Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī on Khatm al-Nubuwwah
Response to Asrar Rashid
By Mufti Zameelur Rahman
In a recent book,
Navigating the End of Time, Asrar Rashid attempts to show a link, albeit a “subtle” and “unexpressed” one, between Deobandīs and Qādiyānīs.[1] Apart from decontextualized citations from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, his evidences for this are extremely thin, indeed in some cases apparently fictitious. This is not altogether surprising given an earlier critique of some of his unfounded and untruthful claims.[2]
In the following essay, we will first put Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s work
Taḥdhīr al-Nās in historical context, followed by a contextualisation of some specific citations from his work that Asrar Rashid presents.
This will be followed by a brief analysis of some points he puts forward regarding:
- Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī’s (successor of Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qadiyānī) alleged connection to Deoband;
- The alleged proximity between the authorship of Taḥdhīr al-Nās and Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad’s claims of prophethood;
- The alleged use by Qādiyānīs of Taḥdhīr al-Nās in the 1974 Pakistan Supreme Court hearing aimed at declaring Qadiyānīs non-Muslims and the alleged failure of the scholars of Deoband to put up a credible defence.
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī (1833 – 1880)
Mūḥammad Qāsim, a descendant of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (Allāh be pleased with him), was born in March of 1833 in the village of Nanauta, North India. He was a distant relation of the famous spiritual master, Ḥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī (1818 – 1899), as well as the renowned Delhi theologian, Mawlānā Mamlūk al-‘Alī Nānotwī (1789 – 1851). After primary education in Nanauta and Saharanpur, he left for Delhi in 1845 to study under the latter. He excelled in his studies, particularly the rational sciences.
He then studied Ḥadīth under Muhaddith Aḥmad ‘Alī Sahāranpūrī (1810 – 1880) and Shāh ‘Abd al-Ghanī Dihlawī (1809 – 1878), two prominent successors of Shāh Isḥāq Dihlawī (1782 – 1846). As a student, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī saw a dream in which he stood on the roof of the Ka‘bah, thousands of rivers pouring forth from him. His teacher, Mawlānā Mamlūk al-‘Alī Nānotwī, interpreted it to mean: “Abundant benefit will spring from you in the knowledge of dīn.”[3]
Upon completing his education in 1851, he worked as a proof-reader and annotator at various printing presses in Delhi and Meerut. He was also involved in the first ever print of
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, famously produced by Muḥaddith Aḥmad ‘Ali Sahāranpūrī in the early 1850s.[4]
He was one of the most prominent founders of the famous Dār al-‘Ulūm at Deoband in 1866, of which he served as its first “sarparast” (figurehead). The Dār al-‘Ulūm became renowned world-over not only for housing some of India’s most brilliant and saintly personalities, but also for spawning an educational reform movement in the subcontinent and beyond. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī also founded a well-known madrasah in Moradabad, the Madrasah Shāhī.
He taught students in spare hours between his work at the printing presses, mainly on the topic of Ḥadīth. His famous students include: Shaykh al-Hind Mawlānā Maḥmūd Ḥasan Deobandī (1851 – 1920), Mawlānā Fakhr al-Ḥasan Gangohī (d. 1897) and Mawlānā Sayyid Aḥmad Ḥasan Amrohawī (1851 – 1912).
He married a woman of Deoband in 1853 with whom he had ten children. One of his sons, Mawlānā Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Aḥmad (1862 – 1928), went on to become rector of the Dār al-‘Ulūm in Deoband.
Mawlānā Nānotwī wrote prolifically, although most of his writings were letters to associates, transcripts of talks/debates or marginalia to other books. He wrote only two actual books that were intended as books:
Hadiyyat al-Shī‘ah (1867), a detailed refutation of Shī‘ah (which has been translated into English[5] and summarised in Arabic[6]), and
Āb-i-Hayāt (1870), a follow-up to
Hadiyyat al-Shī‘ah, on the topic of the prophets being alive in their graves.[7]
He was mentored by Mawlānā Muẓaffar Ḥusayn (1805 – 1866), a respected and pious personality from Kandhla, and was instructed in spirituality by Ḥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī from whom he attained successorship in Taṣawwuf. He would exert himself in worship to the point that a close colleague once saw him recite 27 juz’ of the Qur’ān in a single rak‘ah![8] Ḥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī held his spiritual student, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, in great esteem.[9]
He performed three Ḥajj journeys: in 1861 (during which he memorised the Qur’ān); in 1870; and a final Ḥajj in 1877. He fell ill on his return from this latter Ḥajj and never fully recovered. In April of 1880, he travelled to visit his ailing teacher Muhaddith Aḥmad ‘Alī at Saharanpur, which made his sickness worse. On his return, he stayed at Deoband where he passed away on the 15th of April, 1880. His Janāzah was attended by large gatherings the likes of which were never before seen in Deoband.[10] His teacher, Muhaddith Aḥmad ‘Alī, died only two days later.
He would venture into deep discussions on matters of theology and jurisprudence, his specialism being the underlying philosophy and wisdom behind Islām’s theology and praxis and arguing for their superiority over other religions, particularly Christianity and Hinduism. Hence, he was also famous for his debates against preachers of other religions and his defences of Islam in such tracts as
Taqrīr Dilpazīr and
Ḥujjat al-Islām.[11]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās: Context
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, the full title of which is “
Taḥdhīr al-Nās min Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās” (“Warning Men Against Rejecting the Narration of Ibn ‘Abbās”), was first printed in 1873. Mawlānā Qāsīm Nānotwī never intended it to be printed as a book. Nor did he give it its famous title. It was Mawlānā Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānotwī (1825 – 1895), a gifted scholar who operated a printing press in Bareilly, that gave it a title and published it. Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī had become involved in a dispute on which he solicited the view of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī and ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī.
The dispute traces back to a statement of Shāh Ismā‘īl Dihlawī Shahīd (1779 – 1831) in his
Taqwiyat al-Īmān. In
Taqwiyat al-Īmān, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd discusses a mistaken conception of
shafā‘ah (intercession) that he calls “
shafā‘ah al-wajāhah” (intercession of status), where it is believed that Allāh suppresses an original intent to punish someone deserving of punishment because an attendant of high status has interceded and Allāh does not wish to cause disruption to His kingdom by displeasing the intercessor.[12]
Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd explains that the one who holds such a belief is a “true mushrik and a complete ignoramus, and has not understood the meaning of divinity in the slightest, and has not realised the greatness of this Owner of the Kingdom.”[13] Then, explaining Allāh’s greatness and power, he said: “It is the nature of this King of Kings that in a single moment, had He so wished, with one command of ‘
Kun’, He would create thousands of prophets, saints, jinn and angels equal to Jibrīl, upon him peace, and Muḥammad ﷺ; and would turn the whole universe from the throne to the earth upside down and put another creation in its place.”[14] He further states that if all creatures were like Jibrīl and the Prophet ﷺ, this would not increase in the lustre of Allāh’s kingdom, and similarly if all creatures were devils and dajjāls this would not decrease from the lustre of His kingdom.[15] Thus, in context, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was merely showing the utter transcendence of Allāh and His being completely without need for creation, so why would He fear anyone’s status when exercising His will?!
Despite the simplicity of the point that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd made, this simple comment spurred a highly technical and contentious debate in 19th century India on what became known as “
imkān al-naẓīr” or “
imtinā‘ al-naẓīr”, the possibility or impossibility of a likeness of the Prophet ﷺ existing. ‘Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (1797 – 1861), the premier expert on philosophy and rational subjects of that era, argued that it wasn’t even possible in the mind’s eye for a likeness of the Prophet ﷺ to exist and thus to create his likeness is not contained in divine power. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his defenders argued the more sensible view that it is in and of itself possible (i.e. conceivable in the mind’s eye) but its materialisation is not possible given Allāh’s intent.[16]
The scholars of the Ahl-i-Ḥadīth persuasion sided with Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in this matter. A debate ensued in 1871 between some Ahl-i-Ḥadīth scholars and those who sided with ‘Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī. The contents of the debate were recorded in
Munāẓara-i-Aḥmadiyyah.[17] During the course of the debate, the Ahl-i-Ḥadīth debaters brought up a narration attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him).
The narration is a commentary on a verse of the Qur’ān which states: “It is Allah who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same [number], the command descending down through all of them.”[18] In commenting on this, Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) said: “In each earth there is the like of Ibrāhīm”, and in another version: “Seven earths, in each earth there is a prophet like your prophet, an Ādam like your Ādam, a Nūḥ like your Nūḥ, an Ibrāhīm like your Ibrāhīm and an ‘Īsā like your ‘Īsā.”[19]
This thus opened up a new debate over the validity or otherwise of the report of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) on prophets existing on other earths. Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī was called upon to address the report. He initially refused. But when ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī (1848 – 1886), a brilliant young scholar of that time, said the report is sound and its meaning is unproblematic if understood correctly, and his answer was endorsed by Muftī Sa‘dullāh Murādābādī (1805 – 1877), Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī lent his support to the fatwā of ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī with a short corroborating statement. This resulted in a backlash against Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī in his place of residence, Bareilly (the birthplace of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, eponym of the Barelwī school).[20]
Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī then wrote up a question that he sent to Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī and ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī.[21] The question is as follows:
It was Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s detailed response to this question, as well as ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī’s brief response, that would be printed as
Taḥdhīr al-Nās min Inkār Athar Ibn ‘Abbās in 1873 from Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī’s printing press in Bareilly. As is evident, the question that Mawlānā Aḥsan Nānotwī had in relation to the report of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) was primarily about the status of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. If there are counterparts to the Prophet ﷺ on other earths, does that call into question the Prophet ﷺ being the superior-most creation of Allāh? The question was not over the chronological finality of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, which was never in question.
When ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī had written his explanation of the report, he made clear that any counterpart of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ on another earth would have to be chronologically prior to him to maintain the essential belief in the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ finality and the universality of his law and message.[24] Other “final prophets” are only final relative to their earth, while the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is the absolute final prophet of all earths.
