MuhammedAli

Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement In Sense Of Tashbeeh And Equality In Quantity Of Knowledge.

2 posts in this topic

Introduction:

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) alleged Shaykh Thanvi equalled Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb of; Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. A righteous Muslim would have seriously considered the allegation and thought about all angles and upon being informed would have repented. Shaykh Thanvi had other plans he decided to defend his statement. And seeing their Shaykh in battle the minions of Iblees joined and made excuses for their master. Some said Shaykh Thanvi never wrote this statement of Hifz ul-Iman[1] but when they were confronted with truth they had no answer but to run to Thana Bhawan. Others took the course of Taweel (i.e. re-interpreting) of obvious in order to blunt the charge of insult/disrespect. There were two main proponents of Taweel movement apart from Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Madani and his student Shaykh Naumani. Note Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan laid the foundation of Taweel of both parties. Result was Shaykh Madani claimed there is tashbeeh in statement of Shaykh Thanvi if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would be problematic. Shaykh Naumani said statement is not in sense of tashbeeh because aisa is used to mean itna. If it was tashbeeh it would be Kufr. And all parties agreed that there is no mention of equality in quantity by Shaykh Thanvi in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. This article will address two points, denial of tashbeeh, and denial of equality in quantity. Effort will be made to establish equality and tashbeeh.

1.0 - Controversial Statement And Shaykh Negates Equality In Quantity:

Following is portion of Hifz ul-Iman in which Shaykh Thanvi attempted to rightly/justly refute notion that title Aalim ul-Ghayb can be applied upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he knows Ghayb but the tone and language used was insulting/disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In his following pamphlet size booklet some 10 years later Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Thanvi regarding the statement of Hifz ul-Iman states in his two page pamphlet published as Bast al-Banan hints; he deems the prophetic and knowledge of those whom he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman to be baaz (i.e. limited) but different in quantity.

1.1 - Shaykh Madani Confirms Tashbeeh But Negates Equality In Quantity:

Shaykh Madani taking que from his beloved Shaykh Thanvi writes: “Honorable people! Matter discussed (of Hifz ul-Iman) was if it is correct to use for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the title of Aalim ul-Ghayb or not. Knowledge and quantity of prophetic knowledge was not being discussed (in Hifz ul-Iman). You should read the statement of Shaykh Thanvi from beginning to end; in it he is arguing the usage of this phrase (Aalim ul-Ghayb) for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not right/legal.” Shaykh Madani continues to write: In it he is not discussion if he (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb of any kind or not; and if there is then how much of Ghayb does he know. Every intelligent person understands the difference between establishing a belief and application of word (as title) details of which will be mentioned ahead. Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much).” Purpose of negating discussion of quantity is to negate the notion that prophetic quantity was equalled with what Shaykh Thanvi mentioned in list of beings. Shaykh Madani continues: If it was word itna (i.e. this-much) then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Note Shaykh Madani says quantity of prophet knowledge was not discussed in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And says if itna was used instead of aisa then equality in quantity would be established and it would have been valid reason for objection because then prophetic knowledge would be equalled in quantity to; lunatics, infants, animals and every day Joe’s. In his next statement he explicitly negates/rejects the notion that there is tashbeeh in quantity in Hifz ul-Imans controversial statement: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz. [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] In another part of books he writes: “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “…if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] Alhasil -: In understanding of Shaykh Madani the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is comparative (i.e. of tashbeeh) in nature. And the comparision is in category of limited knowledge not in quantity of  limited knowledge. Note he explicitly negated the notion that Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman compares quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb.

1.2 - Shaykh Naumani Negates Tashbeeh And It Is In Quantitive Sense Of Itna:

Shaykh Naumani considers aisa (i.e. like-this) in meaning of itna (i.e. thi-much). According to Shaykh Madani if it was itna then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would establishe equality in quantity (see pages 281/282, above) which is an apparent contradiction. Ignoring this contradiction of liars; who really are senselessly scrambling to cover up with their lies and deception the obvious Kufr. Shaykh Naumani like Shaykh Madani he too believes itna is without establishing equality between quantity: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.[Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] In another part he is quoted to have said: “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). [] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).”[2] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] In the following statement Shaykh Naumani explicitly stated that Shaykh Thanvi in his Hifz ul-Iman did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb: “In this turn you again read (aloud) statement of Hifz ul-Iman and you have claimed regarding it what you have claimed about it since yesterday. I have given quite detailed and clear response to it and you should remember/recall it. This time I will briefly say another thing about it. Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Alhasil Shaykh Naumani to believes itna refers to baaz and prophetic knowledge of baaz is not being compared with baaz knowledge of individuals mentioned in his statement.

2.0 - Shaykhs; Thanvi, Naumani, And Madani Negate Equality In Quantity:

In short it is clear that all three are unanimous in their understanding that quantity of limited prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was not part of the discussion nor Shaykh Thanvi intended to discuss the quantity. Shaykh Madani is of view; Shaykh Thanvi compared the prophetic knowledge in limitedness with knowledge of regular Joe’s, infants, animals, lunatics. And he did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge with quantity of knowledge possessed by regular Joe’s, lunatics, infants, animals and quadrupeds. Shaykh Naumani on other hand disagrees with his teacher Shaykh Madani and says; there is no comparision in quantity because the word aisa (i.e. like-this) is used in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) and it is used without denoting quantity.

