Umar Elhashmi@UmarElhashmi
Salam
I am not Deobandi or Barelwi, but I must emphasize that utmost respect should be shown when discussing the scholars of Deoband.
The Qadiyanis have not been able to use this passage quoted below any better than they do with every other traditional scholar outside Deoband: they quote without understanding, and with misrepresentation. The seal Allah has placed on their hearts in ability to understand things is not a justification for us to harbor animosity towards those scholars they misleadingly cite.
Note:
Everything I write below is as someone who has studied the science of Aqeedah under Syrian scholarship. I did not study Aqeedah at all under Deobandi scholarship, so there are no grounds for anyone to claim bias here, for or against anyone.
Regarding this quote, by Allah I’ve understood it as something very simple, yet many have overcomplicated it due to either (1) bias from their upbringing, or (2) the inability to comprehend how a single term can be used interchangeably based on its meaning.
PREFACE:
It’s important to understand that chronological order doesn’t inherently hold any significance. This is an intellectual principle. Just as being physically above or below something doesn’t, in and of itself, imply superiority or inferiority— similarly, being before or after doesn’t, in and of itself, imply superiority or inferiority.
If this is understood, then when the Prophet ﷺ is honored with the title “last of prophets,” it is not an honor due to being the last in a chronological line — otherwise that, as a principle — would automatically necessitate Isa ﷺ is superior to Musa ﷺ and likewise for every other prophet: they must be superior to Adam ﷺ, yet no one argues for such.
But no, it is not necessitated from chronological order alone that a person’s status changes.
The chronological order of last and first can both exist while being superior— and it’s example is: Muhammad ﷺ is the last chronologically, and the most superior; whereas the Sahabah are the first of us chronologically, and they’re also the most superior — so there is no correlation in and of itself.
But Him ﷺ being mentioned as “the last prophet” was in a maqaam of praise— would Allah praise one with something un-praiseworthy? No, so it is known that his khaatmiyyat is a status and honor that coincides with him being the very last. They don’t contradict each other, we must believe in both.
So now if I asked you:
If, hypothetically, prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sent before Isa ﷺ, would it mean his ﷺ status is inferior and Isa ﷺ is superior?
No, of course not.
Don’t we all agree on this? Yes!
Then know: that when Imam Nanotwi is referencing khaatmiyyat in this passage, this is exactly what is meant: it is a reference to his ﷺ honor in being given that title, and not a reference to his chronological order.
Thus:
“If, hypothetically, a prophet was to be born after Muhammad ﷺ , it would not affect his khaatmiyyat — in terms of his chronological order and he can still be the ‘last’ prophet.”
This is an incorrect belief, this is what the stupidity of Qadiyanis understanding of texts concludes ❌
But:
“If, hypothetically, a prophet was to be born after Muhammad ﷺ , it would not affect his khaatmiyyat — in terms of his highest honor.”
Then this is a correct statement by unanimity of Ahlulsunnah, and its example is to suppose our Prophet ﷺ was born after Nuh ﷺ, and Ibraheem ﷺ was to come after him: He ﷺ would still be the most superior ✅
But when people begin fights over semantics, no one wins except Shaytan.
Sure, it maybe could have been worded better or clarified— but who he spoke this to were people of understanding so to clarify the obvious to them was not needed.
Wallahi upon reading this the very first time, I understood it instantly as explained above, without having asked anyone regarding it, and did not find any theological issues incoherent with Ahlulsunnah.
And Allah knows best.