Why you can’t be a no-sect Muslim

Introduction

Many beliefs of the “Sunni” Muslims and Shia Muslims have beliefs that are so repulsive, that individuals will pick a fringe view to satisfy their mind. However Fatwa shopping is a road to atheism, if Islam can be whatever I want even though I have not learned in the Islamic Sciences or Fiqh, am not a Mujtahid, or a Faqih then this inevitably leads to disbelief. At that point, Islam just becomes your desire. There are two examples of Fatwa-shopping.

1. Takhayyur – selecting legal opinions from different legal scholars in an unrestricted manner. Takhayyur is especially controversial when it involves selecting minority or anomalous opinions (nawadir) held by legal schools or by individual Scholars

2. Talfiq – Blending together opinions held by different legal schools

Since every layman Muslim is not a Mujtahid, he has to do Taqlid of a madhab or a Mujathid and even the Salafi Najdis accept this. Therefore a Hanafi Deobandi can not pick Imam al-Awzai’s opinion on Death for Apostasy. All four schools of Fiqh and Jafari Madhab affirm death for apostates.

The rise of self-declared “no-sect” Muslims—those who reject traditional Islamic schools of thought in favor of a vague, individualized version of the religion—highlights a disturbing trend. These individuals often engage in Fatwa-shopping, seeking out religious rulings that align with their personal desires rather than adhering to a consistent, scholarly framework. This approach is not merely a minor deviation; it is a profound disregard for the depth and discipline of Islamic jurisprudence.

Fatwa-shopping reflects a broader issue: the erosion of genuine religious authority. By cherry-picking fatwas, including those from minority or anomalous opinions, these so-called “no-sect” Muslims undermine the integrity of traditional Islamic scholarship. They reduce Islam to a mere reflection of personal whims, rather than engaging with a structured, rigorous system of law and theology. In essence, Islam becomes a tool for personal gratification rather than a disciplined way of life.

Takhayyur—the arbitrary selection of legal opinions from various scholars—exemplifies this issue. By choosing minority or isolated opinions without understanding their context or coherence, these individuals create a disjointed practice that lacks intellectual integrity. This approach undermines the comprehensive nature of traditional Islamic legal schools, which are built on extensive study and contextual understanding.

Talfiq, or the blending of opinions from different schools, exacerbates the problem. Instead of committing to a single school’s methodology, these “no-sect” Muslims create a confusing and inconsistent practice. This reflects a lack of genuine engagement with Islamic law and an avoidance of the rigorous work required to understand and adhere to a coherent legal tradition.

Moreover, the claim of being a “no-sect” Muslim while engaging with various schools of thought is a deceptive façade. These individuals may present themselves as non-sectarian, but their actions reveal a troubling reality: they are, in fact, “all-sect” Muslims. They pick and choose from different sects without genuinely committing to any, reflecting a superficial understanding of Islamic doctrine and a reluctance to address sectarian differences directly. This approach is not about unity but about avoiding the hard truths and complexities of religious scholarship.

A particularly glaring issue arises when these “no-sect” Muslims criticize specific sects, such as the Ahmadiyya Movement, while expecting to be shielded from similar scrutiny. They may attack groups they consider outside the mainstream while conveniently avoiding any meaningful engagement with the differences and criticisms that might arise from their own eclectic practices. This selective criticism highlights a fundamental hypocrisy: they seek to distance themselves from sectarian disputes while actively participating in them.

The “no-sect” label often serves as a convenient excuse to avoid the intellectual rigor and accountability required by traditional Islamic scholarship. These individuals may criticize others while refusing to engage in serious theological or jurisprudential debate themselves. Their approach is not an expression of modern, enlightened thought but rather an evasion of the complexities and responsibilities inherent in a serious practice of Islam.

In conclusion, the “no-sect” stance is a superficial and intellectually lazy approach to Islam. It allows individuals to criticize specific groups while avoiding the consequences of their own fragmented understanding. By rejecting the structured methodologies of established schools and opting for a personalized version of the religion, they undermine the integrity of Islamic practice and contribute to a shallow, inconsistent interpretation of the faith.

