The following is a translation of Taḥdhīr un Nās (find PDF here). Despite the technical nature of much of the discussion (and shortcomings in translation), a reader can get a gist of Maulānā Muḥammad Qāsim Nānotwī’s style of inquiry and understand clearly the case he develops.
This recent muḥaqqaq edition of the work was used for the translation.
Subtitles in this edition were added by the muḥaqqiq, but everything else is from the pen of Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī. Hence, the subtitles were modified somewhat in the translation and put in parentheses.
On the topic of Taḥdhīr un Nās, readers are requested to also see:
Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi on Khatm al-Nubuwwah – A Detailed Analysis
Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s Thesis in Taḥdhīr un Nās Simplified
Context/History of Taḥdhīr un Nās
Precedents for Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s Tafsīr of Khātam al-Nabiyyīn
How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Manufactured a Quote from Taḥdhīr un Nās to Make Takfīr on Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī
Eliminating Doubts about Taḥdhīr un Nās
‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī Defends Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī
The Decisive Debate (p18-31)
Refutation of False Allegation Against Imām Nānotwī [Arabic]
[One will very quickly conclude that the Barelwī and Qādiyānī claim that the work rejects the chronological finality of the Prophet Muḥammad’s (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) prophethood is manifestly false and a clear misreading.]
Note: If learned readers notice any mistake in translation, they are requested to comment below. Corrections will be made accordingly.
Key parts are highlighted like so.
Taḥdhīr al-Nās min Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās
By Ḥujjat al-Islām Maulānā Qāsim al-Nānotwī (1833 – 1880 CE)
[Question from Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī]
What do scholars of religion say of this matter:
That with respect to the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās which is found in al-Durr al-Manthūr and other sources:
Verily, Allāh created seven earths. In each earth is an Ādam like your Ādam, a Nūḥ like your Nūḥ, an Ibrāhīm like your Ibrāhīm, an ‘Īsā like your ‘Īsā and a Prophet like your Prophet.
Zayd[1] – in following a scholar[2] who was also endorsed by a muftī of the Muslims[3] – wrote this statement:
My belief is that the aforementioned ḥadīth is authentic and reliable. And the levels of the earth are separate. In each level there are creatures of the divine. It is inferred from the aforementioned ḥadīth that there are prophets in each level. However, although there being a “seal” on each of the remaining levels is established, their being equal to our “seal of prophets” is not established. Nor is it my belief that those “seals” are equal to the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) because the children of Ādam that have been mentioned in, “We have ennobled the children of Ādam” (Qur’an, 17:70), and are better than the rest of creation, are the children of the Ādam of this level by consensus. And our Ḥaḍrat (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is better than all the children of Ādam. Thus, undoubtedly, he is better than all creatures. Thus, the “seals” of the other levels that are included within “creatures” cannot be equal in any way to him.
Despite writing this, Zayd says: “If something contrary to this is proven from the Sharī‘ah, I will accept that. I am not adamant on this statement.”
Thus, the question to the scholars of Sharī‘ah is:
Do the words of the ḥadīth contain the possibility of these meanings or not? And will Zayd become a disbeliever[4] or sinner or outside of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama‘ah because of this statement or not? Clarify and be rewarded.
[Answer]
All praise belongs to Allāh, Lord of the Worlds. And blessings and peace be upon His Messenger, the Seal of Prophets, and the chief of the messengers, and his progeny and all his companions.
[Preface]
After praising [Allāh] and [sending] blessings [on the Prophet]:
Before presenting an answer, it is submitted that first the meaning of “the Seal of Prophets” (Khātam al-Nabiyyīn)[5] should be understood so there is no difficulty in understanding the answer.
Hence, in the understanding of common people, the Messenger of Allāh (Allah bless him and grant him peace) being the “seal” is with the [primary] meaning that his time comes after the time of the previous prophets, and he is the last of all prophets.[6] However, it is clear to men of understanding that there is no intrinsic virtue in coming earlier or later in time. Then, how can it be valid, in this case, that ”but the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of Prophets” (Qur’ān, 33:40) is in a context of praise?[7]
Yes, if this description is not regarded as being from the attributes of praise, and this context is not determined as a context of praise, then certainly “sealship” in terms of chronological lateness [alone] may be valid. But I know that no one from the adherents of Islām can accept this because, firstly, there will be an assumption of excess in speech (refuge is from Allāh) with respect to the Lord. Ultimately, what is the difference between this attribute and attributes of stature and height, form and colour, family and lineage, residence and so on, which have no involvement in prophethood or other merits, such that this one is mentioned, and others are not mentioned? Secondly, there will be an assumption of lessening the status of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) because it is the perfections of the people of perfection that are mentioned, and such circumstances are described of such people. If heed has not been taken, then review the histories.
[A Question and its Reply]
The possibility [of the following explanation] remains: This religion is the last religion. Hence, it blocked the door[8] to following claimants to prophethood who, by making a false claim to everyone, will misguide creatures. Although, in itself [this possibility] is worthy of attention, but then what will be the viability of the sentence, “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men but the messenger of Allāh and the Seal of Prophets,” in which one has been made a conjunction to the other, and one has been made a mustadrak minhu (the subject of correction) and the other an istidrāk (correction)?
It is obvious that this kind of disconnectedness and unsuitability is inconceivable in the inimitable, ordered, speech.[9] If closing the aforementioned door was [alone] kept in view, then there were scores of other opportunities.
[Identifying the Basis of Sealship]
Rather, sealship[10] is based on something else, from which chronological lateness and closing the aforementioned door are automatically necessitated, and prophetic virtue (upon him blessing and peace) is multiplied.
The elaboration of this summary is [as follows].
The attribute of one that embodies an attribute extrinsically culminates at one that bears the attribute intrinsically[11]. Similarly, one that embodies the attribute extrinsically acquires the attribute from one that embodies it intrinsically. The attribute of one that embodies the attribute intrinsically – which in being intrinsic and not acquired from another is understood by the word “intrinsically” – is not acquired and borrowed from another.
If an example is required, then take [the following illustration]:
If the light of the earth and roads, the door and walls, is the effusion of the sun, the light of the sun is not an effusion of anything. In being an intrinsic attribute, my intent is only this. Assuming that this quality is not intrinsic to the sun, whatever you state [as the ultimate source], that will bear the attribute intrinsically, and its light will be intrinsic, and will not be acquired from anything else or be an effusion from anything else.
In short, it is obvious that the series ends at the one that embodies an attribute intrinsically. Thus, if there is a [rational] reason why there is no god besides God, it is this: The existence and perfections of existence of all possible entities are temporal, that is, extrinsic, and this is the reason that at times it is present, at times non-existent, at times possessing perfection and at times devoid of perfection. If these things were intrinsic of possible entities, such attachment and detachment would not have come about. Existence and the perfections of existence would remain permanently like a concomitant and its cause.[12]
[His Prophethood is Intrinsic]
Thus, in this way, consider the sealship of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Meaning, he embodies the attribute of prophethood intrinsically. All prophets besides him bear the attribute of prophethood extrinsically. The prophethood of others is his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) effusion. Since his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) prophethood is not the effusion of any other, the series of prophethood is culminated at him. Thus, just as he is prophet of the ummah, he is prophet of the prophets.
[The First Evidence of Intrinsic Prophethood]
This explanation is proven by:
When Allāh made the prophets enter into a covenant: (saying) “If I give you a book and wisdom, then comes to you a messenger verifying what is with you, you shall have to believe in him, and you shall have to support him.” He said, “Do you affirm and accept my covenant in this respect?” They said, “We affirm.” He said, “Then, bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.” (Qur’ān, 3:81)
A covenant was taken from the noble prophets to adopt faith in him and to follow and adhere to him. Further, he stated: “If Ḥaḍrat Mūsā (upon him peace) was alive, he would have followed me.”[13] Moreover, that Ḥaḍrat ‘Īsā (upon him peace) will practise upon his Sharī‘ah is based on this.
[The Second Evidence of Intrinsic Prophethood]
Here, the statement of the Messenger of Allāh:
علمت علم الأولين والآخرين
“I was taught the knowledge of the earlier and later ones,”[14] with the condition of understanding (its intent), points to this.
The explanation of this conundrum is that it is clear to every elite and common person from this statement that the knowledges of the earlier ones, for example, are one thing, and the knowledges of the later ones are another, but all those knowledges are gathered in the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). The knowledge of hearing is something else and the knowledge of sight is something else, yet the rational faculty and rational soul gathers all these knowledges. Understand thus the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and the remaining prophets (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). If hearing and seeing are perceptive and knowing, they are so indirectly, for the true perceiver and true knower is the intellect and the rational soul. In this way, the true knower is the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), and although the remainder of the prophets and all previous and future saints and scholars are knowers, it is indirectly.
[Prophethood is from the Perfections of Knowledge]
At the same time, those of understanding know that prophethood is from the perfections of knowledge. It is not from the perfections of practice. In short, the perfections of intelligent beings are limited to two categories. One is perfection in knowledge and the other perfection in practice. All praise is based on these two things.
Thus, in the speech of Allāh (Qur’ān, 4:69), four groups are praised: prophets, siddīqs, shahīds and ṣāliḥs. The perfection of the prophets and siddīqs is perfection in knowledge and the perfection of the shahīds and ṣāliḥīn is a perfection in deeds. Consider the prophets to be the spring of knowledge and its agent, and the siddīqs the residue of knowledge and recipient. Consider the shahīds the spring of deeds and their agent, and the ṣāliḥīn the residue of deeds and recipients.
The evidence for this assertion is that if prophets are distinguished from their ummahs, they are distinguished by knowledge. What remains is deeds. In this, at times, outwardly, an ummatī becomes equal and even surpasses him.[15] Even though in strength of action and aspiration, prophets surpass their ummatīs, so the position or description of shahādah has also been acquired by them, nonetheless, when someone is assigned a title it is based on his overwhelming character trait.
Mirzā Jān e Jān Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him), Shāh Ghulām ‘Alī Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him), Shāh Walī Allāh Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him) and Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him), all four combined spirituality and knowledge. Thereafter, Mirzā Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him) and Shāh Ghulām ‘Alī Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him) are famous in spirituality, while Shāh Walī Allāh Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him) and Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Sāhib (Allāh have mercy on him) in knowledge. The reason for this is that the knowledge of the latter dominated their spirituality while the spirituality of the former dominated their knowledge, even though the knowledge of the former is not less than the knowledge of the latter nor is the spirituality of the latter less than the spirituality of the former.
Thus, for prophets, knowledge dominates deeds, even though their deeds, fortitude and strength dominate the deeds, strength and fortitude of others. Anyhow, the prophets (peace be upon them) are distinct from others in knowledge. The realisation of prophethood is this perfection in knowledge, just as the realisation of siddīqiyyat is also perfection in knowledge.
This is further corroborated by the words “naba’” and “ṣadaqa” from which the above names (nabī and ṣiddīq) are derived. “Naba’” refers to information itself, which is from the categories of knowledge or things that are known, and “ṣaḍaqa” is from the qualities of knowledge.
In nubuwwat and ṣiddīqiyyat there is the distinction in activeness and receptiveness that is found in the sun and mirror when in opposition. Thus, the verbal ḥadīth which means: “That which God bestowed in my heart I have bestowed onto Abū Bakr”, proves this.
Moreover, just as Nabī is called “Nabī” because he is aware or makes aware, ṣiddīq is called “ṣiddīq” because his mind does not accept anything besides a truthful word. He accepts a truthful word without evidence just like the stomach does sweets, and rejects a false word just like the stomach does a fly. Hence why for Ṣiddīq Akbar [Abū Bakr] there was no need for a miracle to accept īmān.
Similarly, the material realisation of shahīd, by indication of ḥadīth, is the person who is ready to give his life to elevate Allāh’s world and advance religion. Thus, when someone asked the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace): “Some fight for love of wealth, some for tribalism – meaning for family and tribal loyalty – and some for fame, who from them is shahīd?” He said:
من قاتل لتكون كلمة الله هي العليا
“The one who fights for the world of Allāh to be supreme.”
In short, shahādah in this case is from the characteristics of fortitude and strength of action. Shahīd is the highest category of the commander of virtue and forbidder of vice. Perhaps it is based on this that the shahīd is called “shahīd”. Meaning, on the day of judgement, he will be witness that such-and-such person obeyed divine command and so-and-so did not, because the extent of knowledge of this that the commander of virtue and forbidder of vice has, cannot be found in others. Understand his testimony like the testimony of government officials in any legal case.
Thus, stating in respect to this Ummah:
كنتم خير أمة أخرجت للناس تأمرون بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر
“You are the best nation brought out for people, commanding virtue and forbidding vice.”
And the statement here:
وكذلك جعلناكم أمة وسطا لتكونوا شهداء على الناس
“Thus, have We made you a middle nation so that you are witnesses over mankind.”
By reflection, points towards this aspect.
In short, from the shahīd is effusion of deeds, meaning they cause others to do good deeds and prevent them from bad deeds. The one who acquires their effusion is “ṣāliḥ”. It is evident that in the matter of being diligent in deeds only he can do so who is himself accomplished in deeds. Whether by means of commanding and forbidding, or by means of companionship, the one from whom the effusion of deeds is expected, he is “shahīd”, and the one who acquires this effusion is “ṣāliḥ”.
Once this has been firmly rooted in the mind, it will be realised automatically that since prophethood is from the perfections of knowledge, and in regards to knowledge, the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) has embodied this attribute intrinsically, thus in regards to prophethood too he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) has embodied the attribute intrinsically.
[The Third Evidence of Intrinsic Prophethood]
In the verse:
وإذ أخذ الله ميثاق النبيين لما آتيتكم
The expression: “مصدق لما معكم” that is found in it, after considering that this address is to all prophets (upon them peace), and the word mā is inclusive of all knowledges and books, is further evidence that prophethood is from the perfections of knowledge, and he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) brings together all knowledges, while other prophets do not. In short, that which is proven from the ḥadīth: “علمت علم الأولين والآخرين” is proven with something extra in the aforementioned verse. One thing that is extra is that prophethood being from perfections of knowledge is evident from this [verse] because by stating that the characteristic of the Messenger is that he is “مصدق لما معكم” – which is definitely from amongst the perfections of knowledge, because taṣdīq (confirmation) is conceivable only from knowledge – it is pointing to the knowledge of this Messenger being inclusive.
Furthermore, along with this, the word “rasūl” (messenger) – with the understanding that in the Arabic language it refers to messenger and a message is included within commands and prohibitions, which is a type of knowledge – is indicative of this.
