The Sunni Creed regarding the Knowledge of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Umar99, Mar 6, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as you can see from gangohi's fatwa, if there is a scope for ta'wil, then one can withhold from takfir. even though, alahazrat's own fatwa implies that if a person attributes knowledge of unseen (to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) without being granted, such a person will be ruled kafir. [it implies from the clause: takfir cannot be done so long as he believes that such knowledge was bestowed]

    in alahazrat's fatwa, he withheld from takfir as there is certainly room for ta'wil.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    just to end this one here.

    gangohi's fatwa attributes a flaw to Allah ta'ala and considers such a person to be a muslim who says that Allah ta'ala has in fact, lied. furthermore, gangohi affirms that: "wuqu' e kazib ke ma'ani durust" it is thus validated that falsehood has indeed transpired in the speech of Allah. thereby questions the very truth of the qur'an. (if he HAS lied, how can you trust the qur'an?)

    contrast this with:
    alahazrat's fatwa withholds from making takfir of a person who made a mistaken claim that Allah ta'ala gave all knowledge to His beloved (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) such that it is the same (musaawaat) as His Knowledge.

    but alahazrat clearly unequivocally refutes that claim and says: this is absolutely rejected and withheld from takfir so long as the person believes it to be granted. furthermore, he clarifies that the knowledge of the entire creation including all the prophets, in comparison to Divine Knowledge is like a billionth part of a drop of water compared to a billion oceans.


    FR v14p377.png


    ===
    there is no comparison to gangohi's fatwa. in fact, on the same issue, gangohi claims that even if one claims knowledge without being bestowed, EVEN then you cannot do takfir! see fatawa rashidiyah (new edition, p.241)

    FwRash, p241.png


    ===
    in alahazrat's fatwa, the person who made the claim in the first place did not claim that nabi sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was equal to Allah; he claimed that the knowledge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was equal to Divine Knowledge (al-iyadhu billah). alahazrat withheld from takfir ONLY IF he believed it by the bestowing of Allah ta'ala.

    TO's statement generalises this very specific misunderstood issue to equality with Allah - which is no doubt shirk/polytheism. and attributes this generalised statement to alahazrat.

    alahazrat did not make takfir if a person believes barabari/equality is bestowed

    alahazrat did not make takfir of a person who believed that knowledge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was equal to Knowledge of Allah, provided he also believed it to be bestowed.

    ---
    Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
    Ghulam Ali and Aqdas like this.
  3. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    I agree, It doesn't make it proven. Seeing the similarities is subjective to one's opinions. The claim has its similarities that I picked up on (this is my opinion) but it will also have its differences. I understand and agree to that. I will personally retract from that if and when I can
     
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    just what I have been saying, wordplay has been going on since the start.

    This is a cat and mouse game - one moment he comes out all certain about everything and has read and understood everything (even listened to pir irfan shah sahib, think of that!) and another moment he is this poor confused person who is trying to make sense of an apparently contradictory position which is absolute shirk and yet not takfir-able and is still being fed by some nameless sunni facebookers to God knows whom.

    And then any reference to devband is described as 'not mine but yes, could be and would be and why not and I think but dare not say and will still call it plausible in the next post' and swing from one branch to next and do a backflip all in plain sight and yet claim that I am not aware of my own games.

    I envy these guys who have endless hours to waste and here we are struggling for time to do constructive work.
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    just by making a claim doesn't make it validated truth.
     
  6. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    Although it's not a trap from me, there is a similarity with the gangohi issue and merely by restricting the issue to knowledge it does not change the similarity.
     
