Navigating the End of Time
About this deal
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.”  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.
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī on Khatm al-Nubuwwah – Response to
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”,  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. The long awaited works of Asrar Rashid Navigating the End of Time is now available. The author Asrar Rashid who also wrote the excellent book Islam Answers Atheism now brings another masterpiece of work. Table of ContentsHence, 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].”  The author, Asrar Rashid, takes on the more difficult questions taking us through a labrynth of Kalām, philosophy, logic, epistemology, science, the Qurʾān, Ḥadīth and Sharīʿa.
Hanafi Fiqh - Two very brief English biographies of Imam
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”.  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”.
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!