2.1 Technicalities And Pointlessness And Senselessness Of Shuyukh Of Deoband:

Considering both positions in light of that is all logical and rational and intelligent; it has to be said Shaykh Madani has got the right general idea but stupidly negates aisa meaning itna which his position naturally implies. Also Shaykh Naumani is barking up the wrong tree by saying itna is without tashbeeh: If hint of aisa/itna is returning to baaz then Shaykh Thanvi has to compare the prophetic knowledge with regular Joe’s, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds to negate speciality which he did in his statement. In simple words comparision to negate speciality/uniqueness equals = tashbeeh. Shaykh Madani on other hand has the general concept right but was reluctant to accept aisa is used in meaning of itna. If Shaykh Madani had said: ‘Aisa is for tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and tashbeeh of aisa is with generality of baaz not quantity of baaz and therefore appropriate alternative from linguistic sense for aisa would be itna.’ He could have perfectly held the same position by incorporating part of Shaykh Naumani’s position into his own. He could have but there was little angel in his subconcious saying Shaykh Thanvi’s statement insulting/disrespectfull. Somehow he managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity. If Shaykh Naumani had said: ‘Aisa is in meaning of itna due to linguistic usage of aisa in meaning of itna. And aisa/itna is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) between baaz knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and baaz knowledge of mentioned creations without comparing quantity of prophetic knowledge and mentioned others.’ These Shuyukh could have argued their case and held to same positions but the difference would be that both wouldn’t have contradicted each other. Surprisingly both felt if it would be Kufr if it was in sense of this and not in sense of that.

2.3 - Two Insults In One Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi:

Instead of both taking the voices of their concious and agreeing with them both decided to stab their angels to death with the fork of red little Satan. And thought if they supress their concious and say it is not in this meaning and say it is in that meaning then the Kur would be lifted from Shaykh Thanvi. The offense in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is two fold: i) Shaykh Thanvi negated/rejected the notion that prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special/unique but it is like the lunatics, animals, infants, every day Joe’s and quadrupeds. ii) Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is actually implying prophetic knowledge is equal to the mentioned relatives of Shaykh Thanvi in quantity and quality. Both of these Shuyukh have focused their Taweelat to negate the first charge. It is worth noting that both these Shuyukh have not managed to successfully defend against the first charge. Note the first charge is naturally and fundamentally part of second charge and if second charge is established then naturally the first charge would be established.

2.4 - Playing Chicken With Kufr And Not Realising After Squished By It:

Regardless of how these Shuyukh could have played the defending game; with itna refering to baaz and without tashbeeh in quantity of prophetic knowledge, or aisa referring to baaz and tashbeeh; comparision in general quantity of baaz but not with specific prophetic quantity of baaz. Or even if they had played chicken with Kufr with one of above Taweels presented by me; even then nothing would make their defence of Shaykh Thanvi impregnable. The offense they attempted to lift was beyond their comprehension. They thought with word games we will win the battle against Muslims. Little did they know they can put yeh (i.e. this), or itna and is-qadr (i.e. this-much), and negate or affirm tashbeeh in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi and play whatever Ibleesi game they wish. As long as Takhseesi statement (i.e. what is so unique about Hadhoor’s sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam knowledge of Ghayb)  remains in statement of Shaykh Thanvi the tashbeeh cannot be negated and equality argument against Hifz ul-Iman cannot be negated. Please read the following part of article carefully it will lay bare all deceptions these Shuyukh have attempted to defend Shaykh Thanvi by dealing with the dispute in most fundamental fashion; by evaluating their arguments in light of basic facts which no rational or sane human could object to.

3.0 -Principles Of Refuting And Establishing Uniqueness In Knowledge:

i) Knowledge of X equals Y. In this context X and Y have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other. ii) X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X. In this context X is unique/special because X has greater knowledge. And Y is not unique/special and has no merit above X.  iii) X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y. In this scenario X has a merit and is unique/special due greater quantity and qaulity.

3.1 - Knowledge of X equals Y:

The first principle: ‘Knowledge of X equals Y.’ Thanvi knows numbers from one to hundred. Gangohi knows numbers from one to hundred. Both know exactly the same amount of numbers therefore if it was said that Shaykh Thanvi isn’t any better, any special it would be correct. Following example illustrates the point:’If it is correct to attribute knowledge of numbers to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this knowledge of numbers, known to Shaykh Thanvi, limited to one to hundered or is it infinite knowledge of numbers. If it is one to hundered then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge of numbers; knowledge like this is even possesed by everyday Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and Shaykh Gangohi.’ Ofcourse this statement is correct; Shaykh Thanvi would has no merit over the mentioned because quantity of his knowledge is same as the rest. From this example we learn; to negate speciality, or uniquess of knowledge there has to be equality in knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi knows 1-100 and so does his family of lunatics, infants, and Shaykh Gangohi; therefore he is not special in knowing numbers. Alhasil: In this context Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other due to equality in quantity.

3.2 - X Is More Knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X:

The second principle states: ‘X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X.’ In this scenario we suppose Shaykh Thanvi had Ghayb knowledge of two or twenty matters of Ghayb found in perserved tablet. And all Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of Ghayb. And it exceeds all that is in perserved Tablet. Readers are advised to referr to Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to get details and evidences of Islamic belief. Please study the following statement: ‘Indeed it is correct to attribute knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And upon investigation it became clear it wasn’t of few matters of Ghayb but of all that is in perserved tablet and greater then it. Hence prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special. And if Shaykh Thanvi has knowledge of few matters of Ghayb then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knolwedge of Ghayb in comparision to prophetic knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is even possesed by every day Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and animals.’ Shaykh Thanvi comparatively isn’t special in his knowledge of Ghayb because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows all that is in perserved tablet and more. Alhasil -: In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique/special because he has greater knowledge; in fact all of knowledge of perserved tablet. And Shaykh Thanvi is not unique/special and has no merit above Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to lack of quantity of his knowledge.

