Is Ahmad Rida Khan a Gustakh-e-Rasul For Denying the Prophet ﷺ Exists?

According to Ahmad Rida Khan, only Allah in reality exists, and nothing besides Allah (really) exists. He writes:

Translation

No one (in reality) knows anything besides Allah. Indeed, Allah alone enjoys existence in a real sense. The Prophet ﷺ deemed the truest word the Arabs have spoken to be the statement of Labid, “Beware, everything besides Allah is false.” (1)

It is established according to us that the statement la ilaha illAllah according to the commoners means that “nothing besides Allah is worshipped”; according to the elite it means that “nothing besides Allah is sought after”; according to the more elite it means that “nothing besides Allah is witnessed”; and according to the masters it means that “nothing besides Allah exists”. These are all true. Iman is based on the first, righteousness pivots on the second, traversing the path is completed by the third and reaching (Allah) is constituted of the fourth. (al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, p.199)

---

Barelwis think it is offensive to say Allah has the power to create a likeness of the Prophet ﷺ even while acknowledging He will never do so.

Ahmad Rida Khan denies the very existence of the Prophet ﷺ, wa ‘l-‘iyadhu billah.

Surely, Barelwis should be more offended by this?

(1) This statement has a number of other possible meanings (besides “nothing but Allah exists”) as mentioned by the commentators like Ibn Battal, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-‘Ayni etc.

For example, it could mean: a) everyone besides Allah will die; b) all activities that don’t lead to Allah are futile; c) everything that people worship besides Allah are “false” deities; d) the existence of everything else is only possible, while Allah’s existence is necessary; e) because all that exists apart from Allah results from His agency, nothing exists besides Allah and things He has created.

The Qur’an states: “Everything is perishing besides His countenance.” (28:88) The Qur’an also states: “Allah is the Real, while those they call upon besides Him are false.” (22:62; 31:30)

Abu Hasan Barelwī Commits Taḥrīf Right in Front of his Reader’s Eyes

In Taqwiyat al-Īmān (p. 88) of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, we find the following passage:

The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān firstly quotes a ḥadīth (from Mishkāt, Sunan Abī Dāwūd). The ḥadīth is as follows:

Qays ibn Sa‘d (Allāh be pleased with him) said: “I came to Ḥīrah and saw them prostrating to a leader of theirs. I thought: ‘The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ is more deserving of being prostrated to.’ I came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: ‘I went to Ḥīrah and saw them prostrating to a leader of theirs. You Oh Messenger of Allāh are more deserving of us prostrating to you.’ He said: ‘What do you suppose, if you were to pass by my grave would you prostrate to it?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘Then do not do so…’” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2140, Badhl al-Majhūd, 8:75)

The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary:

Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only for the Holy Being that never dies. It is realised from this ḥadīth that prostration is not made to anyone living or dead, nor to a grave or a site, because whoever is living will one day die and whoever died was once living & held within the confines of human-ness. When he then dies, he does not become God. He remains only a slave. (Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 88)

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Fatwā: “Female Literacy is Forbidden”!

In a Fatwā dated 1316 H (1898), Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī was asked about female literacy. He wrote in reply:

To teach women writing is forbidden in Sharī‘ah and is the way of Christians and is to open the door to thousands of Fitnahs and to put a sword in the hand of a drunk madman. Many* experiences attest to its severe harms. Multiple ḥadīths have been related on its prohibition, the sanad of one of which upon investigation is strong in itself. Imām al-Bayhaqī indicated** the original text of the ḥadīth is known and preserved. Furthermore, multiple routes is another strength. The practice of the Ummah and acceptance of the ‘Ulamā’ is a third strength. The matter of precaution and blocking Fitnah is a fourth strength. Hence the ḥadīth is not less than ḥasan, and it being a clear text on prohibition is evident. This is different from the ḥadīth of Shifā bint ‘Abdillāh [which is not clear in permitting writing]… There is no clear ḥadīth on permission at all. (Fatawa Riḍawiyya, 23:654)

(The full Fatwā can be found in Fatawa Riḍawiyya, 23:654-679; see also Jāmi‘ ul-Aḥādīth, Muḥammad Ḥanīf Khān Riḍawī, 4:179-81)

Deobandī (Sunnī) Vs Barelwī (Bid‘ī) Prophetologies – Elevating or Lessening the Prophet ﷺ?

Barelwīs, like Shahid Ali, Abu Hasan and Aqdas Barelwī, have been sharing a common Barelwī refrain: In their efforts to affirm the Prophet ﷺ as having total power, complete vision, encompassing hearing and exhaustive knowledge of creation, they are elevating the status of the Prophet ﷺ; on the other hand (by producing clear and incontrovertible evidence against these doctrines – see here, here, here), Deobandīs are lessening Prophetic status. Hence – the argument goes – Muslims (who hold to the honour of the Prophet ﷺ) should tend towards Barelwī prophetology, not Deobandī (Sunnī) prophetology.

It bears mentioning to begin with that this is not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion (i.e. trying to manipulate the interlocuter’s emotions to win an argument, in the absence of factual evidence). Barelwīs produce inadmissible “evidence” (things that do not count as evidence – e.g. statements of late scholars, ambiguous incidents) or distort evidence (verses of Qur’ān/Ḥadīth/Āthār) to argue for their false, innovated doctrines. On the other hand, Deobandīs (Sunnīs) use actual evidence – the correct meanings of verses of Qur’ān/Ḥadīth/ Āthār, coupled with statements of early & authoritative scholars. Hence, the two views are not on an equal footing.  

[Take, for example, the position that disbelievers are not destined for eternal torment in the next life or that Fir‘awn is destined for Paradise. A proponent of such innovated views could say: we favour divine mercy, while the opposition (i.e. Ahl al-Sunnah) do not. But this is an invalid (emotional) argument, as the two views are not on an equal footing: one is completely without sound basis, and the other is an established truth.]

This is a straightforward, academic (taḥqīqī) response to the Barelwī appeal to emotion (“argument”). But, it also bears considering: Is the Barelwī point even valid to begin with? Does Barelwī (& Shī‘ī) prophetology elevate the Prophet ﷺ while Deobandī (Sunnī) prophetology diminish it? With a little scrutiny, it will be revealed that it is indeed Barelwī prophetology that lessens the status of the Prophet ﷺ and Sunnī prophetology that elevates it. (This is an argumentative (ilzāmī) response to this Barelwī contention.)

Salek bin Siddina & Deviant Barelwī Beliefs: Explaining Some Lines of Burdah

Recently, Salek bin Siddina, a US-based Mauritanian scholar, has been espousing some of the same deviant Barelwī views that have been refuted on this website, namely:

1. The Prophet ﷺ is all-powerful – he has been granted complete control of all things in Allāh’s kingdom to do as and what he pleases. This is an innovated and misguided view, blurring the lines (at least for common people) between Creator and created, and a belief that originally came from the Shī‘ah. For a refutation, see here.
2. The Prophet ﷺ is all-knowing* – that is, he was given knowledge of literally every single detail of created things from the beginning of creation, right the way until the final hour and beyond. For a refutation of this view (which also finds its origins in the Shī‘ah), see here and here.

For relevant Arabic articles, see here and here.

The fact that a late scholar, in the worst of times, namely, Salek bin Siddina, espouses such deviant views, is no vindication at all for Barelwī deviance. Such beliefs find no support from any authoritative scholars of ‘aqīdah belonging to the ‘aqīdah schools of the Ahl al-Sunnah (Ash‘arīs/Māturīdīs).

One of the primary evidences Salek bin Siddina uses is two lines of poetry from the famous Burdah. This is the level to which “scholarship” has been reduced: that an ‘aqīdah point has to be argued from poetry. The reality is, of course, such beliefs are not supported by genuine scholarship. It is in fact ignorance (jahl) clothed in the garb of scholarship.

The lines of poetry in question read as follows:

فإن من جودك الدنيا وضرتها

 ومن علومك علم اللوح والقلم

“Indeed from your (Oh Prophet ﷺ) generosity is the world and its counterpart (i.e. the afterlife).

From your knowledges is the knowledge of the Tablet and Pen.”

These are ambiguous lines of poetry.

On the first line, Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī says in his commentary:

والمعنى لن يضيق جاهك بجودك بواحد من أمتك لأن من جملة جودك وإحسانك إلى الخلق جميعا خير الدنيا بالهداية وخير العقبى بالشفاعة

“The meaning is that your honour will not fall short of your generosity with any one individual of your Ummah because from the totality of your generosity and favour to all creation is: the best of this world by (calling to) guidance, and the best of the next world by interceding.” (manuscript, p75)**

In other words, the line simply means that part of the Prophet’s ﷺ mercy is being a vehicle for the good of this world and the next – the former by bringing guidance to us and the latter by acting as intercessor. There is of course no problem with understanding the line of poetry in this way. And the rule is:

إذا جاء الإحتمال بطل الإستدلال

“When varying possibilities exist (for interpretation), then seeking to make a specific argument therefrom becomes absurd.”

As for the second line, there is nothing in the line to suggest the totality of what is found in the Tablet and Pen was taught or shown to the Prophet ﷺ. The Qur’ān itself is from the Tablet as confirmed in the Qur’ān (85:22). Hence, some of the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ is derived from the Tablet and Pen. That’s all this line means. There is nothing problematic in understanding the line in this way.

Note: Barelwīs like to quote some Ṣūfīs and late scholars to support their errant views. These mistakes of some Ṣūfīs and late scholars are not proof in Sharī‘ah. Nor do they make these mistaken beliefs any less grave or any less heinous. Some Ṣūfīs and late scholars also held other egregious beliefs like musical instruments being ḥalāl, Fir‘awn being a believer deserving Jannah and disbelievers in Hell not suffering eternal torment but eventually being given comfort therein! Just as these beliefs are not valid, despite the fact they were proposed by some Ṣūfīs, the very same applies to other deviant Barelwī beliefs which they try to support by quoting some Ṣūfīs and late scholars.