Does the ilm al-ghayb given to the Prophet saw include the Final Hour?

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Shah Jalal, Jul 31, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Shah Jalal

    Shah Jalal New Member

    Please have some respect when refering to scholars. It should be Imam Ahmed Raza or Maulana Ahmed Raza or Shaykh not just Ahmed Raza.
  2. :s1:

    Yes, no one is going to call anyone a kafir for not believing in the Knowledge of the Hour! However, when one is faced with two possible opinions, it is, I think, a sign of love to choose the one which increases the status of the Beloved, don't you?

    On the other hand, certain 'scholars' (need I mention names or groups?) have labelled as 'mushrik' those who hold the opinion that the Messenger of Allah :saws: had this Knowledge of the Hour even though it is, a completely
    valid Ahlus Sunnah aqidah.

    Labelling Muslims as mushriks on the other hand is a trait of You-Know-Who (no, not Voldemort but some akin to him!)
  3. Ibn Arabi

    Ibn Arabi Banned

    Thanks for that. I was reading ad-Dawlah al-Makkiah today on the net: and I came accross the the thing I was looking for on pages 74-80. There may be other writings on this by him on other parts of the book, but I found this part quite satisfactory. In it he says:

    وقد ثبت علم جميع الخمس سوى الساعة على خلاف فيها بثبوت لا ريب فيه

    The knowledge of all the five (things), with the exception of the Hour over whcih there is dispute, has been proven (for the creation) with evidence leaving no doubt

    Therefore there is a difference of opinion on this issue and he provided some evidence in support of the possiblity of having the knowledge of the hour for creation; from these, the most interesting, I thought were:

    1. In a hadith, it says Israfil a.s. is waiting for the instrution to blow in the trumpet. This means he will know the time of the Hour before it occurs, even though this may be a moment - because the Hour will only commence after he has blown the trumpet; thus the time between Allah's instruction to him and the time of his blowing the trumpet, he will possess the knowledge. And this proves the knowledge of the Hour is possible for creation. And if Israfil a.s. can have the knowledge seconds before the Hour, what is stopping the most beloved gaining this knowledge a couple of milleniums earlier?

    2. In Sharh al-Maqasid of Taftazani (d. 791 H), he said under the commentary of the verse of Surah Jinn ‘He exhibits not of His Unseen save to one He is chooses as a Messenger’ (72:26-27):

    الغيب ههنا ليس على العموم بل مطلق أو معين هو وقوع القيامة

    The "Unseen" here is not general rather it is absolute and specified to the occurence of the Hour

    I couldn't find an online version of Sharh al-Maqasid so I couldn't check the quote.

    3. Imam al-Qastalani says in Irshad as-Sari:

    ولا يعلم متى تقوم الساعة أحد إلا الله إلا من ارتضى من رسول فإنه يطلعه على من يساء من غيبه والولي تابع له يأخذ عنه

    None knows when the Hour will happen except Allah, with the exception of those He chooses as a Messenger for indeed He informs whom He wills from His (knowledge of the) Unseen; and a wali who follows him takes (this knowledge) from him

    Therefore, I think, it is possible the scholars I mentioned above (Ibn Kathir, Muhammad al-Hamid, Imam an-Nawawi) and other scholars held the opinion Allah does not disclose the time of the Hour; whereas there are other scholars who say He does disclose the time of the Hour. This is, therefore, a valid difference of opinion as said by Ahmad Rida himself.
  4. :s1:

    I found an interesting discussion by Shaykh GF Haddad on the WWW about the issue of Ulum al Khamsa of the Beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in which this excerpt occurs:

    Last edited: Jul 30, 2006
  5. Ibn Arabi

    Ibn Arabi Banned

    I think we should forget about "Deobandis say this" and the "Sunnis say this".

