The Impure Slander against Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad

The Impure Slander against Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib of Diminishing the Rank of the Leader of the Prophets (Allah bless him and grant him peace)

Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib wrote on page 15 of Husam al-Haramayn:

These are followers of the accursed Satan of the horizons, and they are also scions of the one who attributes lies [to Allah], al-Gangohi, for indeed he [i.e. Mawlana Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri] stated clearly in his book al-Barahin al-Qat‘iah – and by Allah it only cuts (qati‘ah) what Allah has ordered to tie – that their master, Iblis, has more expansive knowledge than the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace). This is his deplorable text with his despicable wording:

“Indeed this expanse in knowledge was established for Satan and the Angel of Death by clear text. Which decisive text is there regarding the expansive knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) such that all texts will be rejected because of it and a shirk will be established?”

He wrote before this:

“Indeed this shirk does not contain a mustard seed of faith.”

Then after transmitting some “blessings”[1] on the author of Barahin, he wrote after a few lines:

Indeed it says in Nasim al-Riyad as has preceded:

“Whoever says, ‘so-and-so is more learned than him (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace),’ indeed he has faulted him and degraded him, so he is an insulter, and the ruling on him is the ruling of an insulter without distinction. We make no exception of any situation thereof, and all of this is consensus from the Companions (Allah be pleased with them).”

Then I say: Look at the effects of Allah’s seal, how it makes the seeing blind, and how he chooses blindness over guidance. He believes in encompassing earthly knowledge for Iblis, and when the mention of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace), comes, he says, “This is shirk.” Shirk is only to affirm a partner for Allah Almighty, so when affirming something for any of creation is shirk, it will definitely be shirk for all creation, since it is not possible for anyone to be a partner of Allah Almighty. So look, how he believes that Iblis is His (Glorified is He) partner, and partnership is negated only from Muhammad (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace).

Then look at the cover of the anger of Allah Almighty over his sight. He demands for the knowledge of Muhammad (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace) a clear text, and he will not be satisfied with it until it is decisive (qat‘i), and when he comes to negating his (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace) knowledge, in this explanation on page 46, six lines before this disgraceful [statement of] disbelief, he himself adheres to a false hadith having no basis in the religion and ascribes it falsely to one who did not transmit it but refuted it with a clear refutation, where he said:

“Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haqq (his secret be sanctified) narrated from the Prophet (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace) that he said: ‘I do not know what is behind this wall.’”
However, the Shaykh (Allah Almighty sanctify his secret) only said in Madarij al-Nubuwwah, as follows:

“Here this is made problematic because it has come in some narrations that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘I am only a slave. I do not know what is behind this wall.’ The answer to this speech is it has no basis, and it is not valid to transmit it.”

So look at how he draws proof from, “don’t come near Salah” and omits, “while you are drunk.”[2]

In this passage, to fulfil his longing to pass the judgement of disbelief, the injustice which Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib committed against honesty and integrity, will only be reckoned by the One, the Irresistible. His interrogation will, if Allah wills, take place tomorrow [on the Day of Judgement]. However, fair-minded people in this world can also determine the degree of dishonesty in the explanation of this claimant to being a reviver (mujaddid) and in his verdict.

In this passage, Khan Sahib makes the following objections against the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah:

1. He (Allah forbid!) made the blessed knowledge of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) less than the knowledge of the accursed Satan’s.

2. He regarded the affirmation of encompassing knowledge of the world for the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as shirk, yet he affirmed this [knowledge] for the accursed Satan, while whatever is shirk to affirm for any creature, its affirmation for any other creature is certainly also shirk, so it is as though the author of Barahin (Allah forbid!) made Satan a partner with Allah.

3. He demanded decisive texts for the knowledge of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and when negating the knowledge of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he relied on a baseless narration.

4. Moreover, he mendaciously attributed the narration of this hadith to such a person who didn’t transmit it but quoted it in order to robustly refute it.

This is a summary of the entire passage by Khan Sahib.

Before presenting the answer, I will outline a number of introductory principles:

First Introductory Principle

There are two types of knowledge: intrinsic (dhati) and granted (‘ata’i). Intrinsic knowledge is that which is from oneself, not granted [by another]; and granted knowledge is that which somebody gave and taught. The first type is exclusive to Allah Almighty. Whatever knowledge is possessed by creation is all granted and taught. If someone were to affirm intrinsic knowledge for any saint, prophet or angel, it is shirk by consensus. This is a famous principle, agreed-upon by the entire ummah. I believe in proving it, it will suffice to quote the statements of Khan Sahib Barelwi as:

The accuser is a thousand times weightier than your witness

The aforementioned [Khan Sahib] wrote in Khalis al-I‘tiqad, page 28:

Knowledge is certainly from those attributes that for other than the Lord, it can [only] be acquired through the bestowal of the Lord. Thus, in terms of intrinsic (dhati) and acquired (‘ata’i), its categorisation is certain (yaqini). The division of [knowledge into] encompassing and non-encompassing is intuitive (badihi). From these [subcategories of knowledge], those that are accepted as exclusive to Allah are the first from each category, meaning, intrinsic [knowledge] and absolutely all-encompassing [knowledge].

Furthermore, in the same Khalis al-I‘tiqad, he wrote on page 32:

Undoubtedly, for other than the Lord, there is not even one atom of intrinsic knowledge. This belief is from the necessities of religion, and its denier is a disbeliever.

And, in the “First Section” (al-nazr al-awwal) of al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, on page 6, he wrote:
The first (i.e. intrinsic knowledge) is restricted to the Master (Glorified and Exalted is He) and is impossible for other than Him. And whoever affirms a part of it, even if less than less than an atom for any of the worlds, he has disbelieved, associated a partner [with Allah], and is destroyed and ruined.

Second Introductory Principle

In relation to every atom in existence, Allah Almighty has infinite knowledge, and since no creature can have unlimited knowledge, it can be said that no creature can attain encompassing knowledge of the true reality of even one atom.

In proving this, I will also rely on the statements of Khan Sahib Barelwi. The aforementioned [Khan Sahib] wrote on page 9 of al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah:

Rather, He (Glorified and Exalted is He) has sciences in every atom that are unending, because every atom in relation to every [other] atom that was, will be or can be, has a relationship in terms of nearness, distance and direction, different in time with different places that are actual or possible from the first day till eternity; and all is known to Him (Glorified and Exalted is He) in actuality, so His knowledge (Great is His Glory) is infinite multiplied by infinite multiplied by infinite.

And it is accepted that the knowledge of creation does not encompass in any single moment an infinite quantity [of knowledge] in actuality with complete detail whereby every particular is distinguished in that [knowledge] from its counterpart with complete distinction.

Furthermore, in the same al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah on page 212, he wrote:

I have explained that He (Glorified is He) has in each and every atom sciences that are non-ending, so how can anything be disclosed to creation in the way it is disclosed to the Creator (Great and Glorious is He)?

Third Introductory Principle

In establishing a point of belief, decisive evidence is necessary, and in negating [a point of belief], merely the absence of proof is enough evidence. This is why in refuting the false thoughts and corrupt beliefs of the idolaters, the Qur’an mentions that these are personal imaginings and Satanic whispers, and there is no evidence or proof presented from the Lord.

Furthermore, Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib himself in Inba’ al-Mustafa accepts that in establishing beliefs decisive evidence is necessary.

Fourth Introductory Principle

There are two types of knowledge: one which is related to religion, like all religious sciences of the Shari‘ah; and second, that which is not related to religion, like knowledge of the particular states of Zayd, ‘Amr, Ganga Persaud, Mr Churchill etc., knowledge of the number of insects and creepy crawlies on the earth and fish in the sea, and knowledge of their special properties, their general movements, consumption of food and drink, excretion and defecation. It is apparent that knowledge of these things has no relation to religion, and nor does knowledge of them have any impact on human perfection, and nor is absence of it a defect!

Although this principle is intuitive and everyone possessing even a little intellect accepts it, for some time now, the spiritual descendants of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib have begun to deny it with persistent shrillness, claiming that there is no knowledge in the world that has no relation to religion and that has no impact on human perfection. Thus, here too, I feel it would be sufficient to just present one quote of Khan Sahib. The aforementioned [Khan Sahib] in his Malfuzat, Part 2, page 62, wrote: “Simiya (letter magic) is an impure science.” From this short but significant sentence of Khan Sahib, it is immediately understood that some knowledge is impure, and it is obvious that the science that is impure cannot be religious knowledge, nor can it be a reason for perfection in any person.

