Ilm e Gaib

I heard a good argument regarding this from shaykh Salek who was quoting an earlier scholar on the qasidah burdah (could have been someone like Ahmad Zarruq. Basically it goes like this:

1. To claim Rasoolullah salallahu alayhiwassalam had knowledge of everything in the Tablet is shirk according to the wahabbis. They'll say this is because the knowledge on the Tablet is comprehensive

2. Sunni response one: if you say that this is shirk because knowing all of the knowledge in the Tablet is tantamount to knowing all knowledge, then this is shirk in the first place because you have implied that the knowledge of Allah can be contained within the Tablet whereas the knowledge of Allah is limitless

2. Sunni response two: if you say that the knowledge of the Tablet is not all of the knowledge of Allah, then how can it be shirk to say everything in the Tablet is known by Rasoolullah salallahu alayhiwassalam?

This is what I understood from the argument, please feel free to correct as appropriate.

 

I recall a person finding extensive knowledge of Ilm ul Ghayb for RasulAllah ﷺ including particulars as problematic. When it was pointed out that the Lawh and the Qalam possess this knowledge he said something like inscription on the tablet doesn’t equate to knowing. How are we to understand that? Do we differentiate between possession of knowledge and comprehension of said knowledge or is it the same?

 

in the same fayd al-qadir, under the hadith: "five that no one knows..." v5/p671-2 hadith #8190

 

imam munawi in his sharh of al-jamiy al-saghir, fayD al-qadir, v3 p561

 

the same was affirmed by his son imam abdu'l salam, and other commentators of jawharah:




also, imam bayjuri in his sharh of jawharah:

 

imam laqani in his commentaries of his own jawharah verse #93:

---
hidayatu'l murid, v2 p.975:

and the right opinion is - as said by a group: that ALlah did not take him away - alayhi's salatu was salam - until He informed him of everything that was obscure hitherto - however, He commanded him to keep some things concealed and some things to inform (others).​

the same in his larger commentary: umdatu'l murid, v2 p1326.

 

the jahil wahabi visitor in one of his posts said:

nice.

lets see what imam jalaluddin suyuti says:khasayis al-kubra, v2 p.331:

in the title of the topic, he included: "he was given knowledge of everything, except five; it is also said: INCLUDING the five."





at the end of the chapter:



some scholars have said that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was given the knowledge of the five as well; and the knowledge of the Hour and the soul - and that he was commanded to not disclose it.


====

 

For anybody reading this thread and is confused about this topic as ofc it is a very scholarly discussion, this is so far one of the best bayaans I have heard on this topic by Mufti Monawar ateeq sahab.
He explaines various objections of the wahabis in light of Alahazrats ad dawlah e.g. certain things were only revealed to the Prophet ﷺ later on in his life, but once the quran was fully revealed one cannot cast doubt on the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ saying "the Nabi did not know", as the quran contains ilm of everything from beginning to end of times, so once it was fully revealed to the Prophet ﷺ He ﷺ had complete knowledge 'atayi' from beginning to end.

Make maaf mawlana aby Hasan, didn't mean to interrupt your explanation.

 

shaykh abdul haq muhaddith dihlawi, in lam'aat al-tanqih, v1 p217

"no one can know EXCEPT by the informing of Allah ta'ala"




similarly, imam ibn Hajar al-haytami in fat'h al-ilah sh. mishkah: v5 p.398

"no one can know it in entirety except Allah ta'ala. however, He has informed some of His chosen slaves partially from these things"

 

in another place, in mirqat, he says the same with even more clarity, v3 p564.

----
"Allah informs of whatever He wants to whomsoever He Wills.."

 

allamah ali qari in mirqat al-mafatih v1 p137:

just to emphasise the accuracy of alahazrat's translation:

khabeer: or it means that Allah informs of some portions to some of His special slaves...

 

yes, some ulama have said that the knowledge was given later in his life; but the aayat does not have to be mansukh - and it is not absolute.

even a broken clock can show the correct time twice a day. the wahabi gatecrasher said this but didn't understand what it meant.

so the aayat that negated were in the earlier stage; and Allah increased him knowledge (rabbi zidni ilmaa) until he was taught even the five. in fact, imam ibn Hajar in his fat'h al-bari, v10 p487 under tafsir of surah luqman, hadith #4777, says as a matter of fact that the knowledge given to anbiya alayhimu's salam is an exception to the general implications of the aayat.




ittilaa - that is by Allah ta'ala informing prophets.

 

tell him to renew his iman and if he is married, he must renew his nikah.
this is explicit kufr. and the blame should be laid at the door of devbandis who have not only set fire to their own iman, they are also destroying iman of common muslims.

this is explicit kufr. according to the fool, the qur'an is not to be trusted. al-iyadhu billah.

 

subHanAllah! this is easily one of the most beautiful posts I have read on sunniport.

--
My question:

Why does Alahazrat translate aleemul-khabeer (in surah Tahreem, verse#3) as: 'ilm waale khabar-daar ne baataya
and not on the same lines as of aleemun-khabeer (in surah Luqmaan): jaanne wala bataane wala hai ?

Because in the context of the question: who informed you of this? - bataane wala would be a more apt translation?

Is it because of how the grammar works or is it because of the tafaseer?

---

A thousand thanks for explaining this.

Why don't people talk of these things in 'urs-e-razavi, instead of just naaras and big appellations? sigh ....

 

brother AQ, you are not known for euphemisms, but this one has to be one of your best

every heretic has terrible comprehension - otherwise they would not be heretics - especially the donkeys carrying books (like zameel devbanda)

 

oh good. that guy was really starting to be an eye sore

i'm copying the ahbash's objections here, some may not be directly related to ilm e ghaib, but are very wahabistic

https://www.aicp.org/index.php/isla...uritanian-currently-residing-in-san-francisco

the ahbash too have comprehension issues

 

if brothers can also take note,
i happen to come across one deobandi with twisted mind who was using ilm e ghaib to prove Allah can lie. astagfirullah

Deobandi argument was in the quran Allah says ilm e ghaib is with him yet Allah contradicts and gives to whoever He wants, isn't this Allah can do whatever He wants.

i tried to explain Him, it doesn't work this way and he kept repeating like munniz.

How to give a befitting reply?

 

the wahabi was beginning to litter the place and i have banned him.
the uncouth fellow was just spamming the board - repeating the same lines and posting over and over again.

let him rave and rant in his cesspool. he has a website doesn't he.
but there are some points on ilm al-ghayb that need to be clarified.

----
if he were not illiterate, he would pick on my translation and ask: 'how can you translate khabeer' as 'one who informs'? whereas the standard translation is khabeer as 'the absolute knower (of everything)'.

----
this is something zameel devbandi would be besides himself with glee: "ahmad raza made a mistake in translation"

----
but there is absolutely no way you can fault alahazrat's translation.

in mufradat of imam raghib, under the word: kh-ba-raa:

khabeer is used in the meaning of "mukhbir" - that is "one who informs".




the jahil wahabi muinz may not even know who imam raghib is; but a little more knowledgeable wahabis will understand.

in taj al-arus, v11 p125:


khabeer is also used to mean "mukhbir" - that is "one who informs".

----
thereby, the last aayah of surah luqman, ends with the note that if Allah Wills, He can inform anyone whom He wills from any of the ulum khamsah.

----
for example,
"what is in the womb" cannot be absolute. that is: one cannot say, it is impossible for ANYONE to know what is in the womb, and neither does Allah ta'ala inform ANYONE.

but it is common knowledge, that using ultrasound sonography, the sex of the child can be determined. one can object that the aayah refers to the time when the sex of the child cannot be determined - say in the first few weeks (ordinarily it is possible by 14 weeks). EVEN that clearly indicates it is not absolute (because you make the distinction before or after x number of weeks).

there is some new information: modern research claims that it can be determined by a 'simple blood test'

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/blood-test-tells-gender-fetus-early-5-weeks-flna1c9441805

let us assume it is possible and accurate; in this case too, it is clear that the aayat is not absolute. meaning it does not NEGATE knowledge for others absolutely. of course, OTHERS gaining this knowledge is by Allah's permission and His ALLOWING others to gain it.

in fact, take the verse: surah maryam, 19:19



here, the archangel gibril alayhi's salam said - EVEN before the blessed baby was in the womb: "so i can give you a pure son"

obviously, Allah ta'ala informed him. and if Allah ta'ala can inform hazrat gibril alayhi's salam - what prevents similar knowledge being given to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam? if Allah wills, He can give it to anyone - and no one in the entire creation has more knowledge than RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

===
as for "what the soul shall earn" - an ordinary angel is given this knowledge; and the wahabi's shrivelled heart denies it for the greatest in the creation!




as we can see - ulum khamsah is NOT absolutely barred for others. yes, no one can gain this knowledge on their own. but it is possible that they can have this knowledge by the INFORMING of Allah.

that is why the last word of the verse, conveys - that Allah can inform this.

----
in fact, alahazrat's translation - can clearly refute any objections of modern science (such as knowledge of the sex of the fetus) etc.

wAllahu a'alam.

 

Is it correct that this second group believes that the knowledge of the 5 given to the prophet( sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) was later in his( sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) earthly life, and so they hold the verse about ulum khamsah to be mansukh?

 

I rest my case.