Scholars of Deoband were in fact at the forefront of the anti-Qādiyānī movement. In an 1897 work, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī called out Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905) by name for his opposition to him. [93] Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah [1300 H]: Upon the suggestion of Mawlawī ‘Ubaydullāh, the imām of Jāmi‘ Masjid at Mombay (a Murīd of Mawlānā Faḍl-i-Rasūl Badāyūnī), an individual ‘Abd al-Ghaffār put this treatise together as a refutation of Taḥdhīr al-Nās. According to ‘Abd al-Ghaffār, the individual who put it together, a debate occurred in Delhi between Mawlānā Muḥammad Qāsim Nānotwī and Mawlawī Muḥammad Shāh Punjābī on the contents of Taḥdhīr al-Nās. Putting together a question with the views of them both, ‘Abd al-Ghaffār acquired signatures against Mawlānā Muḥammad Qāsim from the ‘Ulamā’. Along with others, this treatise has the signatures of Mawlānā ‘Abd al-Qādir Badāyūnī, Mawlawī Muḥibb Aḥmad Badāyūnī (student of Mawlānā ‘Abd al-Qādir Badāyūnī), Mawlawī Faṣīḥuddīn (author of Qawl al-Faṣīḥ), Mawlawī ‘Ubaydullāh, the imām of Jāmi‘ Masjid at Mombay, and others. [89] In the following essay, we will first put Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s work Taḥdhīr al-Nās in historical context, followed by a contextualisation of some specific citations from his work that Asrar Rashid presents. In Tanwīr al-Nibrās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī makes it explicitly clear that he regards the counterparts of the Prophet ﷺ on the other earths to be “relative khātams”, i.e. relative to their earth, while the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ finality is inclusive of all earths. He writes: “The seals of the lower earths are relative seals ( khātam iḍāfī) while the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ is the real seal ( khātam ḥaqīqī).” [52] Now that we have been introduced to the context and basic thesis of Taḥdhīr al-Nās, we are in a position to examine some of the controversial statements from the book.

Rigel Publishing Archives - Sunnibooks

If the sealship of rank, which is the baṭn of the verse, is not mentioned in Tafsīr Bayḍāwī, which is explaining the ẓahr of the Qur’ān, to say Imām Bayḍāwī denies the baṭn of the verse is merely your presumption. According to ḥadīth, all verses have a ẓahr and a baṭn. If someone explains a baṭn for the outer meaning of the Qur’ān, why should this be denounced? [34] Meaning, the Prophet ﷺ is “Khātam” and he is designated “Khātam al-Rusul” because there is no one like him in generosity, favour and bestowal, nor will there be. His gift is inclusive of all people. No prophet has reached his prophetic perfection nor a saint his saintly perfection but via the effusion of his spiritual light. He has gifted the perfections to all prophets and saints… Since the Prophet ﷺ is the teacher of all prophets and saints, and has gifted them all, and there is none like him in this generosity and favour, this is why he has been designated with the attribute of “Khātam”. [30] According to the intent of Haḍrat Mawlānā [Qāsim Nānotwī], the Prophet ﷺ will not be called ‘Khātam’ of this earth only. Rather, his prophethood, both in terms of time and status, is a seal for the prophets of all seven earths. [54] In Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī couches this argument in an esoteric meaning of the prophetic title “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, referred to in the verse of the Qur’ān: “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but the messenger of Allāh ( rasūlAllāh) and the seal of prophets ( khātam al-nabiyyīn).” [27] While the plain meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is “the last chronological prophet”, a more subtle or esoteric meaning was propounded by some scholars.