Fifth Introductory Principle

The knowledge which the Shari‘ah has praised and encouraged people towards and which causes divine pleasure is only that knowledge which has a connection to religion and which human perfection is dependent on. For example, the Mighty Qur’an says: “Are those who know and those who do not know equal?” (Qur’an 39:9) And in another place it says: “Allah raises those who believe from you and those given knowledge by degrees.” (Qur’an 58:11) It is obvious that by these verses, neither English is intended, nor Sanskrit nor any other language, nor science, nor geography, nor magic, nor poetry, rather only religious knowledge is intended, and that which is beloved to the Lord. In a noble hadith, it says: “Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim.” And in another hadith it says: “Verily, the prophets do not bequeath dinar or dirham. They bequeath only knowledge. So whoever takes from it, takes a plentiful share.” In these noble hadiths, the intent is the science of Shari‘ah and the science of religion. Which wretched person can say that gaining worldly sciences is also a religious obligation, and which person deprived of insight can say that such futile sciences as magic and sorcery are also a prophetic inheritance? Anyhow, it is completely intuitive that the knowledge which the Shari‘ah encourages towards and which has an impact on human perfection is religious knowledge. In fact, the Shari‘ah has forbidden delving into those matters which are useless and irrelevant. The Messenger of the Lord (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “From the excellence of a man’s Islam, is his avoidance of what does not concern him.”

A person asked Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib questions regarding the Ta‘ziyah ceremony and related matters. Amongst them, the twelfth question, regarding the martyrs of Karbala, Allah be pleased with them, was: “After martyrdom, which blessed heads were sent to Damascus and which were returned?” In answer to this, the aforementioned Mawlawi Sahib wrote: “It says in a hadith that the excellence of a man’s Islam is to leave irrelevant matters.” The complete fatwa of Khan Sahib in which this question and answer is included was printed and published several times in various places, and its original with his seal and handwriting is preserved with me, and if here as in all his fatwas, full attention was given to its [correct] transmission as I have heard, then most probably here too its transmission is preserved. There is no date included in the fatwa, and on the cover, besides the seal of Dak Khana, nothing else is clear. After some deliberation, I concluded based on overwhelming conjecture that this fatwa was sent from Bareli to Dak Khana in October of 1920 – and Allah knows best!

From this fatwa of Khan Sahib, it is clearly understood that there is even some knowledge that is irrelevant or useless, which is better not to acquire. It is also obvious that the question in response to which Khan Sahib wrote this was not related to Zayd, ‘Amr, Bakr, animals, beasts, the fish of the sea, frogs or the creepy crawlies of the earth, but the question was regarding the blessed heads of the noble Ahl al-Bayt and the great martyrs. And in answering this, Khan Sahib said the excellence of a man’s Islam is to avoid irrelevant matters.

Sixth Introductory Principle

It is possible someone lower in rank may have more extensive knowledge than one higher in rank in those sciences which are not a cause for human perfection, and which mankind were not ordered by the Lord to attain – for example, particular daily events, and the personal and domestic affairs of particular individuals; and [it is possible] one despised [may have more extensive knowledge in these matters] than one accepted [by Allah]. Rather, in irreligious and unnecessary matters, it is possible that at times the knowledge of a non-prophet is more than a prophet’s. However, in the sciences of the Shari‘ah and the necessary matters and the foundations of religion, the prophet’s knowledge is always more vast, because in the transmission of those sciences they are the greatest medium for the entire nation, and it is through them that these sciences reach the individuals of the community. Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) wrote in al-Tafsir al-Kabir:

It is possible that a non-prophet is higher than a prophet in sciences on which his prophethood does not depend. (5:495)

Seventh Introductory Principle

Due to unawareness of those matters unrelated to and unnecessary of religion, there is no diminishment in the position of the revered prophets (upon them peace) and other accepted [people of Allah], and nor does this affect perfection in their knowledge. Rather, such an understanding is extremely foolish and demonstrates a high degree of ignorance regarding the post of messengership.

‘Allamah Qadi ‘Iyad, who had such love for the Revered Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) that is worthy of imitation, in explaining this point, wrote in al-Shifa’:

As for those from them [i.e. the sciences] which are related to the affair of the [material] world, infallibility is not a condition with respect to the prophets, in that the prophets are unaware of some of them or believe them to be contrary to what they are [in reality]. There is no defect in them in this, as their aspiration is towards the afterlife and its events and the matter of the Shari‘ah and its laws, while the affairs of the world are in conflict with these [things]; as distinguished from other than them of the worldly people “who know the outward of the lower life and are unaware of the afterlife.” (Qur’an 30:7) (Al-Shifa, p. 254)

Then, after supporting this statement with a number of noble hadiths, he wrote on page 302:

The equivalent of this and its likes from the affairs of the world which do not involve the science of religion, nor its belief, nor its teaching, what we mentioned (i.e. being unaware of them) is possible for him as there is no defect or demotion therein. They are only ordinary things known to those who experience them and make them his concern and occupies himself with them. The heart of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), however, was filled with gnosis of [Allah’s] lordship and his soul was brimming with the sciences of the Shari‘ah. (Shifa’ Qadi ‘Iyad, p. 302)

Anyhow, if knowledge from those matters which are unrelated to the matters of religion is acquired by a non-prophet and has not been acquired by a prophet, there is no defect in the prophet (upon him peace) in this, because in these matters the revered prophets (upon them peace) have no specific connection. This is why the Messenger of the Lord (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “You are more learned in the affairs of your world.” (Sahih Muslim) This narration of Sahih Muslim is an extremely clear and bright proof for our position. Furthermore, he said: “When it is something from the matter of your world, you are more learned about it. And when it is something from the matter of your religion, [refer it] to me.” Ahmad and Muslim narrated it from Anas, and Ibn Majah from Anas and ‘A’ishah both, and Ibn Khuzaymah from Abu Qatadah. (Kanz al-‘Ummal, 6:116)

Eighth Introductory Principle

If a low-ranking person has the knowledge of some particular events and a higher-ranking one does not possess it, or a follower possesses it while the prophet does not, merely because of this, that lower-ranking person in relation to the higher-ranking one and that follower in relation to the prophet cannot be said to be “more knowledgeable.” For example, the information related to the material novelties and created inventions of today acquired by an atheist of Europe, was certainly not acquired by Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Malik (Allah have mercy on him). The knowledge in inventing a gramophone which was possessed by its non-Muslim inventor was certainly not possessed by the pure Hazrat Ghawth (Allah have mercy on him). However, which idiot will dare to say that because of these material and worldly matters, those atheists of Europe are more knowledgeable than Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him), Imam Malik (Allah have mercy on him) and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Allah have mercy on him)? The knowledge related to cinema and theatre possessed by a sinful and wicked person, nay a disbeliever and polytheist showman, was certainly not acquired by a great, great Allah-fearing person. Can any obfuscator say that every showman is more knowledgeable than this scholar and whatever is a consequence of this? The knowledge that criminals possess regarding their crimes did not even come to the minds of the revered scholars of religion; so then is every thief, robber, cutpurse, pickpocket and drunkard entitled to claim superiority in knowledge to a scholar of religion? And is it not a reality that filth-eating insects have more knowledge of the taste of filth which every honourable human being is unaware of? So is now every insect more knowledgeable than human beings?

Anyhow, it is a completely intuitive principle that merely because a person possesses a great quantity of knowledge in those sciences which are unrelated to religion and those sciences which have no bearing on human perfection, he cannot be called “more knowledgeable.” He can only be called such when he maintains superiority in the perfect sciences and religious knowledge.

Ninth Introductory Principle

In the Qur’an and hadith, many examples can be found in the pure life of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) where he became aware of many particular events through other people, which at the time, the Prophet (Allah grant him peace) was unaware of [For a comprehensive analysis see: Bawariqul Ghayb]. Several examples are given below:

1. In the Battle of Tabuk, ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, the hypocrite said: “Do not spend upon those who are with the Messenger of Allah.” (Qur’an 63:7) Furthermore, in that gathering he also said: “Indeed if we return to Madinah, the honourable ones will expel the despised.” (Qur’an 63:8) This foolish talk was heard by Hazrat Zayd ibn Arqam (Allah be pleased with him), and he related it to his uncle, who mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace). The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) summoned ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy and his companions, and asked them what it was that happened. Those hypocrites swore an oath that they did not say this. The Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) believed them and belied Zayd ibn Arqam (Allah be pleased with him). Zayd said: “A depression overcame me the like of which had never afflicted me [before and since], such that I avoided coming out of the house. Then Allah Almighty revealed the first verses of Surah Munafiqun, [by which the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) became aware that those hypocrites really did say those unbecoming words]. Then, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) summoned me and recited the verses unto me and he said, ‘Verily, Allah has vouchsafed your truthfulness.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tafsir)

2. In regards to some hypocrites, it says in Surah Tawbah: “And among those Bedouins who are around you there are hypocrites, and among the people of Madinah as well. They are adamant on hypocrisy. You do not know them. We know them.” (9:101) It is understood from this verse that in the era of prophethood, in Madinah itself and surrounding areas, there were such hypocrites regarding whom Allah Almighty said: “O beloved! You do not know them.” And it is obvious that those hypocrites themselves had knowledge of their own hypocrisy.

3. “Among men there is one whose speech, in this life, attracts you; he even makes Allah his witness on what is in his heart, while he is extremely quarrelsome.” (2:204) In Tafsir Ma‘alim al-Tanzil and Tafsir Khazin and others it is mentioned that this verse was revealed regarding Akhnas ibn Shariq al-Thaqafi. In appearance, this person was very handsome and he possessed a very noble tongue. He came before the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and pretended to be a Muslim, and he displayed a lot of affection, and on this he took an oath by the Lord. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) maintained close companionship with him, yet al-Akhnas was a hypocrite. Tafsir Khazin says: “It was revealed about him, ‘Among men there is one whose speech attracts you,’ i.e. he pleases you and you approve of him and he is exalted in your heart.” (Khazin, 1:161) From this verse and the reason for its revelation, it is understood that the inward condition of Akhnas ibn Shariq was hidden to the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it is obvious that this wretched person certainly knew his own condition.

4. Likewise, regarding one group of the hypocrites, it was said to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace): “And if you see them, their physiques would attract you, and if they speak, you would listen to their speech” (63:4) In Tafsir Khazin and Tafsir Ma‘alim al-Tanzil under the exegesis of “if they speak, you would listen to their speech,” it says: “Meaning, you think that he spoke the truth.”

From these three verses in terms of the meaning that is common between them, it is known that in the blessed time of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), within the Pure City itself, there were some inwardly dark hypocrites whose hypocrisy or the degree of their hypocrisy was unknown to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Based on their outward state, he assumed them to be pious, and he believed their lies to be true, yet those wicked people were certainly aware of their own condition; even if afterwards through the means of revelation, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) too became aware.

5. After this, I will present only one more verse in this regard. The Lord states: “We have not taught him poetry, nor is it fitting for him.” (Qur’an 36:69) From this verse it is very clearly understood that he was not granted knowledge of poetry, yet such knowledge was acquired by even the disbelievers.

Anyhow, the Qur’an attests to the reality that knowledge of some unnecessary matters and matters unrelated to the affairs of messengership were not granted to the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), while it was acquired by others, even idolaters and disbelievers. But because of this, to label those others as having more expansive knowledge than the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is extremely stupid and the highest level of idiocy and deviance.

If such events were collected from the hadiths, many thousands would be found. Here only a few hadiths will be presented briefly by way of example:

1. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abi Dawud, it is narrated from Hazrat Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) that a black woman would sweep the mosque. One day the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not find her, so he asked about her condition. He was told that she passed away. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Why did you not inform me?” After this, he said: “Show me her grave.” They guided him to her grave and he prayed over her.

It is known from this hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was unaware of this woman’s passing, and the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) were aware. Moreover, the Sahabah even showed the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the whereabouts of her grave.

2. In Sunan al-Nasa’i, it is narrated from Hazrat Zayd ibn Thabit that he said: “One day we went out with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), whereupon the gaze of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) fell upon a new grave, and he said: ‘What is this (meaning, whose grave is it)?’ He was told it is the grave of such-and-such a person from such-and-such a tribe and he died in the afternoon. Because the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was taking an afternoon siesta and also fasting, they thought it better not to wake him. Thereupon, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) stood up and he formed rows with the people behind him and he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed over the grave. Then he said: ‘No deceased person dies amongst you as long as I am in your midst except you [ought to] inform me of it, because my prayer is a mercy for him.’”

From this narration too, a very clear light is shed on our claim. And [the hadith does] not [describe] only a single momentary event; rather, it is understood as a general unchanging condition in his life.

3. In Sahih al-Bukhari and the four Sunans, it is narrated from Hazrat Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would bury the martyrs of Uhud in pairs within separate graves, and when preparing the graves he would ask the people: “Which of the two had memorised more of the Qur’an,” and when one of them was pointed to, he would put him inside the grave first.

4. In Sahih Muslim and Sunan al-Nasa’i, it is narrated from Hazrat Anas (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) heard some sound from a certain grave and he said: “When did this one die?” They said: “He died in the time of [pre-Islamic] ignorance,” and he was pleased by this [news].

5. In Musnad Ahmad and Musnad al-Bazzar, it is narrated from Hazrat ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) that in one battle the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was brought cheese, so he asked: “Where was this made?” They said: “In Persia.”

6. In Sunan Abu Dawud and Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, it is narrated from Abyad ibn Hammal that he came before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and requested him to assign him [the mines of] salt as fief at Marib. So he assigned it to him. When he returned, a man in the meeting asked: “Do you know what you have assigned him as fief, O Messenger of Allah? You have assigned him the perennial spring water.” Thereupon, he took it back from him.

From this narration it is known that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) initially did not know the special quality of this land, and because of not knowing this, he assigned it to Abyad ibn Hammal. But after that Sahabi informed him, he became aware of the quality of that land, that it is a place for public consumption, so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) took it back from him.

7. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, it is narrated from Hazrat ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) that “the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) went to relieve himself, and I brought a water jug for the him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to perform wudu from, and when he came out, he asked: ‘Who put this [here]?’ When he was informed, he said: ‘O Allah! Give him understanding in religion and teach him [correct] interpretation.’”

From this narration it is known that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) became aware of the [identity of the] one who put the water in that place through another person.

8. In Sunan Abi Dawud, it is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) that: “I was feverish in the mosque, when the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) approached. When he entered the mosque and asked: ‘Who has seen the Dawsi lad [meaning, Abu Hurayrah]?’ three times, a man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! He is that feverish one at the side of the mosque,’ so he approached, walking, until he reached me and placed his hand on me.”

From this narration it is clearly known that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was unaware of Hazrat Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) being in the mosque, and only after being informed by another individual did the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) become aware of this.

9. In Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, it is narrated from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Azhar: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the Year of Conquest while I was a young lad, asking about [the whereabouts of] the house of Khalid ibn al-Walid.”

10. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan al-Nasa’i and Sunan Abi Dawud, it is narrated from Hazrat ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) that Khalid ibn al-Walid informed him that he entered with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) upon Maymunah, the wife of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), who was his maternal aunt and also the maternal aunt of Ibn ‘Abbas, and he found near her a roasted lizard which her sister Hafidah bint al-Harith brought from Najd. She offered the lizard to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and rarely would he move his hand towards food until he was told about it and it was identified for him, so when Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) lowered his hand to the lizard, a woman from those present said: “Inform the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) what you offered him.” They said: “It is a lizard, O Messenger of Allah.” So Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) lifted his hand.

From this narration it is known that when a lizard was presented to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he was unaware that it is a lizard, such that he even lowered his hand to eat from it, and afterwards when someone informed him, he became aware of this and lifted his hand.

11. Al-Tabrani in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir narrated from Hazrat Bilal (Allah be pleased with him) that once he had some poor quality dates which he sold in exchange for good quality dates for half its weight, and then he brought them in the presence of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). He (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said that “till today I have not seen such good quality dates, how did you come by this O Bilal?” So he told him what he did, and he said: “Go, and return it to its [previous] owner [as it had become interest].”

12. In Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq, it is narrated from Hazrat Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) that once the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) came to one of his wives, and there he saw some excellent quality dates, so he asked: “How did you come by this?” They said: “We exchanged two sa‘ for one sa‘,” so he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “There is no two sa‘ for one sa‘ and no two dirhams for one dirham [i.e. it is interest, so return it].”

From these two narrations it is known that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) became aware of these two impermissible transactions after being informed by another person.

13. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated in his Musannaf and Imam Ahmad in his Musnad and Abu Nu‘aym in his Kitab al-Ma‘rifah from Hazrat ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam; and ‘Abd al-Razzaq from Abu Umamah al-Bahili; and Ibn Jarir from Ibn Sa‘idah, that when the verse “In it are men who love to cleanse themselves: and Allah loves the clean” (9:108) was revealed with respect to the people of Quba, the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) summoned the people of Quba and asked them: “What is the purification for which you have been specified in this verse?” And in some narrations: “And what is your purification?” And in some of them: “Verily Allah has praised you greatly regarding purification.”

14. In Sahih Muslim, Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Abi Dawud and Sunan al-Nasa’i, it is narrated from Hazrat Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) that a slave came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bess him and grant him peace) and gave him allegiance of migration [to Madinah], and he was unaware that he is a slave. Thereupon, his master came to claim him. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to him: “Sell him to me.” He bought him for two black slaves. He did not accept allegiance from anybody thereafter until he inquired whether he was a slave or not.

15. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Abi Dawud, it is narrated from Hazrat Zayd ibn Thabit that: “He [i.e. the Prophet (peace be upon him)] ordered me to learn Syriac[3], and he promised by Allah that he does not trust the writing of the Jews. Half a month had not passed before I learnt Syriac, and I gained a particular skill therein. Then it was I who wrote letters to the Jews on behalf of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it was I who read to him their letters.”

In this narration, the danger from the Jews that was mentioned will only be actualised if the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not know the Syriac language, the knowledge of which was in this time possessed by the Jews. Although, to support this claim, it is enough that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was unlettered (ummi) which is established from the Qur’an, but I quoted this narration as it is a practical explanation of this quality, after which there is no room for interpretation, as interpretation is only effective in statements and phrases, not in [such] incidents and states.

From these five verses and fifteen hadiths, it is established that in the time of messengership, there were many particular events which presented itself [before the Muslim community] which the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was unaware of while others were. But simply because of those pieces of information – which have no specific connection to the matters of religion and piety and the obligations of prophethood and messengership – it cannot be said they were more knowledgeable than the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), nor can it be said that because of the absence of those sciences in the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) there is some deficiency in his perfect knowledge.

‘Allamah Sayyid Mahmud al-Alusi, the mufti of Baghdad (Allah have mercy on him), wrote in his unparalleled exegesis, Ruh al-Maani:

I do not believe in the loss of perfection with absence of knowledge of particular worldly matters, like the absence of knowledge in what Zayd is doing for example in his house and what transpires in his day and his morrow. (Ruh al-Ma‘ani, 8:35)

Tenth Introductory Principle

If Zayd had knowledge of a thousand things, and ‘Amr of hundreds of thousands and millions of things, but within those thousand pieces of information of Zayd there were ten or twenty which were not acquired by ‘Amr, because of those ten or twenty pieces of information, Zayd cannot be unrestrictedly called “more knowledgeable than ‘Amr.” Indeed it can be said that Zayd has such-and-such knowledge which ‘Amr does not have. For example, Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him) had acquired millions of sciences of the Shari‘ah, and Ibn Rushd too was especially gifted in the sciences of Shari‘ah, but did not have even a tenth of a tenth of the knowledge of Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah. However the knowledge of Greek philosophy which Ibn Rushd acquired was certainly not acquired by Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him) because in his time Greek philosophy had not been translated into Arabic. But because of this it cannot be said Ibn Rushd was more knowledgeable than Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him).

Similarly, Hazrat Imam al-Shafi‘i (Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him), Imam al-Bukhari (Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Muslim (Allah have mercy on him) acquired thousands of sciences of the Book and Sunnah, but in [the field of] history and biographies the knowledge possessed by Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Khallikan was certainly not all possessed by them, because within the knowledge of Ibn Khallikan and Ibn Khaldun were many historical events which occurred after the death of those imams. But because of this, no historian of today can say that Ibn Khallikan and Ibn Khaldun were more knowledgeable than those imams of religion. Based on this, the knowledge that a driver possesses regarding driving and the information regarding shoe-making acquired by a cobbler was certainly not acquired by Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, but in my view, even the highest-ranking idiot will not dare say that because of this the driver and cobbler have more extensive knowledge than the aforementioned Khan Sahib.

Anyhow, whenever any one person is called “more knowledgeable” absolutely with respect to another person, that is only in terms of the totality of sciences, and specifically in terms of religious and Shar‘i sciences. And if any person concedes Zayd’s expanse in any specific science, but does not accept this for ‘Amr, it is not a necessary consequence of this that he has accepted Zayd as more knowledgeable than ‘Amr, unless that science is from the lofty perfecting sciences; especially when the aforementioned person accepts thousands and millions of sciences of the higher rank for ‘Amr which he does not ascribe to Zayd, nay to anybody in the entire world.

“These were ten in total.” (Qur’an 2:196)

Till here, ten introductory principles [were presented]. Here I end this section and I turn my attention to the original discussion. It is unfortunate that first in addressing this matter too I am forced to lament the dishonesty of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib. If the aforementioned [Khan Sahib], in quoting the passages of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah and in explaining its meaning, did not commit the act of deceit, I would not have needed to adopt such a lengthy answer in reply to him.

In al-Barahin al-Qat‘iah, neither was the discussion on the expanse of absolute knowledge, nor was the discussion on the superior perfect sciences. Rather, the discussion was only about the expanse of knowledge related to the world. A likeminded partner of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib, after proving this expanse in knowledge for Satan and the Angel of Death in [his book] al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah with proofs, analogised the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to them, and based on this analogy, he affirmed expansive knowledge of the world for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). And Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him), the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, refuted this analogy. Al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah is a reply to al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah.

Anyhow, the entire discussion in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah was about expansive knowledge of the world, which has no connection to religion and worship, the obligations of prophethood and messengership, and regarding such sciences, I quoted the statement of Imam al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) under the sixth introductory principle from his al-Tafsir al-Kabir that in these sciences “it is possible that a non-prophet is higher than a prophet.”[4]

However, Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, with his “revivalist” manipulation, wrote: “He stated clearly in his book al-Barahin al-Qat‘iah…that their master, Iblis, has more expansive knowledge than the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace).”

It should be considered carefully: where is expanse in only worldly knowledge, and where is expanse in absolute knowledge?

Look at the difference in paths, from where to where?

To make it easy for readers, I will present an illustration, by which the passages from al-Barahin al-Qat‘iah will become completely clear.

Suppose that another brother of the intellectual partner of the author of al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, for example, Zayd, says that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) acquired knowledge of poetry, and he presented the proof that many sinners and disbelievers possess knowledge of this craft. Imra’ al-Qays was an evil disbeliever, yet he was a sophisticated poet. Al-Firdawsi was a heretical Shiite, yet one of the best Persian poets. Thus, since even sinners and disbelievers have acquired knowledge of this craft, and since the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the best of the Messengers, the chief of the first and the last, he must have acquired it. In response to this, someone following the same methodology as Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib says:

The condition of Imra’ al-Qays and al-Firdawsi is known by recurrent historical attestations. Now, to analogise one superior to them, [and conclude] that equivalent or greater [knowledge] than the inferior one is established in him too, is not the job of any sane person of knowledge.

First, the issues of belief are not analogical that by analogy they are established. Rather, they are decisive such that they are established by decisive texts; and even solitary reports are of no use here. Thus, since its establishment will only be worth noticing when decisive, if by affirming it based on a corrupt analogy and against the entire ummah the belief of creation is to be corrupted, how can it be worthy of attention?

Second, the opposite is established in the Qur’an and hadith. In the Qur’an it says: “We have not taught him poetry, nor is it fitting for him.” (Qur’an 36:69) It is narrated in the books of hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in his entire lifetime never recited one [full] poem, and in the famous book of Hanafi jurisprudence, Fatawa Qadi Khan, it says: “Some scholars have said: Whoever said, ‘Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) recited poetry,’ has disbelieved.”

Third, if this was entailed by superiority, then every pious Muslim should be a better poet than Imra’ al-Qays and al-Firdawsi. Based on this analogy, it should be carefully considered, that if by looking at the condition of Imra’ al-Qays and al-Firdawsi, without evidence, using merely corrupt analogy, knowledge of poetry is established for the Pride of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace), against decisive texts, if it is not heresy then what part of faith is it? The expansive knowledge of poetry of Imra’ al-Qays and al-Firdawsi is known by recurrent historical attestations. Which decisive text is there of the expansive knowledge of poetry of the Pride of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace) based on which all texts are rejected and one creed against the Shari‘ah is established?[5]

Thereupon, some spiritual offspring of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib gave the fatwa:

This person in his statement has stated clearly that Imra’ al Qays and al-Firdawsi have more knowledge than the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)…and indeed it says in Nasim al-Riyad: “Whoever says, so-and-so is more learned than him (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace), indeed he has faulted him and degraded him, so he is an insulter.”[6]

Fair readers should consider: did not this mufti commit deception? Was the abovementioned passage discussing absolute knowledge or the lofty perfecting sciences? Or did the aforementioned person accept expansiveness in absolute knowledge or the lofty perfecting sciences for Imra’ al-Qays and Firdawsi? And did he deny absolute expansive knowledge for the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)? Or did he deny the sciences pertaining to the messengership and the lofty perfecting sciences for him? It is obvious that no such [statements] are found here. Rather, here only the science of poetry is being discussed. Based on the acceptance of its expanse for a disbeliever like Imra’ al-Qays, al-Firdawsi and others, and its negation from the Prophet, the Joy of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace), drawing the conclusion that the aforementioned person accepted a disbeliever like Imra’ al-Qays and a deviant like al-Firdawsi as having more extensive knowledge than the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the handiwork of an imposter and a schemer who in order to justify his own inanity creates discord amongst the Muslims, or is the work of an ignoramus and idiot who does not even understand the meaning of “more knowledgeable” and “more expansive knowledge.” In the ten introductory principles, I have established that one will be more knowledgeable with respect to another in terms of the lofty perfecting sciences and the totality of knowledge; otherwise it would entail that it is correct to say that a cobbler, and a driver, rather filth-eating insects are more knowledgeable than Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib. The details of this have passed in the eighth and tenth principles.

Although for people of understanding, this much is enough, but such unfortunate groups existed in the past who were extremely ignorant, and then after that even the ‘ulama were not less in ignorance than them, but more. Because of this, I will present one more example for further clarity:

Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib told a tale of a strange and wonderful owl:

Khan Sahib said:

Three people were on their way. From far away, they saw a gathering of many people in a jungle. A chief was sitting on a saddle. His courtiers were present. One vile woman was dancing. A candle was alight. One person [from them] was very experienced in archery. They told each other that this gathering of sin and wickedness should be overturned – so what plan should they execute [i.e. what should the archer target]? One said to kill the chief because he was responsible for everything; a second suggested killing the dancing woman; the third said, don’t kill this one either, because she did not come of her own accord, but came under instructions from the chief, and as the aim was to overturn the gathering, the candle should be extinguished. This opinion was chosen. He aimed above the candle and shot the arrow. The candle was extinguished. Now, neither the chief remained, nor the vile woman, nor the gathering. They were extremely surprised. They stayed for the rest of the night. When it was morning, they saw a dead owl with the arrow in its beak; so it was understood that all this work was done by the soul of that owl.[7]

Now, suppose that a disciple of Khan Sahib, ‘Alim al-Din, who believes Khan Sahib is a hadith-scholar, exegete, jurist, Sufi, Hafiz and reciter, but says that A‘la Hazrat [a title used by his followers for Ahmad Rida Khan] was not skilled in Mesmerism. Another disciple, Hafiz al-Din, said that A‘la Hazrat did have experience in Mesmerism, and the proof he presented is:

From the abovementioned Malfuz of A‘la Hazrat, it is known that an owl was so adept at Mesmerism that with one glance he displayed an extraordinary dramatic display, while our A‘la Hazrat, the reviver of religion, who is a great and accepted slave of the Lord was certainly thousands, nay millions, of times superior to that owl, so why should he not possess it?

Upon this, ‘Alim al-Din says that the owl’s expertise in Mesmerism is known from the Malfuz Sharif of A‘la Hazrat, but where is A‘la Hazrat’s expertise in Mesmerism established? And analogising an owl to A‘la Hazrat is a corrupt analogy.

Then has a disciple or inheritor of Khan Sahib conveyed the truth in propagating that ‘Alim al-Din lessened the knowledge of A‘la Hazrat and said that an owl has more extensive knowledge than A‘la Hazrat, the great blessing, the reviver of religion, Allah Almighty bless his beloved and him and send peace[8]? I understand that the one who thinks and says this is foolish, and if in order to expel the poor ‘Alim al-Din from the Rida Khani brethren, with full knowledge, this propaganda is deviously made against him, it would be the highest level of deceit and deception.

Anyhow, Khan Sahib’s first deception was that:

Al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah discussed the expanse of one particular science, that is, knowledge regarding the world, which the likeminded brother of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib, after proving for Satan and the Angel of Death with evidences, affirmed for the Prophet, the Joy of World (Allah bless him and grant him peace), based on the analogy of his superiority, and the author of al-Barahin refuted this analogy. Furthermore, in his expressions, such words are present that specify the discussion to knowledge of the world. For example, on page 47 of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, the page from which Khan Sahib quoted, these words are found at its beginning:

In sum, it should be carefully considered, that by looking at the condition of Satan and the Angel of Death, to affirm encompassing knowledge of the world for the Pride of the World against decisive texts without any proofs besides corrupt analogy, if not shirk then which part of faith is it?

In this sentence, “encompassing knowledge of the world” is present, after which no doubt remains. However, Khan Sahib’s dishonesty can be understood from the fact that in Husam al-Haramayn, he quotes the last underlined part of this sentence, and omits the first part where encompassing knowledge of the world is clearly mentioned. Despite this, such titles as “reviver of the current century,” “defender of the pure faith” etc. etc. are given to him.

Furthermore, here, another deception of the same kind is noticed. Exactly two lines before the passage which Khan Sahib quoted on that page, the sentence beings as follows:

Thus, because of the position of the blessed soul (upon him peace) in the highest ‘Illiyyin, and his superiority to the Angel of Death, it can never be established that his knowledge in these matters are equal to the Angel of Death, or in excess to him.

In this passage too, the phrase “these matters” clearly explains that the discussion is only about knowledge regarding the world, not knowledge in general, nor the lofty perfecting sciences on which human virtue depends. But Khan Sahib also clearly omitted this sentence.

Anyhow, despite all these clear statements from al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, by which it is clearly understood that here the discussion is only about encompassing knowledge of the world and not absolute knowledge, without any reservation, Khan Sahib writes:

He stated clearly in his book al-Barahin al-Qat‘iah…that their master, Iblis, has more expansive knowledge than the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace).

Thus far, an explanation of Khan Sahib’s first deception [was presented], and simultaneously, the first objection of the aforementioned [Khan Sahib] was satisfactorily answered, after which no room [for doubt] remains for an unbiased person, rather even for a biased and fanatical person. So all praise is due to Allah!

The upshot of the answer is that in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, based on those evidences which Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib, the author of al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah presented, only expansive knowledge of the world is conceded for Satan and the Angel of Death, and it states that this expanse in knowledge is not established by text for the Prophet, the Joy of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Interpreting this as rejecting expansiveness of absolute knowledge, and concluding (Allah forbid!) that he said the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) noble knowledge is less than Satan’s, is only the work of an ignorant and foolish person who restricts the lofty knowledge of the Holy Prophet (Allah bless hum and grant him peace) to the lower world. But for the person who believes that his knowledge is higher than the Throne and the Footstool, how can he commit such foolery?

If today some person said that in the science of architecture, the knowledge possessed by some English or European person, is more expansive than Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him), no person stupider than a stupid person will say that this person has said Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah’s (Allah have mercy on him) knowledge is less than the disbelieving Englishman. Likewise if some person says that such-and-such a drunkard has a lot of knowledge pertaining to wine, and such-and-such a Ghawth or Qutb has not acquired this knowledge, it will never be understood from this that the person believes the drunkard to be more knowledgeable than the Ghawth or Qutb.

The truth is that in order to misguide people, the means that the Satan required were all granted to him by the Real Almighty, in order to test humanity. He gave him life till Resurrection. He gave him such strange and extraordinary powers that he is able to travel in man’s vessels just like blood. And the knowledge that is needed to misguide the slaves were all given to him, so that he can accomplish his deceptive efforts and the world realises how useless all his weapons are against the Slaves of the Most Merciful.

The needs for his [mission] are such, that in order to misguide the sons of Adam, he has awareness of their passions and desires. He should know that in such-and-such a place there is a young woman alone and such-and-such a wandering youth can reach there with a certain plan; and in such-and-such a place there is dance session and adolescent youths are gathered in a certain place and with a particular scheme he can bring those youths to that gathering of lust. Anyhow, to complete those satanic affairs he needs expansive knowledge of the lower world. But what purpose do those close to the Divine Court have in these futile matters? Their work is instruction and guidance, and those pure sciences which are needed for this were given to them in abundance by the Real Almighty.

Thus, even if Satan has acquired some knowledge of the lower world, and the revered prophets did not acquire it, which idiot and which follower of Satan will say that merely because of these lower sciences, Satan is more knowledgeable than the Messenger of the Lord (Allah bless him and grant him peace) or any other prophet, although from the divine sciences and the lordly disciplines they have attained a large share which no close angel has achieved?

Within the introductory principles I have shed more than enough light on this subject. Now, here I will present only one further matter, and with that, if Allah wills, this [part of the] discussion will end. I have no expectation of the friendship of enemies. Yes, those who Allah has given the ability to love truth, I certainly hope from them that they will accept the truth.

The Powerful Testimony of Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ and Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib in Absolving Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him)

The decision of the accuser in my favour is better

As Zulaykha declared the innocence of the Moon of Canaan[9]

From our previous discussion it was clear that the only crime committed by the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah was that, based on the proofs which Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ presented in al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, he accepted the expanse of one particular science, meaning, knowledge of the world, for Satan and the Angel of Death, and he said this expanse was not established by text for the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace). But:

Such a crime this is that those of your city commit it!