    Let's get back to the topic at hand - and that is, what is the evidences from the writings of scholars that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. possessed the knowledge of the Final Hour and what are the answers to those things I produced above, including the explicit statement of Muhammad al-Hamid (that the knowledge of all is possible for creation, but the knowledge of the Hour has been veiled from all of creation).
  6. to the deobandi who posts under the name of 'ibn arabi' (thereby trying to trick us into thinking of him as a pure sunni like the shaykh al akbar whose name he usurps)


    the answer to your question: did the Prophet :saws: have knowledge of the 5? is YES. It was GIVEN to him.
    Full details can be found in Mufti Ahmad Yaar's magisterial work Jaa al Haqq under the chapter 'Ilm al Ghayb ki bahas'. I might post some proofs from that work on sunniport.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  7. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator


    in my opinion we should ban such posts on this forum. deobandis come here and post nonsense, only to provoke us and waste our time. it is a request to the moderators to delete such posts immediately. sidi abu hassan you've already said that ' one need not argue with pipsqueaks and their feeble proofs' , therefore please quit.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    which means, 'some deobandis worship graves'
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i warn you not to. moderators take note - we don't want to go into that again and again. atleast for some time.

    bait-and-switch alert!
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    with due respect to shaykh rifayi, his opinion does not make it sacrosanct truth. by no means do i belittle the noble shaykh; maybe because shaykh rifayi did not come across sunni works, he has such opinion and we sunnis - also known as barelwis in the subcontinent - are also to blame. sunnis from the last 30-40 years have not done enough and this regard and therefore, they are not well-known among arab-sunni scholars.

    you might not be doing this deliberately, but you keep repeating the accusation of grave-worship, thereby resorting to goebbelian methods. you are also mixing many issues. this happens all the time.

    - indeed, there are a lot khurafat/heretical practices occurring at the maqams of awliya in the subcontinent [even in places like egypt!]

    - the barelwi or sunni scholars are against it. therefore anyone who claims to be a barelwi MUST follow sunni scholars. conversely, those who do not conform to these scholars cannot be termed barelwi 'awaam'

    the awaam does not have a madh'hab in our time. they just follow the biggest group in their town/city. people conveniently say that those who do not go the graves are deobandis and those who do are barelwis.

    i myself dislike deobandis - and have as long as i remember. in our town, there is a large group of sunnis who criticize these practices at the graves. i advise anyone i can on the adab/etiquette of visiting grave - so does that make me or this group of sunnis a deobandi? such sweeping categorization is calumny and most of it is spread by deobandi muftis. why can't they be honest and just?

    this is just a loaded question. it is your hallucination that grave- worship exists in sunnis a.k.a barelwis. a few muslims are terrorists and a few muslims resort to suicide bombing.

    you must ask yourself: why terrorism and suicide bombing exists in islam and not in christianity?

    a few deobandis i know take interest, you must ask yourself, why interest-taking is prevalent among deobandis?

    which is an absurd answer. so should we revile sayyiduna `ali karramallahu waj'hah just because the rafiDis/shi`ah extol him beyond nubuwwah? and yet deobandis are 'scholars.' ibn Hajar al-haytami refuted this idea a couple of hundred years before deobandis came into existence. when he said: 'there are bid`ahs made at the graves; but this does not mean that one should abstain from praiseworthy deeds. one should stop people from bid`ah AND visit the graves.' [exact quote later inshaAllah]

    but your answer is not complete. deobandis said many 'harsh' things about tawassul and equated it with shirk. of course the neo-deobandiyyah adamantly refuse it, but it is there in the books for all to see.

    why don't you ask shaykh rifayi or any of the arab sunni scholars the same thing. here is a template:'since the awaam do not know how to do tawassul or what it means, should we not cut off the practice altogether because we stop people from committing shirk in this manner'?

    even though you will find a lot of references for 'ulama e deoband' and 'akabireen e deoband' in deobandi literature, sunni literature - also known as barelwi literature - ALWAYS refer to themselves AND have been referring to themselves as ahlu's sunnah.

    alaHazrat is barelwi because he was born in bareilli, just as imam yaHya ibn sharaf is an-nawawi because he was born in nawa; or imam Muhammad is bukhari because he was born in bukhara.

    but still alaHazrat has always been called as imam ahl e sunnat or the imam of ahlu's sunnah in his time [and that after]. this moniker barelwi for sunnis was invented by deobandis and unfortunately, is become commonplace.

