Yasir Devbandi has written thus:
I usually don’t comment on such polemical debates, but since a few brothers have asked for my views, and because my name was unsolicitedly mentioned in the discussion, I thought I’d share a few points. However, it’s important to mention that I did not watch the full five hours or so, but I watched enough to gain a decent understanding of the topic. Thus, the following is mainly based on what I saw from the debate:
1. The topic of the debate, I believe, was the text of ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’ by Hujjatul Islām Imām Qāsim Nānōwtwī (r.h). It would be worthwhile to research the historical context of this text, as I have heard from reliable sources that it was initially written by Imām Qāsim as a letter to his relative, Shaykh Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānōwtwī (r.h), who inquired about the narration of Sayyidunā Abdullāh b. Abbās (r.a). Unbeknownst to Imām Qāsim, the letter was later published as a book without his consent. Unfortunately, I do not have this book, nor ever researched it. However, I think it would be beneficial to first establish its historical context, as that may have potential consequences.
2. So, in this text, Imām Aḥmad Razā Khān (r.h) argued that Imām Qāsim denied the finality of Prophethood ﷺ. Ergo, it paved the way for heretics and pathological liars like Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani to claim prophethood. And, therefore, Imām Qāsim is a ‘Kāfir’. This was the crux of the debate.
3. In the debate, I believe there were several ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and personal jibes. Therefore, whilst eschewing all that, I believe Moulana Usman did categorically demonstrate that Imām Qāsim *does* believe in the finality of Prophethood ﷺ, and not only that, he believes that whoever posits a new prophet after our beloved Prophet ﷺ is a ‘Kāfir’, by quoting the same book, ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’. I honestly believe this is sufficient. This is in unmitigated contradistinction to the Qadianis who *actually* believe in a new prophet.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that Mufti Shahid Ali endeavoured to remain on the topic of the debate, which is one of the rules of debating, it seemed he conceded that Imām Qāsim has accepted the finality of Prophethood ﷺ, and that whoever posits a new prophet after our beloved Prophet ﷺ is a ‘Kāfir’, as stated elsewhere in ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’. However, Mufti Shahid’s main contention was regarding Imām Qāsim’s interpretation of the verse related to the finality of Prophethood ﷺ. The contention is that Imām Qāsim confined the verse, which states that the Prophet ﷺ is the final Prophet, to essential or intrinsic prophethood without addressing the temporal element. Mufti Shahid argued that it is not enough to state that one believes in the finality of prophethood whilst interpolating a pivotal verse about the finality of prophethood. He also gave an analogy of Ṣalāh and then quoted the verse. I think this is an untenable argument and a strange method of doing ‘takfīr’. First, if what Mufti Shahid is saying is correct, even then ‘takfīr’ cannot be made based on an interpretation, especially given that the author has unequivocally explicated his creed elsewhere, and also stated that the finality of Prophethood ﷺ —in terms of its temporal aspect—is affirmed via ‘tawātur’ revelatory evidence. Also, it is important to note that Imām Qāsim was adumbrating the components of finality of Prophethood, namely, essential and temporal, not that he was repudiating the latter. It seemed, from the debate, that Imām Qāsim was postulating the essential property of Prophethood, whilst demonstrating that time itself is an accidental incipient that has no intrinsic value, though Prophet ﷺ is the last prophet in terms of time, too.
5. I am not sure how much of this was discussed in the debate, but it would be interesting to know what rational judgment from the triadic modalities would be regarding *conceiving*, simpliciter, the coming of a new prophet. Is it rationally possible or impossible? If it is the latter, is it inherently impossible or extrinsically? I believe these questions are somewhat related to the topic, as certain aspects of the debate allude to them.
6. Whilst acknowledging that I may have my biases, I believe Imām Aḥmad Razā Khān erred in issuing ’takfīr’. Even those who agree with his fatwā will accept that the matter of ‘takfīr’ is related to ‘fiqh’ and not creed, as stated by the polymath, Imām al-Ghazālī, and others. Therefore, its epistemic nature exemplifies that scholars can err or disagree in ‘takfīr’. This is important to note because a scholar's judgment is not necessarily binding on others.
7. Finally, my position is that we should move on from this old feud, work together as Muslims, and respect all scholars, even if we disagree with their statements. We should respect all of our scholars, yes, but not elevate them to a level that might mistakenly suggest they are infallible. This can lead to servile conformism, fanaticism and sectarianism. And Allāh knows best.
May Allāh unite and purify our hearts. Āmīn.
Your brother,
Muhammad Yasir al-Hanafi
1. The topic of the debate, I believe, was the text of ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’ by Hujjatul Islām Imām Qāsim Nānōwtwī (r.h). It would be worthwhile to research the historical context of this text, as I have heard from reliable sources that it was initially written by Imām Qāsim as a letter to his relative, Shaykh Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānōwtwī (r.h), who inquired about the narration of Sayyidunā Abdullāh b. Abbās (r.a). Unbeknownst to Imām Qāsim, the letter was later published as a book without his consent. Unfortunately, I do not have this book, nor ever researched it. However, I think it would be beneficial to first establish its historical context, as that may have potential consequences.
2. So, in this text, Imām Aḥmad Razā Khān (r.h) argued that Imām Qāsim denied the finality of Prophethood ﷺ. Ergo, it paved the way for heretics and pathological liars like Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani to claim prophethood. And, therefore, Imām Qāsim is a ‘Kāfir’. This was the crux of the debate.
3. In the debate, I believe there were several ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and personal jibes. Therefore, whilst eschewing all that, I believe Moulana Usman did categorically demonstrate that Imām Qāsim *does* believe in the finality of Prophethood ﷺ, and not only that, he believes that whoever posits a new prophet after our beloved Prophet ﷺ is a ‘Kāfir’, by quoting the same book, ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’. I honestly believe this is sufficient. This is in unmitigated contradistinction to the Qadianis who *actually* believe in a new prophet.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that Mufti Shahid Ali endeavoured to remain on the topic of the debate, which is one of the rules of debating, it seemed he conceded that Imām Qāsim has accepted the finality of Prophethood ﷺ, and that whoever posits a new prophet after our beloved Prophet ﷺ is a ‘Kāfir’, as stated elsewhere in ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’. However, Mufti Shahid’s main contention was regarding Imām Qāsim’s interpretation of the verse related to the finality of Prophethood ﷺ. The contention is that Imām Qāsim confined the verse, which states that the Prophet ﷺ is the final Prophet, to essential or intrinsic prophethood without addressing the temporal element. Mufti Shahid argued that it is not enough to state that one believes in the finality of prophethood whilst interpolating a pivotal verse about the finality of prophethood. He also gave an analogy of Ṣalāh and then quoted the verse. I think this is an untenable argument and a strange method of doing ‘takfīr’. First, if what Mufti Shahid is saying is correct, even then ‘takfīr’ cannot be made based on an interpretation, especially given that the author has unequivocally explicated his creed elsewhere, and also stated that the finality of Prophethood ﷺ —in terms of its temporal aspect—is affirmed via ‘tawātur’ revelatory evidence. Also, it is important to note that Imām Qāsim was adumbrating the components of finality of Prophethood, namely, essential and temporal, not that he was repudiating the latter. It seemed, from the debate, that Imām Qāsim was postulating the essential property of Prophethood, whilst demonstrating that time itself is an accidental incipient that has no intrinsic value, though Prophet ﷺ is the last prophet in terms of time, too.
5. I am not sure how much of this was discussed in the debate, but it would be interesting to know what rational judgment from the triadic modalities would be regarding *conceiving*, simpliciter, the coming of a new prophet. Is it rationally possible or impossible? If it is the latter, is it inherently impossible or extrinsically? I believe these questions are somewhat related to the topic, as certain aspects of the debate allude to them.
6. Whilst acknowledging that I may have my biases, I believe Imām Aḥmad Razā Khān erred in issuing ’takfīr’. Even those who agree with his fatwā will accept that the matter of ‘takfīr’ is related to ‘fiqh’ and not creed, as stated by the polymath, Imām al-Ghazālī, and others. Therefore, its epistemic nature exemplifies that scholars can err or disagree in ‘takfīr’. This is important to note because a scholar's judgment is not necessarily binding on others.
7. Finally, my position is that we should move on from this old feud, work together as Muslims, and respect all scholars, even if we disagree with their statements. We should respect all of our scholars, yes, but not elevate them to a level that might mistakenly suggest they are infallible. This can lead to servile conformism, fanaticism and sectarianism. And Allāh knows best.
May Allāh unite and purify our hearts. Āmīn.
Your brother,
Muhammad Yasir al-Hanafi
Last edited by a moderator:
