Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Umar99, Mar 6, 2020.
Dr. Hamza Bekri on Ilm ul Ghayb:
Thank you Abu Hasan
May Allaah bless the Prophet and his family, his companions, his Ummah, you and us all
no. when we are talking about RasulAllah sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam, when a special attribute of comparison is mentioned, it is obvious that it excludes his own blessed self.
sayyidu waladi aadam: do you translate "he is the 'leader of all children of aadam except himself"?
sayyidu'n naas: will you say: "he is the leader of all humans, except himself".
I think you're very verbose. It's often hard to see what you're getting at.
Are you saying no one comprehends the limits of the ilm of RasulAllah ﷺ other than RasulAllah ﷺ himself?
Thank you for the detailed reply, its appreciated that you engage with us out of your busy schedule. I don't majorly disagree with your reply.
I think there is a few ways the word incomprehensible can be used. One is as opposite of comprehend, like an individual can comprehend and another can't. This would fall under comprehensible because some can comprehend it. The other is incomprehensible meaning not possibly imaginable. The Knowledge of Allaah is incomprehensible and I've picked this up from the community Inc the hadith of Abu Bakr May Allaah be pleased with him on what whatever comes to your head Allaah is other than it. Allaah Most High Knowledge is also unique to Him. My suggestion of the boundaries 'not being known' was from Pir Saqib Shaami, with his reference to sahabis discussing the knowledge of the Prophet SallAllaahu alaihi wa sallam.
The Messenger of Allaah SallAllaahu alaihi wa sallam does have knowledge that will be incomprensible to some of us, and other knowledge incomprensible to nearly all us and some knowledge that only he was given the comprehension of. These are all in comprehensible category as The Prophet of Allaah SallAllaahu alaihi wa Sallam is himself from the creation, from among us as the translations of the Quran says and the best of Humans as advised in the Sunni view. Also as an explanation of what I meant in the previous reply it doesn't mean the boundaries of the knowledge are incomprehensible, even if that knowledge contains things we won't understand as we do ascribe a limit and limits are understandable, comprehensible to us. This does not apply to Allaah His Knowledge boundaries do not exist and limitless is incomprehensible. Or something to that effect is what I meant in the previous post
"Not infinite, however the creation cannot comprehend the boundary of knowledge of Nabi"
I accept your rebuttal of what I said, there is some weaknesses in the argument I presented. Surely you can agree that it should atleast say 'other creation' rather than just creation? I know even this can easily be overlooked but so can the other errors
which book or rule says this?
besides, 'incomprehensible' to who? taken at face value the above statement seeks to refute or at the least contradict qur'anic verses and even common sense.
because something comprehensible to X may be incomprehensible to Y. the qur'an says [12:76]:
obviously, 'fawq' / above means that the one above knows and comprehends things that the one below doesn't. because it includes both things that are 'knowable' but are not known and things that one KNOWS but cannot comprehend.
only a fool will say: "everyone in the world has the ability to comprehend EVERYTHING. it is only exposure or training or circumstances that stop people from 'comprehension.' there is nothing in the world that is not 'comprehensible'".
whoever says the above disregards that the intelligence - and the ability to understand, reason - varies among humans. some have greater ability and some lesser and this i daresay is a fact.
take another ayah [2:32]:
the angels said "we do not know except the knowledge of which you have granted us".
'knowing' something is the first step and 'understanding' or 'comprehension' is the next step. people can know and learn facts and repeat them without understanding what they mean. one can go in a tangent about consciousness - but it is commonly accepted that some humans have higher level of understanding than some other humans.
we all believe (unless you are a wahabi or devbandi) that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was given knowledge MORE than anyone else in the creation.
we also believe that he was given intelligence and ability to comprehend higher than everyone else in the creation.
the above statement means that if something is known then it is certainly comprehensible. because according to the above claim, if it were known it would definitely be comprehensible!
even atheists thinkers will not say such a stupid thing. there are myriad things in mundane life that are known but are incomprehensible. one of the big questions is how does human consciousness work?
pray, tell us: [17:85]
"they ask you about the soul [or the Spirit]. say: the soul is by the command of my Lord-Sustainer [rabb]. and i was not given knowledge except little."
exegetes have varying opinions about what is meant by 'ruH' here? some have said that ruH here refers to the qur'an. some said it is the soul. some said it refers to an angel. some said it refers to a specific angel, i.e. jibril alayhis salam. and so forth. and those who said that the ruH mentioned in this verse is the soul, also said that only Allah knows about its reality [and hence incomprehensible]. [see tafsirs of qurtubi, razi, maturidi]
also, there is a debate among scholars whether the knowledge of ruH was granted to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. many gnostics and prominent scholars believed that RasulALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was indeed given the knowledge of ruH (and that is my belief too). [hint: imam razi in his tafsir says (summarised): an amateur philosopher and a mediocre theologian/mutakallim knows and talks about the ruH; it beggars belief that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam would not have known it.]
suppose, you do not accept it; even then, we all KNOW that soul exists and this is what makes a person living (or when it departs the body, the person is dead). but do we understand it?
according to your usul,
1) either the soul is from the "sifat of Allah" /al-iyadhu billah [ref - you said: The only incomprehensible sifats are of Allaah]
2) or else it is comprehensible [thereby rejecting the verse of ruH above because the qur'anic verse implies that none can know of its reality].
the #2 above is irrespective of whether to accept that RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam was given the knowledge (i.e. understanding and ability to comprehend the reality the soul).
in summary: not only is the extent of the knowledge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam not known by the rest of the creation, but also there are things that only he can comprehend and for others (in the creation) it is incomprehensible.
anyone who says "the knowledge of RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is merely not known, not that it is incomprehensible" dares to equate the intelligence of RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with others in the creation. and that, we know is the ugly habit of a shameless sect called devbandis and a malady called devbanditis.
nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
UPDATE: btw, we also believe that nabiy akram SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam was given the 'knowledge' of sifat and aarifin also have 'marifah' of the sifat by the wasilah of the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.