Taking the covenant [from all prophets], from which it is established he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is “Nabī al-Anbiyā’” (prophet of prophets), was mentioned earlier.
[The Fourth Evidence of Intrinsic Prophethood]
Furthermore, the ḥadīth:
كنت نبيا وآدم بين الماء والطين
“I was a prophet while Ādam was between water and clay.”
Points to this. The distinction between an ancient prophethood and a subsequent prophethood despite being one in nature can only be properly made sense of when one is an intrinsic characteristic and the other is extrinsic. The understanding of the distinction between ancient and subsequent and permanent and incidental is evident from this ḥadīth. Everyone understands that if prophethood being ancient in this way was not exclusive to him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) then he would not have stated this in a context of specificity.
[The Fifth Evidence of Intrinsic Prophethood]
Furthermore, the verified understanding of the respected noble Ṣūfīs (Allāh have mercy on them) that the Murabbī (nurturer) of Ruḥ Muḥammadī (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is the “first determination” (ta‘ayyun awwal), meaning the characteristic of knowledge, further supports this. It is evident that from the nurturing of a poet, poetry will be acquired, and from the nurturing of a doctor, medical knowledge will be acquired, and from the nurturing of a muḥaddith, ḥadīth will be acquired and from a faqīh, fiqh. Thus, the one who is nurtured by the characteristic of knowledge, which is absolute knowledge, and like sights and hearings is not specific knowledge or a specific type, then definitely the one receiving nurturing, meaning the pure essence of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) too, will be a possessor of perfection in absolute knowledge.
It is evident that all the specific parts that are found in limited entities (muqayyadāt) will be included within the absolute entity (muṭlaq). Hence, this is exactly the same meaning as: علمت علم الأولين والآخرين.
[The Sixth Evidence]
This is the reason that for the specific miracle that a prophet receives like a certification of appointment and as proof of prophethood, and in view of need it is kept under control at all times – and is not like specific blessings which on some occasion is under control and not on others –[16], our Ḥaḍrat (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) received the Qur’ān, which is تبيانا لكل شيء “explanation for all things”, so that it is realised he is unique in this matter. Each individual’s miracle is only expected in the area in which others do not have a share and he is unique. For example, if others are helpless before a Persian calligrapher, they are helpless in writing an excellent piece of calligraphy, but not considered helpless in other fields.
In short, the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) embodies the attribute of prophethood intrinsically and prophets (upon them peace) apart from him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) embody it extrinsically.
[There is a Necessary Correlation between Intrinsic Sealship and Chronological Sealship]
In this scenario, if the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was placed first or in the middle, then if the religion of later prophets was different to the Muḥammadan religion, it would entail the higher being abrogated by the lower, while it [i.e. the Muḥammadan religion] itself declares:
ما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها نأت بخير منها أو مثلها
“Whatever We abrogate of revelation or cause to be forgotten We bring something better than it or the like of it.”
Why should this not be so? Had this not been so, granting religion would not have been part of mercy, but rather from the effects of wrath. Yes, if it was conceivable that the knowledges of superior ‘Ulamā’ (learned ones) are lesser and smaller than the knowledges of inferior ‘Ulamā’ (learned ones), there would be no such restriction. But everyone knows that for an ‘Ālim (learned one) to be of higher rank depends on the degrees of knowledge. If this is not there, then that too is not there.[17]
If the religion of later prophets is not different, it is necessary that later prophets receive revelation and are effused with knowledges. Otherwise, what else is the meaning of prophethood? In this situation, after the decisive promise:
إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر وإنا له لحافظون
Which is with respect to the book that is called “Qur’ān”, and which by testimony of the verse:
تبيانا لكل شيء
Brings together all knowledges, what need is there [for such prophethood]?
If the knowledges of later prophets were beyond Muḥammadan knowledges, it would be incorrect that this book is “an explanation of all things”.
In sum, just as this prophet is for bringing together all knowledges, in the same way, this book ought to be inclusive [of all knowledges], so that the height of degrees of prophethood, which necessarily [represents] a height of degrees in knowledge as has been explained, becomes feasible. Otherwise, this height of degrees of prophethood would no doubt be incorrect and false.
In this way, chronological lateness is necessitated by prophetic sealship in the meaning submitted.
[The Iḍāfah in Khātam al-Nabiyyīn]
The iḍāfah to “Nabiyyīn” in the sense that prophethood is from amongst the categories of degrees is [as follows]: the muḍāf ilayh (possessor) of this phrase is “the characteristic of prophethood”, not “the time of prophethood”.[18] It is evident that in the scenario of chronological lateness being the intended meaning, the primary muḍāf ilayh would be “time”, and the thing within the time, that is prophethood, would be secondary.
Yes, if this sealship is taken to be inclusive of time and status by way of iṭlāq (generality) or ‘umūm al-majāz (an inclusive metaphor), then sealship of both will be the intended meaning. If only one is the intended meaning, the lofty status of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is in sealship of status not time.
[Types of Coming Before and After]
If you ask me, in my deficient understanding, [the reality] is something which a fair listener will inshā Allāh not reject. It is as follows:
Coming before or after can be in terms of time, place or status. These are three species (anwā‘) while coming before or after is a genus (jins) for all three. It is evident that just like eye, spring, essence etc. are meanings of the word “‘ayn” [in Arabic], this is not farfetched for these three. Like with the word “‘ayn” consider the words taqaddum (coming before), ta’akhkhur (coming after) and ikhtitām (termination) – which is a consequence of ta’akhkhur – to be mushtarak words (homonyms) with respect to the aforementioned species. Do not consider them to be jins (genuses).
From these, first and last in terms of time and status is determined. Meaning, the first cannot be the last nor can the last be the first. However, for taqaddum or ta’akhkhur in terms of place there is a need for some measure from which the first and the last can be identified. For example, for the rows in a masjid the qiblah and the wall of the qiblah [is the measure]. Otherwise, if you took the other side [as the measure], the matter would be reversed.
Once this is realised, now listen. There is no scope for the beings of the prophets (upon them peace) to intrinsically have a potential of taqaddum or ta’akhkhur. Yes, in terms of time, place or degrees you can say they come before or after. Anyhow, there is a need to [say] a muḍāf has been omitted. Thus, instead of the word “zamān” (time), to determine a general meaning for the object and for ta’akhkhur is better, in fact necessary, because an omission without any indication showing that a specific thing is omitted is amongst evidences of generality. Hence why it is considered that “كل شيء” and “من كل شيء” are omitted in “لله الأمر من قبل ومن بعد” and “الله أكبر”.
Anyhow, the burden in both cases is the same – whether the word is “zamān” or a general meaning [is considered to be omitted]. So, there is no reason to restrict it to “zamān”. In this scenario, for each species [of time, place and status], the meaning of “sealship” (khātamiyyat) will become apparent separately.
This is just like in the verse:
إنما الخمر والميسر والأنصاب والأزلام رجس من عمل الشيطان
“Indeed wine, gambling, stone alters and [divining by] arrows is impurity from the handiwork of Satan.”
The meaning of rijs (impurity) is a general genus. Khamr (wine) is a separate species of it, while maysir (gambling) and the others are a separate species. In the former, rijs appears in one way, and in the latter, in a different way. Meaning, in wine, outward impurity also appears while in the other types there exists only inward impurity. The cause of the difference in this appearance is [as follows]. Here, the act of drinking wine is the cause of prohibition, hence why drinking water and so on is not prohibited. Here, rijs is an original characteristic of the physical body of wine.
In maysir etc., practising those specific things is a cause of evil, because those specific things are a means of specific actions, and hence rijs is an original characteristic of the actions. Hence, its impurity will be the inward impurity [mentioned earlier].
Just as there is a difference between actions and wine, and despite that they are united in having the characteristic of rijs, the same applies here. In fact, here, the three species [of time, place and status] having the characteristic of taqaddum and ta’akhkhur is as evident as wine having the characteristic of rijs. It is not metaphorical in the manner of actions being connected to a hidden rijs (impurity).
[Chronological Finality is Included in the Meaning of Khātam al-Nabiyyīn and is a Necessary Doctrine]
So here, if khātam (seal), like rijs, is kept as a general genus, it is all the more worthy of acceptance.
There is no need in the sealship of time and status to identify the starting point of coming first. Yes, in terms of place there is. Thus, by analogy to finality in status, here too, it will be understood to start from below, and the higher earth will be at the end (ikhtitām).
Therefore, if [sealship] is absolute (muṭlaq) and general (‘āmm), the establishment of chronological sealship is evident. Otherwise, accepting the necessity of chronological sealship by implicative indication is definitely established. Here, the explicit statements of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), like:
أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه لا نبي بعدي
“You are to me at the level of Hārūn to Mūsā but there is no prophet after me”[19], or as he said, which apparently is derived from the phrase “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” in the manner explained above, are sufficient on this subject because it reaches the level of tawātur. Furthermore, consensus has been reached on this. Although the aforementioned words were not transmitted with mutawātir chains, but despite this lack of tawātur in the words, there is tawātur in the meaning, just like the tawātur in the number of rak‘ats of obligatory prayers, the Witr prayer, etc. Although the words of the narrations stating the number of rak‘ats are not mutawātir, just as the one who denies that is a disbeliever, in the same way, the one who denies this is a disbeliever.
[A Summation of the Previous Discussion]
Now look, in this situation, the conjunction between the two sentences, and the aforementioned istidrāk (correction) and istithnā’ (exception) too, come in view at the peak of coherence. Sealship (khātamiyyah) too is established in the best way. Chronological sealship (khātamiyyah zamānī) also does not escape one’s hand. Further, in this situation, just like the reading of “Khātim” is made sense of, the reading of Khātam is also made sense of to the highest degree without any unnaturalness (takalluf). Just like the mark or seal of a “Khātam” – with fatḥah on the tā’ – appears on the thing that is sealed, in this way, the mark of one that embodies a characteristic intrinsically appears on one that embodies the characteristic extrinsically.
[Outcome of the Meaning of the Verse]
The outcome of the meaning of the noble verse in this situation will be that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) has not acquired fatherhood of the known kind with respect to any man, but spiritual fatherhood has been acquired in respect to the ummatīs, as well as with respect to the prophets (upon them peace). “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is proof only with respect to the prophets because the characteristics of one that embodies a characteristic extrinsically are branches of one that embodies them intrinsically. The one that embodies characteristics intrinsically is the source of the extrinsic characteristics, and they are its offshoots. It is evident that “wālid” (father) is called wālid and “awlād” (offspring) is called “awlād” from the perspective that they are born from them. He is the active agent. “Wālid” being an active participle (ism al-fā‘il) shows this. They are passive agents. Awlād being called “mawlūd” is evidence of this.
Since the blessed Muḥammadan being intrinsically embodies the characteristic of prophethood and the remaining prophets embody it extrinsically, it is now established that he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is a spiritual father (wālid ma‘nawī), and the remaining prophets are with respect to him spiritual children (awlād ma‘nawī).
With respect to ummatīs, ponder on the phrase “RasūlAllāh”[20], then this reality will become clear. It is necessary to combine it with:
النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم
“The Prophet is closer to believers than their own selves.”
Consider:
محمد رسول الله
To be the minor premise, and:
النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم
To be the major premise. See if this conclusion emerges or not.
[The Prophet’s Fatherhood of the Ummah]
The situation here is [as follows].[21] At the end of “النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم”, consider the implication of the clause “من أنفسهم”. It will be established that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) acquired a closeness to his ummah which their own selves have not acquired. This is because “أولى” means “أقرب” (closer). If it means “أحب” (dearer) or “أولى بالتصرف” (more deserving of action), even then, this reality results, because only aqrabiyyat can be the reason for aḥabbiyyat and awlawiyyat bittaṣarruf. In the reverse [situation], this cannot be.[22]
Listen to the evidence. First, understand that such aqrabiyyat (closeness) which is more than one’s own reality, apart from the one embodying a characteristic intrinsically who has this relationship with one bearing it extrinsically or with the extrinsic characteristic, no one else acquires [such aqrabiyyat] with another. This is because if there is no connection of giving (ifāḍah) between two things, then in terms of the actual reality, there will be exclusion and separation. If both have the characteristic jointly by coincidence [without one receiving it from the other], from where does such closeness derive?
If there is this connection of giving between two things, meaning one embodies the characteristic intrinsically and the other extrinsically, then certainly with the one embodying the characteristic extrinsically in terms of the extrinsic characteristic and the extrinsic characteristic itself, there would be dependence on the one bearing the attribute intrinsically. Thus, whatever specification (tashakhkhuṣ) an external characteristic acquires, it only acquires it after its realisation. Similarly, perceiving specification only occurs after perceiving the actual existence.
For example, if you see someone from a distance, it is an ambiguous existence, whose correspondence is conceivable for thousands of possibilities. However, the closer he becomes, the more the ambiguity is removed. Particularisation, which depends on perceiving specifications, is then realised. Since this is the reality in the condition of being distant, in the condition of being close, the ambiguous matter will become even more apparent, because of which [the realisation of specifications] being prior to the perception of specifications is even more necessary.
Furthermore, for something to be known is itself one attribute of existence (waṣf e wujūdī). For known things to be known is necessary. Consider the meaning of this with fairness and avoiding imitation (taqlīd). It will be realised that bestowing a mental existence [to another] from an ‘ālim (knower) depends on this. The light of knowledge which resides in the being of the ‘ālim, just as the light of the sun in the sun, encompasses [things] in the same way that the said light [encompasses] illuminated things. It is evident that if the ‘ālim has comprehension of known things it will be just like if you suppose the specific lights of the sun have knowledge of the door and wall – which is called “sunlight”. Thus, the absolute light from this is a quality of the sun, and the segmentations of sunlight in three parts or four parts etc., which attach to the courtyards and so on, are in reality qualities of the courtyard and so on. Based on this, in the scenario of the hypothesised knowledge that the sun has, the knowledge of absolute light based on it being its own quality will be prior to the knowledge of the segmentations which is a quality of others. In the same way, the light of the said knowledge is a quality of the ‘ālim, and the specifications of known things and the qualities of known things – and based on this, knowledge of the quality itself which is knowledge itself – are prior to the specifications occurring.
It is evident that his light is intrinsically illuminated; while the specifications and particularisations which are known to be a reality within a reality – because it is based on these specific qualities in one named Zayd, ‘Amr etc that there is a difference between them –, not the common element which is called the “human reality”, are extrinsically illuminated.
Thus, when the first absolute knowledge came in this “movement of knowledge”, and then a second time in the aforementioned reality, then in the situation that what is sought for knowledge are those very realities and the seeker of knowledge is himself possessor of the reality, it will be necessary to assert that the one embodying the characteristic intrinsically is closer in respect to this reality too than the one bearing the characteristic extrinsically, because to realise whether something is far or near it is necessary to see how big a gap there is. The sign that the gap here is less is that if movement is made from there, it comes prior to something of a greater gap.
So consider, in a “process of thinking”, first the proof (dalīl) comes, and then the inferred result (madlūl). Thus, a “limmī argument”[23] operates in this way: the proof, which in reality is a cause (‘illah), comes first, and the result comes after. In this situation, the proof, by which I mean the cause, will be closer to the result in respect to the result. However, this closeness in respect to the result is not the share of anything besides the cause, because in actual reality there is separation even if they are joined. Thus, wherever there is this nearness, it will be only this ‘illiyyat and ma‘lūliyyat. If when arguing, one’s self is the ma‘lūl (result), and you focus on your comprehension and argue using a limmī argument, it will become manifestly clear that the ‘illah is closer to the individual than his own self.
Thus, if their own comprehension is the goal/result of believers, then undoubtedly first the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) will occur in this process of thinking and then their own reality.
What remains is an “innī” argument. That in reality is not proof. In fact, for an innī argument it is necessary that first there is a limmī argument. If the sun is not considered the cause of light, it is not possible to argue from light for the existence of the sun. To consider that this is the cause and that the result, this is precisely a limmī argument. What else is a limmī argument besides this?
In short, the mental presence of the result is dependent on the mental presence of the cause in just the same way that its existence depends on it in external reality. The remaining innī argument does not create fresh knowledge but brings to focus previous knowledge. It is evident that the cause within its result, with respect to its reality – which are its specifications and particularisations, and from the category of appendages and compliments, and are required for its realisation – is awlā bittaṣarruf.
In a similar fashion, if the ma‘lūl is deserving of love, and love is directed at its ‘illah, which is its source and its reflection is found in it, as demonstrated in the example of the light of the sun, the love will be of the particularisations, which are appendages and mutual combined items. In this situation, if the ‘illah in respect to its ma‘lūl is regarded as being dearer (aḥabb) than itself, that is correct.
[Summary of the Above Discussion]
In short, awlā having the sense of aqrab is necessary from these two meanings [of aḥabb and awlā bittaṣarruf], and these two meanings are not in conflict with it. In fact, it is evidence of its realisation in just the same way as the light of the sun is evidence of the rising of the sun. Thus, just as the rising of the sun precedes the existence of day, in the same way, awlawiyyat in the sense of aqrabiyyat will precede the realisation of awlawiyyat bittaṣarruf and awlawiyyat in the sense of aḥabbiyyat. Thus, it is necessary that the said aqrabiyyat occurs between the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and the Marḥūm Ummah in the manner that he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is:
أقرب إلى الأمة المرحومة من أنفسهم
“Closer to the Marḥūm Ummah than their own selves.”
This is inconceivable without him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) being the ‘illah and the Marḥūm Ummah, meaning the believers, being ma‘lūl. It is evident that whatever there is within the ma‘lūl [that defines it] is an effusion and bestowal of the ‘illah, which is why the form of the passive participle is (ṣīgha e maf‘ūl) is determined for it. In this situation, it is necessary that the effusion is intrinsic in the ‘illah, otherwise it will be extrinsic there too, so something else would be the true giver, because it cannot be that an extrinsic characteristic occurs by itself. An entity embodying the characteristic intrinsically is necessary. That would be the true ‘illah according to us.
In short, the word “Rasūlullāh”, which is synonymous with “NabīUllāh” or holds the meaning of “NabīUllāh”, when made a minor premise, then because of the necessary conditions coming together which are needed for the first figure [of syllogism] (shakl e awwal), this conclusion will emerge:
محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم
“Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is closer to the believers than their own selves.”
A necessary implication of this is that the characteristic of īmān is intrinsic in him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and extrinsic in the believers.
He (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is the spiritual father of believers in this matter. Meaning, the īmān of others was born of his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) īmān. His īmān is the source of the īmān of others. The īmān of the others is the offshoot of his īmān.
[Other Matters that Require Clarification]
With this breakdown (taqrīr), the reason for the aforementioned conjunction and istidrāk becomes clear. Hence, I will end this topic here, even though excellence would dictate further elaboration of the following matters: īmān like knowledge has a quality inbuilt in human nature; īmān is from the perfections of deeds but dependent on knowledge; prophethood is from the perfections of knowledge but necessitates deeds. Furthermore, the matter of the thing in which the [previous] prophets and the Ummah maintain a relationship of mawlūdiyyat (being born) with him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) [requires clarification]. Further, why has the word indicating the birth of the believers [i.e. “Rasūlullāh”] been put before the word indicating the birth of the prophets [i.e. “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”]? I would have explained these and according to my understanding made sense of them, but for fear of prolongation, limiting myself to the amount of need, I submit:
[Summary of the Meaning of Khātam al-Nabiyyīn]
The absoluteness of “Khātam” entails that the series of all prophets (upon them peace) terminates at him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). According to the above-described explanation, just as it is established from this expression that the earlier prophets are in need of him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) for the characteristic of prophethood, and that he is not in need of anyone for this characteristic whether earlier prophets or any other [being]; in the same way, if it is hypothesised that in his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) time in this earth or any other earth or in the sky, there was to be a prophet, he too would be dependent on him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) for the characteristic of prophethood, and his series of prophethood will in any case terminate at him. Why should this not be? The series of deeds terminates at knowledge. Since the knowledge possible for humanity has been terminated [at the Prophet], what series of knowledge and action can continue?
In short, if sealship in the meaning I presented is determined, then his being the Khātam will not be specifically in relation to earlier prophets. In fact, if hypothetically in his own time any prophet appeared somewhere, even then, his being Khātam (i.e. final in status) will remain sound.
[Earths Like the Skies]
Anyhow, just as the absoluteness of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” entails that no figurative interpretation is undertaken in this expression, and he is considered “Khātam” for all prophets inclusively (without exception), in the same way, the absoluteness of the phrase “مثلهن” that occurs in the verse:
الله الذي خلق سبع سموات ومن الأرض مثلهن، يتنزل الأمر بينهن
“Allāh is the One that created seven skies and the like of them of earth; the command descends between them.”
Entails that apart from there being an ontological difference between the earth and sky, which is understood from the word “samāwāt” and the word “arḍ”, and mentioning these two words in this matter is equivalent to an exception, and further, apart from this difference, which is conceivable because of a difference in the ontological necessities or differences in natural affinities, whether from necessities of existence or a separator between the sky and the earth, which are by implication excluded, the sky and earth have a similarity in all dimensions.
[An Elaboration of the Similarities Between the Earths and the Skies]
The similarity in number and similarity in distance and similarity in being above and below are inferred from the marfū‘ ḥadīth from which the realisation of the seven earths[24] is inferred.
The author of Mishkāt (Allāh have mercy on him) narrated it with reference to Imām al-Tirmidhī (upon him be mercy) and Imām Aḥmad (Allāh illuminate his resting place) in “Bāb Bad’ al-Khalq”, and Tirmidhī narrated it in the tafsīr of Sūrah Ḥadīd in Kitāb al-Tafsīr. The ḥadīth is as follows:
عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: بينما نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جالس وأصحابه إذ أتى عليهم سحاب فقال نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: هل تدرون ما هذا؟ قالوا: الله ورسوله أعلم، قال: هذه العنان هذه روايا الأرض يسوقها الله إلى قوم لا يشكرونه ولا يدعونه، ثم قال: هل تدرون من فوقكم، قالوا: الله ورسوله أعلم، قال: فإنها الرقيع سقف محفوظ وموج مكفوف، ثم قال: هل تدرون ما بينكم وبينها؟ قالوا: الله ورسوله أعلم، قال: بينكم وبينها خمسمائة عام، ثم قال: هل تدرون ما فوق ذلك؟ قالوا: الله ورسوله أعلم، قال: سماءان بعد ما بينهما خمسمائة سنة، ثم قال كذلك حتى عد سبع سماوات، ما بين كل سماءين ما بين السماء والأرض، ثم قال: هل تدرون ما فوق ذلك؟ قالوا: الله ورسوله أعلم، قال: إن فوق ذلك العرش وبينه وبين السماء بعد ما بين السماءين، ثم قال: هل تدرون ما تحت ذلك؟ قالوا: الله ورسوله أعلم، قال: إن تحتها أرضا أخرى بينهما مسيرة خمسمائة سنة، حتى عد سبع أرضين بين كل أرضين مسيرة خمسمائة سنة، قال: والذي نفس محمد بيده لو أنكم دليتم بحبل إلى الأرض السفلى لهبط على الله ثم قرأ: هو الأول والآخر والظاهر والباطن وهو بكل شيء عليم، رواه أحمد والترمذي
“It is reported from Abū Hurayrah (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said: While the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and his companions were sitting, a cloud passed over them. The Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Do you know what this is?’ They said: ‘Allāh and His Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘These are irrigators of the earth that Allāh brings to a people that do not thank Him nor pray to Him.’ Then he said: ‘Do you know what is above you?’ They said: ‘Allāh and His Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘Indeed it is the sky, a roof preserved and wave held back.’ Then he said: ‘Do you know what is between you and it?’ They said: ‘Allāh and His Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘There are five hundred years between you and it.’ Then he said: ‘Do you know what is above that?’ They said: ‘Allāh and His Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘Two skies, the distance between them five hundred years.’ Then he said the same until he counted seven skies, between each two skies is [the distance] between the sky and earth. Then he said: ‘Do you know what is above that?’ They said: ‘Allāh and His Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘Indeed above that is the Throne, and between it and the sky is the distance between two skies.’ Then he said: ‘Do you know what is beneath this [earth]?’ They said: ‘Allāh and His Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘Indeed beneath it is another earth between them the distance of five hundred years.’ Then he counted seven earths between each two earths the distance of five hundred years.’ He said: ‘I swear by the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muḥammad, had you let down a rope to the lowest earth, it would fall upon [the kingdom of] Allāh.’ Then he recited: ‘He is the First, the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden. He is knowing of all things.’”
Apart from this earth being above all other earths, this ḥadīth also establishes explicitly that there are seven earths and they are above and below each other, and there is a gap of five hundred years between each earth and the next from all seven.
In short, these three similarities are clearly inferred from this very ḥadīth. From learning this, the notion is further strengthened that apart from the natural difference mentioned above, similarity in all of these things is intended in the absoluteness and inclusiveness of Divine Speech.
[Other Dimensions of Similarity]
Why should this not be when firstly, “مثلهن” is also in the speech of Allāh which has the phrase “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, in the absoluteness and inclusiveness of all prophets of which no scholar of religion till today has allowed any kind of interpretation or specification. It is not in the Torah or Injīl or a book of some Pundit that has the possibility of corruption and fabrication. Even still, the said ḥadīth confirms the above notion to this extent.
Apart from this, there being the Bayt Ma‘mūr in the sky parallel to the Ka‘bah of the earth, and further from the perspective that, parallel to the Ka‘bah, wherever you go upwards and downwards – below the soil – it is only the Ka‘bah, the notion of similarity becomes somewhat more strengthened. With all this, in the absoluteness of similarity there is greater elevation of the degrees of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). This is to the point that if the aforementioned unrestricted-ness is not conceded then the majesty and stature of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) will remain only in one part out of seven and his majesty will be lessened in six parts. Inshā Allāh, this conundrum will hopefully be solved.
[Similarity in the Existence of Inhabitants and Top-Down Authority]
Good. The original point was that once it is established that there are seven skies and those too occur above and below however they may be, but not left and right, front and back, and further, there emerges a five hundred years gap between them, and this is the same condition of the earths, it should also be regarded with certainty that just as there are inhabitants in the seven skies, and further those in the higher skies have authority over those in the lower skies, in the same way, there are inhabitants in the seven earths, and those in the higher earths have authority over those in the lower earths.
The evidence of the authority of the higher skies is firstly this ḥadīth of Tirmidhī:
قال الترمذي في أبواب التفسير في تفسير سورة سبا: حدثنا نصر بن علي الجهضمي، ثنا عبد الأعلى، ثنا معمر عن الزهري عن علي بن حسين عن ابن عباس قال: بينما رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جالس في نفر من أصحابه إذ رمي بنجم، فاستنار، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ما كنتم تقولون لمثل هذا فى الجاهلية إذا رأيتموه؟ قالوا: كنا نقول: يموت عظيم أو يولد عظيم، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: فإنه لا يرمى به لموت أحد ولا لحياته ولكن ربنا تبارك اسمه وتعالى إذا قضى أمرا سبح حملة العرش، ثم سبح أهل السماء الذين يلونهم ثم الذين يلونهم حتى يبلغ التسبيح إلى هذه السماء، ثم سأل أهل السماء السادسة أهل السماء السابعة: ماذا قال ربكم؟ قال: فيخبرونهم ثم يستخبر أهل كل سماء حتى يبلغ الخبر أهل السماء الدنيا وتختطف الشياطين السمع فيرمون فيقذفون إلى أوليائهم فما جاؤوا به على وجه فهو حق ولكنهم يحرفونه ويزيدون، هذا حديث حسن صحيح
“It is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: While the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was sitting amongst a group of his companions, there was a shooting star and it became bright. The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘What would you say about such a thing in Jāhiliyyah when you saw it?’ They said: ‘We would say a great person has died or is born.’ The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘It is not thrown for the death or life of anyone. But our Lord, blessed is His name, when he decrees a matter, the carriers of the Throne glorify Him, and then the inhabitants of the sky that follow them glorify Him then those that follow them until the glorification reaches this sky. Then those of the sixth sky ask those of the seventh sky: What did your Lord say? They inform them, and the inhabitants of each sky inquire until the report reaches those of the lowest earth. The devils eavesdrop, so are shot [at by angels]. Then they impart to their [human] friends [what they heard]. Whatever they deliver as it was, it is true, but they tamper with it and add to it.’”
From this statement, it is manifestly clear that any divine command in relation to angels arrives in this order. This is the very same as a royal command in relation to lower employees, which reaches them via employees that are higher-up. This is known to all.
[Similarity in Excellence]
Further, by the requirement of another ḥadīth, which Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ṣāḥib (Allāh have mercy on him) narrated in Tafsīr ‘Azīzī under the commentary of the verse:
ثم استوى إلى السماء فسوهن سبع سموات
Saying: “Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās:
سيد السموات السماء التي فيها العرش وسيد الأرضين التي أنتم عليها
‘The chief of skies is the sky in which is the Throne and the chief of the earths is the earth which you are upon.’”
