This is an issue regarding which various views and unsound notions have arisen from the scholars of our age. The debate has even led to declarations of disbelief and deviation, but the issue is not something in which either of the two sides on it are ruled to have disbelief or deviation. I compiled three books on it, two in Urdu, the first al-Āyāt al-Bayyināt ‘alā Wujūd al-Anbiyā’ fi ‘l-Ṭabaqāt and the other Dāfi‘ al-Waswās fī Athar Ibn ‘Abbās, in which I verified the matter in a nice way and removed the doubts of many skeptics in an explanatory manner. The third is in Arabic called Zajr al-Nās ‘an Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās, in which I incorporated the outcomes of the two previous books and added a lot from the books Allāh favoured me to read in the two Blessed Ḥarams. I finished compiling it in Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah in 29 Dhu ‘l-Qa’dah 1292 (January, 1876). Scholars of the two Ḥarams came across it and approved of it and praised its contents. Mawlānā Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Mujaddidī al-Dihlawī, resident of Madīnah Ṭayyibah, wrote a few words endorsing it with his noble pen. [90] This is also demonstrated by the prophets (upon them peace) on the Night of Mi‘rāj forming rows and waiting for an imām and the Prophet ﷺ becoming their imām…Furthermore, the last of the Israelite prophets arriving and supporting the religion of the absolute Seal of the Prophets and implementing the Muḥammadan Sharī‘ah is a practical demonstration of the Prophet ﷺ being the best prophet and the Seal of the Prophets and is clearly aimed at showing Muḥammadan virtue. It should be clear that the doctrine of the descent of ‘Īsā (upon him peace) is a unanimous and mass-transmitted doctrine. If Asrar Rashid disagrees with Mawlānā Nānotwī’s thesis, he should have accurately presented his views, followed by a careful critique of them. What purpose does it serve to quote three isolated sentences selectively in this manner from a complex discourse? [66] To a neutral observer, it may even come across as willful deception. These isolated “quotes” give the impression that Mawlānā Nānotwī believed the title “Seal of the Prophets” gives no indication to chronological finality at all, and indeed that chronological finality is not even a necessary belief. Yet, the context of the passages from Taḥdhīr al-Nās makes it clear he does regard chronological finality as being included within the meanings of “the Seal of the Prophets” and that it is an essential belief of Islām. In other words, it was something compiled by Mawlānā Nānotwī’s detractors, those in the circle of ‘Abd al-Qādir Badāyūnī. A signature that is clearly out of place and unexpected is that of ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī, which Asrar Rashid capitalises on. But this signature does not seem to be genuine. Nor does it seem anything of note is known about the compiler ‘Abd al-Ghaffār. 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:

Asrar Rashid Archives - Sunnibooks Asrar Rashid Archives - Sunnibooks

This heretical distortion of the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is of course an assault on definitive Islāmic beliefs that a) with the arrival of the the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ it is impossible for anyone to be appointed a prophet; and b) that ‘Īsā (upon him peace), who is not a new prophet, will literally return. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s conception of “sealship” agrees with Islāmic orthodoxy on both points. [79] He understood “sealship” to mean that all prophets derived their prophethood from the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in a manner that entails the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ absolute chronological finality. There is no doubt that in his view Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī would be a disbeliever for his claim of prophethood. In Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī notes that “anyone who claims prophethood today would be regarded as a disbeliever”. [80] Allāh, exalted is He, has combined the particles of prophethood for Muḥammad ﷺ, perfected them for him and put a seal over them with His seal… The meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” according to us is that prophethood was completed in its entirety for Muḥammad ﷺ, so his heart was made for the pinnacle of prophethood a receptacle around it, and then it was sealed. [28] Morever, Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn studied with other famous scholars like Mawlānā Irshād Ḥusayn (1832 – 1893) of Rampur [71] (Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn spent three years in Rampur for studies [72]), Mawlānā Raḥmatullāh Kīrānawī (1818 – 1891) [73] and Shāh ‘Abd al-Ghanī Dihlawī. [74] He attended more than a single lecture of theirs. Why are they not implicated in Asrar Rashid’s conspiracy-laden discourse? Thus, the context of Taḥdhīr al-Nās was to reconcile the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the report of Ibn ‘Abbās affirming counterparts existing on other earths. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had already explained his view on the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in an earlier work, Āb-i-Ḥayāt, in 1870. In it, he explained a distinction between direct/non-derivative ( dhātī) and indirect/derivative ( ‘araḍi) attributes. The light of the moon and planets is indirect/derivative while the light of the sun is direct/non-derivative. He argued prophethood had a similar division.