  7. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    I am not knowingly setting any kind of trap and certainly do not have any allegiance to deoband.
    With regards to limiting the position to knowledge. You can do that if you know that to be true. I don't even know if that is true or should be done.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    this is unfair and gross distortion of alahazrat's position. this is but one example, that arouses suspicion about you being a trojan horse.

    alahazrat did not make takfir of a person if he said about the knowledge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam that it was equal to knowledge of Allah, provided he believed that it was bestowed/atayi. this is not the same as:

    alahazrat did not make takfir if a person believes barabari/equality is bestowed

    and when it coupled with the previous statement: "the definition of shirk is equality (barabari)"

    the line gets distorted to a point, where one can juxtapose: how can gangohi be ruled kafir for not doing takfir of a person who said that Allah ta'ala had, in fact, lied. (al iyadhu billah).

    it appears as if you are setting a trap. wAllahu a'alam.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  9. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    You think this is an utterly idiotic argument based on TO's reading

    let us go back to the original objection.

    if i have understood well, the issue is:

    Alahazrat has not made takfir on the one who believes in barabari if its believed to be attaee (bestowed).​

    because:

    the definition of shirk is equality (barabari)​

    ==
    putting 2+1 together we get five or three? We need to get our definitions right. You would like to understand my question well and therefore i am restating it below.

    1. Definition of shirk is equality (barabari).

    2. alahazrat did not make takfir if a person believes barabari/equality is bestowed

    3. the question is: how can you justify alahazrat's position?​

    ---
    This is correct
     
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    go ahead and make it. we must first define the problem well.
     
  11. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    Rather then make small adjustments let's go with that. Go ahead please


    My original question is 2nd post, reasoning is in subsequent posts, any other question I am here
     
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    this is a strawman. we will get to this later, but i have just parked it for now.
     
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i think this is an utterly idiotic argument based on TO's reading, which is not unlike zameel's reading of kanz debunked recently. at this point i don't know if he is a sunni or pretending to be one - but let us not get into that.

    let us go back to the original objection.
    if i have understood well, your problem is:

    Alahazrat has not made takfir on the one who believes in barabari if its believed to be attaee (bestowed).​

    because according to peer irfan shah sahib:

    described the definition of shirk as equality (barabari)​

    ==
    putting 2+1 together we get five? no? if not, then we need to get our definitions right. i would like to understand your problem well and therefore i am restating it below. feel free to make corrections if i have not understood your argument properly.

    1. according to peer irfan shah sahib, by definition, shirk is equality (barabari).

    2. alahazrat did not make takfir if a person believes barabari/equality, albeit ataaee/bestowed

    3. the question is: how can you justify alahazrat's position?​

    ---
    is that correct?
     
  14. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    I'll omit all unnecessary and useless conversation. I am only interested in the doctrine side of things.

    I have understood from dawlataul Makkiyah what you have and it appears we are making progress in understanding the position.
    This is true in a sense but wrong for use here. Shirk is an ascription not a reality. So just because the' nature' of the two are different doesn't mean association by people can not take place. Shirk takes place by ascription. SO an ata'i which is suggestive of Ilm mutlaq of Allah is shirk. It is the claim and belief that are shirk, and in reality it is impossible for there to be likeness or equality.
    It is not possible but the claim of equal ata'i infinite or not is shirk because the equal ascription within the claim. It does not mean the person who claims equal ata'i is shirk has accepted equal ata'i is present in both.

    For example a (taghut) man claims to be god, those who call him mushrik and have not made Allah as a person. The shirk is purely in his claim/belief, not in those who say it is shirk
     
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    All the "doubts" raised by your imaginations and conspiracy theories have been answered in Dalwah Al Makkiyah shareef. If you can't read Urdu and Arabic - Ihsanica Media has released an English translation which you can get hold of. I have not read the translation myself so can't vouch for the quality or other things but I have read one of their other translated works and it is commendable.

    Your post about TKM quotes - it is a jumble without clear markers where the quotes start/end and where your comments/conclusions begin. I can't pursue it.

    I do not have the time to chase all the rest of the red herrings nor correct the verbal tricks nor address the accusations that you have wasted your time at.

    You say you are not confused and know what you are speaking of and are certain about it - well congratulations. Suit yourself.

    ---

    For the rest who might be wondering what is Alahazrat's stance in Dawlah shareef:

    No idea who is feeding what to whom and where- my stand is the same as Alahazrat's - as expounded in overwhelming detail in his Dawlah al Makkiyah. If those people are sunnis - they must be advised to stick to Alahazrat and other trusted sunnis scholars.

