Navigating the End of Time

Product Information

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. The scholars of the Ahl-i-Ḥadīth persuasion sided with Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in this matter. A debate ensued in 1871 between some Ahl-i-Ḥadīth scholars and those who sided with ‘Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī. The contents of the debate were recorded in Munāẓara-i-Aḥmadiyyah. [17] During the course of the debate, the Ahl-i-Ḥadīth debaters brought up a narration attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him). Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī agreed with Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī on the authenticity of the report of Ibn ‘Abbās. He explicitly opposed the declarations of disbelief and deviation that occurred in this matter. In a work he authored in 1880 in refutation of Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān Qinnawajī, he wrote: 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 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]. [41]

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

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’ 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 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 Qurʾān and the key prophecies of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and what he says about the fitan of the End Times. These eschatological matters were further collected and mapped out by a few Muḥaddithūn 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.’ 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: 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] In other words, because of the superiority of the Prophet ﷺ, his laws are superior-most, which entails they must also be the endmost. In an 1878 transcript of a debate, he said: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.

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

Despite writing this, Zayd says: “If something contrary to this is proven from the Sharī‘ah, I will accept that. I am not adamant on this statement.” 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]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] 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]

Navigating the End of Time – Wondrous Islam Navigating the End of Time – Wondrous Islam

The unrestrictedness of “ Khātam” entails that the series of all prophets (upon them peace) terminates at him ﷺ. According to the above-described explanation, it is established from this expression that the earlier prophets are in need of him ﷺ for the characteristic of prophethood, and that he is not in need of anyone for this characteristic, whether earlier prophets or any other [created entity]. In the same way, if it is hypothesised that in his ﷺ time on this earth or any other earth, or in the sky, there was to be a prophet, he too would be dependent on him ﷺ for the characteristic of prophethood, and his series of prophethood will in any case terminate at him…The objective is that if sealship in the meaning I presented is taken, then his position as the Seal will not be specifically in relation to the past prophets. In fact, if hypothetically in his own time another prophet existed somewhere, even then his position as the Seal will remain sound. [63] 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] 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] These he juxtaposes with the language of the Quran and the key prophecies of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, 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.’Mirzā’s successor, Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn (1914 C.E) had attended lectures at the Deoband seminary [ dār al-‘ulūm] and fell under the influence of Qāsim al-Nānawtawī (1880 C.E) on finality of prophethood [ khatm al-nubuwwa] which had caused controversy amongst Muslims and was refuted by many scholars. Later Qādiyānites, however, would use it as proof to validate their views on the finality of prophethood. 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] The alleged use by Qādiyānīs of Taḥdhīr al-Nās in the 1974 Pakistan Supreme Court hearing aimed at declaring Qadiyānīs non-Muslims and the alleged failure of the scholars of Deoband to put up a credible defence. He taught students in spare hours between his work at the printing presses, mainly on the topic of Ḥadīth. His famous students include: Shaykh al-Hind Mawlānā Maḥmūd Ḥasan Deobandī (1851 – 1920), Mawlānā Fakhr al-Ḥasan Gangohī (d. 1897) and Mawlānā Sayyid Aḥmad Ḥasan Amrohawī (1851 – 1912).