Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (28 Feb 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Deepening Signs of a Civil War in Islam: Massacres of Sufis in Pakistan In The Name Of Pure Islam Reveals a Worsening Global Crisis

By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam

28 February 2017

Is this Islam? A woman in Peshawar had asked this question, crying over the blood-spattered dead bodies of her school-going children in December 2014. The proud killers of 132 innocent children and scores of female teachers were the Pakistan Taliban. The Taliban are student of Islamic madrasas, supposedly well-versed in the teachings of Islam. They claim to kill in the name of Islam. They claim to glorify Islam. They say they are trying to establish the sovereignty of Allah over the world.  So, the question is inevitable. Is this Islam, indeed?

Now Pakistan is once again in shock. Today the question is: Is this pure Islam or true Islam, as Salafis claim? Not for the first, nor for the last time, to be sure, over hundred devotees of Sufi saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sindh have been killed in the name of what Salafi-Wahhabis consider true, pure Islam. Salafi-Wahhabis abhor Sufism because they believe that Sufi practices resemble pre-Islamic polytheistic Hindu traditions. Any Muslim who strays from the path of what Salafis consider true Islam is an apostate and deserves to be killed. The murderer has been brainwashed by ulema of his sect into believing that he can be assured of a place in heaven if he kills apostates and kuffars.

Many Pakistanis claim the idea of Pakistan is that of a secular, democratic Pakistan. The idea of Pakistan as outlined by its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was flawed right from start. In an address to the Constituent Assembly, delivered on 11 August 1947, he urged forgiveness of bygone quarrels among Pakistanis, so all can be ". . . first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights . . .". Pointing out that England in past centuries had settled its fierce sectarian persecutions, he expressed his wish for a Pakistan in which "in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."

But if that was the idea of Pakistan, what was the need for a separate state, away from India? Where does the two-nation theory fit into this idea of Pakistan? Clearly it was a hypocritical statement. No wonder the ideology of exclusivism, separation, intolerance on which Pakistan was created almost immediately won the battle. On the insistence of Jamaat-e-Islami founder-ideologue Maulana Maududi, an Objectives Resolution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949. The resolution proclaimed that the future constitution of Pakistan would be modelled on the ideology and democratic faith of Islam. The very first article in the resolution said: “Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.”

Maulana Maududi was a Salafist. With the adoption of the Objectives Resolution, in accordance with his wishes, the Pakistani state itself became a Salafist state for all practical purposes. But the overwhelming majority of the people continued to be Sufi-oriented Bareilvis. Deoband had little influence in Pakistan at that time.

This is what created the division that has now led to a civil war-like situation. In Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that Pakistani state adopted so early on, there was no room for a tolerant and inclusive Sufism which would accord respect to all religions and follow the policy of Sulh-e-Kul (Genera Accord). Salafis consider followers of Sufi saints to be infidels at the same level as polytheists or idol-worshippers. In their understanding of pure Islam, these people deserve to be killed. It is the acceptance of Salafi-theology as Pakistan’s state ideology from the very beginning that has created an environment in which such regular massacres at a number of Sufi shrines across Pakistan have become possible. This is not the first time and Pakistan is not the first country where Wahhabism is spreading in this fashion. Indeed, the entire establishment and expansion of Wahhabism as a force to reckon with has been based on mass murders and destruction of shrines from early 19th century onwards.

Wahhabi vandalism started in 1802 when an army of 12,000 Najdi Salafi warriors called Ikhwan attacked Shia holy sites in the city of Karbala, slaying 4,000 of that city's inhabitants. In 1803 they attacked Makkah but the Makkaans, having known the fate of Karbala, surrendered to Saudi Wahhabi rule. The Wahhabi Ikhwan then smashed Sufi shrines and the graves of even the closest companions of the Prophet. In Madina, they not only destroyed common grave-sites, but even attacked the tomb of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). Since then the history of Islam has been a history of massacres of non-Wahhabi Muslims and destruction of holy sites. Presently the banner of forcible Wahhabi expansion is taken up by al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangawi, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc. 

Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792), the founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed declared all rationalist and mystic Muslims as mushrik or polytheists and thus “wajibul qatl” (deserving death). In a long discourse in Kashaful Shubhat, he explained why all Muslims despite their claim to believe in one God are polytheists whose lives and property are halal (permitted) for Wahhabi Muslims. He concluded his discourse: “… You now understand that these people's (non-Wahhabi Muslims’) accepting tauheed (oneness of God) does not make them Muslim; the fact that they expect intercession from others than God (Sufi saints) makes them liable to be killed and their property to be looted." --- Kashaful Shubhat, p.9, Maktaba al-salafia bil Madina Munawwara, 1969 CE)

Another Abdul Wahhab quote necessary to understand the current conflict is the following: “Even if the Muslims abstain from shirk (polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims (which for him includes all non-Wahhabi Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).

While generally Indian ulema stay silent when such atrocities are perpetrated, this time a few have come up with denunciations. Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salafi, general secretary of Ahl-e-Hadith, has, for instance, condemned this incident vigorously. But the problem with Indian Salafi ulema who condemn such terrorist incidents is that while they condemn specific terrorist incidents, they do not denounce the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that they actually follow. This is a self-contradictory stance. No wonder it is also self-defeating. Denouncing terrorism means very little, if the ideology from which it emanates continues to be followed. From the time of the Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab - Muhammad bin Saud pact in 1744, Salafi-Wahhabis have been following this murderous ideology which calls all non-Wahhabi Muslims Mushrik (polytheist) and Wajibul Qatl (deserving death).

If Ahl-e-Hadith and other Salafi Muslims are sincere in condemning sectarian terrorism they need to also denounce and renounce the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology that calls for murder, destruction and looting of property. They only need to do what Abdul Wahhab’s father and brother did. In fact, his brother Shaykh Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote a book refuting his arguments. Abdul Wahhab was able to propagate his ideas freely only when his father, a Qazi of the region, passed away. 

Although Sufi-oriented Muslims, rationalists, Shias, etc have been victims of Salafi-Wahhabi terrorism, it would be wrong to conclude that extremism is limited to Wahhabis. There is a consensus of ulema of all schools of thought on an extremist understanding of Islam. Take any popular book of Tafsir (interpretation), of the holy Quran, from Ibn-e-Kathir to Jalalain Shareef, or even later ones like that of Maulana Maududi. Quran’s original teachings of peace and pluralism, patience and perseverance, in early Meccan verses, are said to have been abrogated by the later war-time verses that were revealed at Mecca in a time when Islam was indeed facing an existential crisis and defensive war was unavoidable. Take Friday sermons read out in mosques anywhere in the world. Muslims are forever praying for victory over kuffar and mushrekin (non-believers and deviants, infidels and idol-worshippers. Not only that You will even find us Muslims praying to God to curse the non-Muslim and defeat them. In the case of Wahhabi-Salafi the curse applies to even the Muslims who may have a mystical bent of mind, as for them all non-Wahhabis are infidels and deviants, for whom the only punishment is beheading, here and now.

Would a Muslim-majority country allow a non-Muslim minority to keep cursing it all the time and praying for its defeat at the hand of non-Muslims, that too in peace time, when no battles are being fought. Muslim-majority countries indeed do not even allow worship places to be built by other religious communities, in some cases, and where they do, they put a variety of restrictions on them. The most bizarre, of course, is the prohibition for Christians to use the word “Allah” to denote God in the most technologically advanced Muslim country, Malaysia.

Many Muslims would be surprised to know all this as they do not know what they are hearing in Arabic in Friday sermons. Most have not read the Quran with meaning, much less it’s various tafsirs taught in madrasas. Then there is also the case of tampering of these tafsirs of Quran by Salafi-Wahhabis in recent decades. The translation of a very popular book with religious-minded Muslims, particularly Tablighi Jamaat, al-Nawawi's Riyadh al-Salehin, published in 1999 by Darussalam Publishing House, Riyadh, is a case in point. As if Riyadh al-Salehin was not sufficient in selecting extremist, xenophobic, intolerant material from Quran and Hadith, in its Book of Jihad, commentaries have been inserted at various places to give them an even more radical interpretation. The 11075-word Chapter on Jihad, for instance, doesn’t have a word to say about what we moderates call Jihad-e-Akbar (Greater Jihad), i.e., struggle against one’s own negative or evil inclinations, citing a saying of the Prophet (pbuh). This saying has been declared by most theologians as zaeef (weak), hence unreliable and inauthentic. On the other hand, Ahadith saying that struggle against non-Muslims should go on till eternity and that killing of even innocent civilians was allowed by the Prophet himself are found in sihah-e-sitta, i.e., all the six volumes of “authentic” Ahadith. The result is that the only basis for a Muslims’ relationship with a non-Muslim is considered in theology to be war.

In the case of Wahhabi-Salafi theology, even the basis of a Wahhabi’s relationship with a Sufi-oriented Muslim would be conflict and strife. No wonder our ulema stay completely quiet, when Khalifa Baghdadi and his followers from India declare in YouTube Videos telecast on world television, as they did last year, that “Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day; it has always been a religion of war and strife.” What can the ulema say, after all. This is what they have learnt and this is what they teach.

Many a Muslims pins their hope on Sufis. It would be nice to do so. We will have some basis for optimism left. But we should not forget that in the last four decades, these petrodollar decades, there has been a Wahhabisation of Sufism itself. The Wahhabi takfiri ideology has penetrated all sections of the community. The 4 January 2011 murder of Pakistani Punjab’s Governor Salman Taseer and the recent deification of his Barelvi-Sufi murderer by millions of Muslims can be cited as strong evidence for this phenomenon.

A bodyguard of Salman Taseer was told by the Mullah he followed that Taseer had become an apostate by opposing Pakistan’s (black) blasphemy laws and showing sympathy for a Christian lady (falsely) accused of blasphemy. This man Mumtaz Qadri used his service weapon to kill the Governor in cold blood. While the killer became a hero instantaneously, most Ulema were not even prepared to lead the funeral prayers of the slain Governor. Lawyers of Pakistan’s High court, supposedly educated people working to uphold the law, threw rose petals on the killer when he was brought to court. Courts found him guilty, as the killer was not contesting the facts of the case, and awarded him death sentence. He has been executed. But the government had to permit a shrine being built in his name. He has been declared a saint. Millions throng his shrine and seek his intercession with God to fulfil their own needs.

Is Jinnah’s idea of a secular and democratic Pakistan then quite dead, if it ever had any resonance with the Pakistani state which had accepted the Objectives Resolution with so much alacrity so early? Perhaps not quite. These same lawyers who threw rose petals on the killer were also in the forefront of fight against General Musharraf’s dictatorship and did eventually manage to throw him out of power. But the idea of Pakistan, or whatever is left of it, is scuttled by the ideology of Pakistan again and again.

However, the issue of Salafi-Sufi civil war does not concern Pakistan alone. Muslims are a global community. One can see manifestations of the same struggle everywhere. India too is not immune. We need to remain extremely vigilant Already there are signs of expanding radicalism. Even a few score Muslim youth, all well-educated, well-off, well-settled with good jobs, leaving everything to fight for the so-called Islamic State, should be enough to cause disquiet. But the greater worry is that most Indian Muslims are not worried. We are happy to wish these worrisome thoughts away by putting the blame on Zionism, Islamophobia, etc, for everything negative that happens in the community. If we do indeed wish to live peacefully in this inter-connected world, we will have to change course and rather urgently. 

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/sultan-shahin,-founding-editor,-new-age-islam/deepening-signs-of-a-civil-war-in-islam--massacres-of-sufis-in-pakistan-in-the-name-of-pure-islam-reveals-a-worsening-global-crisis/d/110239

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism



  • A sane muslim fighting a lonely battle !
    By Karthikrajan Al - 3/5/2017 6:03:06 AM

  • Islamic theology needs radical reforms

    By Sanjay Narain Saigal - 3/5/2017 6:01:12 AM

  • To. Riyansh/Nasser Ahmeed
    I beg both of your pardon for jumping into your conversation, but I always do when try to question Hindus or mockery, intensions are not hurt but shiw equal flaws of both traditions.

    To Riyansh/Naseem Ahmed
    Various people claim to be God in Hindus do they speak truth, I think it is questionable same as various people in Abrhamic tradition claimed to be paigamber, but both can be pretty much liars even your Muhmmad paigamber too can be or not?

    One(Jesus) did tried to raise himself from status of paigmaber to Son of God, we know how he was killed.

    I Abrhamic tradition you can declare upto messenger and can talk to God and self declare mesanger(except Moses) as in Hindu people self declare or irrartional  Hindu community will declare him/her God.

    First and Last thing this both tradition try to do is try to control human true nature of love, compassion, forgiveness and questioning his/her violence against the humans and other beings as part and parcel of God, Hindus do have more( not perfect or complete) kindness toward other beings but their actions are contradictory.

    Riyansh Biswas do not get dispponted when Muslim like Naseer Ahmed question Hindu humans as God or idol as God,  Muslim have equal flaw in their explanation as we have have but muslim keep on questioning, condemning and do mockery all time everything that is contrary to Muslim  Practises, because they use violence in public so people cannot say anything in public but internet have provided biggest platform.

    By Aayina - 3/4/2017 2:11:08 PM

  • A good article by Mr. Khaled Ahmed in India Express today.   
    ..The first is, wherever in the world there is “kufr” (non-belief) and apostasy, it has to be quelled through defeat at the hands of Muslims. The second is, all states must become Islamic and Muslims should strive to convert them to Islam. The third is, the modern nation state is unlawful under Islam and should be ruled by a caliph instead. And the fourth is, Muslims should have one global state ruled by a single caliph, not many states calling themselves Muslim....
    By Ashok Sharma - 3/4/2017 6:31:02 AM

  • Syria was Christian, Iran was Zorastrian, Pakistan was Budhist - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    By Jayaraman Subri - 3/4/2017 4:52:22 AM

  • Shaheen Mumtaz,what a benevolent act! Muslim nations collect zizya from minorities for their welfare? But here in India minorities are treated as son in law! From subsidies to Haz and now some special benifits from government too.Would you have liked it if minorities in India were treated like that in Muslim nations?
    By Samir Padhi - 3/4/2017 4:51:46 AM

  • The various people you claim as Gods of Hindus are great men only..People have option whether to follow them and their dictum is not compulsory for all to follow.Hope you have a clear vision now!
    By Samir Padhi - 3/4/2017 4:51:31 AM

  •  Riyansh Biswas, Various person claimed that they are God of Hindus , It means they speaks truths.
    By Naeem Ahmed - 3/4/2017 4:51:03 AM

  • @Shaheen Mumtaz what is written in your book is of no use in practical life. What kuran prescribes for a person whose faith is different from muslims is known to me. Kafir, is a derogatory term used as an abuse. They are third grade citizens. Hindusthan is a Hindu majority nation. Would you accept the same status for you? A Kafir can not preach his religion in a muslim country and also can not practice openly himself. Would you like it for you? Say thanks that you are in a Hindu country where you have rights more than equal .
    By Sudhir Bharti - 3/4/2017 4:49:09 AM

  • Naeem Ahmed, who else killed all those great men which I mentioned? Your hatred towards RSS is because of your religion. Your statement that you did not want to indulge religion does not match with your intentions.
    By Sudhir Bharti - 3/4/2017 4:48:30 AM

  • Mehtaj, I am not less proud of my great Dharm and know the reality of your Islam. That is the religion which fixed that a Caliph would be only from Koraish. It is the example of your so called equality . Ashraaf, Azlaaf and Arzal are not in Hindu dictionary but in Muslims. Despite of the caste system we all are Hindus but you are a glaring example of hypocrisy that each firqa declares others as Kharjis. It were muslims who killed the whole family of their peophet. Role of Ayesh, the wife of Mahomet is a historical fact in the killings of Ali's family. I know your Islam well. It is the religion which is identified world wide to produce terrorists. Where ever it reached, peace was the first casualty. So do not beat drum of false greatness. Also do not take pride to be more in numbers. In animal kingdom, inferior are always in great number and the superior less.
    By Sudhir Bharti - 3/4/2017 4:48:04 AM

  • We are proud to be Muslim,sudir don't try to teach a Muslim what tidbits u collected from here and there,why don't u ponder over the caste system of Hinduism,brahaman is born from head and low caste from foot,u don't in ur democratic country allow lower castes to use the common source of water,yesterday u killed a dalit sarpanch in Gujarat,u still cant eat from the same plate with si called lower castes.Alhamdulilah Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.i challenge u give ur sister or daughter to a qualified dalit or lower caste but u will not do that because u hate dalits and lower caste's for non of their fault. Today Muslims may have many draw backs because we have moved away from religion of Islam ,if they return back to the islam they will be walking angles on earth.
    By Malik Mehraj - 3/4/2017 4:47:26 AM

  • Naeem Ahmed Muslims actually killed their own caliphs after Abu Bakr. Remember, there was no America or Israel back then either so can't blame them :v
    By Riyansh Biswas - 3/4/2017 4:46:05 AM

  • Sudhir Bharti Sahab Islam never advocates to recite kalima or to oust any non believers from the country. Regarding zejia there is Gross misconception among our Hindu brothers. A Muslim majority country may collect a meagre nominal amount for the security and Welfare purpose of the tiny population. The state will be bound to make it assured that they are not compelled to convert their religion. The whole amount of zejia must exclusively be used for them only apart from the state fund.
    By Shaheen Mumtaz - 3/4/2017 4:45:19 AM

  • Sudhir Bharti , But Muslim did not killed Mahatma and other Higher rank person of Hindu Community. These so called hindu groups killed so many scholar.Further I do not want to indulge in religion. I can quote from your books but that is not my intention.
    By Naeem Ahmed - 3/4/2017 4:44:11 AM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
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.