Responding to "Miqiyas al-Nur" (Part 1)

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.