When was RasulAllah ﷺ granted nubuwwah?

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Abdushakoor, Feb 26, 2023.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Isaac Amini

    Isaac Amini Active Member

    I will wait. That would be good brother Noori. Thank you for your help in this
  2. Arshad ul Qadri

    Arshad ul Qadri New Member

    Just one thing, the major difference is that the Quran descended on the Holy heart, but all other books descended in book form.

    So the interpretation of saeed is logic that it is meant in what will occur later on when Sayyiduna Eisa spoke of it.
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    it is not simple because face to face talks hardly reach to a conclusion when both parties try to defend their position, and many a times debates turn into a shouting match or reach a deadlock when both parties claim that the other party should answer their question first. in written debates this usually does not happen. If individual posts are a bit cumbersome for him to respond, then i can merge all the posts (urdu translations) in one pdf and give it an order by removing duplicate arguments etc, but you'll have to wait, i am busy with a lot of things.
  4. Isaac Amini

    Isaac Amini Active Member

    I can provide mobile number if needed
  5. The simplest solution would be for Abu Hasan and Allama Saeed As'ad sahib to either sit down face to face or for them to have a conversation over the telephone or Skype.
    Isaac Amini likes this.
  6. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    I listened to the clip; maulana sahab is linking it to 2 things:-

    1. Firstly to the Faraidh that Allah ta'ala has enjoined upon Eisa (alayhe asSalaam) - saying that if these Faraidh were not being carried out by Syeduna Eisa whilst in the cradle - then his statement that he was given the book and being made a Nabee are also referring to the future. This argument is not acceptable; for as a general rule we say that the Salaat is fardh upon Muslims & then we put a condition that it is Fardh only when the Muslim has reached a certain age; many other examples can be cited; these compliance with the Faraidh cannot be linked to having the Book or Nubuwwah. Can maulana sahab give an example of Syedna Yayha (alayhe asSalaam) performing any of the Faraidh whilst in childhood? (The Holy Qur'an explicitly says he was granted Nubuwwah whilst he was a child).

    2. Secondly he links it to the words that emanated from the blessed tree at Mount Sinai (see surah Toor verse 11 onward): this too is unacceptable for the big difference here is that those are the words of Allah, revealed to Syedna Moosa (aalyhe asSalaam), with the tree as a medium - it is Allah's speech, referring to Himself. Whereas the words spoken by Eisa (alayhe assalaam) are his own words (see the word "Qala"). No one ever claims that the words were uttered by the tree (astaghferu-Allah alAzeem), nor can anyone claim - by just pondering on the words - that it was Allah's speech, on the tongue of Eisa (alayhe asSalaam)

    and Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  7. Isaac Amini

    Isaac Amini Active Member

    This is why a respectful debate/discussion would be best face to face. It would save insinuations that someone is trying to pull the wool over someone else. I think it very unlikely Allama Saeed Asad would have this intention.
    The scholars who have these intentions are usually the ones who don't allow anyone to question what they have said. We have them amongst the Ahlus Sunnah. when somebody questions what they say they attack them verbally/physically.
    Saeed Asad sahib offers an open invitation to discuss. A very rare thing in scholars today.
    I will ask one of their students for copies of them pamphlets
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  8. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Allamah sa'eed as'ad sahab claims that his view is in agreement with shaykh abdu'l haq muhadith dehlavi rahimahullah,

    tu wajabat ka ma'na kia aata hay? nomination, namzadgi, awr yeh tarjamah main nahi kar raha, barkat e rasul fi'l hind, jo hindustan main sab say baray sunni hain hazrat e shaykh e muhaqiq shah abdu'l haq muhadith dehlavi woh yeh tarjamah kar rahay hain

    but hazrat shaykh abdu'l haq says in very categorical words that rasulAllah alaihi afDalus salat wat-tasleem was given nubuwwah in effect. it is strange that molana sahab ignores explicit statements and uses those which can easily be interpreted and explained. molana sahab should explain following explicit quote such that his view complies with it.

    madarijfarsi v2p3.jpg

    madarij,urdu, v2p14.jpg

    is it not very sad that molana sahab has ignored explicit statements and trying to attribute an aqidah which shaykh does not hold, and have clearly stated his aqidah.

    is there any need to explain shaykh's quote which molana sahab is using to prove his view?
    Unbeknown and Ghulam Ali like this.
  9. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Isaac is it possible for you to upload or provide a link to molana saeed as'ad sahab's pamphlets (i) Allah kay mahboob pehlay nabi yaa akhiri (ii) masalah e nubuwwat awr khatm e nubuwwat par maira mawqaf ?

    I have a book in my library al-tasrihaat bajawab nazariyyah wa tahqiqaat, I haven't read it yet, was skimming through it and saw that second part talks about these two pamphlets by molana saeed asa'ad sahab. in this book there is a letter to molana abdu'l majid saeedi sahab, molana sahab writes to him;

    I received your challenge, according to the advice of my father i try to avoid doing debates with our own people (i.e. ahlussunah), therefore you enjoy debates and writings with someone else.

