Salafīs (also called Wahhabīs or Ghayr Muqallidīn) claim to uphold pure Tawḥīd. However, by attributing uniquely divine actions to Prophet ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), such as creating, reviving the dead, and ascending physically, they blur the distinction between Creator and creation. A separate article will examine the Quranic verses underlying these claims.

The Salafī Criticism of Ṣūfī Beliefs

The Salafī Rejection of the Saints’ Miracles

As Ṣāleḥ al-Fawzān makes it clear, Salafīs consider it major shirk to believe that the awliyāʾ or the righteous, whether dead or alive, can help by alleviating distress, curing illness, or granting benefit

Question: Is it permissible to pray behind an imam who believes in saints and righteous people? Please advise us, may Allah bless you.

Answer: Believing that saints and righteous people can bring benefit or harm, heal the sick, or relieve distress—as the grave worshippers today believe, those who venerate shrines—is major shirk, and we seek refuge in Allah from it. The one who holds such a belief is outside the fold of Islam, because they are worshipping other than Allah Almighty. This is because harm, benefit, relief from distress, and fulfilling needs that only Allah can do are not in the power of anyone except Allah, glorified and exalted be He. Believing that the dead or those in graves can bring benefit or harm, or even that the living can do so in matters that only Allah can do, such as healing the sick, granting provision, or removing harm, is major shirk. This is because it involves relying upon other than Allah Almighty and directing the highest forms of worship to other than Allah Almighty. Therefore, if this imam is as you have described, then he is not from the people of Islam as long as he remains upon this belief, and his leadership in prayer is not valid because he is a polytheist with Allah Almighty.

[Majmūʿ Fatāwā Faḍīlat al-Shaykh Ṣāliḥ bin Fawzān, vol 1, pg. 245]

Ibn Taymīyyah (رحمه الله) (d. 728H) also confirms this is shirk, whether the saints are dead or alive; believing they have such powers is a form of associating partners with Allāh. Therefore, Salafīs hold that attributing powers exclusive to Allāh to anyone else fundamentally undermines the core of monotheism and constitutes shirk

As for the prohibited forms of istighātha (seeking help), they are also of various types:
First: Seeking help from the Prophet ﷺ or from a righteous man who is alive, present, and physically before you, in matters that only Allah ﷻ is capable of—such as forgiving sins, guiding hearts, curing illnesses, granting provision, granting victory over enemies, and other things that none but Allah ﷻ can do. This type of istighātha is major shirk that takes one out of the fold of Islam, and it was the shirk of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic period.

However, these people may even exceed the shirk of the pre-Islamic Arabs, for they also commit shirk in tawḥīd al-rubūbiyyah (the oneness of Allah’s Lordship), which the polytheistic Arabs themselves affirmed. The pre-Islamic Arabs acknowledged that Allah is their Creator, Provider, Giver of life and death—whereas some of these extremists refuse to accept provision except from their shaykhs. Moreover, the polytheistic Arabs would sincerely call upon Allah in times of hardship, but these extremists only increase in their shirk during hardships. And there is no power and no might except with Allah.

[Kitāb al-Istighāthah fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Bakrī, pg. 43]

Ṣūfī View: Istighātha Allowed as Saints Help and Perform Miracles Through Allāh’s Permission

While the Salafīs accuse Ṣūfīs of shirk for seeking aid from Awliyā and believing that divine karāmāt or miracles manifest through them. The Ṣūfīs, however, maintain that all such help or miraculous acts performed by the Awliyā or the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occurs solely by Allah’s will.

When Ibn Taymīyyah (رحمه الله) issued the fatwā that istighātha (seeking aid) is shirk, Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (رحمه الله) (d. 756H) penned a defence against this claim in his book Shifā’ al-Suqām. He defended istighātha by explaining that it is permissible because the true helper is Allāh alone, while the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intercedes by calling upon Allāh on behalf of the supplicant. Thus, the help received from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occurs only by Allāh’s will or creation.

