certifired_img

Books and Documents

Debating Islam (03 Nov 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)


Do Muslims need to disassociate themselves from Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims? A New Age Islam debate

 




By Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam


3 Nov 2012



Dear Naseer Saheb,  This dialogue has taken a rather serious turn in a somewhat different direction with wider implications. I am, therefore, taking it to the home page for a wider participation of our readers.


 Religion may have nothing to do with terrorism in our view. But when terrorists put out manifestos (you have read Osama bin Laden’s letter to America, now on the site) and publish magazines (look at Nawa-e-Afghan Jehad, for instance, and many others) which shout from rooftops that their inspiration for terrorism for the sake of world domination is their religion, Islam, and Islam is our religion as well and I don’t think that my religion teaches terrorism, then I do have to protest. I do have to point out that though these people are indeed part of my religion, they are a small group called Wahhabis or Salafis and they all come from only one set of madrasas, Deobandis, which were founded over a century ago with similar intentions of “fighting the infidel.”

 

Osama bin Laden begins his terror manifesto in this way: 

 

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

 

"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]

 

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]

 

Before you go further reading this comment, please go to http://nawaiafghan.blogspot.in/  Find a recent issue, say July 2012.  The cover Story screams “Shariat ya Shahadat” (Islamic code of life called Shariah or Martyrdom). It asks Muslims to choose between the two. There is no third choice: either establish Islamic Sharia in the world or gain martyrdom.  And, I am sure you know that many Muslims around the world including those living in and enjoying the munificence of the West have made this choice in favour of Martyrdom in the pursuit of establishing Shariah.

 

In this issue alone you will come across articles like: Sahaba-e-Karam rizwan alaihum ka shauq-e-Shadat (how the companions of Prophet Mohammad saw loved martyrdom) by Shah Moinuddin Ahmad Nadwi Rahmatullah Alaih, How companions died for the Prophet by Hafiz Ibnul Imam, My Days With Shaikh Osama bin Laden Rahmatullah Alaih, (a tribute  to the late terrorist-in-chief ) by Shaikh Dr. Aiman Al-Zawahiri madzillahu, A call for action to my brothers in the land of revelation and Islam – Saudi Arabia – by Shaikh Dr. Aiman Al-Zawahiri madzillahu, Woh haalatein ke jin mein kuffar kea am logon ka qatl jayez hota hai (Situations that religiously justify killing common people among infidels by Shaikh Yusuf al-Abeeri Rahmatullah Alaih Ta’a’la, Jihad fi sabeelillah aur uska maqsad (Jihad in the way of God and  its objective) by Maulana Manzoor Ahmad Nomani Rahmatullah Alaih, In praise of martyrdom by Muhsin-e-Ummat Shaikh Osama bin Laden Rahmatullah Alaih , Wana Operation ke bare mein Lal Masjid ke fatwa par Pakistani ulema ka ittefaq (All Pakistani ulema agree on the fatwa given by Mullahs of Islamabad’s Red mosque denouncing Pakistan’s political, bureaucratic and military leadership for their WANA operation), the criminals of Jamia Hafsa by Silsabeel Mujahid, Why we reject the United Nations way of life and accept Allah’s way of life by Abdul Aziz al-Jaleel and so on.

 

Each and every paragraph, if not sentence of the thousands of pages on this terrorist publication contains references from Quran and Sunnat and Hadees and their interpretation in the way they are taught in Wahhabi madrasas of Saudi Arabia and Egypt (where Osama bin Laden, Aiman al-Zawahiri and all the 9/11 terrorists studied) and Deobandi madrasas of Pakistan where the Taliban studied.

 

 You and I say Naseer Saheb that terrorism has nothing to do with any religion. But Terrorists are shouting from rooftops that they are Islamists and their only objective is to establish Islam in the same way as Prophet Mohammad did. They say Prophet Mohammad used war as a way of establishing Islam and so should we. They use the inspiring stories of Prophet Mohammad and his Companions fighting in Jange-e-Badr and Jang-e-Uhad and so on. They use verses from the Quran to justify killing innocents. You have now read how they religiously, Islamically, justify killing of innocent people. 

 

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, the founder-ideologue of Jamaat-e-Islam which in turn helped found the Taliban is one of the oft-quoted:

 

"When every method of persuasion (over 13 years of preaching) had failed, the Prophet took to the sword… that sword removed evil and mischief, the impurities of the heart and the filth of the soul. The sword did something more. It removed their blindness—they could see the light of truth—and it also cured them of their arrogance; arrogance which prevents people from accepting the truth… stiff necks and proud heads bowed with humility."

