Concerning the finality of Islam:
The authors claim that the terms Nabí (prophet) and Rasúl (messenger) have:
‘….distinctly different semantic applications in the Qur'án which sometimes overlap, and have a bearing on the correlative language of the religions of the world.
These semantic differences leave open the possibility, in a number of verses, for the appearance of future messengers.’ (My emphasis).
Imam Ghazali was very well aware that if one relies on the words of a given revelation alone, then many possibilities of interpretation may exist; and that some these may seriously undermine the purpose of that revelation. He insisted that any interpretation must be measured against how it was understood in the Islamic community. According to him, where there is a consensus in the community about that revelation then this consensus must be the true reflection of its purpose; and such is binding.
In respect of the finality of prophethood he writes:
‘As for the received tradition, the person (who says that a `new messenger' can still arise) will not be incapable of making various interpretations of the prophetic tradition ‘la nabiya ba`di’ ("There is no prophet after me") and God's words ‘khatam al-nabiyyin’ ("seal of the prophets"). Thus he might say that by ‘khatam al-nabiyyin’ God means the last of the prominent messengers. If you argue that nabiyyin (prophets) is general and is used without any specification, then it is not difficult to give a general term a specific meaning.
‘In respect of the prophetic tradition la nabiya ba`di ("There is no prophet after me") a person can say that this expression does not cover messengers and there is a difference between a messenger and prophet, prophet being (according to his view) superior to a messenger (so that a prophet cannot arise after the Prophet Muhammad but a messenger can still arise). Similarly, he can put forward many other arguments, which on the basis of the language used cannot be rejected. Indeed, we admit the possibility of even more remote interpretations of words used in the symbolic statements (zawahir al-tashbih).
‘We cannot even say that a person who makes such interpretations is guilty of rejecting the clear injunctions. But in refuting him we shall say that the entire Ummah by a consensus understands that the word (la nabiya ba`di) in view of the circumstances of the Prophet means that neither a prophet nor a messenger will ever arise after him. There is no room for any different interpretation nor for giving special meaning (to the term nabiyyin, prophets).
‘If, therefore, any one denies this interpretation, he can (in the first place) be described only as the denier of the consensus. And then in the second place, if the consensus is considered binding, we can unhesitatingly pronounce such a person a non-believer.
(al-iqtisad fi al-i‘tiqad).
Comment:
This is a clear rejection of the authors’ claim that ‘……semantic differences leave open the possibility, in a number of verses, for the appearance of future messengers.’
In his work ‘The Creed of a Muslim’, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Ismāʿīl Al-Ashʿarī writes that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) has:
‘...sealed this Messengership, warning, and Prophethood with his Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, whom He made the last of the Messengers - “A bringer of good news and a warner, calling to Allah by His permission and an illuminating lamp.”
Commenting on this statement Afroz Ali, of the al-Ghazzali Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development, writes:
‘Revelation, which is warning and prophethood, which is informing about what Allah has said, reaches its end with the Prophet Muhammad. There will be no Prophets after him. He brings the good news that whoever follows him will be happy and whoever does not will be punished. He calls to Allah, conveying tawhid to the legally responsible…….He is an illuminating light because his Shari’a is a light which guides the bewildered – whoever follows it and proceeds along the Straight Path will emerge from the darkness of disbelief to the light of belief.’
Comment:
Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Ismāʿīl Al-Ashʿarī is recognised as one of the three or four most influential and orthodox thinkers in the history of Islam. He has been referred to as: ‘this greatest theological authority in orthodox Islam.’ (Ignaz Goldziher).
Ashʿarite doctrine is recognised as the official orthodoxy of Sunnī Islam; and its teachings are generally seen as the embodiment of Islamic orthodoxy.
Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani says of the Ashʿarīs:
‘(They) are the Imams of the notable figures of guidance among the scholars of the Muslims, whose knowledge has filled the world from both east to west……They include whole sections of the foremost Imams of Hadith, Sacred Law and Qur’anic exegesis…..If we wanted to name all of the top scholars of Hadith, Qur’anic exegises, and Sacred Law who were Imams of the Ashʿarīs we would be hard pressed to do so.’
(Notions That Must Be Corrected; Page 78.)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (sorry Susan!) said of the Ashʿarīs:
‘The scholars are the helpers of the religious sciences, and the Ashʿarīs are the helpers of the fundamentals of the religion.’
(Al-Fatawa, Vol. 4).
In the ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ - the classic manual of Islamic sacred law - by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri; translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, we find:
‘Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading. Islam is the final religion that Allah Most High will never lessen or abrogate until the Last Day’.
Comment:
The Reliance of the Traveller is widely acknowledged one of the finest and most reliable works in Shafi'i jurisprudence; a school with, perhaps, the least amount of scholarly differences on rulings than any other.
For over a thousand years the Muslims have held to the conviction that Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the last of the Rasūl and of the Nabī, and they have done so in complete accord with the scholars of Islam.
Were it possible to place these scholars in one dish of a balance-scale, and in the other the Western Orientalists quoted by the authors, I have no doubt at all that the latter would be propelled skywards - at jowl quivering speed - by the force of the upward momentum.