

Meray baee, aap dakhal nah denh, yeh chahta yahi heh kay kissi tareekay say Hadhir Nazir ka yeh thread kissi aur mozoo kee niklay. Hadhir Nazir par is kay danay abhi khatam ho chukay hen. Joh yeh copy & paste kar sakka yeh kar chuka meray is response kay baad is kay pass abh kohi jawaban copy paste nahin raha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By aaftab
      as salam alaikum darj zail mazmoon mai jo ahadees kay hawalaya hain un ka asal scan darkar hai kitabo say .. aur mazmoon mai agar koi ghalti hai tu wo bhe islah farma dain . Jazak Allah    برصغیر پاک و ہند میں انگریزوں کےقدم مظبوط ہوتے ہی مسلمانوں میں انتشار کے نئے نئے دروازے کھولے گئے اور نت نئے فرقے وجود میں آئے جنھوں نے اھل سنت و الجماعت سے خروج کیا اور صدیوں سے قائم وحدت ملت کو پارہ پارہ کر دیا۔ اسلام کے سچے مذھب ، ہر دور کے جید ترین علماء و اولیاء‌ کے راستے کو عقائد و معمولات کو  الغرض پوری دنیا کے  مسلمانوں کے سواد اعظم ،  قدیم ، متصل ، مسلسل  اھلسنت والجماعت , خود مخالفین کے اپنے ہی بزرگوں سے ثابت شدہ راستے کو شرک و بدعت ٹھرا کر یہ نئے پیدا شدہ جدید فرقے اھلسنت و الجماعت  ہونے کے دعویدار بن بیٹھے ۔    جنوں کا نام خرد رکھ دیا خرد کا جنوں جو چاہے آپ کا حسن کرشمہ ساز کرے   ایک واجبی سا علم رکھنے والا مسلمان آج جب ہر طرف ایک نیا فرقہ دیکھتا ہے تو اس کے لئے حق و باطل کی پہچان مشکل ہوتی جارہی ہے اس سلسلے میں عرض ہے کہ حق وہی ہے جو خود مخالفین کی کتابوں انکے اپنے اکابرین سے ثابت ہے ۔ حق کو اس طرح مخالفین کے گھر سے ہی  واضح کردینا اللہ عزوجل کی سنت مبارکہ ہے تاکہ ذرا سی بھی عقل رکھنے والے لوگ ہدایت کا راستہ جان سکیں ۔   نبی کریم علیہ السلام نے فرمایا جسکا مفہوم ہے کہ میری امت میں 73 فرقے ہو جائیں گے سارے جھنمی ہیں سوائے ایک کے اور آپ نے فرمایا جسکا مفہوم ہے کہ جب امت میں‌اختلاف دیکھو تو سب سے بڑی جماعت کی پیروی کو لازم پکڑلینا اور آپ نے فرمایا جسکا مفہوم ہےکہ جس نے جماعت سے ذرہ برابر بھی جدائی کی اس نے اسلام کا پٹہ اپنی گردن سے اتار پھینکا اور آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا جسکا مفہوم ہے کہ میری امت کی اکثریت کبھی گمراہ نہیں ہوگی اور آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا کہ اللہ عزوجل کی حمایت اھلسنت و الجماعت کے ساتھ ہے ۔ اور آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا جسکا مفہو م ہے کہ گمراہ فرقے تم سے وہ باتیں کریں گے جو تمھارے باپ دادا نے بھی نہیں سنی ہوگی اور آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا جسکا مفہوم ہے اھلسنت و الجماعت ہی نجات یافتہ ہیں اور یہ وہ ہیں جو میرے اور میرے اصحاب کے راستے پر ہونگے۔   اور آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا جسکا مفہوم ہے گمراہ فرقوں‌ سے انکے ساتھ عبادات  بچنا ان سے شادیاں ، خوشی غمی میں شرکت سے بچنا کھیں‌ وہ تم کو گمراہ نہ کردیں کہیں وہ تم کو بہکا نہ دیں‌   اور آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی ایسی احادیث جس میں باطل فرقوں سے سختی سے بچنے کا حکم ہے نہ کہ صلح کلیت کا ۔  
        ---------- is mozo par aur bhe jo ahadees ya sahaba kay aqwal hai wo bhe share karain jazak Allah -------------   اگر کس کواتنی تفصیلی تحقیق کا وقت یا شوق نہیں تو کم از کم اتنی تو سمجھ اسے ہونی چاہئے کہ اول جو فرقہ پہلے نہ تھا اب ہوا وہ کسی طرح سے حق ہو ہی نہیں سکتا نئی پیدا شدہ بدعت ہے ۔ دوئم جن عقائد و معمولات کی حقانیت خود مخالفین کے اکابر اور کتابوں سے ثابت ہو وہی سچ ہے  اور جو خود اپنے اکابر کے راستے سے منہ موڑ گئے وہ ہرگز سچ ہو سکتےنہیں  اسلئے اپنا قیمتی ایمان فرقہ بندی کے ہاتھ پر فروخت نہ کر دے اور ہر فرقے سے منہ موڑ کر مذھب حق اھلسنت والجماعت پر سختی سے کاربند ہو جائے یہی نجات کا واحد راستہ ہے باقی سب فرقے جھنم کی طرف لیجانے والے ہیں    میری نہیں سنتا نہ سن اپنی تو سن
    • By MuhammedAli
      One: My Level Of Eduction In Pakistan:

      I was born into orthodox Muslim family. Both my parents were not practicing Muslims but I did receive some religious education in our village Masjid by Hafiz Barkat. Education consisted of learning how to read the Arabic script of the Quran, which I was not keen on and did the best to avoid it and despite occasional beatings. I did not learn the method of reading Arabic script. Only religious interest I had was monthly Giyarweenh Mehfil hosted in our Masjid. That too was special effort for the Math-thahi distributed after the end of Mehfil. My knowledge of deen consisted of basics of Tawheed, belief in angels, Prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), judgment day, resurrection, being accountable for deeds, paradise, physical side of prayers, human-ness (i.e. Bashari’at) as well as Noorani’at of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), finality, historical event of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam), the saga of Karbala, accounts of wars in connection with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), Apart from knowing these I had no real knowledge of my own belief. The knowledge I did possess of belief was imparted by elders and for which they did not have any evidence. It was mere repetition of what was heard from Scholars of Ahle Sunnat which they repeated and transmitted to me.

      Two: Immigration To England And Interest In Reading:

      I came to England at the age of around fourteen years but on the passport the age was lower. As a result of emigration I had English language difficulty and found it difficult to make friends. Being on my own and no real social event I began visiting my local library and began reading Urdu news paper. At that time my Urdu was very poor but regular visits to library helped me to improve my Urdu considerably. During these visits I learnt that library hosts an Urdu section of books which I explored and began borrowings books, starting with novels. Eventually I read all the novels and moved to books of history.  The library hosted a very small section on Islamic history and Muslim history. I began reading these books and when this section was fully explored decided to venture into religious section. Religious section in the library does not particularly represent a particular sect rather it consisted of mixtures of books. I must point out that the library lacked books from Ahle Sunnat. Most of the books present were either written by Wahhabis, or Deobandi, or Shia, and Islamic side was not represented, if it was, I cannot recall ever reading anything which I would say represented Islamic position.

      Three: My Knowledge Of Other Sects:

      In those days my perception regarding Wahhabis was that they are insulters of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and Awliyah-Allah. They do not celebrate birthday of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and do not make dua for the deceased on every Thursday (i.e. Jumma-rat Khatam), do not believe in Awliyah-Allah, do not host monthly Giyarweenh gatherings in their Masjid. Regarding the Shia I only knew they loved Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Fatimah, Hadhrat Hassan, Hadhrat Hussain (Allah be pleased with them all) and that they beat themselves on every tenth Muharram. I had no knowledge of existence of Deobandi’s or Qadiyani’s or Pervezi’s nor was I aware of their beliefs. I had no idea about any other source of deen apart from Quran. My first recollection of word Hadith stems from a childhood discussion with a class fellow called Waseem, who was from Purana Akalgarh. I vaguely recall asking him are you Sunni or Wahhabi and he said I am Ahle Hadith. That’s my earliest recollection of word Hadith but I had no idea what Hadith was until after coming to England. Looking back at that time all my friends; Waseem, Naveed, Asim Khan, Saleem, Khurram Riyaz, Mehboob and Jaleel were Wahhabi’s. There was reason for this because Aziz Public School was situated first in Deep Purana Akalgarh which is Wahhabi part of Islamgarh. Then it was moved to another area called Mehtay-na Mura but again it was deep in Wahhabi territory.  But I recall there was no religious discussion between us friends hence no influence.

      Four: Recollections Of Disputes With Wahhabis:

      My first recollection of discovering that there is bone to pick with Wahhabis with regards to our difference was when Asim Nazir’s father died in a car accident two more passengers. The three bodies were sent back home uncle Nazir was Muslim and resident of our village; Murra Rathiyan, but the other two who were relatives of uncle Nazir but were Wahhabis in belief. If I recall correctly they were from Hyderabad. When the bodies arrived back home the issue of funeral was contended and brothers of uncle Nazir wished his funeral not be lead by a Wahhabi Maulvi. But the relatives of the other two wished for a single funeral for the three and plans were to have the funeral in Hyderabad. Implications of which would have been Wahhabi Maulvi leading funeral prayers which the Muslims resented. Yearly Milad march started from main bazar near the GolChok and marched toward Hafiz Ishaq’s madrassa near Chungi. Then turn back toward GolChok once it reached GolChok it took right turn and via Mehtay-na Murra route went deep into Purana Akalgarh for Fatiha at a buzurg’s tomb. Purana Akalgarh being epic centre of Wahhabism in Islamgarh had problem with this visit by Muslims. There according to elders fight use to break out between Muslims and Wahhabis but this was not something which I witnessed. As a child I use to be part of the Juloos and the Juloos as accompanied by police to ensure security and harmony. There I remember being told by elders to avoid going to Purana Akalgarh with Juloos due to chance of sectarian violence.

      Five: Developed Interest In Islamic Literature:

      My religious education/interest began after I read several books from library and it was this time I became familiar with what Hadith is and what Bukhari/Muslim and other Hadith books are. Understanding what the content of these books is, I borrowed volume three of Sahih bukhari [it was only one on the shelf] all others were out. I enjoyed reading it so much that I never returned it back and still is in my possession, and as a result I had to pay for the volume. Also read other books but it caused a lot of confusion because the library hosted books of every sect and every view point. Reading all these different view points on same topics and not realizing that these view points are sectarian differences being presented by different sects, I came to reconcile the confusion with; deen is complex, cannot be understood by likes of me, i am a commoner and only top class intellects properly understand deen. Up till then I had read books of Islamic history, books of Fatwah, aqeedah, sectarian issues. Some of the books were already in the house because of my Taya Abdul Aziz [founder of Aziz Public School in Purana Akaalgarh - which I attended]. After he had passed away my Taya Muhammad Najeeb kept his older brothers books and stuff as memrobilia which managed to get my hands on and read. Up to leaving from Derby Moor Community School I relied on Pear Tree library for religious material and until then my religious leaning was non-sectarian and I was not aligned with a sectarian label. But after leaving DMCS in 1998 all this changed and my sectarian label became defined in Wilmorton College.

      Six: Learning About Islam And Christianity And Giving Dawah To Christians:

      Leaving DMCS I attended to Wilmorton College in Derby. In the college all of my friends associates were orthodox Muslims - but nothing of sectarian issues were ever discussed. This is where internet became available to me. With internet on my side the limit of research was only my imagination and ability. I cannot recall why or how I became interested in Islam and Christianity issue but i did. A lot of time was invested in researching the differences and learning to refute Christianity. Enter, late Sheikh Ahmed Deedat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), some how I stumbled upon website dedicated to his material - and his small book Combat Kit became my fave read and study guide along with his speeches and debates. Not being content with just listening to them I began barrowing them from Noor's shop [was close to Gurdwara in Normanton - now closed] Eventualy I started purchasing these videos from the same rental shop. Empowered with this knowledge began debating on online forums and giving dawah. With dawah came the draw back having to bear the criticism of Christians against Islam. Not being trained to process information and deduce conclusions and carry out research I was entirely on the mercy of research of others. As result I was introduced to various websites dedicated to answering christian criticism of Islam, to name few UnderstandingIslam, IslamicAwareness, MostMerciful, Bismikaallahuma, AnsweringChristianity, and a directory like website Sultan.org. These websites were the major websites but there were some less prominent ones - one of them was run by Abdul Raheem Green [a Christian convert to Wahhabism]. The field of giving dawah to christians was/is lead by Wahhabis. Two Christians I discussed often in college was Ruth/Judith [one of the two names] and Chris - drowned around 2008 without having the fortune of becoming Muslim. I would say, my internet associates, apart from Usman Sheikh [contributed articles to Bismikaallahuma on NT - long ago quit] everyone was Wahhabi but nothing was discussed between us.

      Seven: Crisis Of Loss Of Love And Finding New Direction:

      During my discussions with Christians I had to bear with a lot criticism/disrespect directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) and this had a negative effect on my love for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) states a Muslim is not momin until he loves me more then his children, wealth, wife, parents and anything else. I came to realize that giving Dawah to Christians has removed this love from my heart. When someone insulted my parents or any member of family naturally I felt anger but when the Christians insulted/disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) my response was mute and did not contain the ghairat e imaani which a Muslim with untainted heart has. I began to think about why this changed occurred and realized that originally like all Muslims I had the fire of ghairat e imani in me but consistently being exposed to criticism and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) I have become desensitized in this regard. It was then that I decided to withdraw from preaching to Christians and preserve my Iman and purity of heart. After withdrawing from this field I decided to channel my energy into learning about Islamic creed. Note this was time when my religious knowledge about creed of Islam was bare minimum. One Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who is not like His creation, sent Prophets, the last/final being Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). There will be judgment day, accountability, leading to hell or paradise, reward or punishment and angels. And also believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) was Noor e mujasim [i.e. Noor as Human] apart from this my knowledge of aqeedah was zero and the little i know was from word of mouth with no one ever discussing from Quran/Hadith. In this back drop I began to research material for aqeedah. At that time I had little to no knowledge of differences in creed of Muslims and assumption was all are Muslims and will have same aqeedah.

      Eight: My Spree Of Reading Books On Creed:

      With this mind set the very first book I read on aqeedah was Kitab at-Tawheed of Khariji Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab the Najdi. This book was followed by English translation of Taqwiyat Ul Iman written Ismail Dehalvi [a man who deliberately disrespected Prophets and Awliyah in this book] and published by Darussalam - Wahhabi publishers. I was advised I read the Urdu version of Taqwiyatul Iman and it was gifted to me by some brother from net. It had Taqwiyatul Iman (by Ismail Dehalvi), Takzira Al Ikhwan (by Ismail Dehalvi), and Nasihat Al Muslimeen (by Khuram Ali Bolahri). Studied, Qawaid Al Arba (i.e. Four Principles), Asool as-Salatha (i.e. Three Principles), Nawaqid Al Islam[1] (i.e. Nullifiers Of Islam), Creed Of Hamawiyyah, and Creed Of Wasatiyyah. All these books had major effect on my creed but Kitab at-Tawheed and Taqwiyatul Iman greatly effected my understanding of what ‘real’ Tawheed and Shirk are. The authors of these books expressed Tawheed and declared Shirk, in such and such a belief/creed. Another book which I read was written by Palan Haqqani's [Deobandi] book Shariah Not Ignorance [Urdu: Shariat Ya Jahalat - literally, Shariah Or Ignorance]. These three books laid the foundation of my deviation. Please note, even though these books presented a sectarian point of view. Kitab at-Tawheed employs Khariji methodology of Shirk and with its aid judges everything Shirk irrespective of if it is Shirk or not in true Islamic sense or not. Taqwiyatul Iman employed same Khariji methodology of Shirk and result was countless non-Shirk acts were declared Shirk. Despite this both these books did not declare their sectarian background nor did these books mention the sect which they are targeting. Due to absence of mention from which angle these books are being written and who is the target of these books, these books are taken by the readers as representation of Islamic belief. So what would a gullible reader know whose sectarian perspective he is reading and if this perspective is compatible with Islamic teaching or not. The gullible Muslim goes to shop with good faith and reads the name of the book and with good intentions purchases and reads it without ever realizing the misguidance he has made part of his belief. These books provide no clue to which sect is indoctrinating them and gullible Muslim is indoctrinated into Wahhabism – which is a offshoot of Kharijism. Unfortunately I was one of those gullible Muslims who fell into trap of these books and these books succeeded in indoctrinating me with Khariji methodology of determining Shirk and Kufr. Programing my self with Khariji literature I began to search for like minded people and material which compliments what I had read and to promote what I had learnt. Since I had given up the aspirations of being a preacher to Christians. I had to find a new interest and new cause with which I could promote Wahhabism as well as benefit Muslims via that cause.

      Nine: Jhangvi MSN Community And Discussions With Its Members:

      On MSN communities there was a Deobandi community named Jhangvi named after the firebrand Deobandi Haq Nawaz Jhangvi. It was here where my beliefs about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Noor being sent as human were challenged and first time I became aware that these beliefs are not compatible with the beliefs of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Ismail Dehalvi. I was told this is the belief of Barelwi’s and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabm, Ismail Dehalvi etc. … were all against the Barelwi’s and informed that books Kitab at-Tawheed, Taqwiyatul Iman were written in refutation of the Shirk of Barelwi’s. I recall during a discussion I was told Barelwi’s believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not a human being but they believe he was Noor. In response to which I replied but I believed he was a human being and Noor and so did my family therefore it doesn’t make sense you saying this. But discussion dragged along and Satan made me forget and coated over the truth with falsehood. Then they quoted me verses of Quran and said, see Quran says he is human like us and the Barelwis believe he is not. I conceded the error of Barelwis on this topic and agreed with the Deobandis. Subjects of Ilm Al Ghayb and Hadhir Nazir were also discussed with the members of Jhangvi community and on both subjects I had agreed with their understanding at the end of it. Regarding different types of Tawassul my mind was already made up after I had read Kitab at-Tawheed and Taqwiyatul Iman hence there was no need to discuss. Number of points which enabled to me determine my position on these issues. Dua means to call, to invoke, to call, to supplicate. Dua is worship. Now the subjects, asking help directly from deceased – Shirk. Asking the deceased to make Dua on your behalf – Shirk. Judged to be Shirk solely on the basis that deceased is being called upon to help which makes the call as worship which is Shirk. At that time I did not have any problem with directing Dua to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but mentioning a Nabi or Wali, like: ‘O Allah grant me a son because I am your servant and I love the Prophet you sent as the last/final Prophet and I have accepted him as a Prophet from you. So O Allah I invoke you and do not disappoint me.’ But later on through discussions online I came to understand this understanding was incorrect and Ismail Dehalvi made mistake in this regard. I was told, this is also Shirk because this type of Tawassul was similar to how polytheists invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) through their idol gods.

      Ten: How Some Of These Books Effected My Belief:

      It would be good idea to actually briefly state how Kitab at-Tawheed and Taqwiyatul Iman greatly changed my world view. It is important to point out that not all the points I will mention have been explicitly stated in Kitab at-Tawheed. I quite frequented PalTalk and often discussed and listened to speeches by ‘brothers’ who explained Kitab at-Tawheed. Their explanation helped me to realize to whom the vague parts of Kitab at-Tawheed apply and anything which I state which is not mentioned is likely to be from those discussions if not then from forums. After reading Kitab at-Tawheed I came to believe to wear Taweez is Shirk and to slaughter an animal on the name of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk. And it was applied upon – the common mans vow/nazr: ‘I will sacrifice a goat in the name of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah) if Allah granted me a son.’[2] I was told because they say they will sacrifice the animal on the name of deceased they commit Shirk and they said the meet of such animal is Haram.[3] Also to vow, to perform a act of worship/charity with intention to gift the reward to a deceased person was deemed as vow to other then Allah which was understood to be Shirk. To say: ‘O Messenger Of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)!’ Or to say: ‘O Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) help!’[4] In addition to this I came to believe that people excessively respecting/loving the pious people resulted in Muslims falling into Shirk hence the Prophets/Saliheen should be treated as they are ordinary human beings and emphasis should be placed on their being ordinary to ensure people do not make them equals with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[5] I learnt to apply the verses revealed for polytheists upon Muslims in order to establish Shirk of Muslims. This methodology was of Khawarij according to Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and the modern Khawarij the leader of whom is Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab employed exactly same methodology in Kitab at-Tawheed. Also the concept of blocking the means to Shirk was learnt which means anything that can lead to Shirk should be discredited and destroyed if it is possible.[6] Read footnote 4 for demonstration of what was and is done to block the means to Shirk. Also came to believe that the Muslim majority is engaged in worship of idols (i.e. graves, Awliyah-Allah, Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and those who are worshipped beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are Taghoot.[7]

      Eleven: I Believed Muslims Worship Idols:

      In addition to this I also came to believe some members of Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will worship idols. Even though we officially believed in some members of Ummah yet me and my co-religionist – Wahhabis lived a contradiction and those who follow this sect continue to live this contradiction. is believe majority of Muslims are guilty of [major] Shirk and they continue to do so and I fondly quoted the verse: “Most believed not in Allah except that they associate others with Him.” [12:106] Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabi employed this verse in his Kitab at-Tawheed and Ismail Dehalvi in his Taqiwatul Iman.[8]  This verse is often used to justify the charge of [major] Shirk levelled against Muslims because the Muslims. Educated Muslims argue that we believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence we are not guilty of Shirk so Wahhabis like me quoted this verse to say, yes you do, but not without associating partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hence you are no different from the polytheists of Makkah. Once the knowledge learnt was forgotten and I like all Wahhabis began to interpret or understand Quran by itself – taking the literal meaning of verses in discussion Wahhabis come to and I came to believe majority of Muslims were guilty of Shirk. In fact Ismail Dehalvi wrote, [belief in] actual Tawheed is a rare but most of the people do not understand meaning of Tawheed and Shirk, and yet claim to have faith but in reality are trapped in Shirk. He continues to write about various qualifies which will make a Muslim Mushrik in his warped definition and understanding of Shirk, and end with saying, someone in time of difficulty invokes the name of someone, someone in his during his speech takes an oath of another, point is that what ever a Hindu does in relation to his idols, all this is done by those false Muslims to their saints, prophets, imams, matyrs, angels and fairys, and yet claim to be Muslim. Then he writes praise be to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and writes, with that mouth and and their this claim [of being Muslim], Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said truly in Surah Yunus, and then he quotes the verse quoted above. In other words, he stated majority doesn’t know Tawheed and Shirk, yet claim to be people of faith. Implications of which in the context of chapter is that majority is only claiming to be Muslim but in reality isn’t. He then writes qualifiers which point why in his beliefe the majority is guilty of Shirk or Mushrik. He then states with their polytheistic mouth they claim to be Muslims, and reality of this majority is that most of them do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) accept that they commit Shirk. Implication of which is obvious that according to him and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab majority of Muslims are Mushriks. In the same chaper after he quotes 12:106 he goes on to present excuses which he says Muslims present in defence of their [polytheistic] belief and in response to which he writes,  in presence of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the disbelievers said such things and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not accept nothing from them (i.e. of their excuses why they have polytheistic beliefs and actions) and Allah was displeased with them and declared them liars hence in Surah Yunus Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, and they worship besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that which does not benefit nor does any harm and say they are our intercessors to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and say do you tell Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which He does not know, He is unique in heavens and earth, from those which they attribute to Him. [10:18] Implication here is that Ismail Dehalvi has stated, majority of the Muslims worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Just from this first chapter I learnt that the majority of Muslims are unaware of what Tawheed and what Shirk is. And Majority of Muslims commits acts which nullify their belief in Islam yet despite they claim to be Muslims. I also learnt those who claim to be Muslims make excuses in defence of their belief like the polytheists made for their own beliefs and lastly but not least I learnt that majority is guilty of worshiping others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

      Twelve: Manual Of Takfir And Killing:

      Without going to too much detail about lessons learnt from his books I can summarize. Taqwiyatul Iman is basicly a gold mine for those who look for reasons to declare Muslims as Mushriks. Ismail Dehalvi wrote, qualifiers of Shirk, these qualifiers consist of everything a orthodox Muslim does. Hence every practice of Muslims is stated to be Shirk in one sense or another. And one who studies this book comes to conclusion that the [vast majority of] Muslims are in fact Mushrik and he and his co-religionists are only true monotheists. After this realisation the Takfir of [vast majority of] Muslims is easy, like one, two, three, for Phd holder. Another note worthy quality of this book is that it is a master piece of insults and disrespect directed toward Prophets and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[9] Once studied there is no doubt in my mind that a person would have any love and respect left for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his heart. This book is death sentence to love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And if you are involved in religious discussions on internet forums, you might have heard Wahhabi/Deobandi members equating Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to a postman, or having no greater position in deliverance of message of Islam than a postman has in delivering a letter.[10] In fact years ago, in my search for pure Islamic teaching I visited a Wahhabi website which had the following statement: “As for the authority of the Sunnah, then it must be understood that the role of the Prophet Muhammad (S) was not as a mere postman who, after delivering his letter, has no concern with it whatsoever. The Messenger was not sent just to deliver the Book of Allah, but to expound it and demonstrate a practical example of its contents.” [Ref: AllaahuAkbar.net, scribd] Note even though the author of this statement is actually refuting the: understanding that role of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was no greater then postman, he has still not done away with the postman label. Please pay attention to his words, Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not as a mere postman. In this sentence the word mere has been used in meaning of; just, only and simply. In other words according to the author he was not just/only a postman but was something else also and he states it was his duty deliver the message [as a postman] and to explain it. So note that apple hasn’t fallen further from the tree of Wahhabism and Taqwiyat Ul Iman. Shade of which is disrespect and insulting the Prophets and the friends of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). One of the most valuable and lesson learnt reading Ismail Dehalvi was from his book Tazkiratul Ikhwan and for which evidence of Quran and Ahadith was available hence I have not abandoned it. This lesson was regarding definition of innovation. In the mentioned book he explained that definition of innovation has been classifed as good innovation and evil innovation by one group of scholars and the other has determined there is only one type of innovation – without going into detail of good and bad innovation – and according to these group of scholars – innovation is evil by default hence specifics are not required. In this book he also emphatically states, To eliminate Shirk, was the reason for which the Quran had descended and the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought the disbelievers and now in this [Shirk] Muslims have fallen into.[11] 

      Thirteen: MAW  Written Material And What It Taught Me:

      Coming Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s booklet, four fundamental principles. In this booklet he basicly argues polytheists against whom Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought, they believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) despite this they were not Muslims. In second principle he states polytheists sought intercession of their gods and goes on to state intercession is of two kinds, permitted and prohibited. Permitted he states is one which is sought from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and where intercessor is permitted to interceed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) etc. Prohibited is which is sought from anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on matters which none has the ability perform except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In third principle he states, Arabs worshipped; Prophets,  pious people, stones, trees[12], sun and moon. And states that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought all of the polytheists without making distinction between any of the polytheists. Then he goes on to give proof for what he has stated. His first, second and third principles are actually a build-up to the fourth principle: “That  the polytheists in our era (i.e. Muslims of Arabia and generally of entire world) are more severe in their (committing of)  shirk than the first polytheists (i.e. who lived during Prophet’s time). This was since the first polytheists used to associate  partners  with  Allah at times of ease and worship Him sincerely during times of hardship. However, the polytheist s in our era constantly commit  shirk  in times of ease as well as in times of hardship.” So basicly he laid the foundation of his charge of Shirk in the first three principle in fourth principle he declared the Muslims of entire world of being more strict in persuing Shirk then the polytheists of pre-Islamic era. In other words he considered the pre-Islamic era polytheists to be lesser polytheists then the Muslims of his time. Not just that, note he stated in principle three Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought the polytheists without sparing any excuse for any of them. So now in fourth principle he has declared the Muslims of being worse in Shirk then polytheists of pre-Islamic era – what is he implying? Spare the worse type of polytheists (i.e. Muslims) or fight them without making distinction between any of the so called Muslims? It is obvious that if fighting lesser polytheists was acceptable then fighting the greater polytheists would also be acceptable. And indeed his armies ransacked cities of Muslims and killed countless Muslims on basis of his these teachings and continue to do so under various ‘terrorist’[13] organisational names – such as Al Qaidah, ISIS, Boko Haram, Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan, etc. Robbed the Muslims of their property and dishonored their women with rape because they believed these women were women of polytheists hence to enslave them and to engage in sexual intercourse with them without Nikkah is permissible.

      Fourteen: Palan Haqqani Of Shari’at Ya Jahalat:

      Palan Haqqani’s book Shari’at Ya Jahalat – is basicly a further extention of belief of Ismail Dehalvi and generally Deobandism. In which he states the Muslims are worshipers of Peers/Pirs yet affirm the belief that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is their God.[14] Also he accused the Muslims of subcontinent of not believing in Quran, or Hadith, or reliable texts of Hanafi Madhab. This is a sneaky way of Takfir of vast majority of Muslims in subcontinent and unfortunately I had swallowed all this without any objections. I also read some where in his book where he equated the majority of Muslims of subcontinent with following the footsteps of Jews and Christians. In order to justify the charge of Shirk levelled against Muslims. He stated the Muslims have common  beliefs and  practices which connect them with pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism and Hinduism of subcontinent. In other words he stated Muslims of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Aghanistan are polytheists. Basicly Palan Haqqani presented the beliefs of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab found in his works but did add his own material and discussed subjects controversial in subcontinent as well. From reading his book it was clear to the influence of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab on him. For example he writes, idolatory started when people made replicas of pious to remember them, later Satan incited people to worship these.[15] Yet son Qari Muhammad Tayyib and great grandson of founder of Madrassa of Deoband and author of, Seerat Pak, writes emphatically that idolatory started from Kabah because it was so deeply revered as a sanctury of god. The people of Arabia took the stones from it and shaped them, and worshipped what they created. This history of idol creation and worship author of this book attributed to Tareekh Ibn Khalidoon.[16] The point I am making is that he ignored his traditional Deobandi position due to influence of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Over all this book reinforced my understanding of what I had read in, Kitab at-Tawheed, Taqwiyatul Iman, Tazkiratul Ikhwan. This book also pointed me to new direction – to subjects of Hadhir Nazir, Ilm Al Ghayb and due to earlier resistance and eventual surrendering of my judgment on Jhangvi MSN community regarding my understanding of these two topics. I took everything on board written on these two subjects. Also on Fiqhi subjects such as Mawlid, Urs, Isaal as-Sawab I surrendered my judgment citing lack of knowledge of Quran and Hadith, and personal lack of knowledge, and accepted his positions. Note he wrote numerous times in his book the Peer and the scholars who don’t know about Quran and Sunnah teach these things, and they are driven by earning wealth, hence they twist Quran and Hadith to promote these things to earn money. After reading this through out the book I had basically come to accept and agree with him. Imust have thought if the scholars don’t know as he is saying then what is my worth so it is best to just to accept his position. I vaguely remember reading book of Omar Bakri, leader of Al Muhajiroon organisation, [if I recall correctly] it was titled, Creed Of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. Basicly this book was composed of Wahhabi beliefs and stated which beliefs of it were in common with which sect. Reading it I came to realize according to Omar Bakri, Wahhabism has more in common with the Khawarij then any other sect. Through my studies after coming to orthodox Islam I agreed that core theology of Wahhabism which revolves around polytheism is of Khawarij.