— From Jihad Fi Sabillilah

 

“To change the old tyrannical system and establish a just new order by the power of the sword is also Jihad, as is spending wealth and undergoing physical exertion for this cause.” — From Jihad Fi Sabillilah

 

Another oft-quoted quotation in Taliban Jihadi literature from the same book is: “It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution."

(Jihad Fi Sabillilah: Jihad in Islam by Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi “– Chapter 3, Pg 10)

 

I think we the overwhelming majority of Muslims who see Islam as a religion of peace should disassociate ourselves from the Saudi, Wahhabi, Salafi, Deobandi brand of Islam and point out why we do not agree with their primitive, atavistic, obscurantist, extremist, exclusivistic interpretation of Islamic scriptures that has spawned terrorism, is providing inspiration to terrorists and is keeping their anti-Islamic mission afloat. We believe in the Islam that produced great Sufi saints who spent their lifetime serving God and the people and who introduced us non-Arab Muslims to Islam, scientists and philosophers who introduced science and philosophy to the Medieval Europe and helped modernize it, the poets and artists whose art and poetry appreciated by the entire world and gives a message of peace and equality and progress.

 

But in order to defend the Saudi, Wahhabi, Salafi, Deobandi brand of Islam that is spawning Islamist terrorists, you start finding terrorists among Bareilwis who constitute the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Indian or now South Asian sub-continent. Thankfully, you could only come up with Mafia Don and ISI agent, Dawood Ibrahim who organized in 1993 bombing of Bombay Stock Exchange, the most destructive terrorist bombing in Indian history. Wikipedia describes Dawood Ibrahim as “don of the Bombay-based international organised crime syndicate named D-Company, which had also operated as a terrorist organisation..[6][7] Nowhere is there any mention of his philosophy or ideology or even Bareilwi persuasion. You are the only person I know who treats Dawood Ibrahim as a Bareilwi ideologue. He may have been visiting Sufi shrines. All criminals show great religiosity, spend large amounts of money, give large donations to mosques, temples, shrines, maybe churches and synagogues too. Does that make them ideologues of that religion or stream of thought within a religion? 

 

About binary vision. Does Allah have binary vision? Did Mohammad have binary vision? Did they not ask Muslims, when in the middle of a war, kill the infidel wherever you find them? Did Allah and Mohammad not know that the infidel of today could turn into the greatest stalwart of Islam tomorrow? Were not all the companions of the Prophet including Hazrat Umar (raziallal taala) all infidels opposed to the spread of Islam at one time and even prepared to brandish their swords in order to extirpate the infant plant of Islam.

 

No, Allah and Mohammad didn’t display a binary vision. Rules of war are always different from rules of peacetime. Most of the kuffar and mushrekeen killed in battles of Badr and Uhad could have turned into stalwart defenders of Islam later, but had they not been killed, Islam itself would not have survived. So Allah and Mohammad had to display binary vision and give clear-cut orders for the war. These orders do not apply to us today. They were meant for those wars. This is what I want Deobandi Wahhabi ulema who issue fatwa against terrorism to tell their militant followers: these instructions given by God and Mohammad in the wars against kuffar and mushrekeen in the early days of Islam are no longer valid and applicable to us today.

 

Should such verses quoted by the Deobandi Taliban to justify killing innocent people be taken out of the Quran? No. These verses are invaluable. They tell us the inspiring story of what near-insurmountable odds the prophet and early Muslims had to face to establish the religion. They were permitted to fight only when they were left with no option. They even fled from Mecca to avoid bloodshed. But when Meccans followed them even in Medina with the intention to kill them, what option did they have. So these war verses are valuable to us as history but no longer applicable in today’s circumstances. However, they are taught as of universal application in Deobandi, Wahhabi, Saudi, Salafi madrasas. This is spawning terrorism. This is buttressing terrorism. This is helping Islamist terrorists keep their inhuman movement afloat.

 

We are in the middle of a war. Tomorrow your son or nephew or niece could turn into a suicide bomber. He or she would not turn into a terrorist because he or she is offered large amounts of money or any worldly possession. Muslim youth from secular, liberal, moderate Muslim families are embracing terrorism because of the binary vision God and Mohammad displayed in the early wars (rightly so) and the verses of Quran and purported sayings of Prophet Mohammad are taught in Deobandi, Saudi madrasas and on the internet as valid and applicable for all times (which they are not).

