Hadhir Nazir Objection: One Can Testify As A Witness After Being Informed By Trustworthy And Truthful Person.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

Deobandi brother with the name of Mustafvi made a statement in order to argue against Islamic belief of Hadhir Nazir. This article will focus on the statement and try to understand on which basis brother Mustafvi made the statement and how his statements could be interpreted in light of creed of Hadhir Nazir. Please note he might not have intended the details derived and beliefs attributed to him from his statement [in 1.0 and refuted in 1.1 to 1.2] because it is very unlikely he would be familiar with the topic of Hadhir Nazir comprehensively as a educated believer would be. But despite possibility of lack of knowledge his statement is being interpreted as if he was fully aware of all in’s and out’s this belief and implications of his statement. Objective is to comprehensively explore all possible angles of topic of Hadhir Nazir and his statements happens to be a mean to one such detail. The only material directly related to his statement and to him is from 0.1 to 0.2.

0.0 - My And Brother Mustafvi’s Statements:

In my discussion with brother Mustafvi on topic of Hadhir Nazir I had written the following: “Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Shahid (i.e. witness) and a witness must posess two qualties; Hadhir (i.e. present phisically) as well as Nadhir (hearing, seeing). And without these qualities one can not be a truthful witness. Our belief is that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Hadhir in his heavenly resting place in Madinah ash'shareef but soul is able to move as soul of Musa (alayhis salam) was able to move from place to place while keeping touch with the body of Musa (alayhis salam) and Nadhir upon his Ummah. Ability of Hadhir Nadhir is a mojzaati qudrat which …” He responded with the following: “It is true that your above mentioned two qualities have some weight but these two are not compulsory in all the cases. One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” [Ref: Mustafvi, Private Discussion, Publicised, Post 1.]

0.1 - Chain Of Transmission And Its Major Components:

To be a truthful and trustworthy person witnessing of event is essential. If Bakr is truthful and trustworthy and he witnesses x y z and informs Amr x y z has happened. Then for his truthfulness and trustworthiness to be established it is important that event has taken place and that Bakr witnessed it for himself. Even though the chain of transmission of Khabr (i.e. news/report) may not from eye-witness to eye-witness but it is reiable because Bakr has witnessed it and on account of his eye-witnessing it has passed from eye-witness to truthful to truthful. This is how chain of transmission in Hadith works. A authentic Hadith via many narrators it goes back to a companion who heard and saw Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) acted in such a fashion or utter the words of Hadith. Alhasil -: A truthfull and trustworthy individual witnesses a event and then transmits this information to a truthfull person. Then this report is transmitted continously from truthful to truthful. And this report will be trustworthy and truthfull, and is to be believed.’[1] Note this is the foundation on which brother Mustafvi made his statement.

0.2 - Error In Brother Mustafvi’s Statement:

Brother Mustafvi’s statement is based on valid principle from principles of Hadith but his statement is incorrect because he inserted into it his error. Firstly the very basic error is that he does not mention witnessing by an eye-witness. One who originates the Khabr must be eye witness to the event he reports otherwise he is lieing or at least spreading rumours as actual events. Secondly one who hears a Khabr does not become witness to the event nor he qualifies to testify as an eye-witness, or as a non-eye-witness. Note which he claims having truthful Khabr qualifies the knower of news as a witness and can bear witness: “One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” There are thousands of Sahih (i.e. authentic) Ahadith and there are Mutawatir [is grade above, authentic] Ahadith but none claims to be witness on basis of them. Nor can claim to qualify as an eye-witness of event narrated in Hadith. Being informed by another and testifying on account of it is testimony of one’s own faith.[2] And its worth in court of law is no greater then it.

1.0 - Two Contexts His Statement Can Be Interpreted:

There are two ways brother Mustafvi’s statement can be interpreted: i) From Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). ii) And from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to the present. Note brother Mustafvi’s statement was written in effort to refute Islamic belief of Hadhir Nazir. Therefore in the 1^st case it implies, brother Mustafvi believes, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) what the nations did before he was sent as last/final Nabi and he will bear witness on account of this learnt knowledge . And in the 2^nd case it means, brother Mustafvi believes, we the Ummah will educate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about what nations did after him and he will testify on account of what we tell him. In both cases Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) direct witnessing of the events has been removed and replaced with being informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by his own Ummah. In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directly witnessing events is being negated.

1.1 - The Error Of Brother Mustafvi’s Understanding:

There is no evidence to suggest that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be bearing witness on account of being informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or in other words will be giving testimony of his faith in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is Qiyas (i.e. analogy) based on Hadith which states Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify in defence of Prophets upon being informed by last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “… It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ And he will say: ‘Yes.’ Then his people will be called and it will be said: ‘Did he convey the message to you?’ They will say: ‘No.’ Then it will be said: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] Qiyas was/is not foundation of Islamic creed. Nor there is proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify on account of being informed by his own Ummah regarding events transpired after him. Again this is also based on Qiyas and both of these are against clear emphatic teachings of Quran.