      Fifteen: Confusion Regarding Dates Sorted:

      Readers who know about sectarian differences would have noted that I was reading books written by scholars of Deobandi and Wahhabi sects. There was a reason for this – I visisted PalTalk quite frequently where Wahhabis recommended that I read, Kitab at-Tawheed, Qawaid Al Arba, Taqwiyatul Iman in English, and Creed Of Hamawiyyah, Wasatiyyah, Kitab Al Iman, Al Ubudiyyah written by Ibn Taymiyyah. Even though I was reading books of Deobandi scholars as well but due to my associations with Wahhabis I inclined toward Wahhabism and adopted the label Wahhabi. Another point - the books I had read of Deobandi scholars did not contradict teaching of Wahhabism but rather both sects agree on the issues hence no contradiction was noticed. I took interest in disputes between orthodox Islam and Shia. Whilst carrying out research into disputes my attention was brought to Jhangvi group which hosted discussions on these subjects and this lead me to Deobandi website KR-HCY. On Jhangvi community after I had disputed with the members on some issues which I had not dealt with in the material I had read prior to this. Even though the issues were reconciled in their favour they recommended that I read, Palan Haqqani’s book; Shariah Ya Jahalat, and Urdu original of Taqwiyatul Iman. It has been over a decade – around fourteen years since I surrendered my Wahhabism in late 2001, and around ten years since I have given-up Deobandism – later part of 2005. Some aspects have confused me and I cannot place them in choronological order. Others I cannot recall precisely and I have aproximated and this includes numbers of years being influenced by Wahhabism. My hardcore Wahhabism years roughly numbered two years but if I count my two years of college then I was Wahhabi for about 4 years but this includes the roughly two years where I was naturalising Wahhabism. If I include my time spent on Jhangvi community and studying books due to the recommendation of Deobandi members till my conversion to Deobandism then time in Deobandism would be from 2000 to 2005. My official conversion to Deobandism took place sometime in 2002. Considering all this and generalising based on years then I was member of Wahhabi sect from 1998 to 2002 which amounts to four years of life being spent as Wahhabi. From official conversion which took place sometime in 2002 to leaving Deobandism sometime in 2005, my years in Deobandi sect are three. And finally from 2005 till 2016, or till of now, I have been Muslim for 10 years.

      Sixteen: When I Studied Material Of HT and Al Muhajiroon:

      Also do note, I did not investigate into matters of Fiqh/Madhab hence my Hanafi Madhab has remained constant throughout my life. Another thing, I cannot recall when I started reading material of  Hizb ut-Tahrir (i.e. Khilafah Magazine) or when I studied, Constitution Of Khilafah. CoK was given to me by my associate Asif [he was/is member of Hizb ut-Tahrir] and he went through the material with me to explain ideology of HT. Hizb ut-Tahrir did not contribute anything toward my becoming Wahhabi therefore I am not going to state anything about this group. Al Muhajiroon was a Wahhabi group but I had no interest in their activities apart from their aqeedah material [by Amir and Bilal in WC] but influence of Al Muhajiroon was limited on me. So I was never really became a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir or Al Muhajiroon at any time of my life but did read material from both groups, more of Hizb ut-Tahrir then Al Muhajiroon. I found Hizb ut-Tahrir’s philosophy of establishing Khilafah interesting.[17] I also have jumbled some account. The earlier part of this account of my Wahhabism/Deobandism was intending to be brief. Just to inform readers of my past associations and sources of influence. I had no plan to write a comprehensive account so I crammed everything without putting everything in order and without specifying details. Now I have decided to write a comprehensive account hence the details contradicts the brief account and I have revised the material. I intended to finish Wahhabi and Deobandi episode on part ten, and then continue with how I became orthodox Muslim. But later decided against it and thought it would be good idea to state what I gained from Taqwiyatul Iman, and Kitab at-Tawheed. Even that I expanded to include other foundational material of Wahhabism – Qawaid Al Arba of Ibnul Wahhab and Deobandi Palan Haqqani’s, Shari’at Ya Jahalat. I do not claim this to be absolutely accurate account of my naturalization to Salafism and then to Deobandism but I have done my level best to put everything to pen truthfully and to best of my memory.

      Seventeen - You’re What You Eat And What You Read:

      As a result of reading books mentioned earlier and not mentioned I quitely engaged in preaching and promoting Wahhabist ideology over the internet but not through aggressive prostelzing but passive. I found best way of indoctrinating unsuspecting Muslims into Wahhabism was to use another cause as means of getting into a circle of people[18] and while their focus would be mutualy agreed cause I would gradually impart to them theology and philosophy of Wahhabism. Fortunately, due to passive method of prostelyzing I didn’t gain any converts to Wahhabism but must have influenced individuals with the Wahhabi thought. Those who were interested in learning about ugly side of Shiaism departed after experiencing my unreasonable amount of anti-Shia rehtoric and Takfir directed toward Shia generality and Shia scholarship. This was result of listening to likes of Mawlana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, Mawlana Isar Ul Qasmi, Mawlana Zia ar-Rahman Farooqi, Mawlana Mohsin Raza Farooqi [he is a ex-Shia and convert to Deobandism], and Mawlana Ali Sher Haidri. A prominent feature in their lectures was to say: Kafir! Kafir! Shia Kafir! And the following was said right after the mentioned: Joh na manay voh bi Kafir! Meaning - one who does not believe [Shia are Kafir] that one is [also] Kafir. They often quoted what the Rawafiz had written in their books against mothers of believers - Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha), and Hadhrat Hafsa (radiallah ta’ala anha). Also what the Rawafiz have written regarding the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), including Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Hadhrat Umar Farooq (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and Hadhrat Uthman Ghani (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And what the Rawafiz wrote was so ugly, vile, flagrant abuse; anyone with spec of faith in their hearts would have been moved to tears and his emotions and judgment will agree with: Kafir! Kafir! Shia Kafir![19] I was also member of KR-HCY forum and to present united front against the Rawafiz we did not discuss/debate in public differences between Muslim, Deobandi, Hanbali Wahhabism and Wahhabi Ghayr Muqallideen.

