Moreover, if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will ask for clarification from him: what does he mean by this ghayb? Does he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of it, whichever part it may be? If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts, Unfortunately, this sentence was misrepresented by Ahmad Rida Khan as implying a comparison between the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the knowledge of the … Continue reading because every one of them knows something another does not know and hidden from him. It would also imply that by another interpretation the use of the term ‘alim al ghayb would be negated from Allah (Exalted is He), since He (Exalted is He) is not the knower of ghayb by means of a medium or by accident, so would any sane religious person allow its negation ? Far be it, of course not. If this were allowed by interpretation, it would entail that it would be correct to use khaliq (Creator), raziq (Sustainer), malik (Master), ma’bud (Deity) and other attributes of Allah (Exalted is He), exclusive to His (Exalted is He) Essence, for the creation by an interpretation. on this, Allah (Exalted is He) said, “Say: None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows the ghayb” (27:65), “Had I knowledge of the ghayb, I should have abundance of wealth” (7:188) and other verses.
This usage is not permissible even if it was with a interpretation, because it conceives of shirk, just as the usage of their statement ra’ina was prohibited in the Qur’an (2:104) In its original Arabic usage ra’ina means, “Observe us”, but in the Hebrew language it can be construed as an insult which some of the Jews exploited to outwardly express the … Continue reading and their statement “my male slave” ( ‘abdi) and “my female slave” ( amati) in the hadith, as transmitted by Muslim in his Sahih ( Kitab al-Alfaz min al-Adab wa Ghayriha) since the general ghayb in the legal usages is that for which no proof was erected and there is no means or path to its perception.
Shaykh ‘Allamah al-Thanawi in his treatise called Hifz al-Iman, which is a small treatise in which he answered three questions he was asked: the first is in regards to the prostration of respect ( al-sajdat al-ta’zimiyyah) to graves, the second is in regards to circumambulation ( tawaf) around graves and the third is in regards to the unqualified usage of the term ‘alim al-ghayb (Knower of the Unseen) for our master, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the shaykh said, the upshot of which is: They distorted the meaning of the statement and, in their hatred, they produced the opposite of what the shaykh (Allah lengthen his shadow) intended (Allah confound them! How they are perverted!).
I say: this too is from the inventions and lies of the innovators. Do you believe that the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is equal to the knowledge of Zayd, Bakr and beasts or are you innocent of such ? Did Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi write such content in his treatise Hifz al-Iman or not? How do you judge one who believes this?
0 kommentar(er)
