The great leader of Iran’s Islamic revelation Ayatullah Rohullah Khomonei also had the same opinion about the Islamic jihad. He writes in 'Islam is not a religion of pacifists’
Islam's jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviations, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Muslim] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God's law]. ....
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against was. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!
There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim
I. Source, Islam is not a religion of Pacifists (1942), by Ayotollah Khomenei
Dear Sultan Shahin Sahib,
Well said. ‘Barelvi’ Sufi Sunni Muslims do not allow their followers to sit in company of Wahhabis and Deobandis and neither they allow to make any sort of marriage relationship with these cults. It is the attitude of Wahhabis and Deobandis which has forced the ‘Barelvis’ to take this strong step. It is the fear of Wahhabisation that ‘these Barelvi Sunni-Sufis prevent their followers from sitting with Wahhabis or Deobandis. Once a man sits with Wahhabis or Deobandis, the preacher of Wahhabis starts converting him to Wahhabism.
Many parents do not know as to why and how their children are and were brainwashed by Wahhabi cults to join the radical groups. Today many parents think their children are going to Wahhabi mosques for performing Namaz or listening to preaching, but there is no surety whether these children will be commanded to go to join the terrorist cults or remain there in India to give heart-and-mind support to the militants.
Today if there is any group in India which has curbed the growth of Wahhabism, it is ‘Barelvi’ Sunni-Sufis. I give this credit to them. They are far away from any sort of wrong politics or opportunist nature. They are unlike pseudo-Sufis who are, most of the time, opportunists and talk like Wahhabis in front of Wahhabis, talk like Deobandis in front of Deobandis, and talk like ‘Barelvis’ in front of ‘Barelvis’. By this so-called attitude of ‘liberalism’ and ‘intolerance’, they are allowing the growth of Wahhabism in India.
The distinction between Sufi-Sunnis and Wahhabis is not limited to the concept of Wahdatul Wujud but more than that there are many issues which originally differentiate between these two groups. These are the issues on which Wahhabis base their Fatwas justifying the killing of non-Wahhabi Muslims. And these are the Fatwas which essentially need to be refuted on academic and public ground.
How can a ‘Barelvi’ find peace while he is suggested by Wahhabi preachers that he is a ‘Bid’ati’, “Qabar-Pujwa”, “Mushrik” And “Kafir” and “liable to be killed”? How can a “Barelvi” find peace when Wahhabis/Salafis force him to convert to ‘Wahhabism’? According to Wahhabis, unless a “Barelvi” stop believing the doctrines of “noori-bashar”, “ilme-e-ghaib”, “Tauheed and shirk”, “Milad celebrations” “Nat and Salam reciting”, they will not be considered “true and puritanical Muslims”. Should the “Brailvis” then allow their supporters and followers to sit with Wahhabis to accept their Wahhabisation.
Deobandis are opportunists. When they needed Saudi funding, they helped the growth of wahhabism in India and now since they are being condemned along with wahhabism all around the globe, they have shaken their hands with ajmer khuddams and dargahis, while these khuddams do not know that these deobandis still believe them to be “qabar-pujwa, bida’tis” and hence they do not that they working as opportunists.
When ISIS came into existence, many Indian Wahhabis and Deobandis supported this militant Wahhabi-affiliated group, but when the ISIS is about to die, these Deobandis and Wahhabis have started claiming their anti-ISIS nature.
As regards “Barelvis”, they boycotted ISIS on both ideological as well as doctrinal ground. They did not need to send their letters to parliament or Indian government to be showy. The spirit of patriotism does not require a true patriot to display his patriotism in front of power and authority to gain benefits but it requires sincerity and honesty which automatically comes to the notice of public.
Today not a single group of “Brailvis” is involved into what is being committed by Wahhabi-affiliated ISIS and Deobandi-affiliated Taliban.
“Barelvis” are true Hanafis and they have certain broader and comprehensive methodological approaches to come at par with the changing needs of time. There were certain war-related rulings made by the scholars of the past, but they are not applicable today for reasons based on Quran and Sunnah. They have understood the spirit and flexibility of Islam and hence they can make ease for their followers in every changing phase of time.
Kuldeep Madaan ji, One thing you have said well but if you don’t use the right method while understanding the Quran, Sunnah or sira—the terms as you used in your comment—you may then be confused. Before the modern sort of jihadism there was no need to explain the war-related verses as much as it has become in this age. Today’s terrorists, in the name of Islam, Sharia, Jihad and war-related verses and ahadith, have practically made such an effort that even intelligent non-Muslims like you may be easily confused. You may also be confused with some Muslims who dislike narratives of wahhabism calling for destruction of human beings but at the same time they can be found supporting one another at the voice of so-called slogan of unity and peace. The ideological supporters of extremist wahhabi narratives have become very opportunists and smart, as for example in India, where they can be seen in coffee or tea party with the government or any other security elements; solely because they have realized that if they do not do so they may be banned in India like their likes in some Muslim countries. But when these supporters face any factual ground of investigation, they either use the slogan of Muslim victimhood or hide their real identity under the cover of so-called Muslim unity. Yes, this is so-called “Muslim Unity” on their part, as long as they believe the same fatwas to be available to justify the killing of all non-wahhabi and Sunni-Sufi Muslims.Wahhabism is so deeply rooted and smart in India now that you cannot recognize their identity while they will be working under various titles to basically support and upgrade the same thing that is practically being done by ISIS and its likes. Indeed they are appearing to show the false presentation of anti-terrorism conference, while their narratives can be tested in talks to any of their followers.Anyway, leave it who is it that truly cares much for that? Everyone is busy worrying about his personal needs. Even I am busy doing the same. To me, I am not the man to do anything in this regard, nor do I expect from myself to do anything better than before, but since you have appeared to me confused regarding some verses of the Quran, I request you to read my article referenced below;
URL for Part 2: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/ghulam-ghaus-siddiqi,-new-age-islam/rights-of-non-muslims-living-in-minority-–-part-2-–-protection-of-their-lives/d/113871
The link of Tahirul Qadri’s speech on wahdatul wujud
and wahdatush shuhud
Dear Sultan Shahin sahib,
Since you have quoted Dr. Tahirul Qadri in
your article, please listen to his speech on the idea of Wahdatul wujud
and wahdat Shuhud. According to his research, both the concepts are same with
only difference of terms.
As regards "Barailvis", they
still support the concept of Wahdatul wujud. The difference in their behavior is
that some of them like Tahirul Qadri think wahdatul wujud and wahdatush Shuhud
are same while others prefer and focus more on wahdatul wujud and treat the concept
of wahdatush Shuhud only as a matter of respect of the arguments presented by
Shaikh Alif Saani.
'Barailvis' support Shah Waliullah, Ahmad
Sarhandi only for their mystical and sunnah attributes. As for their ideas of war,
no "Brailvis" support them in today’s context, and this can
practically be seen. All "Barailvis" including Tahirul Qadri condemn
terrorism and fatwas of wahhabism that call for killing all non-wahabi Muslims.
During the urs of Ala Hazrat, lakh of ulemas gathered and issued a brief fatwa
against terrorism. The only call of their ulemas has convinced all Brailvi citizens
to remain peaceful and describe ISIS cults as misguided and kharijites.
It is truth that they prevent their followers
from sitting with wahabis and deobandis, not for the purpose of inciting
violence but for saving the gullible Muslims from being misguided and
brainwashed by wahabis and deobandi ideologues. Already tablighi jamaat and
wahabis have turned Indian Muslims into anti-Sufis.
The ‘Brailvis’ still compose and hear sufi
songs known as ‘naat’ in praise of the beloved Prophet [peace be upon him] and
as ‘manqabat’ in praise of sufis and saints.
The ‘Brailvis’ are far from politics and
with no support of funds are deeply restricted to their khanqahs, mazars, and
madarsas. In my opinion they are not opportunists as, I think, many can be
Mazameer is a kind of music strictly forbidden
in the book of Shaikh Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia, but there arose differences of
opinion regarding sama’ in later period. To Sufism, sama’ which was purely for remembrance
of Allah Almighty and praise of the beloved Prophet peace be upon him was and
is allowed. The kind of sama’ which has become more professional than mystical
and which even disturbs the deep meditation and pure realization of Allah
Almighty is disliked by them. However this much difference has nothing to do
In case of A. R. Rahman’s music, the first
thing to note is that music is his business and he can never display the real rhythm
of Sufism’s sama’. The “Brailvis” should not take this matter to the protest,
leaving the matter of his intention up to Allah Almighty.
The situation we are living in is different from the past when some
scholars nurtured the idea of offensive fighting. Sometimes offensive fighting
attire the uniform of defense, as some examples can be easily tabled here in
which some countries have made offensive attack on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and
Burmese Muslims under the pretext of defense. The attackers can be seen
presenting this war as defensive while the innocent Muslims, whose houses were
demolished, whose children were killed, who had been left with no one to
support, present this war as offensive. Henceforth the idea of offensive or
defensive fighting needs to be taken with great care.
There were some scholars in the past who, when used the term of
offensive fighting, used to mean defensive fighting, as, according to them,
their opponents were preparing for harming their countries and interests, and
if they had not adopted this ‘offensive fighting’, they could not have saved
their countries, communities or interests. Personally I do not support offensive
fighting but how to deal with it when it is waged under the pretext of ‘defensive
In our age, things have changed much from the time in which Imam
Ghazali, Shah Waliullah, Ibn Taymiyya spent their life. And the scholars of
Islam who have studied the methodologies to interpret Islamic rulings know well
that the Islamic rulings, especially those which are contextual and specific,
are affected by the changing phase of time. We can count many examples in which
we differ from the scholars of the past, not because they were at wrong but
because the causes that affected those rulings have changed now and if those scholars
had existed today, they would also have supported the changed rulings, and this
would have been much in accordance with the maqasid al-sharia that is, welfare
Once I was reading a subject of tampering the old books. I found that the
books of those scholars who are followed both by Sufi-oriented Muslims and
Wahabis have been tampered and altered. I am not sure as to who altered them,
but something I know is that those alterations have been made with the purpose
of establishing conformity between those texts and the wahhabi doctrines. For example,
Shah Waliullah’s books have been tampered. This subject needs a great length of
time to expose those alterations and is not possible in this comment section.
We have many things to grope in past, but one thing to inculcate into
minds of all common readers that we should ensure peaceful coexistence in
present with all people of the world.