When was RasulAllah ﷺ granted nubuwwah?

mawlana sahib is wrong on many counts.

firstly, wajib has many meanings: to be 'proven' 'established' 'decided' 'become necessary' 'imperative' - it does not mean 'nomination'.

laazim ho gayi. saabit huwi. see taj al-arus, 4/333:




it can also be used as fallen, as mentioned in surah al-hajj, s22 v36




=====

in the examples saeed sahib gives, it means that it became imperative. you can stretch it to mean "nomination", but that is not the ONLY meaning. for example, in the hadith:



this is the hadith of bukhari #2112.




in the mas'alah of khiyar -when a sale is made upon option, it is effected. here wajaba means, "completed" "effected".

nafiz ho gayi.

-----
both the examples of hadith he gives, however, are not the proper analogy here. in both the hadith quoted above RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam himself said: "wajabat"

but in the hadith we are discussing, it is the sahabi who asked: 'when was it established?' and RasulALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam replied to that question - that does not mean it was only 'nomination' because there are other hadith in different words and they say: "i was a nabiy" and shaykh abdu'l haqq said "he was a prophet actually, not just nominated in Divine Knowledge".

that brings us to his quoting from ashiyyatu'l lam'aat.

 

back again.

in the first clip mawlana saeed sahib talks about the hadith word 'wajaba' and says:

mata wajabat al-nubuwwah ya RasulAllah
wajabat ka ma'ana kya hai
wajabat ka ma'ana milna nahin hota; ata hona, ye nahin hota wajabat ka ma'ana​

then he gives examples:
---

man zara qabri wajabat lahu shafa'ati
jis ne meri qabr e anwar ki ziyarat ki uske liye meri shafa'at wajib hogayi

wajabat ka ma'ana naamzadgi aata hai milna nahin aata​

---

ek aur hadith sharif sun lijiye
nabiy karim alayhis salam aur sahaba tashrif farma the ek janaza guzra
sahaba kiram ne arz ki 'aaqa ye to bahut acha banda tha' nabi karim alayhi's salam ne jab sahaba ke munh se ta'arif suni to farmaya wajabat; phir ek aur janaza guzra; sahaba ne arz kiya aaqa ye to bahut bura aadmi tha; sarkar ne phir farmaya wajabat. ab saHabah hayran huwe; arz ki 'aqa ham ne ek ki taarif ki to aap ne kaha wajabat. ek ki burayi bayan ki phir farmaya wajabat. kaun si cheez wajib hogayi. to nabiy karim alayhi's salatu wa's salam ne farmaya:

antum shuhada'ullahi fi'l arD

ay mere SaHaba tum zameen par Allah ke gawah ho. jis ki tum ne achayi bayan ki us ke liye jannat wajib hogayi. jiski tum ne burayi bayan ki uske liye jahannam wajib hogayi.

ab kya maTlab wajib hogayi - janaza to hai abhi kandhon par. to kya jannat mil gayi thi ya nomination ho gayi thi? nomination mil gayi thi. jahannum mil gayi thi ya nomination ho gayi thi? nomination.

to wajabat ka ma'ana kya aata hai, nomination, naamzadgi.
aur ye tarjama main nain kar raha

barakat e Rasul fi'l hind; jo hindostan mein sab se baDe sunni hain; hazrat e shaykh e muHaqqiq shah abdul Haqq muhaddith e dihlawi rahmatullahi alayh, woh ye tarjama kar rahe hain.
​

here saeed sahib asks for the book, which is brought to him and he reads from it:

--
ye hai ashiyyatu'l lam'at, miskhat sharif ki sharah. asl mein ye farsi mein hai aur iska tarjama kiya hai mawlana abdul hakim sharaf qadri ne aur mufti muhammad sab khan qadri ne.

to yahaN saaf likhte hain, kaun se waqt meiN aap SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam ki nubuwwat ke liye naamzadgi huwi? to hadith sharif ka maTlab kya hai? ke sarkar ki nomination us waqat ho gayi thi.​

[facebook video player counts remaining time, so this ends around -29.48]

 

reading the brilliant treatise by Ala Hazrat - Tajalli alYaqeen be-anna Nabiyyina Sayyedi alMursaleen, will be really beneficial for those in doubt.

it is available here:
http://s595909773.online-home.ca/KB/Tajlil Yaqeen Ban Nabeena Syed-ul-Morsaleen/WQ.pdf

 

Like I say brother put all this into the pdf.
Brother Agent-X I know you are probably a very busy person. So when you get time will you please respond. Jzk

 

I quoted molana sahab's letter above, there are a couple of letters to him from mufti muhammed nazir siyalvi sahab in his book al tasrihaat ba jawab nazariyyah wa tahqiqat, and molana saeed asad sahab's reply letters. let us see if molana sahab denies this.

