brother. by the name of ibn Arabi has started a thread on an other forum and i found is interesting..one doesnt hav to agree with everything but stil interesting stuf..
title of thread is
Possible Berelwi Kufr Beliefs
There are several beliefs which many Berelwis hold for which some senior Deobandi ulama have censored them but, as far as I am aware, have not done takfir. There are two beliefs in particular that stood out to me as being incorrect. I understand that not all Berelwis and Berelwi ulama understand these beliefs in the same way, but there are senior Berelwi ulama that do hold these views as described below:
1. That the Prophet is not a human being (bashar) in essence and in reality, but is only a human being outwardly and in appearance. According to this article by Abdul Hakim Sharf Qadiri, this is analogous to the Angel Jibril who is made of light but occasionally took a human form. Ahmad Yar Khan (d. 1971) a renown Berelwi scholar and polemicist in his tract Ja al-Haq also presents the view that the instances in the Qur’an where the Prophet is described as a human being must be thought of as ambiguous (mutashabihat) and open to interpretation as they demean his status. In other words, the Prophet’s reality is a metaphysical light that only outwardly appears to be a human being during his stay on earth; he is not intrinsically or essentially or in reality a human being, just like Jibril is not intrinsically a human being.
2. That the Prophet is present everywhere spiritually/with his soul (ruh). I understand not all Berelwis hold this view, and instead some interpret Hazir Nazir to mean the Prophet is present in his grave where the deeds of the umma are presented to him and he is free to travel spiritually wherever he pleases. But a senior Berelwi scholar Ahmad Saeed Kazimi (d. 1986) in his Taskeen al-Khawatir attempted to prove that the Prophet’s soul (ruh) can be present at many places simultaneously, and that just as the Muhammadan Reality fills the universe, his soul too may be everywhere. Although many Deobandis agree with the first part, that the Muhammadan Reality and Light inhabits or illuminates the entire creation, they do not agree that his soul (ruh), that perceives and sees, can be present everywhere simultaneously.
If I have misquoted or misunderstood either Ahmad Yar Khan or Ahmad Saeed Kazimi above (as I have not seen the original works but looked only at secondary sources), I would like the matter clarified.
With regards to the first belief, that the Prophet is not a human being in reality (and it is only a "garb" according to the article above), this appears to be a clear denial of the nass of the Qur’an which describes him and all the Prophets as human beings. Qur’an 3:79 describes those who receive revelation as human beings (bashar); 14:11 says the Prophets said to their people "we are but men like yourselves" (in nahnu illa basharun mithlukum) of which Ibn Kathir said "i.e. it is true (what you have said) that we are human beings like you in humanity (but different otherwise)" (ay sahihun anna basharun mithlukum fi l-bashariyya); 18:110 tells the Prophet to say "I am but a man" and no tafsir I have seen interprets this metaphorically or figuratively. The hadiths are even more explicit in this matter. Narrations containing the words "I am but a man (innama ana bashar)" (often with the addition "like you") which continue to say statements like "I anger and am pleased", "I err and am correct", "I forget like you forget" are mutawatir; they have been narrated by ‘A’isha, Umm Salama, Jabir, Salman, Anas, Samura, Abu l-Tufayl, Abu Sa‘id and others in all the known major known collections of hadith (including Bukhari and Muslim). For some examples see: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Subject/D...o=1947&ID=1947 . Even Busiri in his praise of the Prophet says he is a "man" (bashar) but the best of all creation. Would this view above not sensibly be considered kufr for its clear rejection of a nass of the Qur’an and a mutawatir hadith?
With regards to the second, the Hanafi ulama have said that to assume knowledge of where the souls of particular saints are is kufr, not because the souls cannot be present in particular places, but because it assumes knowledge of the ghayb. Of course, if it is believed with some justification e.g. seeing the Prophet while awake, that would no longer be ghayb as defined here. Some Berelwis, however, believe (which I think is the belief of Kazimi above) that the Prophet is present spiritually (with his soul/ruh) everywhere. Would this belief, therefore, not be kufr according to the Hanafi view because it assumes knowledge of the ghayb without direct perception? "