Hence the term “ ghayb” mentioned in “‘Ālim al-Ghayb” either refers to any part of ghayb (which in this context means unseen knowledge received via a means) or it means every single thing from ghayb. The latter refers to the entirety of the thing, because the entirety of a thing in relation to other things is like a “single entity” although in and of itself it is many things put together.** A single entity can either be literally a single entity ( fard ḥaqīqī) or in terms of consequence ( fard ḥukmī). A maṣdar in principle refers to a single entity ( fard), as stated in Nūr al-Anwār (المصدر الذي هو فرد). The objection raised against this passage will be answered briefly below. Then, in relation to using the term ghayb for unseen knowledge acquired via a means, he presents the argument found in the passage in question. Hence, to use the term for those who have knowledge of ghayb via a means is a misuse and misapplication. He first explains that “‘Ālim al-Ghayb” is a term applied exclusively to a being who has knowledge of ghayb independently.
Rather, his purpose was to deter his readers from using the title “‘Ālim al-Ghayb” for any creature, as in Sharī‘ah it is a term exclusive to Allāh. His purpose was not to discuss at what point a person will be deserving of virtue or excellence. This objection emanates from a misunderstanding of what Maulānā Thānawī was trying to achieve. It is as though he does not allow for anything in between for virtue or excellence in knowledge of ghayb. A common objection raised (by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself and then his followers) against this passage of Ḥ if ẓ al- Ī mān* is that for endowing the title “‘Ālim al-Ghayb” for creation (based on knowledge of ghayb acquired via a means), Maulānā Thānawī only allows for two possibilities or options: ba‘ḍ ‘ulūm ghaybiyyah (partial knowledge of ghayb) or tamām ‘ulūm ghaybiyyah (complete knowledge of ghayb).
0 kommentar(er)