3.3 - X Has Greater Quantity Of Knowledge And Quality Of Knowledge Then Y:

Third principle states: ‘X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y.’ Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is Qatti (i.e. definitive). Meaning there can be no element of doubt in his knowledge of Ghayb. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) says; Dajjal will be blind in one eye. Then there can be no doubt regarding it: Dajjal will be blind in his eye. Also prophetic knowledge is beyound human counting: Consists of all knowledge of Ghayb in perserved tablet and even greater. Ghayb knowledge of non-Prophets is Zani (i.e. indefinitive/doubtful) however they gain it. The non-Prophets can only have Qatti (i.e. definitive) Ghayb when it has been given to them by a Nabi/Rasool. And the quantity of Zanni Ghayb will never be suffient enough merit a challenge to prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or negate speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Now in this context try to understand statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Now if we insert the established facts into the text of Shaykh Thanvi it means: Prophetic Qatti knolwedge of Ghayb, whose quantity is beyond human comprehension is nothing special in comparision to Zanni knowledge of Ghayb lunatics, infants, animals whose knowledge is questionable and minute quantity, that’s if they have Ghayb. So in Deobandism; few lunatics, cows, sheeps, infants, animals, about whom we don’t even know they have knowledge of Ghayb, and whose quantity knowledge is worth of two dimes; have managed to negate the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb whose possession of Ghayb, and quantity, and quality is uncontestable. Ofcourse we Muslims do not believe it is correct to attribute title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So please do not take this as argument for application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb. Now when the greater quantity of knowledge establishes superiority and merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge then greater quality by default will add to speciality and uniquessness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Alhasil -: In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a merit and is unique/special due to his quality knowledge and due greater quantity of his knowledge.

3.4 - Fundamental Rule Of Establishing And Negating Speciality:

From these three principles and their explanantions we derive a basic rule; X has to be compared to Y quantity/type to establish/negate speciality/uniqueness. If the quantity is equal on both sides then comparision yields result; one has no superiority over the other. If one has less and other has greater then comparisions establishes two results: i) one possessing less quantity of knowledge has no superiority over who has greater quantity of knowledge. ii) And one with greater quantity of knowledge is superior to one with lesser knowledge. Alhasil in statements like of Hifz ul-Iman comparision is essential to establish and negate merit of one over another: And this comparision is in quantity and can also be in types of knowledge.

4.0 - Brief Account Of Shuyukh On Hifz ul-Iman’s Controversial Statement:

Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani all stated the quantity of prophetic knowledge isn’t being discussed in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In my own words; Shaykh Naumani said there was no tashbeeh of prophetic Ghayb with Ghayb of lunatics. If it was in meaning of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. Rather the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna. And itna is used without tashbeeh because aisa/itna referrs to baaz Ghayb and not prophetic baaz Ghayb. Shaykh Madani on other hand said there is tashbeeh in statement and tashbeeh is in prophetic knowledge being compared to baaz Ghayb knowledge and not quanity of baaz prophetic knowledge with baaz quantity x, y, and z. He also indirectly indicated he would consider statement to beKufr if itna was used. Alhasil both contradict each other … both indirectly declared each other Kafir but that’s not the point. But they all negated equality in quantity of knowledge.

4.1 - Speciality And Uniqueness Can Only Be Negated Via Comparision:

If you recall Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani are of view that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is without Tashbeeh. Even though their own lap-dop aka Shaykh Madani refutes them but it is still important to address it from principle point of view. If a child says; this is sweeter then that one. Has he compared this choclate with that to come to conclusion? An adult says; there is nothing special about this jumper over that jumper. Did the adult compare, one or other quality, to come to this conclusion? You would agree both these statements are result of comparision. Even though words, like, such, as, aren’t used the comparision can be implied because merit/quality is being negated. And for negation/affirmation of any quality/merit in a statement comparative analysis is essential between two parties either by comparing to something materially or via pre-determined criterias of good/bad learnt through experience and knowledge accomulated over time. In this context if we take statement of Shaykh Thanvi: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In here Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in contrast to; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And for him to reach to this understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special in his knowledge, he had to compare (or; give tashbeeh of) prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this tashbeeh can be in quantity or in types of Ghayb known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In addition to this; Shaykh Thanvi used word aisa (i.e. like this) which is used for tashbeeh even if it is without jaisa (i.e. like this): “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [3] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] And in context of rule; establishing or negating any merit/quality of one over another party requires comparision (i.e. tashbeeh) between qualities/merits of party with another. Therefore aisa has to be in meaning of tashbeeh and it was this realisation which forced Shaykh Madani to accept Islamic position of tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In context of tashbeeh the statement would mean that author is comparing propheting knowledge of Ghayb with knowledge of those Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Implication of which would be; whatever is the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and qaudrupeds all share his quantity and type of knowledge. It would be best to do away with Shaykh Naumani’s argument of itna. Consider this a throwing Shaykh Naumani’s argument to dogs along side him. Shaykh argued aisa (i.e. like-this) means itna (i.e. this-much) in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and he referrenced poetical verses and popular usage in which aisa can be taken as subsitute for itna. Even if Shaykh Thanvi didn’t use aisa he used itna it would have had no difference because Shaykh Thanvi was negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and foundation of this is tashbeeh/comparision. Golden rule is to affirm/negate a merit of one explicit/implicit comparision is fundamental. And not to under do the research we have following quote from Deobandi account of debate which affirms itna can too be for tashbeeh: It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.”[4] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Note even though author doesn’t accept Shaykh Naumani’s itna in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is for tashbeeh; but what does the golden rule say? Referr back to it please and then referr to relevent footnote of my article. Alhasil be it aisa or itna the bottom line is in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman when merit/quality is being negated tashbeeh is fundamental part of it. In addition to what has already been stated please take special notice of following: To establish speciality of one over another or negate naturally comparision has to be made and comparision can be implied or explicit. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman aisa (i.e. like-this) has been used which is always indictive of explicit tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Secondly for comparision there has to be; ‘the compared’ and ‘the compared to’. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a quality/attribute in which ‘the compared’ is being compared to ‘the comapred to’. And we find those in Hifz ul-Iman; ‘the compared’ is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And ‘the compared to’ to are Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And the quality is Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of Ghayb). Please note all three components are in statemend of Shaykh Thanvi: “Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb2; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds3; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] When all the necessary raw materials of tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman to say negate it is either illiteracy. Or a deliberate cordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims.

