When was RasulAllah ﷺ granted nubuwwah?

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.

 

Thank you very much brother Noori for your help in translating this. I will post this all to them when you have finished.
However, after conversations today they asked if the shaykhs will ring them and I informed them the forum wanted a written response.
They have said it would be easier and more beneficial if the scholars on this forum could elect someone to debate them on this issue. That way any misunderstandings can be dealt with instantly. So they have issued an open invitation for any Shaykh to debate them regarding this issue.
Obviously if this was in Pakistan it would be easiest, however they are willing to do it over Skype if the scholar is UK based.
So if there are any Scholars who are wanting to do this plz let me know or alternatively go direct to Allama Saeed Asad.

 

disclaimer: i do not intend to disrespect molana sa'id as'ad sahab if my posts and translation appear harsh to the readers, i already have reviewed previous posts and removed some words or remarks.

however, molana sahab's 2nd clip which isaac posted here has really disappointed me, having a difference of opinion is one thing and to insinuate that the majority of ahlussunah are karamiyyah is a serious mistake (apart from his or allamah molana ashraf siyalvi sahab's opinion on this particular issue).

in deed i have loved molana ashraf siyalvi sahab's books. until i don't see a clear cut fatwa from elder muftiyan e kiram against him, i would say for him rahimahullahi ta'ala.

 

by the way i took these references from a refutation, except that the arabic of al-yawaqit reference was not there, therefore i copied it from the original text. now i will resume the translation.

 

-------------------------



-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------

 

-------------

------------------------------


---------------------------------


--------------------------------



-------------------------


---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------


------------------------------------

 

before i post translations of the other posts by sidi abu Hasan, i would like to present some references which are clearly against his view. in the second clip he said that that it is the aqidah of the karamiyyah sect? would molana sahab dare to declare all these ulama among karamiyyyah? note that references also include your shaykh molana ashraf siyalvi sahab's.



----------------------------------------------


-------------------------------


---------------------------

----------------------


----------------

----------

---------

 

I think this is covered in the 2nd clip

 

anbiyaa se karuN arz ay malekoN,
kia nabiyy hai tumhaara hamaara nabee?

jaise sab ka khuda eik hai, waise hee,
in ka, un ka, tumhaara hamaara nabee.

the above couplets by Ala hazrat, azeem ulBarakat, Daryaae Rehmat, Imam Ahmed Raza Khan fazile barailwi, (alayhe rehamatu-Allahe alQawi) sum up the position of the ahle-Sunnah regarding the universal prophet-hood of our noble prophet (Allah's blessing and peace be upon him).

he poses a question to the noble prophets thus:-
I request the prophets thus; "O my Masters!
Is he also your prophet, Muhammad our Holy Prophet?

and he received the following reply:-
just as there is just one God for all, similarly,
for them and for all, your prophet is our Holy Prophet!

 

Just expanding on brother abu Hasan's post:-

maulana Saeed sahab should explain whether he considers Hazrat Eisa (alayhe asSalaam) a Nabi or a Rasool. We do consider him one of the Rusul - those that were given Books or a new Shariah and - as being discussed here - commanded to do Tableegh.

Note that Hazrat Eisa (alayhe asSalaam) uses the past tense "he has made me a Nabiyy" - in the same way that Rasoolu-Allah used the past tense. so it is not necessary to start doing Tableegh to be classified as a Nabiyy.

Hazrat Eisa (alayhe asSalaam) said these words when he was just a few days old - so did he start doing Tableegh right away or not? so does maulana sahab contend that this Rasool started doing Tableegh right away since he says he received the Book? Obviously, he cannot claim that.

And if maulana accepts that Hazrat Eisa (alayhe asSalaam) did not start Tableegh whilst in the cradle, then why does he insist that Rasoolu-Allah cannot be said to have received prophet-hood until he started Tableegh??

maulana Sahab loses the argument both ways.

 

in sha'Allah, i will explain the below.

also, i will listen to the new clip later, in sha'Allah. but i have still not finished with mawlana sahib's first clip!

---
نسأل الله العافية

 

if you say that imam ghazali said that it means 'taqdir', it was criticised by imam subki:




then imam qaSTallani says:






==============================
shaykh zurqani explaning this says:

 

I just listened to the 2nd clip, but unfortunately in this clip molana sahab's arguments are rather very weak that a child in islamic learning like me can see the fallacies in those arguments. and what is disgusting is that he is indirectly rejecting sahih ahadith, and insinuating that the majority of ahlussunah are karamiyyah .

but i'll leave it for sidi abu Hasan to deal with it in academic manner and his own style. I will only translate his posts here.

 

I hope brothers didn't miss this link. This is the 2nd part of the first speech, which includes a Q&A

 

i had actually stopped it as a sentence without the question tag:

and after all these three conditions were not met in the realm of souls [aalam e arwaH].
​

and when i saw the 'na', i just added 'isn't it' as the latter [decried] usage in english comes from the expression in hindi/urdu. here it was used as: "isn't it so?"

---

 

so there are three events:

1. true dreams
2. waHiy in the cave of hira
3. actual proclamation of prophethood/commencement of tabligh

between the 2nd and 3rd was there not an interval of time? was it not that until the revelation of "qum", (Arise and warn) the actual command for tabligh had not come? so would that mean that only after this verse he (peace be upon him) became a nabyi?

and the blessed seal on his (peace be upon him) blessed back.

and the words of a monk (I do not know if he was the same person) are also interesting, "none has sat under this tree but a prophet".

 

pedantic note to sidi AH:

it is more idiomatic in English to translate
aur ye teenoN sharTeN aalam e arwaaH meiN to nahiN payi gayiN thi na?

as

and after all these three conditions were not met in the realm of souls [aalam e arwaH], were they ?


(instead of the Indo-Pakistani give-away phrase, "'isn't it?")


--
Also a maulana told me his name was Sa'eed as-Sa'ad not Saeed Asad. Allah knows best. I'm very surprised by his talk as it goes against what is commonly taught in our mosques and madrassahs...

--

 

Bahar e Shariat author makes it very simple just in one line:

dبلکہ محض عطائے الٰہی ہے، کہ جسے چاہتا ہے اپنے فضل سے دیتا ہے، ہاں! دیتا اُسی کو ہے جسے اس منصبِ عظیم کے قابل بناتا ہے، جو قبلِ حصولِ نبوّت تمام

He mentions Qabl Husul Nubuwwat.

It could also explain why there is so much igtilaf about what is possible and not, before and after Nubuwwah according the ashari.

Without a doubt many other Ahadith show that the last Prophet was already a Prophet before his human form. Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam.

 

imam bajuri quotes sayyidi ali al-khawwaS that: "the prophet was prophet from childhood"

see tuHfatu'l murid sharh jawharah al-tawHid