    therefore we always refer to us as sunnis - also known as barelwis. go to the deobandi forum and look at the answers of their 'shuyukh' who are full of praise for 'ulama e deoband.'

    if you compare the aqidah of arab scholars with that of sunni scholars in the subcontinent also known as barelwis, you will find a concordance which is absent in the books of the 'elders of deoband'.

    in this case yes:
    the aqidah of arab sunni scholars = aqidah of indo/pak sunni scholars a.k.a barelwis.

    well indeed, having born and lived in india, shirk is prevalent. infact, shirk is the majority. just don't put your quotes around muslims, if you do not accuse them of the same.

    wallah, you speak of a mighty thing! did you ask every muslim in the subcontinent or even a thousand men who did istighatha that they do it with the above mindset? or do you have the all-encompassing ghayb which your elders denied for RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam? if not - and certainly it is not - it is a grave iftiraa.

    how many did you ask, whether they did this prostration believing the waliy in the grave to be their Lord Almighty?

    i will tell you a story - and this is a true story. a young man who went to tabligh often lived across my street. once we had an argument and i - as usual - rebuked the deobandis. he replied: 'why should we fight amongst each other? after all we are all the children of Allah' - ma'adhAllah, astaghfirullah.

    this is inspite of being a regular at tabligh. do i accuse the tablighi movement to encourage people in believing that they are children of Allah?

    yes, there are people ignorant of basic `aqidah and i do not deny it. people who are born in muslim homes but do not know what islam is. don't throw such people in our account and accuse sunnis of nurturing such aqidah. there are people in the west with muslim names having no relation to islam. there are people in the subcontinent, just like in arab-lands who claim to be sufis but have outrageous ideas [denying salat etc.] - and the wahabi influenced jamats simply label them barelwi. they even quote silly newsreporters [even hindus] for their proof! wallah, this is injustice. sunnis a.k.a barelwis are those who follow ahlu's sunnah scholars and dislike the fitna of wahabis WITHOUT any reservation.


    as i said, those who oppose the ahlu's sunnah [barelwis], have just superficial knowledge and thrive on mere accusations. who said that we don't see anything bad about it? alaHazrat's fatawa and books by scholars refuse this without reservations. even a deobandi leader - abu'l Hasan nadawi - was forced to admit that alaHazrat's prowess in fiqh was unmatched and he cited alaHazrat's 'az-zubdatu'z zakiyyah', a monograph refuting prostration at graves. deobandis do not mention these things because their makr/deceit of accusing alaHazrat of encouraging bid`ah falls apart.

    what proof do you have for the above accusation?

    and debasing the deobandis? they have debased themselves by speaking lightly about the Messenger of Allah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam. it is upto you to consider whether it is a trivial matter. comparing the knowledge of Rasul sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam to quadrupeds is a trivial matter, indeed.

    look at the glaring contrast: ignorant folk prostrate at the graves - we do not know their intention for sure but you do not hesitate to assume their intention and brand them mushriks.

    knowledgeable, scholars, elders of deoband uttered heinous statements when referring to RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam and for indelible proof, printed and published the same. yet, if alaHazrat rules them kafir, he is an extremist! and we are unjust to follow him!

    to blame sunnis, the action of ignorant masses is sufficient; but no blame or sin is committed nor any harm done, even if the knowledgeable, leaders of the deobandis do it. very fair.

    yes. but don't accuse sunnis of this. it is important to teach the ignorant masses but that does NOT mean that sunnis have a different idea. you are criticizing and blaming us for a crime we never committed.

    of course, they should put MORE effort. but that does not mean they hold the OPPOSITE view like you accuse.

    look at the flow of your argument, you keep on implying that we are 'grave-worshippers,' which is patently untrue. as for the MORE effort, why not? deobandis should put MORE effort in highlighting the lofty status of RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam.

    as a parallel, the deobandi/tablighi masses consider a host of things as shirk. unlike your mere conjecture we HEAR them say 'shirk' for every small thing. should not the deobandi scholars put MORE effort to teach them the difference between shirk and bid`ah? should they not put MORE effort to stop them from branding muslims as mushriks?