4.2 - Equality In Quantity Is Essential To Negate Speciality And Uniqueness:

Following is rephrasing of first principle: If two are equals one is no better then the other. If Shaykh Thanvi had belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has equal quantity of knowledge as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi wrote:“Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics. Otherwise Shaykh Thanvi could not have said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no speciality over these mentioned. If he believed in speciality of prophetic knowledge he would not have said that and defended this statement. In worst case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds.  Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for two reasons. Therefore the following portion of controversial would be read as following: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this (i.e, Prophet Muhammad’s Ghayb knowledge) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds … Coming to second principle: Principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this. And it would be unfare and deception to pass it of as legitimate point. Only equality in knowledge is valid position.

Conclusion:

The basic rule regarding statements type of Hifz ul-Iman is; X has to be compared to Y in quantity/type to establish/negate. Without comparision in quantity/type of Ghayb speciality of prophetic Ghayb cannot be negated. And if there is equality in quantity there would be no speciality of one over another. Or if there is less and greater quantity then lesser has no speciality/uniqueness over the greater. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman the structuring of sentence restricts interpretation to; negation of speciality/uniqueness via equality in quantity; and not via prophetic knowledge being less then of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. In this context Shaykh Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman stated; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his baaz quantity of Ghayb knowledge is not special because knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was possessed by Zayd, Amr, animals, lunatics, quadrupeds, and infants. In defence of Shaykh Thanvi Deobandi Shuyukh stated statement is not about equality in quantity nor the author attempted to establish equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani deemed Tashbeeh to be Kufr and said aisa (i.e. like-this) is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) without tashbeeh. And Shaykh Madani said it is in meaning of Tashbeeh if it was itna it would be Kufr. Both these Shuyukh contradicted each other and both considered other Taweeli understanding of Hifz ul-Iman to be Kufr. Unfortunately for Shaykh Thanvi he was the original source of Taweels of Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Naumani. Shaykh Thanvi said indirectly … tashbeeh or itna … statement is perfectly fine. All Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani collectively managed was; Shaykh Thanvi’s both Taweel are Kufr and certified Shaykh Thanvi’s and their own Kufr. Statement like of Hifz ul-Iman mentions two parties … X and Y … X is not special/unique in his Ilm al-Ghayb. Aisa is used for comparision and all raw materials of comparision are in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Party X and party Y and the merit/quality of Ilm al-Ghayb which is being negated via comparision. Negation of speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb via comparision is through equality in quanitity.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1] Poor folk were decieved by deception of Bast al-Banan in which Shaykh Thanvi completely denied what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman. Other extreme is that smart Deobandis say Shaykh Thanvi changed the statement in Hifz ul-Iman therefore he cannot be blamed any longer and he is unfairly being targetted. In response to those; Shaykh Thanvi never repented and Shaykh made that clear in Bast al-Banan and Tagheer ul-Unawan. Changing of statement was merely to avoid difficulties faced by his supporters in debates. And Shaykh realised his statement ‘people lacking depth of understanding’ will ‘misunderstand’ and take it to be insulting therefore he agreed to change it. In other words it was effort to reorganise forces for further battle and not acceptance of fault/sin and repentence.

- [2] Slightly longer version:“And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. [] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.]

- [3] Shaykh Naumani argued aisa without jaisa is not always for tashbeeh. In response to which Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) gave following speech during his debate with Shaykh Manzoor Naumani: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr?  Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?  [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] Note Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) used aisa on its on to tactfully insult Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani to acknowledge aisa without jaisa is for tashbeeh. Feeling the sting of Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) rebuke Shaykh Naumani couldn’t keep his deception going for too long and said: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] For the remainder of debate Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) enquired from Shaykh Naumani why were his words directed toward Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani insult and not Shaykh Thanvi’s word insult toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)?

- [4] The compiler and I assume that is Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain said:It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Shaykh Naumani said aisa with jaisa is surely for tashbeeh because there is no jaisa there is no tashbeeh. And aisa is in meaning of itna. Note in the first example Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain used similar strategy which Shaykh Naumani used. His example is itna with jitna with which he is indicating tashbeeh without jitna cannot exist. Fact is Shaykh Naumani conceeded that there can be tashbeeh without jaisa and footnote 3 of this article is proof of it therefore please refer to it for complete detail. And if you remember then please read the following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).[Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] Should I too do itna without jitna and demonstrate itna can be for tashbeeh? It can be said: ‘Shaykh Madani was itna abusive that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani felt like he is an innocent angel in company of Shaykh Madani.’ Implication here is that Mirza al-Kazzab al-Dajjal was abusive but Shaykh Madani was sooOOooO abusive comparision to Mirza; al-Kazzab, al-Dajjal, that Mirza felt he is blameless. Shaykh Rafaqat used two examples lets analyze their reality. Zayd is itna rich jitna Umru. Shaykh Rafaqat agrees it was for tashbeeh. Agar kaha jahay: Zayd bhot maldar heh aur itna hi Umru maldar heh. If it is said: Zayd is very rich and ina (i.e. as-much-as) rich is Umru. Can Shaykh Rafaqat or the clan of defenders of Kufr deny this tashbeeh? Even if the Shayateen disbelieve in tashbeeh the principle makes it clear when merit/quality is being established/negated between two parties in a sentence then tashbeeh is fundamentally part of statement be it implied or explicit. Alhasil; Shaykh Rafaqat can play all games he likes the fundamental rule will not allow him or his ilk evade the evident truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated.

Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement In Sense Of Tashbeeh And Equality In Quantity Of Knowledge.


Introduction:

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) alleged Shaykh Thanvi equalled Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb of; Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. A righteous Muslim would have seriously considered the allegation and thought about all angles and upon being informed would have repented. Shaykh Thanvi had other plans he decided to defend his statement. And seeing their Shaykh in battle the minions of Iblees joined and made excuses for their master. Some said Shaykh Thanvi never wrote this statement of Hifz ul-Iman[1] but when they were confronted with truth they had no answer but to run to Thana Bhawan. Others took the course of Taweel (i.e. re-interpreting) of obvious in order to blunt the charge of insult/disrespect. There were two main proponents of Taweel movement apart from Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Madani and his student Shaykh Naumani. Note Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan laid the foundation of Taweel of both parties. Result was Shaykh Madani claimed there is tashbeeh in statement of Shaykh Thanvi if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would be problematic. Shaykh Naumani said statement is not in sense of tashbeeh because aisa is used to mean itna. If it was tashbeeh it would be Kufr. And all parties agreed that there is no mention of equality in quantity by Shaykh Thanvi in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. This article will address two points, denial of tashbeeh, and denial of equality in quantity. Effort will be made to establish equality and tashbeeh.

1.0 - Controversial Statement And Shaykh Negates Equality In Quantity:

Following is portion of Hifz ul-Iman in which Shaykh Thanvi attempted to rightly/justly refute notion that title Aalim ul-Ghayb can be applied upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he knows Ghayb but the tone and language used was insulting/disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In his following pamphlet size booklet some 10 years later Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Thanvi regarding the statement of Hifz ul-Iman states in his two page pamphlet published as Bast al-Banan hints; he deems the prophetic and knowledge of those whom he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman to be baaz (i.e. limited) but different in quantity.

1.1 - Shaykh Madani Confirms Tashbeeh But Negates Equality In Quantity:

Shaykh Madani taking que from his beloved Shaykh Thanvi writes: “Honorable people! Matter discussed (of Hifz ul-Iman) was if it is correct to use for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the title of Aalim ul-Ghayb or not. Knowledge and quantity of prophetic knowledge was not being discussed (in Hifz ul-Iman). You should read the statement of Shaykh Thanvi from beginning to end; in it he is arguing the usage of this phrase (Aalim ul-Ghayb) for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not right/legal.” Shaykh Madani continues to write: In it he is not discussion if he (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb of any kind or not; and if there is then how much of Ghayb does he know. Every intelligent person understands the difference between establishing a belief and application of word (as title) details of which will be mentioned ahead. Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much).” Purpose of negating discussion of quantity is to negate the notion that prophetic quantity was equalled with what Shaykh Thanvi mentioned in list of beings. Shaykh Madani continues: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Note Shaykh Madani says quantity of prophet knowledge was not discussed in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And says if itna was used instead of aisa then equality in quantity would be established and it would have been valid reason for objection because then prophetic knowledge would be equalled in quantity to; lunatics, infants, animals and every day Joe’s. In his next statement he explicitly negates/rejects the notion that there is tashbeeh in quantity in Hifz ul-Imans controversial statement: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz. [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] In another part of books he writes: “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] Alhasil -: In understanding of Shaykh Madani the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is comparative (i.e. of tashbeeh) in nature. And the comparision is in category of limited knowledge not in quantity of  limited knowledge. Note he explicitly negated the notion that Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman compares quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb.

1.2 - Shaykh Naumani Negates Tashbeeh And It Is In Quantitive Sense Of Itna:

Shaykh Naumani considers aisa (i.e. like-this) in meaning of itna (i.e. thi-much). According to Shaykh Madani if it was itna then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would establishe equality in quantity (see pages 281/282, above) which is an apparent contradiction. Ignoring this contradiction of liars; who really are senselessly scrambling to cover up with their lies and deception the obvious Kufr. Shaykh Naumani like Shaykh Madani he too believes itna is without establishing equality between quantity: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.[Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] In another part he is quoted to have said: “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). [] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).”[2] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] In the following statement Shaykh Naumani explicitly stated that Shaykh Thanvi in his Hifz ul-Iman did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb: “In this turn you again read (aloud) statement of Hifz ul-Iman and you have claimed regarding it what you have claimed about it since yesterday. I have given quite detailed and clear response to it and you should remember/recall it. This time I will briefly say another thing about it. Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Alhasil Shaykh Naumani to believes itna refers to baaz and prophetic knowledge of baaz is not being compared with baaz knowledge of individuals mentioned in his statement.

2.0 - Shaykhs; Thanvi, Naumani, And Madani Negate Equality In Quantity:

In short it is clear that all three are unanimous in their understanding that quantity of limited prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was not part of the discussion nor Shaykh Thanvi intended to discuss the quantity. Shaykh Madani is of view; Shaykh Thanvi compared the prophetic knowledge in Baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) with knowledge of regular Joe’s, infants, animals, lunatics. And he did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge with quantity of knowledge possessed by regular Joe’s, lunatics, infants, animals and quadrupeds. Shaykh Naumani on other hand disagrees with his teacher Shaykh Madani and says; there is no comparision in quantity because the word aisa (i.e. like-this) is used in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) and it is used without denoting quantity.

2.1 Technicalities And Pointlessness And Senselessness Of Shuyukh Of Deoband:

Considering both positions in light of that is all logical and rational and intelligent; it has to be said Shaykh Madani has got the right general idea but stupidly negates aisa meaning itna which his position naturally implies. Also Shaykh Naumani is barking up the wrong tree by saying itna is without tashbeeh: If hint of aisa/itna is returning to baaz then Shaykh Thanvi has to compare the prophetic knowledge with regular Joe’s, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds to negate speciality which he did in his statement. In simple words comparision to negate speciality/uniqueness equals = tashbeeh. Shaykh Madani on other hand has the general concept right but was reluctant to accept aisa is used in meaning of itna. If Shaykh Madani had said: ‘Aisa is for tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and tashbeeh of aisa is with generality of baaz not quantity of baaz and therefore appropriate alternative from linguistic sense for aisa would be itna.’ He could have perfectly held the same position which he mentioned by incorporating part of Shaykh Naumani’s position into his own. He could have but there was little angel in his subconcious saying Shaykh Thanvi’s statement insulting/disrespectfull. Somehow Shaykh Madani managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity of baaz and this prevented him from taking natural mentioned route. Coming to Shaykh Naumani; if Shaykh Naumani had said the following then his he would have had better ground: ‘Aisa is in meaning of itna due to linguistic usage of aisa in meaning of itna. And aisa/itna is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) between baaz without comparing quantity of prophetic knowledge and mentioned others.’ These Shuyukh could have argued their case and held to same positions but the difference would be that both wouldn’t have contradicted each other. Surprisingly both felt Shaykh Thanvi’s statement would be Kufr if it was understood in meaning which other out of two suggested.

2.3 - Two Insults In One Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi:

Instead of both taking the voices of their concious and agreeing with them both decided to stab their angels to death with the fork of red little Satan. And thought if they supress their concious and say it is not in this meaning and say it is in that meaning then the Kufr would be lifted from Shaykh Thanvi. The offense in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is two fold: i) Shaykh Thanvi negated/rejected the notion that prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special/unique but it is like the lunatics, animals, infants, every day Joe’s and quadrupeds. ii) Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is actually implying prophetic knowledge is equal to the mentioned relatives of Shaykh Thanvi in quantity and quality. Both of these Shuyukh have focused their Taweelat to negate the first charge. It is worth noting that both these Shuyukh have not managed to successfully defend against the first charge. The first charge is naturally and fundamentally part of second charge and if second charge is established then naturally the first charge would be established.

2.4 - Playing Chicken With Kufr And Not Realising After Squished By It:

Regardless of how these Shuyukh could have played the defending game; with itna refering to baaz and without tashbeeh in quantity of prophetic knowledge, or aisa referring to baaz and tashbeeh; comparision in general quantity of baaz but not with specific prophetic quantity of baaz. Or even if they had played chicken with Kufr with one of above Taweels presented by me in 2.1; even then nothing would make their defence of Shaykh Thanvi impregnable. The offense they attempted to lift was beyond their comprehension. They thought with word games we will win the battle against Muslims. Little did they know they can put yeh (i.e. this), or itna and is-qadr (i.e. this-much), and negate or affirm Tashbeeh in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi and play whatever Ibleesi game they wish. As long as Takhseesi statement (i.e. what is so unique about Hadhoor’s sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam knowledge of Ghayb)  remains in statement of Shaykh Thanvi the Tashbeeh cannot be negated and equality argument against Hifz ul-Iman cannot be negated. Please read the following part of article carefully it will lay bare all deceptions these Shuyukh have attempted to defend Shaykh Thanvi by dealing with the dispute in most fundamental fashion; by evaluating their arguments in light of basic facts which no rational or sane human could object to.

3.0 -Principles Of Refuting And Establishing Uniqueness In Knowledge:

i) Knowledge of X equals Y. In this context X and Y have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other. ii) X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X. In this context X is unique/special out of two because X has greater knowledge. And Y is not unique/special and has no merit above X.  iii) X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y. In this scenario X has a merit and is unique/special due greater quantity and qaulity.

3.1 - Knowledge of X equals Y:

The first principle: ‘Knowledge of X equals Y.’ Thanvi knows numbers from one to hundred. Gangohi knows numbers from one to hundred. Both know exactly the same amount of numbers therefore if it was said that Shaykh Thanvi isn’t any better, any special it would be correct. Following example illustrates the point:’If it is correct to attribute knowledge of numbers to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this knowledge of numbers, known to Shaykh Thanvi, limited to one to hundered or is it infinite knowledge of numbers. If it is one to hundered then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge of numbers; knowledge like this is even possesed by everyday Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and Shaykh Gangohi.’ Ofcourse this statement is correct; Shaykh Thanvi would has no merit over the mentioned because quantity of his knowledge is same as the rest. From this example we learn; to negate speciality, or uniquess of knowledge there has to be equality in knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi knows 1-100 and so does his family of lunatics, infants, and Shaykh Gangohi; therefore he is not special in knowing numbers. In this context Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other due to equality in quantity.

3.2 - X Is More Knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X:

The second principle states: ‘X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X.’ In this scenario we suppose Shaykh Thanvi had Ghayb knowledge of two or twenty matters of Ghayb found in perserved tablet. And all Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of Ghayb. And it exceeds all that is in perserved Tablet. Readers are advised to referr to Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to get details and evidences of Islamic belief. Please study the following statement: ‘Indeed it is correct to attribute knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And upon investigation it became clear it wasn’t of few matters of Ghayb but of all that is in perserved tablet and greater then it. Hence prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special. And if Shaykh Thanvi has knowledge of few matters of Ghayb then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knolwedge of Ghayb in comparision to prophetic knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is even possesed by every day Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and animals.’ Shaykh Thanvi comparatively isn’t special in his knowledge of Ghayb because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows all that is in perserved tablet and more. Therefore in this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique/special because he has greater knowledge; in fact all of knowledge of perserved tablet. And Shaykh Thanvi is not unique/special and has no merit above Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to lack of quantity of his knowledge.

3.3 - X Has Greater Quantity Of Knowledge And Quality Of Knowledge Then Y:

Third principle states: ‘X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y.’ Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is Qati (i.e. definitive). Meaning there can be no element of doubt in his knowledge of Ghayb. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) says; Dajjal will be blind in one eye. Then there can be no doubt regarding it: Dajjal will be blind in his eye. Also prophetic knowledge is beyound human counting: Consists of all knowledge of Ghayb in perserved tablet and even greater. Ghayb knowledge of non-Prophets is Zani (i.e. indefinitive/doubtful) however they gain it. The non-Prophets can only have Qatti (i.e. definitive) Ghayb when it has been given to them by a Nabi/Rasool. And the quantity of Zani Ghayb will never be suffient enough merit a challenge to prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or negate speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Now in this context try to understand statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Thanvi wrote:  “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Now if we insert the established facts into the text of Shaykh Thanvi it means: Prophetic Qatti knolwedge of Ghayb, whose quantity is beyond human comprehension is nothing special in comparision to Zani knowledge of Ghayb lunatics, infants, animals whose knowledge is questionable and minute quantity, that’s if they have Ghayb. So in Deobandism; few lunatics, cows, sheeps, infants, animals, about whom we don’t even know they have knowledge of Ghayb, and whose quantity knowledge is worth of two dimes; have managed to negate the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb whose possession of Ghayb, and quantity, and quality is uncontestable and quantity is inumerable by human mind. Now when the greater quantity of knowledge establishes superiority and merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge then greater quality by default will add to speciality and uniquessness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Therefore in this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a merit and is unique/special due to his quality knowledge and due greater quantity of his knowledge.

3.4 - Fundamental Rule Of Establishing And Negating Speciality:

From these three principles and their explanantions we derive a basic rule; X has to be compared to Y quantity/type to establish/negate speciality/uniqueness. If the quantity is equal on both sides then comparision yields result; one has no superiority over the other. If one has less and other has greater then comparisions establishes two results: i) one possessing less quantity of knowledge has no superiority over who has greater quantity of knowledge. ii) And one with greater quantity of knowledge is superior to one with lesser knowledge. Hence in statements like of Hifz ul-Iman comparision is essential to establish and negate merit of one over another: And this comparision is in quantity and is inclusive of types of Ghayb knowledge known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

4.0 - Brief Account Of Shuyukh On Hifz ul-Iman’s Controversial Statement:

Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani all stated the quantity of prophetic knowledge isn’t being discussed in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In my own words; Shaykh Naumani said there was no Tashbeeh of prophetic Ghayb with Ghayb of lunatics etc. If it was in meaning of Tashbeeh it would be Kufr. Rather the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna. And itna is used without tashbeeh because aisa/itna referrs to baaz Ghayb and not prophetic baaz Ghayb. Shaykh Madani on other hand said there is tashbeeh in statement and Tashbeeh is in prophetic knowledge being compared to baaz Ghayb knowledge and not quanity of baaz prophetic knowledge with baaz quantity x, y, and z. He also indirectly indicated he would consider statement to beKufr if itna was used. This establishes both contradict each other … both indirectly declared each other Kafir but that’s not the point. But they all negated equality in quantity of knowledge.

4.1 - Speciality And Uniqueness Can Only Be Negated Via Comparision:

If you recall Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani are of view that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is without Tashbeeh. Even though their own lap-dop aka Shaykh Madani refutes them but it is still important to address it from principle point of view. If a child says; this is sweeter then that one. Has he compared this choclate with that to come to conclusion? An adult says; there is nothing special about this jumper over that jumper. Did the adult compare, one or other quality, to come to this conclusion? You would agree both these statements are result of comparision. Even though words, like, such, as, aren’t used the comparision can be implied because merit/quality is being negated. And for negation/affirmation of any quality/merit in a statement comparative analysis is essential between two parties either by comparing to something materially or via pre-determined criterias of good/bad learnt through experience and knowledge accomulated over time. In this context if we take statement of Shaykh Thanvi:  “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In here Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in contrast to; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And for him to reach to this understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special in his knowledge, he had to compare prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this Tashbeeh is of quantity and in types of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In addition to this; Shaykh Thanvi used word aisa (i.e. like this) which is used for Tashbeeh even if it is without jaisa (i.e. like this): “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).”[3] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] And in context of rule; establishing or negating any merit/quality of one over another party requires comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) between qualities/merits of party with another. Therefore aisa has to be in meaning of Tashbeeh and it was this realisation which forced Shaykh Madani to accept Islamic position of Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In context of Tashbeeh the statement would mean that author is comparing propheting knowledge of Ghayb with knowledge of those Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Implication of which would be; whatever is the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and qaudrupeds all share his quantity and type of knowledge.

4.2 - Refuting Shaykh Naumani’s; Aisa In Meaning Of Itna Without Tashbeeh:

Consider this as; throwing Shaykh Naumani’s argument to dogs along side him. Shaykh argued aisa (i.e. like-this) means itna (i.e. this-much) in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and he referrenced poetical verses and popular usage in which aisa can be taken as subsitute for itna. Even if Shaykh Thanvi didn’t use aisa instead he used itna it would have made no difference because Shaykh Thanvi was negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and foundation of this is Tashbeeh/comparision. Golden rule is to affirm/negate a merit of one explicit/implicit comparision is fundamental. And not to under do the research we have following quote from Deobandi account of debate which affirms itna can too be for Tashbeeh: It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.”[4] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Note even though author doesn’t accept Shaykh Naumani’s itna in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is for Tashbeeh; but what does the golden rule say? Referr back to it please and then referr to relevent footnote of my article. Thus be it aisa or itna the bottom line is in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman when merit/quality is being negated Tashbeeh is fundamental part of it. In addition to what has already been stated please take special notice of following: To establish speciality of one over another or negate naturally comparision has to be made and comparision can be implied or explicit. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman, aisa (i.e. like-this) has been used, which is always indictive of explicit Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Secondly for comparision there has to be; ‘the compared’1 and ‘the compared to’2. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a ‘quality/attribute’3 in which ‘the compared’ is being compared to ‘the comapred to’. And we find those in Hifz ul-Iman; ‘the compared’ is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And ‘the compared to’ to are Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And the quality is Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of Ghayb). Please note all three components are in statemend of Shaykh Thanvi: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge3 like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds2; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] When all the necessary raw materials of Tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman then to negate it is either illiteracy or a deliberate coordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims.

4.3 - Equality In Quantity Is Essential To Negate Speciality And Uniqueness:

Following is rephrasing of first principle: If two are equals one is no better then the other. If Shaykh Thanvi had belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) same of knowledge of Ghayb as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics when one reads the following: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Otherwise Shaykh Thanvi could not have said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no speciality over these mentioned. If he believed in speciality of prophetic knowledge he would not have negated speciality and defended this statement. In the best case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity and in worst case to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds. Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for these two reasons. Please bare in mind principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another via comparision between two parties due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this meaning; it establishes equality in quantity at minimum. And it would be unfair to pass it of as valid possibility.

Conclusion:

The basic rule regarding statements type of Hifz ul-Iman is; X has to be compared to Y in quantity/type to establish/negate. Without comparision in quantity/type of Ghayb speciality of prophetic Ghayb cannot be negated. And if there is equality in quantity there would be no speciality of one over another. Or if there is less and greater quantity then lesser has no speciality/uniqueness over the greater. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman the structuring of sentence restricts interpretation to; negation of speciality/uniqueness via equality in quantity; and not via prophetic knowledge being less then of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. In this context Shaykh Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman stated; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his baaz quantity of Ghayb knowledge is not special because knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was possessed by Zayd, Amr, animals, lunatics, quadrupeds, and infants. In defence of Shaykh Thanvi Deobandi Shuyukh stated statement is not about equality in quantity nor the author attempted to establish equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani deemed Tashbeeh to be Kufr and said aisa (i.e. like-this) is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) without tashbeeh. And Shaykh Madani said it is in meaning of Tashbeeh if it was itna it would be Kufr. Both these Shuyukh contradicted each other and both considered other Taweeli understanding of Hifz ul-Iman to be Kufr. Unfortunately for Shaykh Thanvi he was the original source of Taweels of Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Naumani. Shaykh Thanvi said indirectly … tashbeeh or itna … statement is perfectly fine. All Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani collectively managed was; Shaykh Thanvi’s both Taweel are Kufr and certified Shaykh Thanvi’s and their own Kufr. Statement like of Hifz ul-Iman mentions two parties … X and Y … X is not special/unique in his Ilm al-Ghayb. Aisa is used for comparision and all raw materials of comparision are in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Party X and party Y and the merit/quality of Ilm al-Ghayb which is being negated via comparision. Negation of speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb via comparision is through equality in quanitity.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1] Poor folk were decieved by deception of Bast al-Banan in which Shaykh Thanvi completely denied what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman. Other extreme is that smart Deobandis say Shaykh Thanvi changed the statement in Hifz ul-Iman therefore he cannot be blamed any longer and he is unfairly being targetted. In response to those; Shaykh Thanvi never repented and Shaykh made that clear in Bast al-Banan and Tagheer ul-Unawan. Changing of statement was merely to avoid difficulties faced by his supporters in debates. And Shaykh realised his statement ‘people lacking depth of understanding’ will ‘misunderstand’ and take it to be insulting therefore he agreed to change it. In other words it was effort to reorganise forces for further battle and not acceptance of fault/sin and repentence.

- [2] Slightly longer version:“And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. [] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.]

- [3] Shaykh Naumani argued aisa without jaisa is not always for tashbeeh. In response to which Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) gave following speech during his debate with Shaykh Manzoor Naumani: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr?  Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?  [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] Note Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) used aisa on its on to tactfully insult Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani to acknowledge aisa without jaisa is for tashbeeh. Feeling the sting of Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) rebuke Shaykh Naumani couldn’t keep his deception going for too long and said: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] For the remainder of debate Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) enquired from Shaykh Naumani why were his words directed toward Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani insult and not Shaykh Thanvi’s word insult toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)?

- [4] The compiler and I assume that is Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain said:It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Shaykh Naumani said aisa with jaisa is surely for tashbeeh because there is no jaisa there is no tashbeeh. And aisa is in meaning of itna. Note in the first example Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain used similar strategy which Shaykh Naumani used. His example is itna with jitna with which he is indicating tashbeeh without jitna cannot exist. Fact is Shaykh Naumani conceeded that there can be tashbeeh without jaisa and footnote 3 of this article is proof of it therefore please refer to it for complete detail. And if you remember then please read the following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).[Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] Should I too do itna without jitna and demonstrate itna can be for tashbeeh? It can be said: ‘Shaykh Madani was itna abusive that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani felt like he is an innocent angel in company of Shaykh Madani.’ Implication here is that Mirza al-Kazzab al-Dajjal was abusive but Shaykh Madani was sooOOooO abusive comparision to Mirza; al-Kazzab, al-Dajjal, that Mirza felt he is blameless. Shaykh Rafaqat used two examples lets analyze their reality. Zayd is itna rich jitna Umru. Shaykh Rafaqat agrees it was for tashbeeh. Agar kaha jahay: Zayd bhot maldar heh aur itna hi Umru maldar heh. If it is said: Zayd is very rich and ina (i.e. as-much-as) rich is Umru. Can Shaykh Rafaqat or the clan of defenders of Kufr deny this tashbeeh? Even if the Shayateen disbelieve in tashbeeh the principle makes it clear when merit/quality is being established/negated between two parties in a sentence then tashbeeh is fundamentally part of statement be it implied or explicit. Alhasil; Shaykh Rafaqat can play all games he likes the fundamental rule will not allow him or his ilk evade the evident truth.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.