I wish to inform the regular readers of my blog,
especially young brother Mohammed Tahir Zakiullah (Faraz) and other respected
friends, about the response to some of my arguments and claims by another blog
entitled “Miqiyas al-Nur”. This
is the demand of justice and fairness to consider the response and answers of
one’s adversaries with utmost impartiality and objectivity.
Thus far, the operator of “Miqiyas al-Nur” has
responded to eight of my blog entries. He is defending the Barelwi so called “Ahlus
Sunnah” maslak specifically.
(1)In the first response, Miqiyas al-Nur
attempts to defend the Barelwi belief that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam) is Haadhir wa Naadhir (omnipresent) at all times and all
places, even when a husband and wife are having intimate relations, he is
present and witnessing (معاذ الله).
See the full response of
Miqiyas al-Nur here: http://miqyasalnur.blogspot.ca/2016/06/defending-allamah-umar-icharwi.html
The summary of his
argument is quoted:
Yeh alhida amr hai ki
aap mithl karaman Katibeen aisay waqiyat say apani nazar ko mahfuz farma lein
Translation: “The
Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), like the Kiraman Kaatibeen (noble Angels
who record our deeds at all times) in such instances (when husband and wife are
having intimate relations) protects his eyesight (from seeing that).”
My Answer: Neither the
author of “Miqiyas al-Nur” nor Barelwi Allamah Umar Icharwi have shared with us
the evidence from Qur’an and Sunnah that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam) is omnipresent, let alone omnipresent when a husband and wife are
having intimate relations. Furthermore, what evidence have they cited to prove
that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has the same abilities as the
Kiraman Kaatibeen Angels? In which Ayat of the Qur’an or in which Hadith does
it state that when a husband and wife are having relations anywhere in the
world the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) at that time conceals his
eyesight so as not to witness such things which are unbecoming of his pure and
holy status?
Keep in mind there are
billions of human beings on the planet Earth. Barelwis don’t seem to realize
just how absurd their ‘Aqeedah is that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam) is witnessing each and every single one of them at all times. At
every instance in the world there are thousands, nay millions of people who are
going to the toilet, who are undressing their clothes, who are having sexual
relations, who are taking a bath, and doing other private and intimate acts. Do
the Barelwis expect us to believe that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam) is witnessing all of this, but at the same time he is having to
shield his eyes? This would mean logically that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam) is constantly, every second of every minute of every hour of every
day closing his eyes!
Thus we see that this scandalous
belief of the Barelwi grave-worshipers is totally illogical and absurd. No sane
individual whose faculties are intact can ever seriously entertain such a
notion as being true, let alone a believing Muslim.
Therefore I repeat, can
the author of “Miqiyas al-Nur” give a single Ayah or Hadith which corroborates
all aspects of the ‘Aqeedah which Allamah Umar Icharwi has penned? I await his
reply.
(2)Next “Miqiyas al-Nur”
has boldly responded to the entries on my blog which quote many of the great
Sufi saints of the past who made similar claims to Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
about being a remanifestation or reflection of the Prophet Muhammad and other
Prophets of Allah (peace be upon them all).
http://miqyasalnur.blogspot.ca/2016/08/gibbo-qadiyani-and-ghawth-al-azam.html
For example, Shaikh
Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (rahimahullah) stated:
اني
كنت فنانا في رسول الله ولم يكن في ذلك الوقت فلا انا وانما كنت محمدا
“I was annihilated in Rasulullah Sallallahu alaihi
wasallam, so at that time I was not myself, but I was Muhammad.”
The gist of his response
to this argument is quoted below:
“The response is once
again the same- he did not consider
himself literally as these things but rather consider himself fana in the wujud
of these Anbiya whereas Mirza declared himself as being literally the
following:
1. In the Word of God I
have been named Muhammad and a Messenger. (Qadiyani's own book: Roohani Khazain
18/207)
2. Mirza said: "I
am Maseeh-e-Zamaan (Jesus), I am the Kaleem-e-Khuda (Moses) I am Muhammad, I am
Ahmad Mujtaba." (Qadiyani's own book: Tiryaq-ul-Quloob P.3 Roohani Khazain
Vol.15 P.134)
The Qadiani view is that
Mirza is literally Maseeh e Zaman and thus fana can not be used as an excuse.”
The author of Miqiyas
al-Nur is therefore defending the quotes of the great Sufis of the past such as
Sh. Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, Shah Niyaz of Delhi, and others, by asserting that
their claims must be understood in light of the concept of Fana fil-Rasul
(lit. Annihilation of oneself into the essence of the Messenger of Allah).
He goes on to say that
Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a Prophet in a literal sense and presents
several quotes, one of which says “In the Word of God I have been named
Muhammad and Messenger”.
Before I address the
quotes of Mirza sahib, let me draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the
quotes of Mirza sahib presented by Miqiyas al-Nur are virtually identical to
the quotes of Abdul Qadir al-Jilani and Shah Niyaz. On what basis has Miqiyas
al-Nur differentiated between these quotes by claiming that one set of quotes
are metaphorical and based on Fana fil Rasul while the others are meant to be
taken literally (especially when he fails to reproduce their full context).
That is the height of injustice and inexcusable double standard. But to
demolish his argument once and for all, let me prove that Hadrat Mirza sahib
explicitly clarified that his claiming to be Prophet Muhammad and a Messenger
of Allah are based solely on the concept of Fana Fil Rasul! Hadrat Mirza sahib
writes:
نبوّت کی تمام کھڑکیاں
بند کی گئیں مگر ایک کھڑکی سیرۃ صدیقی کی کھلی ہے یعنی فنا فی الرسول کی۔
Translation: “All the
windows of Nubuwwah [Prophethood] have been forever closed, but there is one
window, Seerat-i-Siddeeqi (the path of Abu Bakr RA) which is open, that
is, FANA FIL RASUL.”
Reference: Ek Ghalati
Ka Izalah, p.3
Additionally, the quote
of Hadrat Mirza sahib “I have been named as Muhammad and Rasul” and other
similar quotes have also been clarified by none other that Hadrat Mirza sahib
himself, who writes:
وسُمّيتُ نبيّا من الله على طريق
المجاز لا على وجه الحقيقة
Translation: “I have been named as a Prophet from Allah by way of
metaphor and not literally or in a real sense.”
Reference: Zameema
Haqeeqat ul Wahi; p.64-65
(3)Regarding the Barelwi
‘aqeedah that to believe that the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam) is a Bashar (human mortal) like us is incorrect, Miqiyas al-Nur has
given a short response here:
http://miqyasalnur.blogspot.ca/2016/08/gibbo-and-maqabis-ul-majalis-and-miqyas.html
To summarize, he says: “What
was mentioned about "bashar mithlakum" is that we are not allowed to
say the Prophet alayhi afDal al-salawat wa salam is a bashar like us even
though the Qur`an mentions it - this is mentioned out of humbleness not
as an aqida.”
My answer: The problem
with this explanation is that it is definitely avoiding the clear wording of
Allamah Icharwi who said:
اپنے جیسا بشر ہونے کا
عقیدہ رکھنا یہ غلط ھے۔
The word “Aqeedah” is clearly mentioned by Allamah Umar Icharvi. Why did
Miqiyas al-Nur ignore it? That is such an obvious blunder on his part. Allamah
sahib did not say anything about “humbleness” or “respect”, he said that to
keep the AQEEDAH that Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam is a Bashar like us is
incorrect – a clear violation of the Ayat of the Holy Qur’an!
In Sha Allah I shall address the remaining responses from Miqiyas al-Nur in a future
post.
No comments:
Post a Comment