    look at the inequality of your argument:
    sunni scholars inspite of categorically denying, refusing, criticizing a certain practice are still blamed for what ignorant masses do just because they claim to follow sunni scholars. even when sunni scholars discourage this. also, the intention of the masses is gauged by only conjecture.

    but deobandi scholars are absolutely not to blame, inspite of the EXPRESS accusation of 'shirk' by a multitude of deobandi followers! when faced with this, the deobandis simply shrug: 'we are not accountable for what ignorant people say' but who encourages them in the first place? infact, their own 'muftis' keep accusing muslims of shirk on numerous things. [see footnote 1]

    very balanced and fair. just like fox-news.


    you quote shaykh munawwar: 'It is the duty of the scholars to inform the people of permissible and impermissible practices'

    so what is your problem? see, we sunnis - a.k.a barelwis - do not have the view you accuse us. can you show us one sunni scholar who contradicts shaykh munawwar?

    i don't know how you will answer Allah ta'ala for such grave accusations. no sunni has said otherwise. you concote accusations and pronounce judgements yourselves. next you will say, that barelwis encourage people to not pray five times a day because, those few barelwis you know do not pray.

    what deobandis succeeded is that they caused the polarization of the masses by trying to diminish the rank of RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam.

    people who have gone for a chilla of forty days, claim talk about how sunnis elevate RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam to Godhood. it was deobandi elders who introduced wahabism in india and to this day support it.

    unfortunately, i do not possess the clairvoyance the deobandis do to make such a sweeping statement.

    what can i say for such shameless, baseless and false accusations? sunni scholars a.k.a barelwis in the subcontinent are those who follow alaHazrat; you say it so audaciously that barelwis literally worship graves!

    alHamdulillah, i do not have to answer for this on judgement day.

    as for 'always about the love of RasulAllah' sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam - that shows how much you know about islam or ahlu's sunnah. it is this and only this which completes our iman. it is for this we have been fighting and it is this, that has been slighted by the deobandis. it is this thing that differentiates us from the deobandis. and go proclaim this as loud as you can for we are proud of it.

    and how light you make of it! nothing could describe the difference between us and you than this very statement of yours. wa lillahi'l Hamd, Allah ta'ala makes Haqq manifest from the mouths/pens/keyboards of those folk who oppose it.

    the rest of your anecdotes are pointless. i can give you many of such stories but accusing the whole world for a few bad apples is not the sunni way. a staunch deobandi scholar in our town is known for very ugly things - ergo, all deobandis in the whole world commit such ugly things. that is how the deobandi generalization goes.

    who said that condemnations are 'secretly hidden'? the book az-zubdatu'z zakiyyah is published and available everywhere. as i said, you talk with the flair of having seen everywhere and know everything. and just because you do not see it, you deny its existence.

    like the atheists do.

    wa laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.
    Allah ta'ala knows best.


    Footnote 1:
    the issue of ilm al-ghayb is another. muslims never had a problem until the deobandi/wahabis began decrying ilm al-ghayb. it has reached a point where common deobandis and/or tablighi folk deny it absolutely! inspite of the fact that whosoever denies that rasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam did NOT have ilm al-ghayb [absolutely] is a kafir because he denies the last verse of surah al-jinn!

    why don't the deobandis teach their followers this difference? why don't they tell them that the argument is about its extensiveness not about it absolutely? why don't they tell them in simple words that RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam was indeed GIVEN knowledge of unseen?

    the deobandi muftis - dishonest lot - shamelessly subvert this issue by accusing that alaHazrat/sunnis believed in absolute knowledge or knowledge by himself, or knowledge equal to Allah etc. whereas, rashid gangohi wrote clearly in fatawa that ANY attribution is not free from 'whisperings of shirk'. the neo-deos are bending over backwards to rationalize their statements.

    according to the deo-proponent, this is a trivial matter even if you contravene the qur'an.