    I raised some questions (in a pamphlet) with a pseudo name bandah-e-khuda, it is sad that nobody read it carefully, nor anybody sent answers to these questions acting upon the hadith that deen is advice.

    my view on the issue of nubuwwah and khatmu'n nubuwwah has reached you, had you tried to read again the books mentioned in it then you would not have felt any need to call for a munzairah (challenge). if you require more explanation then read fatawa razawiyyah vol 3-, page 138.

    I don't have scanner, otherwise i would scan some relevant pages and attach here.
    Unbeknown and Ghulam Ali like this.
  10. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ ۖ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ

    And remember when Eisa the son of Maryam said, “O Descendants of Israel! Indeed I am Allah’s Noble Messenger towards you, confirming the Book Torah which was before me, and heralding glad tidings of the Noble Messenger who will come after me – his name is Ahmed (the Praised One)”; so when Ahmed came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is an obvious magic.”

    The above translation is from Kanz ul Imaan - "Un Ka Naam Ahmed Hai" - his name IS Ahmed. (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him)

    This is being proclaimed by Syeduna Eisa (alayhe asSalaam) - that Ahmad is a Noble Messenger (Rasool), not only a Nabi - more than 600 years earlier than the revelation at the cave of Hira.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  11. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i suggest we move the second clip to a separate thread - because i am still not done with the first clip and mawlana saeed sahib's arguments.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    brother, your patience is appreciated. and your efforts to get this matter resolved is also appreciated. may Allah ta'ala be pleased with you. we respect mawlana saeed sahib as a senior sunni aalim/munazir - but still we have the right to object and criticise an issue on which he differs from greater ulama from the past and which is the mainstream sunni aqidah. indeed, he too has the right to correct us if we are wrong and mistaken.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Unbeknown, Ghulam Ali and Aqdas like this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    lexically, waHy means to indicate [isharah] or communicate swiftly - whether by speech or gesture or writing.

    mufradat, p515.jpg

    thus it explains the verses:


    alahazrat says in kanz: "and for every heaven He sent commands for each"

    sadru'l afaDil in its hashiyah: "for those who dwell there, [commands] to obey and worship and [commands] to do something or abstain from something."

    waHy on angels, meaning they were commanded to go to the aid of His Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam:


    waHy for the earth:


    waHy for the bee:


    meaning Allah ta'ala gave the bee, the knowledge of how to make honey.


    so when waHy is communication - and when anbiya are commanded to take a covenant (and addressed as anbiya'a) it is waHy for them.

    tajalarus v40p174.jpg

    imam razi says waHy is a command and its meaning differs according to whom it is addressed and each has a specific implication:
    tafkabir, v20p72.jpg

    wAllahu ta'ala a'alam

    [PS: it was not meant to be a part of the argument, but just an off the cuff remark; please do not dwell on this]
    Unbeknown and Ghulam Ali like this.
  14. Arshad ul Qadri

    Arshad ul Qadri New Member

    Why is it Wahy? When Allah asked for the covenant?
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    if I have understood his speech correctly, he claims that they were called prophets because they were BOUND to be prophets. of-course, this reply raises all those objections mentioned earlier. and even if he is shown a hadith which has the words 'given' prophethood, he will say it is like 'given' kawthar. so it seems his mind is set and nothing will change it - no matter how explicit.

    He said that a commander in chief of the military is appointed before hand but he will not be acting as one until he goes to the battlefield and commands the forces. But this example does not prove his point. Does the king say, "you are a commander because you are bound to go and command, so we will call you a commander, but you will not really be a commander until you go out and start commanding"!

    important question: does the action lead to mansab or the action naturally follows mansab? we know that nubuwwat is not kasbi - it is 'ataai and also that nubuwwat is never revoked.

    that certainly is an argument. how can he be so certain that there was no waHy in alaam-e-arwaH?

    it is a strange argument to say that waHy alone does not suffice - ummah/tableegh is essential.

    if we argue that waHy alone is not sufficient to establish prophethood then we are directly playing into the hands of the zanadiqah and other kuffar who claim or can claim that the a certain person or persons receive(d) waHy but does not claim prophethood so should be accepted as a muslim.

    whereas the verse "Allah ta'ala does not reveal the ghaib....." specifically states that waHy in the shara'i sense of revelation (and not linguistic) is exclusive to the prophets.

    waHy is a necessary and sufficient condition for prophethood and exclusive to it.

