When was RasulAllah ﷺ granted nubuwwah?

This hadith is also reported by Imam Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi(d. 327) in his tafsir with a sahih sanad and the chain is different to the one above. Imam Ibn abi Hatim; who is a prominent rijaal scholar, says in his own tafsir as well as ibn taymiyyah in his fatawa, al-suyuti in al-la'aali al-masnuaa that ibn abi hatim aimed to only bring sahih reports in his tafsir.

 

one of the key points imam subki makes is the hadith: "i was sent forth for ALL people" which includes previous anbiya and their followers.

with apologies to mawlana saeed sahib who may not accept this line as hujjah, but i cannot resist it:

un ki nubuwwat un ki ubuwwat hai sab ko aam

===
here is the farsi of shaykh abdu'l Haq in ashiyyatu'l lam'at: vol.4 p499-500

 

imam subki's risalah (extracted from fatawa imam subki)

 

thereafter,

the fundamental premise of mawlana sayeed sahib is itself false. notice in the beginning of the clip, he cites the objection:

aap ne khatam al-nabiyyin ka ma'ana ye bayan kiya hai ke khatam al-nabiyyin woh hota hai jis ko sab se aakhir mein nubuwwat milay. udhar aap kahtey ho ke nabiy kareem alayhi's salam sab se pahle nabiy hain; idhar kahtey ho khatam al-nabiyyin woh hota hai jis ko sab se aakhir mein nubuwwat milay.​

---
this is self contradiction. if you go by this definition, what will you make of the hadith that it was already written for RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam that he was the khatam al-nabiyyin and adam alayhi's salam was still not created.

so it was already given at that time.




-----
biy'thah is to be sent forth, and this is what is explained in another hadith.

in tafsir ibn kathir: "i was the first to be created and the last to be sent forth"
one of the narrators in this hadith is weak as noted by ibn kathir. but it explains the two different claims. a taTbiq from a dayif hadith is preferable to that of mawlana saeed's taTbeeq.



----
wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam.

 

now there are other narrations that say: 'kutibta' but mawlana saeed sahib will only say, it is 'nomination'.

but surely what does this aayah mean - who is nominated and who is prophet at this time?

surah ahzab, 33 v7:




who was prophet then? why are they described as prophets?

 

the same hadith in haythami's majma'a al-zawayid, and he says it is SaHiH:





there is ANOTHER hadith which explains the aayah.




=====

 

while mawlana sahib insisted on the wajabat part, can he also please explain other wordings such as 'juyilta' as in musnad imam ahmad:

when were you 'made' a prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

 

mawlana saeed sahib is ignoring other wordings and explanations of this hadith. and trying to escape by simply criticising a poetic verse by saying 'poetry is not proof'. agreed, but there are hadith and opinions of hadith ulama far greater than ashraf siyalvi sahib.


ali al-qari in mirqat v10 p.439:




======================

 

mawlana saeed sahib should explain what to make of the qur'anic aayat i have cited below and make taTbeeq with his speech i just heard. (posted by aqdas below).

----
so according to mawlana saeed sahib's logic, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not leader of men TODAY, because in the hadith it is said:

[miskhat #5741]

 

the same shaykh abdu'l Haq muHaddith dihlawi, who was quoted by mawlana sahib says in madarij, vol.1, first page:




==========================

 

so when Allah ta'ala took the meethaq - were they prophets or not?

and if they were prophets - then wasn't prophethood 'wajib' for them?
and if not, then ALlah ta'ala called them 'prophets'






---
mawlana sahib should explain who are these 'prophets' and when was this said? did they have followers?
and if it was just a matter of 'nomination' - weren't other prophets nominated? so where is the ikhtisas?

---
imam subki has written a risalah on this topic: 'al taZim wa'l minnah'

---