1.2 - Islamic Verdict On 1^st Scenario:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “So how (will it be) when We bring from every nation a witness and we bring you (O Muhammad) against these (people) as a witness?” [Ref: 4:41]“And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did ...” [Ref: 2:143] “Allah named you Muslims previous (scriptures) and in this (revelation) that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people.” [Ref: 22:73] The Ummah will bear witness in defence of Prophets. Note following Hadith explains what type of testimony they will give: “He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’” Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will question the Ummah about how they know Prophets delivered the message to their nations and they will say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed them of it: “He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] This establishes Ummats testimony is of their Iman. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not question Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Who informed you? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) ensured that Muslims know Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not witnessed the events regarding which they have testified. For Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this route is not taken and this indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had witnessed these events spiritually.[3] And proof of this is are those verses in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) within context of historical events says: “Have you not seen[4] how your Lord dealt with Aad.” [Ref: 89:6] “Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the companions/army of elephant.” [Ref: 105:1] “Have you not seen those elders of the children of Israel after the time of Moses …” [Ref: 2:246] And these verses are supported by Hadith a narrated in Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “عرضات الأنبيا أممها و اتباعها من أممها” Which means: “Presented before me were [all] Prophets and their nations along side [their believing] followers.” This goes on to establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed the deeds of those before him and use of, ‘ألم تر’ , is referrence to seeing if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Alhasil the first belief of brother Mustafvi is refuted.

Islamic Verdict On 2^nd Scenario:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Indeed, We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner.” [Ref: 48:8] "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] And he is sent to mankind: "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] He is a Prophet sent to mankind as a witness like Musa (alayhis salam) was sent to Firawn: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent as a hearing and seeing witness to mankind like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was sent to Fir’awn. Note one who is sent as a witness must witness over whom he was sent to witness and without his witnessing he is not witness. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witness and sent as a witness. Hence his witnessing of deeds of mankind is established from ever since he was sent as last/final Prophet and Messenger. There are number of Ahadith which establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has witnessed everything: "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: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3246, Tafsir Surah Sad] "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: 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: Kitab al-Fitan, 1^st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] On account of this knowledge Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed all that was to transpire from beginning of creation till the entering of people in paradise/hell: “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, B54, H414] Alhasil all this evidence goes on to refute the notion mentioned in second belief of brother Mustafvi.

Conclusion:

If brother Mustafvi’s statement is interpreted in light of science of Hadith even then it fails to meet the criteria because the originator of chain must be witness the event and then to narrate it to others. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bore witness without witnessing himself then the rule of chain originator being first hand witness to event is broken. Yet verses of Quran and Hadith of Musnad Ahmad establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed Prophets and their nations and their beleiving followers and their actions. In light of this the chain originator is actual witness and he narrated and Ummah believed and bore witness. But whole objective of inventing ‘bearing witness without witnessing the events’ was to negate actual witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which has failed even if your philosophy of bearing witness without witnessing the event was believed. Even then it would be true for the Ummah and not for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also if Ummah informing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about what transpired after him is considered in light of your rule then implication is Ummah has seen it and it will inform Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This was invented with objective to refute actual witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Yet the Quranic verses and quoted Ahadith establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) himself witnesses and had witnessed the deeds of all happenings till the judgment day. If we disregarding the fact Ummat informing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is without scriptural support. Even then it would imply, Ummat witnessed the events, and they informed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), who also had witnessed the events himself. Therefore scenario would be similar to angels presenting deeds of people to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) despite the fact that He is already aware of them. Or similar to, angels presenting to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) salutations of his Ummah despite the fact that good/bad deeds were already seen by him and are seen by him. Alhasil however the ball is rolled the witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be refuted. Hence it would be better to let go of innovative concept of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) testifying for what is established from textual evidences.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

Footnotes:

- [1] A example: Truthful and trustworthy people have transferred Quran and authentic Ahadith and on basis of information in these we believe and testify; there is no Ma’bud (i.e. deserving of worship) except Allah and Prophet Muhammad is Messenger of Allah. Note this testimony is of ones own Iman (i.e. faith) and not of an out side event. Testimony of faith only the person can express none else because one is aware of his own belief. Hence person testifying as such is first hand witness.

- [2] Like it is in the case of following Hadith: “He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] Note the Ummah will testify and the Ummah of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) will question the testimony of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Ummah would be questioned who informed you and they will say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note He will not question Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) testifying against Ummah of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam). Ummah will bear testimony on basis of their own faith in truthfullness and trustworthiness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

- [3] Two logical conclusions can be made because of this: i) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be testifying on account of being informed like his Ummah. And there was no difference between testimony of Ummah and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hence there was no need to pursue it further. ii) Testimony of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was in result of actually witnessing the events therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not pursue to negate his actual witnessing. But Ummah had testified on account of being informed by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) ensured it was pointed out. Resolution -: Firstly please note Qiyas is not foundation of creed and to believe in first contention is to put faith in Qiyas. This is why I only mentioned the second contention in my main article. Secondly there are numerous places in Quran where Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions events which had transpired long before birth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In some cases Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while adressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) begins the narrative with: “Did you not see!” And this is to attest that he saw and he is being reminded. From this scholars of Ahlus Sunnah assume position; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed the events prior to his brith and he is being asked to recall the events. Alhasil -: This goes on to establish the Islamic position taken in the article.

- [4] The older translations of Quran in English and Urdu translated the words, ‘ألم تر’ , to denote seeing but new Wahhabi translation, Sahih International, has started the tradition of translating these verses: “Have you not considered …” The objective is to do away with the natural meaning of words due to the implications. They, insha Allah, will never succeed in distortion of Quran because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made it clear that he saw the Prophets and their nations before him.