Hadhir Nazir (Shahid/witness) Discussion With Haq3909

[Haq3909]

mr haq3909 aik wazahat farma dain.

 

quran sharif main ayyat hay us ka tarjama

 

ya nabi  moumneen kee janoon say bhee ziada un k qareeb hay.

 

hadees sharif

 

aap  nay farmya  main moumneen kee janoon  say bhee ziada qareeb hoon. o kama kaal

 

is ke wazahat farma dain kia matlab ho ga

 

thank you

Salam,

 

Is ki wazahat khud AAP  nay eik hadeeth may kee hay:Mulahiza ho:

 

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يُؤْتَى بِالرَّجُلِ الْمُتَوَفَّى عَلَيْهِ الدَّيْنُ، فَيَسْأَلُ ‏"‏ هَلْ تَرَكَ لِدَيْنِهِ فَضْلاً ‏"‏‏.‏ فَإِنْ حُدِّثَ أَنَّهُ تَرَكَ وَفَاءً صَلَّى، وَإِلاَّ قَالَ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ ‏"‏ صَلُّوا عَلَى صَاحِبِكُمْ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَلَمَّا فَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ الْفُتُوحَ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَنَا أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ، فَمَنْ تُوُفِّيَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَتَرَكَ دَيْنًا فَعَلَىَّ قَضَاؤُهُ، وَمَنْ تَرَكَ مَالاً فَلِوَرَثَتِهِ ‏"‏‏

[sahih Bukhari , Book 69 , Hadith 21]

ہم سے یحییٰ بن بکیر نے بیان کیا ، کہا ہم سے لیث بن سعد نے ، ان سے عقیل نے ، ان سے ابن شہاب نے ، ان سے ابوسلمہ نے اور ان سے ابوہریرہ رضی اللہ عنہ نے بیان کیا کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے پاس جب کسی ایسے شخص کا جنازہ لایا جاتا جس پر قرض ہوتا تو آپ دریافت فرماتے کہ مرنے والے نے قرض کی ادائیگی کے لیے ترکہ چھوڑا ہے یا نہیں ۔ اگر کہا جاتا کہ اتنا چھوڑا ہے جس سے ان کا قرض ادا ہو سکتا ہے تو آپ ان کی نماز پڑھتے ، ورنہ مسلمانوں سے کہتے کہ اپنے ساتھی پر تم ہی نماز پڑھ لو ۔ پھر جب اللہ تعالیٰ نے آنحضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم پر فتوحات کے دروازے کھول دیئے تو فرمایا کہ میں مسلمانوں سے ان کی خود اپنی ذات سے بھی زیادہ قریب ہوں اس لیے ان مسلمانوں میں جو کوئی وفات پائے اور قرض چھوڑ ے تو اس کی ادائیگی کی ذمہ داری میری ہے اور جو کوئی مال چھوڑ ے وہ اس کے ورثاء کا ہے ۔

 

Afsoos kay kuch log is hadith say bhi Hazir o nazir ka matlab letay hay

 

Wasallam.

[Haq3909]

Salam alayqum,

 

Meray baee, aap dakhal nah denh, yeh chahta yahi heh kay kissi tareekay say Hadhir Nazir ka yeh thread kissi aur mozoo kee niklay. Hadhir Nazir par is kay danay abhi khatam ho chukay hen. Joh yeh copy & paste kar sakka yeh kar chuka meray is response kay baad is kay pass abh kohi jawaban copy paste nahin raha.

Salam,

 

Shayd aap bhul gay hay kay may nay apnay reply kay akhir may kuch sharayat rakhay thay jis ko aap nay follow nahi kiya.

