Refutation Of Taweel Of Hifz Ul-Iman: Shaykh Madani's Argument Aisa Is Of Tashbeeh And Tashbeeh Is In A Single Trait.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

Shaykh Madani defends his senior Shaykh Ashrat Ali Thanvi saying; as per rules of Tashbeeh it can only be in a single quality. And he argues Tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman is in category of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz [Ilm al-Ghayb]. He believes if itna was used instead of aisa then then statement of Hifz ul-Iman would be objectionable but aisa of Tashbeeh is used. Also he stated quantity of prophetic knowledge is not being discussed in Hifz ul-Iman. All of these excuses are being exmployed to vindicate Shaykh Thanvi from blame of Kufr and insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This article will attempt to look into matter if Shaykh Madani was successful in his effort or has failed miserably.


“If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

0.1 - Shaykh Madani’s Deception Under Microscope:

Shaykh Madani has stated about Hifz ul-Iman’s statement: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa but did not state word itna. If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] He negates usage of itna because he understands if it was itna instead of aisa then statement would establish eqaulity in quantity of prophetic knowledge and the mentioned creations. In another place Shaykh Madani writes: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where Tashbeeh is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] Shaykh Madani; Aisa is for Tashbeeh and goes on to say Tashbeeh is not in every aspect and in this Shaykh Thanvi agrees with Shaykh Madani. And then Shaykh states therefore the Tashbeeh is in Nafs (i.e. category) of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz. And in another place Shaykh writes:“Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz and discussion is about of it (baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that Tashbeeh is in the Nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of Baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.]

0.2 - Objective Of Shaykh Madani Plain And Simple:

There are two objectives of Shaykh Madani: i) He is attempting to argue; in principle Tashbeeh is in a single trait and not in many traits therefore the Tashbeeh is only in category of Baaz. In other words aisa returns to category of Baaz and not to Baaz Ilm of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And he is attempting to refute quantity argument. If his argument is believed then Tashbeeh would mean; type and quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is possessed by mentioned creations.  ii) Aisa is for Tashbeeh and Itna is for quantity; and due to gramatical structuring if it was itna in statement then Tashbeeh of Baazi’at would return to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Thanvi would be saying; prophetic quantity of knowledge is possessed by the mentioned creations. So Shaykh Madani is attempting to refute this by denying Aisa not meaning Itna. Unfortunately for Shaykh Aisa is used in meaning of Itna and in sense of Tashbeeh.

1.0 - Tashbeeh In Two Aspects - Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement Is Exception To Rule:

If we grant Shaykh Madani the argument; Tashbeeh is in single aspect and not in many traits. He states that Tashbeeh is in category of Mutliq Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. Nafs of Baazi’at) and not in quantity of Mutliq Ilm al-Ghayb. Islamic response to Shaykh Madani would be; if the controversial statement of Hifz ul-Iman is read apparently, without diving into depth, and if statement is understood in parts and not as whole, then Tashbeeh is in two places. The first and apparent [and the easily acessible] Tashbeeh is between category of Baaz of mentioned creations and of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In second and the actual Tashbeeh is between Baaz quantity of knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and quantity of Ghayb knowledge of mentioned creations. It is correct that Tashbeeh is always in a single aspect and it is between where ‘the compared’ and ‘the compared to’ have a common ‘trait’. Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Madani should have known and are educated better because statement of Hifz ul-Iman even if Tashbeeh is in Nafs of Baazi’at (i.e. category of Baaz) even then due to negation of Takhsees (i.e. speciality, or uniqueness) of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in Nafs of Baazi’at the natural meaning would be Tashbeeh in equal quantity between ‘the compared’ and ‘compared to’ because Takhsees could only be negated by Shaykh Thanvi if assumed prophetic knowledge was equal in Nafs of Baazi’at to creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi or less then knowledge Ghayb knowledge of mentioned creations. If he believed prophetic knowledge was definitive as well as greater in quantity then he could not have negated Takhsees. His negation of Takhsees establishes there is another Tashbeeh but less apparent and it is of equality in quantity in category of Baaz not just only in category of Baaz. Even though the second Tashbeeh has been mentioned as second in reality there is just one Tashbeeh because Tashbeeh of equal quantity is part of same statement and because quantity however great/little it maybe it is still in category of Baaz. Imagine it as many parts coming togather to make a car. Despite the large quantity of parts they all assemble to make one car. In similar fashion Shaykh Thanvi’s statement has two parts and both come togahter to establish actual meaning of his statement; Tashbeeh of equal qauntity in category of Baaz.