 

I wonder where did you find “proof of binary mode of thinking” in the following paragraph that I wrote in my last comment:

 

“Personally I do not consider Bareilwi ideologues paragons of all virtues. In fact I find many things wrong with them. Nor do I consider Deobandis personification of evil. I abhor certain Bareilwi practices and admire some ideas and qualities of the Wahhabis. However, the limited point I am making repeatedly on the site is that Bareilwis have a largely inclusive understanding of Islam and Wahhabis have a more exclusivist ideology which is a danger to Islam as much as to modern civilisation."


Sultan Shahin

3 Nov 2012

 

-----

Dear Shahin Sb,

 

You repeatedly provide proof of binary mode of thinking. Who gave you permission to label me as a Deobandi? Not a Barelvi must mean a Deobandi and now not a Deobandi would perhaps mean Wahabi! None of these would leave you totally confused.

You do not seem to get it although I have been screaming from day one of my association with this site that terrorism has little to do with religion as cause. Yet, you seem to think that I am trying to say that all Muslims are terrorists! I have objected to the use of terms such as Islamist and Islamism precisely because these terms incorrectly attribute religion as a primary cause of terrorism. Dawood Ibrahim was cited as an example because Barani claimed that not a single Barelvi was involved. It was to discourage such sectarian thinking and not to encourage it.

By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2012 8:00:48 PM

-----

Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb,

 

Why should one substitute Deobandi or Wahhabi with Muslim to get the argument of Islamophobes? By the grace of God, Wahhabis still constitute no more than 5/10 per cent of the Muslim community. Of course, their influence is growing and their ideology is becoming more and more acceptable among Muslims under the onslaught of ubiquitous Wahhabi media propaganda financed by petrodollars and protected by the sole super power of the world.

 

It is heartening for me, a mere journalist, to find that even when an intellectual like you  tries to prove that all Muslims, and not just Wahhabis, are extremists, you are only able to come up with the example of Dawood Ibrahim,  the Mumbai gangster, now ISI-agent who was behind the 1992 terrorist act in Mumbai. I am sure you must have searched for extremist ideas among Bareilwi ideologues and you couldn’t find any. So you had to resort repeatedly to Dawod Ibrahim as an example of a Bareilwi ideologue. However, I can assure you even Deobanids other than you would not consider Dawood Ibrahim a Bareilwi philosopher. He was a small time crook in the beginning of his career but obviously thanks to his intelligence, cunning, brutality and total lack of scruples he grew into a notorious mafia don, and then shifted to Pakistan. ISI utilized him to carry out terrorist acts in India to provoke massacres of Muslims which fortunately did not happen. If he is the best example you could find of a Bareilwi ideologue to prove that all Muslims, not just Wahhabis, are extremists in their approach, I am very happy about that.

 

If you are looking for another Bareilwi terrorist to be presented as a Bareilwi ideologue, I can refer you to the rascal who killed Governor Salman Taseer. He also comes from a Bareilwi family and it was indeed on the incitement of a Bareilwi Mullah that he killed the governor whom he was being paid to protect as a bodyguard.

 

I have already made the point several times that the Wahhabi extremist virus has infected the Bareilwis too and extremism has grown exponentially among the Muslim community in general all over the world. Even countries like Indonesia and Malaysia that we used to cite as examples of Muslim moderation are now in the throes of a Wahhabi epidemic.

 

Personally I do not consider Bareilwi ideologues paragons of all virtues. In fact I find many things wrong with them. Nor do I consider Deobandis personification of evil. I abhor certain Bareilwi practices and admire some ideas and qualities of the Wahhabis. However, the limited point I am making repeatedly on the site is that Bareilwis have a largely inclusive understanding of Islam and Wahhabis have a more exclusivist ideology which is a danger to Islam as much as to modern civilisation.

 

It is gratifying that despite the spreading Wahhabi virus an overwhelming majority of Muslims on the Indian sub-continent are still of Bareilwi persuasion and love to go to the shrines of Sufi saints where they get to interact with people from other religions on a quasi-religious platform and with great bonhomie as they share respect for the same divinity.  That the overwhelming majority of people in Pakistan, where shrines are under daily Wahhabi bombing attacks, are still willing to go to Sufi shrines is a great sign of hope for all of us and a proof that the entire Muslim community is not yet radicalised and is willing to sacrifice life to prove the point.

 

Regardless of their other shortcomings, I love people who like to co-exist with people from other faiths in our global village and abhor people who provoke confrontation with non-Muslims including ahl-e-kitab on ideological grounds. We Muslims should be able to follow the Qur’anic dictum of “for you your way of life and for me mine.”

 

Naseer Saheb, sectarianism is certainly a bad thing. Allah and the prophet warned us against this. But does this mean that we should all unite under the sectarian Saudi Wahhabi flag?

 

Wahhabi propaganda blared through every media organisation is not sectarianism. But when heads of 80 Sufi shrines, having the allegiance of 90/95 per cent of Muslims come together in Moradabad and denounce growing Wahhabi extremism and point to its dangers, Muslim media under the influence of Saudi petrodollars does not even report the event attended by a hundred thousand Muslims. Instead it brings out the issue of sectarianism and suddenly becomes very much opposed to sectarianism among Muslims.  That an intellectual from a Sufi background speaks the same language of the infected Urdu Press is very disappointing. 

 

Sultan Shahin 11/2/2012 1:34:06 PM

----

Sultan Shahin Saheb,

I agree with much of your last comment. The Talibans may be inspired by Deobandi ideology, but tribal and regional factors also play a large part in their behavior. I condemn Deoband's anti-reform stance and its failure to denounce terrorism, but I would not say that they are in cahoots with the terrorists.

Ghulam Mohiyuddin, 11/1/2012 3:08:52 PM

---

"Just that it is their ideology that is resulting in the creation of Taliban and the mindset of Deobandis is the same everywhere though their political, financial compulsions may lead them to behave in different ways."


Substitute Muslim for Deobandi and you have the argument of the Islamophobes. What is different in the two mindsets? Looks like Muslims are incapable of rising above petty sectarianism and cannot think big.
I agree with much of what Ghulam Mohyideen says although I would caution him about the old and the new testaments because much of the Shariat which deviates from the Quran is based on these books such as the punishments for adultery, apostasy, blasphemy and the practice of circumcision etc. I would substitute that with the life and example of all the prophets since Jesus' life is the best example for Muslims to follow in this age.

By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2012 12:03:34 AM

---

Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb,

 

"Articulating a coherent and convincing theology of Reform Islam," should indeed be our primary purpose. But this is something that will emerge and indeed seems to be emerging in our own efforts as well as that of some others in different parts of the world.

However, in the meantime we have to keep denouncing terrorists and fighting terroristic interpretations of our ideology as well. We also need to expose the fallacies of those who never clearly denounce the terrorists, while at the same time maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism has no place in it. For good reasons such pronouncements have no effect. Deoband, for instance, has never issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden or followers of Al-Qaeda or Taliban. Well, Taliban indeed are products of Deobandi madrasas and believe in and say the same thing that, for instance, Indian Deobandi Taliban (students) and ulema would say. The difference is that Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and their teachers (ulema) also do certain things that Indian ulema and Taliban (madrasa students) cannot do. But there is no difference in their thinking and ideology.

 

This, too, we have to keep pointing out and denouncing while we are engaged in a search for a coherent and convincing theology of Reform Islam, as you put it, that would be more suited for the 21st and later centuries,. The two processes have to go together.

By Sultan Shahin - 11/1/2012 2:32:42 PM

---

Sultan Shahin Saheb,

 

 In order to find Christian or Hindu parallels, we would have to time travel to the 12th, 15th or the 18th century. Moreover the differences may be more quantitative than qualitative. The principle is the same, namely resist change one way or the other.


Besides fighting extremism, we need to articulate a coherent and convincing theology of Reform Islam.

 

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2012 1:37:38 PM

----

Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb is right:”Enemies of Islam have a high stake in blocking the emergence of moderate/liberal/progressive Islam.”

 

One Islamophobic website once wrote a 6,000-word essay seeking to prove that everything I had said in a speech at the UN Human Rights Council was wrong and rejected by “genuine” Islam.

 

But the comparison with Hinduism or Christianity or Judaism doesn’t ring true. – “It is like telling Hindus that the only true Hinduism is to burn their widows, practice untouchability and follow Manusmriti, or telling Christians and Jews to follow the Old Testament's admonitions to kill apostates and to stone to death adulteresses!

