Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Were the Prophet's marriages to Aisha & Hafsa a colossal mistake?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Salaam... 

I've tried searching for this and seen many threads on shiachat previously asking this with no real answer. Most topics end up being about Aisha's age, this is absolutely not the focus of my questions.

Why did the Prophet marry Aisha and Hafsa (Abu Bakr and Omar's daughters)? What were the motivations and benefits (short and long term)? In terms of the Prophet's divine mission what role did these marriages play?

Suppose there were some benefits such as tribal political unity... seen 1400 years later one has to admit the long term damage done to Islam by these marriages can't be denied... the Prophet essentially handed power and legitmacy over to hypocrites and enemies of Islam. Most of the ummah has been led away from Ahlul Bayt, not towards them, partially due to these marriages... really at the end of the day what was the point? This is supposedly the last and best Prophet sent to mankind, and he can't even make good marriage decsions?

Edited by khamosh21
Posted
8 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

This is the language of kuffar historians.

If you believe in his Prophethood the best you can say is that you don't understand his, and by extension God's, decision.

ok I am asking what have our historians said about this?

Posted

Maybe the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wanted to teach his Ummah how to live with a disobedient wife while still being kind and merciful. 

Imagine if all of his wives were like Hazrat Khadija  (sa) and today some Muslim man ended up with a difficult wife, he would turn around and say 'I can't live with her and still fullfill her rights', 'I am going to lose my faith if I continue'. 'I won't be able to stop myself from slapping or hitting her when she disobeys me' I cannot progress in life or in my religion while having such a tyrannical person in my home' Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) showed you can still be merciful, just, religious kind with a spouse who isn't. 

  • Advanced Member
Posted

As far as I know the different hadiths differ in what age Aisha bint Abu Bakr had when supposedly marrying the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته). Some times I wonder if the whole thing was made up in order to make the narration chain of the Sunni hadiths derived from her more plausible. Being the wife of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته) gives more status than just being the daughter of the first caliph. In any case whether the marriage took place or not, it definitely smells political intrigue given who her father was. Not the least give the political rivalry between her and the Prophets cousin and son-in-law Imam Ali(عليه السلام). If the marriage actually did take place it was a shrewd political move by Abu Bakr. Not anything that had to do with sexual preference of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته).

Posted
54 minutes ago, starlight said:

Maybe the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wanted to teach his Ummah how to live with a disobedient wife while still being kind and merciful. 

Imagine if all of his wives were like Hazrat Khadija  (sa) and today some Muslim man ended up with a difficult wife, he would turn around and say 'I can't live with her and still fullfill her rights', 'I am going to lose my faith if I continue'. 'I won't be able to stop myself from slapping or hitting her when se disobeys me' I cannot progress in life or in my religion while having such a tyrannical person in my home' Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) showed you can still be merciful, just, religious kind with a spouse who isn't. 

that would be fine, but why Umar and Abu Bakr's daughter. the same goal could be achieved with any woman. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

How on Earth is he supposed to know what will happen right after he dies, let alone 1400 years later? It would be considered a blunder if he (p) got married to them knowing what will be the fate of the Muslim nation due to them and their actions.

are you Sunni or Shia? according to Shia beliefs the Prophet knew everything... we have many hadiths pertaining to this.

So assuming he married them not knowing the future, he only married them then for the sake of tribal unity (as per God's command)... well, the Prophet and God terribly failed in keeping that unity. Actions have to be judged on results and consequences!

Posted
13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

As you mentioned yourself, marriages were done for various reasons in those times including the establishment of tribal connections. 

The second point is that you cannot punish or condemn someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. 

The dispute over the caliphate at saqifah was not related to the marriage of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). Rather it was a dispute between (a small number of companions from) the ansar and the muhajireen. 

Wallahu a'lam 

God didnt need to ask the Prophet to marry them, how is this punishment?if anything it would be a mercy to the rest of us.

  • Veteran Member
Posted
4 minutes ago, khamosh21 said:

are you Sunni or Shia? according to Shia beliefs the Prophet knew everything... we have many hadiths pertaining to this.

I am Shia and no, according to Shia belief that is not true - the Prophet did not know everything.

4 minutes ago, khamosh21 said:

So assuming he married them not knowing the future, he only married them then for the sake of tribal unity (as per God's command)... well, the Prophet and God terribly failed in keeping that unity. Actions have to be judged on results and consequences!

Why are you putting an unlimited time limit to the expected consequences of his actions? Maybe the benefit of his marriage was limited to the next decade of his life in Medina, which saw the strengthening and growth of the Muslims.

  • Forum Administrators
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

and no, according to Shia belief that is not true - the Prophet did not know everything.

So the popular belief that Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) was able to assess an adversary's progeny before deciding whether or not to kill them in battle is also not true?

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

So the popular belief that Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) was able to assess an adversary's progeny before deciding whether or not to kill them in battle is also not true?

:hahaha:

We seriously need to study what the Shi'a scholarship actually believes about the knowledge of the Imams and as well as the arguments. The idea that the Prophet (p) or Imams (a) knew everything at all times is nothing but Ghuluw, the traditions and books that indicate this also need to be looked at critically. This distorted theology turns the Prophet (p) and Imams (a) into nothing but the best movie actors to have walked the Earth.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Posted
15 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:hahaha:

We seriously need to study what the Shi'a scholarship actually believes about the knowledge of the Imams and as well as the arguments. The idea that the Prophet (p) or Imams (a) knew everything at all times is nothing but Ghuluw, the traditions and books that indicate this also need to be looked at critically. This distorted theology turns the Prophet (p) and Imams (a) into nothing but the best movie actors to have walked the Earth.

I get it you want to laugh, but can you post a summary of what the position of our Shia scholarship is on this matter. Please also provide evidence of some level, perhaps from our texts and/or literature written from our scholars.

If not then please post links or something to where we can read about this.

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Guest 0987 said:

I get it you want to laugh, but can you post a summary of what the position of our Shia scholarship is on this matter. Please also provide evidence of some level, perhaps from our texts and/or literature written from our scholars.

If not then please post links or something to where we can read about this.

The classical scholars did not believe in 'Ilm ul-Ghayb in an absolute manner the way it is understood now by common Shi'as - such a view was also attributed to extremists. In fact, the physical events of their lives prove that this was not the case, the traditions indicating differences of opinions amongst infallibles, or that they would think and contemplate over matters and then make decisions, are just too many to enumerate - or else you will have no choice but to say that the Imams and Prophets were nothing but actors throughout their lives. This is theologically absurd.

Because there is just so much material on the subject, I simply do not have time to gather it all, then translate it, and post it here (since all the real material is in Arabic), I will just share the views of these two scholars:

Shaykh Mufid:

 القول في علم الأئمة (ع) بالضمائر والكائنات وإطلاق القول عليهم بعلم الغيب وكون ذلك لهم في الصفات وأقول: إن الأئمة من آل محمد (ص) قد كانوا يعرفون ضمائر بعض العباد ويعرفون ما يكون قبل كونه، وليس ذلك بواجب في صفاتهم ولا شرطا في إمامتهم، وإنما أكرمهم الله تعالى به وأعلمهم إياه للطف في طاعتهم و التمسك بإمامتهم، وليس ذلك بواجب عقلا ولكنه وجب لهم من جهة السماع. فأما إطلاق القول عليهم بأنهم يعلمون الغيب فهو منكر بين الفساد، لأن الوصف بذلك إنما يستحقه من علم الأشياء بنفسه لا بعلم مستفاد، وهذا لا يكون إلا الله - عز وجل -، وعلى قولي هذا جماعة أهل الإمامة إلا من شذ عنهم من المفوضة ومن انتمى إليهم من الغلاة

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1292_أوائل-المقالات-الشيخ-المفيد/الصفحة_66

Also see Shaykh Tusi's discussion in Tamhid al-Usul http://alfeker.net/library.php?id=3682 on pg. 529 to 534.

Another error some people make is that they expect two people - for example: Imam Ali during the time of the Prophet, or Imam Sadiq during the time of Imam Baqir to be fully aware of all things as one another, even though Imam Ali is not even an Imam during the time of the Prophet, or Imam Sadiq is not an Imam yet at the same of Imam Baqir and so on. Tusi makes this clear in another work http://lib.eshia.ir/15029/1/193:

و انما يجب أن يكون الامام عالما بما أسند إليه في حال كونه إماما، فأما قبل ذلك فلا يجب أن يكون عالما. و لا يلزم أن يكون أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) عالما بجميع الشرع في حياة النبي (صلى اللّه عليه و آله)، أو الحسن و الحسين (عليهما السلام) عالمين بجميع ذلك في حياة أبيهما، بل انما يأخذ المؤهل للإمامة العلم ممن قبله شيئا بعد شيء ليتكامل عند آخر نفس من الامام المتقدم عليه بما أسند اليه

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Posted

I am not seeing the point of this question? Are you expecting all the wives to be perfect people who never made mistakes? Most men marry flawed women (and of course the men are flawed too) so many lessons can be learned on how to deal with a difficult spouse from these two wives. Most people make both bad and good decisions in their lives and these two wives are relatable characters for most people if we're being honest. And with people who are not all bad or not all good comes varying opinions and views on them. 

Perhaps take a look at your own perspective. You only focus on what you preceive as negative (which a Sunni might preceive as positive), when you do not know the whole story. The whole story ending when all events have passed and the world has ended. What if there is some unknown reason to you that Shias are a minority that will lead to the success of the Imam (عليه السلام). in battles when he returns? I am not trying be rude or anything, I am just encouraging to look at this from a different perspective than your own? You know not the whole story, so how can you question the process?

  • Forum Administrators
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The classical scholars did not believe in 'Ilm ul-Ghayb in an absolute manner the way it is understood now by common Shi'as - such a view was also attributed to extremists.

What about the ability of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and Imams ((عليه السلام).) to take decisions in terms of their morality/ethics? Is the layperson safe to believe perfection in that regard?

Because if that is the case could it be argued that if there was no ethical or moral barrier to these marriages then material considerations alone could not have been held to be a barrier?

Edited by Haji 2003
  • Advanced Member
Posted
2 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The idea that the Prophet (p) or Imams (a) knew everything at all times is nothing but Ghuluw, the traditions and books that indicate this also need to be looked at critically. 

Salam,

How would you respond to those who use this tradition:

Quote

قَالَ ‏"‏ مَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يَسْأَلَ عَنْ شَىْءٍ فَلْيَسْأَلْ عَنْهُ، فَوَاللَّهِ لاَ تَسْأَلُونِي عَنْ شَىْءٍ إِلاَّ أَخْبَرْتُكُمْ بِهِ

and Imam Ali's saying:

Quote

 سلوني فوالله لا تسألوني عن شئ يكون إلى يوم القيامة إلا حدثتكم به

to prove that the Prophet and Imams know everything?

Posted (edited)

So there is nothing like "wila e tasarruf"?

None of the Shia believe that Imams have ilm ul ghayb in "absolute manner". 

But they do have "ilm ul ghayb".

Surah Al-Jinn, Verse 26:
عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ فَلَا يُظْهِرُ عَلَىٰ غَيْبِهِ أَحَدًا

The Knower of the unseen! so He does not reveal His secrets to any,
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Jinn, Verse 27:
إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَىٰ مِن رَّسُولٍ فَإِنَّهُ يَسْلُكُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ رَصَدًا

Except to him whom He chooses as an apostle; for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him,
(English - Shakir)

 

Edited by Cool
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Salam,

How would you respond to those who use this tradition:

and Imam Ali's saying:

to prove that the Prophet and Imams know everything?

Presuming their authenticity, you can answer them just like you answer this verse:

وَنَزَّلۡنَا عَلَیۡكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ تِبۡیَـٰنࣰا لِّكُلِّ شَیۡءࣲ

2 hours ago, Cool said:

None of the Shia believe that Imams have ilm ul ghayb in "absolute manner". 

But they do have "ilm ul ghayb".

How do you know what aspects they were informed about, in which situation and which ones they weren't? Why are people presuming "they knew X, unless proven otherwise", instead of believing "they didn't know X, unless proven otherwise".

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Posted
10 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

How do you know what aspects they were informed about, in which situation and which ones they weren't? Why are people presuming "they knew X, unless proven otherwise", instead of believing "they didn't know X, unless proven otherwise".

There is a hadith in al-kafi

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) narrated from the Holy Prophet.

قالَ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: مَا تَقَرَّبَ إِلَيَّ عَبْدٌ بِشَىْ أَحبَّ إليَّ مِمّا افْتَرْضَتُ عَلَيْهِ, وَ إنَّهٌ لَيَتَقَرَّبٌ إِلَيَّ بِالنَّوَافِلِةِ حَتَّى أٌحِبَّهُ، فَإِذَا أَحْبَبْتُهُ كُنْتُ سَمْعَهُ الَّذِي يَسْمَعُ بِهِ، وَبَصَرَهُ الَّذِي يُبْصِرُ بِهِ،وَ لِسانَهُ الَّذي يَنْطِقُ بِهِ, وَيَدَهُ الَّتِي يَبْطِشُ بِهَا، َإِنْ دَعاني أَجَبْتُهُ, وَ إنْ سَأَلَنِي أَعْطِيَنَّهُ

Allah says: “No slave has become near to Me by anything more pleasing to Me than what I have made obligatory on him; and surely he can approach Me through works of supererogation more than what is obligatory on him, until I love him. Then when I love him, I will be his ear through which he hears, his eye through which he sees, his tongue through which he speaks, his hand with which he strikes. If he calls, I will reply to him; if he asks from Me, I will give to him”

Secondly, it is the very "ilm ul kitab" (and that is from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) too) which enables them to know what seems ilm ul ghayb to others.  

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cool said:

There is a hadith in al-kafi

Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) narrated from the Holy Prophet.

قالَ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: مَا تَقَرَّبَ إِلَيَّ عَبْدٌ بِشَىْ أَحبَّ إليَّ مِمّا افْتَرْضَتُ عَلَيْهِ, وَ إنَّهٌ لَيَتَقَرَّبٌ إِلَيَّ بِالنَّوَافِلِةِ حَتَّى أٌحِبَّهُ، فَإِذَا أَحْبَبْتُهُ كُنْتُ سَمْعَهُ الَّذِي يَسْمَعُ بِهِ، وَبَصَرَهُ الَّذِي يُبْصِرُ بِهِ،وَ لِسانَهُ الَّذي يَنْطِقُ بِهِ, وَيَدَهُ الَّتِي يَبْطِشُ بِهَا، َإِنْ دَعاني أَجَبْتُهُ, وَ إنْ سَأَلَنِي أَعْطِيَنَّهُ

Allah says: “No slave has become near to Me by anything more pleasing to Me than what I have made obligatory on him; and surely he can approach Me through works of supererogation more than what is obligatory on him, until I love him. Then when I love him, I will be his ear through which he hears, his eye through which he sees, his tongue through which he speaks, his hand with which he strikes. If he calls, I will reply to him; if he asks from Me, I will give to him”

Can you identify which scholar understood the concept of 'Ilm al-Ghayb from this specific tradition? What does this have anything to do with that? How can we use this tradition to make the claim that the Prophet (p) knew exactly what 'Ayesha would do after his death?

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Sheikh al-Mufeed says those that believe the Prophets or A'immah have absolute knowledge of the unseen are mufawidhah or ghulat.

 وأقول : أن الأئمة من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله قد كانوا يعرفون ضمائر بعض العباد ويعرفون ما يكون قبل كونه ، وليس ذلك بواجب في صفاتهم ولا شرطا في إمامتهم ، وإنما أكرمهم الله تعالى به وأعلمهم إياه للطف في طاعتهم والتمسك بإمامتهم ، وليس ذلك بواجب عقلا ولكنه وجب لهم من جهة السماع ، فأما إطلاق القول عليهـم بأنهم يعلمون الغيب فهو منكر بيّن الفساد لأن الوصف بذلك إنما يستحقه من علم الأشياء بنفسه لا بعلم مستفاد وهذا لا يكون إلا لله عز وجل وعلى قولي هذا جماعة أهل الإمامة إلا من شذ عنهم من المفوضة ومن انتمى إليهم من الغلاة " أوائل المقالات صفحة ٦.

The same way Prophets Lut and Nuh married sinful wives unknowingly, Prophet Muhammad's case may be the same. And it's incorrect to say that the Prophet should have known about her before he married her since he had 'ilm al-ghayb, because the Prophets and A'immah don't have absolute knowledge of the unseen, rather they have knowledge of only certain unseen facts that is granted to them.

Also, Abu Bakr's tribe was a minor clan within the Qurashiites. It's unlikely that the Prophet married Abu Bakr's daughter to forge some sort of an alliance or unite clans.

Edit: just noticed I shared the same quote of al-Mufeed as brother ibn al-Hussain shared earlier. Whoops.

Edited by Jaabir
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Jaabir said:

rather they have knowledge of the only certain unseen facts that is granted to them.

...and we do not know what unseen facts they are granted in matters outside of religious divine law and theology, unless we have a reliable tradition to prove it for us. So when it comes to interpreting traditions and historical reports, our fundamental premise should be that they did not know X, unless we have evidence telling us otherwise. In this case, there is no evidence suggesting Prophet (p) was granted knowledge of what marriage with Ayesha would do decades after his (p) demise. On the contrary, marriage with her potentially had a lot of positives in the decade that he (p) was in Medina.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

How can we use this tradition to make the claim that the Prophet (p) knew exactly what 'Ayesha would do after his death?

I am discussing the matter in light of wila e tasarruf, so as the hadith says, if Imam wants to know something & asks Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), He will grant him the knowledge.

There are narrations in Sunni books mentioning a hadith in which Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was pointing towards the house of Aisha and saying that fitna would emerge from there. 

