A Barelwī presented a skewed history and context for Taḥdhīr un Nās, arguing the context justifies the evident fraud committed by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān in his pronouncement of takfīr against the author of Taḥdhīr un Nās. [For details on the fraud, see here.]
Hence, here we present the true context and background to the book.
The Actual Context
[The following is summarised from the authoritative biography of Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī written by Dr Ayyūb Qādirī (p. 84-94). See also: Taḥdhīr un Nās: Eik Taḥqīqī Muṭāla‘ah.]
Taḥdhīr un Nās was first printed in 1873.
The onset of disagreement is a sentence from Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s Taqwiyat al-Īmān (written in 1818) that Faḍl e Ḥaqq Khairābādī took issue with (in 1826). [For details, see here.] The latter claimed it was impossible and not even in Allāh’s power to create a likeness of the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). This was the cause of the famous controversy of “imtinā‘ al-naẓīr”/”imkān al-naẓīr”.
In 1871, a debate took place between a student of Faḍl e Ḥaqq Khairābādī (and son of the notorious Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī), ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī (1837 – 1901), and the Ahl e Ḥadīth scholar Amīr Aḥmad Sahsawānī (1843 – 1889). [‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī followed in the footsteps of his infamous father. Regarding his father, see here and here.] The details of the debate were published as “Munāẓarah Aḥmadiyyah” by Muḥammad Nadhīr Sahsawānī (d. 1881). Part of the debate involved a discussion on the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās (“Allāh created seven earths. In each earth is an Ādam like your Ādam, a Nūḥ like your Nūḥ, an Ibrāhīm like your Ibrāhīm, an ‘Īsa like your ‘Īsa and a Prophet like your Prophet”), which shows there are counterparts to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) on six other earths.
Maulānā Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānotwī (1825 – 1895) at this time lived in Bareli (birthplace of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī) and was a revered scholar of this town. He was initially asked about his opinion on the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās. He declined to answer. However, Maulānā ‘Abdul Ḥayy Lakhnawī (1848 – 1886) wrote an answer, supporting the authenticity of the athar. His answer was endorsed by Muftī Sa‘dullāh Murādabādī (1805 – 1877). Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī thus also endorsed this answer.
Maulānā ‘Abdul Ḥayy Lakhnawī’s stance, as he explained in several treatises, is that there are prophets on six other earths, and each of the other earths also have their own “seal” or “final” prophet (khātam). But importantly, he said the khātam of those earths are “iḍāfī” (relative), while the khātam of this earth is “muṭlaq” (absolute); hence the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would come after all prophets, no matter which earth it is. He says this in for instance Dāfi ‘ul Waswās fī Athar Ibn ‘Abbās, which was written in the same year as Taḥdhīr un Nās, in 1873. (Al-Imām ‘Abdul Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī, Dārul Qalam, p168) His other treatise, Al-Āyāt al-Bayyināt ‘alā Wujūd al-Anbiyā’ fi l-Ṭabaqāt, he wrote before even this. His final and more extensive treatise, Zajr al-Nās min Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās, was written in 1876 in Arabic.
Furthermore, Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī clarified that while he endorsed this athar of Ibn ‘Abbās, he did not believe any of the seals on the other earths compared in terms of status to the absolute seal of our earth. Despite this, in 1873, Naqī ‘Alī Khān (1830 – 1880), Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s father, made takfīr on Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī.
[Hence, ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī of Badāyūn and Naqī ‘Alī Khān of Barelī, were the main opponents of the opposing camp in this regard. This was in effect the start of the Deobandī-Barelwī divide. (Maulānā Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānotwī, p94)]
Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī thus sent a question to Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī (1833 – 1880). The question is as follows:
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 ‘Īsa like your ‘Īsa and a Prophet like your Prophet.”
Zayd (i.e. Maulānā Aḥsan Nānotwī himself) – in following a scholar (i.e. Maulānā ‘Abdul Ḥayy Lakhnawī) who was also endorsed by a muftī of the Muslims (i.e. Muftī Sa‘dullāh Murādabādī) – wrote this statement:
“My belief is that the aforementioned ḥadīth is authentic and reliable. And the levels of the earth are separate, and in each level there are creatures of the divine. And 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 that, do the words of the ḥadīth contain the possibility of these meanings or not? And will Zayd become a disbeliever or sinner or outside of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama‘ah because of this statement or not? Clarify and be rewarded. (Taḥdhīr un Nās, 12-3)
Hence, the issue Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī addresses in Taḥdhīr un Nās is not primarily the issue of finality (which is taken as a given), but of the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Based on the explanation of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” he provides, and the evidences he enlists to support that meaning, prophets on the other earths cannot be equal in status to the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). This is to the extent that even if it were hypothetically assumed a prophet appeared here or elsewhere, the Prophet Muḥammad would still be superior to even this hypothetical prophet.
Critically, Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī does not deny the chronological finality of the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He affirms the chronological finality for the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) both for this earth and all other earths. (This is documented in the article here.) He merely adds a deeper meaning to Khātam al-Nabiyyīn by virtue of which there can never be any question over the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), even conceding the authenticity of the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās (which he argues in favour of in Taḥdhīr un Nās).
Some treatises were written by associates and students of ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī (as well as a few others) to refute those who supported the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās (e.g, Amīr Aḥmad Sahsawānī, Amīr Ḥasan Sahsawānī, Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī).
Radd e Qawl al-Faṣīḥ
One such treatise written against Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī was al-Qawl al-Faṣīḥ, to which Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī wrote a response, called Radd e Qawl al-Faṣīḥ or Tanwīr al-Nibrās. The treatise can be found here. In this refutation, Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī addresses many of the false charges levelled at him and his book.
For example, he addresses the charge that he has in effect called the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Ṣaḥābah “common people” (‘awāmm), given he describes it as a belief of the common people that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is Khātam al-Nabiyyīn in the sense that he is the last chronological prophet. Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī responds that the reports from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Ṣaḥābah only show they attached the meaning of chronological finality to the title Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, not that they considered it to be the primary or whole meaning of the term. Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī does not deny that a partial or implied meaning of the term is “last chronological prophet”. In short, the statements from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Ṣaḥābah only show the title “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” indicates chronological finality, which he does not deny, nor describe as the belief of the “common people”. What he describes as a belief of the common people is to treat it as the whole or primary meaning, and there is no evidence that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Ṣaḥābah regarded it as the whole or primary meaning.
Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī also points out in his refutation that he has precedent for his views in the writings of Maulānā Rūmī amongst others. Other precedents were documented in an earlier article.
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah
Barelwīs like to point to a treatise named Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah on this controversy. While listing works written against those who supported the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās, Dr Muḥammad Ayyūb Qādirī writes:
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah [1300/1882]: Upon the suggestion of Maulawī ‘Ubaydullāh, the imām of Jāmi‘ Masjid at Mombay (a Murīd of Maulāna Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī), an individual, ‘Abdul Ghaffār, put this treatise together as a refutation of Taḥdhīr un Nās. According to the one who put this treatise together, ‘Abdul Ghaffār, a debate occurred in Dehli between Maulāna Muḥammad Qāsim Nānotwī and Maulawī Muḥammad Shāh Punjābī (d. 1305) on the contents of Taḥzīr un Nās. Putting together a question with the views of them both, ‘Abdul Ghaffār got signatures against Maulānā Muḥammad Qāsim from the ‘Ulamā’. Along with others, this treatise has the signatures of Maulānā ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī, Maulawī Muḥibb Aḥmad Badāyūnī (student of Maulānā ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī), Maulawī Faṣīḥuddīn (author of Qawl al-Faṣīḥ)*, Maulawī ‘Ubaydullāh, the imām of Jāmi‘ Masjid at Mombay, and others. (Maulānā Muḥammad Aḥsān Nānotwī, p93)
From this brief account, it appears the author, a certain ‘Abdul Ghaffār, is unknown. Moreover, the debate that allegedly occurred had occurred only according to his account. There are no external accounts of the said debate. If the debate did indeed take place, this would probably have been quite early on after the publication of Taḥdhīr un Nās, as Ibṭāl offers arguments that Maulānā Nānotwī had answered adequately in Munāẓarah ‘Ajībah and Tanwīr al-Nibrās. ‘Abdul Ghaffār, however, only decided to publish it a couple of years after the death of Maulānā Nānotwī. With regard to the content of the “debate”, the author merely reproduces passages from Taḥdhīr un Nās and other writings of Maulānā Nānotwī to represent what he said. The signatures are not surprising: ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī and his associates. The only surprising signature is: Maulānā ‘Abdul Ḥayy Laknawī. Whether his signature on the document is genuine, however, is questionable given the questionable nature of the document itself, and given an account of Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī stating that Maulānā ‘Abdul Ḥayy Laknawī was in support of Maulānā Nānotwī.
Qisṭās fī Muwāzanati Athar Ibn ‘Abbās
The Barelwī pointed to a work of Maulānā Muḥammad (ibn Aḥmadullāh) Thānawī (1818 – 1879), one of the predecessors of the Deobandī founders, called Qisṭās fī Muwāzanati Athar Ibn ‘Abbās. Based on the description of this book in Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir (p1081), it appears Maulānā Muḥammad Thānawī did not reject the athar of Ibn ‘Abbās, but gave it a figurative interpretation.
The Barelwī claimed Maulānā Muḥammad Thānawī made takfīr of Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī in Qisṭās! This is false. Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī and his views were not even being addressed in a snippet of the work the Barelwī shared!
Conclusion
Given the actual context of the authorship of Taḥdhīr un Nās and its actual contents (not the fake context and contents Barelwīs show), it is clear that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān was guilty of fraud when making his pronouncement of takfīr. He manufactured a quote from Taḥdhīr un Nās that did not reflect Maulānā Nānotwī’s actual stance but the complete opposite of it, and even ignored Maulānā Nānotwī’s detailed and lucid refutations of these objections that absolve him of any of the charges that his opponents levelled against him.
* Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī himself felt Faṣīḥuddīn was not the author but his mentor, ‘Abdul Qādir Badāyūnī.
Posted by Abdullah 
Barelwis: A Critical Review 