 

The reason is that there are no groups among Hindus and very small groups among Christians and Jews who would say things like that. Even the LTTE never claimed that its struggle was based on a Jihad manual called Gita. They never framed their struggle in terms of Jihad against Buddhism. Khap Panchayats never credit Hinduism for their retrogressive ideas. I do not know of any Christians and Jews who want “to follow the Old Testament's admonitions to kill apostates and to stone to death adulteresses!.” Among Muslims, the most dynamic, the most well-funded, indeed the most influential group today is that of people who claim that the classical sira, Hadith and fiqh (Sharia laws) represent genuine Islam and the moderate Islam is fake Islam so much so that moderates are apostates and deserve nothing less than death in the here and now. Islamic extremists are not only making an ideological pint they are actually practising the killing of moderate Muslims whom they consider apostates and stoning to death alleged adulteresses (without even any need for any proof).

 

Naseer Saheb has pointed out elsewhere that Bareilwis and Sufis are as much extremists and exclusivists now as the Deobandis,Wahhabis. This is not entirely true yet but the trend is leading towards this denouement. The influence of this group among Muslim masses the world over is growing by leaps and bounds. The extremist and exclusivist message of Islam reaches our homes, our newspapers, our television channels day in and day out. It is only natural for “enemies of Islam”to support this group. The Kharjiite version of Islam, the extremist Islam alone can help prepare Western or Hindu masses to be so fearful of Islam as to be ready for pogroms a la Nazi Germany. You have to give the dog a bad name first before killing it. And if the dog itself is eager to give itself a bad name, why not help it through your own media as well.

 

But it will not help us moderates to shift our focus from fighting extremists within our own community to our “enemies” who are helping them for their own very good reasons. Christian, Jewish, Hindu fundamentalists support, protect, encourage Islamic fundamentalists: is that reason enough for us moderates also to start doing that?

 

Let us not succumb to the pressure of “enemies of Islam” to shift our focus away from Islamic extremist and leave the field completely open for them to keep saying that classical Islam based on secondary theological sources is the genuine Islam. You may have noticed the disapproval bordering on contempt that some commentators on this site also have for people they “accuse” of being “Ahl-e-Quran.”This is the age of Ahl-e-Hadeesis. They are out to colonise the Muslim mind.

 

Let us try and give an alternative vision to the Muslims community while denouncing the extremists within all the while. We can even fall back on some of our glorious traditions of always fighting back Kharjiites and the like and coming up winners. Let us not lose hope this time round too, though the situation today is the most precarious. Never before have the Kharjiites wielded so much power. Never before has the international situation been so favourable to them. They have ganged up with very powerful “enemies of Islam.” Look at the way Al-Qaeda is being installed into power replacing moderate and secular Muslim rulers in the Muslim world. But war within Islam is primarily a war within Islam. Let us keep it that way. Let us maintain our focus where it should remain.

 

By Sultan Shahin - 11/1/2012 3:29:36 AM

-------------

Naseer Sb.,

 

People want change but have not yet articulated a coherent message with widespread acceptance. An entrenched ideology can be fought only by a well thought out, consistent and cogent ideology.

 

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2012 3:05:21 AM

-------

Well said Ghulam Mohyiddin Sb! There are many ills in Muslim society. Attacking well entrenched attitudes and mind sets do not work. Substitution works. Give people alternative ideas to think about and you get change.
Change is brought about gently and in small measures and never by attacking/denouncing/demonizing. The enemies of Islam do not want any change but rather they would like the entire community to regress to the worst possible state. Let us defeat them.


Would like to see articles in New Age Islam that while talking about ills, speak about solutions. Articles that are only critical and offer no solution, only feed the appetite of the detractors. Most articles unfortunately fall in this category of pure criticism of not just of the acts of people but of the entire people based on the acts of a few. Muslims should get out of their habit of cursing, hand wringing and breast beating and start thinking in terms of solutions.
People are what they are because of their situation and circumstances. Change for the better is always possible. Let us work for change rather than indulge in counterproductive criticism. By Naseer Ahmed - 11/1/2012 2:35:38 AM

--------

McCarthy and Baranis will find one way or another to tell us that medieval or mullahish Islam is the only true Islam. It is like telling Hindus that the only true Hinduism is to burn their widows, practice untouchability and follow Manusmriti, or telling Christians and Jews to follow the Old Testament's admonitions to kill apostates and to stone to death adulteresses!

 

Enemies of Islam have a high stake in blocking the emergence of moderate/liberal/progressive Islam.

