An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith

The final verdict on a hadith, i.e. Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged), depends critically on this factor.

Among the early traditionists, mostly of the first two centuries, ahadith were classified into two categories only: Sahih and Da`if; al-Tirmidhi was to be the first to distinguish Hasan from Da`if. This is why traditionists and jurists such as Ahmad, who seemed to argue on the basis of Da`if ahadith sometimes, were in fact basing their argument on the ahadith which were later to be known as Hasan.

We now examine in more detail these four important classes of ahadith.

Sahih

Al-Shafi`i states the following requirement in order for a hadith which is not Mutawatir to be acceptable:
"Each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthful in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning. This is because if he does not know how a different expression can change the whole meaning, he will not know if he has changed what is lawful into what is prohibited. Hence, if he reports the hadith according to its wording, no change of meaning will be found at all. Moreover, he should be a good memoriser if he happens to report from his memory, or a good preserver of his writings if he happens to report from them. He should agree with the narrations of the huffaz (leading authorities in hadith), if he reports something which they do also. He should not be a Mudallis, who narrates from someone he met something he did not hear, nor should he report from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) contrary to what reliable sources have reported from him. In addition, the one who is above him (in the isnad) should be of the same quality, [and so on,] until the hadith goes back uninterrupted to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or any authority below him."

Ibn al-Salah, however, defines a Sahih hadith more precisely by saying:

"A Sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad)."

By the above definition, no room is left for any weak hadith, whether, for example, it is Munqati`, Mu`dal, Mudtarib, Maqlub, Shadhdh, Munkar, Ma`lul, or contains a Mudallis. The definition also excludes Hasan ahadith, as will be discussed under that heading.

Of all the collectors of hadith, al-Bukhari and Muslim were greatly admired because of their tireless attempts to collect Sahih ahadith only. It is generally understood that the more trustworthy and of good memory the reporters, the more authentic the hadith. The isnad: Al-Shafi`i --- Malik --- Nafi` --- `Abdullah b. `Umar --- The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), is called a "golden isnad" because of its renowned reporters.

Some traditionists prefer Sahih al-Bukhari to Sahih Muslim because al-Bukhari always looked for those reporters who had either accompanied or met each other, even if only once in their lifetime. On the other hand, Muslim would accept a reporter who is simply found to be contemporary to his immediate authority in reporting.

The following grading is given for Sahih ahadith only:

1. those which are transmitted by both al-Bukhari and Muslim;
2. those which are transmitted by al-Bukhari only;
3. those which are transmitted by Muslim only; those which are not found in the above two collections, but
   
4. which agree with the requirements of both al-Bukhari and Muslim;
5. which agree with the requirements of al-Bukhari only;
6. which agree with the requirements of Muslim only; and
7. those declared Sahih by other traditionists.

Hasan

Al-Tirmidhi means by hadith Hasan: a hadith which is not Shadhdh, nor contains a disparaged reporter in its isnad, and which is reported through more than one route of narration.

Al-Khattabi (d. 388) states a very concise definition, "It is the one where its source is known and its reporters are unambiguous."

By this he means that the reporters of the hadith should not be of a doubtful nature, such as with the Mursal or Munqati` hadith, or one containing a Mudallis.

Ibn al-Salah classifies Hasan into two categories:

1. one with an isnad containing a reporter who is mastur ("screened", i.e. no prominent person reported from him) but is not totally careless in his reporting, provided that a similar text is reported through another isnad as well; 
2. one with an isnad containing a reporter who is known to be truthful and reliable, but is a degree less in his preservation/memory of hadith in comparison to the reporters of Sahih ahadith.

In both categories, Ibn al-Salah requires that the hadith be free of any shudhudh (irregularities).
Al-Dhahabi, after giving the various definitions, says, "A Hasan hadith is one which excels the Da`if but nevertheless does not reach the standard of a Sahih hadith." In the light of this definition, the following isnads are Hasan according to al-Dhahabi:

1. Bahz b. Hakam --- his father --- his grandfather;
2. `Amr b. Shu`aib --- his father --- his grandfather;
3. Muhammad b. `Amr --- Abu Salamah --- Abu Hurairah.