      Eighteen – Becoming Disillusioned With Wahhabism – Group Of Satan:

      My becoming Wahhabi was not really a intellectual decision because circumstances and associations presented me with Wahhabi written material. Yet my decision to leave Wahhabism was based on achieving greater intellectual maturity and knowledge of Quran and Ahadith. I was first alarmed when I discovered the Ahadith about Najd which was quoted to me by a Muslim to refute me. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) refusing to supplicate for region of Najd but supplicated for Syria and Yemen – stating group of Satan will emerge from Najd and afflictions will eminate from Najd. Upon investigation of Wahhabi position on these Ahadith I came to understanding Najd is in Iraq. Call it chance or Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) help. I found Hadith in which it was stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought in Najd, here. Implications of which were, if Najd is Iraq then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) must have fought a war in Iraq but research into matter proved that region of Iraq was not attacked by Muslims in life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor he fought in Iraq. Also I was told this Hadith was about Khawarij and they emerged from Iraq hence Najd is Iraqi city of Basrah and historically Basrh was part of Najd of Arabian Peninsula. When this was investigated, I learnt the first group of Khawarij did not emerge from Basrah but they seperated from army of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) after battle of Siffin - 657, which took place in Syria.[20] And then in 658 Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had fought Khawarij in Iraq at Nahrawan, near capital Baghdad. Putting it simply Khawarij emerged from Syria as a sect and not from Iraq. Iraq was the place of battle between army of Amir Ul Momineen Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Khariji army. It was the Iraqis who killed the Khawarij in battle at Nahrawan and this is attested by Hadith found in Muslim and narrated by Abu Said Al Khudri (radiallah ta’ala anhu), here. Realising this argument does not hold weight either in light of established facts. Upon further investigation into the subject of, group of Satan emerging from Najd, I found Ahadith which precisely pointed to a particular direction. Ahadith stated group of Satan will emerg from direction of East. I consulted the maps and realized city of Raqqah the place of battle of Siffin from where Khawarij emerged is due North of Madinah, hence it cannot be East. Also Baghdad was long way off direction of East. I was willing to be flexible to accomadate Basrah into East but my generosity wasn’t willing to allow absolute distortion – to include Baghdad into East, it was over stretching my generosity. And as I mentioned earlier Basrah even if allowed to be in East would not suffice because Khawarij emerged as a sect at Siffin. Investigating this subject yeilded more Ahadith, group of Satan will emerge from direction of sunrise, Prophet pointed from Minbar of Masjid Nabvi toward Hadhrat Aysha’s house while pointing to direction from where the group of Satan will emerge from. The first Hadith – of sunrise – sunrises from different place every day,  changing from south east to north east then returning, from north east to south east. I narrowed down the region from where the group of Satan will emerge by checking the furthest region from where the sunrises between to extremities – roughly it was from northern border of Kuwait to western boder of Oman, as demonstrated here. Hence the region of group of Satan was between the northern and southern boundaries of sunrise. The Hadith which precisely pointed to direction from where the group of Satan would emerge was of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointing toward the house of Hadhrat Aysha’s to indicate the direction of East from where it would emerge. After locating the from where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointed toward her house, I drew a straight line from his position to her house. Note her house is where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is burried in his heavenly abode and the out come was a line pretty precisely pointing to Riyadh. My research on this Hadith years later culminated into this article, here. Eventually I had a precise direction to which I could be little flexible with and viola I had my Najd. Note, Najd was always known and indicated on maps, it was and is Najd known to all, situated in central Saudi Arabia, and surrounds area around capital Riyadh, see evidence of it, here. Importance of Najd and its location was/is crucial to understanding the origin of Wahhabism. Another argument in defence of Iraq being Najd was that, in the Hadith of Najd from where group of Satan would emerge, the word Najd (i.e. raised, elevated land) is used in linguistic meaning and not as a name of locality or region. Logical response to this was, in that case Syria and Yemen could also be linguistic usage – hence Syria, Yemen could be any land that fits the linguistic meanings of these words. Also Najd could be any land in East, such as mount K2, Everest, or even highiest battle ground, Kargil. It was irrational that a region which was known by name (i.e. Najd), location (East Of Madinah, central Arabia), was not considered Najd mentioned in Hadith of group of Satan. Nor there was a president where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ever used a name of region for linguistic usage. Also I used topological maps available on internet to see if traditional location of Najd fits into linguistic meaning of Najd or did it fit on Iraq as my Wahhabi co-religionists believed and attempted to prove. My investigation to see if linguistic meaning fitted Iraq or central Arabian province lead me to believe location of Najd is in central Arabia – region surrounded by Saudi capital Riyadh and not Iraq. This understanding was later further cemented when I carried out thorough research into matter and the fruits of that labour were published in the following article, here.
      Note location of Najd is important because the founder of Wahhabism was born in Najd. Wahhabi sect emerged from Najd and accused Muslims of being worst then polytheists of pre-Islamic era. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab legalised killing of Muslims under the pretext that they are disbelievers, looting of their property, and enslavement of Muslim women. Also English translation of Kitab at-Tawheed details of which I mentioned in footnote eight, on page ten claims to portray the condition of Najd[“], and on page fifteen under heading; impact of Dawah, states Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab fought struggled against Muslims of Najd until he gained victory in Najd[^]. This is explicit confirmation that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was Najdi. Once it became apparent to me that Wahhabi sect was strong contender for being the group of Satan which was to emerge from Najd, I was disillusioned but still held to Wahhabism for reasons unknown. I guess the reason Najd is in central Arabia and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s Wahhabi sect emerged from it, must not have been concrete reason enough to leave it.

      Nineteen - Becoming Disillusioned With Wahhabism – Muslims Are Mushrik:

      Anyone who is familiar with Wahhabism will know that core teaching of its founder was; Muslims have fallen into major Shirk, they are worse in polytheism then the polytheists of Arabia, Tawheed had disapeared from Arabian Peninsula until Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab had reintroduced it. And as a result of these convictions Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab believed it is permissible to kill Muslims, take their property, enslave their men, women and children. Note even though I have used generic term ‘Muslim’ which does not specify a particular group of people. It should be noted his target was members of Ahle Sunnat - subcontinent’s equivlent is Barelwi. The foundation of all actrocities was the belief that Muslims have fallen into polytheism hence they are no longer Muslim – worse then disbelievers of pre-Islamic era. So I decided to investigate the claim that Muslims are polytheists. When I judged using the principles of Tawheed and Shirk learnt from Wahhabism I came to conclusion which these principles were primed to produce – these people were indeed Mushrik. It would be best to mentioned some principles to indicate what I mean. Words of Hadith, dua [directed to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] is worship, distorted and applied as: [every] dua [to the dead] is worship, and we all know worship of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. Another, any help sought from one who does not possesses the means to grant what is asked from him/her is Shirk. In other words, ma fawq al asbab help sought from anyone is Shirk. In light of first mentioned principle, saying ‘Ya RasoolAllah!’ is Shirk because I have used harf e nida (i.e. words of call) and I have called upon ‘dead’ Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore as per Wahhabism I am guilty of worshipping Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[23] The second principles basicly teaches that if someone does not possess power, ability, right, to grant something and one ask from him/her then such a person is guilty of major Shirk. Suppose I ask from, a friend right to enter paradise because he does not possess the right to grant entry to paradise, I have committed major Shirk according to Wahhabism. But often this principle is applied to asking from the dead. So asking help from the dead would be major Shirk.[24] Coming back to the subject – when ever I used the principles of Wahhabism I arrived at same understanding; Sufis are Mushrik. I cannot recall how or where I read/heard the Ahle Sunnats position that Muslim Ummah as whole will not committ major Shirk. Where as position of Wahhabism was that vast majority of Muslims have fallen into major Shirk and only a minority are upon Tawheed – this minority was none other then followers of Wahhabism. As a Wahhabi my position was clear to me, Ummah has fallen into Shirk, like Jews and Christians had fallen into Shirk, based on the Ahadith of, tribes of my Ummah will worship idols, here. Based on all the Ahadith used by Wahhabis it was clear to me that Muslims will worship idols according to Ahadith. During this period it dawned on me that scholars of Ahle Sunnat read the very same Ahadith, in Arabic, yet do not agree with Wahhabi understanding of these Ahadith. Was it because all of them were insanely jealous of true understanding of these Ahadith given by Wahhabis, or were they such staunch defiers of truth that they would not accept truth because they loved prestige they have due to being scholars of heretics? I came to conclusion, you know, Ali, some might be jealous, and some from them deny the Wahhabi understanding of these Ahadith because they have a status, but surely in hundereds of thousands of Muslim scholars there would be few who were honest, truthful, sincere in finding the truth, and they exhorted all effort to learn the real meaning of these Ahadith, and after all the effort and sincere search for the truth, they found their understanding to be correct. And how do I know the understanding which I hold to is the truth after all I am just believe what was told to me. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated in Quran, obey Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), refer to people of authority, but when in dispute refer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), so based on this command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I decided to investigate the matter in dispute. So the very first aspect I investigated was, the Hadith referenced above, which idols does it refer to? Does it refer to deceased Saliheen, or their graves, or idols in true sense? Note, we used these Ahadith to argue the Muslims are worshiping idols and by idols we meant, graves and deceased Saliheen in those graves.[25] So I embarked upon this quest of finding the truth for my self and I was surprised. I found out that Ahadith which I have been using to mean graves and Saliheen burried in the graves, due to their generality in meaning, have been explained by other Ahadith, to mean idols such as Al-Lat, Dhi Al Khalasa, and Al Uzza. The following is article which establishes this position in light of Ahadith, here. The next was Hadith of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) following the footsteps of Jews and Christians. After bit of pondering over the meaning and relating it to current state of affairs of Muslims – how they emulate the West in eating, sleeping, dress, behavioural habbits as well as desire and aspire to follow the morality of West, it became apparent to me that Hadith did not mean emulating them in polytheism but emulating them in their way of life. Note Hadith says, emulating both Jews and Christians, and their collective achievement is Western worlds present reality.  A article was dedicated to explain in detail the understanding I arrived at that juncture of my life, here. The next point of contention was, that according to Wahhabism Muslims will worship idols but the scholars of Ahle Sunnat believed non-Muslim Arabs would revert to idolatory after a sweet cool musky wind blows which will take the life of Muslims, and I found the position of Ahle Sunnat to be substantiated from evidence of Ahadith, here. The following article is in support of article linked prior to it, here. So far it was clear to me that Wahhabis misinterpret the Ahadith to fit their own agenda and it was also apparent to me that at the very least no Hadith establishes major Shirk in the majority of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Okay, addmitted the Wahhabis misinterpret the Ahadith but the correct understanding does not imply majority will not be guilty of major Shirk. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) emphatically stated that Muslims will not worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When I subjected my Wahhabi understanding to test I came to realize that this is inclusive of all Muslims and not just Sahabah, here. I needed something to absolve the Arab Muslims from major Shirk. A statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in which he stated Muslims of Arabia will not worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This would suffice and refute the claim of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab that Arabs were steeped into major Shirk in his life time, and it would be enough to refute his entire mission and his entire invented religion of Wahhabism. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guided me to a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said, by Allah Satan will not be worshipped in Arabian Peninsula. When I investigated the meaning of this Hadith in light of Quran I understood that Satan worship is synonym for idol worship. In other words idols would be not be worshipped in Arabian Peninsula. Based on the Ahadith of worship of idols by Arabian tribes, I uderstood Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had made Takhsees of the general rule by stating tribes of Ummah will worship idols. Meaning idols would not be worshipped in Arabian Peninsula except until after the blowing of wind, except until after the death of all Muslims. Two articles dedicated to this understanding of Hadith of Satan not being worshipped in Arabian Peninsula are, here and here.

      Twenty – Why I Left Wahhabism:

      The entire foundation of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabs movement was, Arabs have become Mushriks [even before the blowing of cool musky sweet wind which was to kill all Muslims] for this and these reasons. This belief of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab does not stand with teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he has taught Arabian Peninsula will not see idol worship until after the blowing of wind and the death of all Muslims, and after this event Kuffar living in Arabia will revert to idolatory. So when I realised the contradiction between Wahhabism and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) I decided to choose the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and gave up all teachings, all principles, of Wahhabism on which I use to judge all matters of creed. Simply because if the principle produces a teaching which goes against teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then just the teaching on its own isn’t incorrect but the principle which resulted this teaching also is incorrect. The legitimacy of Wahhabism was based on the thesis that Muslims are engaged in major Shirk in Arabian Peninsula. Yet there was to be no major Shirk in the belief of people of Arabian Peninsula until after the death of Muslims. Therefore I concluded Wahhabism was an irreligious Khariji rebellion against established Muslim tradition. After further investigation into the subject of Kharijism I learnt Wahhabi sect fulfilled all the prophecies of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) regarding the group of Satan of Najd. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had foretold, the group of Satan will kill Muslims, they will spare disbelievers, they will shave their heads, and their pants would be above their ankles. Also studied history of Wahhabi sect and found them fulfilling the details, such as killing Muslims, skin-head shaving, their out word adherence to Sharia being unrivalled compared to the people of their age/locality. Once it was clear to me that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was born in Najd, his Wahhabi band Ikhwan - original ISIS, emerged from Najd and did all the evil in Najd. I distanced my self from Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s killing of Muslims, looting property of Muslims, enslavement of Muslim men and women. As my understanding of definitions of Shirk/Tawheed developed from perspective of Ahle Sunnat and when I became familiar with various divisions in each subject my convictions became solidified – Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and his band of terrorists and those who have germinated ever since were/are a branch of Khawarij. Due to my stern and out spoken nature I condemed his, and actions of those who followed him with strongest, harshest words I could mint with combination of Takfir, on PalTalk, in a Wahhabi disscussion group.[26] As a result I fell out with my PalTalk Wahhabi buddies and I then officially renounced my Wahhabism on Understanding-Islam forum and I have never looked back to regain my faith in Wahhabism.

      TwentyOne – Jhangvi Community The Arena Of Sectarianism:

      At the time when I abandoned Wahhabism as mentioned earlier I was already part of Jhangvi community and the envoriment of the community was such that we all strived to refute the Rawafiz and this required knowledge. To help me to acquire knowledge about the disputed subjects between Muslim, Deobandi, Wahhabi and Shia I was recommended to read Urdu books such as: Tohfa Athna Ashariyyah by Shaykh Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehalvi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) Tareekhi Dastawaiz by Maulana Zia ar-Rahman Farooqi, Rad ar-Rawafiz by Mujadid Alif Saani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), and Radd Ur-Rifdha by Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Hidayat Ush-Shia by Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, and Irshad Ush-Shia by Sarfaraz Khan Safdar. Also I became embroiled in Muslim vs Deobandi, Wahhabi disputes – such as Noor & Bashr, Hadhir Nazir, Ilm Al Ghayb and these issues were resolved in favour of Deobandism. And also started to learn the legal status of disputed issues of Fiqh under guidance of Deobandis and with aid definition of innovation learnt from Wahhabis. I was told Barelwis are steeped in innovations and their practices have no evidence from Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and following issues are innovations which the Barelwis have fallen into: celebration of Mawlid, various days appointed for supplicating for the deceased relatives – Dua of Thursday (i.e. Khatam Juma-raat), Dua of 4th,  Dua of 10th, Dua of 40th, Giyarweenh (i.e. Dua on 11th of every Islamic month), Urs/Barsi (i.e. commemorating life of a Wali or Aalim - yearly), Dua after funeral (i.e. Dua Bad e Janazah), Konday[27], sending blessings upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) before the call of prayer (i.e. Salawat/Durud Qabl Azaan), supplication of Fatihah[28], and issue of reciting Salat upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using non-prophetic Durud/Salat.[29] Also upon joining Jhangvi community I had also become familiar with Qadiyanis and their teachings and realised the disputes of Ahnaf of subcontinent with Ghayr Muqallideen (i.e. non-conformist Wahhabism of subcontinent) but issues of Ahnaf vs Ghayr Muqallideen were never studied in my Deobandism years. Jhangvi community as opposed to KR-HCY forum had no restrictions on what subjects can be discussed and it was  Jhangvi community opened my eyes and introduced me to different sects and allowed me to gain knowledge about these sects through the lense of Deobandism.
    • By shahabuddin quazi
      AS SALAMO ALAIQUM YE AITRAZ DEOBANDRO NE KIA HAI KI 
       
      TUM BARELVI BAHISHTI ZEWAR JILD 2 ME THANVI KI NAJASAT CHATNE WALI IBARAT KA MAZAK BANATE HO BALKE ULMA E AHNAAF NE BHI YEHI FATWADIA HAI KI NAJASAT CHAT KAR SAF KRO  TO UNGLI PAK HO JAYENGI ..  AUR FATWA E RIZVIA ME BHI YE HI MSLA LIKHA HAI...
       
      kya ye fatwa sahi hai aur thanvi ka najasat chatne ka fatwa aur alahazrt ke fatwe me kya farq hai


    • By MuhammedAli
      Introduction:

      Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shahid (i.e. Hadhir Nazir). The opponents of Islam argue against this belief on the basis of their Satanic logic. Anti Hadhir Nazir arguments are composed of, or based on, half-baked truths. Following is one such argument which was presented during a discussion on this subject.

      Argument Against Hadhir And Nazir:

      Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "You will be gathered, bare-footed, naked and not circumcised." He then recited: “As We began the first creation, We, shall repeat it: A Promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it.” (21:104) He added, "The first to be dressed on the day of resurrection will be Abraham, and some of my companions will be taken towards the left side and I will say: My companions! My companions!  It will be said: 'They renegade from Islam after you left them.' Then I will say as the pious slave of Allah said. 'And I was a Shaheed over them while I dwelt amongst them. When you took me up you were the Raqeeb over them, and you are a Shaheed to all things. If you punish them they are your slaves. And if you forgive them, Verily you, only you are the all-Mighty, the all-Wise." (5:117/118) [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H568] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. Hadhir Nazir). If he was he would know that these people abandoned Islam after his death and were no longer his companions but they are apostates.

      Methodology Of Refutation:

      In order to refute the allegation we will have to establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew during his life time and will know on the judgment day that they are not companions but apostates. The other part connected to this is; why would Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say these people are my companions when it is obvious they were not his companions. Answering this question would further clarify the confusion and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits a separate article will be written to give number of reasons.

      Prophet Knew They Are Not Companions:

      Following Hadith establishes that the apostates were amongst the companions: “Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force. Whereupon I will say: 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H173] Following Ahadith explains that the ‘you’ is directed toward companions: “Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab: The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H586] “Some men from my companions will be brought and taken towards the left side, whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, (these are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You do not know what new things they introduced (into the religion) after you.' I will then say as the righteous pious slave …." [Ref: Bukhari, B65, H4740] We have established Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made distinction between his companions and apostates by saying, some men from my companions will be taken toward the left side. This indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the world knew they would be apostates and not companions. Also the Hadith itself is proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew they would be apostates because he has informed us of an event taking place in distant future. Once he refers to them as his companions Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will pose a rhetorical question as to remind him about the identity of the men: “... Allah's Messenger said: I would be on the Cistern so that I would be seeing those who would be coming to me from you, but some people would be detained (before reaching me). I would say: My Lord, they are my followers and belong to my Ummah, and it would be said to me:فَيُقَالُ أَمَا شَعَرْتَ مَا عَمِلُوا بَعْدَكَ وَاللَّهِ مَا بَرِحُوا بَعْدَكَ يَرْجِعُونَ عَلَى أَعْقَابِهِمْ (i.e. Don’t you know what they did after you?) By Allah, they did not do good after you, and they turned back upon their heels. He …” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5684] Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will remember the Kufri innovations of the men and the identities.

      Prophet Will Recognize Apostates And They Will Recognize Him:

      Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would recognize the apostates and they would recognize him on day of judgment: " The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people, whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them.” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H585] Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them … Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.' I asked: "Where?' He said, 'To the Fire, by Allah.' I asked, What is wrong with them?' He said …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H587] Further confirmation of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recognizing the apostates and proof of apostates recognizing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is in the following Hadith: "One will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. Another will say:  O Muhammad! I am so son of so. I will say; without doubt I recognize your ancestry but you innovated after me and you became apostates by turning on your heels."[1] [Ref: Msnd Ahmad, Baqi Msnd Al Muksireen, Sa’id Khudri, Hadith 11284]They will address Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by his name indicating they have recognized him and he will recognize them and will know about their ancestry and will be aware of their apostasy.

      The Apostates Are The Leaders/Creators Of Kufri Innovations:

      The Ahadith reveal those who were being turned away from the Hawd Al Kauthar were originators of innovations [in other words leaders of heretical sects] and this is evident from the rhetorical tone of question being asked: “Then some men from among my Ummah will be brought and will be taken toward the left. I will say: 'O Lord, my companions.' It will be said: 'Do you not know what they innovated after you were gone?’ And I shall say what the righteous slave said: 'And I was witness over … If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them, verily, You, only You, are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.' And it will be said: 'These people kept turning away since you left them.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H2089] Question itself implies that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew they created innovations which resulted in their apostasy. Similar meaning can also be taken from the following Hadith: "... Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I shall be your harbinger on the Reservoir {Al Kauthar}; therefore, be cautious lest one of you should come (to me) and may be driven away like a stray camel. I would ask the reasons, and it would be said to me: You don't know what innovations they made after you? And I would then also say: Be away.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5686] It is recorded in Hadith of Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman (radiallah ta’ala anhu) that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will knows names of innovators, tribe they will belong to, and names of their: “I swear by Allah, I do not know whether my companions have forgotten or have been made to forget. I swear by Allah that the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) did not omit in his mention leader of any fitnah to appear up till the end of the world – each would have followers the number of three hundred and upwards, and he mentioned to us his name, his father's name and the name of his tribe.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B35, H4231] And it is based on this earthly knowledge Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will know the names of innovators, tribes, and names of their fathers when these innovators approach him on the Hawd. And proof of this is in the following Hadith: "One will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. Another will say:  O Muhammad! I am so son of so. I will say; without doubt I recognize your ancestry but you innovated after me and you became apostates by turning on your heels." [Ref: Msnd Ahmad, Baqi Msnd Al Muksireen, Sa’id Khudri, Hadith 11284]

      Conclusion:

      It is obvious that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew in his earthly life that those being turned away from Hawd Al Kawthar are not his companions but apostates who introduced Kufri innovations. Also on judgment day Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will know the people being prevented from reaching him are apostates. He will also know the names of these innovators, the tribes they belonged to, and will know the names of their fathers on judgment day. It is also evident that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will recognize them and they will recognize him on the day of judgment. Hence there is no chance of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not being truly aware of the reality of these people. At the very minimum it has been soundly established that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not address them as companions due to lack of knowledge about their innovations and apostasy. It is yet to be established, the reasons due to which he referred to apostates as his companions and that if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits will be explained in another article, here.

      Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
      Muhammed Ali Razavi

      Footnotes:

      - [1]"You think my nearness to my tribe will not benefit them? By Allah, nearness to me [via blood relation] will be rewarded on earth and in hereafter. On judgment day a tribe will be raised who will be ordered to go toward the left. One will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. Another will say:  O Muhammad! I am so son of so. I will say; without doubt I recognize your ancestry but you innovated after me and you became apostates by turning on your heels." [Ref: Msnd Ahmad, Baqi Msnd Al Muksireen, Sa’id Khudri, Hadith 11284]