The publisher, author and translator are Sunnis and defend the position of Alahazrat. The entire course of the book talks about the revealed/granted knowledge of the Ghayb to the Prophet SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam by Allah subhaanahu wa ta'ala.
This “ghayb is relative — what’s hidden from one person may be seen or known by another” line is exactly the semantic trick Deobandis like Asharr Fi’li Thanwi have used for over a century to cloud the discussion. In the Qur’anic, Sunnah, and aqeedah context, ghayb refers to the unseen that no creation can access by any of the senses, tools, or natural means — only if Allah Himself discloses it through revelation or other divine means. What they do is quietly switch this shar‘i definition for the everyday, linguistic meaning of “anything hidden from one person but known to another.” Once that switch is made, they can say: “Of course the Prophet ﷺ knew some ghayb — but everyone knows things others don’t.” This frames his ﷺ ‘ilm al-ghayb as nothing more than ordinary, relative knowledge anyone can have, stripping it of its divinely-bestowed and unique nature. Thanwi used this exact tactic, arguing that if knowing something hidden makes someone special, then even a person who knows there is food in the kitchen while others don’t would have “knowledge of the unseen.” This false equivalence reduces the matter to the point where the Deobandi can claim, with a straight face, that they “affirm” the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge of the unseen — while in reality they have emptied the term of its real meaning. It’s a framing trick: redefine the key term at the outset so the entire discussion runs on their diluted version. By the time the conversation is over, the original shar‘i concept of ghayb has been sidelined without most people even noticing.
It's from Rigel Publishing's book, The Prophet's ﷺ Knowledge of the Unseen by Dr Msallm Taibeh. He critically edited the DIYN edition of al-Dawlah al-Makkiyyah https://amzn.eu/d/ekYyNd6
This is from Wardah Books https://wardahbooks.com/products/the-prophets-knowledge-of-the-unseen?_pos=3&_sid=223cb2e87&_ss=r
I read the following recently on this very topic; some may find it of relevance (I've checked the copyright on the book and it allows sharing a few pages for educational purposes)
He who does not trust the word of his creator due to the possibility of lies, by which measure will he trust the messenger alihi salaam or his Ahlul Bayt? He may have "confidence" in its truth but not certainty. It is fascinating how Alahazrat RahimahuLlah began the Dawlah with a discussion on believing in the religion in its entirety. Error in this principle forms the basis of most disputes.
14.40 [clowron #2] so basically - RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - according to these ghulaat (fanatics).. the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam* knew that she is exonerated, she is innocent, she is free of anything. [clowron #1] yep [#2 ]but still he is going around, whilst knowing with full confidence, [#1] look at the full thing mawlana...then..then what you are gonna say. he says: wa da'a barirata ... shaykh sayyid barzanji al husayni rahimahullah says...he called barirah raDi'Allahu anhaa...fa-sa'alaha... he asked her regarding ayisha raDi'Allahu anhaa... [#2] wow [#1] because she is the... she made the khidmat of hazrat ayisha raDiAllahu anhaa. so he asked - the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam asked barirah, whilst knowing the haqiqat and reality; wa qaala lahaa - and then said - in kunti almamti bi dhanbin fa'staghfirillaha - if you have sinned then seek forgiveness. whilst...so the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is speaking then, directly to hazrat ayisha raDi'Allahu anhaa knowing the haqiqat - wa huwa ya'alamu ilman yaqiniyyan, annaha lam tulimma bi dhanbin. [#2] astaghfirullah. astaghfirullah. by saying astaghfirullah the second shameless rascal refuses to believe that the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam trusted his noble wife, our mother sayyidah ayishah as innocent. this is kufr and zandaqah. the rascal accuses the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam of suspecting the virtuous lady. inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi rajiun. this is the curse of being devbandis. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah]. ====== he then reads the comment of barzanji and tries to dramatise it. anyway, shaykh barzanji was wrong in this assessment and clearly he faltered and in his zeal to prove his point he didn't realise that his objection would indirectly criticise a statement from sahih hadith! barazanji's risalah is based on his misunderstanding of the issue and alahazrat's position - and ends up attacking strawmen. for example, he accuses alahazrat of saying that he said: the only difference between the knowledge of Allah ta'ala and RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is qidam and huduth. which is not true - and instead of arguing with alahazrat, if the shaykh had listened to the dawlah completely, he probably would not have made this error. thereafter alahazrat wrote rejoinders to all of his objections and those interested can read in the latest edition.
poor wretches - like zameel, they spend their living daylights trying to find muck on barelwis. and they fail spectacularly. here one clowron (as you know, they are clown+moron) tells the other that by saying that the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi was sallam knew that umm al-mu'minin sayyidah ayishah raDiAllahu anha was chaste, the barelwis say that: @00:35 ...the barelwis have an aqidah that the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam would do certain things and say certain things by which he would intend to fool people in front of him. we know that the standards of devbandi truth and honesty live in the marianna trench but still - and it is unrealistic to expect them to have a little shame. but i still wonder: have they no fear of Allah at all? even if a barelwi scholar had said something like this [WHICH IS HYPOTHETICAL], it should be either an aberration or at any rate an isolated statement. how can you label every 'barelwi' with this broad brush? besides, this charge based on the example he provides is a bald faced lie. ---- the other rascal was grimacing that his teachers would weep when reading this hadith from bukhari - and it looks like both were monkeying in the class because they were not paying attention. why don't the two clowns translate this hadith in full, and after that can they add their comments as above? ma'adhAllah. part of bukhari hadith 2661 and 4749.
the morons acknowledge this @13.13 if every word of shaykh barzanji is held so irrefutable, then the devbandis have acknowledged the takfir of their elders.
first about ghayatu'l ma'amul and then we will deal with the slanders of both filthy lying ignoramuses. i mentioned this in TKM