Reporters such as al-Harith b. `Abdullah, `Asim b. Damurah, Hajjaj b. Artat, Khusaif b. `Abd al- Rahman and Darraj Abu al-Samh attract different verdicts: some traditionists declare their ahadith Hasan, others declare them Da`if.

Examples of Hasan hadith
Malik, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim reported through their isnads from `Amr b. Shu`aib --- his father --- his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said,
"A single rider is a devil (i.e. disobedient), two riders are two devils, but three makes a travelling party."
Al-Tirmidhi declares this hadith to be Hasan because of the above isnad, which falls short of the requirements for a Sahih hadith.

Several weak ahadith may mutually support each other to the level of Hasan.
According to the definitions of al-Tirmidhi and Ibn al-Salah, a number of similar weak ahadith on a particular issue can be raised to the degree of Hasan if the weakness found in their reporters is of a mild nature. Such a hadith is known as Hasan li ghairihi (Hasan due to others), to distinguish it from the type previously-discussed, which is Hasan li dhatihi (Hasan in itself). Similarly, several Hasan ahadith on the same subject may make the hadith Sahih li ghairihi, to be distinguished from the previously-discussed Sahih li dhatihi.

However, in case the weakness is severe (e.g., the reporter is accused of lying or the hadith is itself Shadhdh), such very weak ahadith will not support each other and will remain weak. For example, the well-known hadith, "He who preserves forty ahadith for my Ummah will be raised by Allah on the Day of Resurrection among the men of understanding", has been declared to be Da`if by most of the traditionists, although it is reported through several routes.

Da`if

A hadith which fails to reach the status of Hasan is Da`if. Usually, the weakness is one of discontinuity in the isnad, in which case the hadith could be Mursal, Mu`allaq, Mudallas, Munqati` or Mu`dal, according to the precise nature of the discontinuity, or one of a reporter having a disparaged character, such as due to his telling lies, excessive mistakes, opposition to the narration of more reliable sources, involvement in innovation, or ambiguity surrounding his person.

The smaller the number and importance of defects, the less severe the weakness. The more the defects in number and severity, the closer the hadith will be to being Maudu` (fabricated).

Some ahadith, according to the variation in the nature of the weakness associated with its reporters, rank at the bottom of the Hasan grade or at the top of the Da`if grade. Reporters such as `Abdullah b. Lahi'ah (a famous judge from Egypt), `Abd al-Rahman b. Zaid b. Aslam, Abu Bakr b. Abi Maryam al-Himsi, Faraj b. Fadalah, and Rishdin b. Sa'd attract such types of varying ranks as they are neither extremely good preservers nor totally abandoned by the traditionists.

Maudu`

Al-Dhahabi defines Maudu` (fabricated, forged) as the term applied to a hadith, the text of which goes against the established norms of the Prophet's sayings (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), or its reporters include a liar, e.g. the forty ahadith known as Wad'aniyyah or the small collection of ahadith which was fabricated and claimed to have been reported by `Ali al-Rida, the eighth Imam of the Ithna 'Ashari Shi'ah.
A number of traditionists have collected fabricated ahadith separately in order to distinguish them from other ahadith; among them are Ibn al-Jauzi in Al-Maudu`at, al-Jauzaqani in Kitab al-Abatil, al-Suyuti in Al-La'ali al- Masnu'ah fi 'l-Ahadith al-Maudu`ah, and `Ali al-Qari in Al-Maudu`at.

Some of these ahadith were known to be spurious by the confession of their inventors. For example, Muhammad b. Sa`id al-Maslub used to say, "It is not wrong to fabricate an isnad for a sound statement." Another notorious inventor, `Abd al-Karim Abu 'l-Auja, who was killed and crucified by Muhammad b. Sulaiman b. `Ali, governor of Basrah, admitted that he had fabricated four thousand ahadith declaring lawful the prohibited and vice-versa.

Maudu` ahadith are also recognised by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident. For example, when the second caliph, `Umar b. al-Khattab decided to expel the Jews from Khaibar, some Jewish dignitaries brought a document to `Umar apparently proving that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had intended that they stay there by exempting them from the jizyah (tax on non-Muslims under the rule of Muslims); the document carried the witness of two Companions, Sa'd b. Mu`adh and Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. `Umar rejected the document outright, knowing that it was fabricated because the conquest of Khaibar took place in 6 AH, whereas Sa'd b. Mu`adh died in 3 AH just after the Battle of the Trench, and Mu'awiyah embraced Islam in 8 AH, after the conquest of Makkah!
The author, in his Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Majah, has given more examples of fabricated ahadith under the following eight categories of causes of fabrication:

1. political differences;
2. factions based on issues of creed;
3. fabrications by zanadiqah (enemies-within spreading heretical beliefs);
4. fabrications by story-tellers;
5. fabrications by ignorant ascetics;
6. prejudice in favour of town, race or a particular imam;
7. inventions for personal motives;
8. proverbs turned into ahadith.

Similar to the last category above is the case of Isra'iliyat ("Israelite traditions"), narrations from the Jews and the Christians which were wrongly attributed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

America's Battle with Islam

Many would have you believe that America’s battle with Islam is a recent phenomenon caused by our flagrant intrusion into their holy lands and meddling in their affairs. To some extent I would agree these issues have heightened the intensity of the Islamic fervor we are currently experiencing. But make no mistake; this is not the beginning of an Islamic war against America or the Infidels, it has been active for centuries.

One period of American history, which directly relates to Islamic war mongering, took place during the early years of America’s formation. From around 1530 until the early 1780’s more than a million and a half Europeans and Americans were captured and put into slavery by the “Barbary Pirates” of North Africa. These “pirates” were followers of Mohammad as are the modern day Somalia pirates off the eastern coast of Africa that hazard the waterways of the Indian Ocean.

In response to the piracy taking place off the Barbary Coast; Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went and visited Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, to enquire as to what right they could take slaves and extort money from the people of Europe and America. Jefferson reported his reply to be: “that right was founded on the laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners and that every Mussulman (sic) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”  Sound familiar?

On the question of what America should do about the piracy divided the leaders of our new nation. Some argued, as did John Adams, that we should pay the tribute to get passage through the shipping lanes. Indeed Adams stated that “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

He understood that we were facing a theology that viewed all those that were not a part of their faith as evil and was their duty to convert, enslave, or destroy and doing so was deemed honorable.

Many have speculated that Jefferson was, or had leanings toward, Muhammadism because he owned a Koran. But remember, during the early years of our nation the government did not have a global intelligence network as we do today. With the impending war, with the pirates of the Barbary Coast, Jefferson needed to gain insight into the motivations of this enemy and what better way than through their own scriptures. 

The ideals Jefferson argued for in the drafting of the Virginia Statute on Religion, and what was to become the basis for the First Amendment to the Constitution, was an all-inclusive religious guarantee. There were those that presented language that invoked a purely Christen view calling to replace “almighty God” with “Jesus Christ.” Jefferson argued that “Almighty God” would be inclusive to all religion, and rightfully so, with the guarantee that all religions would be protected.

But what of a religion that esteems its own religion as the only true religion? As long as the First Amendment guarantee was in place there is no problem. Each religion could believe as they will with the guarantee that they are able to continue to do so without government intervention and a protection to ensure they would not be persecuted for their beliefs. But even this guarantee was selectively enforced during the early years of our nation – see the history of the Mormon religion and persecution.

Today, for the most part, every religion has the right and ability to worship as they believe. This is not true in many nations of the world and was one of the prime motivators for migration to the new world from England. Today we also understand, here in America, that people are free to choose for themselves which religion they will follow and allow all others to believe as they will or to not believe in any religion.

With a global population between 1.2 and 1.6 billion people the Muslim Religion makes up approximately one fifth of the earth’s population. We are told that it is only a minority of the people in the Muslim religion that supports the terrorist radical views that we see today. Some have placed the number of Muslim based terrorists at about 10% of the Muslim population giving us an estimate between 120 and 160 million people supporting the extremist view. To give you a visualization of how many people this is, it would equate to nearly the entire population of Russia today (141 million).

The Koran teaches its followers that those who believe should follow only Allah and his messenger (Koran 4:59, 123; 28:17; 3:28, 5:49). Chapter 9, verse 29 states plainly: “Fight against such of the people who despite having been given Scriptures do not (really) believe in Allah and the Last Day, and who do not hold unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, and to not subscribe to the true faith, until they pay the Jizyah (- the commutation tax), provided they can afford it, and they are content with their state of subjection (having become incorporated in the Islamic government).”

 

Along with the Koran (or Qur’an) is the Hadith – according to IslamOnline.net the: “Hadith is integral to the Qur’an, since they are inseparably linked to each other. It is impossible to understand the Qur’an without reference to hadith. The Qur’an is the message, and the Hadith is the explanation of the message by the Messenger himself… The Qur’an makes it abundantly clear that the function of the Messenger is not merely that of a deliveryman who simply delivers the revelation from Allah to us. Rather, he has been entrusted with the most important task of explaining and illustrating the same.” 

From the Hadith we learn: (Muslim 19:4294) "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" (Emphasis added)

The Hadith also teaches that there is no other authority over the land as all land belongs to Allah. In Bukhari 53:392 in speaking to the Jews: “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” 

Yet, in the end, IslamOnline.net affirms that: “Hadith at all times must be evaluated by the well-established rules of validation as established by the great scholars. Such firm criteria include the following: If a certain hadith is contrary to the well-established principles of the Qur'an or sound reason, it must be rejected (since, obviously, it cannot be authentic.)” 

And here lays the problem – a large number of Muslims believe as the Hadith teaches which does not conform to the common moderate Muslim belief. When you have radical clerics teaching the hardline precepts of the Hadith, and with a population as large as the Muslim population, even a small percentage equates to very large numbers of followers.

As I have shown above the battle with the hard line Muslim teachings is not new and the hard line precepts of the Hadith have been used for centuries. Slavery, taxation of non-believers, or fighting the non-believers is a duty for many Muslims.

With this history in mind, the stated purpose for the oppressive stateside security to protect us from these radical extremists. Each and every expansion of government intrusion into our freedoms have been in direct response to Islamic extremist attempts – all originating outside the United States – yet each draconian measure is instituted against the very same people they are purporting to protect. In essence they are protecting our freedoms and rights by limiting our freedoms and rights based on what others are attempting to do.

This of course has little if any impact on those trying to attack us as they are originating from outside the United States where these measures are not being enacted. We would have to assume that those purporting to be protecting us are not absolute morons and know this as well so we do thus we can only assume that their purpose is one of an alternative aim. Could it be the amassing of power that they would not otherwise have? After all they do not want to let a catastrophe go to waste! Could it be control over the very populace they have sworn an oath to protect? Or could it actually be that they are at such a loss as to what to do they control the only thing they can control so as to give the “appearance” they are doing something, while knowing all the while it will have little to no effect on actually stopping an attack?

The United States, and specifically the intelligence community, has been watching, funding, training, and arming those fighting radical Islam for decades. We have watched its growth, its leadership, the emergence of groups around the world. Nothing that has happened, including 9/11, was a complete surprise – only the timing of the attack took us off guard. They had succeeded in attacking the very same building in the past and we knew they would try again.

Hadith Muslim (Jihad)

‘Jihad’ is a term that evokes a multitude of contradictory emotions and images. Many non-Muslims understand (or, as many Muslims would insist, misunderstand) it to mean ‘holy war’ against non-Muslim ‘infidels’, and more or less summarises what they allege is the fundamental inability of Muslims to live gracefully and in harmony with people of other faiths.

Many Muslims, too, understand jihad to mean physical war with what they regard as ‘infidels’, although as to whether or not it includes offensive war remains hotly debated. Contrary to these views about jihad is what some Muslim scholars insist is the true Quranic understanding of the term: struggle or sincere and sustained efforts in the path of God. Such jihadic struggles and efforts, they point out, need not necessarily be directed against non-Muslims, and they are also not necessarily all violent. Indeed, they argue, armed jihad is but only one form of it, and is to be resorted to only as a last resort, when all efforts for peaceful jihad have been tried but have failed. Any peaceful struggle for a noble purpose, say educating the illiterate or empowering the poor, including people of other faiths, may, according to this interpretation, be considered to be a jihad in the path of God.

Despite the fact that advocates of what they regard as the strictly Quranic (as opposed to the Muslim communal) understanding of the term jihad might indeed have adequate Quranic support for their stance, the fact remains that violent war against non-Muslims (mainly defensive, and, in some cases, offensive, too), is what many Muslims interpret jihad to mean. Fighting in self-defence is an internationally recognized human right, and so those who defend jihad, in the sense of defensive war in the face of attack, obviously cannot be faulted. But what can be faulted is the routine misuse of the concept of jihad in order to promote indiscriminate hostility, hatred and violence against non-Muslims in general and against Muslims belonging to rival sects, each of which lays claims to a monopoly over religious truth. This, unfortunately, has happened throughout Muslim history, and it has far from disappeared today. In fact, a number of self-styled ‘Islamic’ ideologues and activists, including half-baked mullahs, may well be called what is termed as ‘jihadists’, their understanding of Islam and its teachings about relations with people of other faiths and Muslims belonging to rival sects being fundamentally shaped by hate-driven and (what some Muslims would regard as) completely warped understandings of jihad. The appeal of such ideologues is greatly boosted by acts of oppression by non-Muslim forces, such as, in today’s context, the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and human rights violations by Indian forces in Kashmir. Dictatorial rulers in most Muslim countries, backed by the West, are another factor for the appeal of ‘jihadist’ groups, who seek to mobilize popular dissent against them by mouthing slogans of jihad.

Pakistan is reportedly plagued by such ‘jihadists’, whose mounting influence owes to a host of factors, both internal as well as external. How do ordinary Pakistani Islamic clerics understand jihad? How, in their understandings of jihad, do they project people of other faiths and Muslims belonging to rival sects? How, given their particular understandings of the doctrine of jihad, do they envisage inter-community and inter-sectarian relations? These are issues of immense strategic significance. Needless to say, the very survival of Pakistan, as well as many other Muslim-majority countries, depends how these issues are played out in the years to come.

Mashal Books, one of Pakistan’s few progressive publishing houses, has an online project to document speeches delivered by Pakistani Muslim clerics on a wide range of issues. The publishing house’s website hosts a set of such speeches that deal principally with the issue of jihad. The contents of these speeches provide a valuable glimpse of how these clerics (and numerous others like them) construct jihad and the implications of these diverse interpretations for how they and their followers relate to others, whether non-Muslims or Muslims of rival sects.

The clerics whose sermons are hosted on the website belong to different Muslim sects. Each of these sects believes itself to have a monopoly of the divine truth, and each claims to be the only authentically Islamic sect. By definition, this means that all the other Muslim sects (and other religions as well) are believed to be deviant and false. Consequently, their adherents are branded, sometimes implicitly, and at other times very brazenly, as outside the Islamic fold and, hence, doomed to perdition in Hell, a fate that they are said to share with all non-Muslims. 

Not surprisingly, then, the clerics preach hatred for Muslims of other sects and non-Muslims in general, particularly when other sects and religions are discussed in the context of jihad. Accordingly, dialogue and reconciliation with Muslims of other sects and with non-Muslims are completely ruled out, and so is the possibility of ‘true believers’ existing harmoniously and peaceably with other Muslims and with people of other faiths. It is as if ‘true’ Muslims (variously defined by clerics belonging to the rival sects) must always be viscerally opposed to the rest of humanity (that is to say, all non-Muslims and all Muslims belonging to the rival sects). They are posited in a state of perpetual hostility and war, which is blessed as what is declared to be a divinely-ordained jihad. To fire their followers with hate, the clerics do not hesitate to use vile language, including choicest abuses, against their sectarian and religious rivals. Their lectures are peppered with references to wars fought between the early Muslims, led by the Prophet Muhammad, and their opponents, but are studiously silent on acts of reconciliation and dialogue with people of other faiths that also characterized the life of the Prophet. References to the wars fought by the Prophet (which, according to some Muslim scholars, were basically defensive in nature) are used as devices to mobilize support for wars (symbolic or real) that the clerics exhort their followers today to launch against those whom they identify as supposed ‘enemies of Islam’—who, in effect, is everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, other than adherents of their own particular sect.

One such cleric is a certain Maulana Manzur Ahmad, who preaches at the Jamia Masjid Ahl-e Hadith in the town of Sheikhupura. He belongs to the sternly literalist Ahl-e Hadith sect, which is almost identical with the Saudi Wahhabis. He appears to be an ardent supporter of the dreaded terrorist outfit Lashkar-e Tayyeba, as is apparent from his laudatory references to a certain top Lashkar ideologue. He begins his speech by haranguing the Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari, calling him a ‘thief’, a ‘sick man’, a ‘liar’ and a ‘caster of the lustful gaze at other’s wives’, and even a ‘killer of his own wife’ and a ‘bastard’. He is particular incensed with Zardari for conniving with the Americans to unleash havoc in the country, and prays to God for him to be got rid of. Zardari is no democrat, of course, and his connivance with American imperialist designs in the region has earned him the wrath of vast numbers of Pakistanis, which radical Islamists like Maulana Ahmad are quick to tap and take advantage of.

But it is not just Zardari and his American patrons that are the target of the Maulana’s ire. As the Maulana sees it, all non-Muslims and non-Ahl-e Hadith Muslims, encapsulated in the evocative term ‘kufr’ or ‘infidelity’, are supposedly mortal enemies of Islam and its adherents, and hence must be firmly fought. ‘Infidelity’ and those who uphold it are, so the Maulana seems to argue, engaged in a relentless war against Islam (which is to say, the Ahl-e Hadith version of it). This is a war that can have no resolution until ‘infidelity’ is completely wiped off or till ‘infidels’ (that is to say, everyone except the votaries of Ahl-e Hadith-style Islam) are firmly subdued. Thus, the Maulana triumphantly declares, ‘The Wahhabi will press down kufr and hold aloft the flag of Unity of Allah.’ In the Maulana’s understanding, jihad is thus regarded as virtually synonymous with ‘press[ing] down’ ‘infidelity’, a ceaseless war against non-Muslims in general as well as, one supposes, Muslims of other sects, who are regarded by the Ahl-e Hadith as virtual infidels.
Maulana Muhammad Hanif, who preaches at the Jamia Masjid Loharan Wali in Attock, belongs to the Barelvi sect. The Barelvis follow a range of popular Sufi customs and beliefs which the Wahhabi Ahl-e Hadith and other Sunni groups, such as the Deobandis, regard as wholly ‘un-Islamic’ and as akin to polytheism. Accordingly, they regard the Barelvis as virtual apostates. The Barelvis answer them back in the same coin, branding them as unambiguously outside the Muslim pale. Radical Ahl-e Hadith and Deobandi activists have been responsible for blowing up Sufi shrines in Pakistan and killing large numbers of Barelvis, including their leaders. Not surprisingly, then, Maulana Hanif interprets jihad principally to galvanise his fellow Barelvis against the Wahhabis and the Deobandis, who, in the Pakistani context, appear as much greater and immediate threats to (the Barelvi version of) Islam than non-Muslims.

Maulana Hanif commences his impassioned lecture by referring to the war fought between Khalid bin al-Walid, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, and a false prophet named Musailama, shortly after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. By claiming to be a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad, Musailama, the Maulana relates, defied the general Muslim belief that Muhammad was the last prophet. This, he says, necessitated the launching of war or physical jihad against him. ‘Both sides raised the cry of Allahu Akbar (“God is Great!”), which scared the companions of the Prophet because they did not want to kill the believers in Oneness of Allah,’ relates the Maulana. But Khalid insisted that they must fight on, for the followers of Musailama had denied the finality of the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad. Finally, the false prophet and his soldiers were killed.

The lesson that Barelvis must learn from this example, Maulana Hanif underscores, is that they must forever stridently oppose, resorting to physical violence in the name of jihad if need be, all those who deny the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad, including and particularly those who, in his estimate, falsely call themselves ‘Muslims’. These are people, he says, who are, in effect, ‘rebels against Islam’, and who, though they take the name of the Prophet Muhammad ‘on their tongues’, do not actually believe him to be God’s final prophet. He specifies in this regard the Qadianis, followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the town of Qadian in Punjab, who claimed to be a prophet, and whom other Muslims are unanimous in condemning as apostates.

But the list does not stop here, and Maulana Hanif goes on to club the Qadianis with the Deobandis, arch-rivals of both the Barelvis and the Qadianis. He appears to suggest that the Deobandis are somewhat in the same league as the Qadianis in terms of some of their beliefs (a claim that the Deobandis would, of course, would be quick to counter). To press his point, he refers to what the Barelvis regard as anti-Islamic passages in a book by a leading Deobandi cleric, Qasim Nanotawi, noting that the founder of the Barelvi sect, Ahmad Raza Khan, had denounced Nanotawi as an apostate for what he considered to be his un-Islamic views, which he suggests he shared with the Qadianis. He argues that the Deobandis do not share the same beliefs about the stature of the Prophet Muhammad as the Barelvis, and, that, hence, the Deobandis are, along with a host of others, including the Qadianis, firmly outside the Muslim pale. Further in his speech, he seems to equate activists of the Deobandi-inspired Tablighi Jamaat, the largest Muslim religious movement in the world, with the deadly Kharijites (lit: ‘those who secede’), who were responsible for the slaughter of Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad and the fourth Sunni Caliph and are not considered to be proper Muslims at all by Muslims in general.

Far from suggesting dialogue with the Deobandis and other Muslims (and with people of other faiths as well) in order to resolve their differences or to agree to live harmoniously despite them, Maulana Hanif insists on stressing and reinforcing these divisions, which serve as vital markers of identity that mark off the Barelvis from others and reinforce their claim to being the only ‘true believers’. He goes to the extent of insisting that ‘there will always be dispute between the rebels [non-Barelvis] and the defenders [Barelvis] […] They will never unite.’ Even the slightest hint of pan-Muslim ecumenism across the sectarian divide is thus to be stamped out as sheer anathema.

With clerics of each Muslim sect describing their own sect as the sole authentic Islamic community, branding all others as deviant, un-Islamic and, sometimes, even as apostates, it is hardly surprising that efforts to promote dialogue between the different Muslim sects have proven to be virtually impossible. For the same reason, genuine inter-faith dialogue for justice, compassion and harmony between Muslims and others continues to flounder, often facing stiff opposition from self-righteous clerics, who believe that they alone possess the truth and that everyone else, and all other religions, are wholly false and ungodly. It is as if they know the mind of God, and that all other creatures of His are His enemies. This problem is made even more intractable by routine appeals to violence in the name of jihad, symbolic, at times, physical on other occasions, in order to actively fan hatred against other sects and people of other faiths, as the Pakistani case so starkly illustrates. 

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law

Australian Prime Minister does it again!!     
(Prime Minister Julia Gillard -  Australia )

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the  government targeted radicals in a bid to head off  potential terror attacks.

Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. 

Quote:   'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It.

"I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.  'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'   We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish,  Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of  our society . Learn the language!'
 
'Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because  Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.  'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.  All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and  peaceful enjoyment with us.'
 
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.  But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE  RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

 'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE.   We didn't force you to come here.   You asked to be here.   So accept the country  YOU accepted.'