The Blasphemy and Kufr of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī According to Barelwī Standards

January 6, 2019

In an academic refutation of Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī, Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī explained that it is not correct to affirm certain kinds of worldly knowledge (on which virtue does not depend) for the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) merely based on the fact that others that are inferior to him, like the Angel of Death or Satan, have acquired this knowledge. In fact, to attribute such knowledge to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that has not been proven to have been acquired by him would be to affirm non-granted, intrinsic knowledge for him, which is shirk. (Barāhīn-e-Qāi‘ah, p. 54-7)

Based on this explanation, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī ruled that Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī had insulted the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and had affirmed more knowledge for Satan than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He further implicates Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī for having endorsed Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s work. The allegation that this is an insult and that it amounts to holding the blasphemous belief that Satan is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has been responded to in detail by Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī himself and other scholars. (See, for example, The Decisive Debate, p. 41-60).

The irony is that Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī in his work Anwār-e-Sāi‘ah, which was the text that was refuted in Barāhīn-e-Qāi‘ah, explicitly states:

The supporters of the gatherings of Mīlād (meaning, himself and those of his persuasion) do not claim that Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present in all places of the world, pure and impure, and in religious and irreligious gatherings, while it is established that the Angel of Death and Iblīs are present in far more places, pure and impure, and of disbelief and non-disbelief.

A PDF of the work can be found at the following link:

https://ia600700.us.archive.org/33/items/AnwarESatiyaByAllamaMuhammadAbdulSamiSaharanpuri_201411/Anwar%20e%20Satiya%20by%20Allama%20Muhammad%20Abdul%20Sami%20saharanpuri.pdf

And this passage can be found on page 254. The Urdu is as follows:

Ahl e Mefil e Mīlād to Rasūlullāh allallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam ke zamīn kī tamām pāk wa nāpāk jagah aur majālis mazhabī wa ghayr mazhabī mein āzir hone ka dawā nehein kurte jubkeh malak al-mawt aur iblīs kā iss se bihī ziyādah tar pāk wa nāpāk aur kufr wa ghayr kufr ke maqāmāt mein āzir hona pāyā jāta hein

In this passage, Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī explicitly states that Satan is present in more places of the world than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He is thus saying that Satan has a greater presence than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)! If Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s statement is blasphemy and kufr, Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī’s statement is undoubtedly blasphemy and kufr.*

Yet, we find that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī endorsed this work! His endorsement can be found on pages 381-386 of the above edition. He says: “I happened to have a look at some of [Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī’s] pure speech, like Dāfi‘ al-Awhām, at al-Qulūb and Anwār-e-Sāi‘ah, the contents of which I found to reflect their titles. May Allāh give the author the best of rewards.” (ibid. p. 386)

The challenge Barelwīs face is that if they are to insist on Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s false takfīr of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī, it would backfire and they would have to make takfīr of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself! But if they reject Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s takfīr of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī, then they would be rejecting a pillar of Barelwism. A perfect catch-22.

* An important distinction should be noted between the statements of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī and Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī.

Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī does not say “Satan is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)” as was imputed to him by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī. His discussion was clearly about the knowledge of certain worldly items (like geography, people’s circumstances). In such matters which having knowledge of implies no extra virtue or merit, Satan was given a greater awareness. But in matters on which virtue and excellence depend, there is no one more learned than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).

In Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī’s statement, however, there is no such distinction. A clear statement is made that Satan is present “in far more places” than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)! Thus, according to Barelwī understanding, he has affirmed a quality of perfection to a greater quantity for Satan than for the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Based on their principles, there can be no doubt that this is blasphemy and kufr.

UPDATE (09/01/19):

Abu Hasan, the fraud and liar*, has responded to the above**. Ignoring the typical insults, his response boils down to: The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) chooses to not be present at such lowly places. In short, although Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī explicitly drew a comparison between the Satan and the Prophet, and said Satan is “present in far more places” than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), this is not blasphemy or an insult because being present at such places is unbefitting the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). So, what we establish from this is that Abu Hasan Barelwi, the fraud and liar, believes that it would not be blasphemous to affirm an apparent quality of perfection (i.e. being present) for Satan to a greater quantity than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). In fact, to Abu Hasan, it may even be a virtue that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not present at such lowly places while the Satan is.

Given this admission, it will be far easier for a Barelwī to make sense of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s discussion.

As the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is a human being and a creation, his knowledge was acquired and was not intrinsic. Hence, he does not possess all knowledge by his very nature, but acquired knowledge via revelation. In fact, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) asked protection from knowledge that is of no benefit. (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim) This would undoubtedly include knowledge of certain details of the world and of detailed descriptions and circumstances of people. Such lowly knowledge does not befit the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) but does befit Satan whose preoccupation is to know about the world and the detailed circumstances of people. (Despite this, Barelwīs affirm such lowly knowledge for the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).)

Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ wrote:

فأما ما يتعلق منها بأمر الدنيا، فلا يشترط في حقالأنبياء العصمة من عدم معرفة الأنبياء ببعضها، أو اعتقادها على خلاف ما هي عليه، ولا وصم عليهم فيه.. إذ هممهم متعلقة بالآخرة وأنبائها.. وأمر الشريعة وقوانينها.. وأمور الدنيا تضادها.

– بخلاف غيرهم من أهل الدنيا الذبن «يعلمون ظاهرا من الحياة الدنيا وهم عن الآخرة هم غافلون …ولكنه لا يقال إنهم لا يعلمون شيئا من أمر الدنيا فإن ذلك يؤدي إلى الغفلة والبله وهم النزهون عنه

“As for that which is connected from these [knowledges] with the affair of the world, protection is not a condition with respect to prophets, in that the prophets are unaware of some of it or hold a belief about it contrary to reality. There is no blemish on them in this, since their aspirations are connected to the next life and its events, and the matter of Sharī‘ah and its laws, while the matters of the world are contrary to these, as distinguished from others of the people of the world who ‘know the outward of the worldly life and are heedless of the next life.’ (Qur’ān, 30:7)…Although it may not be said that they know nothing of the affair of the world because that will amount to ignorance and foolishness which they are free of.” (al-Shifā’, Jā’izah Dubai, p. 631-2)

He makes the same point in another place of the work with reference to the ḥadīth, “You are more aware of the affairs of your world.” (al-Shifā’, p. 723) Then he makes the general point:

فمثل هذا وأشباهه من أمور الدنيا التي لا مدخل فيها لعلم ديانة، ولا اعتقادها، ولا تعليمها يجوز عليه فيها ما ذكرناه.. إذ ليس في هذا كله نقيصة ولا محطة، وإنما هي أمور اعتيادية يعرفها من جربها وجعلها همه. وشغل نفسه بها والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مشحون القلب بمعرفة الربوبية، ملآن الجوانح بعلوم الشريعة، قصيد البال بمصالح الأمة الدينية والدنيوية. ولكن هذا إنما يكون في بعض الأمور ويجوز في النادر. وفيما سبيله التدقيق في حراسة الدنيا واستثمارها، لا في الكثير المؤذن بالبله والغفلة.

“In such things and their likes from the matters of the world which have no involvement in religious knowledge, belief or education, what we mentioned is possible for him, as none of this is deficiency or diminishment. Rather, they are ordinary things known to those who have experience of them and make it their concern and occupy their minds with them. The Prophet’s (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) heart is filled with knowledge of the divine, his sides filled with knowledges of Sharī‘ah, his mind restrained by the religious and worldly interests of the Ummah. But this will only be in some affairs…not in many, which would signify stupidity or ignorance.” (ibid. p. 724)

Hence, understood in this light, what Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī said is in fact in honour of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)’s blessed knowledge: it is free of the nonsense and useless things that occupy the mind of Satan. This is precisely what he states in al-Muhannad: “The concealment of some insignificant particular details from the Prophet (upon him be peace) due to his inattention to them does not cause any defect to his (upon him be peace) being the most learned once it is established that he is the most knowledgeable of the noble sciences that are fitting to his lofty station, just as cognizance of most of those insignificant things due to the intensity of Iblīs’s attention to them does not cause glory and perfection of knowledge in him, since virtue and excellence do not hinge on this. Thus, it is not correct to say that Iblīs is more knowledgeable than the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) just as it is not correct to say about a child who knows some particulars that he is more knowledgeable than an erudite scholar deeply immersed in the sciences, from whom those particulars are hidden.” (al-Muhannad, p. 71)

The only issue that remains is Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī referring to the belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has such detailed worldly knowledge as “shirk”. The reason it is described as shirk as clear from the context of his discussion in Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah is that to affirm such knowledge based only on a false analogy implies the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) acquired the knowledge without it being granted to him, or without any intermediary, but just of his own. Such a belief is shirk. For a fuller explanation, see The Decisive Debate***, p. 60-3, where this objection is discussed. The sentence that Abu Hasan quoted, in context, means the following (with Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī’s explanation in parentheses):

The upshot is, it should be considered, that upon seeing the condition of Satan and the Angel of Death [meaning, seeing that they have acquired knowledge of the places of the world as is understood from the evidences of Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib], to affirm encompassing knowledge of the world [i.e. intrinsic knowledge] for the Pride of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace) against decisive texts, without evidence, and purely from corrupt analogy [meaning, based on the logic that since the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is superior to Satan and Angel of Death, due to his superiority, all knowledge of the world will self-generate in him], if it is not shirk then what part of faith is it?

This expanse for Satan and the Angel of Death [meaning, with Allah’s command having knowledge of many places of the world] is proven by text [meaning, those texts with Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sam Sahib presented]; the expansive knowledge of the Pride of the World [meaning, intrinsic knowledge because by corrupt analogy and pure reason only this is established, and this is understood from the context of Hazrat Mawlana’s discussion], which decisive text is there due to which all texts are rejected and one shirk is established? (Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah, p. 55)

One should also take note of the dishonesty of Abu Hasan’s translation where he says: “proving such encompassing knowledge of the earth for the Pride of the World”. The liar and fraud should be asked, where is the word “such” in the Urdu passage?

* See for examples:

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/another-example-of-the-distortions-of-abu-hasan/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/deceptions-and-distortions-of-abu-hasan/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/another-example-of-abu-hasans-distortions/

** http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/deobandis-charge-blasphemy-on-mawlana-abdul-samiy-rampuri.14263/#post-67098

*** https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-decisive-debate-mawlana-manzur-numani/

UPDATE 2 (09/01/19):

Another point worth bearing in mind is that Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s discussion is in line with what the Ḥanafī Fuqahā’ (whom he quotes) had written. In fact, we find a striking parallel. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah:

A [man] weds [a woman] without witnesses, saying: “I make the Messenger of Allāh and Angels witness”, he has become a Kāfir, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb, as distinguished from his saying: “I make the angel on the left shoulder and the angel on the right shoulder witness”, he would not become Kāfir, because they are aware [of that]. (al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah, 6:325)

In al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī (Idārat al-Qur’ān, 7:407), the same mas’alah is found ending with: “because they are aware of that as they are not absent from him.”

The pseudo-Ḥanafī Barelwī might question this and object: They have considered it kufr to ascribe this knowledge to the Messenger of Allāh but not to the Kirāman Kātibīn, whereas if ascribing it to one is kufr it should equally be kufr to ascribe it to the other!

But, of course, this is due to a (intentional or unintentional) misunderstanding. It is kufr (and shirk) when the knowledge is ascribed to an individual for whom it is not proven that he has acquired that knowledge (as it would entail ascribing intrinsic knowledge of ghayb for him). It is not kufr if the knowledge is ascribed to an individual for whom it is proven that he had acquired that knowledge.

In the same way Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī says to affirm such extensive unbeneficial knowledge of insignificant worldly matters to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) based on a corrupt analogy is shirk, because it is to affirm intrinsic knowledge for him. It is not shirk when affirmed for Satan because it is proven that he is present at such places and witnessing.

See how the pseudo-Ḥanafī Barelwī has inverted reality, and has made what is not kufr kufr, and what is kufr (i.e. affirming detailed knowledge of all things in creation for the Prophet) an acceptable belief?

Note also that the pseudo-Sunnī Barelwī religion, which is based on hawā and not ittibā, will fluctuate from Barelwī to Barelwī. Thus, Abu Hasan Barelwī is supporting the idea that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not present at such filthy and dirty places of the world; however, Barelwī debater, Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharwī, states that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present in such filthy places, but we just shouldn’t say he is! (Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, p. 279, 282)


Ahmad Rida Khan’s Father Rejects the Belief in Hazir/Nazir, Hearing from a Distance, for Saints

November 29, 2018

Naqi Ali Khan (1830-1880), Ahmad Rida Khan’s (1856 – 1921) father and primary teacher, says:

For example, an ignoramus holds the belief in connection to an accomplished individual from the saints of this Ummah that he knows the conditions of the entire world altogether at all times and moments and whoever calls him at any time from any place he hears immediately, then although the belief is apparently not established, but if together with this he does not regard him to be independent in the knowledge and power, and regards them all to be from the notification and power of God, and nor does he regard him to be of necessary existence and deserving of worship, he will not become Mushrik based on this belief. Yes, the masses should be prevented from this belief and its falsity should be demonstrated… (Usul al-Rashad, Idarah e Ahl e Sunnat, p. 45-6)

Thus, he clearly rejects the belief that saints are “hazir nazir” or are able to hear from a distance.

In regards to Naqi Ali Khan’s point, however, the masses cannot be trusted to always hold such pure beliefs as expressed by him. Many of them hold Mu’tazili-like beliefs about “secondary causes”, that is, Allah created things with inherent powers, and after receiving those powers they operate independently rather than being dependent on Him in each and every instance. Several centuries ago, Imam al-Sanusi (1428 – 1490) stated that this is generally the belief held by the masses (Sharh al-Kubra, p. 37).

Thus, the Hanafi imams have ruled that such beliefs about saints, which would clearly be based on “independence” (even if it is believed that the powers were initially received from Allah), to be kufr, as it would be to ascribe independent knowledge of the unseen to someone. Allamah Abdul Hayy al-Lakhnawi wrote:

Such recitation consists of calling on the dead from a distance and it is not established in the Shari‘ah that saints have the power to listen to a call from a distance. However, it is established that the dead hear the salutation of the visitors to their graves. But to believe that anyone beside Allah (Glorified is He) is present and seeing and aware of the hidden and evident at all times is shirk. In Fatawa Bazaziyyah it is written that if one marries without witnesses and says that I make Allah, His Messenger and the angels witnesses, ‘he has disbelieved because he believed that the Messenger and the angel know the unseen, and our ‘ulama’ have said that whoever says that the souls of the saints are present and knowing has disbelieved.’ Although Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir is one of the great saints of the Muhammadan nation and his merits and virtues are innumerable, but it is not established that he hears the distressed caller from a distance. And the beliefs that he is aware of his disciple’s affairs all the time, and hears their calls, are beliefs of shirk. And Allah knows best.” (Majmu’ah al-Fatawa, 4:331; quoted in Maqalat Usmani, 2:307)

Naqi Ali Khan refers to Shah Ishaq Dehlawi as “the second imam of the opposition (“Wahhabis”)” (i.e. after Shah Isma’il Dehlawi) (Usul al-Rashad, p 57 and other places), based on Shah Ishaq Dehlawi’s works Masa’il Arbain and Mi’ah Masa’il. Shah Ishaq Dehlawi (1782 – 1846) was like a son to his grandfather Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi, and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi appointed him as his successor, and gifted him all his books. Thus, Shah Ishaq Dehlawi sat in Shah Abdul Aziz’s position after his death in 1824. In 1842, he traveled with a large group of his family and settled in Makkah, and was regarded very highly by the Ulama of Makkah. He had many students, including Shaykh Abdul Ghani Dehlawi (whose asanid are collected in al-Yani al-Jani), Shaykh Qutbuddin al-Dehlawi (author of Mazahir al-Haqq), Shaykh Ahmad Ali Saharanpuri (editor and publisher of the first print of Sahih al-Bukhari), Mufti Inayat Ahmad Kakorvi (author of Ilm al-Sighah), Shaykh Fadl al-Rahman Ganjmuradabadi (the famous spiritual master) and others. Sayyid Abdul Hayy Hasani says: “No sanad of hadith remains in India besides this sanad [via Shah Ishaq Dehlawi].” (Nuzhat al-Khawatir, p. 911)* This is a clear demonstration that Barelwi claims to be a continuation of the earlier scholarly tradition is false. Barelwi “scholarship” is an effort to justify popular beliefs and practices, not to be a continuation of the earlier scholarly tradition.

Naqi Ali Khan’s work, Usul al-Rashad, is problematic from many angles. He, for instance, claims that the view of bid’ah being divided into good and bad in only its linguistic usage rather than its Shar’i usage is a fallacy. (Usul al-Rashad, p. 61-2) But this reality was expressed by several imams of the past like Ibn Kathir, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and Birgivi. (see p 18-20 here: https://bawariqalghaybtranslation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/bidah-a-study.pdf) His discussion on bid’ah is very selective and skewed, and overlooks some very important issues.

* This is apparently in reference to a sanad of hadith that is based on a complete recitation of the famous books of hadith; such a sanad can only be traced via Shah Ishaq al-Dehlawi in India. Otherwise, there are other sanads to Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi, but these are not based on a complete recitation of the books of hadith.


‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī Refutes False Barelwī Beliefs

November 21, 2018

‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī (1848 – 1886), a renowned ‘ālim and muḥaddith of the 19th century whose works are accepted amongst Deobandīs and Barelwīs, Arabs and non-Arabs, clearly and strongly refuted some extreme Barelwī beliefs.

āir Nāir/ ‘Ilm al-Ghayb

One of his fatāwā is as follows:

استفتاء: ما قولكم في رجل يظن أن الأولياء يعلمون ويسمعون نداء المنادي قريبا وبعيدا ويستمده بألفاظ يقولها الحاضر للحاضر، وينذر له بالأنعام يقول: نذرت له. بينوا توجروا

هو المصوب: هذا رجل فاسد العقيدة، بل يخشى عليه الكفر فإن سماع الأولياء النداء من بعيد ليس بثابت والعلم الكلي بجميع الجزئيات في جميع الأزمان مختص بالله جل جلاله، وقد قال فى الفتاوى البزازية: من قال إن أرواح المشايخ حاضرة تعلم يكفر، انتهى. وذكر فيه أىضا أن: من تزوج بشهادة الله ورسوله يكفر لأنه ظن أن الرسول يعلم الغيب، انتهى. والنذر لغير الله حرام، ويحرم المنذور لغير الله كما بسطه فى البحر الرائق والدر المختار وغيرهما، والله أعلم. حرره الراجي عفو ربه القوي أبو الحسنات محمد عبد الحي تجاوز الله عن ذنبه الجلي والخفي – مجموعة الفتاوى، ص٣٧٨-٣٧٩

“Question: What do you say about a man who assumes that the Awliyā’ know and hear the call of a caller from near and far, and seek his assistance using words that a person uses for someone in his presence, and makes vows of animals to him, declaring that he has made a vow to him. Explain, and be rewarded.

“Answer: [Allāh] grants rectitude. This is a man of corrupt belief. In fact, it is feared he has disbelieved because the Awliyā’ hearing the call from far is not proven, and complete knowledge of all particulars in all times is specific to Allāh (Glorious is His Grandeur). It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing has committed disbelief.’ It also states in it: ‘Whoever marries taking as witness Allāh and His Messenger, he disbelieves because he assumes the Messenger knows the Ghayb.’ Taking a vow by other than Allāh is ḥarām, and whatever a vow was made upon is ḥarām, as explained in al-Bar al-Rā’iq, al-Durr al-Mukhtār and other books. This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (Majmū‘at al-Fatāwā, p. 378-9)

In another fatwa in Farsi, it states:

“Question: What do you say (may Allāh ۢMost High have mercy on you) regarding the issue that is prevalent in our lands amongst the common people that in times of calamity and dire need, they call out in asking for assistance from the prophets and saints from afar believing that they are ḥāḍir & nāẓir and that whenever they implore them they are aware, and in turn, supplicate for them in the fulfilment of these needs? Is this permissible or not? Explain, and be rewarded.

“Answer: He grants direction to what is correct: In reality, such belief in the prophets and saints being ḥāḍir and nāẓir, and at all times are aware of our calling out to them even from afar is shirk, since it entails belief in ‘ilm al-ghayb for other than Him Most High, and this belief is shirk. This is because this characteristic is from those exclusive to Allāh (Great is His Grandeur), which no other being can have partnership with Him in. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘One marries without witnesses, saying: I make Allāh, His Messenger and the Angels witness, he disbelieves, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb.’ [1] Further, it states in Bazzāziyyah: ‘About this our scholars have said: Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing have committed disbelief.’ And Allāh knows best. This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Powerful Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (ibid. p. 344-5)

In al-Āthar al-Marfū‘ah, ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī states:

“From amongst these [fabrications] is what the sermonisers mention, that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was given knowledge of the first and the last in full detail, and was granted knowledge of all that has transpired and all that will occur as a whole and in terms of its minutiae, and that there is no difference [in this respect] between his knowledge and the knowledge of his Creator in terms of encompassment and inclusiveness, and the only difference between them is that the knowledge of Allāh is pre-eternal and eternal by virtue of His own self without having been taught by another as distinguished from the knowledge of the Messenger as he acquired it by the teaching of his Maker. This is flowery speech and falsehood as stated by Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī in al-Mina al-Makkiyyah Shar al-Qaīdah al-Hamziyyah and other spiritual masters. What is established from the verses of Qur’ān and the Prophetic ḥadīths is that [such] inclusiveness and encompassment and knowledge of all Ghayb is exclusive to the Revered Deity, and this characteristic has not been granted by the Revered Deity to any of creation. Yes, the knowledge of our Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is more extensive and more numerous than the knowledge of all prophets and messengers; and the teaching of his Creator to him of unseen matters in relation to His teaching to others is more complete, thus he (Allāh bless him an grant him peace) is most complete in knowledge and practice and is the master of creatures in status and virtue.” (Al-thār al-Marfū‘ah li l-Akhbār al-Mawū‘ah, p. 38)

Ummī

He states in the same work:

“From these [fabrications] is what they state that he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was not unlettered but was able to write and recite from an initial natural state. This view is opposed to the Book, Sunnah and Consensus of the Ummah, so has no consideration according to those possessing understanding.”  (ibid)

Note: Famous Barelwī writer, Aḥmad Yār Khān, articulated this belief. See: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/barelwi-distortion-of-the-prophetic-title-ummi-unlettered/

The Hearing of the Prophet (allallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)

He writes in the same work:

“From these [fabrications] is what they state when mentioning the Muḥammadan hearing that he hears the blessing of one who sends blessing on him even if far from his grave without an intermediary. This is false, not confirmed by transmission. In fact, the opposite is proven, since the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Whoever sends blessing on me at my grave I hear it and whoever sends blessing on me from afar, Allāh has appointed an angel for it to convey it to me.’…” (ibid. p. 46)

The Prophet Attending Majālis of Mawlid

He states in the same work:

“From these [fabrications] is what they state that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) attends the gatherings of remembering his birth himself at the mention of his birth, and they base the standing out of reverence and respect at the mention of the birth on this. This is also from the falsities; no evidence being established for it. Mere possibility and supposition are outside the parameters of explanation.” (ibid.)

‘Allāmah Laknawī mentions that those who believe such things and articulate them are guilty of major sins and fall under the prophetic warning: “Whoever lies upon me let him prepare his abode in Hell.” He says: “It is necessary for every Muslim to be careful on such matters and not say anything before investigating it in the reliable books…and not be daring in mentioning what his mind invents or something [unproven] written by those before him…” (ibid. p. 47)

Naming a New-Born “‘Abd al-Nabī”

Al-Laknawī also opposed the Barelwī practice and belief of calling someone “‘Abd al-Nabī”, “‘Abd al-Muṣṭafā” etc. He wrote:

الاستفسار: هل يجوز التسمية بعبد النبي وعبد الرسول وأمة النبي وأمة الصديق وغير ذلك؟ الاستبشار: لا يجوز كل اسم فيه لفظ العبد أو الأۢمة، أو ما يؤدي مؤداهما بأي لسان كان، إلى غير الله، صرح به علي القاري في شرح الفقه الأكبر، وقد ورد الحديث بالنهي عن ذلك في سنن أبي داود وغيره، وأما إضافة لفظ الغلام إلى غير الله فهو جائز، فيجوز غلام الرسول ولا يجوز عبد الرسول أو بنده رسول أو نحو ذلك نفع المفتي والسائل/فتاوى اللكنوي، دار ابن حزم، ص٤٢٥

“Question: Is it permissible to use the names “‘Abd al-Nabi” (bondsman of the prophet) and “‘Abd al-Rasul” (bondsman of the messenger) and “Amat al-Nabi” (bondswoman of the prophet) and “Amat al-Ṣiddiq” (bondswoman of the truthful saint) etc?

“Answer: Every name in which the words ‘‘abd’ (bondsman) and ‘amah’ (bondswoman) or their equivalents in any other language are attributed to other than Allāh (Exalted is He) is impermissible. ‘Alī al-Qārī stated this in Shar al-Fiqh al-Akbar, and a ḥadīth prohibiting this appears in Sunan Abī Dāwūd and other [collections]. Attributing the word ‘Ghulām’ to other than Allāh is permissible, and thus Ghulām al-Rasūl is permissible, but ‘Abd al-Rasūl or Bandah e Rasūl or the like is not permissible.” (Naf‘ al-Muftī wa al-Sā’il, p. 425)

[1] The jurists also state that if one were to say the angels on their shoulders are witness to their marriage, they will not become disbelievers “because these angels are never absent from them.” (al-Muī al-Burhānī, 7:407; see also: al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah, 2:288) Hence, shirk and kufr is in affirming knowledge of something to a being that is not proven that they have acquired.


Detailed Arabic Refutation of Barelwis

February 17, 2015

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

انحراف البريلوية عن أهل السنة والجماعة

الجماعة المنتستبون إلى أحمد رضا خان البريلوي، المسماة ب’البريلوية’، يزعمون أنهم هم الذابون عن عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة بشبه القارة الهندية، وأن مخالفيهم من الديوبندية وأهل الحديث (غير المقلدين/اللامذهبيين) منحرفون عن منهج أهل السنة، وأنهم ليسوا على الحق، بل فيهم نزعة البغض على الحبيب المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم، فيسيئون الأدب معه ويميلون إلى تنقيص شأنه

والحق خلافه، فإن الذابين الحقيقيين عن عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة بالقارة الهندية هم: السادة الديوبندية، من العلامة الفقيه رشيد أحمد الگنگوهي والعلامة الفيلسوف قاسم النانوتوي وتلامذتهم وتلامذة تلامذتهم، وهم المسمون ب’أكابر علماء ديوبند’، الذين خدمتهم لإحياء علوم السنة ولنشر العلوم الشرعية معروفة لدي أهل العرب أيضا، وجهودهم فى الدفاع عن اتباع المذاهب الأربعة ولا سيما مذهب الإمام الأعظم أبي حنيفة قد وقعت موقع القبول فى عامة الناس من العرب والعجم، وحركة العلامة المحدث الصوفي الجليل مولانا محمد إلياس الكاندهلوي – من أرشد أصحاب العلامة رشيد أحمد الگنگوهي والمحدث خليل أحمد السهارنپوري – المعروفة باسم ‘جماعة التبليغ’ قد أثرت في عوام الناس وخواصهم في جميع أنحاء العالم، وأحيت فيهم عواطف الدين وانفعالاته، وهذا كله من ثمرات ما زرعه قاسم العلوم النانوتوي والإمام الرباني الگنگوهي رحمهما الله تعالى

والديوبندية صرحوا في عدة من مؤلفاتهم أنهم على عقيدة أهل السنة، وأنهم منتسبون إلى مذهب الأشاعرة والماتريدية، كما صرح به العلامة خليل أحمد السهارنپوري فى ‘المهند على المفند’ الذي وقع عليه أكثر كبار الديوبندية في ذلك العصر، وصرح به العلامة محمد طيب القاسمي والعلامة ظفر أحمد العثماني والعلامة إدريس الكاندهلوي وغيرهم أيضا من أكابر علماء ديوبند. الحاصل: أن الديوبندية هم قلعة أهل السنة بالهند، فجاهدوا في إعلاء كلمة الله بها، وحملوا لواء السنة وعلومها، وزكوا بواطنهن على طريقة الصوفية، وقاموا بدعوة الناس إلى الدين الخالص وإلى محبة الله سبحانه وتعالى ومحبة سيد الخلق صلى الله عليه وسلم

أما البريلوية فقاموا بمعاداة أهل الحق ومعاداة أولياء الرحمن، فكفروا أكابر الديوبندية ونسبوا إليهم أقوالا شنيعة بهتانا وزورا، ورموهم بتهم هم عنها برآء، ومع هذا كله تغالوا في تظاهر المحبة للنبي المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم، ووصفوه بما ليس فيه، وبالغوا في هذا الأمر، حتى دخلوا في وعيد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((من كذب علي متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار)). وقال عليه السلام: ((لا يستهوينكم الشيطان، أنا محمد بن عبد الله، عبد الله ورسوله، والله! ما أحب أن ترفعوني فوق منزلتي التي أنزلني الله)) من مسند أحمد ج٢٠ ص٢٣، مؤسسة الرسالة، وإسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

قال العلامة الإمام الفقيه عبد الحي بن مولانا عبد الحليم اللكنوي رحمهما الله تعالى: ((كذلك نسبة فضيلة أو مرتبة لم تثبت وجودها فى الذات المقدسة النبوية بالآيات أو الأحاديث المعتبرة إلى ذاته المطهرة أيضا من أكبر الكبائر، فليتيقظ الوعاظ المذكورون وليحذر القصاص والخطباء الآمرون الزاجرون حيث ينسبون كثيرا من الأمور إلى الحضرة المقدسة التي لم يثبت وجودها فيها، ويظنون أن في ذلك أجرا عظيما لإثبات فضل الذات المقدسة وعلو قدرها، ولا يعلمون أن فى الفضائل النبوية التي تثبت بالأحاديث الصحيحة غنية عن تلك الأكاذيب الواهية. ولعمري! فضائله صلى الله عليه وسلم خارجة عن حد الإحاطة والإحصاء ومناقبه التي فاق بها على جميع الورى كثيرة جدا من غير انتهاء، فأي حاجة إلى تفضيله بالأباطيل؟! بل هو موجب للإثم العظيم وضلالة عن سواء السبيل)). انتهى من الآثار المرفوعة فى الأخبار الموضوعة، دار الكتب العلمية، ص٣٦

ونريد هنا بيان بعض هذه الإنحرافات للبريلوية عن أهل السنة والجماعة فيما يعتقدونه بالنسبة إلى ذات الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم المقدسة وصفاته، فإن البريلوية قالوا فيه صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه يعلم وقت الساعة بالضبط، وأن له علما محيطا بجميع كوائن الدنيا من بدء الخلق إلى وقت الساعة بالتفصيل، وأنه ليس من جنس البشر فى الحقيقة بل جنسه مختلف من جنس البشر. وهذا كله انحراف عن منهج السنة بلا ريب، وواجب على العلماء مخالفتهم فيها والإنكار عليهم وبيان فساد عقائدهم

سنتعرض فيما يلي لكل من هذه العقائد الباطلة الفاسدة، ولا يظن القارئ الكريم أن انحرافات البريلوية منحصرة في هذه الأمور، فإنما نذكر هذه المسائل الخاصة تمثيلا لضلالاتهم، لا استقصاء وحصرا. وسنثبت بإذن الله تعالى أنهم قائلون بها، ولا تكاد تجد منهم أحدا ينكرها، وسنذكر بالإختصار – إن شاء الله تعالى – مدى انحرافها عن عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة

*******************************

العقيدة الأولى للبريوية: قد أعطى الله تعالى رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم العلم بتعين وقت الساعة

صرح به إمامهم أحمد رضا خان البريلوي في بعض مؤلفاته، فقال فى ‘الدولة المكية بالمادة الغيبية’: ((فثبت حصول العلم به [أي: وقت الساعة] قبل قيامها له صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم)). واتبعه فيه جماعته، فقال أحد كبار البريلوية أحمد يار خان النعيمي (١٣١٤ – ١٣٩١ ه) ما ترجمته: ((إن الرب تعالى قد أعطى هذا العلم [أي: بوقت الساعة] أيضا إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم)). انتهى من جاء الحق مع سعيد الحق، مكتبة غوثية، ص٢٩٠

وهذا من أشنع البدع ومن أنكر الخرافات. فإن الله تعالى استأثر بعلم وقت الساعة لذاته العلية، فلا يظهر عليه أحدا من خلقه إلا عند وقوعها. وقول البريلوية هذا قد قال به البعض الغير المعروفون من المتقدمين وبعض من عرف بالعلم من المتأخرين كالصاوي المالكي. لكنه قول باطل شاذ خلاف للنصوص الشرعية الصريحة، بل كفر بعض المتقدمين من قال به

قال الله تعالى: ((إن الساعة آتية أكاد أخفيها)) [سورة طه، ٢٠:١٥] روى الطبري بإسناد صحيح عن التابعي الجليل قتادة بن دعامة تحت هذه الآية: ((وهي في بعض القراءة: أخفيها من نفسي. ولعمري! لقد أخفاها الله من الملائكة المقربين ومن الأنبياء المرسلين)) [تفسير الطبري، مكتبة هجر، ج١٦ ص٣٥] وروى ابن أبي حاتم عن التابعي الجليل إسماعيل بن عبد الرحمن السدي: ((ليس من أهل السماوات والأرض أحد إلا أخفى الله عنه علم الساعة، وهي في قراءة ابن مسعود: أكاد أخفيها من نفسي. يقول: أكتمها من الخلائق حتى لو استطعت أن أكتمها من نفسي لفعلت)) [تفسير ابن أبي حاتم، مكتبة نزار مصطفى الباز، ص٢٤١٩] وذهب الإمام الطبري رحمه الله تعالى أن هذا التفسير للآية – أي: أن معناه: أكاد أخفيها من نفسي مبالغة في إرادته تعالى إخفاءه عن الخلق – متعين، ولا يجوز تفسيرها بغيره لما صح فيه من الآثار المروية عن الصحابة وغيرهم

وانظروا مع هذا تفاسير الأئمة للآيات التالية: ٧:١٨٧، ٦٧:٢٥، ١٠:٤٨، ١٧:٥١، ٢١:١٠٨، ٧٢:٢٥، ٦:٢، ٢٧:٦٥، ٤١:٤٧، ٤٣:٨٥، ٧٩:٤٢، ٦:٥٩، ٣١:٣٤، فترون أن هذا الأمر ثابت فى القرآن ومن أقوال الأئمة غاية الثبوت، لا يجوز خلافه لمن آمن بكلام الله سبحانه وتعالى

وهذا هو مذهب أئمتنا الحنفية الماتريدية. فقال الإمام أبو منصور الماتريدي في تفسيره: ((فجائز أن يقال: إنه يعلم بعض هذه الأشياء بأعلام…إلا الساعة فإنه لا يطلع عليه أحدا)) [تأويلات أهل السنة، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج٤ ص٨٠] وقال أيضا: ((وأما الساعة فإنها تقوم من غير أن يكون لأحد من الخلائق تدبير فيها أو علم)) انتهى

قال الإمام الطحاوي في عقيدته: ((وأصل القدر سر الله تعالى في خلقه لم يطلع على ذلك ملك مقرب ولا نبي مرسل)) قال الإمام سراج الدين الغزنوي المصري الحنفي (٧٠٤ – ٧٧٣ ه) في شرحه عليها: ((القدر: جعل كل ما هو واقع فى العالم على ما هو عليه من خير وشر ونفع وضر، وبيان ما وقع عن سنن القضاء في كل زمان ومكان، وهو تأويل الحكمة والعناية السابقة الأزلية…فتكون عقول البشر قاصرة عن الإحاطة بكنه الحكم الإلهية والبصائر قاصرة عن إدراك الأسرار الربانية، فيكون القدر من الغيب الذي استأثر الله بعلمه وجعله سرا مكتوما عن خلقه، لم يظهر ذلك لملك مقرب ولا نبي مرسل)) [شرح عقيدة الإمام الطحاوي للغزنوي، دار الكرز، ص٩٩] ثم قال تحت قول الإمام الطحاوي: ((لأن العلم علمان: علم فى الخلق موجود وعلم فى الخلق مفقود فإنكار العلم الموجود كفر وادعاء العلم المفقود كفر)): ((إن العلم الموجود فى العالم والخلق هو ما علم بالدلائل الظاهرة والبراهين الباهرة كالعلم بالصانع بما نصت عليه دلائل الوحدانية وقدمه وكماله وعلمه وحكمته وبراءته من سمات النقص وأمارات الحدوث…وأما العلم المفقود فيهم فهو: العلم الذي أخفاه الله عن خلقه كعلم الغيب الذي استأثر الله بعلمه، كعلم [أصل] القضاء والقدر و[وقت] قيام الساعة، كما قال تعالى: قل لا يعلم من فى السموت والأرض الغيب إلا الله، وقال تعالى: لا يجليها لوقتها إلا هو، فادعاء هذا العلم وطلبه كفر أيضا، لأنه دعوى المشاركة مع الله عز وجل فيما استأثره)) انتهى من المصدر السابق، ص١٠٠

فهذا نص من إمام حنفي ماتريدي في كفر من ادعى علم وقت الساعة لأحد من الخلق

وقال العلامة المفتي أبو السعود محمد بن محمد الرومي (٨٩٨ – ٩٨٢ ه) في تفسيره المشهور: ((لإظهاره على بعض غيوبه المتعلقة برسالته، كما يعرب عنه بيان من ارتضى بالرسول، تعلقا تاما، إما لكونه من مبادئ رسالته بأن يكون معجزة دالة على صحتها وإما لكونه من أركانها وأحكامها كعامة التكاليف الشرعية التي أمر بها المكلفون وكيفيات أعمالهم وأجزيتها المترتبة عليها فى الآخرة وما تتوقف هي عليه من أحوال الآخرة التي من جملتها [نفس] قيام الساعة والبعث وغير ذلك من الأمور الغيبية التي بيانها من وظائف الرسالة، وأما ما لا يتعلق بها على أحد الوجهين من الغيوب التي من جملتها وقت قيام الساعة فلا يظهر عليه أحدا أبدا على أن بيان وقته مخل بالحكمة التشريعية التي عليها يدور فلك الرسالة)) [إرشاد العقل السليم، مكتب الرياض، ج٥ ص٤٠٩] ونقل هذه العبارة العلامة ابن عابدين الشامي وأقره كما في مجموعة رسائل ابن عابدين، ج٢ ص٣١٣-٣١٤

وقال الإمام كمال الدين أحمد بن الحسن البياضي الحنفي الماتريدي (١٠٤٤ – ١٠٩٧): ((فإن الأنبياء لا يعلمون من الغيب إلا ما علمهم الله تعالى، ووقت الساعة ليس منه)) انتهى من إشارات المرام، دار الكتب العلمية، ص٥٠

فهذه نصوص صريحة من أئمتنا الحنفية – الذين ادعى البريلوية أنهم يتبعونهم ويقلدونهم – في عدم دخول علم وقت الساعة فيما أطلعه الله تبارك وتعالى على نبيه المصطفى صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم. والقول بخلافه قريب من الكفر إن لم يكنه

*******************************

العقيدة الثانية للبريلوية: قد أعطى الله تعالى رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم علم جميع الحوادث من بدء الخلق إلى قيام الساعة بالتفصيل

صرح به إمامهم أيضا فى ‘الدولة المكية’ فقال: ((وأما نحن معاشر أهل الحق فقد علمنا – ولله الحمد – أن هذا الذي ذكرنا من تفاصيل كل ما كان من أول يوم [للخلق] وما يكون إلى آخر الأيام [قبل قيام الساعة] ليس بجنب علوم نبينا صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم إلا شيئا قليلا)) واتبعه فيه جماعته أيضا، فقالوا فى علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مثل ما قيل في علم الله: لا يعزب عنه مثقال ذرة فى السموت ولا فى الأرض

وهذه العقيدة أيضا تنافي النصوص الصريحة. فقد ذكر الله عز وجل أشياء خمسة التي لا يعلمها إلا هو، وهي: علم الساعة، والعلم بالمطر، والعلم بما فى الأرحام، والعلم بما فى الغد، والعلم بأحوال وفيات الناس (سورة لقمان، آية ٣٤). ويجوز أن يطلع الله على البعض بعض هذه الأشياء، لكن لا يطلع على أحد كليات أحد من هذه الأشياء. فقال الإمام أبو منصور الماتريدي رحمه الله تعالى تحت هذه الآية: ((ويعلم ما فى الأرحام: من انتقال النطفة إلى العلقة وانتقال العلقة إلى المضغة وتحول ما فى الأرحام من حال إلى حال أخرى وقدر زيادة ما فيه في كل وقت وفي كل ساعة ونحو ذلك لا يعلمه إلا الله، وأما العلم بأن فيه ولدا وأنه ذكر أو أنثى فجائز أن يعلم ذلك غيره أيضا.)) فهذا النص يدل على أنه لا يجوز العلم بكليات أحد من هذه الأشياء الخمسة لأحد من الخلق، وإن جاز الإطلاع على الجزئيات منه. فقال الملا علي القارئ فى المرقاة: ((والمعنى لا يعلم كلياتها غير الله، وقد يطلع بعض أصفيائه على جزئيات منهن)) وقال: ((فإن قلت: قد أخبر الأنبياء، والأولياء بشيء كثير من ذلك فكيف الحصر؟ قلت: الحصر باعتبار كلياتها دون جزئياتها)) وأما تأويل البريلوي بأن الحصر من جهة العلم الذاتي لا العلم العطائي، فهذا تأويل بعيد، فإنه جاء في حديث رواه أحمد وصححه الحافظ ابن كثير أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: ((قد علم الله خيرا، وإن من العلم ما لا يعلمه إلا الله: الخمس))، فهذا الحديث ينافي تعليم الخمس أيضا من جهة الله تعالى، فيتعين كون الحصر المذكور فى الآية في كليات هذه الخمس. وقول البريلوية بإحاطة علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بجميع الكوائن المستقبلة إلى قيام الساعة يلزم منه القول بأنه عالم بكليات هذه الأمور من نزول الغيث ومما فى الأرحام ومن أماكن وأوقات الوفيات. ويلزم منه أيضا القول بأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم عالم بوقت الساعة – وهو باطل قطعا كما علمت – فإن من تفصيلات العلم بالحوادث تواريخها وأوقاتها، فإذا كان عالما بما يقع إلى الساعة بالتفصيل يلزم كونه عالما بوقت الساعة بعينه

وبالتالي، قد تواتر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه يجيء أناس ممن صحبه إلى حوضه فيمنعهم الملائكة من التقدم إلى الحوض، فيقول صلى الله عليه وسلم: أصحابي، هم مني، إلى غير ذلك، فأخبره الله تعالى والملائكة بأنه لا علم له بما أحدث هؤلاء بعده من الإرتداد عن دينه، فيقول صلى الله عليه وسلم – كما جاء في رواية –: ((وكنت علهم شهيدا ما دمت فيهم، فلما توفيتني كنت أنت الرقيب عليهم.)) فهذا الدليل القطعي الثبوت يدل على بطلان قول البريلوية هذا، والتأويل فيه بعيد جدا. أما ما قد يشكل على البعض من حديث عرض الأعمال على النبي صلى لله عليه وسلم، فقال ابن الملقن في شرحه على البخاري وغيره من الشراح أن العرض المذكور في ذلك الحديث مخصوص بأعمال المؤمنين لا أعمال المرتدين والزنادقة والكفار، فهذا وجه الجمع بين الحديثين ووجه دفع هذا الإشكال

وهذا بيان تواتر حديث الحوض المذكور

ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا سُفْيَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا المُغِيرَةُ بْنُ النُّعْمَانِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ: ” إِنَّكُمْ مَحْشُورُونَ حُفَاةً عُرَاةً غُرْلًا، ثُمَّ قَرَأَ: {كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُعِيدُهُ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا إِنَّا كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ} [الأنبياء: 104]، وَأَوَّلُ مَنْ يُكْسَى يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ إِبْرَاهِيمُ، وَإِنَّ أُنَاسًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِي يُؤْخَذُ بِهِمْ ذَاتَ الشِّمَالِ، فَأَقُولُ أَصْحَابِي أَصْحَابِي، فَيَقُولُ: إِنَّهُمْ لَمْ يَزَالُوا مُرْتَدِّينَ عَلَى أَعْقَابِهِمْ مُنْذُ فَارَقْتَهُمْ، فَأَقُولُ كَمَا قَالَ العَبْدُ الصَّالِحُ “: {وَكُنْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي} – إِلَى قَوْلِهِ – {العَزِيزُ الحَكِيمُ} – متفق عليه، واللفظ للبخاري

عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ، وَابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ، قَالُوا: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ شَقِيقٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: ” أَنَا فَرَطُكُمْ عَلَى الْحَوْضِ، وَلَأُنَازِعَنَّ أَقْوَامًا ثُمَّ لَأُغْلَبَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ، فَأَقُولُ: يَا رَبِّ أَصْحَابِي، أَصْحَابِي، فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ – متفق عليه، واللفظ لمسلم

أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه

حَدَّثَنَا مُسْلِمُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ العَزِيزِ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ” لَيَرِدَنَّ عَلَيَّ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي الحَوْضَ، حَتَّى عَرَفْتُهُمْ اخْتُلِجُوا دُونِي، فَأَقُولُ: أَصْحَابِي، فَيَقُولُ: لاَ تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ – متفق عليه، واللفظ للبخاري

حذيفة بن اليمان رضي الله عنهما

وحَدَّثَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنِ المُغِيرَةِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا وَائِلٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ” أَنَا فَرَطُكُمْ عَلَى الحَوْضِ، وَلَيُرْفَعَنَّ مَعِي رِجَالٌ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ لَيُخْتَلَجُنَّ دُونِي، فَأَقُولُ: يَا رَبِّ أَصْحَابِي، فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لاَ تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ ” تَابَعَهُ عَاصِمٌ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، وَقَالَ حُصَيْنٌ: عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – صحيح البخاري

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ الرَّقَّامُ، ثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الْقُلُوسِيُّ، ثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، نَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، عَنْ حُصَيْنٍ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «لَيَرِدَنَّ عَلَى الْحَوْضِ أَقْوَامٌ، فَأَعْرِفُهُمْ، فَيَخْتَلِجُوا دُونِي، فَأَقُولُ: مِنِّي، فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ – المعجم الأوسط

سهل بن سعد رضي الله عنه

حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُطَرِّفٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو حَازِمٍ، عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنِّي فَرَطُكُمْ عَلَى الحَوْضِ، مَنْ مَرَّ عَلَيَّ شَرِبَ، وَمَنْ شَرِبَ لَمْ يَظْمَأْ أَبَدًا، لَيَرِدَنَّ عَلَيَّ أَقْوَامٌ أَعْرِفُهُمْ وَيَعْرِفُونِي، ثُمَّ يُحَالُ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُمْ» قَالَ أَبُو حَازِمٍ: فَسَمِعَنِي النُّعْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي عَيَّاشٍ، فَقَالَ: هَكَذَا سَمِعْتَ مِنْ سَهْلٍ؟ فَقُلْتُ: نَعَمْ، فَقَالَ: أَشْهَدُ عَلَى أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الخُدْرِيِّ، لَسَمِعْتُهُ وَهُوَ يَزِيدُ فِيهَا: ” فَأَقُولُ إِنَّهُمْ مِنِّي، فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لاَ تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ، فَأَقُولُ: سُحْقًا سُحْقًا لِمَنْ غَيَّرَ بَعْدِي – متفق عليه، واللفظ للبخاري

أبو هريرة رضي الله عنه

وَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ شَبِيبِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الحَبَطِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنْ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ المُسَيِّبِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ: أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُحَدِّثُ: أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ” يَرِدُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ رَهْطٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي، فَيُحَلَّئُونَ عَنِ الحَوْضِ، فَأَقُولُ: يَا رَبِّ أَصْحَابِي، فَيَقُولُ: إِنَّكَ لاَ عِلْمَ لَكَ بِمَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ، إِنَّهُمُ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَى أَدْبَارِهِمْ القَهْقَرَى – متفق عليه، واللفظ للبخاري

أبو سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه

حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُطَرِّفٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو حَازِمٍ، عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنِّي فَرَطُكُمْ عَلَى الحَوْضِ، مَنْ مَرَّ عَلَيَّ شَرِبَ، وَمَنْ شَرِبَ لَمْ يَظْمَأْ أَبَدًا، لَيَرِدَنَّ عَلَيَّ أَقْوَامٌ أَعْرِفُهُمْ وَيَعْرِفُونِي، ثُمَّ يُحَالُ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُمْ» قَالَ أَبُو حَازِمٍ: فَسَمِعَنِي النُّعْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي عَيَّاشٍ، فَقَالَ: هَكَذَا سَمِعْتَ مِنْ سَهْلٍ؟ فَقُلْتُ: نَعَمْ، فَقَالَ: أَشْهَدُ عَلَى أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الخُدْرِيِّ، لَسَمِعْتُهُ وَهُوَ يَزِيدُ فِيهَا: ” فَأَقُولُ إِنَّهُمْ مِنِّي، فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لاَ تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ، فَأَقُولُ: سُحْقًا سُحْقًا لِمَنْ غَيَّرَ بَعْدِي – صحيح البخاري

عائشة رضي الله عنها

وَحَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي عُمَرَ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سُلَيْمٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ خُثَيْمٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ، تَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: وَهُوَ بَيْنَ ظَهْرَانَيْ أَصْحَابِهِ ” إِنِّي عَلَى الْحَوْضِ أَنْتَظِرُ مَنْ يَرِدُ عَلَيَّ مِنْكُمْ، فَوَاللهِ لَيُقْتَطَعَنَّ دُونِي رِجَالٌ، فَلَأَقُولَنَّ: أَيْ رَبِّ مِنِّي وَمِنْ أُمَّتِي، فَيَقُولُ: «إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا عَمِلُوا بَعْدَكَ، مَا زَالُوا يَرْجِعُونَ عَلَى أَعْقَابِهِمْ» – صحيح مسلم

أم سلمة رضي الله عنها

وحَدَّثَنِي يُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْأَعْلَى الصَّدَفِيُّ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي عَمْرٌو وَهُوَ ابْنُ الْحَارِثِ أَنَّ بُكَيْرًا، حَدَّثَهُ عَنِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ الْهَاشِمِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ رَافِعٍ، مَوْلَى أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ، زَوْجِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ: كُنْتُ أَسْمَعُ النَّاسَ يَذْكُرُونَ الْحَوْضَ، وَلَمْ أَسْمَعْ ذَلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَلَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمًا مِنْ ذَلِكَ، وَالْجَارِيَةُ تَمْشُطُنِي، فَسَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ» فَقُلْتُ لِلْجَارِيَةِ: اسْتَأْخِرِي عَنِّي، قَالَتْ: إِنَّمَا دَعَا الرِّجَالَ وَلَمْ يَدْعُ النِّسَاءَ، فَقُلْتُ: إِنِّي مِنَ النَّاسِ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: ” إِنِّي لَكُمْ فَرَطٌ عَلَى الْحَوْضِ، فَإِيَّايَ لَا يَأْتِيَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ فَيُذَبُّ عَنِّي كَمَا يُذَبُّ الْبَعِيرُ الضَّالُّ، فَأَقُولُ: فِيمَ هَذَا؟ فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ، فَأَقُولُ: سُحْقًا – صحيح مسلم

أسماء بنت أبي بكر رضي الله عنهما

حدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ السَّرِيِّ، حَدَّثَنَا نَافِعُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَتْ أَسْمَاءُ: عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ: ” أَنَا عَلَى حَوْضِي أَنْتَظِرُ مَنْ يَرِدُ عَلَيَّ، فَيُؤْخَذُ بِنَاسٍ مِنْ دُونِي، فَأَقُولُ: أُمَّتِي، فَيُقَالُ: لاَ تَدْرِي، مَشَوْا عَلَى القَهْقَرَى – متفق عليه، واللفظ للبخاري)

أبو بكرة رضي الله عنه

حَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ زَيْدٍ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: ” لَيَرِدَنَّ عَلَى الْحَوْضِ رِجَالٌ مِمَّنْ صَحِبَنِي وَرَآنِي حَتَّى إِذَا رُفِعُوا إِلَيَّ اخْتُلِجُوا دُونِي فَلَأَقُولَنَّ: رَبِّ , أَصْحَابِي , فَلَيُقَالَنَّ: إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ – مصنف ابن أبي شيبة

أبو الدرداء رضي الله عنه

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ خُلَيْدٍ قَالَ: نا أَبُو تَوْبَةَ قَالَ: نا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُهَاجِرٍ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، عَنْ أَبِي عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ مُسْلِمِ بْنِ مِشْكَمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الدَّرْدَاءِ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «لَا أُلْفِيَنَّ مَا نُوزِعْتُ أَحَدًا مِنْكُمْ عَلَى الْحَوْضِ، فَأَقُولُ: هَذَا مِنْ أَصْحَابِي فَيُقَالُ: إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ» . قَالَ أَبُو الدَّرْدَاءِ: يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ، ادْعُ اللَّهَ أَنْ لَا يَجْعَلَنِي مِنْهُمْ. قَالَ: «لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ»

عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه

وقال الحافظ أبو يعلى الموصلي: حدثنا زهير، حدثنا يونس بن محمد، حدثنا يعقوب بن عبد الله الأشعري، حدثنا حفص بن حميد، عن عكرمة، عن ابن عباس، عن عمر بن الخطاب، رضي الله عنه، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “إني ممسك بحجزكم: هلم عن النار، هلم عن النار، وتغلبوني وتقاحمون فيها تقاحم الفراش والجنادب، فأوشك أن أرسل حجزكم وأنا فرطكم على الحوض، فتردون علي معا وأشتاتا، أعرفكم بسيماكم وأسمائكم، كما يعرف الرجل الغريب من الإبل في إبله، فيذهب بكم ذات اليمين وذات الشمال، فأناشد فيكم رب العالمين: أي رب، قومي، أي رب أمتي فيقال: يا محمد، إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك، إنهم كانوا يمشون بعدك القهقرى على أعقابهم. انتهى من تفسير ابن كثير

قال ابن كثير تحته: وقال علي بن المديني: هذا حديث حسن الإسناد، إلا أن حفص بن حميد مجهول، لا أعلم روى عنه غير يعقوب بن عبد الله الأشعري القمي. قلت: بل قد روى عنه أيضا أشعث بن إسحاق، وقال فيه يحيى بن معين: صالح. ووثقه النسائي وابن حبان. انتهى من تفسير ابن كثير

هذا، وقد قال الإمام الفقيه أبو القاسم أحمد بن عصمة الصفار (ت: ٣٣٦) من متقدمي الحنفية أن الذي أشهد الله تعالى والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على نكاحه كفر، فإنه يدعى أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يعلم الغيب – أي ما لا طريقة له إلى حصوله. ونقل هذا القول من الإمام أبى القاسم كثير من أصحاب الفتاوى، فالمسألة منقولة فى الفاتوى الولوالجية (ج ٥ ص٤٢٢) وخلاصة الفتاوى والمحيط البرهاني والفتاوى البزازية والفتاوى التتارخانية وغيرها. لكن أورد صاحب الفتاوى التتارخانية على قول أبى القاسم الصفار هذا أن صاحب الملتقط (لعله أبو القاسم السمرقندي من علماء القرن السادس) قال بأنه لا يكفر فإنه يحتمل أن يكون هذا النكاح من الأشياء التي عرضت على روح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. ففى التتارخانية (ج٤ ص٣٨-٣٩): [تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله ورسوله لا يجوز، وعن الشيخ الإمام أبى القاسم الصفار أنه قال: يكفر من فعل هذا لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عالم الغيب. وفى الحجة: ذكر فى الملتقط أنه لا يكفر لأن الأشياء تعرض على روح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وإن الرسل يعرفون بعض الغيب. قال الله تعالى: عالم الغيب فلا يظهر على غيبه أحدا إلا من ارتضى من رسول] وفي مجمع الأنهر نحو هذه العبارة: (وَ) شُرِطَ أَيْضًا (حُضُورُ) شَاهِدَيْنِ فَلَوْ تَزَوَّجَ امْرَأَةً بِشَهَادَةِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَرَسُولِهِ لَا يَجُوزُ النِّكَاحُ وَعَنْ أبى القَاسِمٍ الصَّفَّارِ وَهُوَ كُفْرٌ مَحْضٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ اعْتَقَدَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ – عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ – يَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ وَهَذَا كُفْرٌ، وَفِي التَّتَارْخَانِيَّة إنَّهُ لَا يَكْفُرُ لِأَنَّ بَعْضَ الْأَشْيَاءِ يُعْرَضُ عَلَى رُوحِهِ – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ – فَيَعْرِفُ بِبَعْضِ الْغَيْبِ. انتهى كلامه

فذهب بعض المتقدمين من فقهاء الحنفية إلى تكفير من ينسب إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم علما بجزئية بعينها من الحوادث الواقعة بعده فإنه مما لا يثبت له طريق إلى وصوله، وذهب آخرون إلى عدم كفره لاحتمال كون هذه الجزئية مما عرض على روحه صلى الله عليه وسلم. لكن الجميع متفقون على أنه لا يعلم جميع الكوائن المسقبلة إلى وقت الساعة. فهذا إذن رأي المذهب الحنفي فى المسألة، وخالفه البريلوية كما خالف المذهب فى المسألة السابقة

*******************************

العقيدة الثالثة للبريلوية: النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في حقيقته ليس من جنس البشر

أشار إليه أحمد رضا خان البريلوي في ترجمته للقرآن المسماة ب’كنز الإيمان’ فترجم قول الله تعالى: ((قل: إنما أنا بشر مثلكم)) هكذا: ((قل: أنا مثلكم في ظاهر الصورة البشرية)) [كنز الإيمان، ص٤٤١]. وصرح به أئمة جماعة البريلوية، فقال مناظرهم وإمامهم محمد عمر الإجهروي (١٣١٩ – ١٣٩١ ه) ما ترجمته: ((فثبت من هذه الآية أن حقيقة المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم لم تكن بشريا، بل كان حقيقته نوريا)) [مقياس النور، ص٢٤] وقال: ((قلت: المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم فى الحقيقة نور، وبعثته القدرة الإليهية فى الدنيا من واسطة الوالد والوالدة إعطاء للنور جسما إنسانيا نوريا، وغلب نور الحقيقة المحمدية على جسمه، فعلى سبيل المثال: الملائكة أيضا من المخلوقات التي خلقت من النور، لكن لما جاء حضرة جبريل الأمين عليه السلام ملبوسا فى الجسم الإنساني غلب جسمانيته على نورانيته إلى الحد الذي لا يستيطيع أن يطير في هذه الهيئة الجسمانية الكذائية إلى السدرة المنتهى، بل لا يستطيع أن يعلو إلى السماء الدنيا، ولكن نور المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم الحقيقي غلب على الجسم الإنساني فمع الجسمية النورانية بلغ إلى ‘لا مكان’ عبورا السماوات كلها وتجاوزا السدرة المنتهى)) انتهى من المصدر السابق، ص٢٦-٢٧

وقال أحمد يار خان في كتابه ‘جاء الحق’ ما حاصله: النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من البشر، لكن هذا بالنسبة إلى أحكام الدنيا، أما في نفس الأمر وفى الواقع ليس هو من البشر ولا من الجن ولا من الملائكة، بل هو نور خلقه الله تعالى قبل خلق آدم، بدليل أن البشرية إنما بدأت من آدم عليه السلام، والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان نبيا وآدم بين الروح والجسد، فهذا يعني أنه لم يكن من البشر آنذاك، بل كان خلقا آخر، وإنما ظهر فى الدنيا في صورة الإنسان، وبناء على هذا لا يجوز لأحد من أمة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم القول بأنه بشر أو إنسي، بل يجب التحرز عن مثل هذا فإنه من جنس قول الكفار: ((إن أنتم إلا بشر مثلنا)) ومن قول إبليس الذي رأى الظاهر فقط في قوله: ((أنا خير منه خلقتني من نار وخلقته من طين))، وأما قول الله تعالى: قل إنما أنا بشر مثلكم، فهذا تسويغ للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقط من قبل التواضع، ومن قبل تأليف قلوب الكافرين، فإن شخصا يتنافر مما لا يعرف ومما هو ليس من جنسه، فهذا القول كصنيع الصائد إذا حاكى صوت الصيد لتقريبه منه حتى يتمكن من قبضه. ملخص من جاء الحق مع سعيد الحق، ص ٣٩٢-٣٩٤

وهذه العقيدة خطيرة إلى الغاية، فإن بشرية الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من ضروريات الدين، فإنكارها كفر، فقال الولي العراقي رحمه الله تعالى: ((أما العلم بكونه عليه الصلاة والسلام بشرا وهو من العرب فهو شرط في صحة الإيمان، فلو قال شخص: أؤمن برسالة محمد إلى جميع الخلق ولكني لا أدري هو هو من البشر أو الملائكة أو الجن…فلا شك في كفره لتكذيبه القرآن العظيم)) انتهى من الأجوبة المرضية، مكتبة التوعية الإسلامية، ص٢٨

ولم يوجه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم القول بأنه بشر مثلنا (أي مثلنا فى البشرية) إلى الكفار فقط كما زعمه أحمد يار خان، بل قاله للمؤمنين أيضا في أحاديث كثيرة مشهورة. فروى ابن مسعود رضي الله عنه قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((إنما أنا بشر، أذكر كما تذكرون وأنسى كما تنسون)) [صحيح مسلم] وروت عائشة رضي الله عنها قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((إنما أنا بشر، أضيق بما يضيق به البشر)) [مسند أحمد] وروى أبو هريرة رضي الله عنه قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((إنما أنا بشر، أغضب كما يغضب البشر)) [صحيح مسلم] وروى سلمان الفارسي رضي الله عنه قوله: ((إنما أنا من ولد آدم، أًغضب كما يغضبون)) [مسند أحمد] وروت أم سلمة رضي الله عنها قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((أنا بشر أقضي له على نحو ما أسمع به)) [صحيح مسلم] وروى طلحة رضي الله عنه قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((إنما هو ظن ظننته إن كان يغني شيئا فاصنعوا فإنما أنا بشر والظن يخطئ ويصيب)) مسند أحمد

وأفتى حكيم الأمة مولانا أشرف علي التهانوي رحمه الله تعالى فيمن يدعي أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان بشرا في ظاهره فقط، أما فى الحقيقة فهو ليس ببشر، بأن هذه الدعوى كفر، كما في إمداد الفتاوى له

*******************************

فعقائد البريلوية هذه وغيرها – كقولهم بأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ‘مختار الكل’ وأن الإختيارات كلها بيده يفعل ما يشاء فى الكون ويتصرف فيه كيف يشاء وقولهم بأنه ليس بأمي حقيقة بل يقرأ ويكتب وقولهم بأن له سماعا محيطا وهو في قبره فيسمع من البعيد كما يسمع من القريب إلى غير ذلك من العقائد الباطلة الفاسدة – كلها ضلالات وانحرافات، وتبطل زعمهم أنهم أهل السنة والجماعة وأنهم قائمون بنصرة الحق بالقارة الهندية، والحق – كما ترى – أن البريلوية فرقة ضالة مبتدعة خارجة من دائرة أهل السنة، يضاهون الوهابية في توسعهم فى التكفير، وجمعوا الشواذ والغرائب من أقوال المتصوفين المتأخرين. ما أحسن ما روي عن الإمام المجتهد المحدث عبد الرحمن الأوزاعي رحمه الله من قوله: ((من أخذ بنوادر العلماء فقد خرج من الإسلام))، فكيف بمن أخذ بنوادر الجهلاء؟ وجعلوها كأنها من أصول الدين وأسسه التي جاءت الأنبياء والرسل لدعوة الناس إليها؟! أعاذنا الله من هذه الفتن والخرافات والمخالفات، وجعلنا أمة وسطا عدلا، سائرين على النهج القويم بين إفراط الغلاة المبتدعين وتفريط الأغبياء المتشددين، آمين يا رب العلمين.

وصلى الله تعالى على سيدنا ونبينا ومولانا محمد، وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم


The Sahaaba did not believe the Prophet had absolute knowledge

April 12, 2013

Two points become clear from this hadith mentioned in Bukhari under the chapter of jihad:

1. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have full knowledge of the unseen. He would never let his Sahaaba get killed on purpose.

2. The Sahaaba dit not believe the Prophet was seeing (naazir) and present everywhere. The Sahaabi would not have made du’aa to Allah to inform His Prophet of what happened if this was known.

The full hadith:

The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) sent an espionage mission of ten men under the leadership of ‘Asim bin Thabit Al-Ansari (May Allah be pleased with him). They proceeded till they reached Al-Had’ah, a place between ‘Usfan and Makkah and the news of their arrival reached a section of the tribe of Hudhail, called Banu Lihyan. About one hundred men, who were all archers, hurried to follow their tracks. When ‘A sim and his companions came to know of their pursuers, they took refuge in a safe place. The infidels encircled them and said to them: “Come down and surrender, and we promise and guarantee you that we will not kill anyone of you.” ‘Asim bin Thabit (May Allah be pleased with him) said: “By Allah! I will not come down to be under the protection of disbelievers. O Allah! convey this news to our Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam).” Then the infidels shot arrows at them till they killed ‘Asim. Three men came down relying on their promise and covenant. They were Khubaib, Zaid bin Ad-Dathinah and another man. When the disbelievers captured them, they tied them up with the strings of their bows. The third of the captives said: “This is the beginning of first betrayal. By Allah! I will not go with you. I have a good example in these (martyrs).” So they dragged him and tried to compel him to accompany them, but he refused. At last they killed him. They took Khubaib and Zaid bin Ad- Dathina with them and sold them as slaves in Makkah. This incident took place after the battle of Badr.

Khubaib was bought by the sons of Al-Harith bin ‘Amir bin Naufal bin ‘Abd Manaf. It was Khubaib who had killed Al-Harith in the battle of Badr. Khubaib remained a prisoner with those people for a few days till the sons of Al-Harith resolved to kill him.

When Khubaib (May Allah be pleased with him) got wind of this plot, he borrowed a razor from one of Al- Harith’s daughters in order to remove his pubic hair. Her little son crawled towards Khubaib because of her carelessness. Later on, she saw her son on his thigh and the razor was in his hand. She got scared so much that Khubaib noticed the agitation on her face and said: “Are you afraid that I will kill him? No, I will never do that.” She later remarked (after Al-Khubaib got martyred): “By Allah! I never saw a prisoner better than Khubaib.” She added: “By Allah! I saw him once eating of a bunch of grapes in his hand while he was chained and there was no such fruit at that time in Makkah. Probably it was a boon which Allah bestowed upon Khubaib.”

When they took him out of the Haram of Makkah to kill him outside its boundaries, Khubaib requested them to let him offer two Rak’ah of voluntary prayer. They allowed him and he offered two Rak’ah prayer. Then he said: “Had I not apprehended that you would think that I was afraid of death, I would have prolonged the prayer. O Allah! Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them.” He then recited these poetic verses:

‘I do not care how they kill me as long as I get martyred in the Cause of Allah as a Muslim. I received my death for Allah’s sake. If Allah so desires, He will bless, the amputated limbs of the torn body.’

Then the son of Al-Harith killed him. It was Khubaib who set the tradition for any Muslim sentenced to death in captivity to offer two Rak’ah of voluntary prayer. On that day the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) informed his Companions of the martyrdom of Khubaib. Later on, when some disbelievers from Quraish were informed that ‘Asim had been martyred, they sent some people to fetch a significant part of his body to ascertain his death. (This was because) ‘Asim had killed one of their chiefs. So Allah sent a swarm of wasps, resembling a shady cloud, to hover over the body of ‘Asim and to shield him from their messengers, and thus they could not cut off anything from his body.

[Al- Bukhari].


Alahazrat – Deeming the Prophet Haadir is Against the Aqida of Ahlus Sunna

February 14, 2013

Another contradiction amongst the Barelwis. Alahazrat says in Fatawa Ridawiyya (29/206) in a clear question whether it is right to believe that the Prophet is present and seeing (haazir naazir):

To deem the leader of mankind as present (haadir) is against the aqida of ahlus sunna wa l-jama’a and incorrect. Rather, when durud and salam is recited, it is presented to the soul of the Prophet in Madina Munawwarah. It is not like that the leader of the prophets is present himself for this.

http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/modules/booksofalahazrat/item.php?page=188&itemid=45


G.F. Haddad and Hazir Nazir

January 30, 2013

GF Haddad wrote this article several years ago on the “Omnipresence of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam,” in which he attempts to prove the Barelwi doctrine of “Hazir Nazir.” http://sunnah.org/aqida/haadir_wa_naadir.htm A brother asked me to reply to GF Haddad’s “proofs,” as the belief that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is omnipresent (i.e. present in all places) is a belief that opposes the clear verses of the Qur’an, statements of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the established beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah.It should be remembered, firstly, that GF Haddad is unreliable in his unsupported claims and assertions (of which there are many). See for example here. Secondly, it should be understood that the mark of the people of innovation (ahl al-bid‘ah) is that they rely on ambiguous evidences (mutashabihat) instead of clear evidences (wadihat). So you will see them relying on some farfetched interpretations of verses, coupled irresponsibly with statements of some scholars and isolated hadiths taken out of context, and so on. Imam al-Shatibi discusses this characteristic of the people of innovation in-depth in the fourth chapter of his brilliant work, al-I’tisam. Towards the end of this chapter he says: “Likewise, it is possible for every person who follows the ambiguous evidences or distorts the applications [of the evidences] or interprets verses in a way they were not understood by the pious Salaf or holds fast to weak hadiths or takes evidences on face value to draw support for every action, statement or belief that agrees with his objective from a verse or hadith that did not intend that at all. The proof for this is that every sect that has become famous for its heresy (bid‘ah) draws support from verses or hadiths.” (al-I’tisam, 2:125)
The belief that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is omnipresent, meaning present and seeing in every place, is an innovated belief that is in violation of the clear evidences of the Shari’ah. In the following reply to his evidences, Haddad’s comments are highlighted in red. GF Haddad said:
Ibn Khafif al-Shirazi said in his al-‘Aqida al-Sahiha (§48):
[The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, ] is knower of what is and what shall be and he gave news of the Unseen (wa [ya‘taqidu] annahu al-‘âlimu bimâ kâna wa mâ yakûnu wa akhbara ‘an ‘ilmi al-ghayb).

Al-Baghawi relates in his Tafsir (under verse 55:3-4) from the eminent Tabi’i, Tawus ibn Kaysan (d. 106), that he said: “He (Allah) created man, meaning Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and taught him the description, meaning the description of what was and what will be, as he would describe [accounts of] the earlier peoples and the later peoples and the Day of Recompense.”

وقال ابن كيسان: { خَلَقَ ٱلإِنسَـٰنَ } يعني: محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم { عَلَّمَهُ ٱلبَيَانَ } يعني: بيان ما كان وما يكون لأنه كان يبين عن الأولين والآخرين وعن يوم الدين

Thus, it is clear that what is meant by this usage with respect to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is the knowledge he brought of the earlier people, the later peoples and of eschatology. Such knowledge is also found in the Qur’an, which is why, for example, Ibn Kathir says about the Qur’an: “Indeed the Qur’an contains every beneficial science, of the description of what came before and knowledge of what is to come…”

إن القرآن اشتمل على كل علم نافع؛ من خبر ما سبق، وعلم ما سيأتي

The “knowledge of what was and what will be” when used with respect to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the Qur’an, therefore, refers to the limited knowledge of the past and future documented in the Qur’an and hadith. They do not mean all-encompassing knowledge.

However, when it is used with respect to Allah, this phrase means all-encompassing knowledge.

Strangely, it appears GF Haddad concedes this:

Meaning, in the sense of being imparted by Allah whatever He imparted to him. Our teacher the Faqîh Shaykh Adib Kallas said: “Note that Ibn Khafif did not say ‘He knows all that is and all that shall be.’”

But Ahmad Rida Khan, who it seems Haddad is defending in this article, said exactly this in al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah and other works: that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was given knowledge of literally “all that was and will be” (جميع ما كان وما يكون). Does Haddad therefore accept that he was wrong?

But, apparently going back on this caveat to Ibn Khafif’s statement, Haddad then quotes his teacher saying:

“The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, possesses knowledge of all that is and knows the created universes in the same way that one knows a room in which one sits. Nothing is hidden from him.”

As proof he says:

There are two verses of the Holy Qur’an that affirm this, [But how (will it be with them) when we bring of every people a witness, and We bring you (O Muhammad) a witness against these](4:41) and [Thus We have ap¬pointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against man¬kind and that the messenger may be a witness against you] (2:143) nor can the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, be called to witness over what he does not know nor seeThe above evidence is confirmed by the authentic Prophetic narration from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri in the Sahih, Sunan, and Masanid:The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, said: “Nuh and his Community shall come <also: ‘shall be brought’> and Allah Most High shall say: ‘Did you convey [My Mes¬sage]?’ He shall say, ‘Yes, indeed! my Lord.’ Then He shall ask his Com¬munity, ‘Did he convey [My Message] to you?’ and they shall say, ‘No, no Prophet came to us.’ Then Allah shall ask Nuh, ‘Who is your witness?’ and he shall reply, ‘Muhammad, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, and his Community.’ Then we shall bear witness that he conveyed [the Message] indeed, and this is [the meaning of] His saying, [Thus We have ap¬pointed you a middle nation (ummatan wasatan), that you may be witnesses against man¬kind] (2:143), al-wasat meaning ‘the upright’ (al-‘adl).”[2]Ibn Hajar in his commentary of the above narration in Fath al-Bari said that another same-chained, similar narration in Ahmad and Ibn Majah shows that such witnessing applies to all the Communities and not just that of Nuh,`alayhis salaam:The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, said: “One Prophet shall come on the Day of Resurrection with a single man [as his Community]; another Prophet shall come with two men; others, with more. The nation of each Prophet shall be summoned and asked, ‘Did this Prophet convey [the Message] to you?’ They shall reply, no. Then he shall be asked, ‘Did you convey [the Message] to your people?’ and he shall reply, yes. Then he shall be asked, ‘Who is your witness?’ and he shall reply, ‘Muhammad and his Com¬munity.’ Whereupon Muhammad and his Community shall be sum¬moned and asked, ‘Did this man convey [the Message] to his people?’ They shall reply, yes. They shall be asked, ‘How do you know?’ They shall reply, ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers have indeed conveyed [the Message].’ This is [the meaning of] His say¬ing, [Thus We have appointed you a middle nation] – He means upright (yaqûlu ‘adlan) – [that you may be witnesses against man¬kind and that the messenger may be a witness against you] (2:143).”

In short, he is using description of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) in the Qur’an as a “witness” as proof that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) knew and saw all that is and was. This, however, ignores the explanation of “witness” in the recognised Tafsirs and from the explanations of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself.

According to the Tafsirs, there are two possible meanings of “witness” when used in these verses (4:41, 2:143 and others), as Ibn al-Jawzi mentions in Zad al-Masir (although, he divides them into four):

1. He bears witness that he conveyed the message based on his knowledge of himself, and he witnesses that the earlier prophets conveyed the message based on the knowledge he received from revelation. This interpretation is consistent with other verses of the Qur’an (7:6, 28:85 and others) which show the Prophet will bear witness that he conveyed the message. This ummah will bear witness that the previous prophets conveyed the message, and it is clear this “witnessing” is not by means of having seen Nuh (‘alayhissalam) and the other Prophets, but by the knowledge this ummah has received from revelation. The narration above, which Haddad quotes, clearly states this is the kind of “witnessing” that is meant. If this interpretation is taken, it cannot possibly be used to mean that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is omnipresent.

2. A second interpretation is that he witnesses over his ummah in terms of their acceptance or rejection of him. However, this meaning is applicable only for as long as he lived amongst them (i.e. only for the Sahabah and the disbelievers of his time), but when he passed away this type of “witnessing” ended, as explicitly mentioned by the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself in the explanation of this verse:

In the commentary of 4:41, al-Tabari narrates with a sound chain from the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said after this verse was recited to him by ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, quoting the statement of ‘Isa (‘alayhissalam):

شهيدا ما دمت فيهم فلما توفيتني كنت أنت الرقيب عليهم وأنت على كل شيء شهيد

“I was a witness over them for as long as I was among them, and when You took me (i.e. when I passed away), You was the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things.” (Qur’an 5:117)

[Chain: ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Zuhri, thiqah acc. to Abu Hatim and al-Nasa’i – Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, undisputed hadith master – ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Utbah al-Mas’udi, thiqah acc. to many hadith critics – Ja’far ibn ‘Amr ibn Hurayth, a narrator in Sahih Muslim, declared thiqah by al-Dhahabi – Sahabi, ‘Amr ibn Hurayth]

This narration is also found in Sahih Muslim.

A narration found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mention that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) in fact repeats this statement of ‘Isa (‘alayhissalam) on the plains of Resurrection when he is told that he has no knowledge of what some people from his ummah innovated after him.

This is, therefore, clear proof from the words of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself in authentic hadiths that if we take the meaning of witnessing the response of his ummah from the characteristic of “witness” it only applies to his companions, those with whom he directly interacted, and it does not extend beyond them.

In explaining verse 4:41, al-Razi said:

واستشهدك على هؤلاء يعني قومه المخاطبين بالقرآن الذين شاهدهم وعرف أحوالهم ثم إن أهل كل عصر يشهدون على غيرهم ممن شاهدوا أحوالهم وعلى هذا الوجه قال عيسى عليه السلام: وكنت عليهم شهيدا ما دمت فيهم

“Allah will make you [the Prophet] witness over these, meaning his people that were addressed by the Qur’an who he saw and knew of their conditions. Furthermore, the people of every age will bear witness over other than them from those whose conditions they saw. Based on this, ‘Isa, peace be upon him, said: I was a witness over them for as long as I was among them.'”

Al-Qurtubi says of this verse that the intent is that he will be witness over the Kuffar of Quraysh. Then he said “it was said: the demonstrative noun is for the whole ummah,” but he alludes to this being a weak view by using the phrase “it was said.” Also he presented as proof of this view a narration that is clearly weak (as there is a majhul narrator in the chain, and it is maqtu‘ anyway).

Hence, although Qurtubi presents the interpretation Haddad asserts as the interpretation of this verse, it is prefaced by an indication that it is weak, and it is demonstrably supported by weak evidence.

So the notion that “shahid” implies the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is aware of the deeds of the entire ummah is supported by weak evidence and clearly contradicts the stronger evidences.

Moreover, there is clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not know how all of his ummah responded:

First, the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam)’s repetition of ‘Isa’s statement for himself both in this world and in the afterlife, as explained above.

Second, verse 5:109 of the Qur’an indicates according to some interpretations that the prophets (all of them) are unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, which is why they said “We have no knowledge.” In fact, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari said in the exact place where Haddad quotes him from his commentary of Mishkat:

“This [witnessing] does not negate His statement: “the day when Allah will assemble the messengers and will say to them, “How were you responded to?” They will say, “We have no knowledge. Surely You alone have the full knowledge of all that is unseen” because response is different to conveying, and it (i.e. the response of their peoples) requires details the essence of which is comprehended only by Allah, as opposed to conveying itself which is from obvious necessary knowledge.”

Third, the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is told about some of the innovators from his ummah on the plains of Resurrection by the angels إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك and لا علم لك (“You do not know” and “You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you”), as recorded in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim, which is clear evidence that even after death and on the plains of resurrection, he is unaware of the actions of some of his ummah. This is also proven by the hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim which say he will only recognise his ummah by the white marks on them (ghurran muhajjalin) from the traces of wudu’ (and not from his previous knowledge of them).

Fourthly, in a hadith al-Tirmidhi said is “sahih,” he narrates the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: لا أراكم بعد عامي هذا (Perhaps I will not see you after this year of mine).

Fifthly, with respect to the earlier peoples, there are many verses of the Qur’an which explicitly say the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was NOT present where certain significant events happened to earlier peoples and prophets:

“And (O prophet,) you were not there at the Western side (of the mount Tur) when We delegated the matter to Musa, nor were you among those present… And you were not dwelling among the people of Madyan, reciting Our verses to them, but it is We who do send messengers. And you were not at the side of (the mount) Tur when We called (Musa)” (28:44-5)

“Nor were you among those present” – the word used for present here is “shahid.” So this verse clearly negates the meaning of shahid as being present and witnessing. And when it affirms “shahid” for him in other verses it is either according to another meaning of “witness” or restricted to those he interacted with.

Ibn Kathir says under the commentary of this verse:

أي وما كنت حاضرا لذلك ولكن الله أوحاه إليك

“You were not present (haadir) at that [event], but Allah inspired it to you.”

As Ibn Kathir mentions under the commentary of this verse, this is in fact proof of the Prophethood of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) as he was not present amongst earlier peoples, and yet related their tales. Ibn Kathir quotes similar verses:

“You were not with them when they were casting their pens (to decide) who, from among them, should be the guardian of Maryam, nor were you with them when they were quarrelling.” (3:44)

“You were not with them when they determined their object, and when they were planning devices.” (12:102)

Hence, the verses of the Qur’an explicitly state that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) was not present with Musa (‘alayhissalam), Maryam (‘alayhassalam), Shu‘ayb (‘alayhissalm) and Yusuf (‘alayhissalam) at significant events in their lives. Hence, he was not a witness over them in the meaning GF Haddad would like us to believe.

Haddad quotes Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari saying:

Al-Qari said in commentary of the narration of Nuh, `alayhis salaam, cited in Mishkat al-Masabih:“And he shall reply, ‘Muhammad and his Community’” means that his Community are witnesses while he vouches for them, but his men¬tion came first out of reverence (li-t-ta‘zîm). It is possible that he, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, too witnesses for Nuh, since it is a context of help and Allah Most High said [When Allah made (His) convenant with the Prophets] until He said [you shall believe in him and you shall help him] (3:81). In this there is a remarkable warning that the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, is present and witnessing in that Greatest Inspection (wafîhi tanbîhun nabîhun annahu sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallama hâdirun nâzirun fî dhâlika al-‘ardi al-akbar), when the Prophets are brought, Nuh being the first, and the latter’s witnesses are brought, namely, this Community.[3]

Haddad in fact missed out a sentence in between which makes the above paragraph unclear as to the intent of Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari when he says, “In this is a remarkable warning…”

After he quotes verse 3:81, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari goes back to the original hadith, which states: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Then you (the ummah) will be brought.’” And then Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari explains, “In this there is a remarkable warning…” But Haddad missed out the quotation of the hadith and moved straight onto this commentary.

When Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari says “hadir nazir” with respect to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam), he is using it in the very obvious sense that is indicated by this phrase from the hadith. The hadith says the ummah will be brought to the place where Nuh (‘alahissalam) was, at the place of “the greatest inspection.” This shows the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alahi wasallam) was already present there as he was not “brought” there. All this means is that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was present at the place where this “inspection” was happening. It does not mean he is “omnipresent”!

Haddad says:

There are other verses that affirm that the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, hears and sees the deeds of human beings. Allah Most High said: [And know that the Mes¬senger of Allah is among you] (49:7). In the verses [Allah and His Messenger will see your conduct] (9:94) and [Act! Allah will behold your actions, and (so will) His Messenger and the believers] (9:105), the Pro¬phet’s, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, perception is put on a par with that of the Lord of the worlds Who sees and encom¬passes all on the one hand and, on the other, that of all the living believers.

Again, Haddad uses unclear and weak interpretations of verses to prove his belief. The Qur’an says: “Those in whose heart is deviation, they follow what is unclear from it [i.e. the Qur’an], seeking discord.” (3:7) As for the true meanings of these verses:

“The Messenger is among you” (49:7) was said with respect to a particular situation amongst the Sahabah. The address is clearly to the Sahabah. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari says in the explanation of this verse:

يقول تعالى ذكره لأصحاب نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: واعلموا أيها المؤمنون بالله ورسوله أن فيكم رسول الله

“He (Exalted is His Mention) says to the companions of the Prophet of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace): Know, O believers in Allah and His Messenger, that the Messenger of Allah is amongst you.”

This is also clear from the following part of the verse, “Had the Prophet obeyed you…” The Prophet obviously cannot obey those after the Sahabah, so the address is clearly to the Sahabah.

As for verse 9:94, it is talking about the munafiqun who stayed behind from battle, that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) will see if these munafiqun repent or not. Haddad also quotes a similar verse which clearly disproves his claim: “Allah and His Messenger and the Believers will see your conduct” (9:105) – so do the believers hear and see the deeds of all human beings as is being implied here of the Messenger?!

Even though this verse clearly disproves the interpretation Haddad is trying to take from it, he still attempts to salvage this belief by saying the Prophet’s way of seeing is like that of Allah (!), and he uses words that are almost polytheistic in nature and certainly disrespectful of Allah:

“the Pro¬phet’s, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, percep¬tion is put on a par with that of the Lord of the worlds Who sees and encompasses all”

Whereas, no such thing is done. Instead, the verse is making a simple observation that eventually the munafiqun will be exposed and all will see them for what they are.

Then Gibril Haddad quotes three hadiths to “prove” the doctrine of hazir nazir and omnipresence:

The above is further confirmed in the Sunna by the following evidence:(1) Ibn Mas‘ud’s authentic narration of the Prophet’s, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, witnessing of all the deeds of the Umma from his Barzakh:The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, said: “My life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be exhibited to me, and if I see good¬ness I will praise Allah, and if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Him for you.” (Hayâtî khayrun lakum tuhaddithûna wa yuhad¬dathu lakum wa wafâtî khayrun lakum tu‘radu a‘malukum ‘alayya famâ ra’aytu min khayrin hamidtu Allâha wa mâ ra’aytu min shar¬rin istagh¬fartu Allâha lakum.)[5]

This hadith does not mean the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is aware of all the actions of his entire ummah. Firstly, Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani points out in his Bawariq al-Ghayb that this hadith is clearly talking about the ummat al-ijabah only. There are two usages of “ummah”: one, all the people to whom the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was sent, believer or otherwise – this is “ummat al-da’wah”; and second, those who responded to the message and accepted it – this is “ummat al-ijabah.” The reason it is clear the hadith is only talking about the latter is that the Prophet says: “if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Allah for you.” Seeking forgiveness is not permitted for non-Muslims, so this only refers to Muslims. Therefore, all murtaddin, kuffar, munafiqin and zanadiqah are excluded from this hadith, which is a large proportion of people. Therefore, it certainly does not prove the Barelwi doctrine of Hazir Nazir or Haddad’s doctrine of “omnipresence.”

Furthermore, in order to harmonise this narration with the earlier stronger and more authentic narrations, it must be understood as a “general presentation” (‘ard ijmali) and not a “detailed presentation” (‘ard tafsili). Meaning, the actions are presented in a general way, without there necessarily being specification of the time, place, nature, doer etc. of the action.

In this way the hadith is consistent with the other more authentic and stronger Prophetic sayings: “I was a witness over them for as long as I was amongst them…” (which he says both in this world and the next) and that he will be told: “You have no knowledge of what they invented after you” and “Perhaps, I will not see you after this year of mine.”

(2) The authentic narration of “the Supernal Company” (al-mala’u al-a‘lâ) from Mu‘adh ibn Jabal (RA) and others
The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, said: “My Lord came to me in the best form” – the narrator said: “I think he said: ‘in my sleep’” – “and asked me over what did the Higher Assembly (al-mala’ al-a‘lâ)[6] vie; I said I did not know, so He put His hand between my shoulders, and I felt its coolness in my innermost, and knowledge of all things between the East and the West came to me.”[7]

It is not authentic according to the preferred view. See for its grading and explanation here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show…l=1#post722743 

(3) The staying back of Sayyidina Gibril, `alayhis salaam, at the point the Pro¬phet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, went beyond the Lote-Tree of the Farthermost Boundary (sidrat al-muntaha) and heard the screeching of the pens writing the Foreor¬dained Decree then saw his Lord,[8] although Gibril is the closest of all crea¬tures to Allah U and the angels do see Him according to Ahl-al-Sunna.[9]

How exactly does this prove the Prophet is “omnipresent”? His hearing of the scratching of the pens is also mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim. It is clear Haddad will quote and reference anything to make his article longer and citations appear more impressive so people will think the claim that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is omnipresent is proven by incontestable evidence.

Haddad then says:

Al-Qari said in his commentary on al-Shifa’: “Meaning, because his soul, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, is present in the house of the Muslims (ay li’anna rûhahu ‘alayhi al-salâmu hâdirun fî buyûti al-muslimîn).”[11]

The Arabic does not say “fi buyuti al-muslimin” but “fi buyut Ahl al-Islam.” Of course this doesn’t make any difference to the meaning, but it shows Haddad’s sloppiness when he pretends to be all careful and technical. Moreover, he appears to accuse Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar of misquoting as he quoted it as “hadiratun” instead of “hadirun” (which mean the same thing), whereas Mawlana Sarfraz Safdar was merely relying on a different edition (as will be shown below)!

Al-Qari, Sharh al-Shifa’ (2:117).

It’s actually 2:118

Haddad says:

What ‘Iyad cited from al-Athram is only narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir from Ibn Jurayj, from ‘Ata’ al-Khurasani (d. 135):

Hajjaj narrated to me from Ibn Jurayj: I said to ‘Ata’: “What if there is no-one in the house?” He said: “Give salâm! Say, al-salâmu ‘alâ al-Nabiyyi wa rahmatullâhi wa barakâtuh, al-salâmu ‘alaynâ wa ‘alâ ‘ibâdillah al-sâlihîn, al-salâmu ‘alâ ahli al-bayti wa rahmatullâh.” I said: “This statement you just said about my entering the house in which there is no-one, from whom did you receive it?” He replied: “I heard it without receiving it from anyone in particular.”[12]‘Ata’ was a pious muhaddith, mufti, and wâ‘iz from whom Yazid ibn Samura heard the statement: “The gatherings of dhikr are the gatherings of [teaching] the halâl and the harâm.”[13] His trustworthiness and/or memory were contested by al-Bukhari, Abu Zur‘a, Ibn Hibban, Shu‘ba, al-Bayhaqi, al-‘Uqayli, and Ibn Hajar, but he was nevertheless declared thiqa by Ibn Ma‘in, Abu Hatim, al-Daraqutni, al-Thawri, Malik, al-Awza‘i, Ahmad, Ibn al-Madini, Ya‘qub ibn Shayba, Ibn Sa‘d, al-‘Ijli, al-Tabarani, and al-Tirmidhi, while Ibn Rajab concludes he is “thiqa thiqa.”[14]

In order to assess the validity of this athar, it is not enough to grade the last person in the chain i.e. ‘Ata’. All the narrators in the chain need to be assessed. Al-Tabari’s shaykh in this sanad is: al-Qasim ibn al-Hasan who is unknown (Mu’jam Shuyukh al-Tabari p. 407). His shaykh is Husayn ibn Dawud al-Missisi Sunayd, the scholars had mixed views about him; Shu’ayb Arna’ut and Basshar ‘Awwad Ma’ruf concluded he is weak. Thus, the chain leading to ‘Ata’ is weak to begin with, so this narration is not dependable upon.

Now, we move on to where GF Haddad attacks Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar:

Recently, a Deobandi writer forwarded the strange claim that al-Qari’s text in Sharh al-Shifa’ actually stated, “NOT THAT his soul, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, is present in the houses of the Muslims”(lâ anna rûhahu hâdiratun fî buyûti al-muslimîn)

Firstly, this “claim” is not “recent” which I will explain later.

The Arabic which Mawlana Safdar mentioned is “fi buyuti ahl al-Islam” not “fi buyuti l-Muslimin.” It’s right there on the page that Haddad references (p. 167 of Ankhoh ki Thunduk).

that is, the diametrical opposite of what al-Qari actually said!:He [al-Qari] discussed the issue in the Sharh of Shifa, that lâ anna rûhahu hâdiratun fî buyûti al-muslimîn i.e. this notion is incorrect that the soul of our Master Hazrat Mohammed, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, is present in the homes of the Muslims. In some copies the word lâ has been dropped and has with¬out any reason created confusion for some individuals, including Mufti Ahmed Yar Khan sahib (see Jaa al-Haqq p. 142). … In all his explicit quotes Hazrat Mulla Ali al-Qari himself negates the belief of hâdir wa nâzir. Those who have relied on his brief, indistinct quotes (out of context) are absolutely and definitely wrong.[15]That one can actually dare to make the above claim is only because of ignorance of the Arabic language since al-Qari prefaces the statement with the word “meaning (ay),” which would be grammatically incorrect if it were followed by a disclaimer such as “not that his soul is present in the houses of the Muslims.” The truth is that no such word as lâ has been dropped because there was no such word there in the first place, and the claim that there was is nothing short of tampering (tahrîf). Furthermore, the word al-Qari used for “present” is hâdir in the masculine, not hâdiratun in the feminine, as rûh can have either gender but the masculine is more appropriate here to refer to the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam.

He says this “is diametrically opposite to what al-Qari actually said” but if he looked at the entire section from Aankhoh ki Thunduk, Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar proves clearly from Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari’s own writings that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not seeing, hearing and present in every place. He quotes Mulla al-Qari from his treatise al-Durrat al-Mudi’ah fi al-Ziyarat al-Mustafawiyyah, saying:

“From the greatest benefits of Ziyarah is that when the visitor sends blessing and peace on him near his grave, he hears it, with a literal hearing, and he replies to it directly, as opposed to the one who sends blessing and peace on him from far, because that does not reach him except indirectly…”

ومن أعظم فوائد الزيارة أن الزائر إذا صلى وسلم عليه عند قبره سمعه سماعا حقيقيا ورد عليه من غير واسطة بخلاف من يصلي وسلم من بعيد فإن ذلك لا يبلغه إلا بواسطة

And then Shaykh Safdar says such explicit quotes cannot be overridden by ambiguous ones. In fact, Mawlana Safdar has a full treatise called “Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari aur Mas’alah Ilm al-Ghayb wa Hazir wa Nazir” in which he shows with extensive documentation, mainly from Mirqat al-Mafatih, that Mulla ‘Ali Qari definitely did not subscribe to the Barelwi doctrine of “Hazir Nazir”.

You can download the treatise here:

http://www.peopleofsunnah.com/downlo…-wa-nazir.html

What Mawlana Safdar ascribed to Mulla Qari is consistent with what he wrote in other places.

Furthermore, in this treatise, Mawlana Safdar explains that if this passage is as it is in the printed edition, it does not make any sense. If it means literally the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present because it says to send salam on him when entering the house, it would mean all the prophets and righteous slaves are also present, as the supplication includes all of them, so why specify his soul and not mention theirs? This is why Mawlana Safdar says the manuscripts which have “la li anna” is more plausible, and more consistent with Mulla ‘Ali Qari’s writings both in Sharh al-Shifa and elsewhere.

In Sharh al-Shifa itself, shortly after this passage, Mulla Ali Qari says that the one who recites salawat away from the grave, it reaches the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) through the medium of angels. Did he contradict himself in the same book?

That one can actually dare to make the above claim is only because of ignorance of the Arabic language since al-Qari prefaces the statement with the word “meaning (ay),” which would be grammatically incorrect if it were followed by a disclaimer such as “not that his soul is present in the houses of the Muslims.” The truth is that no such word as lâ has been dropped because there was no such word there in the first place, and the claim that there was is nothing short of tampering (tahrîf).

Note, he says this is “nothing short of tampering,” but that would only be the case if Mawlana Safdar did not base his claim on any reliable manuscript evidence. In fact Mawlana Safdar is simply quoting the research of Mawlana Yahya Kandhlewi (d. 1334 H) (the father of Mawlana Zakariyya Kandhlewi, and student of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi) who wrote a book called “Mas’alah Ilm al-Ghayb” in which he said that he has seen some hand-written copies of Sharh al-Shifa where it says “La li anna ruhahu…”

As for Gibril Haddad saying this is grammatically incorrect: firstly, he has given no proof for this claim from any work of Nahw. It is possible Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari meant (as Mawlana Safdar says he meant): “Meaning, not that his soul is present in the houses of the people of Islam, but that it reaches him through the medium of angels” which makes perfect sense. Secondly, in Mawlana Yahya Kandhlewi’s description of the manuscript he does not mention “ay,” so it may be that the original read: “la li anna ruhahu..” without “ay” at the start; which Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari probably said to clarify that it reaches him by the medium of angels.

When this is possible, the evidence drawn from this passage is negated (إذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال), as Shaykh Safdar goes on to say. GF Haddad says:

Furthermore, the word al-Qari used for “present” is hâdir in the masculine, not hâdiratun in the feminine, as rûh can have either gender but the masculine is more appropriate here to refer to the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam,

The edition used by Mawlana Safdar (the Azhariyyah edition) has it as “hadiratun” and not “hadirun” (volume 3, page 464). You can download the third volume here:

http://ia600200.us.archive.org/11/it…07/03_9609.pdf

Yes, the edition Haddad used says “hadirun.” But how does he know which it is that al-Qari used?

For more details about the allegation of tampering against Mawlana Safdar, see http://razakhanimazhab.com/home/difa…08-06-10-55-37

Haddad says:

Furthermore, are Hâdir and Nâzir among the Divine Names and Attributes? Imam Ahmad al-Sirhindi was quoted to say: “Allah Most High is aware of each and every minor and major condition and isHâdir and Nâzir. One should feel shame before Him.”[17

However, the Divine Attributes are ordained and non-inferable.[18] Logic, reasoning, analogy, and other forms of interpretation are not used to infer an attribute but only Divine disclosure through the primary two sources of the Shari‘a i.e. Qur’an and Sunna. This is an elementary point of doctrine that is present in most if not all books of ‘aqîda, including the Maturidi classics….As for al-Hâdir it is precluded, because Hâdir in Arabic has the sense of a being physically present at a location, i.e. attributes of the created that are abso¬lutely precluded from the Creator. Therefore Hâdirin relation to Allah Most High, like the attribute of omnipresence, may only be applied figura¬tively to mean that He is All-Knowledgeable, but neither “Omnipresent” nor Hâdir have actually been reported or mentioned among the Divine Attributes in the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the texts of the early Imams. Allah knows best.

Shaykh Safdar explains in detail in what context and based on what evidence “hadir” “nazir” can be said of Allah in the book Haddad supposedly had access to, Ankhoh ki Thunduk.

Mawlana Safdar says on page 15: “There is no doubt that Allah Almighty is not in need of place and location…” He goes on to say Allah’s names are not limited to 99 but some scholars counted up to 1000 transmitted names. Mawlana Safdar also explains that it is allowed to translate the attributes into other languages, and there are some Urdu translations where “shaheed” is translated as “haazir” and “baseer” as “naazir”. (p. 16) Then mawlana Safdar quotes a number of verses and hadiths in which it states Allah sees using the verb نظر ينظر. And, in fact, the very word “Nazir” is found in a hadith recorded in al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Mustadrak for Allah:

إن الله مستخلفكم فيها فناظر كيف تعملون

Furthermore, regarding “hadir,” the Qur’an says “وما كنا غائبين” (We are not absent) and when some Sahabah called out dhikr to Allah in a raised voice, the Prophet said: “إنكم لا تدعون أصم ولا غائبا” (You are not calling a being that is deaf or absent). The implication is clear: Allah is not absent, He is present, which is “hadir” in Arabic. Mawlana Safdar quotes the famous Sufi master, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Quddus Gangohi (d. 944 H) that he said: “Allah Almighty is present (haadir) and not absent (ghaa’ib).”

None of what the opponents bring up as supposed proofs actually invalidates the use of Hâdir and Nâzir for the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam,

But Haddad himself said: “Prophetic Attributes are tawqifi” so how can he attribute these things to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) without proof? It’s not the opposition that needs to bring proof that he is not haadir naazir, but according to his own principle, he is the one that needs to present proof that he is.

In fact there is plenty of proof that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) is not hadir and nazir in the sense Haddad intends it, i.e. omnipresent. Many of these proofs have already been discussed above.

If it comes to scholarly quotations, they should accept that the attributes of Hâdir and Nâzir are applied to the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, by the Ulema of Ahl al-Sunna such as Mulla Ali al-Qari as cited above, and countless others such as the Friends of Allah known to keep company with the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, day and night, among them Shaykh Abu al-‘Abbas al-Mursi, Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili, and Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dabbagh, probably also Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi himself – may Allah sanctify their secrets.

He doesn’t give any references for the statements of Shaykhs Abu al-‘Abbas Mursi, al-Shadhili, al-Dabbagh and al-Sirhindi, and if they did use it, they probably meant “hadir” figuratively to mean “as though he is present.”

As for Mulla ‘Ali Qari’s usage, it was clearly said in the specific context of the “inspection” in which the Prophet will be present and seeing. It is not meant in the meaning Haddad intends it, i.e. omnipresent and seeing everything. This was explained above.

Haddad says:

The reply is: Does this Mufti have knowledge of the unseen and the gift of ubiquity? For he positively affirms that the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, (1) is not present at a given Mawlid function and (2) is not possibly present at any place other than in Madina, in his grave! So then, he allows that the other Prophets can be in Bayt al-Maqdis praying, and in Makka making tawâf, and in the Seven Heavens, but he insists that our Prophet – upon him and them blessings and peace – is confined to his Noble Grave?

The Prophet’s (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) blessed body and physical being is confined to his Noble Grave. He may be present in other places only in the sense of a “likeness” (mithal) appearing elsewhere, not his physical being. It is not possible for someone to be in two places at the same time. For more detail, see: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/…s-omnipresent/

So the Mufti was correct when he said: “Rasulullah, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, does not arrive at any “Eid-e-Milad-un Nabee,” function. He is in his Rawdha-e-Mubarak (grave) at Madinah Munawwarah and will emerge from it at the onset of Yawmul-Qiyaamah, or the Day of Judgement”

As for a likeness appearing, that is another matter.

Source:  http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74735-A-critical-look-at-Gibril-Haddad%E2%80%99s-Review-of-Taqwiyat-al-Iman%E2%80%8F&p=879164&viewfull=1#post879164