`ilm al-saa`at [Mawlana Soofi Saheb & Tullab]

[Hamood]

You said it yourself that its an 'ikhtilaafi' matter then why blame Maulana for opposing it? 'Ikhtilaafi' means that some people will disagree with it. Perhaps, a better point would be made by analyzing Maulana's position to see if it conforms to the principles of Hanafi jurisprudence. In other words, provide a scholarly critique of his position. Deobandi or not, Maulana is a recognized senior 'alim and wouldn't just make things up that suit his fancies! But I really doubt that we, as laymen, are capable of doing that....

Just for the record, I have no problem with 'zikr-bil-jahr' as practiced by Deobandi Chishtis.

Excellent point.

I don't understand why some people can't get over this fact?

Nevertheless, I'm disappointed that people who uphold the sanctity of scholars would utter such disrespectful words for such a senior and great 'alim as Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar. Let's not let our differences on issues blind us so much that we adopt a disparaging tone towards the 'Ulama.

[Husain]

Sidi, I did not state that Imam al-Razi's quote said "knowledge of the five" but "knowledge of the time of the hour". If the word ghayb in the singular refers to the time of the hour, as Imam Razi relates as an opinion, then does not the verse state that it could be revealed to a prophet? I never said this was Imam Razi's *own* opinion as you can note.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I don't understand which part of the quote from Imam Razi mentions an opinion that could be taken to mean that the time of Qiyamah could be revealed to a prophet

All Imam Razi is saying is that is in the Ayah:
عالم الغيب فلا يظهر على غيبه أحدا

the word ghaib could be taken to mean Qiyamah, thus this would be the one ghaib that is not revealed to ANYONE

He then says that if this question is posed:
If you say that ghaib means Qiyamah and this is not revealed to ANYONE, then what would the next verse mean:
{إلا من ارتضى من رسول }
because this shows that that ghaib that is referred to in the previous ayah, can be shown to some, yet the knowledge of qiyamah is not shown to ANYONE, thus ghaib could not be referring to qiyamah.

He then states that the answer would be:
Either by "revealing the knowledge of qiyamah" is meant, just when it is about to take place, then the knowledge of it will be given to the angels(messengers) who will then descent
or the is'tihna here is munqati', meaning that this second ayah has nothing to do with the first, so no exclusion, so it will mean that the knowledge is not revealed at all, not even just before it takes place. Inhata


As you can see, this is clearly proving that knowledge of qiyamah is not granted to ANYONE.
So I don't see how you understood the complete opposite from it.

Please clarify
Jazakallah

But, Imam Suyuti did explicitly mention that some said this, no?

Allamah Suyuti did say that "Some hold the view that..." without mentioning who they are or any of their proofs, in fact he used the word "qila" for this view, which is known to show weakness.

As did many others. I am sure, sidi, you know of dozens of other scholars who stated the above.

Dozens, I don't know of. There will probably be dozens though, all from the Muta'akhirin Sufiyah.
As from the salaf, from whom we received our Aqidah, I am unaware of even one holding that view.

Yes, I know that Umm al-Mu'minin Sayyiduna 'Aishah clearly said - as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim , Tirmidhi etc- that if anybody says that Nabi was given knowldge of the 5, then he is a liar!

[Saad]

Assalam o alaykum,

According to Allamah Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) anyone who says that Prophet had the knowledge of ساعت is a كذاب [liar] and has nothing to do with knowledge:

وقد جاهر بلكذب بعض من يدعى فى زماننا العلم وهو متشبع بما لم يعطان رسول اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم كان يعلم متى تقوم الساعة ٠٠٠٠هذا شانهما

[Mawduat Kabir, p.119]

[faqir]

Yes, I know that Umm al-Mu'minin Sayyiduna 'Aishah clearly said - as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim , Tirmidhi etc- that if anybody says that Nabi was given knowldge of the 5, then he is a liar!

Sayyidi, I don't think that is necessarily decisive proof in itself. Sayyidatuna Aisha [ra] was also of the opinion that our beloved Nabi [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] did not see Allah [subhanahu wa ta'ala] yet when Imam Ahmad was asked about this we all know his answer. So just because someone does not agree with Umm al-mu'mineen it does not mean we are against her in some way.

As far as I can tell this is an issue of Ijtihad and the scholars who take the opposite view have their proofs from the divine texts.

Allamah Suyuti did say that "Some hold the view that..." without mentioning who they are or any of their proofs, in fact he used the word "qila" for this view, which is known to show weakness.