    Allah waliyu't tawfiq
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2008
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  11. Ibn Arabi

    Ibn Arabi Banned

    salam alaykum brother Abu Hasan

    Yes, but if you look, from the Deobandi masses not many worship graves; whereas it is from Berelwi masses that this occurs This is why Shaykh Yusuf ar-Rifa'i of Kuwait said the scholars of India are Deobandis and the awwam are Berelvis. And you have to ask yourself, why is it that grave-worship does not exist in the Deobandis whereas it does exist in the Berelwis. The answer is, the Deobandis cut off even permissible and recommended actions (e.g. tawassul) for this not to happen.

    Sunnis are not also known as Berelwi. You can say the Berelwis are from the Sunnis but you cannot say Sunni = Berelwis. Are the Arabs scholars "Berelwis"?

    Second, I do not accuse "Muslims" of shirk. Shirk is prevelant for even the blind to see. Istighathah is done with the mindset that the inmate of the grave will do the job - not Allah. I saw people in the Indian subcontinent placing the heads on inscriptions of Awliya. People prostrate to graves, not out of respect (which is haram) in worship (and if this is not shirk, what is?). People perform rites at graves which are only for Allah.

    The problem is that you do not see anything too bad about this; for you it is more important to debase the Deobandis on trivial matters. This matter, of grave worship, is a very important matter. Your own scholar, Munawwar Ateeq Rizvi writes quoting Muhaddith Abdul Haq:

    ‘If the visitor believes that the pious himself solves difficulty and independently eases hardship with all power to do so, without the reliability on Allah (swt) and dua, which is common in the ignorant as they commit such strongly condemned acts at the graves i.e. kissing the grave, prostrating to the grave, and praying salah towards it, this is unacceptable and the person is subject to punishment.'

    See: it is common in the ignorant. Don't you think the Berelwi scholars should put more effort in stopping this? Also, see Munawwar Ateeq's advice:

    'It is the duty of the scholars to inform the people of permissible and impermissible practices'

    Nobody denies visiting the graves is a meritous action.

    Without doubt; some have said it is wajib or close to it.

    Nobody is denying this. The problem is the grave-worshippers not the worshippers of Allah at graves.

    Yes, it is wrong and should be stopped. Don't you agree that the Deobandis have succeeded in stopping their masses. Do you see any tableeghi ignorant in the sense of grave worship (I know many of them are ignorant in knowledge sense). On the contrary, the Berelwis literally wrship graves. When you hear talks from Berelwi scholars, its always about love of Rasulullah صلى الله عليه وسلم., his ilm al-ghayb, cursing the Deobandis, calling them Kafir [there was a scholar who came to Ghamkol Sharif in Birmingham to make sure all Berelwis agree that Deobandis are Kafir!] etc. Never do these scholars say anything against the ignorant masses. One of my (Berelwi) neighbours travelled to a grave in Pakistan to say to the inmate if you give us a boy, we'll sacrifice some animals for you! When spoken to about this, it was clear they though the inmate of the grave had the ability to give them a boy! And the last talk I heard in my local Berelwi mosque was about Isal Thawab and its virtues.

    Don't you see a problem here? It is no good the condemnations are secretly hidden in books for the scholars to look at now and then. The condemnations should be made public.

    I cannot argue that the Deobandi books show clear contradictions: in some books they say mawlid is good and in others they say it is haram; in some places they say istighatah is shirk yet there are clear examples of them practicing istighathah etc.

    However, I think this is the Deobandis of the past. If you see modern the Deobandis, the neo-Deobandiyyah if you like, they are almost identical to the Berelwis in belief. The only disagreement is in finer issues (like the extent of the ilm al-ghayb given to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.) and in the defence of Deobandi scholars (i.e. the Berelwis accuse them of kufr for certain statements made; and Deobandis defend these statements to mean something acceptable - I would like to discuss these kufriyyah statements in another thread soon insha Allah).

    If what I have said was bad adab, please forgive me.

