The beauty of it is the signs are discussed chronologically with hadith cited as we go along so it gives a clearer picture than ever about the world we live in and how close we are to the end times. 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.

Navigating the End of Time: A Book by Asrar Rashid - Find Book

In his words: “This division also exists in the characteristic of prophethood. It is either non-derivative or derivative. The prophethood of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is non-derivative and the prophethood of other prophets besides him is derivative [hence, subordinate to the prophethood of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ].” [25] He proceeds to present textual and rational evidences for this proposition. 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: The point he is getting across is that based on this understanding of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, there is no conceivable way that the narration of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him), which he and others regard to be authentic, can call into question the Prophet’s ﷺ absolute superiority.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. Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī included the following couplet in his famous Mathnawī: “The Prophet is the Khātam because no likeness has he in generosity nor will he; like when a scholar acquires special mastery in a field, you say: ‘This field has been sealed by you.’” [29] In commenting on this couplet, Baḥr al-‘Ulūm Laknawī writes: These are good reasons to be skeptical of the contents of Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah. This is aside from the point that Asrar Rashid references Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah in the context of certain scholars who allegedly used it against Qādiyānī citations from Taḥdhīr al-N ās in the 1974 court case. Asrar Rashid must therefore present credible evidence that this was the case.

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

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] 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. Another high-profile court case occurred in the Bahawalpur state between 1926 and 1935 with regards to the status of the marriage of a woman whose husband converted to Qādiyānism. Seeing that this court case was critical to the integrity of their movement, the Qādiyānī leadership hired experienced lawyers to argue their case. ‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (1873 – 1933) and his students led the case against the Qādiyānīs. [85] During the proceedings, the Qādiyānī lawyer argued from some isolated statements of Taḥdhīr al-Nās, to which ‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī replied: Almost a thousand years before Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, the Ṣūfī Muḥaddith, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, wrote: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”. 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.

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

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] What “unprecedented debate on the finality of the Prophet Muḥammad” he is referring to however is not clear. As we have shown very clearly, the finality of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ was never in question in Mawlānā Nānotwī’s writings.Hence, in response to detractors who claimed he did not believe the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” indicated finality in time, he said: In his inspired tract [i.e. Taḥdhīr al-Nās], Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Muḥammad Qāsim Ṣāḥib (Allāh have mercy on him) offered strong evidences and proofs for the Prophet ﷺ being the Seal of the Prophets and espoused remarkable academic insights on the narration transmitted from Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās. In several places in this treatise, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā also affirmed that the Noble Prophet ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets in terms of time, and that this is a unanimous doctrine, and that this meaning has been mass-transmitted and its denier is a disbeliever. See also Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā’s book Munāẓarah ‘Ajībah on this very topic, and also his Āb-i-Ḥayāt, Qāsim al-‘Ulūm and other writings. 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] Before presenting an answer, it is submitted that first the meaning of “the Seal of the Prophets” ( Khātam al-Nabiyyīn) [as it occurs in the Qur’ān] should be understood so that there is no difficulty in understanding the answer. Hence, in the understanding of the common people, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ being the “Seal” is in the sense that his time comes after the time of the previous prophets, and he is the last of all prophets. However, it is clear to men of understanding that there is no intrinsic merit to chronological priority or posteriority. Then, how can it be valid, in this situation, that “but the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of Prophets” (Qur’ān, 33:40) is in a context of praise? [57] 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.