    In Dawlah shareef, Alahazrat has stated very clearly that those who engage in these discussions about how the knowledge of the Prophet (peace be upon him) becomes equal to the knowledge of Allah ta'ala - and by this his meant the wahabis and devbandis - are accursed. It's a devilish pre-occupation that fools concern themselves with.

    The statement that Allah has granted that all-encompassing knowledge to the Prophet (peace be upon him) is invalid - and it betrays a serious lack of understanding on the part of the one who claims it. Because it is rationally as well as in light of Qura'an and Hadith - impossible. In fact, it is such a conflicting claim that it can be called nonsensical - which claim? That his (peace be upon him) knowledge is at once "ata'ee" as well as equal to the knowledge of Allah ta'ala.

    This is so because "ata'ee" precludes the "equality" by definition. Something cannot be finite and infinite at once.
    At the same time - the nature of the 'ilm of Allah ta'ala and that of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is radically and fundamentally different. As Alahazrat puts it aptly and beautifully (which is his wont) the only similarity between the two, are the letters "'ayn" "laam" and "meem" - i.e. - the limitation of language and human experience causes us to use the same nomenclature.​

    End of my short summary of a brief section from Dawlah Shareef. All sunnis should read this invaluable work and internalise it's contents into their psyche and heart - it will make better sunnis of them and it will learn them the Awe and Majesty of Allah ta'ala all the greater. in sha Allah ta'ala.

    -----

    Now, the flip side of this inequation is that if someone claims that the invalid claim of 'ataee+infinite' is absolute and uncontested shirk then they are unwittingly attributing 'ataee 'ilm to Allah ta'ala - which is , as Alahazrat says, Shirk Akbar and manifest and clear Kufr. Because, it is the attribution of created knowledge - even if tacked with the claim of infinity - to Allah ta'ala. We seek Allah's refuge.

    Can infinite created knowledge be attributed to Allah ta'ala? Answer is, absolutely not.
    Can it be attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Answer is, absolutely not. Because, it is a self-contradiction and a rational impossibility. But yet, on account of it's nature being "makhlooq" - it saves the claimant from being ruled a kafir.

    The conspiratorial claims of "protecting some sufis", "similar to Hazrat Harun (peace be upon him)" etc. are fantastic to say the least. The inventions of an idle (and probably a diseased or confused or both) mind.

    This is my understanding of Alahazrat's fatawa and Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
  16. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    The quote from Shifa Sharif does aide my case because it is kufr to hold another creations knowledge as greater then the adheem knowledge of The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them)
    Thus with sound reasoning it is absolutely kufr to equate to the knowledge of Allah.
    Sunnis are being confused into saying so what if Allah shared ALL his knowledge or otherwise challenging the impossibleness of what we are discussing.

    When the context is Tawheed what do you mean by context and that this is not anybodies ilm? Nobodies Ilm is comparable. It still seems like you are clinging onto the idea and that you are trying to possibly establish this equating with Allah's Knowledge as valid. I am not accusing you, you have a chance to say what you meant. The comment certainly does leave an impression that you are open to this type of shirk.


    Also please tell me what rabble rousing is. This is a major point of Aqeedah where the waters should not be muddied by anyone so I'd like to know what you mean by rabble rousing. I can't see my effort as rabble rousing, what who I'm I rabble rousing against? My effort in challenging this is validated by the subject
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
  17. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    If your post was typed to be deceitful or just to gain an insight into me and it was typed in a hurry why blame me? It is excused no worries but you might have given others a wrong impression too. You didn't have to do a pretext post since I had already mentioned the points (which you could refute) earlier.

    I am not any of those things you speculated on. I consider myself sunni (aswj) but not confused, not on this matter anyway. I am looking into it and that naturally carries a certain amount of unknown as to what people might say.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
  18. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    This is the full notes I have taken from TKM

    The general basis for apostasy is stated by Alahazrat thus:
    Jurists [fuqahā] have ruled that one who rejects an absolute precept [qaţýī] is a kāfir; but theologians [mutakallimūn]
    specified that it is kufr only when an Essential [đarūrī] is rejected, and this [latter] is the safest position.60

    contrast this with Alahazrat’s lucid and
    unequivocal explanation:
    Yes, the claim of even a speck of knowledge for anyone without being given by Allāh táālā is CERTAINLY kufr.
    Page 71 - I do regard this as the reason for the mention of ata'ee word in the fatwa. Since any amount of non ata'ee is kufr. This point that the Attaee mentioned in the fatwa is not the possibility of ata'ee barabari is my biggest motivator to challenge what is being fed to the people.