    Finally, any chance of getting back on the proof that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. knows the Final Hour?
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the answer is in your comment itself. any group is known by the ideas of its leaders. not the myriad actions of those who claim to belong to that group. if we criticize deobandis - we criticize the opinions of their masters. and we demand the same treatment.

    when you evaluate any sunni - also known as barelwi - talk about what its scholars say; not what ignorant masses do. this idea of grave-worship is in itself an iftiraa; plus you accuse muslims of shirk.

    there are lengthy monographs by scholars - both arab and non-arab - but in a nutshell: visiting graves is a sunnah and described in sahih hadith, it has been recommended. visiting the maqam of RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam is a the greatest among all desirable actions. visiting other prophets and awliya for barakah and tawassul is also permissible and mandub.

    anything done other than this that contravenes the shariah is wrong. please do not throw the baby with the bathwater.

    as for shaykh hamza yusuf - he might be another among sunni scholars - but definitely not the final say on the matter. yet, there are matters on which he is not completely with traditional sunni scholars [old school?] but that i do not mean to say that he is not a sunni scholar. shaykh hamza yusuf will be evaluated and followed *IF* he is concordant with sunni scholars including imam aHmed riDa khan; not the other way round.

    as for your opinion that his definition fits deobandis there is a catch - the deobandis change their colors to match the background; a more correct definition is:

    'if you are accused to be sufi [by the wahabis] and wahabis [by the sunnis] know that you are a deobandi' because of equivocation. rhetoric is all fine but the reason why deobandis match both criteria is because they behave as wahabis [calling mawlids bidah and sunnis of committing shirk] in a different setting; and claim the same as mustahab and sunni practise in another setting.

    methinks these are traits of munafiqs and this is mentioned as two-face in the hadith - dhi'l wajhayn.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2006
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. Ibn Arabi

    Ibn Arabi Banned

    Sorry for my lack in adab, may Allah forgive me. Can you please show me the evidence that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. was given the knowledge of the Hour - or all of the ulum al-khamsah (which would serve the same purpose as the knowledge of the hour is one of the five)? And also can you give me the names of the scholars who attested to ad-Dawlah al-Makkiyyah. Jazakallah

    p.s. I wanted to add I'm not deobandi or berelwi; I was born in a jamati (mawdudi) type background. I believe there is good and bad in all three groups. I think it unfair to call the modern deobandis Wahhabis (although there are clear examples of wahhabi type deobandis in the past), although many Jamatis I think deserve the title. Also Berelwis, I think, are too lenient in matters of grave-worship and shirk; although their scholars have condemned it, they seem more zealous to tackle the trivial matters of mawlid etc., than to put a full stop to the grave worship. Not an attack, just a personal opinion.

    "If you are called Sufi on the one hand and Wahhabi on the other, know that you are on the haq (or something to that effect)" (Hamza Yusuf) - I believe none fits this definition today but the Deobandis
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    this is classic propaganda from deobandis. i am warning all deobandis who are trying to push their agenda here: you are unwelcome. our tolerance does not mean that we have begun to like deobandism or its proponents no matter what lofty titles they carry - deobandism is indian wahabism, period. it was introduced by deobandi elders, nurtured by them and to this day is a remnant of that ugly fitna.

    as for those in the west, of course, one does as the romans do in rome.

    the poster above sneaks a statement:
    decided by who? alaHazrat imam aHmed raza khan quoted numerous scholars on this issue in his magnificent ad-dawlatu'l makkiyyah bi'l maddati'l ghaybiyyah which was attested to be correct by a huge number of scholars from Haramayn and others. mawlana naeemuddin muradabadi also wrote an urdu book with arabic quotes titled: 'al-kalimatu'l `ulyaa li i`ylaayi `ilm al-mustafaa.'

    one need not argue with pipsqueaks and their feeble proofs on this issue. let anyone analyze and refute ad-dawlatu'l makkiyyah; the issue of `uluum al-khamsah is mentioned therein. however, we acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion on this specific matter. not on the issue of ilm al-ghayb completely.

    reeks of pompousness as usual. but wait..

    it will serve you a great deal if you doff that oh-so-mighty attitude. to me, you appear very ignorant because even though this has been mentioned in numerous places - and you seem to have read all the major treatises - you do not find one reference! you do not even have the adab to say the above sentence properly. if you had adab - or knowledge - you would have said:

    "by proof I mean quotes of past notable scholars, not direct quotes from the qur'an and hadith which are used as playtools by the misguided"

    Allah knows best.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2006
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  15. Ibn Arabi

    Ibn Arabi Banned

    Salam alaykum

    The Prophet saw was given partial knowledge of the ghayb, and I'm sure everybody agrees with this, be they Salafi, Deobandi or Berelwi [regardless of the false accusation that Berelwis believe he possessed independent knowledge]. However, the Salafis and Deobandis do not go into detail of the extent of this knowledge. They simply say he was given a lot of knowledge of ma kana wa ma huwa ka'in (what was and what is to happen), as the Berelwis always like to quote. On the contrary the Berelwis say he knows everything of what happened and what is to happen in its minutest detail. Both sides have their proofs, although the Deobandi/Salafi position seems more correct.The hadith of the khutbah where he "left nothing out but mentioned it" (Bukhari) is about the fitan (trials), as mentioned in other ahadith, not of every single thing; I doubt for example, he said 'such and such a person will sit at his computer at this time and write about what I am saying now'. Also the hadith of innaka la tadri ma ahdathu ba'daka (you do not know what they did after you) clearly shows the Prophet saw does not know the everything of that is to happen in its details. The hadith of hayati khayrul lakum... where the deeds are presented to the Prophet saw and the latter hadith is reconciled by saying the Prophet saw witnesses and knows our deeds and the names of the people doing them but does not know them by face (I think I read this somewhere). Therefore, there is one opinion: the Prophet saw was given knowledge OF what was and what is to happen and a second opinion: the Prophet saw was given knowledge of ALL of what was and what is to happen. I just thought I'll clarify that difference first.

    Second, is the difference of whether the Prophet saw or any soul was given the knowledge of the Hour... if any from creation possesses this knowledge, without doubt it would be the Prophet saw.

    I understand it is possible there is a difference of opinion - that some say he was given this knowledge while others say he was not (and believing it is definitely not shirk and not believing it is definitely not a deficiency in belief). But I have yet to see a quote from a scholar showing that he was given the knowledge of the Hour. On the contrary, all the evidences seem to point out that the Prophet saw was given all (or a lot) of knowledge of past and present but not the timing of the Hour [of course he was provided with indications by Allah but he was unaware of the exact date; this is why he showed the time with his two fingers and said the time was like the time between Asr and Maghrib etc.]. Some examples of what I have seen include:

    In Tafsir Ibn Kathir it states in the explanation of 31:34:

    هَذِهِ مَفَاتِيح الْغَيْب الَّتِي اِسْتَأْثَرَ اللَّه تَعَالَى بِعِلْمِهَا فَلَا يَعْلَمهَا أَحَد إِلَّا بَعْد إِعْلَامه تَعَالَى بِهَا فَعِلْم وَقْت السَّاعَة لَا يَعْلَمهُ نَبِيّ مُرْسَل وَلَا مَلَك مُقَرَّب" لَا يُجَلِّيهَا لِوَقْتِهَا إِلَّا هُوَ " وَكَذَلِكَ إِنْزَال الْغَيْث لَا يَعْلَمهُ إِلَّا اللَّه وَلَكِنْ إِذَا أَمَرَ بِهِ عَلِمَتْهُ الْمَلَائِكَة الْمُوَكَّلُونَ بِذَلِكَ وَمَنْ شَاءَ اللَّه مِنْ خَلْقه وَكَذَلِكَ لَا يَعْلَم مَا فِي الْأَرْحَام مِمَّا يُرِيد أَنْ يَخْلُقهُ تَعَالَى سِوَاهُ وَلَكِنْ إِذَا أَمَرَ بِكَوْنِهِ ذَكَرًا أَوْ أُنْثَى أَوْ شَقِيًّا أَوْ سَعِيدًا عَلِمَ الْمَلَائِكَة الْمُوَكَّلُونَ بِذَلِكَ. وَمَنْ شَاءَ اللَّه مِنْ خَلْقه

    'These are the keys of the ghayb which Allah Most High chose for Himself so none is aware of them except after His informing of them. Thus the knowledge of the time of the Hour, neither a Prophet sent nor a close Angel knows it "None but He can disclose its time (as He is the only One who is aware of it)" (7:187). Likewise the sending of rain none knows it but Allah but when he orders it the Angels trusted with it become aware of it and whoever Allah wishes from amongst His creation. Likewise none knows what is in the wombs, that which the Most High wishes to create, but Him but when He instructs it formation into a male or female, sad or happy, the Angels trusted with this become aware of it and whoever Allah wills from His creation...'