 

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2012 1:19:34 AM

 URL:  http://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/sultan-shahin,-naseer-ahmed,-ghulam-mohiyuddin/do-muslims-need-to-disassociate-themselves-from-salafi,-wahhabi-ideologies-of-permanent-war-with-non-muslims-and-moderate-muslims?-a-new-age-islam-debate/d/9188

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   704


  • I HAVE READ SOME COMMENTS OF THIS SECTION.
    THIS NEW AGE ISLAM IS FULL OF ABUSIVE SENTENCES.
    NEW AGE ISLAM SHOULD NOT POST SUCH ABUSIVE COMMENTS 

    By Pankaj - 11/15/2017 3:46:57 AM



  • wahabism is the real problem of Islamic world. Muslims need to disassociate themselves from wahhabism.


    By Ravi Kumar - 11/15/2017 3:37:57 AM



  • Please could you send me (or URL link) a copy of Sharia Law compatible with USA constitution, and then a second copy of the more extreme Wahhabi version.
    By William Smith - 12/5/2016 6:44:51 PM



  • Should Muslims disassociate themselves from Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims?

    Let's meditate سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter #5, Verse #42, Mohsin Khan translation, below:
    '(THEY LIKE TO) LISTEN TO FALSEHOOD, to devour anything forbidden. So IF THEY COME TO YOU (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), either judge between them, OR TURN AWAY FROM THEM If you turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the least. And if you judge, judge with justice between them. Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.'
    The phrase, (They like to) listen to falsehood, could refer to those people Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims.  The subsequent phrase, turn away from them, implies Muslims should not associate with them since they deal with falsehood.

    The same is mentioned in (سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter#5, Verse #77)-Yusuf Ali translation:
    Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, NOR FOLLOW THE VAIN DESIRES OF PEOPLE WHO WENT WRONG in times gone by,- WHO MISLED MANY, AND STRAYED (themselves) from the even way.
    As the phrase, nor follow the...people who went wrong...who misled many and strayed, is mentioned above, it implies that Quran demands Muslims to disassociate those people that would mislead Muslims to wrong truth and these include also Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims.

    Does Allah love the wrongdoers, i.e. Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims?
    (سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #57), Yusuf Ali translation:
    "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but ALLAH LOVETH NOT THOSE WHO DO WRONG." 

    By zumamusa - 10/11/2015 8:14:56 PM



  • You may be right Mr. Sultan Shahin, but this is precisely what nearly all Muslims are doing, practising takfeerism and sectarianism. So what is the way out? A mere exhortation from you and some others is not going to make any difference.

    However, I must say your view is unexceptionable: "We cannot root out takfirism and sectarianism of the Islamist extremists by using our own brand of  takfirism and sectarianism."


    By Ali Abbas - 7/25/2015 1:16:55 PM



  • Dear Mukhtar Alam Saheb Ph D, We cannot root out takfirism and sectarianism of the Islamist extremists by using our own brand of  takfirism and sectarianism.

    ---

    "Thus, all KUFR of Wahabism needs to be denounced. Salaf obedient to Hadhrat Ali are only relevant and not those whose obedience score to prophet is not same as that of Hadhrat Ali and all pledged to Hadhrat Ali at Ghadir Khum."
    By Mukhtar Alam, Ph.D - 7/22/2015 5:29:14 AM


    By Sultan Shahin - 7/23/2015 3:49:21 PM



  • Hatred for all obeying 42:23 is clear from the communication of Abdul Wahab. This is the reason ,Saud bin Saud destroyed masouleum of Imam Hussain in 1808 distributed the usurped gains thinking that to be a war booty which was so wrong since all the caretakers of the masouleums were none but momineen pledged to Imam Hussain in history and obeying the Wilayat of Hadhrat Ali in post prophet and post messenger age existing as Light upon Light. Wahabis functioned like enemies of prophet PBUH and HF violating 42:23 with clear command for love of Qurba of prophet PBUH and HF. Thus, all KUFR of Wahabism needs to be denounced. Salaf obedient to Hadhrat Ali are only relevant and not those whose obedience score to prophet is not same as that of Hadhrat Ali and all pledged to Hadhrat Ali at Ghadir Khum.
    By Mukhtar Alam, Ph.D - 7/22/2015 5:29:14 AM



  • Mr. Abdul Khaliq,
    You have exactly said. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 2/27/2015 4:08:29 AM