The transliteration of the arabic from Khasa'is al-Kubra as was quoted elsewhere:

Dhahaba Ba`adahum Ila Annahu Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam Utiya `Ilmul Khamsi Aysan Wa `Ilmus Sa`ati war Ruhi Wa Annahu Umira Bi Katami dhalika

According to Allamah Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti anyone who says that Prophet had the knowledge of ساعت is a كذاب [liar] and has nothing to do with knowledge:

وقد جاهر بلكذب بعض من يدعى فى زماننا العلم وهو متشبع بما لم يعط
ان رسول اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم كان يعلم متى تقوم الساعة ٠٠٠٠هذا شانهما

[Mauduat-e-Kabeer, page 119]

wow.... thats the first time I've heard of this. Perhaps that quote should be checked against the following report from the Imam and what has already been mentioned from Khasa'is al-Kubra above:

Imam Jalaluddin as-Suyuti in Rawdun Nadheer Sharh Jaami` as-Saghir is quoted as saying under the Hadith

'Khamsun La Ya`alamuhunna Illallah'

'there are five nobody knows except Allah.'

And his (sallallahu `Alayhi wa sallam) saying that nobody knows means that nobody knows of his own accord; of his own self, except Allah. But it should be known that by His own bestowing, others also attain this knowledge as is evident amongst us that many have given news of death and that which is in the womb etc.,

Arabic transliteration:

Fa Amma Qawluhu La Ya`alamuha Illa Huwa Fa Mufassirun Bi Annahu La Ya`alamuha Ahadun Bidhatihee Wa Min Dhatihee Illa Hu; Lakin Qad Ya`alamu Bi I`ylamillahi Ta`ala Fa Inna thumma Man Ya`alamahuma Wa Qad Wajadna Dhalika Bi Ghayri WaHidin Kama Ra-aynaa Jamaa`atan `Alimu Mata Yamutuna Wa `Alimu Ma Fil ArHami Hala Hamlil Marati Wa Qabilahu

اما قوله صلي اﷲ تعالي عليه وسلم الا هوا فسر بانه لا يعلمها احد بذاتة ومن ذاته الا هوا لکن قد تعلم باعلام الﷲ تعالي فان ثمه من يعلمها وقد وجدنا ذالک لغير واحد کما راينا جماعة علموا متي يموتون و علموا مافي الارحام حال حمل المراة و قبله

Nevertheless, I'm disappointed that people who uphold the sanctity of scholars would utter such disrespectful words for such a senior and great 'alim as Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar. Let's not let our differences on issues blind us so much that we adopt a disparaging tone towards the 'Ulama.

completely agree, and I believe the same should apply towards Imam Sawi, Imam Bajuri et al should it not?

Just because, for example, Imam Bajuri says in his Sharh on the Burdah:

Wa Lam Yakhruj Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam Minad Dunyaa Illa Ba`ada An A`alamahullahu Ta`aalaa Bi Haadhihil Umuuril Khamsah

..does this mean we can attack him or consider him 'not reliable at all' and upon 'false beliefs' 'which are contrary to qat'e ayaats of the Quran and Mutawatir Ahadees and beliefs of the Sahabas.'?


Some further relevant quotes [excluding the commentarys, tafsirs and scholars sidi khanbaba has attacked], insha'allah.

In Irshad as-Sari, Imam Qastalani is quoted as saying:

La Ya`alamu Mata Taqumus Sa`atu Illallahu Wa Illa Manirtada Minar Rasuli Fa Innahu Yutli`ahu `Ala Ghaybihi Wal Waliyyut Tabi`u Lahu Ya-khudhu `Anhu


In Sharh al-Maqasid `Allama Taftazani is quoted saying:

Innal Ghayba Ha Huna Laysa `Alal `Amumi Bal Mutlaqun Aw Mu`ayyinun Huwa Waqti Wuqu`yil Qiyamati Bi Qareenatis Siyaqi Wa La Yab`adu An Yuttali`u `Alayhi Ba`adar Rasuli Minal Malayikati Wal Bashar


and Allah knows best!

[Ansari]

Imam Suyuti's position needs to be carefully examined and put in context. As mentioned by Sh Said Fowdah in his work Tad'eem al-Mantiq -in a chapter refuting imam suyuti-, the Imam was criticised for only collecting texts, without commenting on them. Which in some cases got very harmful. He was a great scholar of uloom al-naqliyya i.e. he just compiled texts and summarised it [riwaya]. He did not used to give his own comments after collecting those texts [diraya] and was thus not a real muhaqqiq doing tahqeeq like other scholars such as Razi, Ibn Hajr, Nawawi, Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid etc. When one goes through his work ittiqan for example, he has left things open in such a way, that if a muslim would believe such things, it would be clear kufr. Other works of him such as Jahd al-Qariha fi tajrid al-nasiha [summary of ibn taymiyya's work] or alfiyya are clearly other people's works. There are more details mentioned by scholars.

Like Ustadh Jalal from aslein.net said: he has given us a hard time because of not commenting on texts.

[Saad]

And his (sallallahu `Alayhi wa sallam) saying that nobody knows means that nobody knows of his own accord; of his own self, except Allah. But it should be known that by His own bestowing, others also attain this knowledge as is evident amongst us that many have given news of death and that which is in the womb etc.,
!

1. Just read my quote, where Allamah Suyuti clearly mentions that those people are liars and this is also the belief of Mullah Ali Qari (may Allah have mercy on him).

2. Your above quote is about ata'i and zati, and this is not even the topic. There is no difference about that.

3. Also where does it says in the above quote that Allah gave the knowledge of Qiyamat or 5 things to Prophet . The above quote of Allamah Suyuti is very vague comapare to what is in Mawduat-e-Kabir. And this statement in Tafsir al-Jalalayn page 488 also makes things more clear:

اى ليس عندك علمها حتى تذكرها الى ربك منتهها اى منتهى علمها لا يعلم غيره

No on knows but Allah

الا ربك منتهها اى منتهى علمها الى اللّه وحده

4. And as far as knowing what is in the wombs, then if some are told about through kashaf, then this doesn't mean they know whats in the wombs of every single woman. And also to know whats in the wombs doesn't mean they were aware of what will happen to that baby when he is born and etc. Just juzwi details and not everything.

5. Also according to Allamah Suyuti it is the belief of Imami Shias that their Imams know what is in the wombs etc:

لان الامامية يعتقدون انما الامام المعصوم يعلم ما فى بطن الحامل وماوراء الجدار

[Tarikh al-Khulafa, p.312]

[Hamood]

completely agree, and I believe the same should apply towards Imam Sawi, Imam Bajuri et al should it not?

Just because, for example, Imam Bajuri says in his Sharh on the Burdah:

Wa Lam Yakhruj Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam Minad Dunyaa Illa Ba`ada An A`alamahullahu Ta`aalaa Bi Haadhihil Umuuril Khamsah

..does this mean we can attack him or consider him 'not reliable at all' and upon 'false beliefs' 'which are contrary to qat'e ayaats of the Quran and Mutawatir Ahadees and beliefs of the Sahabas.'?


and Allah knows best!

assalamu 'alaykum,

Ok a couple of people contacted me and voiced their concern about this issue as well.

I think, first of all, a distinction needs to be made about what the two parties said. Br. tazkiyya remarks were personal and entirely directed at Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar. His remarks also originated from himself. Khanbaba's comment was not personal rather it was about the tafsirs. Also, Khanbaba was referring to what Mawlana Sarfraz mentioned and not offering his own viewpoint to a certain degree although it's not clear if the last part was from Mawlana or from himself. If he were actually taking upon himself to dismiss Imam Sawi and Imam Bajuri, I would offer a similar reprimand to him. So if that was the case, what I say is applicable to him as well.

Now, I am in no position to censure what Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar said, even though it's a bit harsh similar to how some of us will find it difficult to censure Shaykh Gibril Haddad for some his harsh language against scholars he disagrees with. Individuals have quoted scholars against other scholars on this forum before, I usually don't interfere in that.

Hope that clarifies my take on the issue.

[Sorry for going off a tangent, don't hate me Salman]

[Saad]

Imam Suyuti's position needs to be carefully examined and put in context. As mentioned by Sh Said Fowdah in his work Tad'eem al-Mantiq -in a chapter refuting imam suyuti-, the Imam was criticised for only collecting texts, without commenting on them. Which in some cases got very harmful. He was a great scholar of uloom al-naqliyya i.e. he just compiled texts and summarised it [riwaya]. He did not used to give his own comments after collecting those texts [diraya] and was thus not a real muhaqqiq doing tahqeeq like other scholars such as Razi, Ibn Hajr, Nawawi, Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid etc. When one goes through his work ittiqan for example, he has left things open in such a way, that if a muslim would believe such things, it would be clear kufr. Other works of him such as Jahd al-Qariha fi tajrid al-nasiha [summary of ibn taymiyya's work] or alfiyya are clearly other people's works. There are more details mentioned by scholars.

Like Ustadh Jalal from aslein.net said: he has given us a hard time because of not commenting on texts.

[salman]

Barakallah feek to all - especially those not in any position to speak or understand or actually *discuss* the issues positively - for negating the purpose of this thread, which was not to argue but get a specific view and perspective. Thus, I did not even plan to reply after the 3 questions were properly addressed by those whom towards it was asked.

Three pages and still not a single answer to my questions. There is a reason why I specified Mawlana Soofi Saheb and students of knowledge [i.e. proper] to discuss these 3 questions posed; not every joe on the corner road who sees this as some polemical fight between two opposing groups and has an agenda to further his own belief with the added expense of flinging rhetoric here and there.

Wasalam
Salman

[Hamood]

Some things are better left unsaid.