If the opponent says: “I do not prohibit tawassul (intercession) and tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) based on the traditions and evidence you have presented, but I prohibit the use of tajawwuh (seeking through someone’s status) and istighátha (seeking help), because they give the impression that the one through whom help is sought and the one from whom help is requested are higher than the One to whom the request is directed and from whom help is ultimately sought.” We say: No Muslim believes this, nor do the terms tajawwuh and istighátha indicate this. Tajawwuh comes from jáh and wajáha, meaning high rank and status. One may seek intercession through someone of high status to someone who is even higher in status than them. Istighátha is seeking help. The one seeking help (mustaghíth) asks the one from whom help is sought (mustagháthi bihi) to obtain help for him from another, even if that other is higher than the intermediary. Thus, tawassul, tashaffu’, tajawwuh, and istighátha through the Prophet ﷺ and other prophets and righteous people has no other meaning in the hearts of Muslims than this, and none of them intends anything other than this. […] The one from whom help is truly sought is Allah the Exalted, and the Prophet ﷺ is an intermediary between Him and the one seeking help. [pg. 378-379]

The third type of tawassul: when that desired matter is requested from him, meaning that he ﷺ is capable of being a cause for it through his supplication to his Lord and his intercession to Him. This returns to the second type in meaning, even though the expression is different. An example of this is when someone said to the Prophet ﷺ: “I ask you for your companionship in Paradise,” and he said: “Help me against your soul by prostrating frequently.” The traditions regarding this are also numerous, and people intend nothing by their requests except that the Prophet ﷺ be a cause and intercessor. Likewise, the Prophet’s ﷺ response, even when it comes according to the question, as we have narrated in Dalá’il al-Nubuwwa by al-Bayhaqi, with the chain of transmission to ‘Uthmán ibn Abí al-‘Ás (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: “I complained to the Prophet ﷺ about my poor memorization of the Qur’an, so he said: ‘A devil called Khinzab. Come close to me, O ‘Uthmán.’ Then he placed his hand on my chest, and I felt its coolness between my shoulder blades, and he said: ‘Come out, O devil, from ‘Uthmán’s chest.’ He said: After that, I never heard anything except that I memorized it.” Notice how the Prophet commanded the devil to leave in the name of Allah, knowing that this was by Allah’s permission, creation, and facilitation. The intent is not to attribute creation and independent action to the Prophet ﷺ; no Muslim intends this. Therefore, turning the discourse to this [interpretation] and prohibiting it is a form of deception in religion and confusion for the common monotheists. [pg. 382-383]

And one says: “I sought help from Allah” and “I seek help from Allah,” meaning requesting the creation of help from Him. So Allah the Exalted is mustagháthi (the one from whom help is sought), and help comes from Him through creation and bringing into existence. The Prophet ﷺ is mustagháthi (one from whom help is sought), and help comes from him through causation and acquisition. [pg. 385]

[Shifa` al-Saqam, pg. 378-379, 382-383, 385]

A careful study of Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī’s (رحمه الله) argument reveals that Ṣūfīs believe Istighātha is permissible and does not amount to shirk because when Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is beseeched for relief, the relief appears to come “from” the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the sense that he is the immediate cause or means through which you receive it. However, the ultimate source remains Allah. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) doesn’t create or generate the relief from his own independent power. Rather, Allah grants it through the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intercession. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acts as a cause or means through which Allah provides the relief.

Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ramlī (رحمه الله) (d. 957H) is another scholar who defended istighātha, explaining that miracles and acts of assistance performed by the saints or the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occur by the will and power of Allāh, who manifests His divine miracles through these chosen individuals:

The Imām was asked:

Regarding what occurs amongst the awwām who when in distress say “ya shaykh fulān” and “ya Rasūlullāh” and things like this from seeking aid (istighātha) with the Prophets and the Awliyā, the ‘Ulemā and the righteous, is this permitted or not? And do the Messengers, Prophets, Awliyā, the righteous, and the Mashayekh possess the ability to assist others after their deaths, and what strengthens that view?

He replied:
Istighātha (seeking aid) with the Prophets and Messengers, the Awliyā, the ‘Ulemā and the righteous is permitted.

The messengers, Prophets and the Awliyā have [the ability to] assist after their death because the miracles of the Prophets and Awliyā are not severed following their death. As for the Prophets, then they are alive in their graves praying and doing hajj as it has come in the reports. So assistance from them will be a miracle on their behalf; and the martyrs are also alive, and have been seen, openly killing the kuffār. And as for the Awliyā, then it is a karama from them. The people of the truth believe that this occurs from the Awliyā both with intention, and without intention-things that sever the customary manner of phenomenal reality (khariqa lil ādah), that Allah the Exalted brings forth through them.

[Al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah wa bi-Hamishihi Fatawa al-Ramli, vol 4, 382]

Lastly, Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abdul Qādir Jīlānī (رحمت‌الله‌علیه) (d. 561H), a famous Sufi saint, explains that at the highest spiritual stage, the Awliyā by Allah’s will, be granted extraordinary divine powers, including the power of bringing things into existence. He goes onto explain how the Qur’anic phrase “Be, and it is” (كُن فَيَكُونُ; kun fa-yakūn) while associated with Allah’s supreme creative power, the Awliyā who becomes fully annihilated in Allah’s Oneness, whatever they command to “Be” (kun fa-yakūn) will likewise come into existence by Allah’s permission.

Here, a person is granted the power of creation (takwin), that is, the power of originating and bringing things into existence. And by the permission of Allah, through His command ‘Be’ (kun), wonders and marvels come into manifestation, and he becomes a refuge and sanctuary for God’s creation. He attains expansion of the heart (inshirah sadr) and his good remembrance becomes elevated in both worlds. And in some of Allah’s books, there is His statement: ‘O children of Adam! I am Allah, there is no deity besides Me. Whatever I say to a thing “Be,” it immediately comes into being. So by becoming annihilated (fana) in My unity, you too, whatever you say to a thing “Be,” it will immediately come into being by My permission.

[Futooh al-Ghaib, pg. 125]

The Problematic Beliefs of the Salafīs

The Salafī Belief About ʿĪsā (عليه السلام)

Salafīs believe that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) has the power to create life, such as making birds from clay and giving them life, and that he can revive the dead. For instance, their renowned scholar Ibn Uthaymīn (d. 1422H) affirms this belief by stating:

He (Jesus) breathed into it (a bird), and it became a bird that flies by the permission of Allah, and people watched that […] The Qur’an mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him) revived the dead by Allah’s permission, and in another verse, he brings forth the dead. These two acts are different: the first is reviving the dead before burial, and the second is reviving and bringing them out of their graves after burial. There is no doubt that these miracles given to Jesus by Allah are beyond human capability, and His support for him with these miracles is evidence and proof that he was a messenger from Allah, the Creator and Omnipotent.

[Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol 5, pg. 303]

The Salafīs also believe that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was physically raised to heaven, a claim that will be expounded upon later in this article to show why it is theologically erroneous.

It is ironic that the excuses Salafīs use to justify their own beliefs mirror exactly the same justifications Ṣūfīs use when excusing their shirk. It was noted earlier that the Ṣūfīs also maintain that such miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission. One must ask: what truly distinguishes the Ṣūfīs from the Salafīs? The Salafīs attribute miraculous powers to ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), claiming he performs them by Allāh’s permission. Similarly, the Ṣūfīs hold the same belief but extend these divine miracles to the awliyāʾ, who are also believed to act through Allāh’s permission. Despite this, Salafīs are quick to label Ṣūfīs as mushriks.