1.1 – Equality Due To Exageration Or Equality Due To Detracting:

It is established Shaykh Thanvi’s statement establishes equality between prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. This high lights another problem; which the minions of Iblees will have to answer to. Incase Shaykh Thanvi believes prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is of countless matters of Ghayb (note; countless in human counting but still limited). Then the established equality will be in; Shaykh elevated the lower creations, with Zanni knowledge, of few matters of Ghayb, to rank of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb, which is Qatti, and consists of all that is in perserved Tablet and greater. In this case Shaykh Thanvi would be guilty of bolstering knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds via exagerating/mubalgha to negate merit of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. And that does not mean anything good. Imagine in order to refute merit of Shaykh Thanvi a certain Dharbangi bolster the standing of Iblees and says; there is nothing special about Shaykh Thanvi’s piety even Iblees is pious like him. Zanni cannot be equal of Qatti and one with knowledge of perseved tablet cannot be equal to one who knows few matters of Zanni Ghayb knowledge. Just like a Muslim who only says; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah; is better then Iblees even if other righteous actions are not considered. Other alternative is that Shaykh believes; prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is insignificant and knowledge of mentioned creations is insignificant also hence there is equality. And this is no better alternative for the reasons of quantity and quality mentioned before i.e. Qatti and of perserved tablet.

1.2 - Logic Behind Islamic Understanding Of Tashbeeh In Hifz ul-Iman:

Islamic response to Shaykh Madani would be; Aisa can be returned for Tashbeeh to; i) Baaz Ghayb, ii)  knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the first scenario Aisa is returned to Baaz Ghayb for Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if Baaz2 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Question is; whose knowledge is this limited (i.e. Baaz) Ghayb referring to? And Shaykh knows and acknowledges it referrs to limited knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of Zayd Amr; infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. Incase the minions of Iblees incarnate negate this fact then please see the following section 2.0. And we already know Takhsees of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was negated in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. And negation of Ilm al-Ghayb’s merit for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can only be, in context of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement, if Shaykh Thanvi also; compared (or; made Tashbeeh of) Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb with Zayd Amr; infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds and came to conclusion his knowledge was equale in quantity to mentioned creations. Therefore there are multiple Tashbeehs in statement of Shaykh Thanvi from this perspective.

In the second scenario Aisa is returned to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to be specific to his Ghayb knowledge for Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] There are two possibilities: A) If Tashbeeh of Aisa returns to Ilm Ghayb of creations via Hadhoor then Tashbeeh is between prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. B) If Tashbeeh of Aisa returns to Baaz  Ilm al-Ghayb via Hadhoor then Tashbeeh is between prophetic Baaz knowledge of Ghayb and between Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In case of A one has to imply Baaz to fully understand the statement and in case of B one has to imply; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. And in both cases the Takhsees of Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated. And negation of it can only be if there is Tashbeeh between: 1) Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. 2) And if there is Tashbeeh in equal quantity of Ilm al-Ghayb. There are multiple Tashbeehs in statement of Shaykh Thanvi which no sane person can deny. And all have to be accounted to understand the statement properly.

2.0 - Response To: Itna Would Be Problematic But It Is Aisa:

If the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is read and understood as whole; even then like the previous section; Tashbeeh is in quantity of Baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and between quantity of mentioned creations. Readers should note that Shaykh Madani is actually attempting to refute the very point that Tashbeeh isn’t in quantity of Baaz Ghayb. The reason Shaykh Madani negates this understanding is; he argues statement is not in meaning of Itna; if it was then it would be problematic because there would be equality in quantity: “… that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa but did not state word itna. If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things…” Due to Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ghayb; Aisa cannot only be in comparative meaning of likeness (i.e. misl) but it is also in comparative meaning of Itna (i.e. this-much): “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please note; usage of Aisa in context of quantity being compared by default establishes Aisa is in meaning of Itna. Continuing; even though Shaykh Madani negates the statement is in meaning of Itna and is-Qadr (i.e. this-much) yet other major Deobandi scholars have understood it to be in meaning of Itna/Is-qadr.