A part from that, what she has done in his life time was sufficient for him to know what she will be doing after him and that's why there is a tradition which mentions that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) told Syeda Fatima s.a, that she will be the first to join him. (This is again ilm ul ghayb)

Edited by Cool
Typo
Posted

There is a very interesting verse in Chapter 13

وَلَوْ أَنَّ قُرْآنًا سُيِّرَتْ بِهِ الْجِبَالُ أَوْ قُطِّعَتْ بِهِ الأَرْضُ أَوْ كُلِّمَ بِهِ الْمَوْتَى بَل لِّلّهِ الأَمْرُ جَمِيعًا 

(And even if there were a Qur'an with which the mountains were made to pass away, or the Earth were travelled over with it, or the dead were made to speak thereby)

Whenever I read this verse, I thought about "ilmun minal kitab" which a person has, in the chiefs of Prophet Suleman and eho brought the throne before the blink of an eye.

(Not interpreting the verse here, just mentioning the relevance).

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Cool said:

I am discussing the matter in light of wila e tasarruf, so as the hadith says, if Imam wants to know something & asks Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), He will grant him the knowledge.

I have issues with this concept, but since that is not the topic of the thread and the matter is very extensive, I do not want to derail it.

Quote

There are narrations in Sunni books mentioning a hadith in which Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was pointing towards the house of Aisha and saying that fitna would emerge from there. 

Despite the fact that these traditions are found in Sunni works and the theological authority of this tradition for us to prove that the Prophet had 'Ilm ul-Ghayb in this specific case is extremely weak, we should still also look at how their scholars understood the tradition. There are other traditions in their works that imply that the fitnah would be from the East and that 'Ayesha's room was in Eastern direction with respect to the pulpit from which the Prophet (p) uttered these words. So it is possible that 'Ayesha herself and/or her house has no relevance at all in this fitnah. In any case, 'Ayesha's house is essentially the Prophet's house - in fact the husband is the head of the house.

Quote

A part from that, what she has done in his life time was sufficient for him to know what she will be doing after him

Can you please tell me what did she do in the roughly 10 years of married life she was with him (p) that warrants him (p) to know or predict what she will be doing after him?

Quote

and that's why there is a tradition which mentions that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) told Syeda Fatima s.a, the she will be the first to join him. (This is again ilm ul ghayb)

No one has an issue - not even the Sunnis - in cases where it is established that the Prophet (p) would be informed about some matter of the unseen or future, that he indeed knew some details like these. Despite that, it does not prove he (p) would have known all details (for example, in the case of Fatima (s) it is not necessarily the case that he would have known why she would be the first one to join him and that she would be attacked and so on) or that our first and initial presumption about his life is that he had 'Ilm ul-Ghayb about all matters of life that did not concern his direct role as a Prophet (p).

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Can you please tell me what did she do in the roughly 10 years of married life she was with him (p) that warrants him (p) to know or predict what she will be doing after him?

"In tatooba ilallahe faqad saghat quloobokuma" 

Chapter 66, then causing the delay of Jesh e Usama which angers the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and there are much more. 

7 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

have issues with this concept,

Its not my problem brother, I have no issue with that concept.

8 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

to prove that the Prophet had 'Ilm ul-Ghayb

To prove that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had ilm ul ghayb, the verses of Sura e Jinn (already quoted) are sufficient.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Can you please tell me what did she do in the roughly 10 years of married life she was with him (p) that warrants him (p) to know or predict what she will be doing after him?

She was very jealous of Hazrat Khadija(عليه السلام) and her daughter Fatima (sa) and this showed in her actions. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Can you please tell me what did she do in the roughly 10 years of married life

Her words as mentioned in chapter 66

قَالَتْ مَنْ أَنبَأَكَ هَذَا

for which Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) replied 

قَالَ نَبَّأَنِيَ الْعَلِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ

She really forgot that she was living with whom!!! With a Prophet of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or with an ordinary man!!! 

It is strange that now we have Shias who deny or perhaps doubt that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had ilm ul ghayb. 

Look, this verse is mentioning ghayb:

Surah An-Najm, Verse 10:
فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَىٰ

And He revealed to His servant what He revealed.
(English - Shakir)

"Ma Awha" Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has kept what He revealed as ghayb here. For us it is ghayb, but for Prophet, it is not.

It is a different matter that we have some narrations which explains this matter too.

Posted

Surah At-Takwir, Verse 24:
وَمَا هُوَ عَلَى الْغَيْبِ بِضَنِينٍ

Nor of the unseen is he a tenacious concealer.
(English - Shakir)

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...