Taqlid is Wajib

Taqlid—the practice of following the rulings of a qualified scholar (Mujtahid)—is a fundamental concept in Islamic jurisprudence, particularly crucial for laypeople who lack the expertise to interpret religious texts independently. For most Muslims, engaging in Taqlid is necessary because Islamic law, derived from the Qur’an and Hadith, involves a level of complexity that requires deep knowledge and understanding. Interpreting these sources correctly demands familiarity with various contextual factors, language nuances, and principles of jurisprudence that go beyond the reach of the average person. Without such expertise, laypeople might misinterpret verses or Hadith, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions that could misguide their practice of Islam.

A Mujtahid Imam, having undergone rigorous training and scholarly study, is equipped to derive legal judgments based on a comprehensive understanding of Islamic texts and methodologies. Laypeople, therefore, rely on these scholars to avoid the pitfalls of personal misinterpretation and to ensure their practice is grounded in well-established jurisprudential principles. This reliance on scholars helps maintain the integrity and accuracy of religious practice, as it incorporates a broad range of sources and a deep analytical approach that laypeople typically cannot achieve on their own.

The limitations of lay interpretation are significant. An individual without scholarly training may not have access to all relevant Qur’anic verses or Hadith, or may lack knowledge of the broader context necessary for accurate interpretation. Scholars, on the other hand, integrate information from various sources—including the Qur’an, Hadith, consensus (Ijma), and analogy (Qiyas)—and apply a comprehensive methodology to reach their conclusions. This ensures that religious rulings are well-founded and consistent, something that laypeople might struggle to achieve without proper guidance.

Even within the Wahhabi tradition, which emphasizes a direct engagement with the Qur’an and Hadith and often critiques traditional practices, there is recognition of the necessity for Taqlid. Wahhabis acknowledge that the average Muslim does not possess the qualifications to engage in independent legal reasoning (Ijtihad) and must therefore rely on qualified scholars for guidance. Despite their critiques of certain traditional aspects, Wahhabis accept that laypeople should follow the rulings of scholars to navigate complex legal and theological issues. This recognition underscores the practical necessity of Taqlid, ensuring that Islamic practice remains informed and coherent.

Scholars on Taqlid being Wajib

Flipflopping between Shaafi’i and Hanafi Madhab is not allowed

(3) What Validates the Prayer of the Shafi’ee’s invalidates the Prayer of the Hanafees

The following Fatawa by Mufti Lajpuri Ad-Deobandi, which shows that if a Hanafee follows even a minor action of the Shafi’ee’s in his prayer, his prayer would be invalidated…

Question: I belong to the Hanafee Madhhab and teach in a school belonging to the Shafi’ee Madhhab. Sometimes, I lead the loud-toned prayer; so will there be any fault if after the Soorah al-Fatihah in deference to my Shafi’ee followers in prayer, I pause so much that in that time they may quickly recite the Soorah al-Fatihah and then begin the other Soorah?
Answer: Such delay (in joining the Soorah to the Soorah al-Fatihah) for a Hanafee Imam is not proper; it is forbidden. Such prayer will be defective and will have to be said afresh; prostration for lapse will also not be sufficient, for in the case in question delay has been caused deliberately

Fatawa Rahimiyyah, (Eng. Trans.) vol.1, p.125. (Kitaabus-Salaat).