  • السلام علیکم سلفیت وھابیت اسلام اورمسلمانوں کے لءے زہرقاتل ہے انہون نے احادیث کی کتابوں میں تحریف شروع کردی ہے جیساکہ ایک کتاب دینی تحریفات موجودہے لھذان سے خیرکی توقع رکھناعبث ہے
    By abdulkhaliq - 2/26/2015 8:58:53 PM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail - 1/10/2015 4:27:57 AM
    thanks for providing some portion of khan saheb's writing.
    you may have read i have asked sultan saheb why he mentions ibn e taimiyah, abdul wahab but never mention shah waliullah and imam sarhindi.
    they appeal ulema for sincere efforts but forget to mention mujhids, hujjat ul islams, Mujaddids awwal and thani knowing their extreme views.
    this makes his war against terrorism a sectarian war which renders it useless.
    Another moderate GM called shah waliuullah a reformer. we all know views of shawaliullah.
    you have rightly said. If Shah waliullah can't be wrong how mududi, wahab najdi can be.
    i always felt that moderates are not honest on many occasions. either they are afraid off going against mainstream or deliberately distort the truth to save Islam or cover hateful dangerous side of Islam.
    Is shah waliullah more than God for Ghulam Ghaus saheb. He first demanded proof, when proof is there he says to ignore.
    Give name Wahabi, lo and behold he will jump and bring articles to refute him, but not a word against his peers.
    In fact this war against extremism is not a true war. it is cutting branches and feeding roots.
    why they can't condemn shah waliullah for his extreme views on non-muslims. they are ready to go to extreme other personalities for same views.
    since it lacks honesty, it is not going to bore fruits of moderation.
    it is a dishonest war.
    GM wants word war on Fazlullah from me but not a single word from him of condemnation of Shah waliullah the jehad ideologue who influenced like maududi.

    i am really perplexed how they are going to bring a moderate era if they can't condemn a dead jehad ideologue. How they can challenge the live bombs of terrorism.
    another moderate questions the source. oh ! it is copied from islamophobic sites.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/10/2015 5:45:45 AM



  •   Ghulam Ghaus Saheb says,
    “if you, Mr. Kahlid Suhail, have any problem with the remarks of Shah Waliullah R.A, you can resolve the matter in the light of the Qur’an and Hadith on your own, provided you have ability for that. However this does not mean that Shah Waliullah R.A was at wrong. We can simply ignore this matter, thinking that our situation is totally different from his one.”
    I have only one problem: As far as I know, the views of Shah Waliullah are supported by the Quran and ahadith  themselves.
     Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, considered to be a moderate writes in his book, ‘Islam – Creater of The Modern Age’ writes,
    “God created a perfect world….Man was told, that there was only one creator who should be worshipped….But man went astray. He began to worship anything which was visibly prominent, such as rivers, mountains etc…. This worship of something, other than God finally developed into shirk or polytheism.
    All the prophets in the past had come with the mission of rectifying this perversion. In all ages of history of man, they called for the renunciation of shirk and adoption of monotheism.
    Efforts on the part of the prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (shirk).
    This was the state of affairs when the final prophet, Muhammad (PAH)  came to the word in the sixth century A.D.
    It was God’s decree that he be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi ( (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.
    Note: The route verb of ‘ma’hi’ above is ‘mahw’ ( m-h-w), meaning eradicate, eliminate, obliterate, wipe out, etc. (emphasis mine).
    Addressing the Prophet, the Qur’an observed:
    “We have revealed to you this book so that, by the will of their Lord, you may lead men from darkness to light “ (14:1).
          This same mission of leading men from darkness to light had been entrusted to all the prophets in turn. The sense, however, in which the Prophet of Islam was distinct from the others was that, in his case, God had decreed-since no Prophet was to come after him-that he should not just communicate the divine message to humanity and leave it at that, but that he should also take practical steps to change the entire existing state of affairs.
          The prerequisites for putting this plan into action were all provided by God. Moreover, God also guaranteed that any shortcoming in worldly resources would be amply compensated for by special help from the angels.
    (Quran 8:12 “Remember, thy lord inspired the angels (with the message), “ I m with you: give firmness to the believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of unbelievers: Smite ye ( o angels) obove their necks and smite all their finger- tips off them. – emphasis mine)
          This point has been made in the Hadith in different ways. One hadith in particular is quite direct in its wording: “I am the eradicator through whom God will obliterate unbelief.” Thus the Prophet was not just a da’I (missionary) but also a mahi (eradicator).  He was the caller to the faith, but he had also to compel people to answer his call. The Qur’an clearly states that besides human beings, God’s angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission.
          This commandment of God was, indeed, realized through the Prophet, so that a whole new era could be ushered in.
    We have already discussed the views of Shah WAliullah, hence, no need to repeat them. Like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Dr Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi also believes that  “there are certain directives of the Qur'an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims.” Maulana Maududi, and other Islamic scholars like Ibn Taimiyah and Abdul Wahab Najdi against whom the so called moderates on New Age Islam forun are waging a war also have the same view as far a the question of offensive Jihad waged by hz Muhammad and his designated followers is concerned.  Some modern scholars may differ on the question whether this  offensive war was specific only to the time of hz Muhammad or it is an unfinished task which the muslim Ummah is obliged to continue  till polytheism is eradicated from the face of the earth. 
    When I compare this frank statement of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan  (which is basically addressed to the muslim masses as we see him  singing a different song when he addresses a different audience as we see in his book, “ The True Jihad”) with the views of Shah Waliullah, Maulana Maududi, Ibn Taimiyah, Abdul Wahab Najdi, and even Dr Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi I see no difference.
     You have said in your comment, “it does not mean that Shah Waliullah was at wrong”. If he is not wrong, then Maulana Maududi, Ibn Taimiyah, Abdul Wahab Najdi etc are also not wrong.
    When maulana Wahiduddin Khan says, “It was God’s decree that he ( hz Muhammad) be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi ( (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time”, Since that false system still exists, in larger parts of the world, It leaves the door wide open for many muslims like  Late Dr Asrar Ahmad of Pakistan,  people influenced by ISIS, Boko Haram and Taliban etc to believe that  the muslim Ummah has the duty to complete this unfinished mission. For this they find lot of support in the Quran and hadith.
    But I see the moderates are not honest and logical and I am sure, they will never accept the bitter truth.
    This may be my last comment on this thread as there is nothing left to discuss any more.
     
     


    By Khalid Suhail - 1/10/2015 4:27:57 AM



  • Islam from a rational ,social and historical point of view is nothing but a camouflaged SHIRKfor the sake of imposing Arabic culture on the non Arabs.The nonarabs  of the whole world are called by the Arabs nothing but a Dumb Ajami community,only the Arabs have tongues; only they can speak the rest of the world will hear and obey them.muhaddisin  old and new teach their students that Allah speaks only in Arabic.All his angels speak only in Arabic and all his prophets on the day of judgement will speak in Arabic. .After that day All in the paradise will speak in Arabic.
    No one in the history of quranic teaching and learning  has ever mentioned what will be the language of those who will live eternally in the Quranic Hell.
    Now  the new Khalifatulmuminin
    is bent on fulfilling this irrational ,and utterly foolish ambition by  forcing Arabic on every subject of his domain.
    The compulsive belief in such fabricated traditions is taken as sincere love for the Arabs and any thing which is called truly Arabic not imported from China and stamped " made in Saudi Arabia."
    The argument between the Asharis and the Motazalis about the creation of the Quran  is actually based on this belief that Arabic is the   native language of Allah the Almighty; therefore it is as uncreated as Allah himself.The Quran is therefore 
    as eternal as its author.
    It is an eternal Fatwa that whoever believes that the Quran is a created speech he will go to the hell  created by the followers  of Islam.
    Islamic jihad is war of culture domination and nothing else.
    Islam is a wonderful religion because it utterly hates all crazy,foolish and empty headed people of all origins.

    This is my favourite religion though I respect all other sensible religions.
    Thanks to this website which has brought so many morons and imbeciles to the front.xax



    By taqdeer - 1/9/2015 8:49:22 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    Shooting in Paris France is going on by terrorists. Can you tell me whose test is this? Of terrorists or those innocent people killed by them.
    Who test is this? Of Baghdadi or of those who are under his zulm?
    Whose test is this one who raped or who is raped?
    So much zul o sitam and you call it test! 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 7:56:50 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    This test theory is nothing but irrational illogical sadist mentality of your Allah. He doesn't spare even children.
    To him children are guina pigs of his test laboratory. 
    Your Allah punishes those who use their freedom of choice.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 7:47:21 AM



  • Mr. Rational, 
    The matter of giving reward or punishment is up to Allah Almighty. He Almighty has given this freedom to test the mankind. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/9/2015 7:29:07 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content