The Salafī Belief About Dajjāl

Salafīs, just like other Sunni Muslims, also hold similar beliefs about the Dajjāl (Antichrist), including the claim that he will have the power to revive the dead. These problematic beliefs can be seen in the following quote:

Allah the Mighty and Majestic has given the Dajjal the ability to bring a dead person to life. However, this enemy of Allah cannot do this through his own power and might, but only through Allah’s permission and command, not independently. […] Just as Allah the Mighty and Majestic gave `Isa (Jesus) (peace be upon him) the ability to bring the dead to life, heal the blind and the leper, and inform people about some unseen matters – all of which was only by the permission of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted – similarly, He gave the Dajjal some extraordinary abilities by His permission as a trial and test for His servants, Glory be to Him.

[IslamQA: How can the Dajjal resurrect the dead when this ability belongs exclusively to Allah?] (Accessed: 13 August 2025)

Criticism of the Salafī Beliefs in Light of the Writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) (d. 1326H)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained that the core of true monotheism is that Allāh alone possesses divine attributes such as creating life, giving life and death, knowing the unseen, and having complete control over everything. He emphasized that these attributes are unique and cannot be shared or divided. He stated that when Salafīs claim that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) has powers like creating birds or reviving the dead, or that the Dajjāl can raise the dead they are wrongly attributing Allāh’s exclusive powers to created beings which thereby undermines Allāh’s uniqueness and amounts to shirk.

Furthermore, Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained how the Salafī belief that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was physically raised to heaven creates a theological problem. He explains that the disbelievers repeatedly claimed they would accept the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) if he physically ascended to heaven. Yet, the response given to them was that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is only a human messenger, as stated in the Quran:

أَوۡ يَكُونَ لَكَ بَيۡتٞ مِّن زُخۡرُفٍ أَوۡ تَرۡقَىٰ فِي ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَلَن نُّؤۡمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيۡنَا كِتَٰبٗا نَّقۡرَؤُهُۥ ۗ قُلۡ سُبۡحَانَ رَبِّي هَلۡ كُنتُ إِلَّا بَشَرٗا رَّسُولٗا ٩٤

Translation: ‘Or thou have a house of gold or thou ascend up into heaven; and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a book that we can read.’ Say, ‘Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger.’

[Holy Quran 17:94]

It is further known that Allāh never breaks His promises, and the promise He made to humans was that they would live and die on earth:

قَالَ فِيهَا تَحۡيَوۡنَ وَفِيهَا تَمُوتُونَ وَمِنۡهَا تُخۡرَجُونَ ٢٦

Translation: He said, ‘Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, and therefrom shall you be brought forth.’

[Holy Quran 7:26]

Furthermore, humans have their permanent place on earth:

قَالَ ٱهۡبِطُواْ بَعۡضُكُمۡ لِبَعۡضٍ عَدُوّٞ ۖ وَلَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ مُسۡتَقَرّٞ وَمَتَٰعٌ إِلَىٰ حِينٖ ٢٥

Translation: He said, ‘Go forth, some of you being enemies of others. And for you there is an abode on the earth and a provision for a time.’

[Holy Quran 7:25]

Therefore, the question arises whether Allāh forgot this promise when He took ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) to heaven or whether ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was not truly mortal if he physically ascended to heaven. Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad’s (عليه السلام) quotes surrounding all these arguments will be shown below:

Statement 1

Muslims, particularly the Ahl-i-Hadith, profess strong faith in Tauhid, but, unfortunately, their condition fits the proverb, ‘Spitting the gnat and swallowing the camel’. Can we really call them believers in the Unity of God when they believe Jesus (as) to be one and without partner, just like God is, and when they believe that he went to heaven in his physical body and will return to earth some day, and that he is the one who created the birds! The unbelievers repeatedly swore that if the Holy Prophets could only ascend to heaven in his physical body, they would at once accept him, but the answer given to them was قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي هَلْ كُنْتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَسُولًا i.e., tell them, my Lord never breaks His word, and I cannot go to heaven because He has promised فِيْهَا تَحْيَوْنَ وَفِيْهَا تَمُوتُونَ and وَلَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مُسْتَقَرٌّ Are we to believe that God forgot this promise when He took Jesus to heaven, or are we to assume that Jesus was not a mortal at all? If Jesus did go to heaven in his physical body, it would inevitably follow, in the light of the Quranic statement, that he was not a human being. What is more, these so-called advocates of Islam have attributed even to the Dajjal qualities which necessarily make him God. What a pity that they should profess Tauhid and yet make such claims!

[Fountain Of Christianity, pg. 66]

Statement 2

What Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) misunderstood is that the Ṣūfīs also affirm that Allah is their Creator, Provider, and the One who gives life and causes death. However, just like the Salafīs, they believe that Allah has granted certain servants divine powers by His permission and will as shown earlier. Similarly, the idolaters never claimed that their gods were Allah Himself; their saying was also this: that their gods had been given divine powers by God Almighty just as Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained. In the same way, Ṣūfīs hold that their saints have been granted divine powers by Allāh, while Salafīs hold that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was granted such powers, both mirroring the excuses of the idolaters by justifying that these abilities occur solely by Allāh’s will and permission.

Some people from the Muwahhideen sect, based on a verse of the Quran, believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, used to create birds of various kinds and give them life by blowing into them. Therefore, they have objected to this humble one, saying that if he claims to be a Messiah, then he should also create a bird out of clay and then bring it to life and show it to us. Because if the billions of birds that Jesus created are seen flying all over the place, then the Messiah should also have some birds that he created that still exist today.

The answer to all these false and baseless objections is that the verses in which this is written are in the category of mutashabihat (verses with ambiguous meanings). To interpret them as meaning that God Almighty had, with His will and permission, made Jesus a partner in His attributes of creation is clear blasphemy and gross infidelity. Because if God Almighty can also give His special attributes of divinity to others, then there is no difference between Him and His creation, and the whole concept of monotheism collapses. So this proves that his claim to divinity is false.

And the Muwahhideen’s excuse that they do not believe that Jesus was the creator of birds by his own power, but that their belief is that God Almighty had given him this power with His permission and will, and that He had made him a part of His creation by His will, and that it is His prerogative to make whomever He wills His Messiah, the Almighty, the One who does whatever He wills. This is pure paganism and worse than kufr (disbelief). This Muwahhideen was also asked if he could now identify which of these birds were created by God Almighty and which were the offspring of the birds that Jesus created? So he answered by his silence that he could not identify them.

It should now be clear that the belief of some Muwahhideen of this time that some of the species of birds are the creation of God Almighty and some are the creation of Jesus is a completely corrupt and pagan idea. And one who holds such a belief is undoubtedly outside the circle of Islam.

And the excuse that we do not consider Jesus to be God, but rather believe that God Almighty has given him some of His divine attributes is a very hateful and false excuse. Because if God Almighty can give His divine attributes to His servants with His permission and will, then He can undoubtedly give all His divine attributes to one servant and make him a complete God. In this case, all the religions of the idolaters will be proved true. Because if God Almighty can give the attribute of creation to a human being with His permission and will, then He can similarly make someone omniscient with His permission and will and give him such power that God Almighty like God Almighty, he is present and visible everywhere. And it is clear that if divine attributes can also be divided among the servants, then the oneness of God Almighty is false.

As many idolaters there are in the world, they do not even say that our gods are God, but in reality, like these Muwahhideen, their saying is also this that our gods have been given divine powers by God Almighty. The Lord Most High and Exalted is He, and these are only small gods. It is surprising that these people consider calling someone the Messenger of Allah a word of shirk and forbid it, but they are making a humble son of Mary a partner in divinity.