2.1 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna: Madani VS Naumani And Darbhangi:

Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan which is a follow-up five page book from Hifz ul-Iman hinted toward aisa being used in meaning of itna but without implying Tashbeeh: “From this discussion we learn that in the mentioned statement knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not been compared/equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Umru and others. And the word aisa is not used every time for Tashbeeh. According people who speak the lanugage they use it popularly in; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is aisa powerful. So in this is there intention to compare the power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with another? No! Not at all …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Following Shaykh Thanvi’s lead; Shaykh Naumani is reported to have said in debate that aisa is in meaning of itna: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore not in tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] Shaykh Naumani in following example presented two examples in which aisa is used to mean itna: “You have asked me to provide evidence of aisa being used in meaning of itna linguistically and in popular culture. Indeed this demand of yours is legitimate. Listen! Ameer Minahai (the blessed) in his; Ameer ul-Lughaat, Volume two, page 302 has presented a perfect/detailed research on usage of word aisa. And has mentioned few meanings. From all of them one meaning which I have mentioned. In this situation following is his statement: ‘AISA; (means) itna, is-qadr. SENTENCE: Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.[1] POETICAL VERSE: Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf.[2] Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.’ (Barq). There you go now I have established from linguistics that aisa is used without Tashbeeh in meaning of itna.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77/78, here.] Also Shaykh Darbhangi says aisa has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr:“It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] In 1.0 it was established through sound reasoning aisa is in meaning of itna. Readers should note; Shaykh Naumani gave referrences and examples in which aisa has been used to mean itna.

2.2 - Shaykh Madani Negates Itna And The Reason Behind It:

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) alleged that Shaykh Thanvi equaled prophetic knowledge to creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here.] Shaykh Madani mentioned this on page 277 of his book. And charge of Kufr issued by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat was on basis of equality in quantity of knowledge. In Shihab as-Saqib Shaykh Madani is attempting to refute this charge of that Shaykh Thanvi established equality in quantity in Ghuyub of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of creations mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement. And in this context Shaykh Madani negates Itna in following statement: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much). If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] This leads to conclusion; according to Shaykh Madani Itna’s usage would have established equality in quantity of knowledge [and he believes its absence negates charge of equality in quantity]. Now there isn’t explicit usage of Itna in Hifz ul-Iman but there is equality in quantity of knowledge, see 1.0, underlined. And therefore grametical usage of aisa is in meaning of Itna. Note even though Itna wasn’t used but the meaning which Shaykh Madani assumed for Itna (i.e. equality in quantity) is present in Aisa hence Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel of Aisa meaning Itna is valid. And with Itna established via Aisa then Fatwah of Kufr issued by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, which Shaykh Madani attempted to refute by negating equality in quantity of knowledge remains valid.

3.0 - Response To Shaykh’s Claim Tashbeeh Is In Category Of Limited Ghayb:

Shaykh Madani claims; Tashbeeh was in category of Baaz and not in quantity of prophetic knowledge. When ever there is Tashbeeh; the Tashbeeh is between two things, living or dead, and a quality, or trait, or characteristic which both share. If  it is said; Ali is powerful like a lion. The basic premise is; Ali is like lion. And the likeness is in being powerful. If one says: No! No! The Tashbeeh is not between Ali and lion because the word like in the sentence returns to powerfullness and not to Ali. Any sane person would realize the Tashbeeh by nature is between two beings it cannot be between a trait and a person. The fundamental of Tashbeeh are two beings who share a trait. If a being is missing then there is no Tashbeeh. If it is said; Ali is powerful like. And no other being is mentioned then sentence is wrong. And if another is mentioned but claims phrase; Ali is powerful like lion doesn’t mean; Ali is like a lion in power. Then be confident in declaring the distorter as a minor Dajjal. Similarly in context of Hifz ul-Iman’s Tashbeeh; there is mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and mentions of creations, and a common quality between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and creations, and that quality is Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. Therefore the basic premise is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is like; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals quadrupeds. And this likeness is in that they share quality of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. And if one only says: No! No! The Tashbeeh is in quality of Baazi’at and not with RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then he is actually negating Tashbeeh because he negates the fundamental requrement of Tashbeeh – i.e. sharing of trait between two beings.