Shortly after this discussion, these words of al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah are noticed:

The supporters of the gathering of Milad do not claim that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is present in all pure and impure, religious and irreligious, gatherings. The presence of the Angel of Death and Iblis is found in even more places than him, of purity and impurity, disbelief and belief.

Look! Even Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib did not write with this much clarity. He [i.e. Mawlana Khalil Ahmad] expressed only knowledge of the world as the specific expanse which was not documented in the texts. This likeminded brother of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib, clearly says that the presence of the Angel of Death and Satan is not only more than the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), but is found in more places. The abovementioned sentence of al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah was in its first edition which was printed together with al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah; and also in the edition which was revised and renovated by Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami and thereafter published, and upon which Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib wrote around 4 pages of commendation in which he lavishly praised Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami Sahib and his al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah. Therefore, Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib’s successors and followers should answer:

1) Is Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ a disbeliever because of this passage or not?

2) And where does Khan Sahib himself stand because of writing a commendation on it?

May Allah Almighty give me and you the faculty of insight. Do you see the miracle of the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him)? Khan Sahib himself was caught up in the very accusation he threw at him.

I will now close this discussion, and I think it is appropriate as a conclusion to the discussion that I quote the statement of the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah (Allah have mercy on him) from al-Tasdiqat li Daf‘ al-Talbisat [also known as al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad] in which he answered this Satanic slander.

When Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib took the result of his labour and efforts, the fatwa of disbelief, to the two noble Harams, and he solicited endorsements from the noble scholars there who were unaware of the reality of the situation by deceiving them, and this began to be discussed even in the two noble Harams, some of the people of knowledge sent 26 questions pertaining to beliefs to the revered scholars of Deoaband and Saharanpur. The answers to these questions were given by Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib, the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah. And then the sum [of these questions and answers], for the purpose of endorsement and confirmation, were sent to the two noble Harams, Levant, Damascus, Halab, Egypt etc. to the noble scholars of these lands of Islam; and these noble scholars and great muftis endorsed it and declared it sound. Then those answers along with the endorsements were printed. Its first edition with translation was printed as al-Tasdiqat li Daf‘ al-Talbisat (Endorsements to Repel Distortions). Then after that, many editions of it were released.

The nineteenth answer is related to this Satanic slander of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib. In the following, I will quote the exact question and its answer. Readers will notice that those things I wrote in this discussion are in fact an elaboration of this brief reply which the author of Barahin himself gave during his lifetime:

Question Nineteen

Do you believe that Iblis, the accursed, is more knowledgeable than the Chief Existent (upon him be peace) and has more expansive knowledge than him in absolute terms? Have you written this in a book? And how do you judge one who believes this?

Answer:

A review of this issue preceded from us, that the Prophet (upon him be peace) is the most knowledgeable of creation in general, of the sciences, the judgement, the secrets and other than that from the Kingdom of the Horizons, and we believe with certainty that one who says that so-and-so person is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (upon him be peace) has disbelieved. Our elders have given the verdict of disbelief for one who says that Iblis, the accursed, is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), so how is it possible that this matter is in a certain book we authored?

However, the concealment of some insignificant particular things from the Prophet (upon him be peace) due to his inattention to it does not cause any defect in his (upon him be peace) position as the most learned, once it is established that he is the most knowledgeable of creation in the noble sciences that are fitting to his lofty station, just as cognizance of most of those insignificant things due to the intensity of Iblis’s attention to them does not cause glory and perfection of knowledge in him, since this is not the criterion of virtue. Hereof, it is not correct to say that Iblis is more knowledgeable than the Messenger of Allah (Allah 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 research scholar in the sciences from whom those particulars are hidden. We have recited unto you the story of Hudhud with Sulayman (upon our Prophet and upon him be peace) and his statement, “I comprehend that which you do not comprehend.” (Qur’an 27:22) The records of hadith and the books of exegesis are replete with abundant examples of this which are well-known amongst people[10].

The physicians are agreed that Plato and Galen and their likes are from the most knowledgeable of physicians about the qualities of diseases and their states, despite their knowledge that maggots are more knowledgeable about states of filth, their taste and their qualities. Hence, the absence of Plato’s and Galen’s knowledge of these despicable states does not harm their being the most learned, and none from the intelligent and the stupid will be satisfied with the view that maggots are more knowledgeable than Plato, although they have more extensive knowledge than Plato about the states of filth. The innovators of our lands affirm for the blessed prophetic soul (upon it a million greetings and peace) all the sciences of the base lowly things and the lofty virtuous things, saying that since he (upon him be peace) was the best of all creation, it is necessary that he possesses all of those sciences, every particular and every universal. We rejected the establishment of this matter using this corrupt analogy without a proof-text from the relied upon texts. Do you not see that every believer is more virtuous and more honourable than Iblis so following this logic it would be necessary that every person from the individuals of this ummah possesses the sciences of Iblis, and it would be necessary that Sulayman (upon our Prophet and upon him be peace) knew that which Hudhud knew, and that Plato and Galen knew all the knowledge of maggots? These concomitants are absurd in their entirety as is obvious.

This is a summary of what we said in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah in order to sever the veins of the foolish deviants and break the necks of the forging deceivers. Hence, our discussion about it was only in regards to some of these temporal particulars, and for this reason we used the demonstrative noun to indicate that the objective in affirmation and negation there was those particulars, and nothing besides [them]. However, the iniquitous distort the speech and do not fear the reckoning of the Knowing King. We are certain that those who say that so-and-so individual is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (upon him be peace) is a disbeliever, as more than one of our respected ‘ulama stated. And whoever concocts about us that which we did not say, upon him is [the burden of] proof, [and he should] fear the interrogation before the Recompensing King. Allah is witness over what we say.

For Allah’s sake, be fair! After this reply of the author of Barahin himself, is there any room left for this slander? No, by Allah! Judgement will be on the Day of Judgement.

Reply to Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib’s Second Objection
to al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah

The second substantial objection of Khan Sahib Barelwi to the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him), was that he accepted encompassing knowledge for Satan and labelled its affirmation for the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) shirk, whereas anything which is shirk when affirmed for any single creature is also shirk when affirmed for any other creature, so it is as though the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah accepts Satan as a partner of the Lord – Glory be to Allah and by His praise!

If the respected readers carefully considered [this allegation], it would be realised that this objection is more mistaken and more unfounded than the first, and its reality is as far as Khan Sahib’s fatwas are from honesty and integrity.

The actual truth is that in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, the affirmation of intrinsic knowledge for the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was regarded as shirk and, based on those proofs which the likeminded brother of Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘, presented in al-Anwar al-Sati‘a, he accepted only granted knowledge for Satan. The affirmation of intrinsic knowledge necessitates shirk as proven from Khan Sahib’s own statements, quoted in the first introductory principle.

In al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, such statements are found in different places from which it is clearly understood that only granted knowledge is conceded for Satan, and shirk was determined for intrinsic knowledge, which Khan Sahib himself does not dispute. However, it is unfortunate that based on his “revivalist integrity,” ignoring all these statements from al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, he wrote explicitly about the author of Barahin:

He believes in encompassing earthly knowledge for Iblis, and when the mention of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace), comes, he says, “This is shirk.” Shirk is only to affirm a partner for Allah Almighty, so when affirming something for any of creation is shirk, it will definitely be shirk for all creation, since it is not possible for anyone to be a partner of Allah Almighty.

I completely agree with this principle of Khan Sahib, that whatever is shirk to affirm for any creation will certainly be shirk when affirmed for any other being in this world. However, although I completely agree with this principle of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, applying it to the author of Barahin is from the particular act of Khan Sahib which is called deception or distortion. Apart from the difference between intrinsic and granted knowledge, here, Khan Sahib openly slandered the author of Barahin saying that he accepted “encompassing knowledge” for Satan, but this is such a lie that there is no trace of truth in it[11]. But it is unfortunate that in the Rida Khani group no truthful and upright person comes to mind who will accept this revolting action of his leader as an unintentional error, let alone deliberate deception.

The reality is that the likeminded brother of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib, in proving expansive knowledge for Satan in al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, wrote:

In al-Durr al-Mukhtar in the section of Salah it is written that Satan stays with the sons of Adam in the day and his children stays with the offspring of Adam in the night. ‘Allamah al-Shami wrote in its commentary that Satan stays with all the children of Adam except those whom Allah saves. After this he wrote: “Allah gave him power over that just as He gave the Angel of Death a power similar to that.”

Thus, whatever knowledge Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami Sahib established for Satan from this evidence, it was certainly accepted by Mawlana Khalil Sahib. If this is what Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib understands as encompassing knowledge of the world, this is his academic ability which will be judged by the people of knowledge. Otherwise, where is Satan staying with people, and where is [complete] encompassing knowledge of the world for which atom-by-atom, drop-by-drop, leaf-by-leaf knowledge is required?

And if the mind of Khan Sahib accepts this as encompassing knowledge, even then, the first to believe in it, rather, the first to call others to believe in it, is the likeminded brother of Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami Sahib, and the first to exemplify the fatwa of disbelief and shirk is him, because it was he who proved this expanse in knowledge for Satan with proofs, and Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him) only said “we accept.” Anyhow, here Khan Sahib slandered the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah falsely that he believed in encompassing knowledge of the world for Iblis.

The second deception was that in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, based on those evidences which Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami Sahib presented, only granted knowledge was accepted for Satan; and he labelled intrinsic knowledge for the Prophet, the Joy of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace), shirk. Khan Sahib had certainly seen this strong distinction made between intrinsic and granted [knowledge]. Now I will present evidence for both these matters, that granted knowledge was conceded [for Satan and the Angel of Death], and shirk was determined for intrinsic knowledge.

Proving the first matter

In this discussion of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, on the fortieth line of page 50, it says: “The extent of the expanse of knowledge given to Satan…” Then four lines after that, it says: “And Satan and the Angel of Death who were given this expanse in knowledge…” There is clarity in these two sentences that the knowledge which was conceded for Satan was [knowledge] granted by the Lord.

Proving the Second Matter

First it should be understood that the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, in this discussion, refutes the logic that, since Satan and the Angel of Death have acquired this expanse in knowledge, therefore, because of the superiority of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), more knowledge of the world than this self-generated in him. It is this assumption that the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah called shirk.

In the first line of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah from where this discussion begins, it says:

The entire ummah has the belief that the quantity of knowledge which the Real Almighty favoured and taught the Respected Pride of the World (upon him peace) and all creation, affirming even one iota of more knowledge is shirk. This is derived from all books of the Shari‘ah.

It is known from this text that the opinion of the author of Barahin is that it is only shirk to affirm such knowledge for creation that is not given by the Lord, and the name of this is “intrinsic knowledge.” Then in the same discussion, shortly afterwards, he said:

The belief of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that no attribute of the Real Almighty will be found in the slave, and the shadow of His attributes which He bestows on anyone, nothing more than that is ever possible for anyone…Furthermore, whoever was given whatever quantity of knowledge, he cannot increase it by the weight of an atom. The extent which Satan and the Angel of Death have, to increase on it is not in their ability at all.

Then he said:

The quantity of the knowledge of unveiling which was acquired by Hazrat Khidr (upon him peace), he is not able to increase on it; and Hazrat Musa (upon him peace) despite being superior, did not acquire it, so he is the same as Hazrat Khidr, his inferior, in his inability to generate knowledge of unveiling.

Meaning, the understanding that any superior person, due only to his superiority, can gain an increase in an attribute of perfection over an inferior person without the bestowal of the Lord, is incorrect. Rather, whoever has received whatever [amount of] knowledge etc., he receives it from Allah Almighty. After proving this statement, the author of Barahin says [with Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani’s commentary in parenthesis]:

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 that 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?

From this last sentence it is also known that the deceased Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib is discussing the expanse in knowledge that to establish is shirk, and it was stated in the first line that shirk is only affirming intrinsic knowledge which was not acquired by Divine bestowal.

The end result is that the sections before and after the passage in question clearly shows that the author of Barahin is speaking only about the expanse of intrinsic knowledge, and this is what he termed shirk.

Thus far, I proved my claim through indications of the context, and although these indications are not less than clear and explicit statements, I will nonetheless now present a clearer statement from the author of Barahin in which, with complete clarity, he explains that his discussion is only about intrinsic knowledge and not granted knowledge. In this very discussion, several sentences after the sentence quoted by Khan Sahib, this passage is found:

This discussion is about establishing such knowledge for him intrinsically, as is the belief of the ignorant. If he believes that by Allah’s disclosure he makes him present, it will not be shirk, but without proof of Shari‘ah, having belief in it is incorrect.

Look carefully, how the author of Barahin clearly explained that the ruling of shirk is only in the situation where any person affirms intrinsic knowledge for him. And in the first introductory principle, I quoted the references of al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah and Khalis al-I‘tiqad from the statements of Khan Sahib himself that whoever affirms any share of intrinsic knowledge, even if less than less than an atom for any besides Allah, he has committed shirk.

Thus, Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him) has no such crime in which Khan Sahib does not have an equal share. And assuming this clear statement was not in Barahin and these indications were not there from the context, which has forced us to accept the intent as intrinsic knowledge, still it would never have been permissible in any way for Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib to take the intent of expansive granted knowledge in this place. In Khalis al-I‘tiqad, on page 28, as a general principle, he wrote:

In the verses, hadiths and statements of ‘ulama in which are condemnation of affirming knowledge of unseen for others, definitely these two types (intrinsic or encompassing knowledge) are intended.

Thus in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, the knowledge to affirm which is labelled shirk is more worthy of being understood as intrinsic or completely encompassing knowledge. But it is unfortunate that for the desire of takfir, he forgot his own written principles. It is true that:

Your love for something blinds and deafens.

Thus far, Khan Sahib’s second objection was answered, the upshot of which is that, he criticised [al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah] for describing as shirk the very knowledge that was affirmed for Satan; whereas, the reality is contrary to this, as granted knowledge was conceded for Satan and shirk was applied to affirmation of intrinsic knowledge – and far indeed is [the distance] between them.

Reply to Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib’s
Third Objection to al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah

The third objection of Khan Sahib Barelwi to the author of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him), was that:

He demands for the knowledge of Muhammad (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace) a decisive text, and he will not be satisfied with it until it is decisive (qat‘i), and when he comes to negating his (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace) knowledge, in this explanation on page 46, six lines before this disgraceful [statement of] disbelief, he himself adheres to a baseless hadith.

Regarding the grading of the narration, I will if Allah wills, explain it in the answer to the fourth objection. Here I only wish to answer Khan Sahib’s academic fallacy that “he demands for affirmation a decisive text and for negation he presents one narration.”

If only, before presenting this objection, Khan Sahib first carefully considered [the question]: did the author of Barahin, here, present those hadiths as a claimant and one producing evidence, or as an objector and opponent? And if only, he also researched the difference between these two functions in the principles of debate.

The reality is that the author of Barahin (Allah have mercy on him) demanded a decisive text for affirmation and in opposition to the analogy of Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami Sahib, the author of al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, he presented only hadiths, and both these things are valid. For establishing belief, a decisive text is undoubtedly necessary. Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib himself accepts this in principle (see Inba’ al-Mustafa). And undoubtedly, in opposition to analogy, let alone hadiths, another analogy can be produced (see Munazarah Rashidiyyah and its commentaries).

Reply to Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib’s
Fourth Objection to al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah

The fourth objection was that the author of Barahin was deceptive in quoting, and the narration which Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haqq Muhaddith Dihlawi (Allah have mercy on him) refuted after quoting, was quoted [by Mawlana Khalil Ahmad] while attributing it to him, and there was no mention of the refutation; so it is as though he selectively quoted “don’t approach Salah” [from the Qur’an] and omitted “while you are drunk.”

I ask the [spiritual] descendents of Khan Sahib to forgive me, as I am forced to say here that since this act is ordinary for him, this is why he projects this onto others, but he should know that such tactics are only required for the people of falsehood. Truth seekers have no need for it. However, since this objection of Khan Sahib is not related to the subject of takfir, I will be brief in my reply.

Firstly take note of what the words used by the author of Barahin were. On page 51 on the seventh line he wrote:

And Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq narrates that: “I do not even have knowledge of what is behind a wall.”

Here the author of Barahin did not give the name of any particular book of the Shaykh. So if this narration is mentioned in any book of the Shaykh without criticism and refutation then the reference of the author of Barahin will be absolutely correct, and it will be understood that he quoted from there. Now take note of the last hadith of al-Fasl al-Thalith of Mishkat al-Masabih, Bab Sifat al-Salah:

Narrated from Abu Hurayrah: He said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed Zuhr with us, and in the last rows was a man who ruined [his] prayer. When he did salam, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) called him and said: “O So-and-So! Do you not fear Allah? Do you not see how you pray? You think that something you do is hidden from me. By Allah! Indeed I see from behind me [in Salah] as I see in front of me. (Ahmad narrated it)

Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haqq Dihlawi (Allah have mercy on him) while commenting on this hadith on page 392 of Ashi‘at al-Lam‘at wrote:

Know that the Messenger’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) vision from behind – as it was in front – was in the form of breaking the norm (kharq al-‘adah), by means of revelation or inspiration, and was [only] sometimes, and was not permanent. This is supported by the hadith that when the blessed camel of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was lost, he did not know its whereabouts. So the hypocrites said: “Muhammad says that I receive news from the heavens, and he has no news of the whereabouts of his camel!” Then the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “By Allah! I know not but what my Lord has taught me. Now, my Lord has taught me that it is in such-and-such a place, and its rein is tied to the branch of a tree.” Also the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “I am a man. I do not know what is behind this wall,” meaning, without being taught by the Real, Glorified is He. (Ashi‘at al-Lam‘at, 1:392)

Here, the Shaykh quoted the narration and did not mention any criticism of it. Therefore, the reference of Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him) is absolutely correct. In fact if considered carefully, from this statement of the Shaykh, it is known that the narration is worthy of consideration according to him because here the Shaykh presented it to support his claim, and it is far removed from the Shaykh’s trustworthiness that he presents a narration as proof for his claim which he believes to be completely baseless. Thus his quotation of this narration in the context of proof is clear proof that it is reliable according to him. [The question] remains that the Shaykh in one section of Madarij al-Nubuwwah said regarding this narration that “it is baseless.” Although answering this question is not in our responsibility, in order to remove confusion from the readers, I will say something briefly about this.

The reality is that the well-known careful and strict hadith-scholar Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi quoted this narration without chain in some of his books, and he is such a careful, critical and insightful hadith master, that his quotation of a narration without criticism is sufficient evidence of its consideration. Because of this, Shaykh (Allah have mercy on him) believed the narration to be reliable, and in the abovementioned passage of Ashi‘at al-Lamat presented it as support for his claim. But because no chain has been transmitted for this narration, this is why in one place of Madarij al-Nubuwwah, he said, “it is baseless,” meaning, it has no chain. By this, the contradiction in the Shaykh’s speech is repelled, and no doubt remains. And it is a strange coincidence that in the speech of Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani regarding this very narration, there is apparent contradiction. Thus, al-Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah quotes from al-Sakhawi’s (Allah have mercy on him) al-Maqasid al-Hasanah:

The hadith, “I do not know what is behind this wall of mine,” our teacher, Shaykh al-Islam, Ibn Hajar said: “It has no basis.” However, he said in Talkhis Takhrij Ahadith al-Rafi‘i upon his [i.e. al-Rafi‘i’s] statement in al-Khasa’is, “And he sees from behind his back as he sees from his front”:

“It is in the two Sahihs and others from the hadith of Anas and others; and the hadiths transmitted with this [meaning] are restricted to the condition of Salah, and by this it can be reconciled with his (upon him peace) statement: ‘I do not know what is behind this wall of mine.’” End. This indicates it is transmitted.

‘Allamah al-Zurqani, after quoting this passage of Hafiz al-Sakhawi (Allah have mercy on him), said in Sharh al-Mawahib:

In his statement, “It has no basis” is a contradiction from him. It is possible that his intent is that it has no basis that is taken into consideration, as it was cited without chain, not that his intent is it is false.

Thus, the explanation that I gave for the statement of the Shaykh (Allah have mercy on him) from Madarij is exactly how ‘Allamah al-Zurqani explained [the apparent contradiction in] the speech of Hafiz Ibn Hajar.

All that was presented regarding the explanation of the statement of the Shaykh “it is baseless” was beyond my obligation. It was only in my responsibility to find in any book of the Shaykh a quotation of this narration without criticism. This was a voluntary kindness that based on the action of the Shaykh I showed that it was reliable according to him, and I lifted the apparent contradiction between his two statements. So all praise and thanks is due to Allah!

And ignoring all those things, there is no doubt that the narration is true in its meaning, and many authentic hadiths support its content. For example, in the two Sahihs and Sunan al-Nasa’i, it is narrated from Zaynab, the wife of Ibn Mas‘ud (Allah be pleased with them), that in order to ask a question she wanted to ask regarding Zakat, she came to the door of the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and when she reached there, another Ansari wife was standing there with the same need. Then Hazrat Bilal (Allah be pleased with him) came to them and she said to him: “Go to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and inform him that two women are at the door asking you: ‘Is charity permissible on their behalf for their husbands and for the orphans in their care,’ and don’t inform him who we are.” So Bilal asked him, and the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to him “Who are they?” he said: “A woman from the Ansar and Zaynab.” He said to him “Which Zaynab?” He said: “The wife of ‘Abd Allah [ibn Mas‘ud].” He said: “For them are two rewards: the reward of [maintaining good] relations, and the reward of charity.”

Thus, if the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) knew all matters behind a wall, what was the need for him to ask Hazrat Bilal (Allah be pleased with him) about the names? Then, after inquiring about their names and knowing that it is Zaynab, he asked “which Zaynab?” This is clear proof that he did not know some matters behind a wall.

Furthermore, in the last days of his pure life in the state of illness, in order to see his congregation, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) went to the door of his blessed chamber, and opening the curtain, he saw those praying in congregation in the Prophetic Mosque – which is mentioned in the authentic books. Specifically during the final days he repeatedly asked: “Are the people praying?” Yet between the blessed mosque and the noble chamber was only one wall. This is clear proof that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not know some matters behind a wall. Thus, if it is narrated in any hadith, “By Allah, I do not know what is behind this wall of mine” or as he (upon him blessing and peace) said, what is so farfetched and repulsive about it? Rather, nobody can dare deny the correctness of the meaning of this narration.

Furthermore, if those matters too are ignored, every fair person will accept that the author of Barahin presented this narration in the context of negating intrinsic knowledge, because we have established from the statements of the author of Barahin himself that his entire discussion was pertaining to intrinsic knowledge, so he understood this narration as negation of intrinsic knowledge; and we have established from the statements of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib himself that he too does not profess intrinsic knowledge [for anyone besides Allah], rather whoever affirms even one atom of intrinsic knowledge for any person besides Allah or even less than less than that, he is according to him a disbeliever and polytheist. Based on this, this narration is correct in its meaning according to Khan Sahib too, and he himself has stated: “In the verses, hadiths and statements of ‘ulama in which are condemnation of affirming knowledge of unseen for others, definitely these two types (intrinsic or encompassing knowledge) are intended.” (Khalis al-I‘tiqad, p. 28)

Thus, since Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (Allah have mercy on him) understood this as negating intrinsic knowledge, what room for objection does Khan Sahib or his [intellectual] descendents have?

I have said from the start that this discussion is unrelated to the topic of takfir. This is why I will suffice with this much.

Now the inquiry into the passages of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah is complete, and I have finished answering with Allah’s help all of the four objections of Khan Sahib. Now I will begin the final inquiry into Husam al-Haramaym regarding the passage of Hifz al-Iman.

Footnotes:

1. Meaning, insults and curses, but such unjustified insults and curses serve to elevate the rank of the pious, so are in fact counted as “blessings.”

2. Meaning, he committed the same degree of dishonesty in quoting Shaykh ‘Abd Haqq al-Dihlawi as one who quotes the Qur’an to say “Don’t come near Salah” while failing to mention the part immediately after it “while you are drunk.” (Qur’an 4:43)

3. In Madinah, only Jews knew the Syriac language. If any letter came in the Syriac language, they would read it to him (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and if he had to send a letter, they would write it for him. (Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani)

4. Likewise within the eighth introductory principle, with extremely clear evidences, I proved that if in these sciences somebody had more expansive knowledge, he cannot be considered more knowledgeable in absolute terms in relation to another. When someone is called “more knowledgeable” in relation to another that would be said in terms of the perfecting sciences and the totality of knowledge, as was established in the last introductory principles. (Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani)

5. The abovementioned paragraph is from al-Barahinal- Qati‘ah itself, reconstructed slightly in order to explain the illustration; otherwise, the form is precisely that of al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah. (Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani)

6. The abovementioned quote is the exact same as Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan, but to accord with the illustration, instead of Iblis, the names of Imra’ al-Qays and al-Firdawsi were written

7. Khan Sahib related this story when explaining the reality of Mesmerism. See Malfuzat, Part Four, Hasani Press, Bareli. (Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani)

8. This is what Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib’s disciples and followers say. (Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani)

9. Meaning, the Prophet Yusuf (peace be upon him).

10. In the ninth introductory principle, I presented five verses with the statements of the exegetes and fifteen hadiths on this matter. (Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani)  [Also see this: The Definitive Refutation of Pseudo-Sufis’ Attribution of Ilmul Ghayb to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)]

11. When the phrase “encompassing knowledge of the world” is mentioned in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, it is addressing the knowledge which is wrongly affirmed for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) based on the invalid analogy with Satan and the Angel of Death, not the knowledge that is conceded for the latter. The knowledge that is conceded for the latter is what is described in the work being refuted, al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, quoted in the next paragraph above. Hence, the deception in Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan’s comment, “He believes in encompassing earthly knowledge for Iblis,” which Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani is highlighting here.

Back to Contents