Hence, what he took issue with is it being the “sole meaning”. This is clear from Taḥdhīr al-Nās itself as he has himself said the verse indicates chronological finality. As was quoted from him earlier, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī said: “The author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās does not mean that the sentence on Khātam al-Nabiyyīn doesn’t in any way indicate chronological finality or that chronological finality cannot be meant by the term ‘Khātam al-Nabiyyīn’. He himself has given two explanations of how chronological finality is meant and indicated [by the verse/term].” [60] The narration is a commentary on a verse of the Qur’ān which states: “It is Allah who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same [number], the command descending down through all of them.” [18] In commenting on this, Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) said: “In each earth there is the like of Ibrāhīm”, and in another version: “Seven earths, in each earth there is a prophet like your prophet, an Ādam like your Ādam, a Nūḥ like your Nūḥ, an Ibrāhīm like your Ibrāhīm and an ‘Īsā like your ‘Īsā.” [19]

Navigating the End of Time’ by Shaykh Asrar Rashid Book release: ‘Navigating the End of Time’ by Shaykh Asrar Rashid

The alleged proximity between the authorship of Taḥdhīr al-Nās and Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad’s claims of prophethood; Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī develops a case for his point of view in Taḥdhīr al-Nās. His first main contention is that verse 33:40 contains the conjunction lākin (but) which entails a corrective of a false assumption ( istidrāk). Hence, the two attributes “Messenger of Allāh” and “Seal of the Prophets” correct a wrong assumption that may derive from “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men”. Almost a thousand years before Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, the Ṣūfī Muḥaddith, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, wrote:In his (fictitious?) account about the 1974 court proceedings, Asrar Rashid makes out that Deobandī “representatives” were unable to put up a credible defence against Qādiyānī citations from Taḥdhīr al-Nās. (The onus is on Asrar Rashid to identify where this account is found in the document he references.) Yet, where Qādiyānīs had used passages from Taḥdhīr al-Nās to support their beliefs, the scholars of Deoband had adequately refuted them. He also argued that superiority in status entails superiority of laws, and the superior-most law must also be the endmost law, hence the Prophet ﷺ must be the endmost prophet. In an 1877 transcript of a debate, he said: Khātam al-Nabiyyīn is the perfect slave in relation to the Deity, so too is he the perfect lawgiver in relation to humanity. Why should this not be? He is the best of them, so he has authority over all. Hence, it is necessary that his law emerges after all laws because it is clear in the sequence of legal cases the judgement of the highest judge is endmost. But, since he is the highest authority, it is also necessary that his law is acquiesced to by all, whether willingly or unwillingly. [39] My belief is that the aforementioned ḥadīth is authentic and reliable. And the strata of the earth are separate. In each stratum there are creatures of the divine. It is inferred from the aforementioned ḥadīth that there are prophets in each stratum. However, while it is established there are seals on each stratum, it is not established they are equal to our Seal of the Prophets. Nor is it my belief that those ‘seals’ are equal to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. The children of Ādam that have been mentioned in, ‘We have ennobled the children of Ādam’, [22] and are better than the rest of creation, are the children of the Ādam of this stratum by consensus. Our Prophet ﷺ is better than all the children of Ādam. Thus, undoubtedly, he is better than all creatures. Thus, the ‘seals’ of the other strata, who are included amongst ‘creatures’, cannot be equal in any way to him.” In his earlier work ‘Islam Answers Atheism’, Asrar Rashid enters the territories of the New Atheists and those pursuing kufr humanistic sciences—particularly those bent on debunking a Divine Reality. Intent on showing the false trails laid out for the unwary, he aims to rescue those who have been misled by showing the weakness and fallacies in their arguments and that in most cases, behind their disparagement and denigration, the Hand of God is merely replaced by straw-man arguments, emotional content, and fantasy.

Navigating the End of Time — Wardah Books

Excellently written and brilliantly dismantles the sophistry, chutzpah not to mention the absurdity of the modern day atheist using rational arguments and Ash’ari theology. Easily accessible chapters make it a great work readily on hand to answer the critics of Islam on the oft-quoted so called ‘objections’ parroted today e.g. jihad, slavery, women in Islam, concept of evil and God etc. May God reward the author and publishing team immensely. Table of contents Chapter One – Islam & AtheismAsrar Rashid cites a very questionable document, Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah, to argue that “when al-Nānawtawī wrote [these passages] they were also declared heretical by the likes of Muftī Ḥāfiẓ Bakhsh al-Badāyūnī and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī”. Yet, Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah was published after the demise of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī in 1882 or 1883 [88], almost a decade after Taḥdhīr al-Nās. Professor Ayyūb Qādrī (1926 – 1983) explains: