Ahmad Rida Khan’s Strawmanning of Hifz al-Iman in al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah

The Claim

In al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, Ahmad Rida Khan presents a “critique” of Hifz al-Iman. He mischaracterises the meaning of a passage from Hifz al-Iman as (paraphrased):

“Given that the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge of ghayb is partial (and not all-encompassing), there’s nothing special about it, as all and sundry, even animals and madmen, have partial knowledge of ghayb.”

(See: al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, pp127-37)

Wa ‘l-‘iyadhu bi ‘llah.

Having set up this strawman, he proceeds to knock it down. He gives examples/analogies of why it is absurd. One analogy he gives is of a hypothetical king who rules the whole world. He has a deputy that is responsible for providing for all the needy. A poverty struck person, who acquires his daily bread from the deputy, says, “There’s no difference between me and the king’s deputy! He doesn’t possess all provisions, and we’re both equal in having some provisions.” (al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, pp134-5) Of course, such a statement is absurd.

Analysis

But this is not at all the form that the statement in Hifz al-Iman takes. In Hifz al-Iman, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi is not putting down the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge of ghayb on account of it being partial. Nor is he saying that because of being partial it is no different to the partial knowledge of ghayb that all and sundry also have.

Rather, he is refuting Zayd’s usage of the term ‘Alim al-Ghayb for the Prophet ﷺ. He first explains that ‘Alim al-Ghayb legally means someone who possesses intrinsic knowledge of all ghayb, so is applicable only to Allah. Then, he says if Zayd is using it for granted/non-intrinsic knowledge of ghayb, there are the following options:

1. If Zayd is using ‘Alim al-Ghayb because it refers to someone possessing all-encompassing knowledge, then of course this is inapplicable for the Prophet ﷺ.
2. If Zayd is using ‘Alim al-Ghayb because it refers to someone possessing any amount of the knowledge of ghayb (no matter how small or insignifcant that knowledge may be), then this is not specific to the Prophet ﷺ. He can then call all and sundry ‘Alim al-Ghayb because they too possess at least some knowledge of ghayb!
3. A third option is using ‘Alim al-Ghayb for someone possessing vast and virtuous knowledges of ghayb. (Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi elaborates on this option in the appendix to Hifz al-Iman called Bast al-Banan, where he explains that this option is hinted at in Hifz al-Iman itself.) ‘Alim al-Ghayb is not used customarily, linguistically or legally for someone with such knowledge, hence this option too is ruled out.

The conclusion is that there is no valid grounds for referring to the Prophet ﷺ as ‘Alim al-Ghayb.

Find a full translation of Hifz al-Iman (i.e. the relevant question & answer) and Bast al-Banan here.

In discussing the second option, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi is in fact denouncing Zayd for negating the specialness of the Prophet ﷺ given it will result in him believing the Prophet ﷺ should be called ‘Alim al-Ghayb for something that entails it is ok to call everyone the same!

Conclusion

In short, Hifz al-Iman is not saying there’s nothing special about the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge of ghayb on account of it being partial. Rather, it is saying that if on account of mere partial knowledge of ghayb Zayd decides to call the Prophet ﷺ ‘Alim al-Ghayb, then he is mistaken as this would entail calling all and sundry ‘Alim al-Ghayb. And, of course, to maintain the distinctiveness of the Prophet ﷺ he should not be given a title that can also be used for all and sundry.

So, quite apart from putting down the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge of ghayb, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi is denouncing using a title for the Prophet ﷺ intending by it something that is not exceptional or distinctive.

It is evident Ahmad Rida Khan’s mischaracterising what Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi said reveals more a twistedness in his mind than a mistake of Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi.