By Arshad Alam, New
10 April 2016
Amid the cacophony of
voices proudly proclaiming themselves as the true sons of mother India, nothing
was more jarring than that of Yoga Guru Ramdev. Sadly, restrained by the law of
the land, Ramdev had no compunction in announcing that left to himself, he
would have cut off the heads of hundreds of thousands who refused to chant
Bharat Mata ki Jai. One is at once reminded of the prophetic words of Ambedkar
which warned us of the dangers of India becoming a Hindu state.
Ramdev is not the only
one, though perhaps the most odious. Different leaders hailing from the ruling
dispensation have been categorical in their assertion that anyone living in
India must necessarily say yes to Bharat Mata ki Jai. One chief minister even
suggested that those who did not want to chant this slogan were free to go to
another country. Targeted on the Muslim minority, the statement came against
the background of one Muslim MLA’s refusal to say Bharat Mata ki Jai. This
became an excuse for the ruling dispensation to paint almost the entire Muslim
community with the same brush and argue that most of them had a problem with
saying Bharat Mata ki Jai. And the logical corollary was that since they refuse
to chant this slogan, they do not love their country and hence they must be
But why is the BJP
insisting on this slogan and keeping the embers of this controversy alive? On the face of it, the controversy helps its
very ideological foundation of portraying the Muslims as the Other of the
nation. At its very core, the Hindutva ideology is built upon the assimilation
of minorities into what is called the national mainstream. Of course this
mainstream is defined by certain congeries of upper castes and their cultural
lifestyles. However, keeping the controversy alive also serves another
function. The BJP promise of delivering development to all has actually till
now meant an empty promise. Owing to a combination of factors, the ruling
dispensation has failed to deliver on its promises. The failure on the economic
terrain is now sought to be compensated by the cultural and nationalistic turn
which the BJP has taken. By plunging the country into mindless debate about
Bharat Mata and Gau Mata, the government has successfully prevented any
meaningful debate on its performance over the last two years. What is even more
interesting is the way in which the opposition parties have been unable to see
through this game and have responded to the agenda set by the government.
But till the time the
opposition sets up and forces an alternative agenda, they are only playing a
losing game. For in this age of bigotry, there cannot be a bigger champion of
nationalism than the BJP. Far worse, in many ways, the intellectuals of this
country have created such a discourse on nationalism that it will only help the
Hindu Right forces in the country.
For long and perhaps
even today, the intellectuals on the Left have been beholden to the idea of
nationalism espoused by the Congress. In many ways and rather shamelessly, they
can only be called as the intellectual arm of the Congress Party. And what is
the position of the Congress on nationalism? Perhaps it does not know itself!
The party which today opposes the application of sedition on JNU students
applied very different principles when it was in power. One just has to think
of the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and the way in which he was hounded when the
UPA government was in power.
In fact, there is not
much to choose from between the nationalisms of the Congress, BJP and the
dominant left parties in India. In the recent debate on nationalism in the wake
of the JNU incident, there was nothing which could fundamentally critique the
idea and practice of right wing nationalism, rather the debate was between
which party was more nationalist or more truly nationalist. This is classic
shadow boxing, where the real issue gets side-tracked through the conscious or
unconscious participation of both the proponents as well as the opponents of
But Bharat Mata is
also used through her negation. The intransience of a section of Muslims, led
by the Deoband and Jamaat-e-Islami is a case in point. The Deoband fatwa
against chanting Bharat Mata ki Jai equated the slogan with idolatry which
contravenes the principle of monotheism. Considered as the most important
article of the Islamic faith, Tawheed, or belief in the oneness of God, is
understandably the essential component of Islamic faith. The problem, however,
is that throughout the Muslim world, Tawheed is understood and expressed in
different ways. For example, within many Sufi traditions, Tawheed is also
understood as the link which binds human beings to the Almighty through a very
complicated scared cosmology.
The Ahle Sunnat
wa Jamaat in India (popularly called the Barelwis) link the individual soul
to the One through a very complex web of chains called the Silsila. So
according to this rationality, bowing to the grave of a Sufi divine is not a
negation of the principle of Tawheed, but its very affirmation. The act of Sajda
near the grave of the Sufi is an occasion to remember the divine, to come
closer to the Almighty. The act of bowing transposes the faithful into a sacred
time, linking him or her to the Almighty through the grace of the Sufi.
But alas, for the
Deobandis and other purist Salafi reformists within Islam, this beautiful
imagination of spiritualism must be condemned as tantamount to associating
partners to Allah. Scores have killed and others having a similar conception of
divinity within Islam are under constant threat of being killed. Thankfully, in
India, the followers of a mediated Islam have only been called un-Islamic but
one shudders to think what would have happened to them if the purist Salafi Islam
in India had as much clout as it has in the neighbouring countries like
Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Thus it is
important to understand that the fatwa against chanting Bharat Mata ki Jai is
an exercise for hegemony within Indian Muslim society. In other words, it is more fundamentally a
position within Muslim society which has the potential of erasing multiple
religiosities of Muslim experience in India. As Hindutva uses the icon of
Bharat Mata for its own exclusionary purpose, the reformist Islam uses the icon
of Mata to extend its own hegemony through its own interpretation of Islam.
What gets lost amongst this manipulative nationalism is the myriad other
imaginations of the nation, which provides the real glue that binds this
A newageislam.com columnist, Arshad Alam is a Delhi
O WAHHABIS! FEAR FROM THE
TROMENT OF Allah before calling Muslims ‘Mushrik’.
“Refuting the charge of grave
REFUTING THE CHARGE OF GRAVE
Wahhbi creed is clear cut about
those who seek tawassul through the “dead” by calling upon them. Muhammad Ibn
‘Abdul Wahhab’s Nawaaqid ul-Islaam [the factors in which Wahhabis claim nullify
a person’s Islam], p. 308 where Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab said:
“He who sets up intermediaries
between him and Allah, calling unto them and asking them to intercede on his
behalf with Allah, and putting trust in them is an infidel [i.e. a Kaafir, a
disbeliever] according to the consensus of the scholars”.
This is exactly what Muslims do
when we make tawassul through the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. We “call unto them” addressing him ﷺ with the vocative particle [harf an-nidaa] “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ .
Wahhabis need an ‘Arabic lesson in al-Munaada .
The Wahhabi cult teaches that
calling unto [du’a] to other than Allah is worship, and they misuse the hadeeth
which says “du’a is worship”, so when any Sunni Muslim is caught saying “Yaa
Muhammad ﷺ ” at his grave, he is then automatically
accused of worshipping the Prophet ﷺ by calling unto
him, thus deemed a mushrik [a pagan] for doing so.
Without any doubt, one is accused
of calling unto other than Allah ﷺ and deemed a
Kaafir. To demonstrate this point further then let us return to the statement
of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s book Nawaaqid ul-Islam, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul
Wahhab said in point number two:
ja’ala baynahu wa bayna Allah wa saa’itaa yad’uwhum wa yas’aluhum wa
yatawakkaulu alyhim. Kafara ijmaa’a”
Now take special note that
Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab used the imperfect verb “yad’u-hum” meaning “they
are calling or will call upon them” this verb derives from the same root as
du’a which simply means to call upon see p. 282 of the Hans Wehr ‘Arabic
The Sahaabah addressed the Messenger
of Allah ﷺ respectfully by saying “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ”, “Yaa RasulAllah ﷺ” and why? Take
note of the following Qur’anic passage from Surah an-Nur  ayah 63:
taj’alu du’a ar-Rasul baynakum ka- du’a ba’dikum ba’da” Which translates as “Do
not make the calling [du’a] of the Messenger between you like the calling [du’a] of each other”
Meaning address the Prophet ﷺ respectfully! This is why they used “Yaa
RasulAllah” in his very lifetime out of respect. But more importantly also
notice that the Allah used the word du’a!
Wahhabis make a distinction here.
They argue that when the Messenger ﷺ was alive, then
its permissible to call upon him [du’a] using the vocative noun “Yaa” but now
he is “dead”, calling unto him [du’a] is now considered as worship, thus
calling unto the Messenger ﷺ is nothing but pure shirk [i.e. idolatry].
So according to Muhammad Ibn
‘Abdul Wahhab, to yad’u-hum [to call upon them] by saying “Ya RasulAllah” is
indeed an act that is considered by the Wahhabi’s to take one out of the fold
of Islam whether you are doing tawssaul, asking for Shifaa’a or istighathah.
This can be further seen by the fact Wahhabi scholar Bilal Phillips wrote in
his book Fundamentals of Tawheed p. 27-28:
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said in no uncertain terms “prayer (du’a)
is worship…If somebody prays to the Prophet, to so called saints [remember
Bilal Phillips means by this calling upon them]…asking for help or asking them
to request help from Allah, they have also committed shirk [i.e. they have
became a Kaafir Mushrik]”
It is then clear that Wahhabis
deem such tawaasul as calling upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by directly addressing him “Yaa RasulAllah” as major shirk,
regardless if we are asking for help, or for them to supplicate to Allah for
However the big burning question
here is this the stance of Muslim orthodoxy? Is this the position that the
scholars of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’a hold?
Do the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah believe that it is an act of idolatry
to address the Prophet ﷺ in his grave?
According to Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Surah an-Nisa  ayah 64 it is not shirk to call upon [du’a] the Messenger ﷺ whilst he is in his grave.
Before we go to Tafseer Ibn
Katheer and look at the evidence [scans available] I would like to mention that
this cannot be found in the ‘Arabic versions, nor is it translated in the Dar
us-Salaam versions that are published by any Wahhabi publisher. It is
purposefully whitewashed for the very reason that it defies the Wahhabi creed
and they cannot have that as prove against them.
So what they have done is they
have put out “Saheeh Tafseer Ibn Katheer”, but when they say “Saheeh” they do
not mean authentic, they mean that they have corrected Ibn Katheer’s tafseer as
they deemed that what he mentioned was dalaalah [misguidance].
This is one of the many reasons
many new converts remain blind to the tricks of the Wahhabi organization. I
have tried to tell them they are being deceived and they need to learn ‘Arabic
so they can analyze these things for themselves, but I find that many Wahhabi
converts are too huffed up with pride and are too far gone to even sincerely
speak too. The once sincere conversation soon turns sour.
However, it is my challenge to
them to study the following in ‘Arabic and then turn to the Dar us-Salaam and
ask themselves why do Wahhabis keep white washing Sunni texts which clearly
display evidences against their own creed?
Let us now quote from Tafseer Ibn
raltes that he was sitting at the grave of the Prophet ﷺ when an Arab came and said “As-Salaamu Alayka YAA RASULALLAH”
then he quoted the related ayah about seeking forgiveness.” Tafseer Ibn
Katheer, vol. 1, p. 328
Before my readership starts
calling me a misleading Barelwi prentending to be a Hanbali, let us look to the
Hanbali scholars and see what they have to offer.
There is no doubt to the
authenticity of this narration used by Ibn Kathher as Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen
Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi also included this is his al-Mughni, vol. 3, pp.
599-601, The Shaafi Master, Imaam Nawawi also included this narration in his
book al-Adhkaar pp. 218-221, The Maaliki Master Qadi Iyaad also documented this
is his classical text Ash-Shifaa’a and other countless Imaams from the Ahl
us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah have used this as an evidence as seeking a need.
For example, the great relied
upon Hanbali scholar Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi wrote in his al-Wasiyyah
seeking for a need to be fulfilled from Allah ta’ala then perform the ablution
and two units of nawafil prayer, relying on Allah ta’alaa and sending
salutations on the Prophet ﷺ and say the following ….“O Allah, I ask
you and turn to you by Your Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the Prophet of Mercy. YAA MUHAMMAD!!! I turn by you to my Lord
and your Lord aza wajjal for Him to settle my need for me”
Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen then says
after quoting this du’a
early Muslims [i.e. the Salaf] had their needs fulfilled by saying this”
Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn
Qudaamah’s work al-Wassiyah has been translated by Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali and is
available for people to read here:
thinkhanbali.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/word-of-advice.pdf and it has
also been translated by Aisha Bewly.
You will also be able to find
this hadeeth in Sunan at-tirmidhi and Ibn Maajah, Imaam Suyuti classified this
hadeeth as saheeh in his al-Jami us-Saghir hadeeth no. 1279; and again Imaam
Ahmad Bin Hanbal testifies to this hadeeth in his Mansik: Kash-Shaaf ul-Qinaa,
vol. 2, pp. 70-73.
Now this is the interesting part,
we can see from the above reference that Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal allowed
tawassul through the Prophet by addressing the Prophet ﷺ in his grave with the vocative noun “Yaa” as in “Yaa Muhammad”
or “Yaa RasulAllah”. However, look what the Wahhabi scholar Albani had to say
about this in the book Tawassul: Seeking a means of nearness to Allah By Nasir
ud-Deen Albani, Al-Hidaayah publising. -p. 38:
Ahmad allowed tawwasul by means of the Messenger saaws alone,…However, WE (he
means we as in WE i.e. the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, the Ahle Hadeeth) follow
what is supported by proof and not the blind opinions of men.”
Notice carefully how Albani used
the pronoun “We” distinctly to differ from Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. Imaam Tahaawi
and other great scholars of Islamic creed only used the pronoun “we” in
reference to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal jamaa’ah and their methodlogy.
Therefore not only does Albani
demonstrate to us that Wahhabis are on a different path than Imaam Ahmad Bin
Hanbal but it also demonstrates to us that the deeper implications reflect the
Khawwaarij theology at work by differing from the Imaams of the Ahl us-Sunnah
wal-Jamaa’ah. Albani’s statement therefore reflects nothing but bad opinion
towards the Imaam. Especially given the fact that he describes Imaam Ahmad’s
ijtihaad regarding this issue as a “blind opinion”.
Wahhabi’s should take special
attention to what Imaam Tahaawi has to say in his al-Aqeedah ut-Tahaawiyah:
learned men of the first community and those that followed intheir footsteps –
the people of virtue, the narrators of hadeeth, the jurists and analysts – must
only be spoken about in the best way. Anyone who speaks ill of them, then he is
on other than the path (of guidance)”. point no. 97
In other words, the whole Wahhabi
madh-hab is flawed as it teaches that every scholar, common Muslim, dog cat and
mouse is a Kaafir, and the whole world is on the path of idolatry all except
There are many videos on youtube
that have already demolished this false claim of the Wahhabis, so in reality I
am not saying nothing new. I have compiled some videos from youtube below and
compiled my own brief article after. Listen to this with heart, watch the
videos, see the evidences. Are the Muslims who do such acts really grave
worshippers? Have heart yaa Ibaad Allah”
Ya Allah wahhabi shaitanism se
Musalmano ko mahfooz farma!
TO ALL READERS, SPECIALLY SULTAN SHAHIN, GHULAM MOHIYUDDIN, SAHEBAN AND OHTERS,
ISIS IS TOTALLY BASED ON WAHHABISM. THE
FOLLOWERS OF WAHHABISM ARE SHAITAN OF THIS AGE. NO ARGUMENT WILL TAKE ANY
INFLUENCE ON SUCH SHAITANS. PLEASE NEVER LET YOURSELFE GET INFLUNCED BY SUCH
WAHHABI SHAITANS OR ANY WAHHABI COMMENTATOR. THEY ARE THE WORST OF THE PEOPLE.
THEY ARE THE KILLERS OF HUMAN BEINGS, KILLERS OF MUSLIMS, KILLERS OF
IMAN-E-MUSLIMS, KILLERS OF EVERYONE JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR JIHALAT-BASED
DEFINITION OF SHIRK. PLEASE EXPRESS THAT YOU ALL DO NOT NEED WAHHABI SHAITANS TO TEACH WHAT IS
SHIRK AND WHAT IS KUFR. MUSLIMS MUST NOT LISTEN TO ANY SHAITANIC ARGUMENT,
OTHERWISE AS YOU ALL INTELLECTUAL PERSONS KNOW THAT ONCE SHAITANS COME IN THE
PATH OF INSAAN/HUMAN BEING, THEY GET SUCCESS IN INFLUENCING THE PEOPLE, BUT THOSE
READ LAAHAUL AND REJECT SHAITANIC ARGUMENTS ARE NOT INFLUENCED BY SHAITANS.
THANK FOR READING MY
Bawa Mohiyuddin, a great
South-India Sufi said a very beautiful thing in this regard. I am producing an
instant translation of his quote:
There is nothing personal
about tawheed nor spatiality nor is it bound by time. It is the non
local unified field consciousness in which birth, death, sleep, wake, I and you
are as stars dissolved in the sun. In fact, to identify it as a state is
somewhat subtle as it implies. It is a personal perspective when in fact it is
the clear realization of the real. Such a person feels all as himself. He
becomes the mirror in which all faces are reflected.
"The Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat in India (popularly called the Barelwis) link the individual soul to the One through a very complex web of chains called the Silsila. So according to this rationality, bowing to the grave of a Sufi divine is not a negation of the principle of Tawheed, but its very affirmation. The act of Sajda near the grave of the Sufi is an occasion to remember the divine, to come closer to the Almighty. The act of bowing transposes the faithful into a sacred time, linking him or her to the Almighty through the grace of the Sufi".