"Not infinite, however the creation cannot comprehend the boundary of knowledge of Nabi"
The thing I noticed with the poster was the above quoted portion. The allusion to not being able to comprehend. I don't have a problem with that either as the link to incomprehensible is so so and the reference to creation in that phrase should have said other creation as The Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings be upon him and his family is also creation. The only incomprehensible sifats are of Allaah. Hence I think it is better to say the boundaries of the Knowledge of the Prophet SallAllaahu alaihi wa sallam are 'not known' rather than 'non comprehendable'.
Corrections/different opinions welcome
there are a few errors in the poster below
Haadith is translated as "not everlasting" which is incorrect. Haadith means that which came into existence at some point in time and was non-existent prior to that. it is also translated as "accident" in the terminology of philosophy/kalam.
Ghayr-Muheet is better translated as "not all-encompassing" and the additional clause can come after the definition.
the juxtaposition of azali/qadeem is not "makhlooq", even though it is correct by implication. but the correct term that corresponds to azali/qadim is haadith.
azali/qadim means pre-eternal, existing without a beginning.
haadith: was initially non-existent and some point came into existence and thus has a beginning. also, 'accident'.
the juxtaposition of abadi is not "haadith" either. "ja'iz al-fana" is the word in this context.
ghayr mutaghayyar should be mumtaniy al-taghayyur and should be juxtaposed with mumkin al-tabaddul
Is this specific to RasūlAllāh ﷺ, or does it include other Anbiyā’a and Awliyā’a?
Thanks for the advice
I don't read Ala Hazrat's fatwas, you come across things over time from ulema and articles like this. You do realise my problem was with the article not the fatwa, but then the fatwa was the basis of the article
Jazak Allahu khair for the suggestion of other Ulema.
Wise yeah it would be wise in a worldly way, I would have accepted if I could.
I am not aware of anyone else's endorsement or condemnation outside of this thread.
So here Im guessing your'e speaking for yourself? You tend to read fatwas of Ala Hazrat and interpret them to what you think they mean and then pass judgment on the words (i.e rejecting them), based on your own reasoning, which you admit youre nowhere in the capacity (knowledge-wise) to do anyways?
So wouldn't it be wise to accept this statement/fatwa of his at face value without extra discussion, especially when many high calibre Ulema including Ulema from outside the subcontinent, from the Haramain, have endorsed this very book and they have never criticized this statement.
So if the "ibarat are problematic to people" of your level as you say, then just accept that your knowledge is too weak to understand it, rather than deciding to reject the statement and trying to encourage others to do so as well.
And if you happen to find yourself falling into such a dilemma frequently with regards to the works of Ala Hazrat, once again, if it makes you all the more comfortable, there are plenty of other Ulema outside the subcontinent that you can take knowledge from.
Please don't start saying you believe this or that based on this thread.
I don't have disagreement with Ala Hazrat as it stands (see earlier agreement, the zahir of the fatwa might be misleading since he is not obliged to explain his ruling, the ruling can come in plain form and we are not privy to its complexities). Of course he knows things I don't know, is a grand master of fiqh and I am similar level to you. I thought you came to refute me so I obliged my view.
I do know Razvi ulema tend to interpret muhaal kalaam since muhaal is impossible. Thereby they don't do takfir on these issues but the ibarats remain problematic to people of my level. So we might find ourself following what we think Alahazrat's position was. In fact the whole issue is more complicated than that. This whole issue has many traps and you don't need to follow anything from it. Keep in mind and no need to reply. Thanks
So can you support your view with evidence? And if so, mubarak to you for your view. Your not obliged to follow Ala Hazrat. Ill take his view over yours any day. No questions asked. Your the one creating all the fuss. And your examples/explanations don't make much sense.
If a person commits a crime (Barabari) and is given something to hide his crime (ataee) but the cover is insufficient (impossible). He is still guilty. If he is not prosecuted a follower will commit the same crime with less stress, even impunity ("so what if Allah shared All His Knowledge") and thus it is fair seeming to them, doesn't even carry stress yara it's simple. What is the fuss all about
Ataee is less than Barabari or can be less than Barabari or can be Barabari if mind is faulty enough.
If we say it is less than barabari but a person claims Barabari, so we end up with ataee + Barabari, or Barabari + ataee
You are saying the net of this sum is still less than 100% Barabari so it's not kufr level, or that it has a kufri element (Barabari) and a faith aspect (ataee). The matter is confused and not definite either way
My view is the claim of barabari necessitates disbelief even when added with ataee because ataee shirk is most common form of shirk. It is the kitabi shirk and the shirk of some of the mushrikeen. The faith is to uphold the Oneness and herectism such claiming Barabari is disbelief.
This may be a bad example but i hope it gets the point across:
If a person is completely innocent of a crime against another individual, but yet claims he committed the crime, and even the "victim" denies it and there is no evidence against the "suspect" whatsoever. Then, The suspect doesnt need to be prosecuted, although he can be shunned/condemned for lying and wasting everybody's time.
Its no longer "barabari" once the person says ataee. This is why its faulty reasoning. And therefore not definite reason for takfir.
Barabari not level of kufr if claimed to be ataee?
Yes that is the question. The answer to that question is what it really boils down to