By Abu Alqamah
GF Haddad tried to answer to the book “Al-Bralwiya” of Allamah Ihsan Ilahi Zahir.
Let’s have a glimpse at the case of GF Haddad and his false accusations.
Shaykh Ihsan Ilahi Zahir wrote :
Shaykh Hasan ibn Mansoor al-Ma`roof Biqaadeekhaan (d.592H) writes, “A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allah and his Messenger our witnesses.” The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sal- Allahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.” [Fatawaa Qaadee Khaan (p. 883)]
GF Hadd tried to answer : Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Fatawa Qadi Khan, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [1:305-306]: “A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr.” End of fatwa.
Note the following:
(1) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, “The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief” but rather restricts the opinion of takfir to “some of them”;
(2) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, “whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death”! This is the soul of the tampering of the truth by non-Muslims. { Some of those who are Jews change words from their context} (4:46).
Answer to the false accusations of GF Haddad and his treacheries
I checked Fatawa Alamgiriah with in notes Qadhee Khan published by Darul ma’rifah Beyroot
And I discovered that Qadhee Khan speaks about taking Allah and His Prophets as witness in two separates places of his Fatawa, once in chapter of Nikah and witnesses where he quotes what GF Haddad translated as
“A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr.” End of fatwa
See the picture
http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17577164/273636522.jpg
And Qadhee Khan also speaks about that in chapter what makes a Muslim Kafir, which is in third vol, so at the end of the book.
And here Qadhee khan said
“A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allah and his Messenger our witnesses.” They (The fuqahaa) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sal- Allahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.”
See the scann
http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17577164/273636516.jpg
So Allamah Ihsan is not a follower of jews but GF Haddad is, as he lies and distorts.
And it was clear that what Allamah Ihsan quoted was totally different from what Haddad had as there where other words that Haddad had : “ this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah” and shaykh Ihsan did not quote them.
So one could see that there were three different sentences, so they were not same quotes, but instead GF Haddad tried to hide this fact and put blame on Ahle Hadeeth.
Also what Qadhee Khan quoted in two separate places is both against GF Haddad’s creed, and called GF Haddad’s creed as kufr.
In the first extract, there are words : “whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah”, so Qadhee Khan said this is invalid as every Nikah is with Witness of Allah, and he did not say every Nikah is with witness of Prophet saw.
While GF Haddad and bralwi say Prophet saw is given power to be Hadhir Nadhir, and he sees all actions of creations as they happen, actions of hearts of all Humans, animals, and trees…
So if the Prophet saw was given these powers, why would Qadhee Khan deny Prophet saw being witness, did he not know Prophet saw was given this power of being witness to all nikah ?
And Qadhee Khan gave in both fatwa reason of takfeer, and it is because the man doing this believes Prophet saw knows ghayb, and Prophet saw was not knowing ghaybh while he was alive, so how after his death ?
GF Haddad then tries more deception
He said :
Imam al-Haskafi in al-Durr al-Mukhtar [3:27] only said: “It is impermissible to take Allah and His Prophet as one’s witnesses to nikah, and *it was said* that this constitutes kufr.”
Note that the passive phrase denotes the weak or secondary rank of the fatwa. This should immediately ring the bell of every student of fiqh that the position in question is a weak one and not relied upon in the madhhab. end of GF Haddad’s words
Answer to GF Haddad : The passive rank does not always mean weak opinion. Yet it can mean when a scholar first mentions an opinion in affirmative form then others in passive. But here there is only one opinion, so this is the Rajih for Al-Haskafi, else he would mention another one.
So the bell of GF Haddad is fulled with shirk, so it is difficult to ring.
Al-Haskafi only mentioned one opinion for the Madhab, and GF Haddad said this only one opinion is the weak and rejected.
GF Haddad Al Quburi went on his fallacies saying :
The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the Qadi Khan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]:
“The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: ‘It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb….’
I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa’id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya’ is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters…. We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi (‘Drawing the Indian Sword in the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi’) so look it up there.”
Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: “The one who makes Allah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.” But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.
This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he knows ghayb because Allah Most High said { the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence.
end of Gf Haddad’s words
irst GF Haddad’s saying :
The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the Qadi Khan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]:
Then this shows that Qadi Khan, fatawa Bazzaziyah, ‘Ayni, Mulla Ali Qari and others all said words opposing the Bralwi creed.
This is why GF Haddad tried to say that these opinions are seconderay and the true Hanafi Madhab is Durul Mukhtar anbd Rad Al-Muhtar.
So he admitted that many Ahnaf say Bralwi creed is Kufr.
Secondly, The author of Dur Al-Mukhtar only mentioned one opinion for the Madhab, so it shows for him there is no other. Else he would say this opinion is weak and another is the right one.
Gf Haddad said :
“The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: ‘It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb….’
Answer : The Prophet (saw) knowing part of the Ghayb is not the Bralwi creed, the bralwi creed is the Prophet (saw) is given All ghayb, knowledge of everything that was (ma Kana) and of everything that is to happen (Ma Yakunu).
And Salafi Ahlul Hadith Ahlus Sunnah also say that if Allah informs the Prophet (saw) of a particular event or makes him see some hidden matters happening faraway, then this belief is not kufr, as it is a miracle, which is the action of Allah.
But this is not the general rule, and the Prophet (saw) is not aware of the actions of his Ummah as the Ahadith of Hawd show.
So these words from Al-Multaqat oppose the Bralwi creed.
Secondly, things being shown to the Prophet (saw) is not also the bralwi creed, as for them the Prophet (saw) sees them as they happen, knew them before.
Gf Haddad said
I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa’id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya’ is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters…. We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi (‘Drawing the Indian Sword in the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi’) so look it up there.”
Answer : being aware of some matters, as a miracle or a Karamat is not the Bralwi creed.
FOR THE BRALWIS THE PROPHET (SAW) KNOWS EVERYTHING FROM THE GHAYB
So this saying of ibn Abidin opposes the Bralwi creed. It is about knowing some matters as a miracle.
So for ibn Abidin this saying of the man is not Kufr, because it does not necessarly mean the Prophet (saw) knows the Ghayb, but it implies the Prophet (saw) as a miracle can know some matters of ghayb.
And the difference is clear.
Ibn Abidin did not reject the saying of Ahnaf that saying the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb is kufr, he only objected that this man’s saying does not imply this belief, rather as a miracle the Prophet (saw) can know some matters of Ghayb.
So ibn Abidin does not differ on knowing all Ghayb. He only differs saying this saying only apllies the man belives the Prophet (saw) knows part of ghayb as a miracle, and this belief is not Kufr.
Ibn Abidin did not say the Bralwi creed that the Prophet (saw) knows all Ghayb, everything is not Kufr.
But GF Haddad like bralwis like to confuse people.
They present scholars’ saying the Prophet (saw) knows part of ghayb, and this is true in the meaning of knowing informations of ghayb by Wahee.
Gf Haddad then goes on :
Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: “The one who makes Allah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.” But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.
In TatarKhaniyah, his author does not say that the first fatwa is not valid. Rather it seems to be his own opinion.
He only mentions another saying from Al-Multaqat, without saying the saying of Al-Multaqat is right and the first not valid.
But GF Haddad is used to deception and lies
Gf Haddad finishes :
This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he knows ghayb because Allah Most High said { the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence
Answer : Ibn Abidin never said that those who hold to the Fatwa in Qadhi Khan and other are not on the Hanafi Madhab, rather this is the saying of the majority of Hanafi books.
And there is no mention of knowing Ghayb indenpendantly or not.
Ibn Abidin did not say Kufr is only to say the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb independantly, and the Prophet knows all ghayb from Allah directly from Allah is OK.
Ibn Abidin talked about knowing some ghayb and miracles.
So GF Haddad lies on ibn Abidin.
Gf Haddad said before quoting from ibn Abidin :
Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Bazzaziyya, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [4:135]: “A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah Most High – Mighty and Exalted – and His Messenger : It [nikah] is invalid, and kufr is feared for the man because he is suggesting that he knows the unseen (ghayb): { And with Him are the keys of the invisible. None but He knoweth them} (6:59).
As for what Allah Most High teaches to the elite of His servants through revelation or true inspiration, after this takes place then it no longer called ghayb, so it is not part of the [verse's] two exclusive statements, namely, the affirmation in first place and then the exclusive clause { none but} .”
This shows that, according to the Bazzaziyya, only the man who states that the Prophet knows ghayb in the sense that he possesses the keys of the invisible or that he shares their knowledge with Allah, commits kufr. Meaning, a man who states that the Prophet knows ghayb in a dependent, inexclusive sense does not commit kufr. end of GF Haddad’s lies
What a lie !!!
Where did Al Bazazi said this ?
Compare the saying in Al Bazaziyah and the understanding of GF Haddad, there are totally different.
Al-Bazazi says that what Allah reveals to the Prophet (saw) by inspiration is no more Ghayb, meaning the Prophet (saw) knows what is revealed to him.
And everybody agrees the Prophet (saw) knows hidden matters Allah reveals him.
But Al-Bazazi restricted this to Wahee for the Prophet (saw)
So it is the same as ibn Abidin, in Bazaziyah it is about some part of ghayb that are revealed by Wahee.
It is not about knowing all Ghayb.
Al-Bazazi did not say that The Prophet (saw) knowing ghayb is only kufr when someone believes it is independantly from Allah,
Nor did he say the Prophet (saw0 knows everything and knows the Ghayb.
He only said that the Prophet (saw) knows what is revealed to him.
So GF Haddad does not acknoledge that all these scholars agreed that the Prophet (saw) was not given knowledge of everything, and this is the knowledge of ghayb.
So this is the bralwi strategy, when scholar deny ghayb for the Prophet, say to the people that it means Ghayb known independantly.
Which Muslin will believe that anything that happens in the creations happens indepandantly from Allah ?
So scholar deny the Prophet (saw) knwiung Ghayb, and they say the Prophetr (saw) knew some parts by Wahee…
lso one of the saying of Qadhi Khan, that some scholars sais this is Kufr, then it does not mean Ahnaf differ on knowing Ghayb, some scholars said it is Kufr to believe Prophet (saw) knows ghayb and others said no.
The difference is that some say this saying is not kufr, because the Prophet (saw) knows parts of the ghayb, by Wahee.
And the man who says this saying does not necesseraly belive the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb.
So the ikhtilaf is about the saying of this man, whether it constitutes kufr or not, not about the Prophet (saw) knowing ghayb.
And they explained what GF Haddad missed to explain :
PART OF GHAYB…
and he tries to render it as independantly Ghayb, which no one believes
May Allah protect us from shirk
