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’. 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] Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī then wrote up a question that he sent to Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī and ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī. [21] The question is as follows: Excellently written and brilliantly dismantles the sophistry, chutzpah not to mention the absurdity of the modern day atheist using rational arguments and Ash’ari theology. Easily accessible chapters make it a great work readily on hand to answer the critics of Islam on the oft-quoted so called ‘objections’ parroted today e.g. jihad, slavery, women in Islam, concept of evil and God etc. May God reward the author and publishing team immensely. Table of contents Chapter One – Islam & Atheism

Hanafi Fiqh - Two very brief English biographies of Imam

Upon completing his education in 1851, he worked as a proof-reader and annotator at various printing presses in Delhi and Meerut. He was also involved in the first ever print of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, famously produced by Muḥaddith Aḥmad ‘Ali Sahāranpūrī in the early 1850s. [4] 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. In Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah, the views of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī are presented merely as citations from Taḥdhīr al-Nās, as well as one citation from a letter in Qāsim al-‘Ulūm (a collection of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s letters). The bulk of Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah consists of objections allegedly made by Mawlānā Muḥammad Shāh Punjābī, objections which Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had already responded to in Tanwīr al-Nibrās. 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 Qur'an 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.’ Author He would venture into deep discussions on matters of theology and jurisprudence, his specialism being the underlying philosophy and wisdom behind Islām’s theology and praxis and arguing for their superiority over other religions, particularly Christianity and Hinduism. Hence, he was also famous for his debates against preachers of other religions and his defences of Islam in such tracts as Taqrīr Dilpazīr and Ḥujjat al-Islām. [11]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] 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] 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. 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]

Navigating the end of time Archives - Sunnibooks

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. 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?!Scholars of Deoband were in fact at the forefront of the anti-Qādiyānī movement. In an 1897 work, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī called out Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905) by name for his opposition to him. [93] 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. 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:

Asrar Rashid Archives - Sunnibooks Asrar Rashid Archives - Sunnibooks

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).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.

Navigating the End of Time : New Navigating the End of Time

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] If the sealship of rank, which is the baṭn of the verse, is not mentioned in Tafsīr Bayḍāwī, which is explaining the ẓahr of the Qur’ān, to say Imām Bayḍāwī denies the baṭn of the verse is merely your presumption. According to ḥadīth, all verses have a ẓahr and a baṭn. If someone explains a baṭn for the outer meaning of the Qur’ān, why should this be denounced? [34] 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? In Taḥdhīr al-Nās, his most detailed exploration of this issue, he argues that since the Qur’ān is a preserved book, divine wisdom dictates that no prophethood after the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is needed, even one that does not bring with it a new law. In this manner, the superiority of status entails chronological finality. In his words: “ In this way, chronological posteriority is necessitated by prophetic sealship in the meaning submitted.” [40] Thus, no other prophet claimed to be the seal (i.e. the last prophet). It was only Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ﷺ that claimed this as stated clearly in the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. If anyone besides and before the Prophet ﷺ were to have claimed to be the seal it would have been Ḥaḍrat ‘Īsā, but leave aside claiming to be the seal, he said: “The king of the world will come after me.” [37] It is evidently clear from this that he denied being the seal, but rather gave glad tidings of the seal to come. The “king of all” is the seal of authorities. When there are different judgements, his judgement will be the endmost, as is clear in the matter of legal cases. [38]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. 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: 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] Despite the simplicity of the point that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd made, this simple comment spurred a highly technical and contentious debate in 19 th century India on what became known as “ imkān al-naẓīr” or “ imtinā‘ al-naẓīr”, the possibility or impossibility of a likeness of the Prophet ﷺ existing. ‘Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (1797 – 1861), the premier expert on philosophy and rational subjects of that era, argued that it wasn’t even possible in the mind’s eye for a likeness of the Prophet ﷺ to exist and thus to create his likeness is not contained in divine power. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his defenders argued the more sensible view that it is in and of itself possible (i.e. conceivable in the mind’s eye) but its materialisation is not possible given Allāh’s intent. [16]