Taḥdhīr al-Nās: Content
Thus, the context of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās was to reconcile the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the report of Ibn ‘Abbās affirming counterparts existing on other earths. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had already explained his view on the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in an earlier work,
Āb-i-Ḥayāt, in 1870. In it, he explained a distinction between direct/non-derivative (
dhātī) and indirect/derivative (
‘araḍi) attributes. The light of the moon and planets is indirect/derivative while the light of the sun is direct/non-derivative. He argued prophethood had a similar division.
In his words: “This division also exists in the characteristic of prophethood. It is either non-derivative or derivative. The prophethood of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is non-derivative and the prophethood of other prophets besides him is derivative [hence, subordinate to the prophethood of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ].”[25] He proceeds to present textual and rational evidences for this proposition.
In
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, he extends this to argue that the report of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) enhances the supremacy and greatness of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and does not in any way impinge on it. How so? Because all prophets, whether of this world or any other, ultimately derive their prophethood from his. Hence, the more prophets that are subordinate to his ultimate prophethood, the greater his status.[26]
“Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”: Ẓahr and Baṭn
In
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī couches this argument in an esoteric meaning of the prophetic title “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, referred to in the verse of the Qur’ān: “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but the messenger of Allāh (
rasūlAllāh) and the seal of prophets (
khātam al-nabiyyīn).”[27] While the plain meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is “the last chronological prophet”, a more subtle or esoteric meaning was propounded by some scholars.
Almost a thousand years before Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, the Ṣūfī Muḥaddith, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, wrote:
Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī included the following couplet in his famous
Mathnawī: “The Prophet is the Khātam because no likeness has he in generosity nor will he; like when a scholar acquires special mastery in a field, you say: ‘This field has been sealed by you.’”[29] In commenting on this couplet, Baḥr al-‘Ulūm Laknawī, writes:
Thus, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī argues the verse has a conspicuous meaning (
ẓahr) and an esoteric meaning (
baṭn), both of which are equally true. In
Ajwibah Arba‘īn, a work published in 1874 in refutation of Shī‘ah, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī wrote:
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī would later author a work to refute some charges made against
Taḥdhīr al-Nās by his detractors, who were led by ‘Abd al-Qādir Bādāyūnī (1837 – 1901). He called it
Radd-i-Qawl-i-Faṣīḥ (“Refutation of
Qawl-i-Faṣīḥ”), but it was given the title “
Tanwīr al-Nibrās” by his students. In it, he refers to himself in the third person as “the author of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās”. In this work, he wrote:
He further states:
Positional Sealship Entails Chronological Finality
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī believed that the esoteric meaning he offers for “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” automatically entails finality in time.[35] He explained this in several different ways. In
Ajwibah Arba‘īn, at the conclusion of the above-cited passage, he says it is divine wisdom that effectively “the best is left till last”.[36] Hence, the direct prophethood of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ also entails chronological finality.
He also argued that superiority in status entails superiority of laws, and the superior-most law must also be the endmost law, hence the Prophet ﷺ must be the endmost prophet. In an 1877 transcript of a debate, he said:
In other words, because of the superiority of the Prophet ﷺ, his laws are superior-most, which entails they must also be the endmost. In an 1878 transcript of a debate, he said:
In
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, his most detailed exploration of this issue, he argues that since the Qur’ān is a preserved book, divine wisdom dictates that no prophethood after the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is needed, even one that does not bring with it a new law. In this manner, the superiority of status entails chronological finality. In his words: “
In this way, chronological posteriority is necessitated by prophetic sealship in the meaning submitted.”[40]
Hence, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī believed “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” even in the esoteric sense of the “culmination of prophets” includes the meaning of chronological finality as a necessary implication or what he calls “an implicative meaning” (
dalālah iltizāmiyyah/
ma‘nā iltizāmī). He further states that in his judgement, the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” incorporates multiple meanings at once, one of which is finality in time (see below).
Hence, in response to detractors who claimed he did not believe the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” indicated finality in time, he said:
Taḥdhīr al-Nās: Thesis
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī develops a case for his point of view in
Taḥdhīr al-Nās. His first main contention is that verse 33:40 contains the conjunction
lākin (but) which entails a corrective of a false assumption (
istidrāk). Hence, the two attributes “Messenger of Allāh” and “Seal of the Prophets” correct a wrong assumption that may derive from “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men”.
While other exegetes have explained this corrective in different ways, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī argues that the initial part of the sentence negates a physical fatherhood while the latter part of the sentence serves to establish a metaphysical fatherhood for the Prophet ﷺ to both his community of believers and to all previous prophets. The Prophet’s ﷺ fatherhood of his community is expressed in the term “Messenger of Allāh”, because they derive their belief from his. In Mawlānā Nānotwī’s words: “He is the spiritual father of believers in this matter. Meaning, the faith of others was born of his ﷺ faith. His faith is the source of the faith of others. The faith of others is the offshoot of his faith.”[42] The Prophet’s ﷺ fatherhood of the previous prophets is expressed in the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, which means the prophethood of other prophets derives from and culminates at his prophethood.
He offers a number of evidences for why he believes the earlier prophets derive their prophethood from the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. He accepts these evidences are “abductive” (
innī) – that is, arguing the cause from its effects, which is not a definitive form of evidence. But he develops a cumulative case which he argues offers strong support for his claim.[43]
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī explains:
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī offers a linguistic analysis of a) how the terms
khātam and
khātim (two accepted readings of the word in the Qur’ān) carry the meaning he argues;[45] and b) how multiple meanings can simultaneously be meant by the term. For the latter, he gives the example of another verse in which wine and gambling are referred to as “
rijs” (filth).[46] Wine is physical filth and gambling is moral filth, yet the word “filth” is used for both. In the same way, the word khātam/khātim entails posteriority. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī argues the posteriority is inclusive of time, status and location. Posteriority of time means he comes chronologically at the end of all prophets. Posteriority of status means his position outstrips that of all other prophets in the manner he explained. Posteriority of location means his earth is above the remaining six earths, as described in ḥadīths.[47]
Chronological Finality is an Essential Belief of Islām
Hence, Mawlānā Nānotwī says the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” indicates chronological finality either as an implicative meaning or as one of multiple simultaneous meanings – the latter which Mawlānā Nānotwī says is his preferred view.[48] After explaining this, he writes in
Taḥdhīr al-Nās:
He then comments:
Relative Khātams and Universal Finality
In
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī makes it explicitly clear that he regards the counterparts of the Prophet ﷺ on the other earths to be “relative khātams”, i.e. relative to their earth, while the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ finality is inclusive of all earths. He writes: “The seals of the lower earths are relative seals (
khātam iḍāfī) while the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ is the real seal (
khātam ḥaqīqī).”[52]
He explains that the Prophet ﷺ is the “real seal” in both senses – status and time:
Hence, in summarising his views, Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī (1879 – 1957) writes:
What this entire discussion shows is that Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī never questioned the chronological finality of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. Indeed, he regards anyone who questions it to be a disbeliever.[55] Rather, he merely questioned chronological finality being the sole basis for the prophetic title of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”.[56]
Now that we have been introduced to the context and basic thesis of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, we are in a position to examine some of the controversial statements from the book.
A Belief of the Common People?
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī begins his answer in
Taḥdhīr al-Nās as follows, which we will refer to as “
citation 1” in reference to Asrar Rashid’s “quotes” (see below):
He proceeds to explain why he believes the context must be one of praise and not merely a neutral statement. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s detractors objected that this statement means all exegetes of the Qur’ān, even the Prophet ﷺ and the companions themselves, be considered “common folk” because they all believed “the Seal of the Prophets” means “the last chronological prophet”.
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī responds to this objection in
Tanwīr al-Nibrās. He explains that he too takes chronological finality as a meaning of the verse as he goes on to explain in
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, so he is not describing merely understanding “chronological finality” from the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” as “the understanding of the common people”. Rather, he is referring to a restriction of the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” to chronological finality, and this is what he describes as the “understanding of the common people”. His contention is that it is not restricted to this meaning alone, but encompasses a broader meaning. Hence, his observation that “in the understanding of the common people, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ being the ‘seal’ is in the sense that his time comes after the time of the previous prophets” means in the
restricted or
limited sense.[58]
He explains in
Tanwīr al-Nibrās:
Hence, what he took issue with is it being the “sole meaning”. This is clear from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās itself as he has himself said the verse indicates chronological finality. As was quoted from him earlier, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī said: “The author of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās does not mean that the sentence on Khātam al-Nabiyyīn doesn’t in any way indicate chronological finality or that chronological finality cannot be meant by the term ‘Khātam al-Nabiyyīn’. He himself has given two explanations of how chronological finality is meant and indicated [by the verse/term].”[60]
Hypothetical Prophets
As explained, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī believed the elements of time, location and status are all included in the Prophet’s ﷺ sealship. If the sealship of time were hypothetically violated, the sealship of status would remain. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī expressed this in a couple of places in
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, which became a source of criticism on the part of his detractors. The point that Mawlānā Nānotwī was getting across in these passages is that with this understanding of “sealship” no doubt will remain as to the supremacy and excellence of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, even to the extent that any hypothetical prophet would be subordinate to his direct prophethood. So, there can be no doubt as to the Prophet’s ﷺ superiority. We will refer to the following two citations as “citation 2” and “citation 3”.
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī states (
citation 2):
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s reference to “a prophet that is born after the Prophet ﷺ” in this statement falls in the category not of actual, “external” individuals, but merely hypothetical, “conceivable” ones. Mawlānā Idrīs Kāndhlawī (1899 – 1974) explains this passage as follows:
Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī reiterates the same point in another section of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās (
citation 3):
The point he is getting across is that based on this understanding of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, there is no conceivable way that the narration of Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him), which he and others regard to be authentic, can call into question the Prophet’s ﷺ absolute superiority.
Asrar Rashid’s Citations
Let us now turn to how Asrar Rashid irresponsbily presents three “quotes” from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās to forge a link between Deobandīs and Qādiyānīs. In a section of his book titled “Wahhābī/Deobandī Support” (i.e. of Qādiyānīs), he writes:
Even though these “quotes” are selected from several different sections of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Asrar Rashid gives only a single reference in his footnote to the third “quote” as: “
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.25”.[65] Moreover, Asrar Rashid has taken liberties in his translation of these “quotes”, the full translations of which have been given above as “citations 1-3”.
Our first question for Asrar Rashid is:
➩ Given the context of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s statements both in Taḥdhīr al-Nās and in his other writings, do these isolated and decontextualised quotes fairly represent his views?
If Asrar Rashid disagrees with Mawlānā Nānotwī’s thesis, he should have accurately presented his views, followed by a careful critique of them. What purpose does it serve to quote three isolated sentences selectively in this manner from a complex discourse?[66] To a neutral observer, it may even come across as willful deception. These isolated “quotes” give the impression that Mawlānā Nānotwī believed the title “Seal of the Prophets” gives no indication to chronological finality at all, and indeed that chronological finality is not even a necessary belief. Yet, the context of the passages from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās makes it clear he does regard chronological finality as being included within the meanings of “the Seal of the Prophets” and that it is an essential belief of Islām.
Asrar Rashid concludes the paragraph of “quotes” with:
What “unprecedented debate on the finality of the Prophet Muḥammad” he is referring to however is not clear. As we have shown very clearly, the finality of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ was never in question in Mawlānā Nānotwī’s writings.
A Link Between Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī and Deoband?
Asrar Rashid says:
Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī (1841 – 1914 CE) was a close companion and ally of the notorious false prophet, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī (1839 – 1908). He was also the “first khalīfah” of the Qādiyānī group. Asrar Rashid’s reference for the above account is a biography of Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī by a Qādiyānī author titled: “
Hakeem Noor-Ud-Deen: The Way of the Righteous”.[68] Nowhere in this biography does it say that Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn “attended lectures at the Deoband seminary”, nor that he “fell under the influence of Qāsim al-Nānawtawī on finality of prophethood”. It appears these are entirely fictional additions by Asrar Rashid himself. Hence, the next questions for Asrar Rashid are:
➩ Is there any credible evidence that Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī attended lectures at Deoband?
➩ Is there any credible evidence he borrowed ideas on
khatm al-nubuwwah from Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī?
The second paragraph from the above citation is an almost verbatim restatement of a passage from the Qādiyānī biography of Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn that Asrar Rashid referenced.[69] The most it establishes is that Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn attended a single session of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s classes. This would have occurred long before Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn made any contact with Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī or had any associations with him. Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn first met with Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad in 1885, after the publication of the first few volumes of the latter’s
Barāhīn Aḥmadiyyah.[70]
Morever, Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn studied with other famous scholars like Mawlānā Irshād Ḥusayn (1832 – 1893) of Rampur[71] (Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn spent three years in Rampur for studies[72]), Mawlānā Raḥmatullāh Kīrānawī (1818 – 1891)[73] and Shāh ‘Abd al-Ghanī Dihlawī.[74] He attended more than a single lecture of theirs. Why are they not implicated in Asrar Rashid’s conspiracy-laden discourse?
Proximity Between Mirzā’s Claims and Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s Writings?
After presenting the three decontextualised “quotes” from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Asrar Rashid writes:
Although Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad of Qadian (1839 – 1908) was a contemporary of Mawlānā Qāsim Nanotwī, he was relatively unknown before 1880 (the year of Mawlānā Nānotwī’s demise) which was when he began publishing his magnum opus, the
Barāhīn Aḥmadiyyah.[76]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās was published in 1873. So a further question for Asrar Rashid is:
➩ In what way were Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s views being proposed “at the time” that Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad claimed himself to be a prophet?
Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī did not make any explicit claims of prophethood until 1901[77], several decades after Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had already passed away. What Asrar Rashid appears to want to get across is some sort of causal link between Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s views and Mirzā’s claims of prophethood.
Apart from being baseless and unfounded, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad’s absurd views on the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is not the same as Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s. Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad believed that the prophets that came before the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ were “independent prophets”, while only “dependent prophets” who have been validated by the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ “seal of approval” can appear subsequent to him. Because he regarded himself as a “dependent prophet”, he did not see this as violating the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ sealship. Yet, he says it is not possible for ‘Īsā (upon him peace) to literally return as this would violate the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ sealship given he is an independent prophet![78]
This heretical distortion of the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” is of course an assault on definitive Islāmic beliefs that a) with the arrival of the the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ it is impossible for anyone to be appointed a prophet; and b) that ‘Īsā (upon him peace), who is not a new prophet, will literally return. Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s conception of “sealship” agrees with Islāmic orthodoxy on both points.[79] He understood “sealship” to mean that all prophets derived their prophethood from the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in a manner that entails the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ absolute chronological finality. There is no doubt that in his view Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī would be a disbeliever for his claim of prophethood. In
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī notes that “anyone who claims prophethood today would be regarded as a disbeliever”.[80]
1974 Supreme Court Hearing on Qādiyānīs
Asrar Rashid further claims:
Asrar Rashid has a footnote at the end of each of these paragraphs. The first footnote reads: “See: ‘
Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue’ by the National Assembly of Pakistan”.[82] The second footnote has the reference: “‘Abd al-Ghaffār al-Kānpūrī,
Ibṭāl-i-Aghlā-i-Qāsimiyya (sic.), p.39-40”.[83]
His first reference,
Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue, is a report that runs into thousands of pages, but Asrar Rashid does not identify a page number. Why would that be? Is it because this is a citation bluff? It certainly seems that way.
The 1974 court case against Qādiyānīs was one of the most high-profile and impactful efforts against the Qādiyānīs. It was led by scholars from all persuasions, including Deobandīs. Some of the members of the National Assembly of Pakistan who in 1974 pushed for a Supreme Court judgement against Qādiyānīs include: Muftī Maḥmūd (1919 – 1980), a prominent Deobandī scholar and politician; Mawlānā Ghulām Ghawth Hazārvī (1896 – 1981), a Deobandī scholar; and Mawlānā ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq Akorwī (1912 – 1988), founder of the famous madrasah Dār al-‘Ulūm Ḥaqqāniyyah.
The next question we have for Asrar Rashid is:
➩ Can Asrar Rashid show where in this official report, namely
Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Whole House Held in Camera to Consider the Qadiani Issue, the reference he has himself cited, it gives the account he describes?
It will not do to quote hearsay or reports from other sources that cannot be corroborated. Since Asrar Rashid has cited the official proceedings, he should be able to show where this account is found in there.
This is not to say that Qādiyānīs never used Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s statements. Qādiyānīs have misused the statements of many scholars, including Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī, Shāh Waliyyullāh Dihlawī, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Rūmī etc. The mere fact that they misuse Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s writings says nothing about the validity or otherwise of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s views.[84]
In his (fictitious?) account about the 1974 court proceedings, Asrar Rashid makes out that Deobandī “representatives” were unable to put up a credible defence against Qādiyānī citations from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās. (The onus is on Asrar Rashid to identify where this account is found in the document he references.) Yet, where Qādiyānīs had used passages from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās to support their beliefs, the scholars of Deoband had adequately refuted them.
Another high-profile court case occurred in the Bahawalpur state between 1926 and 1935 with regards to the status of the marriage of a woman whose husband converted to Qādiyānism. Seeing that this court case was critical to the integrity of their movement, the Qādiyānī leadership hired experienced lawyers to argue their case. ‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (1873 – 1933) and his students led the case against the Qādiyānīs.[85] During the proceedings, the Qādiyānī lawyer argued from some isolated statements of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, to which ‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī replied:
This was an incident some forty years before the 1974 Supreme Court case. If the scholars of Deoband were able to put up a defence several decades before, why would they suddenly fail to do so here?!
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah
Asrar Rashid cites a very questionable document,
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah, to argue that “when al-Nānawtawī wrote [these passages] they were also declared heretical by the likes of Muftī Ḥāfiẓ Bakhsh al-Badāyūnī and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī”. Yet,
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah was published after the demise of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī in 1882 or 1883[88], almost a decade after
Taḥdhīr al-Nās. Professor Ayyūb Qādrī explains:
In other words, it was something compiled by Mawlānā Nānotwī’s detractors, those in the circle of ‘Abd al-Qādir Badāyūnī. A signature that is clearly out of place and unexpected is that of ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī, which Asrar Rashid capitalises on. But this signature does not seem to be genuine. Nor does it seem anything of note is known about the compiler ‘Abd al-Ghaffār.
In
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah, the views of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī are presented merely as citations from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, as well as one citation from a letter in
Qāsim al-‘Ulūm (a collection of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s letters). The bulk of
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah consists of objections allegedly made by Mawlānā Muḥammad Shāh Punjābī, objections which Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had already responded to in
Tanwīr al-Nibrās.
‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī agreed with Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī on the authenticity of the report of Ibn ‘Abbās. He explicitly opposed the declarations of disbelief and deviation that occurred in this matter. He wrote:
‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī maintained friendship with Mawlānā Nānotwī, apparently right the way till the latter’s death.[91] Moreover, ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī did not shy away from arguments with scholars, as evident from his refutations of Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān Qinnawajī, Muḥammad Bashīr Sahsawānī, ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq Khayrabādī and Muḥammad Ḥusayn Batālawī.[92] A short statement of ‘Allāmah Laknawī also forms part of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, which was printed more than a decade before his demise. If he took issue with its contents, surely he would have written something sooner? Why would he endorse a text that consists of objections that Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had already addressed?
These are good reasons to be skeptical of the contents of
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah. This is aside from the point that Asrar Rashid references
Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah in the context of certain scholars who allegedly used it against Qādiyānī citations from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās in the 1974 court case. Asrar Rashid must therefore present credible evidence that this was the case.
Scholars of Deoband & the Anti-Qādiyānī Movement
Scholars of Deoband were in fact at the forefront of the anti-Qādiyānī movement. In an 1897 work, Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī called out Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905) by name for his opposition to him.[93]
‘Allāmah Zāhid al-Kawtharī (1879 – 1951) authored a short article on Qādiyānīs. In it, he said:
Who is ‘Allāmah Zāhid al-Kawtharī referring to? In the same article he says:
‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī, Muftī Muḥammad Shafī‘ (1897 – 1976) and Mawlānā Sayyid Murtaḍā Ḥasan (1868 – 1951) were prominent scholars of Deoband.
In terms of political, legal and grassroots activisim against Qādiyānīs, Deobandī scholars played important roles.[96] They played an important part in the 1974 constitutional amendment declaring Qādiyānīs non-Muslims. It was under the leadership of ‘Allāmah Yūsuf Bannūrī (1908 – 1977) that several organisations came together (including a Barelwī organisation led by Shāh Aḥmad Nūrānī) that created the momentum for this critical court hearing.[97]
Asrar Rashid mentions none of this, and instead claims there exists a “subtle” and “unexpressed” connection between Deobandīs and Qādiyānīs! Given the historical reality, is this not a gross and unfair mischaracterisation of the relationship between Deobandīs and Qādiyānīs?
Conclusion
Following on from our earlier critique from some four years ago[98], it seems Asrar Rashid has continued to adopt the same mode of pseudointellectual discourse when critiquing Deobandī and pre-Deobandī figures, one that is academically sloppy and, indeed, dishonest. He cites isolated and decontextualised sentences from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, without giving the proper context, to apparently convey a meaning which the author of
Taḥdhīr al-Nās himself explicitly rejects. He forges a fictitious link between Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī and Deoband. He rehashes a story about the 1974 Supreme Court of Pakistan proceedings citing a source which apparently does not support the claim.
This does not represent fair and honest discourse, nor how a Muslim, much less someone who puts himself forward as a scholar of Islām, ought to behave. Allāh says: “Oh you who believe, be mindful of Allāh and be amongst the truthful”[99]; “Oh you who believe, be mindful of Allāh and speak straight [i.e. truthful and fair] speech”[100]; “Oh you who believe, if a sinner brings news to you, verify it, lest you harm a people in ignorance and then you become remorseful over what you did”[101]; “Oh you who believe, be upholders [of truth] for Allāh, witnesses in fairness; and let not your dislike of a people lead you to be unfair. Be fair!”[102]
These are basic ethics of Islām found in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Asrar Rashid needs to learn to be truthful, fair and careful in what he writes and attributes to others. He should start with answering the five questions raised here, as well as the questions asked of him in our previous critique.
[1]
Navigating the End of Time, pp.74-6
[2] See:
Sectarianism and Its Roots in the Indian Subcontinent – Basair.net[3]
Ḥālāt Ṭayyib (Muftī Ilāhī Bakhsh Academy), p.36
[4]
Ḥālāt Ṭayyib, pp.27-8
[5] Find translation here:
A Gift for the Shia (Hadiyyat al-Shia) by Hujjatul Islam Molana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi (Complete) – Mahajjah[6]
Mawqif al-Imām al-Nānotwī min al-Qaḍāyā al-Khilāfiyyah bayn al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Shī‘ah (Ḥujjat al-Islām Academy), Muḥammad Noshad Nūrī al-Qāsimī
[7]
Ustādh al-Kull Hazrat Mawlānā Mamlūk al-‘Alī Nānotwī (Muftī Ilāhī Bakhsh Academy), p.477;
Ḥālāt Ṭayyib, p.78
[8]
Ḥālāt Ṭayyib, p.46
[9]
Ḥālāt Ṭayyib, p.37;
Kulliyāt Imdādiyyah, p.73
[10]
Ḥālāt Ṭayyib, p.69
[11] For a detailed English biography of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, see
Hujjatul Islam Hadhrat Moulana Muhammad Qaasim Nanotwi (rahmatullahi alayh): A Glimpse into his Life, available as a PDF here:
hadhrat_moulana_muhammad_qaasim_nanotwi-a_glimpse_into_his_life.pdf (talimiboardkzn.org)[12]
Ṭaqwiyat al-Īmān, p.43
[13] Ibid. p.44
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] See:
Yak Rozah
[17]
Mawlānā Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānotwī (Javed Press Karachi), Professor Muḥammad Ayyūb Qādrī, p.85
[18] Qur’ān, 65:12
[19]
Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 23:27;
Mustadrak al-Ḥākim, 3869, 3869;
al-Asmā’ wa ‘l-Ṣifāt, 831, 832. Imām al-Bayhaqī and others have considered it to be radically inconsistent with other texts (
shādhdh), even though the chain is sound. Regarding the shorter version, al-Dhahabī said: “[The chain of] this ḥadīth agrees with the criteria of Bukhārī and Muslim; its narrators are authorities.” Regarding the lengthier version, he said: “Its chain is ḥasan.” (
Ākām al-Marjān, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, p.37) Imām ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī argued at length for its authenticity and consistency with other texts. He also disagrees with Ibn Kathīr’s judgement that Ibn ‘Abbās took it from Isrā’īlī sources. (
Majmū‘ah Rasā’il al-Laknawī, 1:395-423)
[20]
Mawlānā Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānotwī, p.86
[21] Ibid. p.89
[22] Qur’an, 17:70
[23]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās (Ḥujjat al-Islām Academy), pp.12-3;
Majmū‘ah Fatāwā ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Laknawī (Maṭba‘ Yūsufī) pp.16-7
[24]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, pp.90-3;
Dāfi‘ al-Waswās ‘an Athar Ibn ‘Abbās, p.21
[25]
Āb-i-Ḥayāt (Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah), p.179
[26]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, pp.76-7
[27] Qur’ān, 33:40
[28]
Kitāb Khatm al-Awliyā’, pp.340-1
[29] Quoted in
Futūḥāt Nu‘māniyyah, p.484
[30] Quoted in
Futūḥāt Nu‘māniyyah, pp.486-7
[31]
Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 3077; Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī comments: “The ẓahr of the verses is the meaning that is evident and the baṭn is the meaning that is hidden.”
[32]
Ajwibah Arba‘īn, p.245
[33]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, p.54
[34]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, pp.43-4
[35]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.16
[36]
Ajwibah Arba‘īn, pp.245-6
[37] Gospel of John, 14:30
[38]
Mubāḥathah-i-Shāhjahānpūr (Ḥujjat al-Islām Academy), p.46
[39]
Intiṣār al-Islām (Mīr Muḥammad Kutubkhānah), p.50
[40]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, pp.26-7
[41]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, p.31
[42]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.36
[43]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, pp.83-4
[44] Ibid., pp.30-1
[45] Ibid., p.30
[46] Qur’ān, 5:90
[47] Ibid., pp.27-9
[48] Ibid. p. 27
[49]
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Dār al-Ta’ṣīl, 4398);
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Dār al-Ta’ṣīl), 2483
[50]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, pp.29-30
[51]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.30
[52]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, p.127
[53]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, p.37
[54]
Al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p.258
[55]
Munāẓarah ‘Ajībah, p.144
[56] See also:
Āftāb-i-Nubuwwat, Qārī Muḥammad Ṭayyib, 79 – 93;
Ma‘ārif al-Qur’ān, Mawlānā Idrīs Kāndhlawī, 6:291-6
[57]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, pp.16-7
[58] See
Futūḥāt Nu‘māniyyah (p.79) for why this interpretation is also viable linguistically. A millennium before Mawlānā Nānotwī, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī makes almost the same exact point in his discussion on the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. He states: “The one blind to this information thinks that ‘Khātam al-Nabiyyīn’ means only that he is the last of them to be appointed. What merit is there in this? What knowledge is there in this? This is the understanding of the ignorant.” (
Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyā’, p.42)
[59]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, pp. 32-4
[60]
Tanwīr al-Nibrās, p.31
[61]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.63
[62]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās (Dār al-Ishā‘at), p. 56
[63]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās (Ḥujjat al-Islām Academy), p.38
[64]
Navigating the End of Time, pp.75-6
[65] Ibid. p.352
[66] It would seem these three quotes were selected and presented in this manner in imitation of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s equally irresponsible citation from
Taḥdhīr al-Nās. (
Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn [Dār Ahl al-Sunnah], pp. 31-3)
[67]
Navigating the End of Time, p.75
[68] Ibid. p.352
[69]
Hakeem Noor-Ud-Deen: The Way of the Righteous, p.31
[70]
Tārīkh-i-Aḥmadiyyat, 3:102
[71]
Tārīkh-i-Aḥmadiyyat, 3:33
[72] Ibid. 3:36
[73] Ibid. 3:61
[74] Ibid. 3:64-5
[75]
Navigating the End of Time, p.76
[76]
Qadianism: A Critical Study (Abul Hasan Nadwi), p.35
[77] Ibid. p.59
[78]
Mawāhib al-Raḥmān, pp.69-76
[79]
Fatḥ al-Mulhim, 2:202-4 (quoting
Āb-i-Ḥayāt)
[80]
Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.85
[81]
Navigating the End of Times, p.76
[82] Ibid. p.352
[83] Ibid. p. 353
[84]
Nigārishāt-i-Akābir, pp.619-20
[85]
Memories, Mufti Taqi Usmani, pp.399-400
[86] Qur’ān, 3:81
[87]
Anwār-i-Anwarī (Jāmi‘ah ‘Arabiyyah Aḥsan al-‘Ulūm), pp.193-8;
Malfūẓāt Muḥaddith Kashmīrī (Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah) pp.59-61
[88] The title page mentions it was published in 1300 H (1882/1883 CE)
[89]
Maulānā Muḥammad Aḥsān Nānotwī, p.93
[90]
Ibrāz al-Ghayy al-Wāqi‘ fī Shifā’ al-‘Ayy (Dār al-Fatḥ), pp.160-1
[91]
Al-Imām ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī (Dār al-Qalam), p.300;
Arwāḥ-i-Thalāthah, p.182
[92]
Al-Imām ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī, pp.301-17
[93]
Rūḥānī Khazā’in (compilation of Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī’s writings), 11:69
[94]
Maqālāt al-Kawtharī, p.322
[95] Ibid. pp.333-4
[96]
Difā‘ Ahl Sunnat, Sājid Khān Naqshbandī, 2:242-254;
Memories, pp.388-411
[97] See:
Memories, pp.388-402
[98]
Sectarianism and Its Roots in the Indian Subcontinent – Response to Asrar Rashid | Basair.net[99] Qur’ān, 9:119
[100] Qur’ān, 33:70
[101] Qur’ān, 49:6
[102] Qur’ān, 5:8
Taken from
HERE
