Ilm e Gaib

and one should not run away. promises are promises.

 

you cannot split those verses to create a separate meaning. the verse the follows actually a completion of the previous one.

regardless, you have agreed now that:

let us not complicate things as you said: it is valid sunni aqidah that: "nabi is given ilm al-ghayb." and you too agree with it.

the only issue is - ulum e khamsah (the 5 things) and among the five things, knowledge of the Hour. this is the point of contention and we will discuss this presently.

yes. this is our aqidah. if anyone told you contrary to this - they were lying. and if you believed them, you must repent and refrain from accusing barelwis of having that aqidah.

---

yes.
but this is what our imam taught - and his fatwa is more than 100 years old. glad that you have discovered it too

hold on...not so fast.
let us not complicate things. islam is simple.

the aayat only says Allah GAVE ilm to His rasool. Which part of the verse says: "whenever required"?

and the jealous low-lives who try to put a 'limit' to the knowledge of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. just tell us who informed you of those 'limits'?

if you wish to do lexical analysis, be my guest. i am all ears. but you must explain where does it say that "whenever required"? why is it that only we are supposed to present explicit verses and hadith - whereas you cheap frauds can add or subtract or interpret according to your own will and get away with it?

i want to know which word expressly or implied says: "whenever required"?

 

In case you haven't understood yet, barelwis believe that only Allah can be called Alim ul Ghayb.

 

I clearly explained everything...surah jinn 26 says "(He Alone is) the All-Knower of the Ghaib (Unseen), and He reveals to none His Ghaib (Unseen)."

N surah jinn 27 says "Except to a Messenger (from mankind) whom He has chosen (He informs him of unseen as much as He likes), and then He makes a band of watching guards (angels) to march before him and behind him."

From above again it is clear that Allah is alim ul gaib..and Allah gives ilm of gaib to prophet except when will world end as per 7:187 and 5 things as per 31:34...

From above it is absolutely clear that only Allah is alim ul gaib n that title or laqab cannot be given to any of his maqhlook...

 

as per the incomplete information on his website

https://www.islamfactcheck.in/sufism-vs-wahabism/

 

They will quote the verse Surah Al-Jinn verse 26 and
Purposefully they will not mention the next verse

This person @Muinzvision is also of the same category

 

aur tumpar mere aaqa ki Inaayat na saHi,
Najdiyoo kalma paDhaane ka bHi ehsaan gaya


aaj le unki panaH aaj madad maang unse,
phir na maanenge Qayamat me agar maan gaya

 

don't jump the gun. relax.

 

I clearly explained..
"
So You agreed title of alim ul gaib is for Allah only...and Allah gave ilm to his nabi or rasool whenever required...

So to conclude...Allah is alim ul gaib...n he gave ilm of gaib to prophet except the ilm of world end as per 7:187 and other 5 things a per 31:34...

Do you agree with above and conclude the same that Allah .did not gave ilm of world end to prophet Muhammad and other 5 ilm as per 31:34...

Islam is simple...don't make it complicated...
"

 

what is simple to someone, can be complicated to someone else.

that line is used by jahil wahabis to spread their misguidance without knowing anything about the context.

who decides - what is simple, and what is complicated?

the verse that says our deen is made easy for us, says it in the context of comparison with past deens given to other prophets. for example, some past peoples had to cut out the part of cloth that got najasah on it, and they couldn't wash it with water and purify it for prayers. in our laws, we can purify it using water. it doesn't mean that we make a joke of the laws given to us, as the wahabis have done.

some examples of relativity in 'Islam and simple, don't make it complicated' in our daily lives, thanks to wahabis:

person 1- Islam is simple, i'm going to war, that's it. what's the most that can happen? i will be shaheed
person 2- Islam is simple. i'm not gonna take the great pains of removing my socks. i'm just gonna wipe my hand on a torn cotton sock and my wudu will be valid

----
wahabi- Islam is simple. i have all the knowledge i need on the tafsir of a verse, given in the 3 page english pamphlet handed out by zakir naik's irf
Sunni- Islam is simple. i will just look for the tafsir of the verse in at least 5 Arabic books of tafsir to get a proper picture of the matter

 

So You agreed title of alim ul gaib is for Allah only...and Allah gave ilm to his nabi or rasool whenever required...

So to conclude...Allah is alim ul gaib...n he gave ilm of gaib to prophet except the ilm of world end as per 7:187 and other 5 things a per 31:34...

Do you agree with above and conclude the same that Allah .did not gave ilm of world end to prophet Muhammad and other 5 ilm as per 31:34...

Islam is simple...don't make it complicated...

 

Allah Ta'ala is the Knower of both the seen and unseen absolutely, will you deny that you have some knowledge of the seen(ilm'ush shahadah)?

if you say I have some knowledge by the grant of Allah Ta'ala then our answer is that the prophets alaihim afDalus salatu wat tasleem also have the knowledge of the unseen only by the grant of Allah Ta'ala, as much as He Subhanu wa Ta'ala granted them. this is proven by Quran and prophetic narrations.

 

i was looking for something on Shaykh Salek rahimahullah upon his demise, and to my misfortune, ran into this article by the habashis - https://www.aicp.org/index.php/isla...uritanian-currently-residing-in-san-francisco -

the two threads on the beloved Shaykh's demise and this one on ilme ghaib by our new friend came at the same time, and i felt it bad adab to post this link in either thread right in the backdrop of his demise, but now that brother @abu Hasan is engaging with @Muinzvision , parking it here for his perusal (if needed to refute additional points, actually really ugly straw men). the habashis objections are more or less same as those of the wahabis

 

...

 

as for issue of ulum e khamsah and ilm al-sa'ah, we will discuss it presently. wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

that is better.

i will explain. if you accept it, you must state it. and if you reject, you must state the reasons for rejection.

these are two issues.

1. our master, Prophet Muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam 'did not have the knowledge when the world will end'.
2. qur'an 31:34 says: "knowledge of five things is with Allah"

we will discuss this in detail. in sha'Allah.

---

this another issue. and due to shallow knowledge people conflate multiple issues. so you must understand the issue properly. i will try my best to use simple words - and for clarification will put arabic terms in parantheses, in the hope you will be able to understand.

Allah ta'ala has ilm al-ghayb, which is absolute and His own attribute (muTlaq, dhati). the knowledge of ALlah is His own. nobody 'informed' Him about it. His knowledge is His own (dhati).

all the verses in the qur'an that deny ilm al-ghayb for others - deny THIS kind of knowledge. that is dhati knowledge. [typo corrected].

however, ilm al-ghayb is GIVEN by Allah to His messengers. RasulAllah sallAllahu laayhi wa sallam was GIVEN the knowledge by Allah ta'ala.

a number of qur'anic verses explicitly prove this. for example, surah jinn v26-27



i am sure you will be able to find an online translation - this verse explicitly says that Allah ta'ala gives knowledge to His Messengers.

if you are really sincere, and if you really fear Allah and believe in judgement day, you will not make ifs-and-buts.

in another verse:



---
the summary is: Allah ta'ala has GIVEN ilm al-ghayb to His Messengers. if anyone denies this absolutely (muTlaqan) he becomes a kafir. of course, there are disagreements about "how much" and "what extent" - but denying/rejecting ilm al-ghayb for Prophets absolutely is kufr. by doing so, one rejects the explicit verse of the qur'an.

the knowledge of Allah ta'ala is dhaati; the knowledge of Messengers is `aTa'yi (i.e. granted by Allah).
the knowledge of Allah ta'ala is absolute, complete (kull); the knowledge of Messengers is ba'aD (i.e. partial - as much granted by Allah)
the knowledge of Allah ta'ala is pre-eternal, qadim; the knowledge of Messengers is Haadith (i.e., accident; attribute of creatures)


---

clearly you are a jaahil. you do not understand the mas'ala and you have picked up a point here and there from other juhala like you and prattling as if you are the greatest mujtahid of the age. you do not even have the adab of mentioning the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

these are signs of your heart shrivelling and becoming hard. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah. at least try to say the durud after the blessed name.

giving the title: "aalim al-ghayb" to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not permissible. but this does not mean he was not GIVEN ilm al-ghayb.

this is why one should learn arabic, if one wishes to argue about deeper subjects.

ilm al-ghayb = knowledge of unseen
aalim al-ghayb = KNOWER of unseen

the first is given to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam as evidenced by aayat, ahadith and fatawa of ulama.
the second is deemed impermissible for anyone in the creation. only Allah ta'ala will be called aalim al-ghayb.

-----

you are deliberately and forcibly trying to mislead. this is why i kept asking you whether you understand arabic and you have acknowledged that you do not. the reason is, in the above statement - you do not have the ability to recognise the ism fa'yil.

one who creates - khalaqa -> ism fa'yil of khalaqa is: khaliq.
one who knows ilm (al-ghayb) -> sim fa'yil is: aalim al-ghayb.

and we agree. the title is for Only Allah ta'ala. no dispute.

however, you are surreptitiously trying to pass of "ilm al-ghayb" and thus push your ugly bid'ah.

the Sifat of Allah ta'ala is - dhati. so when we talk of 'ilm al-ghayb of Allah ta'ala - we talk about dhati, qadim, muTlaq ilm.

and when we speak of ilm al-ghayb of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - we talk about aTa'yi, haadith, and ba'aD.

----
remember, that there are Sifat of Allah ta'ala - and the words that describe those Sifat are also used to describe sifat of creatures.

for example, Allah ta'ala is Samiy, BaSir.



and Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala has described his slaves as samiy basir as well:




here, the 'equivalence' is only in the word. the same word is used to describe sifat of humans and Sifat of Allah. other than the commonality of the word, nothing else is the same or equivalent.

the Sifat of Allah is qadim, baqi, dhati - but the sifat of human is hadith, perishable (qabil e fanaa) and aTayi.
there is absolutely NO equivalence, except that both sifat 'share' the word.

similarly, when we say 'ilm al-ghayb' the same differences apply.

only a thick headed, stupid wahabi cannot understand this difference.

wAllahu a'alam. wa ilmuhu atam.

 

I was told by one of your sunniport followers to post this verse for clarification as 7:187 is clear verse and other verses which clarifies that prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) did not had the knowledge when will world end...also in Quran 31:34 says 5 things ilm is with Allah...

Above verses are clear n self explanatory without any contradictions that Allah has ilm e gaib n no one has...so giving the title that even prophet Muhammad had ilm e gaib is distortion of the Quran message and teachings of Prophet...

Like we cannot call prophet Isa khaliq, even though he gave life to dead, same way we cannot say Prophet Muhammad had ilm e gaib, as these sifat n title is for Allah alone...

 

in case, you are unable to read or understand my long post, let me simplify:

1. you asked for the tafsir of a verse. what is your objective? is it for knowledge or is it to make a point?
2. if you have asked this question to make a point (which most of us know where you are going), what is the point you are trying to make?

 

i wonder. why do you ask about this verse? perhaps context can help me better appreciate your question.

just imagine, if a total stranger stands at your door, and when you open it, he demands: give me explanation of verse 2:26.
certainly you would wonder too: why does he ask?

---
you call us shia without any proof, but still you accuse *us* of being disrespectful. you repeated a second time that we were shia. chalo jane do. let it be. since you have not produced any proof, we can safely assume that you were regurgitating the spew that you had ingurgitated from faithless people and you will be held to account on judgement day.

but it is clear that you have no proof to call us shia. you can disprove me by furnishing proof.

-----

1. at least, tell us what do you want to prove by citing the verse and asking for its explanation?
2. are you saying that the verse proves that OUR Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did not have ilm al-ghayb?​

there is no need to act so mysterious.

you should not run away from answering my questions. and every question that you do not answer, one layer of your jahl is revealed. so i will keep asking questions and you can keep running away. at least, it will be clear to yourself where you stand.

----
this is a good opportunity for others to learn something. it may appear as if i am feeding a troll - or even trolling a troll, but al-Hamdulillah, i have another objective. wa billahi't tawfiq.

----
those who call barelwis - i.e., followers of alahazrat imam ahmad rida khan - as 'shiah' are liars. and may Allah's curse be upon liars.

 

Probably because they are scolars and not scholars