You may also like…

Therefore, if [sealship] is unrestricted and inclusive, the establishment of chronological finality is evident. Otherwise, accepting the necessity of chronological finality by implicative indication is definitely established. Here, the explicit statements of the Prophet ﷺ like: “You are to me at the level of Hārūn to Mūsā but there is no prophet after me”, [49] or as he said, which is apparently derived from the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” in the manner explained above, are sufficient on this subject because they reach the level of mass-transmission. 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]

Islam Answers Atheism – by Asrar Rashid (Now available) Islam Answers Atheism – by Asrar Rashid (Now available)

Navigating the End of Time sets a course for a navigation of the dangerous ways that Armageddon-watchers have invented or twisted prophecies to their own advantage. Rashid draws on examples of how both Muslim and non-Muslim millenarians have cajoled and brainwashed followers, in many cases, to their doom. The trials and tribulations of our time are indisputable, but Rashid lays bare the fitan which are essentially a result of a our own miseducation or dependence on the products of the industrial revolution the apotheosis of which is the smart phone in our hand which completes what has been called the mass-formation (or crowd psychosis) of our 'technic society'. These he juxtaposes with the language of the Qur'an and the key prophecies of the Messenger of Allah & and what he says about the fitan of the End Times. These eschatological matters were further collected and mapped out by a few Muhaddithun and Rashid gently teaches us how to map read; 'Do not travel there until you learn to read the signs properly, and if possible find a very good guide.' Let us now turn to how Asrar Rashid irresponsbily presents three “quotes” from Taḥdhīr al-Nās to forge a link between Deobandīs and Qādiyānīs. In a section of his book titled “Wahhābī/Deobandī Support” (i.e. of Qādiyānīs), he writes: 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. Although Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad of Qadian (1839 – 1908) was a contemporary of Mawlānā Qāsim Nanotwī, he was relatively unknown before 1880 (the year of Mawlānā Nānotwī’s demise) which was when he began publishing his magnum opus, the Barāhīn Aḥmadiyyah. [76] Taḥdhīr al-Nās was published in 1873. So a further question for Asrar Rashid is:

Based on the ḥadīth, “Indeed every verse has a ẓahr (a conspicuous meaning) and a baṭn (esoteric meaning)”, [31] since the sealship of time is, as it were, the ẓahr of the verse, the baṭn, i.e. an esoteric meaning, is also desired. The esoteric meaning of prophetic sealship is that the continual chain of receiving prophethood ends at him ﷺ. The light of the moon and planets are received from the sun. In the world of means, the light of the sun is not received from another. Similarly, the prophethood of the earlier prophets was received from Muḥammad ﷺ. Yet, the Muḥammadan prophethood was not received in the world of means from another. The continual chain of light ends at the sun, so it is right to call it “khātam al-nayyirāt”: the seal of lights. So too, the continual chain of prophethood ends at the Muḥammadan soul, hence it is deserving he be called “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. [32]

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

He proceeds to explain why he believes the context must be one of praise and not merely a neutral statement. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s detractors objected that this statement means all exegetes of the Qur’ān, even the Prophet ﷺ and the companions themselves, be considered “common folk” because they all believed “the Seal of the Prophets” means “the last chronological prophet”.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] Can Asrar Rashid show where in this official report, namely Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue, the reference he has himself cited, it gives the account he describes? This was an incident some forty years before the 1974 Supreme Court case. If the scholars of Deoband were able to put up a defence several decades before, why would they suddenly fail to do so here?!