3.1A - Incident Of Mother Of Believers And She Took Tashbeeh And Equality:

It is recorded in Ahadith:“Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah!” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493] “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not …” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486] The fact that Umm ul-Momineen Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) took offense when women were mentioned with amongst the list of animals (i.e. dog, donkey). Note even though the speaker did not compare women with the animals and nor did the companion say; women are unclean like the mentioned animals yet she implied Tashbeeh/comparision and took offense because she felt women were being considered impure like the mentioned animals.

3.1B – Hifz ul-Iman Statement Is Offensive Irrespective:

Comparatively to Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) incident, Shaykh Madani claims, Tashbeeh was in category of Baaz and not in Baaz quantity of prophetic knowledge. In other words Shaykh Madani acknowledges there is obvious Tashbeeh in category of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb. Statement of Hifz ul-Iman reads as follows: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa Baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) case; words did not denote Tashbeeh in impurity of animals but women were only mentioned along side dog and donkey and she implied Tashbeeh of impurity and equality. Shaykh Thanvi explicitly uses words which denote Tashbeeh. And Tashbeeh, in words of Shaykh Madani, in category of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb with mentioned animals. When obvious facts are that Tashbeeh is category of Baaz then wouldn’t it just be wise to acknowledge that Tashbeeh in category of Baaz is insulting and disrespectful even if the Tashbeeh is not in quantity of Baaz! Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) was very finely tuned to understand insult and disrespect as the example demonstrates. Just by the fact that Shaykh Thanvi mentioned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the list of, Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds, would have been enough for her to take note of insult/disrespect. To even think she would have accepted prophetic knowledge being compared even in Nafs of Baazi’at with the mentioned is unthinkable.

Conclusion:

Shaykh Madani referrenced principle of Tashbeeh saying; Tashbeeh is in single trait, quality, attribute and not more then one. And he goes on to cite number of examples of on page two-hundered-eighty-two. And this principle is indeed true but Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is contructed in such a fashion where it is impossible to avoid Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. And it is Tashbeeh of equal quantity between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Shaykh Madani understanding is; if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would have been justifiably criticised but aisa has been used. According to Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel, for which he has a valid basis, aisa has been used in meaning of itna but his saying itna is without Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is just an attempt at pious deception. And it was established that how and why aisa means itna, and its usage would be with Tashbeeh. So Shaykh Madani’s pack of lies was undermined by negation of Takhsees, by Shaykh Naumani’s demonstration how aisa is employed, and by his own assumption that itna would establish equality in quantity. Therefore the Kufr in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and Fatwah of Kufr on Shaykh Thanvi remains without a valid Taweel. And one who defends Kufr of a Kafir is also Kafir. And Shaykh Madani is like Shaykh Thanvi.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1] It can mean: Struck him so-much that nearly killed him. And means: Struck in like-this that nearly killed him. The context determines how the phrase is to be understood. In the context of example; it is employed in meaning of itna/is-qadr hence the first meaning is intended.

- [2] It roughly means: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so-much delicate and blemish-less.’ Better rendering of it in English would be: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so delicate and belmeish-less.’ Yet the problem for Shaykh Naumani is; in the poetical verse of looser aka Barq; even if aisa is taken to mean itna; the goal of refuting Tashbeeh cannot be achieved because Barq is comparing blemishless-ness and delicateness of figure with female figure. This proves even itna can be used for Tashbeeh. So if statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of itna even then Tashbeeh contextually cannot be negated.