    And Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  16. Isaac Amini

    Isaac Amini Active Member

    I appreciate what you say Shaykh Abu Hasan, but the same way you prefer a written debate, Allama Saeed Asad like a face to face debate. Im sure they have sound reasons for this too. I have informed them of your preference and that's why they have opened up their offer for any Scholar to be put forward to debate them. My offer to help accommodate this isn't emotional. It is in search of what is truth. If it is only a minority opinion then I would think there are many capable scholars who would jump at the opportunity to show everyone what opinion is Haq. So if there are any Scholars you have contact with please inform them. It is possible that Allama Saeed Asad is wrong on this. They are not infallible.
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    haven't listened to the second yet. i tried to do it on my phone and then on a browser, but i am unable to access. i do not have a facebook account and i cannot access it. any alternatives?
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i am not a big fan of the munazarah format of yesteryear. i always prefer a written debate/discussion.
    besides we are not munazirs here . personally, i would take time to listen/read and understand what is being said. and then reply after thinking it over.

    mawlana sahib can reply in writing or release a video. let him refute imam subki's argument and find ta'wils for explicit verses of the qur'an. Allah ta'ala referred to the jama'at of arwaH as 'anbiya' and saeed sahib still doesn't accept it.

    that brings to mind another hadith:

    muslim 2638.jpg

    imam nawawi in its sharh (and other muhaddithin as well) say that souls recognise each other after coming in this world. when they were together in the realm of souls, they feel affinity towards such in this world.

    sharh imam nawawi, v16/p185:

    minhaj, v16p185.jpg

    souls recognise other souls after coming into this world. and talking of souls, there is a qur'anic verse which is well known:


    and [remember o beloved!] when your Lord [Allah ta'ala] took a covenant from the children of Aadam and from their loins, their descendants and made them to bear witness upon their own selves [and He asked them]: "am I not your Lord Sustainer?" and they SAID 'why not! indeed we bear witness.' for you may say on judgement day, that verily we were unaware of all this.

    if you go by mawlana saeed's theories, he may well explain this as: there were no children of adam and no descendants; and since 'saying' or 'qawl' is only by vocal chords which are properties of bodies, this was just an imagination that they would say so if they were bodies... etc. etc. [WARNING: this is a hypothetical statement]

    saeed sahib was wondering "where was the ummah?"

    can he please explain where were the children of aadam (alayhi's salam) and their descendants? how did they affirm and bear witness?

    though not present in this naSS, a simple question - if souls could attest to tawHid, why would attestation of nubuwwat be impossible or difficult for you to accept?

    this will be REPEATED on judgement day - they will be reminded that they said "balaa/why not" and they cannot present the excuse that they were unaware on judgement day.

    ordinary souls can recognise, attest, witness, speak and much later after coming in this world and passing on to the next world, they can remember these events.

    however, according to mawlana saeed sahib's framework and those who side with that view, it seems it is impossible for souls of prophets alayhi'mu's salatu wa't tasleem to recognise and bear witness that RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam is a prophet and accept the covenant that they will aid him should he appear in their time.

    surah aal imran, v81:


    if not, then why this whole argument?


    - also, was this before aadam alayhi's salam was created or after?

    - did these souls exist or it was just a 'plan' that 'souls will be created' and 'souls will be prophets' and 'souls might be asked' and 'souls might answer...' and so on. was it just a hypothetical scenario or this actually occurred?

    - was it just a conceptual thing or indeed souls were created and they existed? if they did, what did the prophets take covenant for? accepting whose prophethood? and promising to aid who?

    Allah ta'ala describes those souls as prophets - allamah saeed sahib should tell us where were their followers and whether they had received waHy? [actually, this latter proposition is easy - when Allah ta'ala asked them, it IS waHy according to the definition. but then allamah sahib's position will become even more shaky.]

    everybody values their teacher or shaykh or pir sahib or their own father; and would not like anyone speaking about them in a way that diminishes their stature. one can understand such an emotional attachment and associated reaction.

    some people may say that it is not an issue of ijma'a, and let us not argue about it. i say that this is opening the door of fitna in a time of teeming fitna and should be closed firmly.

    fine, but i find it offending - and i won't mind offending anyone if i have to. this is an issue of faDayil, true. but not faDayil of any shaykh or pir or even a saHabi. this is about the superiority of the noblest in the creation. if mawlana saeed sahib wants to argue about it, we will argue about it - because our proofs are saHiH hadith and we are on the side of towering ulama like imam subki, shah abdu'l Haq dihlawi and many others. in fact, the norm among ahl al-sunnah was the view that we favour - and mawlana saeed is holding to far-fetched ta'wil ignoring sariH ibarat as in the case of his partial quoting from sharh mishkat of shah abdu'l Haqq dihlawi.

    laytaka taHlu wa'l Hayatu mariratun
    wa laytaka tarDa wa'l anamu ghiDabu

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2016
  19. Isaac Amini

    Isaac Amini Active Member

    I am also willing to pay for 1st class travel for the Shaykh if they are UK based and are happy to travel to Pakistan to clear this matter. Inshallah
  20. IslamIsTheTruth

    IslamIsTheTruth Well-Known Member

    Having listened to both clips, Seems Allamah sahib says this is an issue of interpretation of the meaning of the word nabi.
    So a linguistic issue?
    He says Nabi paak ﷺ lughatan was the first but shara'n after wahi in Ghar e Hira.
    My Urdu isn't fantastic so forgive me if my understanding is all wrong.

Share This Page