    Some of them went to Sayyid Aĥmed Barzanji in Madīnah and told him that Alahazrat deemed
    the knowledge of RasūlAllāh  to be equal to that of Allāh, except for the difference of ĥādith and
    qadīm;
    337 which Alahazrat refuted in Ĥāsim al-Muftarī.
    Page 71 - Ĥāsim al-Muftariyy álā Sayyid al-Bariyy

    To believe that Allāh táālā is physically present everywhere is not an Islamic belief; page 72

    1a Ílm al-Muţlaq al-Tafşīlī Absolute Knowledge: Comprehensive, Total All-encompassing, entire, perfect, infinite, conclusive, precise, factual and unlimited which includes everything completely, and every detail recursively. This belongs only to Allāh; it is impossible for anyone in the creation to encompass the knowledge of Allāh; rather the comparison of the knowledge of everything and everyone in the creation to the knowledge of Allāh is like that of a millionth of a drop of water to that of million oceans, but even lesser – because millions of oceans are finite and the knowledge of Allāh táālā is infinite
    Page 97 with ref to Alahazrat’s Categorisation of Knowledge in Dawlatu’l Makkiyah

    Keller alledges: as the grave innovation of confusing the extent of the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) with Allah's.
    Page 100 (false allegation but relevant point of interest here)

    It is kufr to claim that anybody has more knowledge than RasūlAllāh , let alone the accursed Devil as Khafājī has said in his commentary of Shifā: {Know may Allāh táālā give guidance to us and you} to recognise the right of the Prophet  and the obligations to fulfil it {everything that is insulting to the Prophet} that is, disrespecting him {or faulted him} which is even more generic than insult; so if anyone says: “such a person is more knowledgeable than him ,” verily, he has faulted him and denigrated him – even if he has not insulted him {or adduced a flaw in his person} that is in his physical appearance or in his character... 467
    The citation ends with the ruling concerning such a person that, regardless of its proportion, it is apostasy and the person is judged under the rule of blasphemy – punishable by death.
    Page 101

    This much is evident from Keller’s own translation. 469 By introducing “incomparably vaster,” Keller alters the meaning, which implies that Khalīl was talking about knowledge far more than that of creation, and suggestive of ílm muţlaq of the Almighty, which is undoubtedly shirk.
    Page 102 Abu Hasan explaining Keller’s altering of the words and consequence of suggestive ilm mutlaq of the Almighty for creation.

    and such an unreliable person summarily dismisses Alahazrat’s fatwā.
    Page 112 point worthy of discussion

    We prefer the opinion of Kalām scholars in these matters. And thus, do not do takfīr of a person as long as he does not deny or reject any necessary aspect of religion; nor considers such a denier to be a Muslim.
    Page 115 Imam A R Khan on takfir

    show us any fatwā or opinion on ílm al-ghayb of Alahazrat which is not compatible with the book of Shaykh Muĥammad al-Kittānī? 543
    Page 127 - the fatwa may be compatible if Imam Kittani believes the fatwa of Sh alYusi and the claim of the sufis is one and the same. Is not compatible if Imam Kittani considers knowledge equal to Allah as disbelief.

    He further says that according to the second school, such as professed by Shaykh Abū Álī Ĥasan al-Yūsī: “Encompassing knowledge of everything is only for Allāh táālā and if one holds a belief that such knowledge is equal to that of Allāh táālā, then he is a kāfir...” Shaykh Kittānī then mentions a few examples and says:
    And these are a number of prominent awliyā’a who have informed about themselves that they know what has happened and what shall happen [mā kāna wa mā yakūn] – [and this was] taught by Allāh táālā. Is any of us bold enough to call them something, 545 let alone make takfīr of them?
    Page 128 - did any of these awliya actually claim equality with Allah or become liable to the fatwa of Shaykh Al Yusi by what they claimed? Did imam Kittani think this claim was a claim of Encompassing knowledge of everything and equality with Allah? A number of questions remain on this part of the book.

