Navigating the End of Time

Product Information

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] Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī responds to this objection in Tanwīr al-Nibrās. He explains that he too takes chronological finality as a meaning of the verse as he goes on to explain in Taḥdhīr al-Nās, so he is not describing merely understanding “chronological finality” from the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” as “the understanding of the common people”. Rather, he is referring to a restriction of the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” to chronological finality, and this is what he describes as the “understanding of the common people”. His contention is that it is not restricted to this meaning alone, but encompasses a broader meaning. Hence, his observation that “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” means in the restricted or limited sense. [58] Hence, in response to detractors who claimed he did not believe the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” indicated finality in time, he said: This book is a must read in the current time and it's the most important work on the topic as it's written in 2022, which allows the author to look at far more false claims than previous authors could and refer to very recent events such as ISIS. Asrar Rashid has a footnote at the end of each of these paragraphs. The first footnote reads: “See: ‘ Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue’ by the National Assembly of Pakistan”. [82] The second footnote has the reference: “‘Abd al-Ghaffār al-Kānpūrī, Ibṭāl-i-Aghlā-i-Qāsimiyya (sic.), p.39-40”. [83]

Asrar Rashid Archives - Sunnibooks Asrar Rashid Archives - Sunnibooks

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. Asrar 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: 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] There is no position or rank higher than the seal of the ranks of prophethood. All ranks fall below this. Hence, his laws will supersede the laws of all others. The laws of others will not supersede his. It is thus necessary that he is the seal in terms of time too because the turn of the highest authority occurs after all subordinate authorities. Therefore, his judgement is the endmost judgement. It is evident that a legal case is only taken to the supreme court after all else. 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]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] 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. Unbeknown to many, a subtle, unexpressed connection always remained between the Deobandī and Qādiyānī movements. In 1974, when Shāh Aḥmad Nūrānī al-Ṣiddīqī challenged the Qādiyānites to debate their identity as Muslims in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the final straw they tenaciously clung onto were these statements of al-Nānawtawī.

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

As explained, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī believed the elements of time, location and status are all included in the Prophet’s ﷺ sealship. If the sealship of time were hypothetically violated, the sealship of status would remain. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī expressed this in a couple of places in Taḥdhīr al-Nās, which became a source of criticism on the part of his detractors. The point that Mawlānā Nānotwī was getting across in these passages is that with this understanding of “sealship” no doubt will remain as to the supremacy and excellence of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, even to the extent that any hypothetical prophet would be subordinate to his direct prophethood. So, there can be no doubt as to the Prophet’s ﷺ superiority. We will refer to the following two citations as “citation 2” and “citation 3”. He married a woman of Deoband in 1853 with whom he had ten children. One of his sons, Mawlānā Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Aḥmad (1862 – 1928), went on to become rector of the Dār al-‘Ulūm in Deoband. 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. Taḥdhīr al-Nās, the full title of which is “ Taḥdhīr al-Nās min Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās” (“Warning Men Against Rejecting the Narration of Ibn ‘Abbās”), was first printed in 1873. Mawlānā Qāsīm Nānotwī never intended it to be printed as a book. Nor did he give it its famous title. It was Mawlānā Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānotwī (1825 – 1895), a gifted scholar who operated a printing press in Bareilly, that gave it a title and published it. Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī had become involved in a dispute on which he solicited the view of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī and ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī. The second is chronological sealship, meaning that in this world of seeing, his time of prophethood occurs at the end of all prophets (upon them peace). No one will be endowed with prophethood after him. In the seventh volume of Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, it is reported as a marfū‘ ḥadīth from Ḥaḍrat Ubayy ibn Ka‘b: “The creation [of prophets] began with me, but I will be the last to be sent”. It is also reported as a marfū‘ ḥadīth from Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurayrah (Allāh be pleased with him): “I was the first prophet to be created and the last to be sent”.A map is not merely a chart, but something that unveils paths and gives directions through illumined way markers- lamp posts if you like. Rewards and dangers lie on the way. It is no coincidence perhaps that the teaching game “Snakes and Ladders’ was invented in Moghul India [Shataranj al-Urafa]. An inability to map-read or interpret the virtues and dangers in those signs renders them futile. In such a case, one must be led, grasping the hand of a guide. Whose hand today can be trusted? 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]

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

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: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. Apart from being baseless and unfounded, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad’s absurd views on the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is not the same as Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s. Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad believed that the prophets that came before the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ were “independent prophets”, while only “dependent prophets” who have been validated by the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ “seal of approval” can appear subsequent to him. Because he regarded himself as a “dependent prophet”, he did not see this as violating the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ sealship. Yet, he says it is not possible for ‘Īsā (upon him peace) to literally return as this would violate the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ sealship given he is an independent prophet! [78] 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. This is not to say that Qādiyānīs never used Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s statements. Qādiyānīs have misused the statements of many scholars, including Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī, Shāh Waliyyullāh Dihlawī, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Rūmī etc. The mere fact that they misuse Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s writings says nothing about the validity or otherwise of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s views. [84] Mawlānā Nānotwī (Allāh have mercy on him) affirmed a third type: sealship of location: “Meaning, the earth in which the Noble Prophet appeared is above and at the end of all earths, and there are no earths above it.” He demonstrated this with evidences. [87]

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

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. 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] 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). 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: In Taḥdhīr al-Nās, he extends this to argue that the report of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) enhances the supremacy and greatness of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and does not in any way impinge on it. How so? Because all prophets, whether of this world or any other, ultimately derive their prophethood from his. Hence, the more prophets that are subordinate to his ultimate prophethood, the greater his status. [26]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.