Ahnaaf: Following the Other Madhhab is a Punishable Offence

One of the greatest books of Hanafi Fiqh, accepted by Deobandis, Barelwis, Syrian/Turkish Hanafis, and Hanafis of other regions states:

“If someone is a Hanafee and becomes a Shafi’ee, then his witness will not be accepted”[3]
“When a person switches from one Madhhab to another Madhhab, he shall be inflicted with Ta’zeer.” (Durrul Mukhtar) Ta’zeer refers to punishment meted out by an Islamic court. Such punishment may either be flogging or imprisonment.”[4]

Ibn Taymiyyah: Fatwa/Madhabshopping is not allowed

Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said:

“An example of this is that a man believes in the validity of the pre-emption [1] of a neighbour when he demands it, and its invalidity when he is the buyer, because this is not permissible by consensus; and likewise, one who assumes the validity of the guardianship of a sinner in the process of his marriage and assumes the invalidity of his guardianship in the process of his divorce – this is not permissible by consensus of the Muslims. If a particular questioner said: ‘I was not aware of that, and from today I am adhering to this,’ that would not be [accepted] from him because it would open the door to playing with the religion and open the means to legalisation and illegalisation being according to whims.”

(Majmu‘ al-Fatawa li Bni Taymiyyah, 32:101)

Imam Nanawi: You can not engage in Talfiq and Takkhayyur

Imam al-Nawawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said:

“Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.”

(al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

Ibn Khaldun: Taqlid is Wajib

Ibn Khaldun (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said:

“Taqlid in all towns came to rest on these four, and muqallids of other than them have disappeared. The people blocked the door of disagreement and its paths when the diversification of the technical terms of the sciences became extensive; and when it became difficult to reach the level of ijtihad; and when it was feared that [somebody] unqualified for it whose opinion and religion are not trusted would be ascribed to it; so they [i.e. scholars] made [their] incapacity and deficiency clear, and they directed people to taqlid of these [four], to all who are specialised therein from the muqallids, and they forbade modification of their taqlid because it would imply frivolity. All that remained after authentication of the basic texts and connecting their chains by narration is transmission of their madhhabs, and each muqallid acting on the madhhab of the one he does taqlid of from them. There is no meaning to jurisprudence today besides this. And the claim of ijtihad in this age is rejected and turned on its heel, and his taqlid is abandoned. The people of Islam have evolved into taqlid of these four Imams.”

(Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun, p. 430)

Does the Qur’an say not to fall into sects?

The argument presented by so-called “no-sect” Muslims, who claim that Islam’s teachings mandate avoidance of all sects based on a misinterpretation of a Qur’anic verse, is fundamentally flawed. These individuals often cite the verse instructing believers to “hold fast to the rope of Allah and do not be divided [into sects]” as evidence that all sectarianism is prohibited. However, this interpretation fails to account for several critical factors.

Firstly, the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) clarifies the Islamic perspective on sects. The Prophet stated that there would be 73 sects, with only one being saved and the rest misguided. He used the term “Firqah” (sect) to describe these groups, including the saved one. This indicates that while there will be many sects, the focus should be on adhering to the correct, guided sect rather than rejecting the concept of sects entirely.

Secondly, the Qur’anic directive to hold fast to the “rope of Allah” has been interpreted by early Islamic scholars, including Abdullah ibn Masud, as referring to the Jamaat (community) of Muslims. This interpretation suggests that the “rope of Allah” represents adherence to a unified, guided community, which inherently includes the idea of a specific, correct sect led by a leader. Therefore, the verse emphasizes sticking to a unified group that adheres to true Islamic principles, not the rejection of all sects.

This understanding is supported by Hadiths, such as one found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith number 7084. In this Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad PBUH was asked about the presence of evil after the goodness of Islam had been established. He foretold that despite the presence of future good, there would be deviations where some would guide others away from his tradition. The Prophet advised sticking to the Jamaat (the group of Muslims) and their Imam (ruler), stressing the importance of remaining with a legitimate, guided group of Muslims when such a group exists.

The Hadith continues with a stern warning: if neither a group of Muslims nor an Imam is present, one should dissociate from all sects, even if it means isolating oneself until death. This guidance underscores the importance of adhering to a correct and unified group of Muslims and the severe stance against sectarian fragmentation when such a group does not exist.

In conclusion, the argument from “no-sect” Muslims, based on a misinterpretation of the Qur’anic verse about avoiding division, neglects the broader Islamic teachings and Hadiths. These teachings emphasize the necessity of following a specific, guided group within Islam. The focus should be on aligning with the Jamaat and adhering to the Prophet’s guidance, which affirms that avoiding sects refers to those deviating from the truth, not a blanket rejection of all sects

Is Sulleh Kulli [universal reconciliation] between sects Possible?

The notion of being a “no-sect” Muslim—someone who claims to avoid all sectarian divisions and adhere to a universal, non-denominational Islam—is not only impractical but also reflects a superficial or fragmented understanding of the religion. This claim often indicates a lack of engagement with the complex and deep-seated differences that exist within the Islamic tradition. For instance, Sunni and Shia Muslims have significant theological and historical disagreements. Sunnis generally reject Shia criticisms of figures like the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) and the mothers of the believers, while Shia traditions may invoke Lanat (curses) against figures revered by Sunnis. These deep-rooted differences cannot be simply ignored or resolved by adopting a “no-sect” stance, as they form the core of each group’s identity and beliefs.

Additionally, historical groups such as the Khawarij further illustrate the impracticality of a broad, non-sectarian approach. The Khawarij were known for their extreme positions and deviations from mainstream Islamic teachings, and their presence highlights the complexities of sectarian divides. A “no-sect” approach fails to adequately address the essential disagreements and conflicts that have shaped Islamic history and continues to influence contemporary practice. Ignoring these differences does not resolve the underlying issues but rather neglects the need for a nuanced understanding of each sect’s unique contributions and conflicts.

The concept of Sulleh Kulliyat—universal reconciliation or general conciliation—suggests achieving peace and unity among all Islamic groups by focusing on shared principles rather than differences. However, this ideal is often unattainable in practice due to several factors. Theological, legal, and historical differences between Islamic sects are deeply entrenched, involving core beliefs and narratives that define each sect’s identity. Reconciling these fundamental differences on a broad scale is challenging because it requires addressing complex and often contentious issues that go beyond superficial agreements.

Moreover, sectarian identities within Islam have evolved over centuries, each with its distinct beliefs and practices. Blending these diverse identities into a single, unified approach without compromising their core teachings is unrealistic. True reconciliation involves a detailed and honest engagement with these differences, rather than adhering to an unrealistic ideal of universal unity. A meaningful resolution requires acknowledging and addressing the significant sectarian divisions that exist within Islam, rather than opting for an overly simplistic “no-sect” stance that fails to confront the complexities of the religion.

“I’m not Sunni or Shia; I’m a Muslim”

The trend among some young Muslims on platforms like TikTok, where individuals claim they are simply “Muslim” without affiliating with Sunni or Shia sects, often reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sectarianism within Islam. The assertion that affirming one sect or term negates another is a misconception. In reality, acknowledging a sect or affiliation does not necessarily deny the validity or existence of other sects; rather, it reflects a particular stance or interpretation within the broader spectrum of Islamic belief.

The attitude often expressed on platforms like TikTok, where individuals claim “I’m not Shia or Sunni; I’m just Muslim,” represents an extreme reaction to sectarian violence and hatred. While it is commendable to advocate against violence and hatred stemming from sectarian differences, this stance can be problematic in its own right. It conflates the rejection of sectarian conflict with the dismissal of genuine theological and historical differences, which are integral to understanding the diverse landscape of Islamic thought.

On one hand, advocating for peace and harmony among different sects is essential. Sectarian violence and animosity are detrimental to the unity and well-being of the Muslim community. The idea that sectarian differences should not lead to violence or hatred aligns with the broader Islamic principles of justice, tolerance, and mutual respect. Islam promotes dialogue and understanding rather than conflict and division.

On the other hand, the claim that sectarian differences are meaningless oversimplifies the complexities of Islamic history and theology. Sectarian identities, whether Sunni or Shia, are not mere labels but reflect deep-seated beliefs, practices, and historical experiences. Each sect has developed its own theological interpretations, legal rulings, and historical narratives that are significant to its adherents. To dismiss these differences as irrelevant is to ignore the rich and nuanced fabric of Islamic tradition.

Such an extreme attitude can inadvertently marginalize the legitimate concerns and identities of those who hold specific sectarian beliefs. It reduces the rich diversity of Islamic thought to a homogenous view that overlooks the valuable contributions and perspectives of different sects. By suggesting that these differences are inconsequential, one might undermine the historical and theological basis of each sect’s beliefs, potentially leading to further misunderstanding and estrangement.

Moreover, this stance fails to address the root causes of sectarian conflict. The problem is not necessarily the existence of sects themselves but the way differences are handled. Promoting the idea that all sects are essentially the same disregards the need for respectful and informed discussions about their differences. Genuine reconciliation involves acknowledging and understanding these differences while working towards mutual respect and cooperation, not erasing or ignoring them.

In summary, while the desire to move beyond sectarian violence and hatred is important, claiming that sectarian differences are meaningless does not contribute constructively to this goal. It oversimplifies the rich and diverse nature of Islamic traditions and fails to address the underlying issues. A more nuanced approach involves recognizing and respecting these differences while working towards peaceful coexistence and dialogue. This approach honors the depth of Islamic history and theology and fosters a more inclusive and respectful discourse.

The term “Sunni” itself is derived from the concept of following the Sunnah (the practices of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Sunnis generally identify with this term because they adhere to the traditions and practices established by the Prophet and his companions. On the other hand, “Shia” comes from “Shiatul Ali,” which means “the party of Ali,” reflecting the historical and theological allegiance to Ali ibn Abi Talib and his descendants. While Sunnis acknowledge the rightful leadership of Ali, they do not necessarily place him above the first three Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, in terms of rank or authority. This distinction highlights the nuanced differences between Sunni and Shia beliefs.

The term “Ahl al-Sunnah” originally served to differentiate those who adhered to the Sunnah from other groups such as the Khawarij, Jahmi, and Rafidhi sects. Shah Waliullah Dehlawi explained that Ahl al-Sunnah refers to those who adhere strictly to the essentials of Islam as practiced by the Salaf (early Muslims), rather than aligning with any particular sect formed out of later disagreements or innovations. His description emphasizes that true adherence to the Sunnah is characterized by a commitment to the core principles of Islam as established by the Prophet and his early companions, without being swayed by sectarian divisions or personal opinions.

Historical evidence supports this understanding. Muhammad Ibn Sirin, a Basri scholar, noted that during times of fitna (trials or divisions), the authenticity of Hadiths was often determined based on the adherence of the narrators to the Sunnah. In this context, “Ahl as-Sunnah” denoted those who remained faithful to the Sunnah amid the fragmentation of the Islamic community into various sects and factions. This designation was used to highlight those who avoided heretical teachings and adhered to orthodox beliefs.

Abu Hanifa, another prominent scholar, referred to adherents of the Sunnah as “righteous people” who maintained their faith despite divergent views and sects. Similarly, Josef van Ess and other scholars have described the term “Ahl as-Sunnah” as a laudatory designation for honorable and righteous believers. The term historically distinguished those who stayed true to the teachings of the Prophet and avoided sectarian innovations.

Overall, the term “Sunni” and its variations have historically been used to denote adherence to traditional Islamic practices and beliefs. This has involved a commitment to the Sunnah and distinguishing oneself from sects with divergent beliefs or practices. The concept of being “just Muslim” without any sectarian affiliation often overlooks these historical and theological contexts, which reflect a more nuanced and structured understanding of Islamic identity and practices

Promised Messiah AS on Mutual Takfir

In reality, the designation of being Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah (Sunni) today is not recognized as the exclusive right of any particular sect. Each group considers itself to be Ahl al-Sunnah and excludes others from it.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS), the Promised Messiah, addressed the issue of mutual takfir and sectarian exclusivity within Islam by highlighting how the designation of being Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah (Sunni) is not uniquely held by any single sect. He pointed out that various groups within Islam claim this title for themselves while excluding others from it. This exclusivity is evident in the sectarian conflicts where different groups engage in mutual takfir, accusing each other of disbelief.

For example, within the traditional Sunni groups, there is significant intra-sectarian conflict. Barelwis, Deobandis, and Ahle Hadith frequently engage in mutual takfir, each group declaring the others as non-Muslim based on differing interpretations of Islam. Similarly, Shias often find themselves at odds with these Sunni groups, with mutual takfir occurring between Shias and all three Sunni sub-sects—Barelwis, Deobandis, and Ahle Hadith. This mutual excommunication creates a complex landscape where sectarian identities and accusations are continuously shifting.

In this context, the concept of “No Sect Muslims” emerges as a seemingly convenient solution for those who wish to avoid engaging with these deep-seated sectarian disputes. By claiming a non-sectarian identity, such individuals attempt to sidestep the complexities of sectarianism and the associated takfir dynamics. However, this approach often serves to obscure rather than resolve the issue.

The claim of being a “No Sect Muslim” is frequently used to evade answering why certain individuals or groups, like Ahmadis, are often labeled as non-Muslim by the dominant Sunni sects. While “No Sect Muslims” may attempt to present themselves as neutral or inclusive, they may still accept the takfir of Ahmadis, thereby paradoxically aligning with the sectarian judgments they otherwise claim to reject. This stance can be seen as an evasion of the uncomfortable reality of sectarian exclusivism that still pervades many Muslim communities.

In essence, the use of “No Sect Muslim” as a position often fails to address the underlying sectarian conflicts and mutual takfir among existing Islamic groups. It avoids the difficult questions about why Ahmadis, despite their distinct beliefs, are subject to takfir by other sects, while similar accusations are made against and by those same sects. Thus, this non-sectarian stance may simply be a way to sidestep the contentious and complex issue of sectarian identity and mutual excommunication within the Muslim world.

Promised Messiah AS answering common allegation of no-sect Muslims

A Maulvi once came and asked why Ahmadis use the name “Ahmadi” instead of simply being called Muslims, arguing that this is contrary to the Qur’anic verse “He has named you Muslims” (Surah Al-Hajj 22:79). In response, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) explained that while Islam is indeed a pure name used in the Qur’an, the term Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah (Sunni) was historically adopted to distinguish between different sects, as various groups with differing beliefs were all calling themselves Muslims. For example, some groups, such as the Rafidis, insult almost all the companions except a few, and curse the Prophet’s wives. Despite this, they still call themselves Muslims. There are also Khawarij who speak ill of Ali and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) and still consider themselves Muslims. In the Levant, there is a group called the Yazidis who curse Imam Hussein but still identify as Muslims. Observing such issues, the early righteous scholars devised names like Shafi’i and Hanbali to distinguish themselves from such groups.

Today, a new sect has emerged among the modernists that denies fundamental aspects of Islam, such as Heaven, Hell, angels, and revelation. Even Sir Syed Ahmad Khan believed that the Qur’an was merely the result of the Prophet Muhammad’s PBUH thoughts, compiled from stories he heard from Christians. To distinguish themselves from such groups, the name “Ahmadi” was adopted.

As Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) was explaining this, the Maulvi asked again why the Qur’an commands “Do not divide yourselves” (Surah Al-Imran 3:104), and yet Ahmadis are seen as causing division.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) replied that they are not creating division but rather working to remove it. If naming oneself Shafi’i or Hanbali is not considered disrespectful, then naming oneself Ahmadi should not be seen as disrespectful either. These names were chosen by the early scholars whom even the Maulvi would consider righteous. It would be unfortunate for someone to object to or criticize these names, which were used solely for differentiation. Our mission is from Allah, and those who object to it are in fact objecting to Allah. We are Muslims, and “Ahmadi” is just a distinguishing name. If only “Muslim” were used, how could any distinction be made? Allah wishes to establish a community, and it is essential for it to have a distinction from others. Without such a distinction, its benefits cannot be realized, and simply calling oneself Muslim does not provide enough identification.

In the time of Imam Shafi’i and Hanbali, innovations had begun to spread. If these names had not existed, it would have been impossible to distinguish between those who adhered to the truth and those who did not. The four names served as a sort of protective barrier for Islam. If these individuals had not appeared, Islam would have become a confused religion where distinguishing between innovators and non-innovators would have been difficult. Even now, in a time when diverse sects proliferate, a distinguishing name is necessary. We do not deny being Muslims, but the name “Ahmadi” was chosen to remove divisions. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) disagreed with the people of the Torah and was seen as creating a division. However, the reality is that such divisions are ordained by Allah. When confusion and mixture increase, Allah Himself desires a distinction to be made.

The Maulvi asked again that since Allah said “He has named you Muslims” (Surah Al-Hajj 22:79), does this include the Rafidis, the innovators, and the modern Muslims who are becoming permissive, considering alcohol and zina permissible? Certainly not. The verse was addressing the companions. Hadith states that after the first three generations, there would be a time of deviation, characterized by falsehood and lies. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said about this time, “They are not from me, and I am not from them”; there would be no connection between them and him. They would be called Muslims, but there would be no connection with him.

Those who deny Islam or consider this name to be dishonorable are to be considered accursed. We did not introduce any innovation. Just as names like Shafi’i and Hanbali were established, “Ahmadi” is a name that connects with Islam and the founder of Islam, Ahmad (peace be upon him). This connection is unique to the name “Ahmadi” and is not present in other names. Ahmad is the name of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is Ahmadi, and Ahmadi is Islam. The Hadith also mentions the name Muhammad. Sometimes, different words may be used, but they carry the same meaning. The name “Ahmadi” serves as a distinguishing mark. In these turbulent times, such a name is essential. In the sight of Allah, those who are Muslims are Ahmadis.

The conversation between Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) and the Maulvi touches on the broader issue of sectarian identity in Islam and directly relates to the phenomenon of “No Sect Muslims.”

The “No Sect Muslims” claim to reject sectarian labels and assert a broad, undifferentiated Islamic identity, often in an attempt to avoid the conflicts and divisions associated with sectarianism. They might argue that all Muslims should simply identify as “Muslims” without adhering to any specific sect, with the intention of promoting unity and avoiding the divisiveness they perceive in sectarian disputes.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s (AS) discussion counters this by emphasizing that distinguishing between different groups within Islam is not necessarily a source of division but a means of clarifying and maintaining the true teachings of Islam amidst various interpretations and innovations. He argues that while all Muslims share a fundamental identity, naming and distinguishing between different groups (like Shafi’i, Hanbali, or Ahmadi) is necessary to maintain clarity and adherence to what he considers the true principles of Islam.

In this context, the “No Sect Muslims” position can be seen as an oversimplification. By rejecting sectarian distinctions outright, they overlook the historical and theological reasons for these distinctions. For instance, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) explains that names like “Ahmadi” serve to distinguish his followers from groups that have diverged significantly from what he views as orthodox Islam. This clarification is crucial in maintaining the purity of Islamic teachings, especially in the face of innovations and deviations.

The idea that all Muslims should merely be “Muslims” and avoid sectarian labels fails to recognize that such labels, while potentially divisive, also function to preserve theological clarity and integrity. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) illustrates that the adoption of sect names is often a response to protect against theological deviations and misrepresentations. By aligning with a specific sect or name, Muslims can better navigate and preserve their faith against the backdrop of diverse and often conflicting interpretations.

Thus, the phenomenon of “No Sect Muslims” relates to this discussion as an attempt to avoid the complexities and conflicts associated with sectarianism, but it inadvertently neglects the practical and doctrinal reasons why distinctions and labels can be important in preserving the true essence of Islamic belief and practice.