    Thereafter, the aforementioned Aĥmed Riđā Khān informed me that he had written an epistle in which he claims that RasūlAllāh  was given encompassing knowledge of everything including The Five, and it does not preclude except the knowledge of the Person of Allāh táālā and His Attributes and that there is no difference between the knowledge of the Creator – Glorious is He and Exalted – and the knowledge of the Prophet  ... 580
    Page 142 - Imam Barzanji introduction on Alahazrat position. See also Alahazrat’s Inbā’a al-Ĥayy anna Kalāmahu’l Maşūn Tibyānun li Kulli Shayy and Ĥāsim al-Muftariyy álā Sayyid al-Bariyy

    Similarly [among explicit kufr are beliefs of] the Qarāmitians, 693 Bāţinīs 694 and Ţayyāriyyah695 sect of Rāfiđīs, who believe in immanence and metempsychosis. 696
    And
    and those who claim conference with Allāh táālā or going to him or ascension and conversation with him; 698 or immanence of Allāh in some persons like the claims of false Sufis, Baţinīs, Christians, Qarāmiţians are all kufr [and those who profess these beliefs are kāfir] without any doubt.
    Page 192 - Qadi Iyaad, what is immanence referring to?

    Similarly, that which is absolute kufr is [belief] that the universe is pre-eternal and shall exist without an end; or has a doubt [that it is neither eternal nor everlasting] following the madh’hab of philosophers and atheists; or believes in transmigration of souls infinitely in certain persons; or that only souls are punished according to their purity or impurity. All those who believe such are absolutely kāfir.
    Page 192 - translation seems to suggest both beliefs are kufr (pre eternal, everlasting or not eternal, everlasting)

    like the claims of philosophers and extremist sufis; also, those who claim that they receive revelation – even if he does not claim to be a prophet or that he rises in the heavens and enters paradise and eats from its fruits and embraces Houris – every one of them is a kāfir and has belied the Prophet , because he  has informed us that he  is “the final prophet and there is no prophet after him”.
    Page 194 - Qadi Iyaad

    Scholars differed concerning the kufr of a person who believes that a Friend of Allāh can travel long distances in a very short span of time. 730
    Page 196, Imām Zaynuddīn, footnote mentions aeroplane travel as example that it's not kufr

    If a person claims Knowledge of Unseen, 739 he becomes a kāfir; so also, if he/she says: “I don’t know Allāh táālā”. 740
    Footnote: 739 That is, absolute knowledge of unseen as mentioned by Imām Nawawī in his Fatāwā.
    Page 197, Imām Zaynuddīn ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Nujaym al-Ĥanafī [d.970 AH]

    Similarity of the gangohi issue which runs throughout the book. That he was not ruled kaffir for his speculation but his inability to make takfir on the claim of wuquu (occurrence) of falsehood in the speech of Allah was the reason for the kufr, rather he interpreted the statement and let the guy off.



    I will look into Daulat Al Makkiyah
     
  19. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    It shouldn't be seen as rabble rousing because the question has obvious merit to be asked and is a perfectly valid question. Its necessary because if one has doubts about a position it can create stress and nifaaq.
    How is it any different to asking about any other matter. Just because it is a ridawi position do we not enquire about it? Is it an act of war to voice an enquiry about it?

    Its been released as part of a creedal statement so please provide its details in full to us without any mocking. Peer Irfan Shah was quoted recently stating that releasing fatwa of the scholars without explanation just creates arguments and fitnah. At least he recognises our right to know details.
     
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    the final word from dawlah-al-makkiayh shareef (leaving for someone to translate), not be gainsaid and a fitting reply to all rabble rousers:

    barabari-is-not-barabai.PNG
     

Share This Page