https://www.youtube.com/live/Uyv7PP7rNBg?si=bcf3ProGf6yOQ2XN Here Jake and MH are discussing the issue at 1:08:20ish and DH's insistence that this isn't kufr and only deviance. MH goes on to claim that although it's kufr, refusing to recognise it as kufr isn't even enough to take you outside of Ahlus Sunnah! And suggests possible interpretations as to why later on in this video
firstly, we believe and take the jumhur position that he was a nabiy. thereafter, those who said he was a waliy have various justifications - some valid and some far fetched. one of the far-fetched explanations is that the "musa" mentioned is not nabiy musa alayhi's salatu wa's salam but a different person. other valid ta'wil is: khiDr (khaDir or khidir) alayhi's salam was not given more knowledge than sayyiduna musa alayhis salam absolutely but only a specific portion which does not mean superiority. they cite the case of the bird, the hoopoe, hud-hud, when it tells sayyiduna sulayman alayhi's salam, a nabi: [naml, 27:22] فَمَكَثَ غَیۡرَ بَعِیدࣲ فَقَالَ أَحَطتُ بِمَا لَمۡ تُحِطۡ بِهِۦ وَجِئۡتُكَ مِن سَبَإِۭ بِنَبَإࣲ یَقِینٍ "i have learned about what you are [hitherto] not aware'" [according to ibn kathir's translation]. here "aHaTtu" is explained as: "iTTala'atu"/ came to know. alahazrat translates this rather beautifully: [the bird said:] "i have seen that thing, which [your majesty]* has not seen.." ---- certainly a bird cannot be superior to a nabi, just by learning of one specific piece of information prior. [summarised from ibn Hajar's risalah on hayat of khiDir alayh's salam] and similarly, a specific kind of knowledge was given to khidir alayhi's salam, not given to sayyiduna musa alayhis salam. [kahf, 18:68] وَكَیۡفَ تَصۡبِرُ عَلَىٰ مَا لَمۡ تُحِطۡ بِهِۦ خُبۡرࣰا ====== * "main woh baat dekh aaya hun jo huzur ne na dekhi" / huzur, a term of respect in urdu is translated as 'your majesty' in this context, as hazrat sulayman alayhi's salam, being a Prophet was also a king. alahazrat says the same thing as others, without overtly saying 'what you don't know' being mindful of the respect due to a Prophet, alayhi's salam. Allah ta'ala knows best.
From bahar e shariat volume 1: عقیدہ (۲۲): انبیائے کرام، تمام مخلوق یہاں تک کہ رُسُلِ ملائکہ سے افضل ہیں ۔ (1) ولی کتنا ہی بڑے مرتبہ والا ہو، کسی نبی کے برابر نہیں ہوسکتا۔ جو کسی غیرِ نبی کو کسی نبی سے افضل یا برابر بتائے، کافر ہے۔ (2)
It was a book titled seerat e Ghaus e Azam, and it did contain references( I'm sure I can find the book again, given some time). It's possible the narration did not have a sahih chain of transmission or there are other explanations, but Mawlana sahab acted as though he knew the matter well and went on to explain it to me the way he did. Regardless, the point is some ulema believe hadrat Khidr is a wali; so how do they explain the fact that he had more knowledge than a prophet?
which narration? which writings? which book? Sayyidunal Ghawth rahimahullah status is well-established by near tawatur and he is not dependent on concocted and fabricated stories which run a dime a dozen in desi "Sunni" circles. which mawlana? and assuming even if the mawlana held Sayyiduna Khadir 3alaihis salam to be a wali, what led him to deduce he's at a lower rank than Ghawthe Aazam? what's the criteria and metrics he used? there are direct verses in the Quran re Sayyiduna Khadir. direct ahadith too in his praise. likewise for Hakeem Luqman 3alaihis salam (an entire Quranic Surah is named after him and describing him, plus ahadith too) - the case for him to be a wali and NOT nabi is stronger than the case for Khadir 3alaihis salam to not be nabi - so is Sayyiduna Ghawthe Aazam greater than Hakeem Luqman too? again, what are the metrics we're using? --- @Unbeknown this is i guess the main reason why i selected this hadith to analyze within the context of the DH discussion, as it mentions the word "ambiyaa", and as you can see, some bizarre narrations and concepts are rampant even in many "Sunni" circles, some coming very close to shiaism.
... and irfan shah too making claims in the same vein in the recent past (1-3 years; there are other threads to that effect) the point was to see where do these guys find an escape path from Sunni ulama (and for that matter from wahabis and devbandis too) to escape blanket takfeer like the qadianis, if this is their clear cut aqidah spelled out in black and white, which apparently it is per shahenshah naqvi. --- as for the hadith itself, yes jazak Allahu khayra for pointing that out. you beat me to it (i had other ahadith in mind). even if this particular hadith is authentic, even in the toughest case, it can be grouped with many other mutashabihaat and in all cases, if the interpretation is easy or difficult, our Islami bhais should take precautions not to preach a literalist or almost literalist interpretations/translations of it, which i have seen myself. which brings us back to takfeer, so if a non-shia cites this hadith with a literalist interpretation/translation - then the hukm on him is...? likewise, if and when a shia (or someone like DH or iran shah) presents this or many other ahadith like it - does he escape takfeer somehow due to their lousy and faulty interpretations? yes jazak Allahu khayra again. going back to the hadith standalone, the harf jarr ك in (كأنبياء بني إسرائيل) is used to draw comparison, not to establish absolute equality literally, for example كالشّمس تظهر للعينين من بعد Allah knows best.
We know there are ulema who say Hadrat Khidr is a wali, so how do they explain the fact that he had more knowledge than a prophet? Also if we explain it by saying he was a prophet, then how will we explain the narration regarding Ghaus e Azam commanding him as mentioned in some writings? A sunni Mawlana answered my second query by telling me that Hadrat Khidr was in fact a wali and Ghaus e Azam being higher in rank than him was in a position to command him. But that only leads to the first question.
Of-course the meaning is correct and is readily apparent. I don't know why this hadith should cause any confusion - yes, we can discuss it's authenticity - but even if it were found in Sahih al-Bukhari itself what is so problematic about it? I am sure we can find many ahadith with similar comparisons. So are we supposed to interpret them in a way that is consistent with Sunni aqay'id or are we to try to prove them weak and fabricated? For example what about this hadith - which is found in both Bukhari and Muslim? The shi'ah have built up an entire mythology around it - as is their wont, so what? PS: I am speaking in the context of the on-going discussion on DH claims about Imams possibly being higher in rank than Prophets - which is kufr by ijmaa'. If this is merely an academic exercise separate from that discussion, you may ignore my post.
re the hadith itself - علماء أمتي كأنبياء بني إسرائيل i did some googling of my own, and came to these results: 1. it is mentioned in Tafsir Ruh Al-Bayan in a few places (the dream mentioned in the OP mentioning Imam Ghazali, is mentioned in the tafsir) 2. the hadith is mentioned in Mafatih Al-Ghayb of Ar-Razi 3. it is also mentioned in the Tafsir of Imam Nisaburi 4. it is mentioned in tafsir of Ash-Sha3rawi (recent Egyptian scholar) 5. Al-Qari, Suyuti, Asqalani (among possible others) said it has no basis - as alluded to in post # 2 6. Allama Yusuf Nabhani mentions it in his Al-Haqiqatul Muhammadiyyah (3alaihis salam) - in 5 different places (pages 121, 155, 216, 267, 374) https://archive.org/details/hqqmhmd-nbhn/mode/1up?view=theater (screenshot from pg 121 below) 7. quite surprisingly, ibn othaimeen of the wahabis while echoing the sentiment of the muhadditheen re the sanad, says that "the meaning is correct" (speaking in the language of Sufis) - in his sharh of the Arba3een of Imam Nawawi (1/45):
thanks for this post on the other thread brother. we can touch that topic here. i'm pasting the relevant screenshot