 

aap nay jab yeh kaha to mera dil kharab ho gaya tha:

 

Therefore it is against my methodology to refer to the Ulamah on which we dispute. When the Ahadith and Quran is clear then there is no need to dicuss what the Ulamah have written. My methodology is to establish with evidence from Quran and Ahadith and then if there is need to back a aqeedah up with quotes from Ulamah. Part of methodology is that while commenting on a single Ayat/Hadith a commentator may state something which maybe related to that verse individually and not in wider context or in context of specific verse. When a verse/tradtion is interpreted in wider context or in context of specific verse/tradtion then the meaning may change. Hence what the commentators have stated is in context of specific Hadith and not considered wider context. To establish my statement I would like to present the following verse: “Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful.” [Ref: 3:144] Tafsir Al Jalalayn, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and others did not interpret the word ‘killed’. Those who are killed in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are matyrs hence from wider theological point of view the verse is saying: ‘So if he was to die or be matyred, would you turn back on your heels?’ Point is commentators commented explained without employing the wider context of the Quranic Ayaat. Nor they considered theological implications rather they only explained the immediate text of a Ayaat. Similarly the commentators of Hadith might comment either directly at the content of Hadith while ignoring the wider context and ignore the theological implications. Hence we cannot limit restrict the interpretation of verses of Quran or Ahadith according to what they have stated. We are permitted to interpret the Quran and Ahadith and give new interpretations which our predecessors have not given and as long as our interpretations are in accordance with Quran and Sunnah they are valid. Coming to the issue of witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) the evidence which proves Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knows sees/hears the actions of his Ummah and mankind. What the Mullah Ali Qari, Imam Nawavi have written does not contradict or refute any aspect of Hazir Nazir because they have commented on a individual Hadith and not related the text of Hadith to wider context of Ahadith and Quran.

 

AAP jaisay logo kay liyay yay hadeeth kafi hay:

 

Rasoolullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) warned: “He who interprets The Quran without knowledge let him prepare his place in Hell-fire.” (Tirmizhi) Also narrated by Imam Tirmizhi, it states: “He who interprets The Quran with his own opinion and is correct, has indeed erred.”

 

http://the-finalrevelation.blogspot.com/2014/02/warning-from-self-interpretation-of.html

 

Allah Ta'ala aap ko hidayth day.Ameen.

 

Wasallam.

[Ghulam.e.Ahmed]

Salam,

 

Is ki wazahat khud AAP  nay eik hadeeth may kee hay:Mulahiza ho:

 

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يُؤْتَى بِالرَّجُلِ الْمُتَوَفَّى عَلَيْهِ الدَّيْنُ، فَيَسْأَلُ ‏"‏ هَلْ تَرَكَ لِدَيْنِهِ فَضْلاً ‏"‏‏.‏ فَإِنْ حُدِّثَ أَنَّهُ تَرَكَ وَفَاءً صَلَّى، وَإِلاَّ قَالَ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ ‏"‏ صَلُّوا عَلَى صَاحِبِكُمْ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَلَمَّا فَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ الْفُتُوحَ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَنَا أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ، فَمَنْ تُوُفِّيَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَتَرَكَ دَيْنًا فَعَلَىَّ قَضَاؤُهُ، وَمَنْ تَرَكَ مَالاً فَلِوَرَثَتِهِ ‏"‏‏

[sahih Bukhari , Book 69 , Hadith 21]

ہم سے یحییٰ بن بکیر نے بیان کیا ، کہا ہم سے لیث بن سعد نے ، ان سے عقیل نے ، ان سے ابن شہاب نے ، ان سے ابوسلمہ نے اور ان سے ابوہریرہ رضی اللہ عنہ نے بیان کیا کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے پاس جب کسی ایسے شخص کا جنازہ لایا جاتا جس پر قرض ہوتا تو آپ دریافت فرماتے کہ مرنے والے نے قرض کی ادائیگی کے لیے ترکہ چھوڑا ہے یا نہیں ۔ اگر کہا جاتا کہ اتنا چھوڑا ہے جس سے ان کا قرض ادا ہو سکتا ہے تو آپ ان کی نماز پڑھتے ، ورنہ مسلمانوں سے کہتے کہ اپنے ساتھی پر تم ہی نماز پڑھ لو ۔ پھر جب اللہ تعالیٰ نے آنحضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم پر فتوحات کے دروازے کھول دیئے تو فرمایا کہ میں مسلمانوں سے ان کی خود اپنی ذات سے بھی زیادہ قریب ہوں اس لیے ان مسلمانوں میں جو کوئی وفات پائے اور قرض چھوڑ ے تو اس کی ادائیگی کی ذمہ داری میری ہے اور جو کوئی مال چھوڑ ے وہ اس کے ورثاء کا ہے ۔

 

Afsoos kay kuch log is hadith say bhi Hazir o nazir ka matlab letay hay

 

Wasallam.

 

 

کیا بتاؤ گے کہ کسی کو بھی مرنے کے بعد اس دنیا میں "جسدِ عنصری" کے ساتھ (یعنی ظاہری جسم کے ساتھ) حاضر ہونے اور لوگوں کو نظر بھی آنے کو صحیح ماننے والے یعنی ایسا عقیدہ رکھنے والے پر اہلِ دیوبند کیا فتویٰ دیتے ہیں؟

 

 

 

 

 

[MuhammedAli]

You Copied & Pasted, the following; “I have come across this hadeeth many times and it has been dealt with comprehensively. Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut provided a detailed analysis of the various routes of this narration under the relevant hadiths in his edition of Musnad Ahmad  - in particular numbers 3484 and 22109. He shows the chains are extremely erratic (mudtarib) - though they generally centre around one individual called 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'A'ish - and due to this idtirab the hadith is weak even though a particular chain was graded strong by al-Tirmidhi. Al-Arna'ut quotes al-Daraqutni who said in his al-'Ilal after a detailed analysis of the different chains of this hadith: "Nothing in it is sahih and they are all mudtarib." And Muhammad ibn Nasr said in Ta'zim Qadr al-Salah as quoted by al-'Asqalani: "The narrators of this hadith have been contradictory in relating its chain [of transmission], and it is not established from the people of knowledge." And al-Bayhaqi said about this hadith in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat: "It was related through other routes, and all of them are weak." And Ibn al-Jawzi said in al-'Ilal al-Mutanahiyah: "The foundation of this hadith and its routes are mudtarib." Al-Dhahabi said in the biography of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'A'ish in al-Mizan regarding this hadith: "This hadith of his is strange and rare.”

Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) graded one of the Hadith [3245] as Hassan and the other Hadith [3246] as Hassan Sahih. Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) enquired from Imam Bukhari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) about the authenticity of the Hadith. Imam Bukhari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) answered him that the Hadith is Hassan Sahih. Note the Sanad of Hadith high lighted with red;
 

 حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاذُ بْنُ هَانِئٍ أَبُو هَانِئٍ اليَشْكُرِيُّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا جَهْضَمُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ سَلَّامٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَّامٍ،
 عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَائِشٍ الحَضْرَمِيِّ، أَنَّهُ حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ يَخَامِرَ السَّكْسَكِيِّ، عَنْ مُعَاذِ بْنِ جَبَلٍ قَالَ: احْتُبِسَ عَنَّا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ذَاتَ غَدَاةٍ مِنْ صَلَاةِ الصُّبْحِ حَتَّى كِدْنَا نَتَرَاءَى عَيْنَ الشَّمْسِ، فَخَرَجَ سَرِيعًا فَثُوِّبَ بِالصَّلَاةِ، فَصَلَّى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَتَجَوَّزَ فِي صَلَاتِهِ، فَلَمَّا سَلَّمَ دَعَا بِصَوْتِهِ فَقَالَ لَنَا: «عَلَى مَصَافِّكُمْ كَمَا أَنْتُمْ» ثُمَّ انْفَتَلَ إِلَيْنَا فَقَالَ: " أَمَا إِنِّي سَأُحَدِّثُكُمْ مَا حَبَسَنِي عَنْكُمُ الغَدَاةَ: أَنِّي قُمْتُ مِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَتَوَضَّأْتُ فَصَلَّيْتُ مَا قُدِّرَ لِي فَنَعَسْتُ فِي صَلَاتِي فَاسْتَثْقَلْتُ، فَإِذَا أَنَا بِرَبِّي تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى فِي أَحْسَنِ صُورَةٍ، فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ قُلْتُ: لَبَّيْكَ رَبِّ، قَالَ: فِيمَ يَخْتَصِمُ المَلَأُ الأَعْلَى؟ قُلْتُ: لَا أَدْرِي رَبِّ، قَالَهَا ثَلَاثًا " قَالَ: " فَرَأَيْتُهُ وَضَعَ كَفَّهُ بَيْنَ كَتِفَيَّ حَتَّى وَجَدْتُ بَرْدَ أَنَامِلِهِ بَيْنَ ثَدْيَيَّ، فَتَجَلَّى لِي كُلُّ شَيْءٍ وَعَرَفْتُ، فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ، قُلْتُ: لَبَّيْكَ رَبِّ، قَالَ: فِيمَ يَخْتَصِمُ [ص:369] المَلَأُ الأَعْلَى؟ قُلْتُ: فِي الكَفَّارَاتِ، قَالَ: مَا هُنَّ؟ قُلْتُ: مَشْيُ الأَقْدَامِ إِلَى الجَمَاعَاتِ، وَالجُلُوسُ فِي المَسَاجِدِ بَعْدَ الصَّلَوَاتِ، وَإِسْبَاغُ الوُضُوءِ فِي المَكْرُوهَاتِ، قَالَ: ثُمَّ فِيمَ؟ قُلْتُ: إِطْعَامُ الطَّعَامِ، وَلِينُ الكَلَامِ، وَالصَّلَاةُ بِاللَّيْلِ وَالنَّاسُ نِيَامٌ. قَالَ: سَلْ. قُلْتُ: اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ فِعْلَ الخَيْرَاتِ، وَتَرْكَ المُنْكَرَاتِ، وَحُبَّ المَسَاكِينِ، وَأَنْ تَغْفِرَ لِي وَتَرْحَمَنِي، وَإِذَا أَرَدْتَ فِتْنَةً فِي قَوْمٍ فَتَوَفَّنِي غَيْرَ مَفْتُونٍ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ حُبَّكَ وَحُبَّ مَنْ يُحِبُّكَ، وَحُبَّ عَمَلٍ يُقَرِّبُ إِلَى حُبِّكَ "، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّهَا حَقٌّ فَادْرُسُوهَا ثُمَّ تَعَلَّمُوهَا» . «هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ» سَأَلْتُ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ هَذَا الحَدِيثِ، فَقَالَ: «هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ»

. هَذَا أَصَحُّ مِنْ حَدِيثِ الوَلِيدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ بْنِ جَابِرٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ اللَّجْلَاجِ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي
عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَائِشٍ الحَضْرَمِيُّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَذَكَرَ الحَدِيثَ. " وَهَذَا غَيْرُ مَحْفُوظٍ. هَكَذَا ذَكَرَ الوَلِيدُ، فِي حَدِيثِهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَائِشٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ «. وَرَوَى بِشْرُ بْنُ بَكْرٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ بْنِ جَابِرٍ، هَذَا الحَدِيثَ» بِهَذَا الإِسْنَادِ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَائِشٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهَذَا أَصَحُّ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَائِشٍ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ "

 

 

The narration which is criticized by Wahhabi Shu’ayb Al Arna’ does have Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish but the narration which Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) classified as Hassan Sahih does not have Abdur Rahman bin Aaish. This is the translation of selected portion of above Arabic text;  "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Due to absence of Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish in one Sanad the Hadith is Hassan Sahih and Matan is authentic. Even though Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish is weak narrator but the Matan of his Ahadith is confirmed by reliable narrators. Suppose two groups of three people narrate a event, A  and B. In group one, the three people are A1, A2, A3.  A3 is known to tell lies, hence when he says, I heard from A2, who heard from A1, that Ali said 1 + 1 = 2.  In the science of Hadith the lack of reliability of A3 will weaken the narration. Now group B, has B1, B2, B3, B4, and all these are upright, truthful, honest, sincere, with good memory. B4 narrates, I heard from B3, who heard from B2, who learnt it from B1 that Ali said; 1 + 1= 2. Now in the science of Hadith, even though group A had weak narrator, which shadowed the authenticity of their report but due to group B having no weak narrator, the authenticity of B group strenthen the Hadith will strenthen the Matan of doubtful Hadith. In simple language, A3 may have been liar, cheat, dishonest, but because honest, truthful, reliable, people also attest to his account, hence it will be believed.

In the context of the Hadith, the Sahih Hassan Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know everything (i.e. qulli shay’in); "[...] Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] and the Hadith in which Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish is present, says; "Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] The Hadith where Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish is present states, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know what was in in space and earth – this implies Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know everything in the creation. Which means the Hadith of Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish is stating Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know everything in the universe that was happening in that instant not there after. But the Hadith which is Hassan Sahih and without Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know absolutely everything; “Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything.” Without restriction of time or anything else. Which is ofcourse super good for Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat. Thank You Wahhabi’s for weakening your own side. Lol! Ofcourse, if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know absolutely everything from beginning of creation till judgment day, then limited knowledge which Hadith of Abdur Rahman Ibn Aaish states is also part of it.

You copyied&pasted: “Secondly, after conceding the authenticity, they are from solitary reports which cannot override the Book. “ Thirdly, the intent of “all things” are things apposite to that context, not all creation such that nothing is excluded from it, as is corroborated by the hadith about the vision, since the discussion was concerning what the Highest Company were arguing about and regarding this, he (upon him peace) said: “I don’t know.” Then after the placing of His (Exalted is He) palm, everything became manifest to him of this, until he knew that their dispute was over atonement.”

The stronger Hadith is supported by the book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Sahih Hadith supliments the belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knew everything of unvierse. The following article crudely establishes the position of Ahle Sunnat from book of Allah; Prophet’s knowledge of consisted of preserved Tablet. Note the following Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) told from beginning of creation til people entering paradise and hell; “Narrated 'Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari,  B54, H414] “Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence). Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] Also ‘all things’ (i.e. qulli shay’in) in Hadith of Tirmadhi if interpreted in the context of Ahadith of Bukhari, then ‘everything’ is inclusive of; from beginning of creation till people entering paradise/hell, and mentioned everything that was to take place till judgment day. And if interpreted in the light of Quranic evidence then everything is inclusive of all that is in Lawh Al Mafooz. The meaning that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know everything related to the dispute is in the context of the Hadith and this meaning is valid. Our interpretation that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) came to know everything that is in Law Al Mafooz was and is supported by Sahih Ahadith and Quran.

You copied and pasted; “Fourthly, after conceding [the literality of] “all,” the manifestation of all things to someone does not entail its encompassment in complete detail, and his knowledge of what is in the insides of things or their outsides, since the meaning of “manifestation” is “appearance,” so it may be that a large city in its entirety appears to someone when he ascends a lighthouse or a mountain and the entire city is in his field of view and it is acceptable for him to say, “I saw the entire city,” but this does not entail his encompassing knowledge of what is within it, especially of what is in the insides of houses and the different heights of the earth.”

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knew what is in preserved Tablet, it ommits neither the in’s nor the out’s and it details everything. Philosophical deductions were never and will be never creed in Islam. Bring forward your proof for what you alledge.

You Copyied and Pasted: “Fifthly, even if1 his encompassment of everything is accepted at the moment of the manifestation, this does not entail that it always remains.2 How can it remain, when the texts and hadith-transmissions of things he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was unaware of [at the time of] his death, rather even at the resurrection also, are mass-transmitted?3 Consider His (Blessed and Exalted is He) 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.’” (5:109) How can this be upheld when all the messengers (Allah’s blessings be on them all) will come out to the plain of resurrection without knowing the details of the deeds of their nations?4 Again the same hadith :Al-Bukhari has narrated from Sahl ibn Sa‘d (Allah be pleased with him), Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri and Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with them) through various chains, and the wording of Abu Hurayrah is that he would narrate that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “A group of my companions will come to me on the Day of Resurrection, and they will be driven away from the Pond, so I will say: ‘O my Lord! My companions!’ So He will say: ‘Verily you have no knowledge of what they invented after you.’”5 (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Hawd, 2:974)

First of all, the following Ahadith establish in which  meaning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) encampasses ‘everything’ in the Hadith of Tirmadhi; “One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places.” [Ref: Bukhari,  B54, H414] “The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] So really there is no room for if or but. Secondly, what you are alledging contradicts these Ahadith. This is pure speculation, one can also speculate that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can know everything at the moment of manifestation but forgot what will happen. In Deobandi’ism there is possibility that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) may lie (i.e. Imqan e Kizb) hence it wouldn’t be hard to manufacture another Kufr doctrine of possibility of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) forgeting (i.e. Imqan e Nis’yan). A free thinker can invent and defend any Kufr and defend it using the book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You can speculate, and invent anything based on aqal but aqal derived understandings are not deen. To refute the position of Ahle Sunnat the disbeliever needs to establish from Quran and Ahadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) knew ‘everything’ but forgot. Thirdly, those Ahadith which indicate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not know time of his own death are early Ahadith and these three quoted Ahadith are end of life time Ahadith. Just as early verses of Quran are abrogated by the later ones, similarly the later Ahadith abrogate the early ones. So all those Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhiw as’sallam) didn’t know this or that or enquired about something were earlier Ahadith and these Ahadith which I have employed are later ones. The first revelation was; ‘Read in the name of your Lord who created …’, do we based on these narrations assume because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) couldn’t read the Quran all his remaining life? Or do you not correctly deduce; this is early Hadith and does not reflect his later learning of Quran?  Every aspect of Prophetic life was written. I mean the early, middle, last, public and private parts of his life and transmitted as Hadith. The responsibility of scholars was/is to transmitt the correct creed while also transmitting the correct creed. But some rotten eggs instead of transmitting the creed passed on Salaf and Khalaf resorted to investigation and opened the gate of schism. They took the early and middle part of Prophet’s life and on these decided what their creed about Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhiw as’sallam) knowledge.Yet the refutation of their deviant creed is/was established from Ahadith which are reflecting his life near the end. This is sufficent to refute every Hadith you can think of to refute creed of Ahle Sunnat. Fourthly, the verse states Prophets will deny every bit of knowledge not details. You are inserting the Tafasir of the verse into the verse. The issue was explained in two responses and I do not think its important to respond to this. Fifthly these Ahadith have been discused in detail, and the link of that discussion was given in some previous post, please refer to it.

You Copied And Pasted: “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.1 Therefore, it certainly does not prove the Barelwi doctrine of Hazir Nazir.2 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.3 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.”

Firstly, regarding the following two Ahadith; “My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you.” [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, through Harith in his al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, 4: 22-3 # 3853] “Bakr bin ‘Abdullah also reported that the Holy said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2: 194); ‘Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma‘-uz-zawa’id (9:24)], you said copy & pasted material which is arguing that these Ahadith refer to Muslim Ummah. These two Ahadith are indeed about Ummah Muslim and not about disbelievers and I even wrote before i quoted these two Ahadith: “Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is reported to have said that deeds of believers are presented to him: “My life is a great good for you in whom …” Hence there was no need to quote your Kafir elder Manzoor Naumani or anyone else. Secondly, these Ahadith were not quoted to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Hadhir Nazir but it was quoted to establish that witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) will be based on seeing the actions of his own Ummah because you said his witnessing is based on knowledge through Wahi and these Ahadith were presented to refute your this heresy; "Moreover the other hadith which i have quoted substantiates my proof of using the word, "Shahid" to mean Witness based on the previous knowledge that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) had received through revelation and not "Actual" witnessing in the sense that you refer to. Please read the following hadith once again." The over all point was that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is indeed Shahid in meaning of hearing/seeing type of Shahid (i.e. witness). You statement that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) will be bearing witness due to revelation was clearly contradicted by the quoted Ahadith. Also seeing of the actions is stated by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and believers is established from the following verse; “And say: "Do deeds! Allah will see your deeds, and (so will) his Messenger and the believers. And you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Then He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:105] in another verse it is stated: ”They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you:It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did.” [Ref: 9:94] The two quoted Ahadith above establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) sees the actions other Ahadith establish the deeds of people are shown to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) every thursday and friday. You just copy and pasted material without either reading or thinking or understanding why I utilized the Hadith. Thirdly, this is purely speculative Shaytan like qiyas which he made about Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam). We Muslims only believe in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) taught. We leave you to be Shaytan and let you believe in what your aqal designates Islam to you, but we the Muslims will only believe in Islam revealed and taught by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam).

 

[Continued ...]

Edited 14 مئی 2014 by MuhammedAli