From this, one further similarity is inferred, namely just as the higher sky is superior because the Throne is there, as in connected to it, here, the higher earth, that is this earth, is superior. Second, by implicative indication, it is established that those in the higher sky have authority over those in the lower one because it is evident that the superiority of the skies is by consideration of the superiority of the inhabitants.
[The Authority of the Prophet ﷺ Over All Earths]
The superiority of the species entails that the best and most perfect individual (fard e afḍal wa akmal) embodies characteristics intrinsically. Variation in individuals is not possible within one species via the one that embodies characteristics intrinsically given he is one. Wherever two is viewed, from the perspective that it requires multiplicity of composition in one species, so the sameness is sourced to a common factor and differences to divergent aspects, even then, oneness is ultimately necessitated. In this scenario, it is necessary that this divergence and variation occurs via the one receiving and taking on [attributes]. Whatever variation there may be in incidental properties, it is ascribed to those [receiving and taking on attributes] or their add-ons, just like instruments and conditions. Because of shortness of space, I am excused from greater elaboration. Despite this, for people of understanding, [from] the discussions that have been submitted, this much is adequate.
In short, this difference and variation will be from the side of the ones receiving [the attributes]. However, it is evident in this scenario that the most complete individual is the medium of acquiring the attributes (wāsiṭah fi ‘l-urūḍ) who will be embodying characteristics intrinsically in respect to the ones receiving them, even if he is receiving the attribute from another. This is like a mirror. At the time of light reflecting off it on to the door and wall, even though with respect to the door and wall it is a medium of acquiring the attribute and one embodying the characteristic intrinsically, yet with respect to the sun it is itself one that receives the attribute. Understand the matters discussed here in the same way.[25]
Secondly, the judgement of fairness is that superiority definitely requires that the one that is superior has authority over all else.
Apart from this, the perfection of divine organisation which is evident in every species requires that just as the series of individuals terminates at the species and the series of species terminates at the genus, which is why the rules and consequences of the genus operate in the species and the rules and consequences of the species operate in the individuals, the autonomy which is a type of phenomenon within each individual amongst rational beings – and from this perspective, the organisation with which he joins and on which his joining depends – is rendered false. One particular person will be regarded as the ultimately autonomous one, before whom the autonomy of each individual is dependent – this is called “authority” (ḥukūmah).
In fact, by contemplating on the cause of the multiplicity of individuals, it is an incidental property, because if a universal did not arise with those receiving attributes, then this multiplicity of individuals would definitely not occur. In this situation, it is apposite that the one embodying the characteristic intrinsically – on condition of having potential of having authority and being subordinate – is the authority over the one receiving it, given that inner authority, when also having outer authority, amounts to putting things where they belong (waḍ‘ al-shay’ fī maḥallihī).
Further, aboveness and belowness, despite sameness in species, by judgement of fairness and wisdom, requires that, just as an individual is subordinate to species and a species subordinate to genus, in the same way it is very apposite for the souls of the angels below to be subordinate to the souls of the angels above, so that this multiplicity & aboveness and belowness are both sound. Just like multiplicity, subordination of degree also is not possible without an incidental property. Thus, individuals being subordinate to species and species being subordinate to genus makes it clear that subordination and multiplicity are correlated [to each other], and dependent on incidental properties. You have already learned the reality of incidental properties: just as in terms of manifestation and the realisation of laws, in the sense of effects, the one embodying characteristics has authority over the one embodying them extrinsically, in the same way, in terms of authority, it should have authority.
In this situation, the reality will be that the lower souls which are born from the degree of multiplicity and are also below in degree, are small and lesser souls while the higher souls, which are higher in degree and are on the side of oneness and origin, are great and big souls.
In short, when the totality of parts are taken, there will be one ultimate soul, like the lord of the species, and when the different parts are taken then the minor soul is born. So, since in the degree of the small there is spirit, as is evident looking at individuals, at the degree of the great, why should there not be spirit? The intrinsic attribute in the situation of the parts uniting is even stronger. Thus, if this uniting of parts occurred, it would occur in the one embodying the characteristics intrinsically, not in the one receiving them. The full light is not in any courtyard; but, in the sun, all parts are amassed. Thus, in the upward stations, there will be great souls and in the downward stations, small souls. From this perspective, external and apparent above and below are also kept in view, so that the outward and inward are apposite.
In sum, if the oneness of species and multiplicity of individuals, and further the difference of above and below, can be sound in terms of the law of fairness and wisdom, it will be in the manner that has been submitted. Namely, that the higher souls are characterised intrinsically in respect to the below souls. The most supreme of angels is an angel on the seventh sky whose soul is the source of the souls of the remaining angels on the seventh sky, and the source of the soul of the most perfect individual angel of the sixth whose soul is then in turn the source of the remaining souls on the sixth sky as well as the most perfect individual of the angels on the fifth sky, and so on.
The most perfect individual of the angels in the seventh sky being the source of the angels of the seventh sky and also the source of the most perfect individual of the angels in the sixth sky, and further being above [the rest of the angels on the sixth sky] and being only subordinate [to the angel above], and being below and the authority and source of the remaining angels of the sixth sky, is just like how the sun is the source with respect to a mirror that occurs in a courtyard and with respect to the sunlight on a roof. It is evident that light is above, but since it is not the source of light, it is only subordinate, not an authority, and the mirror is illuminated from the perspective that it is the source of light for the door and wall, so in respect to them it is an authority.
Anyhow, this same situation will occur between the earths when the seven earths have inhabitants and the soul of the most perfect individual in the higher earth – Muḥammad Rasūlullāh – just as it is the source of the souls of the prophets and believers, in the same way, it is the source for the most complete individual in the second earth, and his pure soul will be the source for the remaining inhabitants of that earth and the source for the most perfect individual of the third earth. Consider it to proceed on this pattern to the lower earths.
Based on this explanation, the doubt is also removed that every individual is the authority here, and the counterparts on the lower earths are subordinate to their counterparts. Rather, it will be understood that only the most perfect individual is the authority, and the most perfect individual of the lower earth will first have the connection of being subordinate to him, and via him all others will be subordinate. If an illustration is required, first contemplate the condition of the sun and mirror. The higher lights are not the source of the lights which are born from the mirror in the courtyard. Second, look at a general who is for example an authority over a lieutenant, but is not an authority over his orderlies. However, via his lieutenant he is an authority over them, just as the sun via the mirror is master of the lights below also.
On this judgement, the series of prophets will begin from the lower earth, and it will terminate above at the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), just as here too the series of prophethood found its terminus at him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). There is this much difference that in the remaining prophets, the internal relation of authority and subordination cannot emerge by merely rational indication. The series that started from the earth below, we can say by rational indication that those of the second earth has authority over those of the third earth and those of the third earth over the fourth earth, and so on.
If an illustration is anticipated for justifying this difference, then listen. We rely on the king having authority over the general and the general over the lieutenant on this: we know the internal aboveness and belowness of these degrees, but within the jurisdiction of the general or lieutenant, we cannot apply the same rule.[26]
[Summation of the Above]
In short, one series of prophethood occurs up and down, and by consideration of the difference in the degrees of place, an indication is made towards the difference in degrees. Another series of prophethood occurs in earlier and later times, and by consideration of the difference in the degrees of time, realisation is gained of a difference in degrees.
[What is Time?]
An explanation of this is that it is clear to those of understanding that time is a motion of divine will. This is why the noble Muḥaqqiq Ṣūfīs advocate belief in “Tajaddud e Amthāl” (perpetual creation), because within the motion, a separate movement occurs in every moment to one individual of the category of motion.
العاقل تكفيه الإشارة
“[A mere] indication suffices the intelligent person.”
This is why time is a measure of motion because for there to be a measure (miqdār) there has to be similarity. A line can be measured by a line, a surface by a surface and body by a body. Meaning, the thing in which less, more or equality is inferred, that is the same type. This is why a line cannot be measured by a surface, and even if it is measured it will be with one dimension of it which falls within a “line”. In the same manner, if a body is measured by a surface or line, consider it in the same way. Anyhow, time refers to the elongation of a movement of divine will.
[The Muḥammadan Being: The Ultimate Endpoint of Time and Place]
Were it not for concern of prolongation, I would have shed light on this matter with clarity, but what can be done? It is fitting to discuss an excursionary point to the amount needed – more than this is not fitting. Even still, it is hoped from those of understanding that merely an indication will be sufficient for them.
Anyhow, in the situation that time is considered a motion, it will have some endpoint, at which the motion ends. So, the motion of the series of prophethood ends at the point of the Muḥammadan being. This point, for the edge of time and the edge of place, is like the point at the top of a vertex, so that it is realised that his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) prophethood encompasses cosmos and place, earth and time.
A doubt may remain. Namely, time continues after the finality of prophethood. If the reality of time is the said motion, then the result is that the endpoint has not yet been reached and the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is not the best of humanity as he is not the endpoint and the objective; the endpoint of the said motion will be best. This doubt cannot cause hesitation to those of understanding. But despite this in order to remove confusion, it is submitted: every temporal event has a lifespan which is why the noble Muḥaqqiq Ṣūfīs advocate the belief in “Tajaddud e Amthāl”. Time is one motion. Thus, its renewal and intrinsic instability supports this. In this scenario, distances are numerous and motions numerous, from them the motions of the series of prophethood. So, on account of the acquisition of the utmost endpoint of the Muḥammadan being that motion has turned to rest. However, other motions still remain. This is also one reason for his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) emergence at the end time. In short, if there is excellence in terms of time it is because the later time tends towards the endpoint. It is not that the later time is in itself more virtuous. And by consideration of place, the above direction [is more virtuous] because it indicates higher degrees.
[A Dissimilarity Between Earth and Sky?]
There remains the difference that there are disbelievers amongst descendants of Ādam while angels are not disbelievers, or angels are more in number while the descendants of Ādam fewer. The answer to this is that this difference does not infringe on the absoluteness of the similarity. What the writer of these lines has submitted is: keeping in mind the difference which arises from the demand of the difference in the essence of earth and sky and the concomitants of the essence of earth and sky or the affinities of the essence of earth and sky, only then should similarity be considered. So just as the greatness of the skies and the smallness of the earths fall within the particularities and specifications of the earth and sky, and this variation falls within this difference in the meaning; in the same way, because of affinity, a difference in the sizes of the inhabitants is also necessary. In fact, in this situation, if the inhabitants here have the relationship with the inhabitants there that the size here has with the size there, each earth with its counterpart, there is nothing surprising. In this situation, it is possible that in the seventh earth there are miniature people, and that earth is smaller than this earth to the extent that this sky is smaller than the seventh sky. If the skies were all the same, then the earths would all be the same.
The difference of Islām and Kufr remains. This difference is based on a difference in ontological concomitants and affinities. However, knowledge of affinity is an extremely obscure field. Complete knowledge of affinity belongs only to God. Some [understanding of this] exists in prophets and ṣiddīqīn who are the sages of the descendants of Ādam and the realisation of:
ومن يؤت الحمة فقد أوتي خيرا كثيرا
“Whoever is given wisdom has indeed been given much goodness.”
Consider, in accordance with the verse: “أعطى كل شيء حقه” (He gave each thing its due right), and further as required by this judgement and manifest fairness, which being within the pure being of God is as certain as tawḥīd, it is necessary that wheat will be given offspring apposite to it, barley what is apposite to it, grapes what is apposite to it, dates what is apposite to it, the soul of man what is apposite to it and the body and soul of a donkey what is apposite to it. However, before observing the endowments of each species, it does not occur within the understanding of any intelligent person to describe wheat as having such a branch and offspring, and barley such, and man such a body and donkey such. In short, having affinity and apposition is certain, but the basis of affinity and apposition is not known. Knowledge of certainty (‘ilm al-yaqīn) will become vision of certainty (‘ayn al-yaqīn) when us blind ones are granted the eye of insight, from which this difference will be as evident as when the blind becomes seeing and understands that green laces on red embroidery and red laces on green embroidery is pleasant, and another lace is not suited to it.
In sum, the thing which God has joined to another thing or put in opposition to it is not devoid of some affinity.
[Two Types of Similarity][27]
Once this is realised, then now listen. The “similarity of a relation with a relation” can only be realised when the affinities of two things are previously known to be separate and the two things separate. For example, two has the same relation with four as a thousand has with two thousand. It is evident that the certainty of this similarity of relation, by way of the eye of certainty (‘ayn al-yaqīn) or the truth of certainty (ḥaqq al-yaqīn), is only conceivable when it is known two is half of four and a thousand is a half of two thousand. In short, the “similarity of relation with relation” requires the oneness of the kind of relation, and knowledge of the said similarity and the said kind. It is evident that the similarity that is understood to exist between the skies and earths in the word “مثلهن” is a similarity of relation, which is called “compound similarity” (tashbīh murakkab), not similarity of individual entity with individual entity (tashbīh mufrad bi mufrad). Otherwise, what affinity and likeness does the sky have with the earth? Even if there is any affinity, while it is obvious there isn’t any, we still have certainty that in the verse:
الله الذي خلق سبع سموات ومن الأرض مثلهن
There is similarity of relation, because if at minimum there is similarity in the same number, the meaning will be that the parts of this combination [of earths] in terms of a distinct quantity has the relation with this combination that the parts of that combination [of skies] have with that combination. Those of understanding know that it is not [a viable] interpretation to forcibly treat a tashbīh mufrad (simple similarity) as murakkab (compound), but [it is viable] to interpret [murakkab] as mufrad. The reason for this is that a composition can be interpreted as a single entity, but a single entity cannot be interpreted as a composite. Why not? The reason is that a true multiplicity can be treated as one via a composite form, but a true singularity can in no way be treated as truly multiple.
So, look here, is it a true multiplicity or a true singularity? Neither is there oneness in number nor the subject. By consideration of the composite form, even if it is one, it is not the thing intended per se. Indeed, look at the name of the thing compared to and the thing compared. It should otherwise not have stated: “من الأرض مثلهن”, but rather: “سبع أرضين”, in which the expression would be pithier and the meaning clearer than an indirect expression. Anyhow, there would have been greater clarity in being explicit. In this expression there is no additional advantage. Emphasising the number seven is not conceivable.
Those who say: “الكناية أبلغ من الصراحة” (indirect speech is more expressive than direct ones) must accept a similarity besides the number, so the statement would be from the category of: “المعنى في بطن الشاعر” (the meaning resides in the stomach of the poet). It is not a discussion on the Dhāt and Ṣifāt [of Allāh] where from the expressions used, apart from the expression, it does not function to convey an intended meaning. Yes, if there was equality in sizes, then definitely this context would be perfect for this expression. Secondly, this is a similarity of relation. Apart from this, other affinities and likenesses, which have been mentioned, do not occur at all in the same way.
[Similarity of Relation is Meant Here]
In sum, here, similarity of relation is what is meant per se. It is evident that in a similarity of relation, apart from the said relation, likeness and affinity of the two sides is definitely not necessary. In fact, it is possible that there is the utmost degree of separation. Thus, the relations that God Almighty acquires with creation, He draws a similarity with those relations that occur between creation and creation.
For example, He said:
ضرب لكم مثلا من أنفسكم، هل لكم مما ملكت أيمانكم من شركاء فيما رزقناكم فأنتم فيهم سواء تخافونهم فخيفتكم أنفسكم
“He presents for you a similitude of yourselves. Have you, from among those whom your right hands possess, partners in what We have bestowed upon you, equal [with you in respect thereof], so that you fear them as you fear each other?”
Or He said:
الله نور السموات والأرض، مثل نوره كمشكاة فيها مصباح، المصباح في زجاجة، الزجاجة كأنها كوكب دري يوقد من شجرة مباركة زيتونة لا شرقية ولا غربية يكاد زيتها يضيئ ولو لم تمسسه نار، نور على نور
“Allāh is the light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. It is kindled from a blessed olive tree neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow forth though no fire touched it. Light upon light.”
There are many other examples like this. Similarity of relation is meant, not similarity of the individual entity. In this scenario, there is no metaphor at all, nor any type of interpretation. Rather, it is just as two rupees has the same relation with four rupees as two mountains does with four mountains, or a thousand shoes with four thousand shoes; or [the relation] that a logarithmic series has with its counterpart series; or the roots of the numbers sequenced from one to infinity has with the numbers sequenced. In this similarity, even though there is no affinity between the two sides, there is absolutely no metaphor, rather the similarity is held to be upon its literal meaning. This is the same with the verse: “ الله الذي خلق سبع سموات ومن الأرض مثلهن”.
[Relation of Man and Angels]
In this situation, it is possible that the spiritual and bodily compositions of the descendants of Ādam and terrestrial and other animals has the relationship with the spiritual and bodily compositions of the angels of the skies that the earth has with the sky. This difference in Kufr and Islām is born out of tricky compositional differences. If clarification is needed, then consider:
Just as there is a composition of elements in the descendants of Ādam, and by observing the four particularities of wetness, dryness, heat and coolness, the four elements of this composition are inferred because a particularity’s existence is evidence of the existence of its result and what it is particular to, in the same way, by means of the four particularities, it comes into [our] understanding that the souls of descendants of Ādam too are composed of four elements. So, what are they? One is the element of pride, famous in little or large amount in everyone. The second is the element of desires. The third is the element of emotion and affection, which too is found in great and small quantities in everyone. The fourth is the element of autonomy. In this manner, anger and forbearance, sensitivity and laziness too are viewed in everyone. In this manner, the element of disobedience and acquiescence and forgetfulness and error are also found in everyone.
These twelve things that have been mentioned, whichever four you take, they have an affinity with fire and air, water and earth. Those of understanding will themselves understand. With all this, just as from the variation of the measures of the elements, the difference of heat and coolness, wetness and dryness, the temperaments of descendants of Ādam are generated, in the same way, from the difference of the measures of the results from the said particularities there appears strange spiritual temperaments, from which one temperament is also of Kufr and Islām. But despite the said affinity which has been stated to exist between the bodily elements and the spiritual elements, in spiritual compositions Kufr and Islām is realised, but is not realised in bodily compositions.
Thus, if the affinity between angels and the descendants of Ādam is maintained in this way, and here the difference between Kufr and Islām is evident, and not there, what impossible or difficult matter is it on account of which there will be hesitation about the absoluteness of the similarity of sky and earth?
[Summation of the Above]
In sum, the similarity between the skies and earth is from all dimensions. The difference in the temperaments of the angels of mercy, angels of punishment, angels of heaven, angels of hell, angels specified for breathing in souls and angels specified for taking out souls, is sufficient to justify this affinity.
والله أعلم بحقيقة الحال
[Muḥammad ﷺ is the Absolute Khātam]
Once we have finished with repelling these doubts, it is suitable to again return to the original point. Readers of these pages, once they have understood the point that the similarity contained within the verse “الله الذي خلق سبع سموات ومن الأرض مثلهن” is a similarity of relation not a similarity of an individual entity, which would necessitate equality in the sizes of the bodies and whatever they contain, then this will also be understood:
If by way of similarity, it is said: The perfect individual of the seventh sky has that relation with the remaining individuals of that sky which the perfect individual of the sixth sky has with the remaining individuals of that sky, or the perfect individual of this earth, meaning Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, has a similarity of this kind with the perfect individual of the second earth, and the intent will be that he has that relation with, for example, Ḥaḍrat Ādam, Ḥaḍrat Nūḥ, Ḥaḍrat Ibrāhīm, Ḥaḍrat Mūsā, Ḥaḍrat ‘Īsā, that the perfect individual of the second earth has with the counterparts of Ḥaḍrat Ādam and other individuals on the second earth; and in this way, understand it to be for the other skies and earths, what hesitation will lovers of the Prophet, who also have God-given understanding, have? With contentment and eagerness, they will accept this reality, because even putting aside the indication of the perfect divine order and the indication of the verse: “الله الذي خلق سبع سموات”, in this situation, the greatness of prophetic stature will be to such great a degree. If seven earths in the manner described, with the arrangement of above and below, is not accepted, then the multiplied Muḥammadan grandeur and stature with respect to the degree of greatness that is necessitated in the scenario of accepting the seven earths will be reduced sixfold.
It is evident that the king of the seven regions, if some ignoramus considers him to be king of only the region in which he appears, then you will say that he has eliminated his grandeur in six parts and has contented himself with only one.
In short, being Khātam is a relative matter (amr iḍāfī). It cannot be realised without being related to something. Whatever the amount of that which he is related to, to that degree will be the comprehensiveness of the Khātam – just as being king is a relative matter: its elevation and grandeur depend on the comprehensiveness of the subordinates and subjects.
However, yes, an ignoramus may be fooled by seeing the Nawwābs of today and say: “Just as the Nawwābs of today are Nawwābs without kingdom, in the same way, other prophets are not in need of the Khātamiyyat of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), for the elevation and comprehensiveness of which to have need for the multiplicity of prophets.”
In sum, if an ignoramus or hypocrite hesitates in accepting these matters, those of understanding and those who love cannot hesitate.
[A Non-Decisive Belief]
Yes, on account of the absence of decisive evidence, neither can this belief be imposed nor can another be called Kāfir for its denial, because such deduction does not amount to certitude with respect to the Ummah – there remains a possibility of error. However, [where there are] statements decisively proven, then the said imposition and takfīr will be correct. Here, such statements do not reach the degree of decisiveness. Meaning, neither is there a clear statement in the speech of Allāh, nor in any mutawātir ḥadīth.
[The Athar of Ibn ‘Abbās]
However, an athar has been reported from Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him), which has not reached tawātur, nor has consensus been reached on its content, so imposing the belief and excommunicating the denier is not suitable. Nonetheless, to deny such an athar, especially when the divine speech indicates towards it, is not devoid of deviation (bid‘ah). Deniers of such things are not wholly Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jamā‘ah because the imāms of Ḥadīth have graded this ḥadīth as authentic.
[Is it Shādhdh?]
Those that have described it as shādhdh (anomalous), like Imām al-Bayhaqī, have described it as shādhdh after having graded it ṣaḥīḥ. Mentioning such a type of shādhdh is not considered to be from the faults of a ḥadīth.
كما قال السيد الشريف في رسالته في أصول الحديث:
قال الشافعي: الشاذ ما رواه الثقة مخالفا لما رواه الناس. قال ابن الصلاح: فيه تفصيل. فما خالف مفرده أحفظ منه وأضبط فشاذ مردود، وإن لم يخالف وهو عدل ضابط فصحيح، وإن رواه غير ضابط، لكن لا يبعد عن درجة انضباط حسن فحسن، وإن بعد فمنكر
Sayyid al-Sharīf said in his treatise on Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth: “Al-Shāfi‘ī said: Shādhdh is what a reliable narrator narrates in opposition to what the people narrated. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said: There is detail to this. Whatever one more retentive than the singular narrator of it opposes him in, it is shādhdh and rejected. If he does not oppose him, and he is trustworthy and precise, then it is ṣaḥīḥ. If someone not precise narrates it, but is not far from the level of good retention, it is ḥasan. If far from it, then it is munkar.”
It is manifestly clear from this that shādhdh has two meanings. One is a thiqah (reliable narrator) narrating something in conflict with the narration of multiple reliable narrators. The second is that its narrator is only one thiqah. Thus, with this latter meaning, it is one of the categories of ṣaḥīḥ, and not opposed to ṣaḥīḥ. Thus, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq Dehlawī (Allāh have mercy on him) said:
قال الشيخ عبد الحق المحدث الدهلوي رحمة الله عليه في رسالة أصول الحديث التي طبعها مولانا أحمد علي في أول المشكاة المطبوعة:
بعض الناس يفسرون الشاذ بمفرد الراوي من غير مخالفته الثقات كما سبق، ويقولون: صحيح شاذ وصحيح غير شاذ، فالشذوذ بهذا المعنى أيضا لا ينافى الصحة كالغرابة، والذي يذكر في مقام الطعن هو مخالف الثقات. انتهى
“Some people define shādhdh as a narrator singularly narrating without opposition of other reliable narrators, as has preceded. Hence they say it is ṣaḥīḥ and shādhdh, and ṣaḥīḥ and not ṣhadhdh. Shudhūdh in this sense also does not negate authenticity just like gharābah (uncommonness). That which is mentioned in a context of criticism is opposition of reliable narrators.”
This passage says that very thing which I submitted. So, no one should be fooled by the word shādhdh and think that since the said athar is shādhdh, how can it be ṣaḥīḥ? The shudhūdh that infringes on ṣiḥḥah (authenticity) is in the sense of opposition to reliable narrators.
Thus, Sayyid Sharīf himself in the said treatise said this in defining ṣaḥīḥ:
هو ما اتصل سنده بنقل العدل الضابط عن مثله وسلم عن شذوذ وعلة، ونعني بالمتصل ما لم يكن مقطوعا بأي وجه كان، وبالعدل من لم يكن مستور العدالة ولا مجروحا، والضابط من يكون حافظا متيقظا، وبالشذوذ ما يرويه الثقة مخالفا لما يرويه الناس، وبالعلة ما فيه أسباب خفية غامضة قادحة
“It is the one that has a connected chain via the transmission of someone reliable and precise from the like of himself, and it is devoid of shudūdh and ‘illah (defect). By connected we mean it is not broken in any way. By reliable we mean someone whose integrity is not unknown nor has he been criticised. By someone precise we mean he is retentive and alert. By shudhūdh we mean what a reliable person narrates in opposition to what the people narrate. By ‘illah we mean something that has hidden, obscure causes infringing [on its authenticity].”
From this breakdown, it becomes clear to the people of knowledge that the intended meaning is not shudhūdh in the sense of opposition to reliable narrators because shudhūdh in the sense of opposition to reliable narrators infringes on authenticity. The ḥadīth that is shādhdh in this sense cannot be ṣaḥīḥ. Together with this, the knot of opposition and non-opposition has also been untied with the submitted explanation.
Had the athar of Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) been in opposition [to anything established], then it would be in opposition to the sentence of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” or would be in opposition to those ḥadīths which explain and clarify the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. So, after studying the explanation that has been submitted, people of understanding will inshā Allāh have no hesitation that the aforementioned athar supports and establishes the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” and does not oppose it.
[The Khātamiyyat of the Prophet ﷺ and the Athar of Ibn ‘Abbās]
In fact, if the said athar was erroneous, this would greatly affect Khātamiyyat. Why not, when if the known athar is denied, from seven parts, Khātamiyyat would only remain in only one part. Given this, from claimants to prophetic love, our expectation is that just as much as they denied this athar they now accept it to the same degree. In fact, in denying more than this there is fear of takdhīb of the Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), but in affirmation there is no such fear. In fact, instead of seven earths, if a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand other earths, above and below in the same manner, were accepted, I guarantee that there will be no effect in this affirmation that is greater than denial. There would be no contradiction of a verse nor contradiction of a ḥadīth. There remains the known athar. There is no negation in it of more than seven. Thus, since there is a daringness to reject the said athar despite the taṣḥīḥ of the imāms, then there shouldn’t be any fear in affirming more than seven earths.
Apart from this, on the assumption of Khātamiyyat Zamānī [alone], denying the said athar, does not increase the status of the Prophet at all.
It is evident that if a town is populated, and one individual from them is ruler, or the best of them all, and after this, another town parallel to this town also becomes populated and in this town too there is a ruler or the best of them, this town being populated and the authority of its ruler and its most perfect individual having excellence would not diminish the authority or excellence of the ruler or best individual of the first town. If while accepting that the Ādam, Nūḥ etc. of the other six earths are prior in time to the Ādam, Nūḥ etc. of this [earth], then even despite complete similarity, there cannot be denial of his Khātamiyyat Zamānī, where it is argued then for equality with Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace).[28]
Yes, if Khātamiyyah in the sense of an intrinsic embodiment of the quality of prophethood is taken, as this humble one has submitted, then besides Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), any other individual intended for creation cannot be considered equal to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Rather, in this way, not only is his superiority over external individual prophets established, his superiority over even conceivable (muqaddarah) individuals is established. Therefore, even if it were hypothesised that after the time of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) any prophet was born, even then there would be no difference to Muḥammadan Khātamiyyah [i.e. Muḥammadan superiority]; even if you hypothesise that it was determined there was another prophet contemporaneous to him on another earth or on this earth.
[The Athar Confirms Khātamiyyah]
In sum, the establishment of the said athar doubly affirms Khātamiyyat. It does not oppose or contradict Khātam al-Nabiyyīn for it to be said that this athar is shādhdh in the sense of opposing the narration of reliable narrators. From this, it has also become clear that according to the claim of the deniers of the athar, there is no hidden defect in this athar which can be used for denying the authenticity of the athar. Firstly, Imām al-Bayhaqī said “ṣaḥīḥ” with regards to this athar which is proof that it has no hidden obscure defect that impinges on its authenticity. Secondly, if there is shudhūdh it is opposition to the sentence of Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, and if there is a defect, it is this. If there was any other verse or ḥadīth that proved there to be more or less earths than seven or prophets being more or less or non-existent [on those earths], then it could have been said the reason for the shudhūdh is this. However, till today neither have we heard any such verse or ḥadīth from anyone, nor have the claimants presented it.
[The Contentions of it Being an Isrā’īlī Narration or that “Prophets” does not Literally Mean Prophets is Baseless]
Consider the issue of a defect that impinges [on authenticity] in this way. Till today, besides opposing this issue, no one has presented any reason for weakening the said athar. Merely a supposition with no evidence is not sufficient on this topic. Otherwise, based on this, ḥadīths of Bukhārī and Muslims will become defective and shādhdh. Further, it has become clear that the contention that this has been taken from Isrā’īlī accounts, or the intended meaning of “prophets” in the lower earths is the conveyers of laws [and not prophets], is not at all worthy of consideration. The reason is that the impulse for the said contentions is only this opposition to Khātamiyyat. Since there is no opposition, why should such interpretations be made which have no connection with the immediate meaning that is indicated?
[Did Not Some Seniors Assert These Opinions?]
The matter remains that by not accepting the interpretation of seniors, it will, Allāh forbid, entail belittling them. This can only come to the mind of those who do not accept the word of seniors only by way of disrespect. If such people understand it so, then so be it:
المرء يقيس على نفسه
“A person analogises [others] to himself.”
This is not my way. Diminishment of status is one thing, and a mistake and forgetfulness is another thing. If because of lack of attention, the understanding of seniors did not reach some reality, what diminishment occurs to their status? And if an ignorant child says a word of maturity, will he become exalted in status because of this?!
گَاہْ بَاشَدْ کِہْ کُوْدَکِی نَادَان
بِہْ غَلَطْ بَرْھَدَفْ زَنَدْ تِیْرِیْ
“At times, an ignorant child fires an arrow at the target of error.”
[The Athar is Marfū‘ in Meaning]
Yes, after the truth is clear, if it is only because this is something I said and something else was said previously, so I don’t accept [this] while that older thing will be sung [and supported], then putting aside that this is very far from the rule of prophetic love, and that it sheds light on [the lack of] one’s intellect and understanding; further, together will all this, even though this athar is outwardly mawqūf, in its meaning it is marfū‘, because a Ṣaḥābī saying something with conviction (jazm) in something the mind has no involvement, is marfū‘ according to the experts of Ḥadīth. The reason for this is that all Ṣaḥābah are men of full integrity, at the highest degree. They are so consummate in taqwā that no one else can compete with them. So how can it be that they deliberately lie and that too in a matter of religion?! As opposed to [saying something] by way of supposition, as can occur when deducing [something], in such matters that reason has involvement. Giving an opinion on such a thing is possible from them, in fact has occurred, but not only from them but from all seniors. However, the said athar being asserted with conviction and the content not being from things known by reason is evident and manifest.
[Once Knowledge is Gained of These Scriptural Proofs, Denial is Innovation]
Since the said athar is marfū‘, and its chain is ṣaḥīḥ, the said verse supports it, prophetic love tends towards it, the perfection of order that is well-known in every species supports it, greatness of divine power indicates it, even still how can it be denied?! Apart from this, what can be said: They behave like the Rawāfiḍ, Khawārij and Mu‘tazilah? These groups too on account of limited understanding, interpreted verses, the means of vision, predestination and the creation of human acts. They did not accept the ḥadīths stating explicitly these things but rather came forward with denial. So just as [because of] interpreting the said verses and denying the said ḥadīths the Ahl al-Ḥaqq consider them to be out of Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jamā‘ah, in the same way, the denier of the said athar should be considered likewise.
There is this much difference that the ḥadīths on vision etc. are stronger than the said athar in terms of authenticity; and the indication of the said verses is stronger than the indication of absolute similarity in the verse: “الله الذي خلق سبع سموات”. Thus, they will be bigger innovators, and these lesser. Whatever the consequences, the Sunnī-ness of both is clear. When it is seen that the indication of the verses on vision is clearer than the indication of this verse, and the authenticity of ḥadīths of vision etc. are stronger than the said athar, so what? Just like there is this difference on this side, in the intrusion of rational thoughts, the situation is reversed. Meaning, in accepting vision etc. there are apparently strong evidences that are obstacles; there is no evidence as an obstacle to there being an Ādam, Nūḥ etc. in each earth.
[Claims of Astronomers are Conjectural]
What remains is the suppositions of astronomers. If it intrudes against confirming the existence of seven earths, let alone the existence of the aforementioned prophets, then firstly, there isn’t [merely] a lone athar cited on this matter. In fact, the aforementioned verse on this topic is close to an explicit text (qarīb naṣṣ). Secondly, the ḥadīth which has been quoted verbatim above via the narration of Abū Hurayrah and with reference to Mishkāt, proves it. Here, the suppositions of the astronomers are conjectural. The astronomers themselves say it is conjectural. Their evidences being “innī” are obvious. If this thought hinders anyone, given in this situation the heavenly spheres (aflāk) are not mutually joined together and the centre of the earth does not correspond with the centre of the cosmos, then he should be told: “These suppositions – [the data on] which can be sound in a thousand ways and do not dependent on those possibilities that have been mentioned – cannot oppose the statement of a truthful informant [i.e. Allāh and the Prophet].”
If satisfaction is anticipated, then look. What does Ptolemy say and what does Pythagoras say? What do the Greeks say and what do the English say? Together with this, the calculation of sunrise and sunset, lunar and solar eclipse, summer and winter, etc. are correct equally in all [these models]. Since there is this mutual disagreement between astronomers and the result is achieved equally [by all], to rely on these suppositions and reject the statements of the truthful informant is extremely unfitting.
The corporealist astronomers who regard the sun, moon etc. to be in motion and the earth to be stationary, in the end, given the need to justify the calculations, regard the motions of most heavenly orbits to be noncentral. Those who say the opposite say the orbit of the earth is elliptical. So what crime is there in saying the earth is noncentral based on the explanation of a truthful informant? In fact, on one model you do not accept it as being noncentral and on the other model you accept it as being noncentral, even then after adding some preliminaries, it is possible to justify the aforesaid calculations. There is this much difference that one shot an arrow at a theoretical estimate and the other stated what was seen observationally. Very well, this discussion has gone very far!
[The Similarity Intended in the Athar]
The said athar’s wording is close to:
في كل أرض آدم كآدمكم ونوح كنوحكم وإبراهيم كإبراهيمكم وعيسى كعيساكم ونبي كنبيكم
From the last clause, it is clear that similarity in name is not meant. Similarity in position is meant. In “آدم كآدمكم”, giving a similarity by taking the name is just as it is said in Arabic:
لكل فرعون موسى
“Every Fir‘awn has a Mūsā.”
Or in Urdu: “The Ādamic father of so-and-so is unique.” In short, just as here the name is mentioned, and the intent is the position and place of the one named, in the same way, in the said athar too, understand it to mean that there is similarity in position, meaning in relation. Mere similarity in name is not meant. Yes, complete similarity entails that the name there too is the same, and this may be the reason for mentioning the name.
In short, in the final clause, making the similarity to prophethood and in the first clauses mentioning the names, perhaps there is an indication that just as the positions of the individuals in the lower earths are the [same] positions as the individuals of the higher earths, in the same way, there is agreement in name too.
[How the Seals on Other Earths are Similar to the Prophet ﷺ]
Once all of these topics have been completed, and with praise to Allāh all doubts and misconceptions have been completely uprooted, it necessitates that clarification of: “نبي كنبيكم” be done in a manner that the superiority of the Messenger of Allāh and the Khātams of the lower earths maintaining resemblance with him are both established in a manner that nothing further remains. Further, the [following] doubt is also removed: “It is accepted that a similarity of relation is intended in the verse: ‘الله الذي’, the reasons mentioned above are sufficient to prove this, but in the athar, this similarity which is found from the start to the end, to regard it as similarity of relation is apparently contrary to the plain meaning. If here it is regarded as similarity of an individual entity, then that is fine. If regarded as similarity of relation, it will necessitate a composite similarity.”
In sum, because of the similarity alluded to, and to avert the said doubt, this humble one will be writing some more, so I am requesting those of understanding to focus and accept the truth with fairness.
[Prophethood is a Composite Perfection]
Listen. Prophethood is a perfection which, like beauty, depends on many things. Everyone remembers the ḥadīth found in Bukhārī and other Ṣaḥīḥ collections:
الرؤيا جزء من ستة وأربعين جزء من النبوة
“A dream is one out of 46 parts of prophethood.”
Look! It is clearly established from this ḥadīth that prophetic perfection is not a simple matter. Just as beauty is acquired by all necessary parts coming together, in the same way, prophetic perfection also is acquired by the coming together of all necessary perfections. However, just as there is no one rule for proportion of beauty – in each beautiful person there is a separate proportion – in the same way, the proportion of prophetic perfections too is not of one kind; at places there is one type of proportion and in other places another type.
If the perfections of two prophets have the same proportion, then the prophethood of one would be similar to the other, otherwise it would not. However, just as the people of the world have not seen two beauties with one proportion, although it is itself possible, in the same way, it is not known that there has been two prophetic perfections with one proportion. Yes, just as in the mirror the reflection of beauty also has the same proportion that the original beauty had, in the same way, reflections of prophetic perfection will have the same proportion which the original perfection had. If any difference occurs, it will be because of the mirror or the state of the one receiving [prophethood]. Just as sometimes a difference occurs in the proportion of the reflected beauty because of the mirror, meaning, sometimes the said reflection does not have the proportion which was in the original, rather its proportion begins to appear tall, fat or wide, and likewise, in a discoloured mirror, just as the reflection is the same colour as the original, and in a green or red mirror the reflection does not have the same colour as the original but complements the colour of the mirror; in the same way, if there are any differences to the qualities of the reflections of prophethood, its cause would be some specific quality of the mirror i.e. the essence of the one receiving prophethood.
Once this matter is settled firmly in the mind, listen further. From the explanation regarding the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, all those of understanding realise that the one that is characterised by the attribute of prophethood intrinsically is our Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) alone. If any perfection of prophethood appears in the remaining prophets, they appear via Janāb e Khatm Ma’āb (the revered complete seal). Anyhow, from the consideration that the soul of each prophet is the soul and source of the souls of their Ummatīs, as evidenced by a brief look at the explanation related to the verse: “النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم”, it will come within one’s understanding that other prophets, having received effusion from Allāh’s Messenger, pass it on to their Ummatīs. That is, they are a medium in between of the effusion, not intrinsically autonomous. However, this is exactly like the mirror that is for radiating light. In short, just as the mirror is a medium between the sun and the sunlight which is generated via it in those places which are not themselves in opposition to the sun but in opposition to the mirror that is in opposition to the sun, in the same way, the remaining prophets too, like the mirror, are a medium of effusion in between. In short, whatever there is in other prophets, it is a Muḥammadan shadow and reflection, not an intrinsic perfection.
So in some prophet this reflection is with that proportion that is in Muḥammadan perfection and beauty, and in some prophets, for specified reasons, that proportion does not remain. Wherever it said “نبي كنبيكم”, it indicates to the proportion remaining.
Anyhow, after consideration of the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” and the similarity included within “نبي كنبيكم”, it becomes evident that the Muḥammadan reflections on other earths are with this proportion. From the meaning of proportion, it is clear that this similarity is a similarity in affinity. Meaning the relation that there was in the perfections of the original, that same relation has remained in the perfections of the reflections.
In this scenario, even if there is equality between the original and shadow, there is no harm, because superiority on account of being the origin will still remain.
If it is said: The thing compared to is the Muḥammadan being and the thing compared is the individual beings of each prophet, so should not this similarity be called similarity of an individual entity, & not compound? From our side too we accept this, but in any case, whether you say the thing compared to and the thing compared is one or multiple, you will have to say the reason for the connection is the internal proportion, meaning the proportion between perfections, and the external proportion, meaning the affinity between prophets, so that the absoluteness of the similarity is not lost from one’s hand, and this further cause of Muḥammadan superiority comes into hand: just as the reflection of the light of the earth in the mirror is derived from the reflection of the sun, which is why it should be ascribed to the sun, in the same way, the ones that receive effusions from the Khātams of the other earths, whether the souls of the prophets or the souls of the Ummah, whether the perfection of these or those, all are ascribed to him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace).
[Summation of the Above]
The one who studies all these discussions will understand well that in the situation of accepting the other earths in the known manner, by testimony of the sentence of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, our Pure Prophet, the holder of “Lawlāka”, will manifest in all earths, and the prophets of those [earths] will be in need of him. Everyone knows that the virtue in this, in the situation of denying the earths that are below, will be lost from the hand.
[Can This Justify the Possibility of Multiple Gods?!]
However, yes, it may be that the [following] whisper makes a person perplexed: If in the other six earths being in this known way, Ḥaḍrat Khātam al-Nabiyyīn’s superiority acquires this comprehensiveness, then in accepting another six gods, for example, in this same way, God’s divinity to this specified extent will become more comprehensive? This doubt will only occur to those who regard the Messenger of Allāh to be equal to God and his prophethood equal to divinity! Meaning, they are ready to adopt faith on the multiplicity of that based on the multiplicity of this and the oneness of that based on the oneness of this. Our discussion is not with such people. What consideration do we have? They don’t even believe in God [correctly]! Yes, with the understanding that perhaps hearing such people, someone may be fooled, it is submitted:
[Divinity is not Divisible into Intrinsic and Extrinsic]
There are further qualities that are not divisible into “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. One is divinity. A second is imkān khāṣṣ (to be possible). In these two, the distinction of intrinsic and extrinsic cannot come about. Just as for imkān, there is only one single “intrinsic imkān”, and there is no scope for “extrinsic possibility”, otherwise the necessary and impossible would have to at times become mumkin khāṣṣ[29]; in the same way, for God there is only the possibility of “intrinsic” [godhood]. Otherwise, God would at times also become possible or impossible, and even if not, it would entail His being God is [merely] possible.
Besides these two attributes, in other famous attributes, particularly those shared between the necessary and possible, there are both types: at times, intrinsic, and at times, extrinsic. There remains the thing by which it will be understood that imkān and divinity are specified to the intrinsic category, and clarity achieved on other attributes being divided into both types. It is this. Everyone knows that most attributes divide into these two types. Further, everyone also knows that if a qualification of “intrinsic” or “extrinsic” is added to any attribute, and the attribute is seen with the qualification, i.e. while qualified, then there will be no scope for the second type, for otherwise it will necessitate a combination of two opposites. It is evident that intrinsic blackness cannot be extrinsic, and extrinsic blackness cannot be intrinsic. This is such an obvious matter that no one will hesitate concerning it. Yes, if there is lack of understanding, then they are not at fault.
Thus, other notions imbue these two qualifications while the qualifications are excluded from the notions of divinity and imkān. Divinity amounts to intrinsic mawjūdiyyat (to be existent), and imkān amounts to extrinsic mawjūdiyyat. It is evident that in prophethood and messengership, this matter is intended. In fact, since the notion of divinity and imkān is not a relational meaning, it also cannot be said that divinity or imkān is “absolute” at places and “relative” at other places. Yes, since Khātamiyyah is a relative notion, the difference between absolute and relative can operate here.
Everyone knows this is relative and that is not, so why should I wear out the pen? Yes, it is worth submitting that since an extrinsic attribute is eliminated from imkān, and in respect to it, it is from the category of intrinsic attributes, here too the notion of extrinsic-ness is eliminated, & it remains limited to intrinsic-ness; because imkān refers to the totality of extrinsic mawjūdiyyat.
No one should fall into the doubt that here imkān should be extrinsic, so why is it intrinsic? Indeed, from the perspective of mawjūdiyyat (to be existent), then certainly this is correct. It is evident that possible existents (mumkināt) are existent externally, or their realisation is in the state of a‘yān thābitah. Both states are existent extrinsically not intrinsically, because here [in the first case], external existence is from derived attributes, and there [in the second case], internal existence is from derived attributes. Everyone knows that derived attributes exist via the existence of the source, from which extrinsic mawjūdiyyat occurs, not intrinsic existence.
والله أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم
[Synopsis of Entire Thesis]
After this elaboration, by way of summarising the thesis (khulāṣa e taqrīr) and providing a synopsis of the evidence (fadhlaka e dalā’il), I submit:
In each earth, there is a Khātam to the prophets of that earth. However, our Messenger, the accepted one of the entire universe, is the Khātam of all of them. Relative to them, he has the relationship that the king of [all] seven regions [of the world] (aqālīm) has with kings of specific regions. Just as the authority of each region finds its culmination at the king of that region, which is why he is called “king”, [but] in the end, the king is the one who is king of all, in the same way, the authority of prophethood of each earth culminates at the Khātam of this earth. Just as the king of each region, despite being king is subordinate to the king of [all] seven regions, in the same way, although the Khātam of each earth is a Khātam, they are subordinate to the Khātam al-Nabiyyīn.
Just as the glory and grandeur of the king of [all] seven regions, by being authority over the subjects of the region in which he resides, is not considered to be as much as is considered by being authority over the remaining regions, in the same way, the glory and grandeur of the Messenger of Allāh, by being Khātam of only the prophets of this earth, is not considered as much as is considered by being the Khātam of the Khātams of the lower earths.
However, it is surprising of Muslims today with how much extremism they deny the other Khātams, in fact the earths themselves; even to the point of passing a fatwā of kufr on those who accept them, or accusing them of not being Sunnī. This is just like nose-less individuals calling those with noses “nose-ies”! [That is, those with a defect considering those without to be defective.]
The outcome of the inner feeling of the deniers, in this situation, will be: “Do not consider the Messenger of Allāh to be so great or you will become Kāfir! Do not love the Messenger of Allāh so much, or you will not remain Sunnī!”
If this is Kufr and Islām, and this Sunnah and Bid‘ah, then Kufr is better than this Islām and Bid‘ah is superior to this Sunnah. Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, in response to those people who considered love of Ahl al-Bayt to be on account of extreme rifḍ, said:
إن كان رفضا حب آل محمد
فليشهد الثقلان أني رافضي
“If it is rifḍ to love the family of Muḥammad, then let the two weighty beings [jinn and man] bear witness that I am a Rāfiḍī!
In response to those individuals who consider this degree of seven-fold elevation of Allāh’s Messenger to be evil by declaring those who advocate the greater status to be Kāfir or outside the ideology of Ahl al-Sunnah, we change this verse and say:
إن كان كفرا حب قدر محمد
فليشهد الثقلان أني كافر
“If it is Kufr to love the status of Muḥammad, let the two weighty beings bear witness that I am a Kāfir!”
[Synopsis of Evidence]
This is a summary of the outcome. Now listen to a summary of the evidences. Regarding the attribute of prophethood, it is not only the prophets of this earth who receive and acquire from our Khātam al-Nabiyyīn like the moon and other heavenly bodies does from the sun, rather the Khātam of the prophets of the other earths too acquire and receive it likewise from him. However, this reality depends on there being seven earths, and there being prophets on each earth, and further these prophets being receptive of the attribute of prophethood and him (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) being the medium of acquiring the attribute. Unless this is proven, proof of the objective is inconceivable.
Thus, for the existence of seven earths, one evidence is the verse: “الله الذي خلق سبع سموات” and the second evidence is the aforementioned ḥadīth [of Tirmidhī], which has been quoted from beginning to end. After the agreement of the verse and ḥadīth becoming manifest, the views of the tafsīrs on this topic which took the intent of seven earths as seven regions or determined it as seven levels of one earth, cannot be reliable, especially according to those of understanding, given the aforementioned verse with support and attachment of the said ḥadīth indicates the number of the earths and that too to the amount of seven in such clear manner that the word “سبع سموات” indicates there are seven skies. Just like no one has said about the meaning of “seven skies” that they are seven pieces or seven constellations, for example, or seven degrees of one sky, in the same way, the false notion here should not be held.
Evidence of there being prophets on each earth too, without considering the proof that has been written above, just like the previous issue, there is one verse and one ḥadīth. The verse is the same:
الله الذي خلق سبع سموات ومن الأرض مثلهن، يتنزل الأمر بينهن
The ḥadīth is the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās, which was alluded to above. The indication of the athar is evident, but there isn’t that much detail in the indication of the verse. So it depends on this. Many verses point to their outcomes in this way, the reason being:
ما قل وكفى خير مما كثر وألهى
“That which is small and sufficient is better that what is lengthy and distracting.”
Or:
ما قل ودل خير مما كثر أمل
“That which is small and to the point is better than what is lengthy and boring.”
All verses are such that the words are little and the meanings much. However, if there is understanding, the quantity of complete and full explanation of points that are found in the words of Allāh’s speech, are not found in the words of ḥadīths, let alone in other statements and words. Many meanings are brought together in a small amount of words, rather than each point being made with a separate wording. Thus, ignorant ones like us at times do not realise [the multifaceted meanings]. Yes, by indication of sound explanation which are the ṣaḥīḥ prophetic ḥadīths, immense meanings emerge from a few words.
[Ḥadīths Are the First Tafsīr of Qur’ān]
In short, prophetic ḥadīths is the first tafsīr of the Qur’ān. Why should this not be so? Regarding the speech of Allāh, it itself states:
ونزلنا عليك الكتاب تبيانا لكل شيء
Since all things are in the speech of Allāh, meaning everything is summarily mentioned, what else are ḥadīths besides an explanation of Qur’ān? It is also evident that there is no one more learned about the Qur’ān than the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). In this situation, whatever the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) stated will be sound. If any statement has been attributed to him, and is not opposed to reason, then although in terms of the chain it is not so strong, as caused by transmission, even then, it should be considered above the interpretations of other mufassirīn.
This is because the chain of the statements of the mufassirīn too are found at various places to be at this degree. Further, their understanding cannot be given as much consideration because they can err. So, when by consideration of chain, they are equal, and one is his (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) statement and the other is another’s, then undoubtedly his word will be deemed to have priority. If according to the rules of the principles of Ḥadīth, the chain too is good, then there is no point to even hesitate.
[Meaning of “The Command Descending Between Them” in the Verse]
So look, if the meaning is given for the word “يتنزل” that commands and prohibitions are sent down and revelation is sent down, and the aforementioned athar is regarded to be an explanation of this, then from the perspective that in meaning it is marfū‘ and in terms of the chain ṣaḥīḥ, undoubtedly it would be necessary to accept. In fact, the situation will be as follows:
A blind man’s eyes are treated, and he is asked: “Where is the sun?” He described it accurately and when he sees the sun, he screams. So just as the sun being at that place is evidence of him having become seeing, and his having become seeing is evidence of the sun being there, in the same way, this verse gives confirmation to the said athar and the said athar gives confirmation to [this indication of] the verse.
At this, a story comes to mind.
[A Story of Junayd Baghdādī]
The complexion of a Murīd of Ḥaḍrat Junayd suddenly changed. He asked the reason. Based on kashf, he said: “I am seeing my mother in Hell!” Ḥaḍrat Junayd began to recite the Kalimah 100,000 or 75,000 times, with the understanding that as reward for reading the Kalimah this many times there is promise of forgiveness in some narrations. It was his heart’s desire for this Murīd’s mother to be forgiven and he did not inform him. But what does the blessed one see? The youngster became elated and happy. He asked the reason. He said: “I am now seeing my mother in Heaven!” At this, he said: “The truth of this youngster’s kashf was inferred from the known ḥadīth, and the ḥadīth was authenticated by his kashf!”
In the same way, understand the matter here. The aforementioned verse with the explanation given supports the aforementioned athar and the aforementioned athar agrees with the said explanation. In sum, there is a strong probability that the verse means the coming down of revelation.
[Rules Descend from the Higher Earth to Lower Earths]
Further, the pronoun of “بينهن” refers only to the earth together with “مثلهن”. Because of closeness, the mind goes more towards this. Or it refers to the skies and the earth together with “مثلهن”. Whatever the case, the meaning will be this.
The command coming down between the heavens is inferred from a ḥadīth of Tirmidhī which we have referred to [earlier]. And here, it is inferred from this verse and this athar. It is evident that this descent of command (nuzūl e amr) necessitates prophethood.
The outcome of the discussion is that according to nomenclature, angels are not called “nabī”. But, prophethood, in the sense of commands being sent down, is nonetheless established. It was previously established that this earth is above all earths and those earths, whether higher up and lower down, are located below it. “Nuzūl” refers to something going down from above. In this situation, the “descent of command” will be from here to there, so that the meaning of “بينهن” is realised, because the coming down of divine commands in the remaining earths occurs via Ḥaḍrat Sarwar e Kā’ināt (the master of existents). If all earths are included in the reference of the pronoun, this would not be said; rather: “يتنزل الأمر فيهن” or “عليهن” would have been said. Allāh knows best.
What remains with regards to its authentication is senseless interpretations, when circulated, it then creates difficulty in accepting the meaning that immediately comes to mind.
In fact, if you look with fairness, the literal meaning is: descent will be considered to occur from here to there, and the said revelation via Muḥammad Rasūlullāh will reach the prophets below in the manner that the decrees of rulers reach the lower employees via the higher employees.
The reality of “علمت علم الأولين والآخرين” is true with respect to the prophets below in this manner. First, he receives revelation, and then via the angels it reaches them. If this were not so, it would not be right. Merely having all knowledges is sufficient. Either this or [they receive knowledges] in the manner that the knowledges of the prophets of this earth was acquired [via the Prophet].
What remains is his attribute of prophethood being a medium of reception and being characterised by it intrinsically and the prophets below being receptive of his effusion and being characterised extrinsically. This explanation depends on the meaning of Khātamiyyat, the explanation and clarification of which as required has passed above.
[“Innī” Arguments are not Always Treated with Scepticism]
Now, it is submitted that if the previous discussions are looked at one by one, it will be no surprise that some contenders will find some method or argument for rejection. Some unreasonable individuals will argue a rational case that most arguments cited are “innī” [i.e. arguing from the effect for the cause], so what consideration is achieved by repetition [of such weak arguments]?
So, it is hoped from those of intelligence, foresight and intuition that just as by seeing different shapes [of the moon], after considering the mutual nearness and distance, and considering the sphericity of the earth and sky, it is understood the moon’s light derives from the sun; in the same way, after considering the afore-written topics, seeing the difference in the degrees of the prophets, it will be understood that the perfections of previous prophets and the prophets below are derived from Muḥammadan perfections. Just as the shapes and so on are not on their own sufficient as proof for the objective, in the same way the aforesaid topics are not regarded as sufficient individually for one with poor understanding, nonetheless, putting it all together, it will definitely indicate the known matter undoubtedly as much as the different shapes of the moon etc. indicates the said derivation. Or it can be said: Just as by putting together many general properties (‘awāriḍ ‘āmmah), an absolute specific entity (khāṣṣah muṭlaqah) is generated, and it becomes specific, as evident from looking at the “incomplete description” (rasm nāqiṣ) of Isagoge; in the same way, even if the aforesaid evidences in the view of some are individually general, all put together, become equal to the said objective.
However, this was submitted by way of argumentation, strictness and precaution. If there is a deep insight, sound thought, healthy nature, firm mind, quick intellect and intelligent heart, then all of the aforesaid matters are from the particularities of Khatm Nubuwwat Muṭlaq (the absolute prophetic seal). Had there not been little opportunity and many engagements and the demand of letters, then inshāAllāh, I would have written the details of this brief proof for this claim.
Just as by seeing sunlight, there is no doubt on the rising of the sun, and in seeing smoke on the presence of fire, and smelling a nice fragrance on there being scent, and hearing someone’s sound on that individual or a general person being there; in the same way, arguing for Khatm Nubuwwat Muṭlaq from the aforesaid matters is not worthy of scepticism. From this it is realised that not all innī arguments are areas of scepticism. Otherwise, the divinity of God which is inferred from looking at the world, the prophethood of the Messenger of Allāh which is proven from miracles and so on, or someone’s intelligence or worship or generosity or stinginess or bravery or cowardice are known from specified effects, would all become areas of scepticism.
Besides this what else can be said: Just as these matters individually are particularities of the things pointed to or like a conglomerate of general properties coming together and becoming a specific entity; in the same way, the things written in the previous pages which have been discussed with regards to proving Khātamiyyat in the manner mentioned, either individually or together are specific to the specified objective.
[Tafsīr bi ‘l-Ra’y is Two Types: Tafsīr bi ‘l-Hawā and Tafsīr bi ‘l-Dalīl]
Now, it is submitted that although no one else has written this tafsīr for: “الله الذي خلق سبع سموات”, yet just as later exegetes differed with earlier exegetes, I too said something new. So, what does this amount to? If the direct meaning of the verse did not accord with this interpretation, then indeed there would be scope for takfīr, and it could be said that according to the ḥadīth: “من فسر القرآن برأيه فقد كفر”, this individual has become Kāfir. But in this particular case, this sinner does not become a Kāfir on his own; this takfīr will reach great seniors.
Yes, if there is fairness, I submit about the meaning of this ḥadīth [the following]. Listen. A general notion (mafhūm kullī) can accord with thousands of individual items. A sound possibility for it occurs in each individual item. Hence, if a general notion is mentioned in Qur’ānic verses, then regarding the possibilities, it is a single entity, whether the internal connection between these (possibilities) is of being synonymous such that they are substitutable, or not; the verse will [thus] be ambiguous. Thus, to attach one of these possibilities to the verse without evidence, and regard it to be preponderant without an indicator, is a veiled claim to prophethood, from which today a person will be considered Kāfir.[30]
Yes, if there is a rational or transmitted evidence, or there is a rational or textual indication, and then, to the extent of the strength of evidence and indication, someone regards a possibility to be preponderant, then it is not at all Kufr. Otherwise how can it be correct that subtleties and points will always be continually taken out [from Qur’ān] as indicated to in the wordings of some marfū‘ ḥadīths, like:
لا يشبع منه العلماء ولا يخلق عن كثرة الرد ولا ينقضي عجائبه
“‘Ulamā’ will not be satiated from it, nor will it wear out from frequent referral, and its wonders will not end.”?
Yes, when there is neither evidence nor indication, then to give preference to one of the possibilities is merely a deception of one’s unfit mind. This can be called: “tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y”, meaning “tafsīr bi ‘l-hawā” and “tafsīr ‘inda nafsihī”. Otherwise, why should it be called: “tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y”? Call it: “tafsīr bi ‘l-dalīl” or “bi ‘l-qarīnah”.
[What is Tafsīr?]
If a clarification with an illustration is anticipated, then listen. Reason has a “microscope” and “telescope” by which it understands subtle matters and distant matters. Just as by means of a microscope and telescope small bodies and distant [bodies] become clear and recognisable, in the same way, via clear and sound minds, subtle matters and distant matters are seen to become clear and closer to the mind. However, just as the things perceived by a microscope and telescope are not in reality considered to be the very thing, otherwise there would be no difference in size and variation of dimension, rather it is an illustration or form of the thing; in the same way, at the time of perceiving subtle or distant matters, whether a reality or a perspective, whatever comes to the mind, it is considered an illustration and form of the matter.
However, just as the form in the lens, apart from the parts and components of the one having the form, whatever the colour of the lens – suppose it is green or suppose it is red – will become attached to it, and this colour cannot be called an effect of the one having the form but rather an effect of the lens; in the same way, consider some things additional to the original form attaches to the mind, and the cause of this attachment cannot be attributed to the original thing, but rather to the mind of the knower.
Once this illustration and preface has become firmly rooted in the mind, now listen. “Tafsīr” makes an unclear matter clear. It does not add or reduce anything. If a human being is called “a rational animal”, it is making an unclear matter clear. It didn’t add anything to the original. This is the very same situation that occurs in the perception with a microscope. Based on this if we regard the image of a lens to be a “tafsīr” of the one whose image is captured that would be sound. If a white body is seen with the green lens of a microscope, the green colour that attaches to the image of the lens, and is regarded as the original colour, if called “tafsīr of the lens” that would be appropriate. Thus, those statements that have no connection with the position of ambiguity, and it attaches to the mind of anyone, to then call that “tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y” is improper.
Anyhow, like the clarification of a microscope, tafsīr is a clarification. It is not an invention or creation. Something small becomes large. Non-existent things do not become existent. Something small becoming large, just as it is a type of clarifying the size, in the same way, a colour coming clearly into view, is a clarification of the colour. White being seen as black or green or red is not a clarification of white, but rather an alteration of the colour, from which one colour is eliminated and another colour created. From this explanation, the doubt that the additional size too is extraneous to the original reality is eliminated.
Secondly, the thing to perceive which requires using viewing points is from a category known via viewing points, and will be considered to be from “tafsīr”. If the matter in essence is ambiguous, then it will be a tafsīr of the essence; if not then it is will be regarded as “tafsīr of the lens”. Those things which do not require viewing points, if they are known, why should they be called tafsīr? That thing should be called tafsīr from which an ambiguity is changed to clarity and an obscurity is changed to openness. It is evident that sizes and locations do not require viewing points. Otherwise, it would necessitate that the original size and locations of things seen through viewing points will be inferred in the manner that they are from a microscope or telescope.
In sum, tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y is something neither ambiguous nor explained, rather the ambiguous speech is silent on it, and it is brought into the level of explanation and clarification. It is evident that to bring in such matters is a fanciful act, which is an activity of our deficient minds. Those things that are added via a rational or transmitted evidence, even though literalists call this “tafsīr”, it is not in reality tafsīr, but joining together the content of two separate statements. Yes, if a general definition of tafsīr is taken that includes this, that is an option.
لا مشاحة فى الإصطلاح
Anyhow, in this scenario, it will be called “tafsīr bi ‘l-dalīl” or “tafsīr bi ‘l-qarīnah”. It will not be called “tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y”.
[Final Word]
In short, it is submitted to the readers of these pages, to not become a fount of “Kufr” for no reason, in that whatever comes before [you], a splatter of “Kufr” conglomerates. The job of Molvīs is not to make Muslims Kāfirs. Their job is to make Kāfirs Muslims. If heed has not been taken, then recall the tales of the earlier ‘Ulamā’. If it can occur from ‘Ulamā’ of this age, giving a helping hand to this sinner whose Islām is by name [only], save him from the whirlpool of destruction and take him to the shore of felicity.
We have no obligation but to convey.
Our final supplication is that all praise belongs to Allāh, Lord of the Worlds. May Allāh bless the best of His creation, Muḥammad, and his progeny and all his companions.
The sinful slave: Muḥammad Qāsim al-Ṣiddīqī al-Nānotwī, wrote it.
[1] This is a reference to the mustaftī himself, Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī (1825 – 1895)
[2] This is a reference to Maulānā ‘Abdul Ḥayy Lakhnawī Farangī Maḥallī (1848 – 1886)
[3] This is a reference to Muftī Sa‘dullāh Murādābādī (1805 – 1877)
[4] Because Naqī ‘Alī Khān (1830 – 1880) had declared him a disbeliever for precisely this. See for details of the background to this issue: Context/History of Taḥdhīr un Nās. Note, the questioner already had the understanding that the seals on the other earths are: 1) chronologically prior to the seal of this earth, 2) inferior in terms of status to the seal on this earth, 3) subject to the laws of the seal of this earth. The question was how these issues are reconciled with the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās. Maulānā Nānotwī strengthens and provides support for all of these issues, and in particular the second.
[5] Meaning, first the verse in which the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is referred to as “seal of prophets” should be understood. That is the verse: “Muḥammad is the not the father of any of your men but the Messenger of Allāh (Rasūlullāh) and the Seal of Prophets (Khātam al-Nabiyyīn).”
[6] As in, according to common people, the fundamental and primary meaning of the term is the “last chronological prophet”. Maulānā Nānotwī does not deny this being part of the meaning of Khātam al-Nabiyyīn but contends that it is not the fundamental, primary and/or the only meaning. Only a little later, he says: “Sealship is based on something else, from which chronological lateness and closing the aforementioned door are automatically necessitated, and prophetic virtue (upon him blessing and peace) is multiplied.” He also clarifies this in a later treatise in which he made clear his stance, called Tanwīr al-Nibrās. Later in this very work he states his preferred view that chronological finality is one amongst several intrinsic meanings of the term “Seal of Prophets”.
Hence, the objection raised against this sentence – that it describes the belief that the term means the last prophet as a belief of commoners, when this meaning has been reported from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself and the ṣaḥābah and the scholars after them – and thus he is – Allāh forbid – effectively calling them “commoners” is answered (explicitly so in Tanwīr al-Nibrās): There is no evidence that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) or the great scholars after him regarded chronological finality to be the only or primary meaning of the term, only that it is a part of the meaning of the term, which Maulānā Nānotwī does not deny nor describe as the understanding of commoners.
[7] In a ḥadīth about the events on the plains of resurrection, the people rush to each prophet recounting their individual merits. When they come to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), they exclaim: “You are the Messenger of Allāh and the Seal of Prophets.” (Saḥīḥ Muslim) Hence, this characteristic must be one of praise and merit. But merely coming later in time, just like merely coming earlier in time, is not in and of itself something of merit. There must be something else that gives the fact of coming later in time virtue. This “something else” is what Maulānā Nānotwī describes as the primary meaning of the term “Seal of Prophets”.
[8] By referring to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as “Seal of Prophets” in the primary sense of chronological finality.
[9] Meaning, the verse uses the word lākin (but) which is for istidrāk, to rectify a wrong assumption that may arise from the previous sentence, “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men”. By interpreting the term as merely the last chronological prophet, it is hard to see how it serves as an istidrāk. Maulānā Nānotwī thus explains how he believes the istidrāk is fulfilled by a more complete definition of the term, “Seal of Prophets”
[10] Maulānā Nānotwī’s contention is that sealship hinges on status. That is, his prophethood was acquired directly, without intermediary, from Allāh, and his prophethood is thus intrinsic. The prophethood of the remaining prophets was acquired from Allāh (Exalted is He) through the intermediary and effusion of the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Thus, the prophethood of all other prophets is extrinsic. Maulānā Nānotwī substantiates this with evidences. This he regards to be the primary meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”.
[11] Here intrinsic (dhātī) and extrinsic (‘araḍī) mean directly (bi lā wāsiṭah) and indirectly (bi wāsiṭah), as stating explicitly in this paragraph. Amongst the definitions of dhātī given by one of the classical scholars, one definition is: أن يحصل لموضوع بلا واسطة وفي مقابله العرضي (It is acquired directly by a subject and the opposite is ‘araḍī).
[12] Hence, existence itself and all perfections of existence have an ultimate source, which itself does not derive its existence and perfections of existence from another: God.
[13] Musnad Aḥmad
[14] No reference could be found for this ḥadīth.
[15] As stated, this is only in the outward. In terms of internal reality, and quality, a prophet’s actions will be far superior to the ummatīs, even if less in quantity. For instance, the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) performed only a single Ḥajj, while many ummatīs have performed far more Ḥajjs. Thus, outwardly they surpass him in deeds, but of course in terms of inward reality, his single Ḥajj is far superior to their many Ḥajjs. Maulāna Nānotwī alludes to this in the very next sentence. He states his position later in the book as follows: “Prophethood is from the perfections of knowledge but necessitates deeds.”
[16] That is, certain prophets had continuous miracles, like the staff of Mūsā, the healing miracles of ‘Īsā, the supernatural kingdom of Sulaymān, ‘alayhimussalām. The continuous miracle of the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was the Qur’ān.
[17] That is, if there isn’t a greater degree of knowledge, there would not be a greater degree in rank.
[18] That is, “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” (seal of prophets) means “Khātam Nubuwwat al-Nabiyyīn” (seal of the prophethood of prophets) as opposed to “Khātam Zamān a-Nabiyyīn” (seal of the time of prophets).
[19] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī
[20] Meaning, in the verse, “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men but RasūlAllāh and Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”.
[21] A technical discussion follows, the gist of which is that the believer’s defining property is his īmān, which is entirely dependent on the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). This dependence on the Prophet for one’s defining characteristic entails that the Prophet is closer to one’s own essence than their own selves. A reader may skip the technical discussion, and move to the next section.
[22] Meaning, if aqrabiyyat is not the case, it is not possible for there to be aḥabbiyyat or awlawiyyah bittaṣarruf.
[23] A “limmī” argument, as opposed to an “innī”, argument, is one in which one infers the result (ma‘lūl) from the cause (‘illah). An “innī” argument is the reverse, where one infers the ‘illah from the ma‘lūl.
[24] The seven earths are also mentioned in a ḥadīth of Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (من ظلم من الأرض شيئا طوقه من سبع أرضين).
[25] This is an illustration Maulānā Nānotwī uses for the absolute authority and superiority of the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). His prophethood is received by every prophet on this earth and the final and most perfect prophet on the next earth, from whom the other prophets on that earth receive their prophethood, as does the most perfect prophet on the next earth, and so on. Similarly, his authority extends to all prophets in a similar manner. Maulānā Nānotwī will state this explicitly a little later.
[26] Thus, although the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and all prophets on this earth are superior to the prophets on earths below, the difference in degrees between the prophets apart from this distinction cannot be determined from this alone.
[27] According to Maulānā Nānotwī’s explanation in the following section, a simile can be of two kinds. The similarity may be based on the individual things (mufrad). This is called tashbīh mufrad. For example, it is said: “Zayd is like a lion.” There is a resemblance between the entity of Zayd and of a lion in terms of being brave. The similarity may also be based on a relation (nisbah). For example, it can be said: “Zayd is with his family like Aḥmad is with his.” Here, there is no resemblance being drawn between Zayd and Aḥmad, besides in the relations that they have with their families.
[28] In other words, the athar cannot be denied on the basis of it contradicting Khātamiyyat Zamānī, given one can postulate the prophets of other earths are all prior to the advent of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. But despite accepting this Khātamiyyat Zamānī, it doesn’t solve the issue of the Prophet’s ﷺ superiority to his counterpart on the other earths. Hence, Maulānā Nānotwī contends that the primary meaning he had proposed for “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” will solve this issue.
[29] For something to be possible (e.g. “earth exists”), it can only be intrinsically possible. If we were to suppose there is something “extrinsically possible”, then we would have to hypothesise something that is necessary or impossible, which then becomes possible. Of course, this is an absurdity. Hence, something possible (i.e. mumkin khāṣṣ) can only be intrinsically possible.
[30] Here, Maulānā Nānotwī explicitly states that any claim to prophethood today is Kufr.
Barelwis: A Critical Review 
[…] a preface to the ongoing translation of Taḥdhīr un Nas, a brief explanation of Maulānā Muḥammad Qāsim Nānotwī’s thesis in the book is presented […]
[…] Taḥdhīr un Nās – FULL English Translation […]
[…] Taḥdhīr un Nās (written in: 1873) is a deep exegetical work written by Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī (1833 – 1880) on the topic of the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in relation to the prophetic title “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī wrote two subsequent works, Munāẓarah ‘Ajībah and Tanwīr al-Nibrās, to answer objections and allay misconceptions regarding Taḥdhīr un Nās. […]
[…] Tanwīr al-Nibrās, a work he wrote subsequent to Taḥdīr al-Nās (his most detailed work on the tafsīr of this verse) to respond to objections, he states: “The […]