coming from this thread - https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/should-we-promote-daniel-haqiqatjou.15878/page-3 and aware of this hadith and the issue itself from before - i dunno if DH mentioned this hadith in his videos/articles re not takfeering shias en masse, but anyways - (i didn't read the latest long article refuting zameel) Ahlus Sunnah belief is that no non-prophet is superior to any prophet. however, at the same time, this hadith is circulated in Sunni circles too - at times with tatbeeq and tawil not to violate Sunni aqidah, at times in a mutlaq sense https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=lCqhjerIUgQ (see this 2 min video; dunno if the speaker is sunni or not) i know in many DI circles this hadith is routinely cited, at times attributed to Mukashafatul Quloob (separate thread linked) don't remember now but it seems some people even say afzal than past prophets and attribute it to hadith (google it) --- that the shias believe in superiority of imams over past prophets, is very well known. see here shahenshah naqvi of KHI talk about it, albeit in below video without mentioning this hadith re ulama of this ummat https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=uGBSbWGzcXc (2 min video) this wahabi says that this hadith regarding ulama of the ummah being same/similar to previous ambiyaa has been cited by dajjals like mirza and others https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=7Vbtf-IRJVQ&t=200s (7 min video) regardless of the authenticity or inauthenticity of this hadith, dajjal mirza, gobar shahi et al have even cited authentic ahadith and verses of Quran and spun spurious meanings on to them, so as far as "abuse" of this hadith by dajjals is concerned, the wahabi's argument is really redundant imho. --- so it will be good to know the rajih ruling on the shias belief re afzaliyat of imams over past prophets? the ruling on Sunnis who take this hadith literally? even if proven authentic, it would need the appropriate tawil and tatbeeq, as with so many other ahadith.
Please read the above post ( no 2) before reading this post. -- About the Narration: The scholars of my ummah are like the prophets of Bani Israel. I have recently come across an article which states that this hadith cannot be called as ‘mawdu’. The author writes : 1. Those who have called it as ‘mawdu’ have not explained its reason for being ‘mawdu’. 2. The hadith has been quoted by Imam Razi (Rh) in his tafsir under Sura Yunus, ayah 57 (10:57), which means Imam Razi did not consider this hadith to be ‘mawdu’. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=10&tAyahNo=57&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 3. Imam Shadhili (Rh) had a dream in which he saw prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) along with other prophets [alayhimus salam]. Sayyedina Musa (alayhis salam) said to the the the Prophet, Imam al anbiya, the leader of the mankid and the Jinn (sal allahu alayhi wa sallam): “You have said that the scholars of my ummah are like the prophets of Bani Israel”, so (please) showe me one such scholar.The prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) pointed towards Imam Ghazali (Rh) and said “he”. This has been narrated by Imam al-Khafaji (Rh) in his book Naeem al-Riyadh. From this incidence it is seen that when Musa (alayhis salam) quoted the narration, the prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) did not object. Hence it cannot be called ‘mawdu” [ End of quote ] -- I have posted this so that the learned and the interested members of this forum can share their views.
There are few variants to this report: in some reports it is mentioned "Better than the prophets of Bani Israel" it is mentioned in the book Fayd al-Qadir Sharh Jami al-Saghir by al-Munawi فائدة: سئل الحافظ العراقي عما اشتهر على الألسنة من حديث علماء أمتي كأنبياء بني إسرائيل فقال: لا أصل له ولا إسناد بهذا اللفظ ويغني عنه العلماء ورثة الأنبياء وهو حديث صحيح. Hafiz al-Iraqi was about this hadith and he said: "no basis for it and no isnad" For more about this Hadith check Kashf al-Khafa 64/2 of Ajluni , al-Fuaid al-Majmooah p. 286 of Shawkani, Suyuti in Durur, Sakhawi in Maqasid who said, "our shaykh meaning Ibn Hajar, said that it has no basis" , The Sufi master, Sayyid Abd al-Aziz al-Dabbagh also said same (that is it no hadith) as reported by his student Ibn al-Mubarak in kitaab al-Ibriz
:s1: Some "Sunnis" are claiming that the hadith sharif, "The scholars of my ummat are like the prophets of Bani Israel" is fabricated and give, amongst other hadith masters, Imam Suyuti, as a reference for their claim. Is this true? (Apparently, according to the (il)logic of these people, this hadith is the 'basis' of the 'concocted fairytale' about Imam Ghazali's soul being presented to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم on the night of Miraj. Thus methinks this is another attempt to stop the praise of al-Ghazali whom they, protestations notwithstanding, do not really like as their past comments attest.)
