Navigating the End of Time

Product Information

In what way were Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s views being proposed “at the time” that Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad claimed himself to be a prophet? 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] He was mentored by Mawlānā Muẓaffar Ḥusayn (1805 – 1866), a respected and pious personality from Kandhla, and was instructed in spirituality by Ḥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī from whom he attained successorship in Taṣawwuf. He would exert himself in worship to the point that a close colleague once saw him recite 27 juz’ of the Qur’ān in a single rak‘ah! [8] Ḥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī held his spiritual student, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, in great esteem. [9] What this entire discussion shows is that Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī never questioned the chronological finality of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. Indeed, he regards anyone who questions it to be a disbeliever. [55] Rather, he merely questioned chronological finality being the sole basis for the prophetic title of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. [56]

Navigating the End of Time - Eventbrite Navigating the End of Time - Eventbrite

Mawlānā affirmed not one, not two, but three types of sealship for the Prophet ﷺ. The first is direct sealship. Meaning, the position of the Prophet ﷺ is a direct sealship. The Noble Prophet ﷺ is characterised with prophethood directly while all other noble prophets (upon them peace) are characterised by it indirectly, via him. This is like in the world of means, the sun is directly imbued with light while other heavenly bodies, the moon and so on, and earthly things are imbued with light via the sun. This is analogous to the characteristic of prophethood. The common people, based on their belief in the famousness of chronological finality as its meaning, regard sealship limited to time to be the absolute and total meaning…What the author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās meant was that the common people consider the whole meaning and the assigned literal meaning of “Seal” to be the last in time, hence they consider it impermissible to take other meanings. Yet, the reality [according to the author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās] is that the meaning of “Seal” is the last, whether in terms of time, location or position. At the level of the essence, this meaning is general and these specifications play no part. [59] Shaykh Asrar Rashid is a writer, public lecturer, debater and teacher of Arabic and Islamic disciplines. He has undertaken studies under traditional Islamic teachers in Arabic and Islam, Ash?ari Kalam, traditional rational theology, and its ancillary subjects in his city of birth, Birmingham (UK) and in Damascus (Syria). 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 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. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to point to this [meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”] from the explanation ( tafsīr) of the noble Awliyā’ too, although there isn’t scope here to cite the passages. Haḍrat Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn ‘Arabī, Mawlānā Rūm, Mawlānā Baḥr al-‘Ulūm, Haḍrat Mujaddid Alf Thānī, Allāh sanctify their souls, Haḍrat Shaykh ‘Aḍuḍ al-Dīn Amrohī, Allāh sanctify his soul, and others – all of them gave the same explanation of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” which the author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās did. While Qāḍī Bayḍāwī and others explained the ẓahr of the speech of Allāh, these [Awliyā’] explained its baṭn. The author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās combined both [the ẓahr and the baṭn] in [his explanation of] this verse. [33] Whilst looking at the signs, the author puts to bed misinterpretations of eschatology and calls instead for Muslims to wait for the signs to appear as mentioned in the Quran and sunnah, they being the only certainty. The rest is mere conjecture. 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?! He offers a number of evidences for why he believes the earlier prophets derive their prophethood from the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. He accepts these evidences are “abductive” ( innī) – that is, arguing the cause from its effects, which is not a definitive form of evidence. But he develops a cumulative case which he argues offers strong support for his claim. [43]

Asrar Rashid - ‘Navigating the End of Time’ by Shaykh Asrar Rashid - ‘Navigating the End of Time’ by Shaykh

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] Even though these “quotes” are selected from several different sections of Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Asrar Rashid gives only a single reference in his footnote to the third “quote” as: “ Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.25”. [65] Moreover, Asrar Rashid has taken liberties in his translation of these “quotes”, the full translations of which have been given above as “citations 1-3”.

The author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās did not specify the positional sealship ( khātamiyyat martabī) to be in relation to the prophets of this earth. Assuming the report of Ibn ‘Abbās to be genuine, he affirmed the Prophet’s ﷺ positional sealship to be in relation to the prophets [in the earths] below too. In fact, you can even say, this was the reason for writing the treatise Taḥdhīr al-Nās.

Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī on Khatm al-Nubuwwah – Response to

In this scenario, the Muḥammadan chronological finality ( khātamiyyat zamānī), according to the author of Taḥdhīr al-Nās, will not be specifically in relation to those prophets [of this earth]. He would be the chronological seal of the prophets [in the earths], below too, which entails all other prophets [on all earths] came before him in time. [53] 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? 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. It was Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s detailed response to this question, as well as ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī’s brief response, that would be printed as Taḥdhīr al-Nās min Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās in 1873 from Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī’s printing press in Bareilly. As is evident, the question that Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī had in relation to the report of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) was primarily about the status of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. If there are counterparts to the Prophet ﷺ on other earths, does that call into question the Prophet ﷺ being the superior-most creation of Allāh? The question was not over the chronological finality of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, which was never in question.

You may also like…

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] Thus, the question to the scholars of Sharī‘ah is: Do the words of the ḥadīth contain the possibility of these meanings or not? And will Zayd become a disbeliever or sinner or outside of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama‘ah because of this statement or not? Clarify and be rewarded. [23] Since the blessed Muḥammadan being embodies the characteristic of prophethood directly and the remaining prophets embody it indirectly, it is now established that he ﷺ is a spiritual father ( wālid ma‘nawī), and the remaining prophets are with respect to him spiritual children ( awlād ma‘nawī). With respect to his community, ponder the phrase “RasūlAllāh” and this reality will become clear. [44] Hence, Mawlānā Nānotwī says the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” indicates chronological finality either as an implicative meaning or as one of multiple simultaneous meanings – the latter which Mawlānā Nānotwī says is his preferred view. [48] After explaining this, he writes in Taḥdhīr al-Nās: The 1974 court case against Qādiyānīs was one of the most high-profile and impactful efforts against the Qādiyānīs. It was led by scholars from all persuasions, including Deobandīs. Some of the members of the National Assembly of Pakistan who in 1974 pushed for a Supreme Court judgement against Qādiyānīs include: Muftī Maḥmūd (1919 – 1980), a prominent Deobandī scholar and politician; Mawlānā Ghulām Ghawth Hazārvī (1896 – 1981), a Deobandī scholar; and Mawlānā ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq Akorwī (1912 – 1988), founder of the famous madrasah Dār al-‘Ulūm Ḥaqqāniyyah.