 

I will do . Inshallah.
If brothers can refrain from spreading lies that would be beneficial. Unless they have proof. Is that too much to ask?

 

facilitat- that is all we want from you. Request molana saeed asad sahab to respond to sidi abu Hasan's questions/objections (which i will give you in pdf) either in writing or video.

 

Brother if you have any proof of any challenges please share. if Allama Saeed Asad has refused a challenge then I would be very interested to know this.

 

Brother Noori
Firstly I am not a representative of Allama Saeed Asad. I know his students so was hoping to facilitate a response for the sake of healthy discussion. That's all. I have no dodgy agenda in this.
I am fully aware that Syed Irfan Shah Sahib went to debate Allama Ashraf Sialvi with Mufti Jameel Siddiqui.
I am very disappointed with Brother Agent-X. He has tried to give the impression that Allama Saeed Asad hid from a debate(considering this thread is about Allama Saeed Asad) knowing full well that the video he sent was a debate set up with Allama Ashraf Sialvi Sahib. I thought of Agent-X as a senior brother who wouldn't be so dishonest. I hope brothers Agent-X can explain why he did this as he knows soo much more than others.
I have only joined this forum this week. I have followed this forum for years. I see the brothers on this forum as my own imams. I hold most of them with a lot of respect.

 

Issac, i am combinig sidi abu Hasan's posts into a pdf, therefore i will remove my urdu translations to clean up the thread. I will remove them after a couple of hours; so, you can make a copy if you wish, however it is only translations that will be removed, sidi abu Hasan's posts will remain there.

 

against allamah ashraf siyalvi sahab, but molana saeed asad is propagating his teacher's mistaken views. besides, he has been challenged before but he refused. Also, as i quoted above, he complained that nobody bothered to reply to his questions that he asked in his phamplet, while the truth is that ulama have replied to those questions - buy and see al tasrihaat and send a copy to molana sahab too. I already have requested to you to provide us those phamplets, sidi abu hasan will inshaAllah reply.

Also, when molana sahab can take time to write up his stance and ask questions, then why he should not read and respond in writing to the questions of others?

 

حضور نبى الانبياء هيں، اور تمام انبیاء حضور کے امتی

Huzur is the prophet of All prophets, and all prohets are his ummati (bahar e shariat)

Molana saeed asad says that to be a nabi there has to be his followers (ummah), and that before the first revelation rasulAllah alaihi afDalus salaat wat-tasleem was a wali, but this leads to a couple of questions;

1- can a wali be the leader of all the prophets
2- how an ummat can come, live and pass away before their prophet is sent, how that person whether a prophet or not can be ummati of a nabi who has not born yet nor given nubuwwah? Note that this is molana sahab's position that for a nabi there has to be his ummah.

 

namaaz e Aqsaa me tha yahi sirr, keh ayaaN ho ma'ani e awwal o aakhir,
keh dast basta haiN peechhe haazir, sultanath jo aage kar gaye they!

Ala Hazrat, in Qaseedah e Mairaj.

the secret in the Prayer offered at Aqsa, was to reveal the meaning of the "first" and the "last",
for hand folded in obedience stand behind him, all those who had reigned in the past.

Ala Hazrat explains the meanings of Awwal and Aakhir - that Hazrat Mohammed is the first, and the last prophet. The first to receive the prophet-hood, standing in the first position in Aqsa (Imam). The last to come to the earth, the last to reach Aqsa, whilst all others awaited to receive him there.

Allah's blessings and peace be upon all the prophets.

 

since saeed asad mentioned Bahaar e Shariyat, these excerpts are from the same book, to refresh his memory:-

1. We do recognize that Huzoor is the last of the Prophets; there can be no new Nabi coming after him: but it does not mean that he was the last to receive the station of Prophet-hood; it only means that the coming of new prophets, came to an end.

"Huzoor Khatam anNabiyyeen haiN; yaani Allah azz wa Jalla ne silsilahe nubuwwat Huzoor par khatam kar diya..."
Hazrat Mohammed is the Last of Of The Prophets; i.e. Allah the Supreme ended the chain of advent of prophets upon him. (note it does not say that he was the last to receive prophet-hood)





2. A nail in the coffin for saeed asad's arguments:

"sab se pehle martabahe nubuwwat, huzoor ko mila"
Hazrat Mohammed was the FIRST to be granted the station of Prophet-hood. (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him)

"rozey misaaq tamaam anbiyaa se huzoor par eemaan laane aur huzoor ki nusrat karne ka ahad liya gaya, aur isi shart par yeh mansab e aazam (nubuwwat ka mansab), un ko diya gaya"
On the day of the covenant, all the prophets were made to agree that they will believe in Hazrat Mohammed, and aide him - in fact they were given the great rank of prophet-hood upon this very condition." (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him).





May Allah ta'ala guide Saeed Asad: he also needs to repent on the foul words he used when explaining the issue of Syeduna Eisa (alayhe asSalaam).

 

Or perhaps weak / incorrect position v Majority / correct position?

 

I concur a written dialogue or debate is better.

 

Hardly worth it its simply a case of weaker position and much stronger / majority position besides you got this as well:


"I received your challenge, according to the advice of my father i try to avoid doing debates with our own people (i.e. ahlussunah)"

if they wanted it was there

 

Just a side note, I personally hold Shaykh Abu Hasan in great respect for all the great work you do online.

 

there was a time when few people had access to books and people would make claims in private that would not be easy for the public to verify.

for example, a scholar could make a claim that such and such a passage was present in the book and the common folk would neither have access to books nor could they verify this. a munazarah would bring people and contesting parties together so that claims and counter-claims could be verified.

there were some side benefits too, such as impressions. the person who spoke confidently and answered swiftly was deemed superior and the person who stumbled or struggled for an answer would be the inferior party. it was also an exercise in perception management if done well. so a munazir had to think on his feet, and be ready with answers. munazirs had to be erudite and with sharp memories. a munazir meant a big scholar who could quickly recall proofs for his position and had an immediate riposte for any objection. in the past, there were big scholars who were specialists in munazarah. we have heard allamah saeed sahib is also a munazir.

the pitfalls of such a format are, that unprepared and entry-level scholars or students like myself can quickly be overwhelmed. experienced munazirs can identify the achilles heel of such a person and barrage them with questions practically ending the debate. for a person like me, who is slow and who generally takes time to think, with an OCD-like of habit of cross-checking, it is non-starter. i may have a dozen references in mind, but i would still like to look up to make sure that my mind is not playing tricks.

fa in kunta la tadri fa tilka muSibatun
wa in kunta tadri fa'l muSibatu a'aZamu

another thing that i know i will not be able to compete is when people say something and disown. sometimes, we mishear; sometimes it is unclear. if it is a written debate, it won't go into loops. one can focus and there won't be such validation problems.

---
yes for big mouths like tahir jhangvi who make tall claims, a face-to-face munazarah would show that he is just an actor with rehearsed lines - because shallow learning is laid bare when tackled live.

in our times, this format is not needed. first of all people don't gather for a munazarah - and if you wish for them to see the proofs, it is easy to share. secondly, it is good to research and then answer. because eventually, it is not my skill vs. another person's; it is the truth that we seek. if proofs are written and easily accessed by the common public, the problem is solved. besides, people are not in a hurry to get done, they can take time to think about the proofs, get clarifications if they don't understand a certain thing, concept or term.

it all now boils down to presenting proofs and making sound arguments.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

but what is the point?
when mawlana saeed asad sahib does not listen to explicit statements of shah abdu'l haq muhaddith dihlawi and the likes of qaSTallani and subki, what hope do ordinary mortals like us have? if mawlana saeed sahib is not distorting/misquoting it, he probably may not know. what other explanations do you have?

and what is there to discuss? there are these citations that we are presenting - mawlana saeed sahib has to simply explain what these mean. he cannot create his own explanations - we have already seen that he can be inaccurate.

---

that won't happen in the near future, illa ma sha'Allah. and what is there to discuss? we will analyse his talk and post our objections. he can respond by releasing a video, or ignore it and say that he cannot answer anonymous queries.

wa billahi't tawfiq.