The Islamic Dilemma is a recently popularised argument used by Christian apologists such as David Wood, Sam Shamoun and GodLogic. The argument claims that the Quran affirms the authenticity of the Torah and Bible. If the Torah and Bible are authentic, then the Quran is wrong for contradicting them. If they are corrupted, then the Quran is still wrong because it affirms them. Either way, Islam is supposedly disproven, hence the name “Islamic Dilemma.” This article focuses on debunking this argument, showing it relies on misinterpretations of Quranic verses

Reassessing the “Islamic Dilemma” Verses

Did Allah Tell Muhammad (SAW) to Consult the Bible? (10:94)

It is claimed that this verse instructs Prophet Muhammad (SAW), when in doubt about his revelations, to consult Jews and Christians to whom the prior scriptures were revealed, implying those scriptures are trustworthy.

فَإِن كُنتَ فِي شَكّٖ مِّمَّآ أَنزَلۡنَآ إِلَيۡكَ فَسۡـَٔلِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَقۡرَءُونَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ مِن قَبۡلِكَ ۚ لَقَدۡ جَآءَكَ ٱلۡحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمُمۡتَرِينَ ٩٥

Translation: And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to thee, ask those who have been reading the Book before thee. Indeed the truth has come to thee from thy Lord; be not, therefore, of those who doubt.

[Quran 10:94]

However, this verse does not mention Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and does not suggest that he was the one in doubt, because one who receives revelation cannot experience doubt. The Quran itself cannot be described as something that produces doubt. The Qur’an elsewhere states about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW):

قُلۡ هَٰذِهِۦ سَبِيلِيٓ أَدۡعُوٓاْ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۚ عَلَىٰ بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا۠ وَمَنِ ٱتَّبَعَنِي ۖ وَسُبۡحَٰنَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَآ أَنَا۠ مِنَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ

Translation: Say, ‘This is my way: I call unto Allah on sure knowledge, I and those who follow me. And Holy is Allah; and I am not of those who associate gods with God.’

[Quran: 12:108]

That is to say, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his followers did not accept this religion based on conjecture; rather, through direct observation and revelation they came to recognize the truth. It is clear that those who accept something through such knowledge cannot experience doubt or uncertainty about it.

What this actually refers to is the people who argue and dispute. The verse repeats the objections of the disbelievers, who claimed that the Quran’s words caused doubt in their minds. Allah responds by saying that if they think this, they should ask those people who, before them, have read the Quran and benefited from it. They will see that the Quran does not create doubt, but brings clarity and certainty to those who understand it.

By saying, “ask those who have been reading the book before thee”, the verse also makes it clear that person needs a teacher, because understanding spiritual knowledge requires a certain level of spirituality. Therefore, when studying a revealed book, one should not decide on matters about which they have doubts without consulting the experts, as the understanding of a revealed book is granted according to spirituality.

Surah Yunus (10:94) in Light of Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s Tafseer-e-Kabeer

All these arguments that Christians raise were already addressed over 80 years ago in Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s Tafseer-e-Kabeer, published in 1940. This passage from Tafseer-e-Kabeer refutes the objections raised by Christians regarding this verse:

The doubters cannot be the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The words “So if you are in doubt…” (فَإِنْ كُنْتَ فِي شَكٍّ) cannot refer to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), because the one upon whom revelation is sent cannot have doubt. Therefore, what is meant by this is the people who differ and dispute. The Holy Qur’an cannot be something that produces doubt. Nor does this verse mean that the Qur’an creates doubt. Rather, in this place the words of the disbelievers’ objection have been repeated. They used to say that the expressions of the Holy Qur’an create doubts in our minds. Allah the Almighty repeats their own words and says: O objector, if according to you this speech produces doubts, then ask those people who, before you, have read the Holy Qur’an and have benefited from it—ask them what kind of illumination and light this Book has granted to their hearts. By questioning them, you will come to know that this speech is not something that creates doubt, but rather something that creates certainty.

For teaching, it is necessary not only to have a book, but also to have a human teacher. From this verse, it becomes clearly evident that a book alone is not sufficient. A person is also in need of a teacher, because for the unveiling of spiritual knowledge, a certain level of spirituality is also required. Therefore, when a person studies a revealed book, he should not make any decision regarding matters about which he has doubts without asking the experts of that book. Because if the book is revealed, then surely its understanding will be granted in accordance with spirituality.

Some people mistakenly think that the ones who are in doubt are the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions, and that those whom he is commanded to ask are the Jews and the Christians. But as has already been proven earlier, the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cannot be meant by this, nor can his companions. Because regarding them, the Holy Qur’an says elsewhere:

“Say: This is my way: I call to Allah with clear insight—I and those who follow me.” (Yusuf 12:109)

Meaning: Say that I and my followers do not accept this religion merely on the basis of conjecture; rather, through direct observation we have come to know the truthfulness of the Holy Qur’an. And it is obvious that those who accept something through observation cannot fall into doubt and uncertainty regarding it. The next verse also shows that in this place the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cannot be the one being addressed

[Tafseer-e-Kabeer. vol 4, pg. 178-179]

Conclusion

The Islamic Dilemma relies on a false understanding of numerous ayahs. One key verse cited is 10:94, but it actually addresses disbelievers who doubt the Quran, instructing them to consult those who have understood and benefited from the Quran.

Fasting is one of the obligatory deeds of worship in Islam, it is kept from Fajr till Maghrib. Yet there are some people who are exempt from fasting, either temporarily or permanently.

Allah(ﷻ) states in the Qur’an:

The prescribed fasting is for a fixed number of days, but whoso among you is sick or is on a journey shall fast the same number of other days; and for those who are able to fast only with great difficulty is an expiation — the feeding of a poor man. And whoso performs a good work with willing obedience, it is better for him. And fasting is good for you, if you only knew.

[Holy Qur’an 2:185]

Hazrat Muleh Mau’ood(ra) mentions upon whom fasting is obligatory during Ramadan and states:

In these days, certain responsibilities are incumbent upon us; from the break of dawn, it is obligatory for all those who are sane and adult, who are not sick, and are not children, weak, or elderly, women who are menstruating or those who are pregnant or breastfeeding—provided they are not sick but usually for most women in a state of pregnancy or breastfeeding, there is a possibility of extraordinary hardship—aside from these and the traveler, fasting until sunset is obligatory for everyone else.

[Faroodat-e-Musleh Mau’ood, pg 160-161]

At what age does fasting become an obligation ?

Musleh Mau’ood(ra) while discussing at what age should fasting start states:

In my view, making a child younger than twelve years fast is a crime. And from twelve to fifteen years of age, if someone makes a child fast, they are making a mistake. From the age of fifteen, one should develop the habit of fasting, and by the age of eighteen, fasts should be considered obligatory (Farz).

I remember when we were young, we also had a keen desire to fast, but Hazrat Promised Messiah (as) would not allow us to fast. Instead of encouraging us in any way to fast, he would always instill in us a sense of the awe and gravity of fasting.

[Fiqh-ul-Masih, pg 212-213]

Fasting age depends on physical strength

Musleh Mau’ood(ra) on one occasion also stated:

Some children are naturally weak in terms of their physical build. I have seen some people bring their children to meet me and state that the child is fifteen years old, even though they appear to be seven or eight years old. I believe that for such a child, the age of maturity for fasting might be twenty-one years. In contrast, a strong child may perhaps be equal to an eighteen-year-old at the age of fifteen. However, if someone strictly holds onto my words that the age of maturity for fasting is eighteen years, they will be committing an injustice not against me, nor against God, but against their own soul.

[Fiqh-ul-Masih, pg 214]

Ruling on fasting while on travel

Hazrat Masih Mau’ood(as) once stated concerning fasting while on travel:

It was inquired of him: “What is the commandment regarding keeping a fast during travel?” He replied: “From the Holy Quran, it is understood that: ‘…but if any of you is ill, or on a journey, the prescribed number (should be made up) from days later.’ (Al-Baqarah: 185) This means that the sick and the traveler should not fast. This is a command. Allah the Almighty did not say that it is a matter of choice—that whoever wishes may keep it and whoever wishes may not. In my view, a traveler should not fast.

Since people generally do keep the fast [while traveling], if someone does so considering it a common practice, there is no harm; however, the instruction of ‘a number of other days’ must still be observed.

[Fiqh-ul-Masih, pg 198-199]

Who is considered a traveler?

Musleh Mau’ood(ra) stated concerning what is considered a ‘travel’ that is exempt from fasting:

Similarly, a journey is one that occurs occasionally/incidentally. However, a person who is a merchant or a subordinate whose job requires him to be on tour—this does not constitute ‘travel’.

[Farmoodat-e-Musleh Mau’ood, pg 156]

Similarly when a person asked whether he was exempt from fasting as his job requires him to travel often he stated:

Question: Mr. Muhammad Din, a rural postman, asked regarding fasting: “I am unable to fast due to the nature of my travels [for work].” Answer: “Those whose employment involves constant travel cannot be exempted from fasting. If one falls ill, that is a different matter.”

[Farmoodat-e-Musleh Mau’ood, pg 164]

Fasting during illness?

Hazrat Masih Mau’ood(as) stated:

The reality is that acting upon the concessions granted by the Holy Quran is also a form of righteousness (taqwa). Allah the Exalted has granted permission and a concession to the traveler and the sick to fast at another time; therefore, this command should also be acted upon. I have read that many of the great elders (akabir) held the view that if someone fasts while traveling or during illness, it is a sin. This is because the objective is to seek the pleasure of Allah, not one’s own will. Allah’s pleasure lies in obedience—that whatever command He gives should be followed, and one should not add their own ‘commentary’ to it. He has given this very command:

‘But whoso among you is sick or on a journey, shall fast the same number of other days’ (Al-Baqarah: 185).

In this, no further restriction has been placed as to what kind of journey or what kind of illness it must be. I do not fast while traveling, nor do I fast while ill.

[Fiqh-ul-Masih, pg 200]

What kind of illnesses make one exempt from fasting?

With regards to fasting while being sick, Musleh Mau’ood(ra) stated that not all kinds of illnesses make you exempt from fasting:

There are some illnesses in which a person can still carry out all their work; for example, there are chronic diseases where a person remains fully functional. Such a person is not considered “sick”. Once, a religious decree (fatwa) was sought from the Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) regarding whether the travel of an employee, who must travel due to his job, would be counted as “travel” (for the purpose of religious exemption). He replied: “His travel cannot be counted as travel; his journey is a part of his employment”. Similarly, there are certain illnesses in which a person continues to perform all their tasks.

[Farmoodat-e-Musleh Mau’ood, pg 167]

He also stated on the other hand that certain mild illnesses can make one exempt from fasting and that if fasting worsens ones condition then he shouldn’t fast:

In my view, no matter how mild a cold may be, it is an illness that relates to fasting. For those who have a cold, fasting is very harmful and can cause significant damage.
As a result of a cold, a person feels more thirsty. If a person suppresses that thirst while fasting, the thirst will increase further, which is very detrimental to the cold. Therefore, some illnesses may appear ordinary, but their relationship with fasting can cause great harm. One should not fast during such an illness.

[Farmoodat-e-Musleh Mau’ood, pg 165-166]

The month of Ramadan starts with the sighting of the new crescent moon(Hilal)

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

Whenever you sight the new moon (of the month of Ramadan) observe fast. and when you sight it (the new moon of Shawwal) break it, and if the sky is cloudy for you, then observe fast for thirty days.

[Sahih Muslim 1081a]

The Importance of the physical sighting of the moon

Hazrat Khalifatul Masih(aba) while emphasizing the importance of physical sighting of the moon once stated:

اس لئے ہم چاندنظر آنے کے واضح امکان کو سامنے رکھتے ہوئے روزے شروع کرتے ہیں اور عید کرتے ہیں۔ ہاں اگر ہمارا اندازہ غلط ہو اور چاند پہلے نظر آ جائے تو پھر عاقل بالغ گواہوں کی گواہی کے ساتھ، مومنوں کی گواہی کے ساتھ کہ انہوں نے چاند دیکھا ہے پہلے بھی رمضان شروع کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ ضروری نہیں کہ جو ایک چارٹ بن گیا ہے اس کے مطابق ہی رمضان شروع ہو۔ لیکن واضح طور پر چاندنظر آنا چاہئے۔ اس کی رؤیت ضروری ہے۔ لیکن یہ کہنا کہ ہم ضرور غیر احمدی مسلمانوں کے اعلان پر بغیر چاند دیکھے روزے شروع کر دیں اور عید کر لیں یہ چیز غلط ہے۔ حضرت مسیح موعود علیہ السلام نے اس بات کو اپنی ایک کتاب سرمہ چشم آریہ میں بھی بیان فرمایا۔ حساب کتاب کو یا اندازے کو ردّ نہیں فرمایا۔ یہ بھی ایک سائنسی علم ہے لیکن رؤیت کی فوقیت بیان فرمائی ہے

Therefore, we begin fasting and celebrate Eid keeping in mind the clear possibility of the moon being sighted. However, if our estimation proves incorrect and the moon is sighted earlier, then based on the testimony of sane and adult witnesses—the testimony of believers that they have seen the moon—Ramadan can be started earlier. It is not necessary for Ramadan to begin strictly according to a pre-determined chart.

Nevertheless, the moon must be clearly visible; its sighting (Ru’yat) is essential. But to say that we must start fasting or celebrate Eid based on the announcement of non-Ahmadi Muslims without having sighted the moon ourselves is incorrect. The Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) also explained this matter in his book, Surma Chashm-e-Arya. He did not reject calculation or estimation—as it is also a scientific branch of knowledge—but he emphasized the superiority of the physical sighting.

[Khutabat-e-Masroor, Vol 14, pg 302-304]

Ramadan and Eid don’t happen on same date for everyone

Hazrat Khalifa Rabeh(rh) emphasized the importance of starting and ending Ramadan based on local moon sightings:

 تو رمضان بھی بعینہ ایک ہی تاریخ کو ہر جگہ شروع نہ ہوتا ہے ، نہ ہو سکتا ہے۔ ممالک بدل جائیں تو پھر تو ویسے ہی نا ممکن ہے کیونکہ اگر جب بھی رمضان کا چاند طلوع ہوگا اس وقت کسی جگہ گھپ اندھیرا، آدھی رات ہوگی کسی جگہ صبح کا سورج طلوع ہورہا ہوگا کسی جگہ دو پہر ہوگی کسی جگہ عصر کی نماز پڑھی جا رہی ہو گی تو کیسے ممکن ہے کہ خدا نے جو نظام پیدا فرمایا ہے اس کے برعکس احکام جاری فرمائے ۔ اس لئے مَنْ شَهِدَ کا مضمون ہے جو بہت ہی اہمیت رکھتا ہے۔ ہرگز خدا کا یہ منشاء نہیں کہ سب اکٹھے روزے رکھیں ، اکٹھے ختم کریں ۔ ہرگز یہ منشاء نہیں کہ تمام دنیا میں ایک دن عید منائی جائے یا سارے ملک میں اگر وسیع ملک ہے ایک ہی دن عید منائی جائے ۔ چھوٹے ملک میں تو ممکن ہے مگر وسیع ممالک بعض ایسے ہیں جو شمال سے بہت دور تک جنوب کے ایک حصے میں پھیلے ہوئے ہوتے ہیں۔

Similarly, Ramadan does not—and cannot—begin on the exact same date everywhere. When countries change, it becomes even more impossible; for whenever the moon of Ramadan rises, it will be pitch black midnight in one place, the morning sun will be rising in another, it will be midday in a third, and the Afternoon (Asr) prayer will be being performed in yet another. How could it be possible for God to issue commands that go against the very system He created? Therefore, the theme of ‘man shahida’ (whoever witnesses [the month]) is of great importance. It is by no means God’s intent that everyone starts their fast together or ends it together. It is never the intent that Eid be celebrated on a single day across the entire world, or even across a single country if that country is vast. While it may be possible in a small country, there are some large nations that stretch extensively from the north down to the southern regions.

[Khutabat-e-Tahir, Vol 15, pg 45]

Conclusion

“The standard of moon-sighting used by Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya is according to the visibility of the moon with the naked eye on each horizon. The visibility of the moon is determined by a combination of calculation and actual moon sighting, as was done by the Holy Prophet ﷺ. If two places do not share the same horizon, then the sighting of the moon in one area will not apply to the other.”

[Al Hakam]

Since time immemorial, it has been the way of the cowards that they shut down those they cannot answer. This is what Pakistani government does with Ahmadi Muslims. They have banned our literature, our events and even publication of our material for our Ahmadi Muslims.

On February 11th, 2026, they have now banned our website WhiteMinaret as well.

The Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama’ah is one of the most censored Islamic communities in the world. When our critics cannot win against us in open debates and discussions, they take a different approach. They ban our websites, books, and educational materials to prevent their audiences from hearing our arguments.

This widespread censorship creates a surprising situation. When non-Ahmadi Muslims debate with us for the first time, they are often shocked. They discover that what they’ve been told about us doesn’t match reality.

Our opponents may ban us in Pakistan, but they cannot ban us everywhere. Our message continues to reach people around the world who are willing to listen.

The document that was emailed to us is attached:

Anti-Ahmadis claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is a Kafir for declaring Jihad of the Sword against the British as Unislamic. They also claim that he is a British agent. With this argument, these people have declared all their scholars as British agent and Kafir. In this article, we will show not only the Sunni scholars declaring Jihad against British as Haram, but also going many steps further in proving their loyalty and servitude to the British Empire.

Jihad against British Haram

Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi

“Jihad is not obligatory for us, the Muslims of India, on the basis of the Qur’an. He who holds that it is obligatory is an opponent to the Muslims and intends to harm them!”

[al-Mahajjat al-Mu’tamana, p. 208]

Ashraf Ali Thanvi al-Deobandi

“If Allah gave us government then we will keep the British as our subjects but with utmost comfort and peace because they kept us in peace.”

[Malfoozat Hakeem-ul-Ummat, vol. 6, p. 102]

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi al-Deobandi

“The Deobandis, as described above, used the services of officials in supporting their management of the school. They made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty.

Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5,000 rupees a year from the Shah of Afghanistan for fear that a political link might be suspected.

And the school celebrated ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crises, like Queen Victoria’s last illness, with fitting prayers and messages.”

[Islamic Revival in British India, p. 154]

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

“Since the Muslims were living in peace they could, in no case, come out for Jihad against the Government.”

[Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind, p. 8]

Ottomon Khalifa, Sultan Abdul Majeed

“Rather in 1857, an order was taken from Sultan Abdul Majeed, in his capacity as a Caliph, that Muslims must not fight the British and must obey them.”

[Naqsh-e-Hayat, vol. 2, pg. 631]

Maulvi Muhammad Husayn Batalwi

Some of our Muslim brothers believe that the present misfortunes of the followers of Islam cannot be removed without the sword. It is no use acquiring worldly education. However, looking at the present condition of the Muslims, this belief appears improbable.”

“Brethren! the age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword it is necessary to wield the pen. How can the sword come into the hands of the Muslims when they have no hands. They have no national identity or existence. In such a useless and weak condition, to consider them as a nation is to exceed the imagination of Shaikh Chilli (a proverbial, comical figure in Urdu fiction).”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 12, December 1883, p. 364]
[Book Link]

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 10, December 1883, p. 288]

In our Ahle-Hadith Madhab, the ruler under which we live under in peace, doing jihad is haram

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 10, no 25, page 36]
[Book Link]
[Computerized Urdu]

ہندوستان کے تمام طبقات رعایا سے صرف یہی ایک فرقہ اہلحدیث (؟) ہے۔ جو اس سلطنت کے زیر سایہ رہنے کو بلحاظ امن و آزادی، اسلامی سلطنتوں کے زیر سایہ رہنے سے بھی بہتر جانتا ہے، کیونکہ اس فرقہ کو بجز اس سلطنت کے کسی اور سلطنت میں (اسلامی کیوں نہ ہو ) پوری آزادی حاصل نہیں ۔

Among all the subjects of India, the Ahl-al-hadith are the only sect of Muslims (?) who know living under the shadow of this empire in terms of peace and freedom is better than living under the shadow of Islamic empires, because this sect does not have full freedom in any other empire (even if it is Islamic) except in this empire.

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 19, 194-195]
[Computerized Urdu]

This makes sense as there was extreme bad blood between the Ahnaaf and the Ahle Hadith in India. For example, if an Ahle Hadith did Rafa Yadain in a Hanafi Mosque he could be beaten and kicked out of the mosque. Ahmad Raza Khan, who defended traditional Hanafi Orthodoxy, in India said that Wahabis are not only Kafir but also Wajib ul Qatl and that they are followers of Satan.

“The King of Turkey is a Muslim King but so far as law and order and administration are concerned (leaving aside the religious aspect) the British Government is also of no less pride for us, the Muslims more so for the people who are known as Ahl-i-Hadees, this Government is of a greater pride for peace and freedom of conscience (as compared with Turkey, Iran and Khurasan)”

[Ishatus-Sunnah, vol. VI, Shumara 10, p. 292]
[Book Link]

Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalawi severely condemned the 1857 mutineers who rebelled against the British. He writes:

“Uninformed Muslims should examine this implication and bear it in mind, and not consider fighting with every rival faith on account of its unbelief to be legal jihad. To fight with peaceful or covenanted people most definitely cannot be legal jihad, whether national or religious, but is rebellion and sedition. The Muslims who took part in the 1857 rebellion were serious sinners, and according to the Quran and Hadith they were rebels, mischief makers and wicked *(BAGHI Aur BAD KIRDAR). Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts. Those known as the prominent and the Ulama were unacquainted with true faith, or lacking in understanding. Knowledgable Ulema did not participate in the rebellion nor did they sign the Fatawa for Jihad.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-Jihad, P. 49 – Rebels are Beasts]

“To fight against this government [i.e. British rule of India] or to aid those who fight against it, even though they
be one’s Muslim brothers, is clear treachery and haram.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, p. 49]

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British:

Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels.

[Interpertation of Wahabiya, pg 105-106]

Battalvi lies that he does not believe in the Mahdi and Messiah that fights the non-Muslims using the sword. As per him, Mahdi will only use heavenly signs in support of his claim as the Bukhari has the hadith that the war will be abolished at the time of the Messiah.

This contradicts the “Sunni” view which claims that the Mahdi and Messiah will have armies and fight governments using the sword and kill all disbelievers. No non-Muslim will be left alive until they are done with their mission. Everyone will either accept Islam or will be killed.

He could not put forth this belief in front of the government, so he lied to the public and wrote lengthy articles in his magazine and the English Magazine, like below:

“It is also untrue to say that the belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi is dangerous, for the learned Muhammadans do not believe that the Promised Masih and Mahdi will propagate Islam by the sword. According to Sahih Bukhari, a book unanimously believed to be an authority by Sunnis, the promised Masih will put an end to all fighting and will propagate Islam simply by means of heavenly signs and spiritual powers. Imam Mahdi will also come at the same time and there shall be no bloodshed and no Jehad. Islam will be spread by peaceful methods. I have written a lengthy article on the subject and it is about to be published shortly, so I need not go into details here, but I may declare it most emphatically that the Muhammedan belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi does in no way constitute a danger to the country’s peace.”

[Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – 19 July 1907]

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi – Founder of Ahle Hadith in India

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi (1805-1902) was a very prominent and influential Salafi (Ahlul Hadith) scholar in British India. Today’s Ahlul Hadith of the Indian subcontinent look up to him as a very important scholarly figure. He was the highest Ahl-i hadith theologian.He made it explicitly clear that Jihad against the British government was prohibited:

پس جب کہ شرط جہاد کی اس دیار میں معدوم ہوئی، تو جہاد کرنا یہاں سبب ہلاکت اور معصیت کا ہوگا۔

“Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and a sin.”

[Fatawa Naziriya; v. 3, p. 275]

Nazir Husayn Delawi says this after putting four conditions of Jihad and says that there is no reason to do. Jihad in British India. Here is more context.

“Shaikh al-Kul Maulana Syed Muhammad Nazeer Hussain Muhaddis Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: ‘So I say that in this era, none of these four conditions are present — so why would Jihad take place? It absolutely will not take place…’”

[Fatawa Nazeeriya, vol: 3, pg: 284]

ہندوستان میں اس وقت انگریزی حکومت ہے وہاں ہر مذہب والا آزادی کے ساتھ اپنے شعار مذہب کے ادا کرنے کا مجاز ہے۔ کوئی مسلمان نہ جمعہ سے روکا جاتا ہے نہ جماعت سے اور یہاں اسلامی سرزمین اور مسلمانوں کی حکومت میں ہم لوگ طواف کعبہ اور جمعہ و جماعت سے مجبور ہیں۔

At present there is British rule in India where every religious person is allowed to freely practice the tenets of their faith. No Muslim is barred from Jummah or Jamaat, yet in this Islamic land and under a Muslim government, we are prevented from Tawaaf e Kaaba and Jummah and Jamaat.

We are but helpless to say that the English Government is God’s Mercy (Khuda Ki Rehmat) for Muslims of Hindustan.

[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, p. 91]

It is noted about him by Muhammad Husayn Batalvi:

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Ishatus-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, p. 288]

“Maulavi Nuzir Husein is a leading Moulavi in Dehli who in difficult times has proved his loyalty to the British Government and in his pilgrimage to Mecca Thope any British Officer whose help or protection he may need will afford it to him as he most fully deserves it.”

(Signed) J.D.Tremlett BCS. Commissioner & Sup Delhi Division.

AUGUST 10, 1883.

[Ishatus Sunnah, vol. 6, no. 10, pg. 294]
[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, pg. 83]

Maulvi Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan Bhopali – Co-founder of Ahle Hadith in India

He was an eminent Ahl-i hadith religious scholar as well as a political leader. In his book Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, he wrote:

“No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power….This book has been written to inform the British government that no Muslim subject of India and the Indian states
bears malice towards this great power.”

[Edition published in Lahore, 1895, Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 6]

عیسائی لوگ ہو جا دینگے تمام ہوا مضمون احادیث وغیرہ کا ان حدیثوں سے یہ بات معلوم ہوئی کہ اگر چہ حکومت اسلام کی ضعیف ہو جاوے یا جاتی رہی لکن بالکل مسلمان دنیا سے نہیں مٹین کے یہانتک کہ قیامت آجاوے اور طول و عرض دولت عیسائیوں کا بہت ہوگا اور یہ لوگ سب پر غالب اور حاکم ہو جا وینگے چنانچہ مطابق او سکے دیکھا سنا ہوجا اس دیکھا جاتا ہے پیس نکر کرنا اون لوگون کا جو اپنے حکم مذہبی سے جاہل ہیں اس امر مین کے سکوت برٹش سٹ جیا وے اور بیہ امن و امان جو آج حاصل ہے فساد کے پردہ میں جہاد کا نام لیکر اوٹھا دیا جا رے سخت نادانی و بیوقوفی کی بات ہے بہلا ان نا عاقبت اندیشون کا ہا ہوگایا اویس سید صادق کا فرمایا ہوا جسکا کہا ہوا آج ہم آنکھوں سے دیکھہ رہے ہیں۔

“Christians will dominate everywhere — this is the essence of the discussion based on Hadith. From these Hadiths, it is understood that even if Islamic rule becomes weak or disappears, Muslims will never be completely wiped out from the world until the Day of Judgment. The dominion and expanse of Christian power will be vast, and they will become dominant and rulers over all. This is exactly what we are seeing and hearing today. To incite unrest under the guise of Jihad during this peaceful and secure time — when British rule has brought stability — is sheer ignorance and foolishness. What has become of those shortsighted people? It is just as Syed Sadiq had said, and we are witnessing his words come true before our eyes.”

[Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 10]

“During the mutiny [of 1857], some rajas and so-called nawabs and men of means interfered in the peace and calm of India under the name of jihad, and they fanned the flames of battle till their disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under any law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered. … If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble-maker, and from beginning to end he would stain the name of Islam.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 22-26]

“In the treacherous era, those people who fought against the British government and broke their oath – that was not jihad, it was depravity.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 54]

“No sect in our research is more benevolent, peace-loving, desirous of the comfort and tranquility of the public, and appreciative of a fair government than the group that calls itself Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Hadith (People of the Sunnah and Hadith), and it is not a Muqallid of any particular Madhab”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 58]

The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he:

One who is insincere and violates his promises is, according to his own religion, looked upon as having committed a great sin; and to what punishment is such a man to be ultimately doomed will be perfectly known on the Day of Judgment. In short, such a man is a loser in this as well as in the world to come. When the laws of Mahomed enjoin the fulfilment of our promises during the whole term of a treaty, it is incumbent upon every native Prince or Chief to observe the same till the period of its close, and faithfully carry it out without a thought of violating it.

[Interpreter of Wahabism page 39]

” The current number of the Ishaatus-sunnat contains a long leading article under the heading ‘ Wahabis,’ attempting to prove that the Wahabis of India (who in the article under notice are styled as Mowahideens) are as good and loyal subjects of the Queen as any other section of the Mahomedan community. The article in question commences by stating that the name ‘ Wahabi ‘ is regarded by the Mowahideens in the same light as that of bidati, that is> superstitious, by the Sunnis. The reasons why they regard it so are many. In the first place the word whatever be its meaning from a religious and literary point of view has long been associated with disloyalty, as the Sunnis have long laboured to impress on the rulers of the country, that Mowahideens of India, like the Wahabis of Hazara and other frontier tribes, are the enemies of order and peace, and that they hold it lawful to make jehad, or religious war, against the British Government. That the Mowahideens have cleared themselves of this most malicious and serious charge, is evident from the fact that, in 1875 Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels. This pamphlet he caused to be circulated among a large number of the most learned Maulvis of the Punjab and other provinces, for the purpose of eliciting their opinions on the subject and ascertaining whether the quotations made by him in support of his statements were from competent authorities or otherwise. All Maulvis, among whom the treatise in question was circulated, unanimously testified to their entire concurrence with the opinions of Maulvi Mahomed Hossein and declared his authorities to be unimpeachably trustworthy, putting down their signatures and seals on the pamphlet as a mark of concurrence with its contents.

[Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Interpreter of Wahabism, p.105-106]

“No wise, experienced, and discerning man can for a moment believe that the learned will justify jihad against the British Government, in the present state of India or think that the conditions for it exist; except those Mullas who have had no perfect knowledge of their religion and no correct information.”

[interpreter of Wahabism, p.21,86]

48 References from Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah can be found at this Link where Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan calls the rebels “stupid”, that jihad against the British is haram, that the British give religious Freedom, and that the rebels were creators of fasad and traitors and tried to ruin the peace established by the British – The full book can be read at this link

Shah Ismail Shaheed Delawi (RH) – Respected by Deobandis, Ahle Hadith, and Ahmadis

He was the deputy of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, and died in a battle against the Sikhs. It is written about him:

“A man asked, ‘Why do you not give a pronouncement of jihad against the British?’ He replied: In no way is it obligatory to fight jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in our performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of
freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and let not their government be harmed a whit.” ()

[Hayyat Tayyiba, biography on Shah Ismail Shaheed by Mirza Hairat of Delhi, pg 462]

It should be remembered that Mirza Hairat of Delhi was an opponent of Promised Messiah AS and would mock him.

“This was the reason why Maulavi Ismail of Delhi, who knew the Quran and Hadith, and acted upon them, did not fight in his country India against the British, under whose peace and protection he lived, nor did he fight the states of this country. Outside this country, he fought the Sikhs who interfered in the religious practices of the Muslims, prohibiting the loud sounding of the Azan.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, by Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, published 1876, pp. 49–50]

Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Batalvi also writes:

Maulana Isma’eel Shaheed waged Jehad against the Sikhs on account of their intervention in the religion of Islam. He composed that particular sermon to motivate others for Jehad. He neither declared Jehad against the British Government, nor does this sermon contain any explicit, or inplicit, reference to waging Jehad against this Government. As a matter of fact, he did not consider it legitimate to wage Jehad against this Government.”

[Isha’at-us-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11 dated 1886]

A leading follower of the famous Maulavi Muhammad Ismail Shaheed, he wrote:

“War is not jihad. War is called qital, and it only arises now and then. Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God, and this goes on for a long period. It is only your misconception that you term qital as jihad.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 108]

More references for Maulana Shah Ismail Delawi RH

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (d. 1831) – Respected by Ahle Hadith, Deobandis, and Ahmadis

He was a Muslim military and religious leader who fought against Sikh rule in the North West of India, and is regarded as a mujaddid of the thirteenth century Hijrah. It is recorded about him:

When he was going forth to conduct jihad against the Sikhs, a man asked him: ‘Why do you go so far to fight jihad against the Sikhs, when the British are ruling the country and they are deniers of Islam. Conduct jihad against them in every house and wrest India from them; millions of people will support and help you’

The British Government—although a disbeliever in Islam—does not treat the Muslims with any cruelty or high-handedness, nor does it prevent them from attending to their religious obligations or observing the obligatory acts of worship. I preach and propagate (the Faith) in their kingdom but they never impede or oppose it. Rather, if someone commits any excess against us, they are ready to punish him. Our real task is the propagation of Tauheed—the Unity of God—and the renaissance of the Sunnah—precepts—of the Chief of all the Messengers—which we perform without let or hindrance in this country. So why should we wage a Jehad against the British Government and, contrary to the principles of our Faith, needlessly shed blood on either side.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 71]

“The British government has granted Muslims the freedom to fulfill their religious duties.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 115]

Those who did Rebellion against British were Mushrik/Sinners/Animal

“No one has heard even to the present day that a Muwahhid (monotheist) obedient to the ordinances of Mahomed, the Koran and the Hadis, has ever violated his promise, been faithless or intent upoen violence and rebellion. All those who proved troublesome to, and rebellious against, the British officials were mukallids of the Hanafia church, and not the followers of the Hadis.”

[Interpreter of Wahabism, p.41]

Scholars getting paid by British

“The agricultural land that Allah Almighty has granted me through the government is 4 Murabba (100 acres) in size.”

[Ishaatus Sunnah, vol. 19, no. 1, 1902]

https://ia803107.us.archive.org/25/items/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi.pdf

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%208%20hawaly

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%207%20hawaly

1) Syed Ahmad Barelvi Angraiz Dost Ya Angraiz Dushman By Inayat Ullah Chishti Chakralavi – Article

Most Sunni organizations defending Khatam un-Nabiyyin belong to the Deobandi sect. Ironically, the founder, Qasim Nanotwi, held a position on the Seal of Prophethood similar to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS), the Ahmadi or Qadiani view. Furthermore, Deobandis elevate their own scholars to prophethood, which proves they reject the Finality of Prophethood.

Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi and His Position on Khatam an-Nabiyeen

Qasim Nanotwi did not believe Seal of Prophethood refers to the Finality of Prophethood, he held that the Seal of Prophethood means Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ reached the highest level of perfection in all the qualities and ranks of prophethood. He explained that greatness is not about coming first or last, but about reaching the most complete and perfect status. For this reason, even if another prophet were to appear after him ﷺ or at the same time elsewhere, it would not affect the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ unique and superior position, because all others would still remain below him ﷺ.

Statement 1

The public imagine that Rasulullah (SAW) being Khaatam literally means that his time is after the time of all the previous prophets, and he is the Last Prophet of all. However, the people of understanding will be enlightened as to the fact that there is no excellence or virtue, in essence, of being either the ‘first’ or ‘last’. Then in what form is it correct to attribute a praiseworthy station of excellence in the verse “but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets” (33:40)?

[Tahzir An-Nas, pg. 14]

Statement 2

Rather, if, hypothetically, after the time of the Prophet (SAW) another Prophet is born, even then it will make no difference to the Khaatamiyyat-e-Muhammadi (Seal of Prophethood of Muhammad) – similarly if another Prophet is his contemporary in another Earth, or even on this Earth another Prophet is made.

[Tahzir An-Nas, pg. 63]

Statement 3

Therefore, the person who possesses this attribute, which is Khaatam as-Siffaat (Seal of Attributes), to a greater degree of manifestation, that is, there is no attribute above it or which has the possibility of being manifested and granted into the creation – Such a person, among the creation, is the Khaatam al-Maraatib (Seal of Stations), and that person is the master of all and the most superior of all.

[Intisar-ul-Islam, pg. 48]

Statement 4

There is no status above that of the Khaatam (Seal) of the stations of Prophethood. Whoever becomes (a Prophet) is subordinate to it.

[Mubahasa Shahjahanpur, pg. 25]

Deobandi Scholars on the Seal of Prophethood

Maulana Qari Muhammad Tayaib Qasmi

Maulana Qari Muhammad Tayaib who is called ‘Hakeem al-Islam’ by the Deobandis which means ‘The Wise scholar of Islam’ is the grandson of Qasim Nanotwi and he explains Seal of Prophethood in the same way.

Statement 1

The meaning of Khatme Nabuwat is not the termination of prophethood but rather consummation of prophethood i.e such a complete prophethood has been sent that there requires no need for anymore prophethood after that. This is like when you see numerous stars at night, you can also see the moon but its still night. The day has not come even with all their light. Everyone is shining and spreading light but it is still dark. But even a slightest ray of Sun hides the stars away. Now if the Sun says “I am Khatimun Noor. I seal the noor. I end all the noor”. It means that I have brought the most complete noor thus there is no need for the stars. Their noor will be incorporated within me.

So when Muhammad (S.A.W) claimed that “I am Khatimun Nabiyyin” so the Khatme Nabuwat does not mean “Ending of the prophethood” but the “Perfection of Prophethood”. That the Sun of the prophets brought a light so bright that the light of any star was not needed anymore. It will become dim. Light of all the stars will be incorporated with it. When the sun rises, it is not that the light of all the stars end. But rather it gets incorporated within the light of that sun. When Islam came, all the excellencies of the past religions got integrated within it. Islam is the compilation of all religions. This is why Quran describes its glory by saying that I have not come to deny all previous religions but to protect them. Whichever truth was in there, I took while discarded the teachings that nations have changed. So, all the virtues got compiled in Islam. So prophethood is the compilation of all the prophethoods while Islam is the compilation of all the laws (shariah) of the past.

[Youtube Video: Deobandis REJECT Finality of Prophethood!?!; Time Stamp: 0:00-1:59]

There are two key points being made from this passage. The first is that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the last of the Prophets, but only in this sense that all the qualities and attributes of prophethood found their most perfect and complete cultivation and expression in him ﷺ. That is to say that no prophet after him ﷺ could ever add anything new or higher to the status of prophethood, because its perfection was already fully manifested in him ﷺ. So, being the “last” is less about being last in time, but about completion and perfection.

The second point being made is that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the last of the Law bearing Prophets. This point is in harmony with the first point that is being that since the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ brought together the best qualities and teachings of all previous prophets and Islam and his ﷺ religion, integrates the truth from earlier religions while correcting the parts that were changed or corrupted by people. It means that Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ prophethood is the compilation of all earlier prophethoods while Islam is the compilation of all previous laws (shariah). Therefore, no Prophet can come after the Holy Prophet ﷺ who should abrogate his religion and not be in his Ummah.

His other statements will be presented on this matter which further reflect these same ideas:

Statement 2

And this is the status of the description of Khaatam, this attribute comes from it and returns to it. He is the Faateh (meaning first) and the Khaatam, the first one (having this attribute) and the last one. This is why we will not say that the sun is only luminous, rather it is Nur Bakshi (meaning it provides light)…we will not only say it is possessor of light but Khatam ul Anwar, as the light of all stars come from it, and in this movement of light, it goes back to it. So being Khatam ul Anwar will be the most distinguished of its qualities, and this can properly describe its particularity

[Aftab-i-Nabuwwat, pg. 80]

Statement 3

In the same way, the status of the sun of Prophethood (the Noble Messenger of Allah SAW) is not only being a Prophet, this quality is common among all Prophet. So his real particular quality is that in matters of prophetic light, he is the Murabbi of all Prophets, and the Masdar of Faydh (centre of emanation) for them, and the origin of their excellent lights. This is why he is a Prophet in real, and the other Prophets (peace be upon them) are not (Prophets) in real but became Prophets from his Faydh (emanation).

[Aftab-i-Nabuwwat, pg. 81]

Statement 4

The status of Huzur is not only being a Prophet, but also Nubuwat Bakhshi (meaning he provides Prophethood), every person who is ready for Prophethood and comes in front of him will become a Prophet. In the same manner, the light of Prophethood started from him and will return to him, and this is the description of Khatam…” For this reason, we do not simply call him (Prophet Muhammad SAW) as a Prophet but he is called Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen that all of the lights of Prophethood find their ultimate manifestation in him, making him the pinnacle of Prophethood.

[Aftab-i-Nabuwwat, pg. 82]

Shaykh Muhammad Abu Bakr Ghazipuri al-Ansari

Shaykh Muhammad Abu Bakr Ghazipuri al-Ansari defends Qasim Nanotvi statements and essentially affirms that seal of prophethood does not mean being the last in time, because being last in history has no special value on its own rather, it means he ﷺ is the one in whom prophethood reached perfection and through whom all other prophets are validated. Therefore, this perfection would not be negated if another prophet were to come after him ﷺ; rather, that prophet too would only be a prophet by bearing his stamp of approval and deriving authenticity through him.

He strove to incite people against the Imam in regards his statement that the Prophethood of Muhammad is original and the Prophethood of the other Ambiyaa stems from the effulgence of his Nubuwah. That also means that he is the Seal of the Ambiyaa, from the first of them to the last, in aspects of personality, time and place. Even if in theory there should have been a prophet after him, that would have no effect on his Finality, because his Nubüwah is vested in himself originally whilst the others stem from his effulgence. There is no doubt that that statement is correct. It is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. It is from Rasulullaah that the chain of Nubüwah originated. He was the Nabi from primordial times and was already then the Seal of Ambiyaa by the decree of Allaah, before even the presence of the creation, before there was time and place, before any Nabi came to the world. Sadly, the author of the booklet did not understand this subtle meaning due to his ignorance and enmity against the Deobandis. He thus spewed against ash-Shaykh an-Nänotwi what he spewed and his tongue spoke like a devil. The statement of ash-Shaykh an-Nänotwi is in fact in the same style as that Ibn Taymiyah. He presented his argument based on the Quraan and Hadith, in a style and division modern intelligence can understand. If the author of the booklet has any intelligence then he should listen very carefully to what Hujjatul Islaam wrote.

[Was Ibn Taymiah From the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah?, pg. 44]

Deobandi Prophets

Deobandi apologists such as Shaykh Usman Iqbal argue that that merely attributing exclusive prophetic qualities to an individual constitutes a violation of Khatam al-Nubuwwah:

The same thing is said by the famous Deobandi scholar Khalid Mahmud:

The belief in the finality of prophethood is not a play of words, where one merely accepts the word ‘prophet’ while continuing the reality and significance of prophethood in the name of Imamate.

Hujjat al-Hind, Hazrat Imam Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi, in Sharh Muwatta, writes:
“Allah’s Messenger (SAW) is the Seal of Prophethood, but the meaning of this statement is that it is not permissible for anyone to be a prophet after him. As for the meaning of prophethood—being someone sent by Allah to creation, whose obedience is obligatory, protected from sins, and free from error in what is required—this exists in the Imams after him. That person, however, would be a heretic. The majority of later scholars among the Hanafis and Shafi‘is agreed to punish anyone who follows this path.”

The conclusion of Hazrat Shah Sahib’s ruling is that anyone who holds the belief that after the Holy Prophet (SAW) there could arise in this Ummah individuals who are divinely inspired and infallible is by no means a true believer in the doctrine of the finality of prophethood, even if verbally they call the Prophet (SAW) Khatam an-Nabiyyin a thousand times.

[Abaqat, vol 1, pg. 239]

However, this is ironic, because they follow scholars who elevated themselves to such extreme levels that, by their own logic, they themselves end up defying the Finality of Prophethood.

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi: I Am Infallible

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi claimed that he was free from error:

Khan Sahib said that Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) once said to Maulvi Muhammad Baiti Sahib Kandhlawi: “Look up such-and-such issue in Shami.”

The Maulvi replied, “Hazrat, that issue is not found in Shami.”

Hazrat said, “How can that be? Bring Shami.”

Shami was brought. At that time, Hazrat had already lost his eyesight. He placed two-thirds of the pages to the right and one-third to the left, and by estimation opened the book in one motion. He then said, “Look on the lower part of the page on the left.” When they looked, the issue was found exactly in that spot. Everyone was astonished.

Hazrat then said, “Allah Almighty has promised me that He will not allow anything incorrect to come out of my tongue.”

[Arwah-e-Salasa, pg. 230]

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s Promise of Salvation to His Followers

In this passage, it is recorded that Rashid Ahmad Gangohi reassured his followers, telling them that it had been promised to him that they would be saved and would not enter Hellfire.

A person in Gangoh used to cry a lot in the assemblies of Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah sanctify his secret), and even by nature, he was very emotional. On one occasion, Hazrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi asked him:

“Why do you cry so much? Why are you distressed?”

He replied:

“Hazrat! I fear Hell—how will the fire be bearable?”

Hazrat said:

“No, no! There is nothing to worry about. It has been promised to me that your people will not be sent to Hell.”

[Maslak Ulama-e-Deoband aur Hubb-e-Rasul, pg. 37]

He entered the highest echelon as a principal member, whose words, actions, and the state of his heart and limbs have been protected by Allah in every era. In matters of speech and bodily action, divine support and guidance were granted so that creation could be safeguarded from error and misguidance.

He repeatedly stated in his capacity as a preacher, through a skilled translator:

“Whatever comes from the tongue of Rashid Ahmad is indeed true. I swear, I am nothing, yet in this era, guidance and salvation depend upon following me.”

In matters where people, bound by reasoning and evidence, fell into disputes and could not fully distinguish between truth and falsehood, wandering in the deserts of doubt and confusion, Hazrat Imam Rabbani (may Allah sanctify his secret), through the light of his heart, kindled by the lamp of prophethood, clearly spoke the truth, clarified the correct path, and rendered decisions without requiring external corroboration.

[Tazkira-tur-Rasheed, vol 2, pg. 17]

The Second Founder of Islam: Rashid Ahmad Gangohi

After Gangohi died, his student , Mawlana Mahmud Hasan, who is also called Shaykh al-Hind by the Deobandis wrote a poem in praise of Gangohi. He writes:

A second founder of Islam has emerged in the world

[Marsiya Gangohi, pg. 5]

The Disciple of Gangohi: His Pen Moves Beyond the Arsh

Aashiq Ilahi Mirathi wrote this about Gangohi:

At the time when your opponents raised an uproar over the issue of imkān-e-kidhb and published a verdict of excommunication, in the gathering of Sāʾīn Tawakkul Shāh Sahib of Anbalā, a certain cleric mentioned Imām Rabbānī (may his sanctity be exalted) and said that he held the view of the possibility of falsehood being attributed to God.

Upon hearing this, Sāʾīn Tawakkul Shāh Sahib lowered his head, and after remaining in silent meditation for a short while, he raised his head and, in his Punjabi language, uttered these words:

‘People, what are you saying? I am seeing the pen of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Sahib moving beyond the ʿArsh (the Throne).

[Tazkira-tur-Rasheed, vol 2, pg. 322]

Again, Deobandis must ask themselves: when an individual claims that Allah has promised him infallibility, that his followers will be spared from Hell and his followers shamelessly describe that same individual as the second founder of Islam and say his pen moves beyond the Arsh, does such a personality resemble a mere scholar, or does he bear the attributes of a prophet?

For the confused Deobandis, they should refer to the statement of Khalid Mahmud again.

Gangohi Invoked ‘Mercy of the Worlds’ Upon a Saint

In the Quran “Mercy to all mankind” (Rahmatullil ‘Alamin) is a title uniquely attributed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ however, Gangohi permits the titles for scholars or saints:

The title Rahmatullil ‘Alamin is not exclusively a characteristic of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Other saints, prophets, and pious scholars (ulama rabbaniyyin) can also be a source of mercy for the world. Although the Prophet ﷺ is the highest among them, it is permissible to attribute this phrase to others in a figurative sense.

[Fatawa-e-Rashidiya, pg. 242]

According to the Deobandis, Imdadullah Muhajir Makki is also Mercy to all Worlds (Rahmatan Lil Aalamin):

When Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) received the news of Hazrat Haji Sahib’s passing, he remained profoundly distressed for several days. The shock and sorrow were so great that it was evident even outwardly that he had such deep love for him. Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) repeatedly invoked rahmatullil ‘alamin (mercy of the worlds) upon him.

[Malfoozat-e-Hakeem-ul-Ummat, vol 1, pg. 138]

Rank of Prophethood Present in Gangohi

Deobandi scholar Manazir Ahsan Gilani writes:

In Maulana Muhammad Qasim Sahib, the aspect of the rank of sainthood (wilayat) was dominant, while in Maulana Gangohi, the aspect of the rank of prophethood was (dominant).

[Sawanih Qasimi, vol 1, pg. 477]

The Prophetic Revelation of Qasim Nanotwi

Qasim Nanotwi felt as though the weight of a hundred tons of stones was weighing down upon his heart as a consequence of offering Tasbih. His pir, Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki reassured him by saying:

These are the emanations [faidan] of Prophesy on your heart. And this is that heaviness which the Prophet ﷺ used to feel at the time of Revelation. God shall take from you that service/tasks which is taken from Prophets

[Sawanih Qasimi; vol 1, pg. 259]

Ashraf Ali Thanwi: The Road to Salvation

Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Meerthi elevates Ashraf Ali Thanwi to such a high status that he claims washing Thanwi’s feet and drinking the same water is a means of attaining salvation in the Hereafter. Deobandis again should ask themselves who are the real deniers of Khatam al-Nubuwwah?

His (Ashraf Ali Thanwi) excellence reached such a level that, by Allah the Most Great, washing the feet of Maulana Thanawi and drinking that water became a means of salvation in the Hereafter.

[Tazkira-tur-Rasheed, vol 1, pg. 113]

Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s Approval of a Kalima Recited in His Name

A disciple reportedly recited “La ilaha illa Allah, Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah” and a Durud invoking blessings on Ashraf Ali Thanwi, when Thanwi heard about this, he reassured the disciple and said:

There was assurance in this incident that the one to whom you return back to [Ashraf Thanwi], with the help of Allah the Exalted, is a follower of the Sunnah.

[Risala al Imdad, pg. 35]

In this case, a disciple openly recited words attributing prophethood to Thanwi, and Thanwi approved it. While condemning others for overstepping the bounds of finality of prophethood, their own scholars venerated themselves in such ways that effectively violates the finality of prophethood.

A Refutation of Deobandi Counter Arguments

Qasim Nanotwi Affirmed Chronological Finality?

Some Deobandi apologetic articles quote statements of Qasim Nanotwi to suggest he affirmed the finality of prophethood. Their main argument is that Nanotwi distinguished two main aspects of Seal of prophethood:

• Martabah (rank) – the primary meaning, referring to the superiority and exalted status of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
• Zamānī (temporal/chronological) – the secondary, incidental meaning, referring to the Prophet ﷺ being the last in time.

Deobandi writers argue that while Nanotwi primarily argued about the rank aspect, he also affirmed the temporal finality, which differentiates him from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS), whom they claim did not accept the Zamānī aspect.

Firstly, if such was true then Nanotwi’s earlier statements would be contradicted. He explicitly said it is possible for another prophet to come without violating the Seal, and he also stated that there is no inherent virtue in Muhammad ﷺ being called the “last in time” as cited earlier.

Therefore, it would be inaccurate to claim that Nanotwi believed Allah conferred this title as a special honour especially when the verse 33:40 itself addresses the disbelievers mocking the Prophet ﷺ for having no physical progeny, affirming instead that he will have a spiritual progeny until the end of time. Thus contextually “being last in time” is not inherently meritorious just as the last caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate was not greater than the first.

Secondly, Qasim Nanotwi did not define khatamiyyat zamani as chronological finality. Rather, he defined khatamiyyat zamani to mean that Muhammad ﷺ is the last sharīʿah-bearing Prophet. In other words, Islam will not be abrogated, no new religion will be revealed, and therefore no prophet after Muhammad ﷺ can appear with a new sharīʿah or religion.

Two explicit statements from him will be presented below:

And the scholars of the People of the Sunnah (Ahle Sunnat) also explicitly state this matter, that in the era (or during the time) of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), no Prophet possessing a new law (Sharī’ah Jadīd) can appear/exist and any prophet who is contemporaneous with him saw will be follower of Mohammedan Shariah

[Tahzir An-Nas, pg. 91]

The meaning of Khatamiyyat-e-Zamaani is that after the advent of Deen-e-Muhammadiؐ , it won’t be abrogated. The knowledge of Nubuwwat has reached its apex. No other Prophet’s Religion or Knowledge is now needed for Bani Adam

[Munazarah Ajeeba, pg. 58]

Therefore, any statement in which Deobandis allege or give the impression that Qasim Nanotwi affirmed khatamiyyat zamani as chronological finality is either based on misunderstanding or deception. All such statements, when read in light of his own explicit definitions, refer to finality in the sense that Muhammad ﷺ is the last sharīʿah-bearing Prophet.

Just like Qasim Nanotwi, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) explained there are two main aspects of Khatm al-Nubuwwah:

• Martabah (rank) – All perfections of prophethood were completed in him ﷺ.
• Zamānī (temporal/chronological) – After him ﷺ, no messenger will bring a new shariah, and there is no prophet outside his community. Rather, anyone who receives divine communication now receives it through his ﷺ grace and mediation, and such a person is considered a follower of his Ummah, not an independent prophet.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) states:

But the Holy Prophet ﷺ was given a special honor as the Seal of the Prophets: All perfections of prophethood were completed in him. After him, no messenger will bring a new shariah, and there is no prophet outside his community. Rather, anyone who receives divine communication now receives it through his grace and mediation, and such a person is considered a follower of his Ummah, not an independent prophet.

[Roohani Khazain, vol 23, Chashma Ma’rafat, pg. 380]

If both Qasim Nanotwi and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) affirmed Khatm al-Nubuwwah in terms of both Martabah (rank/superiority) and Zamānī (temporal/chronological finality), and both defined Zamānī in identical ways, then there is effectively no difference in the core meaning of finality of prophethood between them.

Qari Muhammad Tayyab al-Deobandi: Muhammad (SAW) is NOT the Last Prophet

Misquoting Qasim Nanotwi to suggest he believed in the chronological finality of prophethood contradicts how major Deobandi scholars explained it. For example, Qari Muhammad Tayyab explicitly stated that prophethood has not ended. A transcription of his recording was cited earlier in this article, and he has also written extensively on this topic. Full details of his statements can be found in this article.

Qari Muhammad Tayyab al-Deobandi on the Seal of the Prophets and the Return of ‘Isa ﷺ

Secondly, claiming that Qasim Nanotwi defined khatamiyyat zamani as purely chronological finality contradicts how Qari Muhammad Tayyab rationalised the return of Prophet Isa (AS). He recognized that if khatamiyyat zamani meant being last in time, a contradiction would arise: Prophet Isa (AS) returning after Muhammad ﷺ would appear to challenge Muhammad ﷺ’s status as the Seal of the Prophets. Qari Muhammad Tayyab resolves this by explaining that Isa (AS) will follow the law of Muhammad ﷺ thus there is no contradiction, since the Qur’an contains all previous knowledge and the Prophet ﷺ’s character embodies the qualities of all prior prophets. This shows that Muhammad ﷺ is the ultimate perfection in prophethood, with all other prophets, including Isa (AS), subordinate to his law. Consequently, this entails that Muhammad ﷺ is the last sharīʿah-bearing prophet: no new religion will be revealed, and Islam will not be abrogated, fully aligning with Qasim Nanotwi’s and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s (AS) definition of khatamiyyat zamani.

The comprehensiveness of perfection in character that exists in the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is clearly understood from the incident wherein Siddiqah ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was asked about the prophetic character. She responded, “His character was the Qur’an” (Ahmad). In other words, all of that which exists in the Qur’an in the form of knowledge exists in the form of character and aptitude in the Prophet ﷺ … Since the Qur’an encompasses [the knowledge of] all the previous books and is a collection of the Prophet ﷺ’s character, this establishes that his character encompasses all the characteristics of the previous prophets. This is a clear proof for the Prophet ﷺ being the finality of the perfection in character and being at the highest degree of perfection in creation. Hence, it is self-evident from this that the Blessed One ﷺ in whom all the foundations of prophethood are contained and who is superior to all, only he can then be the primary one (asl) of these foundations (prophets).

A covenant was taken from the prophets to believe, follow and aid the Prophet [Muhammad] ﷺ on the basis of him being the primary prophet as is clear from the verse of the Qur’an, “When Allah took the covenant of the prophets” )3:81). The Prophet ﷺ elucidated, in light of this verse, that the previous prophets are all under the Seal of the Prophets by saying, “If Musa (peace be upon him) was alive, he would have had no option except to follow me” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah). The upshot of this is that Musa (peace be upon him) – the resolute messenger who was given a shari’ah – had to be obeyed [by mankind] in the absence of the Seal of the Prophets, but in the presence of the Seal of the Prophets, rather than being the one who is to be obeyed, he becomes the one who obeys [the Seal of the Prophets]. This is only possible when his rank is deemed below the Seal of the Prophets’ rank, because in reality all the control and authority of the one who is subordinate (ma taht) comes from the one above (ma fawq), i.e., it is given to him by the one who is higher in authority.

[The principle is that] in the presence of the primary authority, the authority of the secondary is nonexistent. This is exactly like the prime minister saying to his [subordinate] ministers, “In my presence, none of you has full authority. Your ability to command comes into effect only in my absence.” It can be understood from this that the authority of the one below is nonexistent in the presence of the one above him, even if the rank of the one below customarily remains intact. This principle is not just restricted to this case, but rather this is the case of every primary and secondary entity in any sphere, i.e., in the presence of the primary, the secondary has no control. In the presence of the father, for example, his own son (who has his own children) would feel shy in calling himself “father” in front of him, let alone pointing to or using his right of fatherhood. This is because his fatherhood is secondary to his father’s fatherhood, and in the presence of the primary, the status of the secondary does not remain. Furthermore, for example, one would feel shy in referring to a stream as a “river” if the ocean is right in front of him, because [the reality is that] wherever a body of water exists it is directly or indirectly fed by the ocean. This is why once all these mighty rivers reach the ocean, they flow into the ocean’s flow. Their own rate of flow does not remain intact. Also, for example, stars would feel shy to refer to themselves as radiant when the sun is shining, because their primary star is in front of them. In the presence of the primary, the secondary feels shy of its own existence, let alone becoming a claimant to its [independent] existence.

In the same manner, upon the rising of the Sun of all Guidance ﷺ, it is natural and innate for all the prophets to conform to this Seal of the Prophets rather than implement their own law, i.e., rather than ruling according to their own prophethood or commanding [others] to rule by them. This is the same reality which has been made clear in the above-mentioned hadith that if a previous prophet finds himself in the period of the Seal of the Prophets, the laws of the finality of prophethood (khatm al-nubuwwah) shall apply upon him and his nation rather than his own laws … which in reality is a clear proof for the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ being primary in perfection, and all non-final prophets being secondary in [this] perfection.

Even though the above-mentioned hadith in regards to Musa (peace be upon him) portrays a hypothetical scenario but when in the period of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Isa (or Jesus) (peace be upon him) will be made to descend from the heavens, he will [in actuality] follow the religion of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ. In fact, it is possible that ‘Isa (peace be upon him) was raised to the heavens alive, so that he be made to descend from the heavens to the earth in the last period to make this very reality apparent, such that in the age of strife he perform renewal (tajdid) of the Shar‘iah of the Prophet ﷺ, while obeying it, with all the powers of his prophethood. Therefore, through this, the obedience of a previous prophet to the Shari’ah of the Prophet ﷺ no longer remains a matter of creed (aqidah) only, but rather a practical example will [now] be in front of all.

This practical example also establishes that this is not just in reference to a single Israelite messenger, but rather the adherence of all the Israelite prophets is established through this because ‘Isa (peace be upon him) is the final prophet of the Banu Isra’il and the last link in the chain of the Israelite prophethood (nubuwwah). If the last link of a continuous chain is pulled in one direction, the entire chain will naturally be pulled in the same direction. The ruling of the last link in the chain will be considered the ruling of the entire chain. Therefore, there is no reason to not accept this as proof for the entire chain of [Israelite] prophets to be followers of the way of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ, after the descent of ‘Isa (peace be upon him) as a follower of the way of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ, as he is the last link in the chain of Banu Isra’il prophets.

Especially when this is [also] in accordance with the Torah’s clarification, as has been mentioned in hadiths, that Musa (peace be upon him) supplicated, “If the likes of the ummah of Muhammad cannot be given to me then include me in it”. Therefore, the final prophet of Musa (peace be upon him)’s chain [i.e. ‘Isa, peace be upon him] will be sent as a reviver of Islam and as a follower of the Shari’ah of the Prophet ﷺ. ‘Isa (peace be upon him) will be included in the ummah of the Prophet ﷺ to fulfill the desire of Musa (peace upon him). As ‘Isa (peace be upon him) is a prophet who is the end point of the Israelites, when he becomes a member of the ummah of the Prophet ﷺ, the entirety of Israelite prophethood from Musa to ‘Isa (peace be upon them both) becomes included in the ummah of the Prophet ﷺ as followers.

Through the connection between the first and last, i.e., through making apparent the obedience to the way of the Prophet ﷺ by the very first Israelite messenger (Musa) and the very last (‘Isa), all of the Israelite messengers – who were the most superior in the world in their respective times – are as a result proven to be followers of the Prophet ﷺ. In addition to this, all the earlier prophethoods which culminated in the station of Isra’iliyyah, due to them being the predecessors to Isra’iliyyah, are included in this following of the Prophet ﷺ [as well]. Consequently, the same ruling is derived for all the prophets (peace be upon them), i.e., their prophethoods are considered secondary to the Seal of the Prophets. Through this, it becomes evident that the Prophet ﷺ is the prophet of the prophets (nabi al-anbiya’).

From this, another issue is clarified in regards to the period of the Prophet ﷺ, which is the last period, if the prophets have no option but to practice obedience to the Prophet ﷺ, then it is an open declaration that their nations also have no option but to be obedient to the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ. In fact, salvation in the Hereafter is restricted to the religion of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ [as the Qur’an declares]:

“If anyone seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.” (3:85)

Thus, the title of Khatam al-Nabiyyin (Seal of the Prophets) has made apparent the primary nature of the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ and that he is the one who is followed in the universal sense.

[Aftab-e-Nubuwwat, pg. 86-89]

Qasim Nanotwi Made an Error, and No One Is Obliged to Follow Him?

When unable to reconcile Qasim Nanotwi’s position on the Seal of Prophethood, Deobandis may claim that he simply made an error and that no one is obliged to follow him. However, according to Deobandi sources themselves, he received divine insight when explaining Khatam an-Nabiyeen. In Al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad it is written that Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi received kashf (revelation from Allah) when explaining Khatam an-Nabiyeen in his book titled Tahzīr An-Nās.

This puts the Deobandis and the admirers of the Deobandi sect in a predicament: either say they lied and Allah never gave them such revelation to write such statements, or say they are right and consequently agree that the Ahmadi position, which is identical, is not only right but their aqeedah is also informed by divine insight.

Nor will you attain the honor of his comprehensive excellence and complete merit; this subtle point is Maulana’s revelation (kashf) regarding the majesty, exalted rank, and greatness of the Prophet ﷺ.

[Al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad, pg. 42]

On top of that, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (the author of Al-Muhannad), a leading figure in the Deobandi school, explicitly defends the Nanotwi’s position in Al-Muhannad. When someone defends a position, they do not reject it; they affirm it. This defense, along with the attestation and certification of Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad by 24 leading Deobandi scholars including Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Mahmud ul Hassan, and others shows that the Deobandi authorities collectively accept and uphold Qasim Nanotwi’s position, leaving no room for denial. The names of the 24 scholars can be read below:

• Shaykh al-Hind, Hadhrat Mawlana Mahmud Hasan — d. 1339 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Mir Ahmad Hasan Sahib Amrohi — d. 1330 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Aziz al-Rahman ‘Uthmani — d. 1347 AH
• Hakim al-Ummah, Hadhrat Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi — d. 1362 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim Raipuri — d. 1337 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Hakim Muhammad Hasan (brother of Shaykh al-Hind) — d. 1345 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Qudrat Allah Muradabadi
• Hadhrat Mawlana Habib al-Rahman ‘Uthmani (brother of ‘Allamah Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani) — d. 1348 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Ahmad (son of Hadhrat Nanotwi) — d. 1347 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Ghulam Rasul, teacher at Dar al-‘Ulum Deoband — d. 1337 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Suhail — d. 1367 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana ‘Abd al-Samad
• Hadhrat Mawlana Hakim Muhammad Ishaq Nahawri Dehlawi
• Hadhrat Mawlana Riyad al-Din, Madrasah ‘Aliyah, Meerut
• Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Kifayat Allah Dehlawi — d. 1372 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Ziya al-Haqq Dehlawi
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Dehlawi
• Hadhrat Mawlana ‘Ashiq Ilahi Meerthi — d. 1360 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Siraj Ahmad, Sardhana, Meerut
• Mawlana Qari Muhammad Ishaq, Madrasa Islamiyyah, Meerut
• Mawlana Hakim Muhammad Mustafa Bijnori
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Mas‘ud Ahmad Gangohi (son of Hadhrat Gangohi)
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Yahya Saharanpuri — d. 1334 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Kifayat Allah Gangohi, teacher at Mazahir al-‘Ulum Saharanpur

[Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (with Preface and Notes by Muhammad Ilyas Ghuman), pg. 8-10]

Not only that, Deobandi scholars today themselves state that there is an ijmāʿ among Deobandis upon the contents and beliefs outlined in Al-Muhannad ʿala al-Mufannad, and that the beliefs expressed in Al-Muhannad represent the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. To such an extent, they maintain that whoever rejects even a single statement contained in Al-Muhannad can no longer be regarded as a Deobandi. For example, Deobandi scholar Ilyas Ghuman states:

Thus, this book (Al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad) represents the unanimous work of the Deobandi scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, following the attestations of these senior scholars. Now, anyone who claims affiliation with the Deobandi scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah is required to accept all the views and beliefs contained in this book.

[Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (with Preface and Notes by Muhammad Ilyas Ghuman), pg. 12]

The same thing is said by Deobandi scholar Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi who very explicitly says that four generations of Deobandi scholars all agreed to and affirmed the beliefs outlined in Al-Muhannad ʿala al-Mufannad. That means four successive generations of Deobandi scholars confirmed and upheld Qasim Nanotwi’s position and now the fifth generation of their students is continuing and upholding the same beliefs:

The elders of Deoband have passed through several generations. The first generation consisted of Hazrat Nanotwi, Hazrat Gangohi, Hazrat Mawlana Muhammad Ya‘qub Nanotwi (may Allah have mercy on them), and their contemporary senior scholars.

The second generation consisted of the students of these elders, among whom were Shaykh al-Hind, Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Hazrat Hakim al-Ummah Thanwi (may Allah have mercy on them), and other senior scholars.

The third generation consisted of their students, including Hazrat Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Hazrat Mawlana Sayyid Husayn Ahmad Madani, Hazrat Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (may Allah have mercy on them), and others.

The fourth generation consisted of their students, including Mawlana Muhammad Yusuf Banuri, Hazrat Mawlana Muhammad Shafi‘ Sahib (may Allah have mercy on them), and their contemporary senior scholars.

And now the fifth generation of their students is ongoing.

Al-Muhannad ʿala al-Mufannad bears the signatures of all the senior scholars of the second generation. These same beliefs were held by the elders of the first generation, and upon these beliefs the elders of the third and fourth generations have remained in agreement. Therefore, there is consensus (ijmāʿ) among all the senior Deobandi scholars upon the beliefs recorded in Al-Muhannad. No Deobandi has any scope to deviate from them, and whoever deviates from them is not deserving of being called a Deobandi.

[Fatawa Bayyinat, vol 1, pg. 526–527]

If Deobandis truly wish to concede that Qasim Nanotwi and all the later scholars who admired, attested to, and defended his statements were mistaken, then they must also concede something far more serious: that Nanotwi and all those scholars were not merely in error, but guilty of kufr. This is because the issue at hand is not a minor fiqh disagreement rather it is a blasphemous ‘aqīdah that has been propagated for over a century.

Deobandis must remember, this is the very same belief for which Deobandis today organise Khatm-e-Nubuwwat conferences, declaring Ahmadis to be disbelievers, apostates, and outside the fold of Islam. It is the same belief for which Ahmadis have historically been persecuted, ostracised, and even killed.

If Deobandis still insist that Nanotwi’s position was merely an error, then they should at least show one Deobandi scholar who is not bound by “delusion” and has made takfīr of Qasim Nanotwi. Other than that, they should also become Barelvis, because then they have validated Ahmad Raza Khan’s fatwas against the Deobandis, in which he accused them of violating the finality of prophethood.

Qasim Nanotwi Was Only Speaking Hypothetically, Not Claiming Another Prophet Will Come?

When referring to this statement:

Rather, if, hypothetically, after the time of the Prophet (SAW) another Prophet is born, even then it will make no difference to the Khaatamiyyat-e-Muhammadi (Seal of Prophethood of Muhammad) – similarly if another Prophet is his contemporary in another Earth, or even on this Earth another Prophet is made.

[Tahzīr An-Nās, pg. 63]

Deobandis often argue that Qasim Nanotwi’s statement about another prophet appearing was purely hypothetical, and that in reality he did not believe another prophet would come. However, this is a strawman, the issue is not on whether he actually believed another prophet will come but his definition on the seal of prophethood itself. He claimed that even if another prophet were to appear, it would not contradict the finality of prophethood. From a Sunni perspective, this is a problem. If the chronological finality of prophethood is essential element to the seal of prophethood in the way as most Sunnis understand it then saying hypothetically another prophet could appear without affecting finality shows he did not believe in the chronological finality of prophethood.

To illustrate the problem, consider this analogy: saying “if God hypothetically became a Trinity, there would be no contradiction to Tawhid” is obviously erroneous, it shows the one making the hypothetical does not actually believe in monotheism. Similarly, even speaking hypothetically, Qasim Nanotwi’s statement reveals a erroneous understanding of the finality of prophethood from the Sunni perspective.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Nanotwi stated that seal of prophethood has two aspects: rank (superiority) and a temporal aspect, meaning that Islam will not be abrogated and that the Prophet ﷺ is the last law bearing prophet. Ahmadis accept both aspects and Qasim Nanotwi did not believe in the chronological finality that is to say Muhammad ﷺ was last in time. This raises an important question for Sunnis, especially those who admire the Deobandi ulema: why are Deobandis not regarded in the same way as Ahmadis and even more so when many Deobandi scholars have been elevated to the level of prophethood?

If Ahmadis are considered rejecters of the finality of prophethood, then Deobandis must be considered rejecters as well.

Critics of Ahmadi Muslims make two contradictory claims about our beliefs. Some say we reject the Quranic verse “Khataman Nabiyyin” and the hadith “La Nabiyya Ba’adi” (no prophet after me). Others say we’ve invented our own twisted interpretation.

Both claims are completely false.

Here’s what happened: Early heretical groups like the Mutazilites and Jahmites rejected the idea that the Messiah would return in the latter days. Their argument? “The Quran says Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of Prophets, and the hadith says there’s no prophet after him. So no prophet can ever come again.“

Islamic scholars had to respond to this denial. They clarified that “La Nabiyya Ba’adi” doesn’t mean no prophet will ever come. It means no prophet bringing a new law (Shari’a) will come after Muhammad ﷺ. This interpretation protects the Islamic belief in the Messiah’s return while still affirming that Muhammad ﷺ is the final law-bearing prophet.

This is exactly what Ahmadi Muslims believe today. On the other hand, the anti-Ahmadis are following the ways of the Jahmites and Mutazilites.

In this article, we will post the references of the Muslim scholars claiming that La nabiyya Ba’adi = There is no LAW-BEARING Prophet after me.

Ibn Qutaibah (d. 267H)

وأما قول عائشة ﵂:”قولوا لرسول الله ﷺ خاتم الأنبياء، ولا تقولوا لا نبي بعده”؛ فإنها تذهب إلى نزول عيسى ﵇، وليس هذا من قولها، ناقضا لقول النبي ﷺ:”لا نبي بعدي”لأنه أراد: لا نبي بعدي، ينسخ ما جئت به، كما كانت الأنبياء صلى الله عليهم وسلم تبعث بالنسخ، وأرادت هي:”لا تقولوا إن المسيح لا ينزل بعده”.

“As for the statement of Aisha ﵂: “Say that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets, and do not say there is no prophet after him”; she is referring to the descent of Jesus. The interpretation put forth by her (Hazrat Aishah (ra)), does not contradict the words of the Holy Prophet (sa). The Holy Prophet (sa) meant that there would be no Prophet after him who would abrogate his law.

[Ta’wilu Mukhtalifil-Ahadith, p. 236]

Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 544H)

Imam Nawawi quotes Qadi Iyad where he is refuting the Muslim sects like Jahmites and Mutazalites. These sects used the hadith “There is no prophet after me” and the Quran 33:40 “he is the seal of the prophets” to reject the Nuzul of the Messiah in the latter days.

Qadi Iyad claims that the hadith does not mean that no prophet will ever come after the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Rather, it means that no prophet with a NEW law will not come. His Ta’wil (interpretation) of this hadith is exactly like how Ahmadi Muslims do.

قَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ (فيبعث الله عيسى بن مريم) أى ينزله من السماء حاكما بشر عنا وَقَدْ سَبَقَ بَيَانُ هَذَا فِي كِتَابِ الْإِيمَانِ قَالَ الْقَاضِي رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى نُزُولُ عِيسَى عَلَيْه السَّلَامُ وَقَتْلُهُ الدَّجَّالَ حَقٌّ وَصَحِيحٌ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ الصَّحِيحَةِ فِي ذَلِكَ وَلَيْسَ فى العقل ولافى الشَّرْعِ مَا يُبْطِلُهُ فَوَجَبَ إِثْبَاتُهُ وَأَنْكَرَ ذَلِكَ بعض المعتزلة والجهيمة وَمَنْ وَافَقَهُمْ وَزَعَمُوا أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثَ مَرْدُودَةٌ بقوله تعالى وخاتم النبيين وَبِقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا نَبِيَّ بعدى وباجماع المسلمين أنه لانبى بَعْدَ نَبِيِّنَا صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَنَّ شريعته مؤبدة إلى يوم القيامة لاتنسخ وَهَذَا اسْتِدْلَالُ فَاسِدٌ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ بِنُزُولِ عِيسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أَنَّهُ يَنْزِلُ نَبِيًّا بِشَرْعٍ ينسخ شرعنا ولا فى هذه الأحاديث ولافى غَيْرِهَا شَيْءٌ مِنْ هَذَا بَلْ صَحَّتْ هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ هُنَا وَمَا سَبَقَ فِي كِتَابِ الْإِيمَانِ وَغَيْرِهَا أَنَّهُ يَنْزِلُ حَكَمًا مُقْسِطًا بِحُكْمِ شَرْعِنَا وَيُحْيِي مِنْ أُمُورِ شَرْعِنَا مَا هَجَرَهُ النَّاسُ

Al-Qāḍī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: The descent of ʿĪsā, peace be upon him, and his slaying of the Dajjāl (Antichrist) is a true and established belief according to Ahl al-Sunnah, due to the authentic hadiths regarding this matter. There is nothing in reason nor in the Sacred Law that invalidates it, therefore it must be affirmed.

However, some of the Muʿtazilah, the Jahmiyyah, and those who followed them denied this. They claimed that these hadiths are rejected based on Allah’s statement “the Seal of the Prophets,” and based on his saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “There is no prophet after me,” and based on the consensus of the Muslims that there is no prophet after our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and that his Sacred Law is perpetual until the Day of Resurrection and will not be abrogated.

This is faulty reasoning, because the intended meaning of the descent of ʿĪsā, peace be upon him, is not that he will descend as a prophet with a Law that abrogates our Law. Nothing of this sort exists in these hadiths or in any others. Rather, these hadiths here, and what preceded in the Book of Faith and elsewhere, have authentically established that he will descend as a just judge ruling by our Sacred Law, and he will revive aspects of our Sacred Law that people have abandoned.

[Sharh Nawawi Sahih Muslim]

Ibn ʿArabī (d. 637H)

Ibn Arabi also explains there will be no prophet after Muhammad (SAW) that will abrogate his Shariah as it is a complete and final law.

فإن النبوة التي انقطعت بوجود رسول الله إنما هي نبوة التشريع لا مقامها، فلا شرع يكون ناسخاً لشرعه ، ولا يزيد في حكمه شرعاً آخر، وهذا معنى قوله : (إِنَّ الرسالة والنبوة قد انْقَطَعَتْ فَلا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي ولا نبي أي لا نبي بعدي يكون على شرع يخالف شرعي، بل إذا كان يكون تحت حكم شريعتي، ولا رسول أي لا رسول بعدي إلى أحد من خلق الله يشرع يدعوهم إليه، فهذا هو الذي انقطع وسدّ بابه لا مقام النبوة

That the Prophethood that ended by the Holy Prophet (SAW) is only a law bearing prophethood … Therefore, no law can come to abrogate the Shariah of Prophet (SAW), nor add any command to it, and this is the meaning of the saying of Prophet (SAW) that prophethood and messengership has been terminated. “لا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي ولا نبي” i.e no prophet can come after me who is on another Shariah other than mine. But yes, a prophet can come in such a case that he comes under the command of my Shariah…

[Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, vol. 3, pg. 6]

فما ارتفعت النبوة بالكلية، ولهذا قلنا: إنما ارتفعت نبوة التشريع، فهذا معنى لا نبي بعده، وكذلك من حفظ القرآن فقد أدرجت النبوة بين جنبيه فقد قامت به النبوة بلا شك فعلمنا أن قوله : لا نبي بعده أي لا مشرع . يكون بعده نبي، فهذا مثل قوله : إذا هلك كسرى فلا كسرى بعده، وإذا هلك قيصر فلا قيصر بعده

That prophethood has not been taken away completely. That is why I said that only law bearing prophethood has ended and this is the meaning of لا نبي بعده. Thus, I have understood that the purpose of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) saying لا نبي بعده and it is in the same meaning that no one will one will be after me who brings a new Shariah because there is no prophet after Muhammad (SAW). It is exactly same as the Prophet (SAW) saying that after this Khosrau dies, there will be no Khosrau after him and after the Caesar dies, there will be no Caesar after him.

[Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, vol. 3, pg. 88]

فَالنُّبُوَّةُ سَارِيَةٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فِي الْخَلْقِ وَإِنْ كَانَ التَّشْرِيعُ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ فَالتَّشْرِيعُ جُزْءٌ مِنْ أَجْزَاءِ النُّبُوَّةِ

Prophethood will continue until the Day of Judgement, although, the bringing of a new Shariah (law) has ended. Thus, the bringing of Sharia (law) is one part among the many parts of prophethood.

[Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, vol. 3, pg. 135]

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H)

Ibn Taymiyyah also explains that the meaning of Khatam al-Rusul is that there will be no prophet after Muhammad (SAW) that will abrogate his Shariah as it is a complete and final law.

كما نصر الله محمدًا على أعدائه، وقال: في كل الدهور سلطانه كامل ليس له فناء، وهذا صفة خاتم الرسل الذى لا يأتي بعده نبى ينسخ شرعه وسلطانه بالحجة واليد كامل لا يحتاج فيه إلى الاستعانة بشرع آخر، وشرعه ثابت باق إلى آخر الدهر

Just as Allah granted victory to Muhammad over his enemies, and said: ‘In all ages his authority is perfected, having no end.’ This is the attribute of the Seal of the Messengers, after whom no prophet comes to abrogate his law. His authority, through proof and power, is perfected, needing no assistance from another law. His law is firm and enduring until the end of time.

[Al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddala dīn al-Masīh, pg 500]

Abd al-Karim al-Jili bin Ibrahim Jillani (d. 831H)

Jili was a descendant of the Sufi saint Abdul Qadir Gilani, the founder of the Qadiriyya dervish order.

فَانْقَطَعَ حُكْمُ النُّبُوَّةِ التَّشْرِيْعِ بَعْدَهُ وَكَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَاتَمَ النبيين

The command of Law bearing Prophethood ended with the Prophet (SAW). Thus, this is why Prophet (SAW) is called Khataman Nabiyyin.

[Al-Insan-ul-Kamil, pg. 120]

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 910)

قلنا: هذا الحديث بهذا اللفظ باطل

قال الزاعم: الدليل حديث لا نبي بعدي

قلنا: يا مسكين لا دلالة على هذا الحديث بوجه من الوجوه لأن المراد : لا يحدث بعدي نبي بشرع ينسخ شرعي. كما فسره بذلك ثم يقال لهذا الزاعم : هل أنت آخذ بظاهر الحديث فإن هذا يلزمك أحد أمرين: اما نفي نزول عيسى عليه السلام ، أو نفي النبوة عنه ، وكلاهما كفر

What is meant is that “No prophet will come after me” with a Shariah that abrogates the Shariah [of Islam]…

Then this claimant will be asked: do you take this hadith literally and disagree with our interpretation? Then, you must choose one of two options-either deny Jesus’s descent or deny his prophethood when he descends. Both options are deemed to be kufr!

[Nuzūl ʿĪsā ibn Maryam ākhir al-zamān, pg 53]

Mujaddad Alf Thani (d. 971H)

“Following the advent of Hazrat Muhammad, the Chosen One, the Seal of the Prophets(sa), the attainment of the attributes of prophethood by his followers as subordinate or by way of inheritance, will in no way conflict with his status as the Seal of the Prophets. So do not be amongst the doubters.”

[Maktubat Imam Rabbani, Book 1, Maktub no. 301, vol. 2, p. 775]

Hazrat Imam ‘Abdul-Wahhab Sha’rani (d. 976H)

“نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي وَلَا رَسُولَ الْمُرَادُ بِهِ لَا مُشَرَعَ بَعْدِي”

“The Holy Prophet’s (sa) statements that there will be no Prophet or no Messenger after him only meant that there will be no law-bearing Prophet after him.”

[al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir, vol. 2, p. 35]

Mulla ‘Ali Al-Qari (d. 1013H)

ومع هذا لو عاش إبراهيم وصار نبيا، وكذا لو صار عمر نبيا لكانا من أتباعه عليه الصلاة والسلام كعيسى والخضر وإلياس عليهم السلام. فلا يناقض قولَه تعالى: (وخاتم النبيين) إذ المعنى أنه لا يأتي نبي بعده ينسخ ملته ولم يكن من أمته

Had Ibrahim lived and become a prophet, and likewise had Umar become a prophet they would be follower prophets of the Holy Prophet , peace and blesings of Allah be upon him, like Isa, Khidar and Ilyas upon whom all be peace. It does not contradict the divine word ‘Khataman Nabiyyeen’ which means that there shall not be a prophet abrogating his law nor one who was not of his Ummah.

[Al-Asrar Al-Marfu’a Fil-Akhbar Al-Mawdu’a, pg. 183]

Shah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dehlavi (d. 1175H)

He is also a Mujaddid (reformer) of the 12th century and respected by almost everyone (Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, Najdis, and Ahmadis)

فعلِمنا بقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: لا نبي بعدي ولا رسول، وأن النبوة قد انقطعت والرسالة، إنما يريد بها التشريع

“From the words La Nabiyya ba’di used by the Holy Prophet (sa), we learn with certainty that there would be no Prophet after him who would bring a new Law or Shari’ah.”

[Qurratul-‘Ainain fi Tafdilish-Shaikhain, p. 319]

وخُتم به النبييون.. أي لا يوجد من يأمره الله سبحانه بالتشريع على الناس

“The closing of prophethood with the Holy Prophet^saw means that there can be no divinely inspired reformer after him who would be commissioned with a new law by Allah”

[Tafheemat-e-Ilahiyya, vol. 2, pg. 85]

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rasul al-Barzanji (d. 1103H)

In his Sharh of Mishkat al-Masabih, he writes

ورد “لا نبي بعدي” ومعناه عند العلماء أنه لا يحدث بعده نبي بشرع ينسخ شرعه

According to the Ulema, the meaning of the hadith لا نبي بعدي (There is no prophet after me) is that there will no prophet will be given a Shariah that abrogates the Shariah of Muhammad (SAW).

[Isha’ah li-Ashrat al-Sa’ah, pg. 139]

Qasim Nanotwi (d. 1297H)

Founder of the Deoband Movement.

سو عوام کے خیال میں تو رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کا خاتم ہونا بایں معنی ہے کہ آپ کا زمانہ انبیاء سابق کے زمانے کے بعد اور آپ سب میں آخری نبی ہیں مگر اہل فہم پر روشن ہوگا کہ تقدم و تاخر زمانی میں بالذات کچھ فضیلت نہیں۔ پھر مقام مدح میں وَلكِن رَّسُولَ اللهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ فرمانا اس صورت میں کیوں کر صحیح ہو سکتا ہے۔

According to the layman, the Prophet (SAW), being the KHATAM (seal) means that he must have appeared after all the previous prophets and that he is the last prophet. But men of understanding and the wise know it very well that being the first or the last, chronologically, does not carry any weight. How could, therefore, the words of the Holy Qura’n: ”But he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets” (33:41) glorify him? But I know very well that none from among the Muslims would be prepared to agree with the common men.

[Tahzir un Nas, 14]

اگر بالفرض بعد زمانہ نبوی ﷺ بھی کوئی نبی پیدا ہو تو پھر بھی خاتمیت محمدیؐ میں کچھ فرق نہ آئے گا

Rather, if, hypothetically, after the time of the Prophet (SAW) another Prophet is born, even then it will make no difference to the Khaatamiyyat-e-Muhammadi (Seal of Prophethood of Muhammad) – similarly if another Prophet is his contemporary in another Earth, or even on this Earth another Prophet is made.

[Tahzir un Nas, 63]

Allama Abdul Hayee al-Lucknawi (d.1304)

Maulvi Abdul Hayee Lucknowi Firangi Mahali¹ was a giant among the Ulema of the Ahnaaf residing in India. He was a supporter of Qasim Nanotvi, He Supported Tehzeer un Naas and wrote a book on the same topic. The Deobandi and Nadwi schools of thought particularly respect him.

Maulvi Abdul Hayy, like Qasim Nanautawi (Founder of Deoband) staunchly defended this saying attributed to Sayyidina Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) even though Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) consider it as Shaadh (an oddity in the terminology of Hadith science).

The Deobandis in particular passionately defend this Athar and believe in its contents whole-heartedly, while other sects reject it.

One of the objections made against this Athar by those who deny it is that it contradicts the Holy Qur’an’s pronouncement that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen (Seal of the Prophets) so there can not be any prophet after him.

بعد آنحضرت کے یا زمانے میں آنحضرت کے مجرد کسی نبی کا ہونا محال نہیں بلکہ صاحب شرع جدید ہونا البتہ منع ہے۔

After the demise of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, or even during his own lifetime, it is not an impossibility for someone to be exalted to the position of a simple prophet. But a prophet with a new Law is, indeed, forbidden.

[Dafi Ul Waswas Fi Asr E Ibn E Abbas, pg. 12]

علمائے اہل سنت بھی اس امر کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں کہ آنحضرت صلعم کے عصر میں کوئی نبی صاحب شرع جدیدہ نہیں ہو سکتا اور نبوت آپ کی تمام مکلفین کو شامل ہے اور جو نبی آپ کے ہمعصر ہو گا۔ پس ہر تقدیر بعثت محمد یہ عام ہے۔

The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah also confirm that no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (SAW) could bring a new Shariah…

[Dafi Ul Waswas Fi Asr E Ibn E Abbas, pg. 3]

Ulemā Ahle Sunnat also subscribe to the view that following the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) no law-bearing prophet can come. The prophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) is wide in scope. Any prophet who would now come would be from the ummah and follow his sharī‘ah”

[Maulvi Abdul Haye, Majmū‘ah Fatā’wā, Volume 1, Page 17]

Maulana Abdul Hayee Lakhanwee was also asked if a prophet could come from among Indian Subcontinent (mard-e-Hindi) or Afghans who support Muhammad (SAW) and refutes the Christian doctrines and books.

He replied: Yes, It is allowed!

[Majmua al Fatawa Abdul Hayee Lucknowi page 112]

Nawab Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (d. 1307H)

One of the most famous Salafi scholar.

مردودة بقوله تعالى ( وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّنَ )، وبقوله : (لا نبي بعدي) وبإجماع المسلمين أنه لا نبي بعد نبينا وأن شريعته مؤبدة إلى يوم القيامة لا تنسخ وهذا استدلال فاسد لأنه ليس المراد بنزول عيسى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أنه ينزل نبيا بشرع ينسخ شرعنا،

“[The objection] is refuted by the statement of Allah (the Exalted): ﴾وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّنَ﴿ (and the Seal of the Prophets), and by his (the Prophet’s) statement: «لا نبي بعدي» (There is no prophet after me), and by the consensus of the Muslims that there is no prophet after our Prophet and that his shariah is permanent until the Day of Judgment and will not be abrogated. This [contrary] argument is invalid, because the meaning of the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him) is not that he will descend as a prophet with a law that abrogates our law.”

[Al-Siraj Al-Wahhaj Fi Kashf Matalib Muslim Bin Al-Hajjaj Sharh Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim Li Al- Hafiz Al-Mundhiri, vol.2, pg. 296]

Nūrul Ḥasan Khān (d. 1335H)

The famous and well-known religious leader of the Ahl-e-Hadith(Salafi), Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan’s son, Nūrul Hassan Khan Ṣāḥib, who was also a prominent Islāmic scholar of his time states in his book, Iqtirab al-Sa’ah:

“The Hadees “La Wahi b’ada Mautee” has no foundation, although “La Nabiyya Ba’adee” is quite correct, which, according to the people of knowledge, means there shall be no prophet after me who shall bring an abrogating divine system of law.”

[Iqtarabus Sa’at, p.162]

The position of the real Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama’ah concerning Khatam an-Nubuwwah, since time immemorial has been that after Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the advent of law-bearing Prophets is forever terminated and now impossible, but the advent of Prophets who are in obedience and compliance with his Shari’ah has never been ruled out.

Salafi/Najdi scholars (Modern day)

These include notable scholars like Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin ‘Abdullah bin Baz, Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih Al- Uthaimin, and Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdur-Rahman Al-Jibreen.

There is no contradiction between his descent and the fact that our Prophet. Muhammad is the Last of the Prophets, since ‘Isa will not bring a new Law and the Judgement belongs to Allah, from first to last; He does as He wills and He judges as He wishes, and there is no appeal against His Judgement, for He is the All-Powerful, Most Wise.

[Fatawa Islamiyah, vol 1, pg 307]

Mahmud Khattab al-Subki (d. 1352)

مردودة بقوله تعالى ( وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّنَ )، وبقوله : (لا نبي بعدي) وبإجماع المسلمين أنه لا نبي بعد نبينا وأن شريعته مؤبدة إلى يوم القيامة لا تنسخ وهذا استدلال فاسد لأنه ليس المراد بنزول عيسى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أنه ينزل نبيا بشرع ينسخ شرعنا،

[This is] refuted by Allah the Exalted’s saying: ‘and Seal of the Prophets,’ and by his [the Prophet’s] saying: ‘There is no prophet after me,’ and by the consensus of Muslims that there is no prophet after our Prophet, and that his law is perpetual until the Day of Resurrection and will not be abrogated. This [objection] is a corrupt argument because what is not intended by the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, is that he descends as a prophet with a law that abrogates our law.

[Ad Deen Al Khalis, vol. 1, pg. 95]

Muhammed Maftuhin Tamini

قال الأشقر في القيامة الصغرى: “يقول النووي في رده على المكذبين بنزول عيســى الزاعمين أن نزوله لو كان حقاً فإنّه يكون مناقضاً لقوله عليه السلام: لا نبي بعدي، وأنه يكون بذلك ناسخاً لشرع الرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلّم. هذا الاستدلال فاسد، لأنه ليس المراد بنزول عيسى عليه السلام أنّه ينزل نبياً بشرع ينسخ

Al-Ashqar said in ‘The Minor Resurrection’: ‘Al-Nawawi says in his refutation of those who deny the descent of Jesus, claiming that if his descent were true, it would contradict his [the Prophet’s] saying, peace be upon him: ‘There is no prophet after me,’ and that he would thereby be abrogating the law of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This reasoning is corrupt, because what is not intended by the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, is that he descends as a prophet with a law that abrogates

[Ra’i al Jama’a fi Bayan Aqida al-Suwad al-A’dham min al-Ummah, vol.1 pg. 99]

References

When Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, passed away, it is said that Hindus and Muslims argued over how to handle his body. Hindus wanted cremation, while Muslims wanted burial. The story goes that when both sides entered the room, the body was gone, leaving only flowers under the sheet. The sheet was then divided, and each community disposed of it according to their respective rites but how much of this story is true, and what actually happened to Guru Nanak’s body?

Sikh Scholars: Muslims Believed Guru Nanak Was a Muslim and Wanted Islamic Burial

The first point to note is that Muslims did not envy or hate Guru Nanak. In fact, many Muslims of that time believed he was a pious Sufi Muslim. The following examples from Sikh literature illustrate this perspective.

Twarikh Guru Khalsa

All the knowledge, skills, and spiritual qualities that are considered to be at the prophetic level in Islam, Pir Hussain attributed only to Guru Nanak.

[Twarikh Guru Khalsa]

Bhai Bala Janamsakhi

This text reveal Muslims calling Guru Nanak a ‘wali’ (saint) during his lifetime.

The Muslim people said that he must be a saint of God, completely absorbed in his Lord

[Janam Sakhi Bala, p. 132]

While this text shows that Muslims referred to him as Nanak Dervish Ji and that he performed Hajj. The term Dervish is an Islamic Sufi designation for a pious, ascetic person.

Mullah Jivan said, ‘Nanak Dervish ji, you have performed Hajj according to the four books’

[Janam Sakhi Bhai Bala, p. 136]

Sikh Scholar Sardar Khazan Singh

The first detailed study of Sikh history and religion was published in 1914 by Khazan Singh. His work provides a thorough and organised account of the Sikhs and is considered a significant milestone in the early study of Sikh historiography. Sardar Khazan Singh admits Muslims claimed Baba Nanak was Muslim and demanded Islamic burial. It was then said his body mysteriously disappeared from under the covering sheet. The full account can be read here:

[…] A dispute arose between Hindus and Muhammadans regarding the disposal of his body, each party claiming the right to perform the funeral obsequies according to the form of their own respective religion. The Hindus wanted to burn it, whereas the Muhammadans maintained that, being a Muhammadan, his remains should be buried according to Moslem rites. The parties would have fallen upon each other with swords drawn, had not some considerate and more thinking men intervened. When the parties approached the body, which was closed in a room pending the decision of the dispute, they, on raising the sheet with which it had been covered, found, to their great astonishment, that it was gone. There were only some flowers beneath it instead of the body. The sheet was divided in equal halves by the contending parties and disposed of according to their respective religious ceremonies, and two tombs were erected by the parties on the spot side by side. […]

[History and Philosophy of the Sikh religion, p. 106]

What Happened to Guru Nanak’s Body?

When the dispute arose, it is likely that Muslims took Guru Nanak’s body and buried it according to Islamic rites as Muslims believed Guru Nanak to be one of their own and thus wanted to bury him in a manner consistent with what they understood to be his values. The story about the flowers or the body disappearing was likely created to console Hindus and prevent conflict. Several factors suggests this:

Hanafi Muslims: Body Must Be Present for Funeral Prayer

During Guru Nanak’s time, there were Hanafi Muslims in Punjab. According to Hanafi fiqh, the corpse must be present for the Islamic funeral prayer (Janazah), as clearly mentioned in Fatawa ‘Alamgiri, a Hanafi fiqh legal manual. Since accounts claim that the Janazah was performed over only a sheet, this actually confirms that a Janazah did take place. However, since Hanafi law requires the presence of the body, the prayer could not have been validly performed over just a sheet. Given that it is undisputed that Hanafi Muslims conducted the Janazah, it necessarily follows that they had possession of Guru Nanak’s actual body.

Among the conditions [for the funeral prayer] is the presence of the deceased and placing him in front of the prayer area; it is not valid for someone who is absent.

[Fatawa ‘Alamgiri]

Guru Nanak’s Prophecy on His Own Death and Islamic Burial

The Guru Granth Sahib notes that Guru Nanak prophesied he would be buried according to Islamic rites, explicitly stating that takbīr would be recited over him, which is part of the Janazah (Islamic funeral) prayer. No true follower of Guru Nanak would claim that this prophecy did not come to pass. However, if the story of his body disappearing is taken as true, where neither Muslims nor Hindus had access to his body, then Guru Nanak’s words would appear false. If honesty is the aim, this story can be contextualised to suggest that the body did disappear because, in accordance with Guru Nanak’s promise and wishes, the Muslims took his body to bury it according to Islamic rites, with the Janazah prayer performed over him which includes the takbīr.

ਮਮ ਸਰ ਮੂਇ ਅਜਰਾਈਲ ਗਿਰਫਤਹ ਦਿਲ ਹੇਚਿ ਨ ਦਾਨੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
mam sar moo-ay ajraa-eel girafteh dil haych na daanee. ||1|| rahaa-o.
Azra-eel, the Messenger of Death, has caught me by the hair on my head, and yet, I do not know it at all in my mind. ||1||Pause||

ਜਨ ਪਿਸਰ ਪਦਰ ਬਿਰਾਦਰਾਂ ਕਸ ਨੇਸ ਦਸਤੰਗੀਰ ॥
jan pisar padar biraadaraa” kas nays dastageer.
Spouse, children, parents, and siblings—none of them will be there to hold your hand.

ਆਖਿਰ ਬਿਅਫਤਮ ਕਸ ਨ ਦਾਰਦ ਚੂੰ ਸਵਦ ਤਕਬੀਰ ॥੨॥
aakhir bi-aftam kas na daarad choo savad takbeer. ||2||
And when at last I fall, and the time of my death comes, there shall be no one to rescue me; only takbīr will be recited. ||2||

[Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 721]

The English translation in the attached scan evidently mistranslates the text. It is well known that Sikh translations can sometimes be dogmatic. For example, the same translator translated “darud” as a generic prayer to God, when the text was clearly referring to Darud Sharif, a prayer specifically invoking blessings on Prophet Muhammad (SAW). On another occasion, the translator rendered “kitab Quran” as “Quran and Bible.” These mistranslations are identified in this article Guru Nanak’s Faith and Love for Muhammad ﷺ.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) on Guru Nanak’s Disappearance and Burial

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) argued that Muslims buried Guru Nanak (Baba Sahib) based on these very points, he AS argued that:

Even if this idea is correct that secretly some devoted disciple took away Baba Sahib’s body, there is no doubt that such a disciple would have been a Muslim. One strong indication of this is that among Muslims, making a false grave and burying only cloth and considering it a grave is included in deception and sin. Muslims can never do such a thing, and if they had only gotten the shroud, they would have kept it with them as a blessing (tabarruk) and would never have wanted to bury it. Burying a shroud or some other cloth instead of a body is not commanded anywhere in Islam, nor is any trace of it found in the Quran and Hadith. Rather, this is a type of fraud and deception which is not permissible in Islamic law in any way.

The second indication is that at that time in Punjab there were Hanafi Muslims, and according to the Hanafi school of thought, the funeral prayer (namaz-e-janaza) is not valid without the presence of the body. So when those Hanafi Muslims performed Baba Sahib’s funeral prayer, in that case one must accept that somehow those Muslims had obtained possession of Baba Sahib’s body, and then to console the Hindus, this story was kept hidden. This is why Baba Sahib’s cremation (karya karam) is not proven, but the funeral (janaza) is unanimously proven. And Baba Sahib’s prophecy that ‘my funeral prayer will be performed’ is completely fulfilled in this situation when the funeral prayer was performed in the presence of the body, as is the common practice. But we can say with certainty that Baba Sahib’s body was never cremated, because the burning of a body cannot remain hidden in any way. If they had cremated the body, they would have also sent Baba Sahib’s ashes to the Ganges and performed the cremation rituals, but nothing like that ever happened.

Then a third indication is that in Baba Sahib’s Janam Sakhi Kalan, meaning Bhai Angad’s Janam Sakhi, it is mentioned that Baba Sahib preferred to be buried. From this it clearly emerges that Baba Sahib must have secretly willed his Muslim disciples to bury him, because when a person prefers something, they also make arrangements to achieve it, and at such a time, there is no other arrangement except a will.

[Ruhani Khazain, Satt-Bachan, p. 236-237]

Statement 2

The performance of Baba Sahib’s funeral prayer (janaza) is very close to reason/probability, because in the Granth Sahib there is a verse in which Baba Sahib, by way of prophecy, mentioned the performance of his funeral prayer, as he says: “Dunya maqam-e-fani tahqiq dil dani, ham sar mo’az ra’il giriftah dil bech nadani, zan pisar pidar baradaran kisi nist dastgir – akhir biyaftam kas nadard chun shawad takbir.”

Meaning: The world is a place of mortality, this is a verified truth, understand it with your heart. The hairs of my head are in the hands of Azrael (the angel of death), O heart, you have no knowledge at all. Wife, son, father, brother – no one can help/support. Finally, when the takbir, meaning the funeral prayer, will be performed over me, at that time I will be helpless, and I will have fallen helplessly.

Now the word “takbir” is so clear that everyone knows that at the time of death, takbir is only for those over whom the funeral prayer (janaza) is performed.

[Ruhani Khazain, Satt-Bachan, p. 235]

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is indisputable that Muslims buried Guru Nanak based on several points: Muslims would never bury only a cloth, Hanafi fiqh requires the presence of the body for a valid Janazah, the funeral prayer was undeniably performed, cremation never took place, Guru Nanak himself preferred burial, and the Granth Sahib contains a prophecy about his Islamic funeral prayer. Taken together, these points corroborate the claim that Guru Nanak was undoubtedly a Muslim saint RH.

Claiming that the Paighami Ahmadis (Lahori Ahmadis) had been declared as disbelievers is one of the consistent accusations that have been levelled against Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (M.A) R.A. This allegation is generally grounded in a quote of Kalmatul Fasl in which Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. stated that those who accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S. merely as a reformer and who deny his person as the Promised Messiah cannot be considered Muslims.

یہاں مسلمانوں میں ایک ایسا گروہ بھی پیدا ہو گیا ہے جو کہتے ہیں کہ ہم مرزا صاحب کو بڑا بزرگ مانتے ہیں اور ور یہ کہ مرزا صاحب نے اسلام کی بڑی خدمت کی ہے بلکہ بعض تو یہاں تک کہنے لگ گئے ہیں کہ ہم مرزا صاحب کو اس صدی کا مجدد ماننے کے لیے تیار ہیں مگر مسیح موعود کا دعویٰ نہیں مانتے ایسے لوگ یا تو لا مذہب ہیں اور یا منافق کیونکہ یہ کس طرح ہو سکتا ہے کہ مرزا صاحب کو ایک طرف تو مجدد مان لیا جائے اور دوسری طرف انکو مسیح موعود کے دعویٰ میں مفتری علی اللہ سمجھا جاوے ظلمت اور نور جمع نہیں ہوسکتے اگر مرزا سچا ہے اور مسلمان ہے تو وہ اپنے تمام دعاوی میں صادق ہے ورنہ وہ نعوذباللہ مفتری علی اللہ اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے۔ دو ہی راہیں ہیں، یا تو مرزا صاحب کو مسیح موعود مانکر انکی بیعت میں داخل ہونا چاہئیے اور یا پھر ان کو مفتری علی اللہ قرار دیکر کافر سمجھا جاوے- تیسری راہ تو کوئی ہے نہیں۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ حضرت مسیح موعود نے حقیقت الوحی میں لکھا ہے کہ جو مجھے نہیں مانتا وہ مجھے مفتری علی اللہ قرار دیکر کافر ٹھہرتا ہے۔
Among the Muslims here, there has arisen a group who say that, indeed, we regard Mirza Sahib as a great saintly figure, and that Mirza Sahib rendered great service to Islam. Rather, some have even gone so far as to say that we are ready to acknowledge Mirza Sahib as the Mujaddid (Reformer) of this century, yet we do not accept him as the Promised Messiah. Such people are either irreligious or hypocritical, for how can it be that on the one hand Mirza Sahib is accepted as a Mujaddid, and on the other hand, in his claim to be the Promised Messiah, he is considered an inventor of lies against Allah? Darkness and light cannot be combined. If Mirza Sahib is true and a Muslim, then he is truthful in all his claims; otherwise, God forbid, he is a fabricator against Allah and outside the pale of Islam. There are only two paths: either one must accept Mirza Sahib as the Promised Messiah and enter into his allegiance, or else declare him a fabricator against Allah and a disbeliever. There is no third way. This is precisely why the Promised Messiah wrote in Haqiqatul-Wahi that whoever does not accept me, in reality, declares me to be a fabricator against Allah.

[Kalmatul Fasl page 174]

Allegation

Critics argue that: In Kalmatul Fasl Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. mentioned the Paighamis. For this reason, he viewed Paighamis as disbelievers because they did not accept Hazrat Mirza Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S was the Promised Messiah.

The Reality

The accusation is baseless. Text quoted from Kalamtul Fasl did not even mention the Paighamis. What he wrote was aimed at a still other category of people, those who were respectful of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S, who recognized his reformative work, and who even believed that he was a Mujaddid.

Who Were These People?

They were people who publicly acknowledged Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S as a reformer of Islam but did not accept him as the Promised Messiah. Such scholars include:

Maulana Shibli Nomani
Allama Muhammad Iqbal

Clarifying the Principle

It was a straightforward principle as demonstrated by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A., Islam must believe all the claims of a divinely appointed one. Semi acceptance – the recognition of the service of a prophet or of an inquisitor, and the rejection of his own assertion, are irreconcilable with the real needs of the faith.

Conclusion

The imputation that Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. gave takfir against the Paighami Ahmadis is altogether untrue.

Opponents are trying to divide Ahmadis by misrepresenting his words. The reality, however, is evident Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. never did takfir of the Paighamis.

Deobandis, just like other ‘Sunnis’ fabricate lies against Ahmadi Muslims by claiming that we deny that Muhammad (SAW) is Khatam an-Nabiyyin or that we don’t consider the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to be the last prophet. Their only reason for lying about us is to hide the fact that their scholars have said exactly what they are alleging against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS).

Prophethood has ended

Qari Muhammad Tayyab is the grandson of Qasim Nanotwi. Qasim Nanotwi is the founder of the Deobandi sect. Qasim Nanotwi has made numerous statements where he claims that Khatam an-Nabiyyin DOES NOT mean the ‘the last Prophet’, rather, it is the understanding of the common people. In this article, we will show his grandson confirming the same belief. Note, that Qari Muhammad Tayyab is called ‘Hakeem al-Islam’ by the Deobandis which means ‘The Wise scholar of Islam’.

The Manifestations of the Light of Prophethood

When the Muhaddithīn come, the light of my Prophethood will manifest through them. When the Fuqahā come—Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shāfiʿī (rahimahumullah)—my light will shine through all of them; they will have no light of their own. When the noble Sufis appear—Junayd, Shiblī, Bayazid Bastami, etc.—their beings will carry no light except the light of my Prophethood.

From some, the light of my knowledge will appear; from others, the light of my character; from others still, the light of my zuhd and contentment. All of them will manifest my light, and my one Prophethood will be sufficient until the Day of Judgment. New mirrors will keep appearing, and that same light will keep radiating; the world will continue to be illuminated.
There is no need for a new prophethood, because all degrees of Prophethood have been perfected and completed in me. To interpret Khatam-un-Nabiyyīn as “the door of Prophethood is shut” is to mislead people. Its true meaning is the perfection and completion of Prophethood, not the severance of Prophethood or the spread of darkness.

Do not fall into the deception that Khatm-e-Nubuwwat means qataʿ-e-nubuwwat. It means kamāl-e-nubuwwat and takmīl-e-nubuwwat. O Prophet ﷺ, you are the Khatam—meaning that the ranks and stages of Prophethood end with you. After you, every reformer, muhaddith, imam, saint, martyr, and mujahid will carry only one light: your light. They are vessels, and from each vessel the perfection of your Prophethood will shine.

It is as if Allah created such a Being that from his blessings the earlier ones became Prophets, and the later ones became Saints. Sainthood and Prophethood both emanate from the same source. The Prophets of the past benefited from your Prophethood, and those who come after continue to become saints, reformers, and muhaddathīn through the perfections granted to you.

[Khutbat-e-Hakeem al-Islam, vol. 1, pg. 124]

This is just part of the sermon of Qari Muhammad Tayyab. Everyone can read the complete sermon and other statements where he expands on the same exact topic. Here is one video for the benefit of the Urdu speakers. It has English subtitles for non-Urdu speakers.

Conclusion

This leads to many questions.

1. Why are Deobandis takfiring Ahmadi Muslims when their leading scholars are publicly claiming that Khatme Nabuwat DOES NOT mean ‘termination of prophethood’?
2. Why are they not takfiring their ulema or why are their modern day ulema not takfiring their own founders? Why the hypocrisy?
3. Why are the rest of the ‘Sunnis’ silent on this issue when they are the loudest voices against Ahmadi Muslims?
4. Where are the ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ gangs who lynch non-Muslims and Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan? How are they protecting ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ when they are literally teaming up with those who are claiming Muhammad (SAW) is NOT the last prophet?

No one from amongst the ‘Sunnis’ will ever be able to answer these questions!