    Here, Ibn Kathir clearly differentiates between the knowledge of the final hour and the other things. He says the knowledge of the Hour is unknown to all and not disclosed to anybody whereas the other knowledge is disclosed to others.

    In the commentary of 7:187, Imam Qurtubi says:

    قُلْ إِنَّمَا عِلْمُهَا عِنْدَ رَبِّي

    اِبْتِدَاء وَخَبَر , أَيْ لَمْ يُبَيِّنْهَا لِأَحَدٍ ; حَتَّى يَكُون الْعَبْد أَبَدًا عَلَى حَذَرٍ

    '"Say: its knowledge is only by my Lord" subject and predicate, meaning He does not show it to anybody to the extent that the slave is always alert'

    Thus Imam Qurtubi denied even 'ataai knowledge of the ghayb.

    Also, in the same verse 'yas'alunaka ka'annaka khafiyyun anha' (they ask you as though you are khafi of it). Many scholars have interpreted khafi to mean "aalim" (knower), showing the Prophet saw did not know it. Although most scholars said khafi means somebody who constantly inquires about it or somebody who enjoys being asked about it etc.

    Many scholars clearly have said "the Prophet saw was given the knowledge of many things but the Final Hour" as this article posted in sunniforum:

    Muhammad al-Hamid said:

    'The things that such people inform of that actually come to pass belong to the category of coincidence, which is not given the slightest value in Islam. All of which is on the topic of the unseen generally. As for the Final Hour, Allah Most High has veiled the knowledge of the time it will occur from all creatures entirely, and no one, archangel or prophetic messenger, knows when it will be, the Koranic verses and hadiths being intersubstantiative and in full agreement on this. Were I to list them it would be a lengthy matter, and what I have mentioned is adequate and sufficient for whomever the divine assistance reaches'

    Also an islamonline fatwa (although Salafistic) states:

    'The issue of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) having the ability to know the Unseen or `Ilm Al-Ghayb is a broad and lengthy subject that even Muslim scholars have divergent opinions about it.
    In brief, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has the ability to know only certain aspects of the Unseen that Allah wishes him and reveals to him.

    However, there are other aspects that Allah Almighty doesn't show to the Prophet such as the date of the Day of Resurrection, Death, etc.'

    Also, in the hadith of Jibril the Prophet saw categorically denied the knoweldge of the Hour. I know Berelwis interpret it and say he did not say "I do not know" etc. but did any scholar say this? In fact, of the statement mal mas'ulu anha bi a'lama minas sa'il (the one questioned knows no more about it that the questioner), Imam Nawawi said:

    ‏قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( ما المسئول عنها بأعلم من السائل ) ‏
    ‏فيه أنه ينبغي للعالم والمفتي وغيرهما إذا سئل عما لا يعلم أن يقول : لا أعلم , وأن ذلك لا ينقصه بل يستدل به على ورعه وتقواه ووفور علمه

    'His saying saw 'the one questioned knows no more about it that the questioner'; in it (is evidence) that it is befitting a man of knowledge , one who issues verdicts and other such scholars, when asked of that which they do not know to say "I do not know" and that that is not a deficiency in him rather it can be used to show his scrupulousness, piety and abundant knowledge.'

    Here Imam an-Nawawi clearly says the phrase imples "la a'lam" (I do not know).

    I wanted to ask, is there any proof that the Prophet saw was given the knowledge of the Final Hour [by proof I mean quotes of past notable scholars, not Qur'an or hadith which are the playtools of the misguided].

    Awaiting your answers.

Share This Page