Brothers! Your religion is actually this that divinity can also be divided among the creatures, and God Almighty makes whomever He wills a partner in His attributes of creation, knowledge, omniscience, power, etc., forever. Then why have you people started so much war and strife with your heretical brothers? Those poor people also do not consider their saints to be gods, they only say that God Almighty has given them some divine powers with His permission and will, and because of the powers that they have obtained by the permission of God, they give someone a son and someone a daughter. And they are present and visible everywhere. They accept vows and offerings and grant wishes.

Now, if any seeker of truth asks this question that if such beliefs are completely false and pagan ideas, then what are the correct meanings of those verses of the Quran in which it is written that Jesus, the son of Mary, made a bird out of clay and breathed into it and it became a living bird by the command of God?

[Izala-e-Auham, pg. 251-253]

Statement 3

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained that Christians can argue that the divine miracles of ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), which are unique to Allah, prove his divinity.

It is, however, a mistake on the part of our unthinking ulema that they attribute certain qualities to him; for instance, that he used to fashion, like the Creator of the universe, the frame of a bird and made it alive by breathing into it so that it flew away; that he revived the dead with the touch of his hand so that they began to walk about; and that he possessed knowledge of the unseen; and that to this day he did not suffer death, but rather, he is present in Heaven in his physical body. If all that is attributed to him were true, then there would be no doubt about his being the creator of the world, knower of the unseen, and reviver of the dead. If, on these premises, a Christian were to argue in favour of his divinity i.e. on the basis that the existence of the qualities of a thing is proof of the existence of the thing itself then what answer would the Muslims give to such a claim.

It would be an interpolation of the Word of God to assert that these miracles occurred as a result of prayer. For, the Holy Quran does not mention any prayer in connection with the flight of something that was fashioned in the shape of a bird and was breathed into, nor does it state that such a shape became alive in reality. It is impermissible to add something to the Word of God from oneself. This was the kind of alteration on account of which the Jews were cursed. […] an affirmation of true creation on his part amounts to a grave mischief and an association of partners with God. […] Allah the Exalted states in the Quran that even if the whole world joined together to create a gnat, it would not be able to do so, because in such a case it would become God’s partner in creation. It would be equally false to allege that God Almighty had Himself given him permission to create. There is no contradiction in the Word of God: He does not bestow such permission upon anyone. Allah the Exalted did not bestow upon the Chief of the Messengers, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, permission to create even a fly. Then how could the son of Mary receive such permission? Fear God Almighty, and do not seek to convert metaphor into physical reality.

[Testimony of the Holy Quran, pg. 119-120]

Statement 4

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) again explains that the Salafīs hypocritically accept that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) performs divine actions by Allāh’s permission. At the same time, they harshly condemn Ṣūfīs for holding the same belief regarding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or the saints, even though Ṣūfīs also maintain that such divine miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission.

It is astonishing to consider the understanding of those people who call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith and non-conformists (ghair muqallid) and claim that they prefer the paths of Tawhid. They are the same people who accuse the Hanafis of associating some saints with divine attributes and seeking their help. Yet, we have already proven that these people attribute many divine qualities to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), declaring him as the Creator, the Reviver of the Dead, and the Knower of the Unseen. They ascribe to him attributes that they do not regard permissible for any other human, even though the foundation of divine monotheism (Tauhid) is that God is One, without partners in His essence, His attributes, or His actions, and no other creation is like Him in being One without partners.

These are the same people who objected to the miracles that manifested through Hazrat Syed Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (may Allah be pleased with him) and other revered saints. These self-proclaimed Monotheists (Muwahhideen) used to laugh at the notion that a ship could emerge from the river after twelve years with all the people who had drowned still alive in it. Yet now, these same people attribute miraculous qualities to the Dajjal (Antichrist) that they never deemed permissible for any saint. They used to say that invoking ‘Ya Sheikh Abdul Qadir, something for the sake of Allah,’ is disbelief (kufr), yet now they consider it permissible to attribute to the Messiah (Jesus) a form of disbelief that is even greater. They regard him as having extraordinary attributes, akin to God’s uniqueness without partners

[Tohfa-e- Golarhviyyah, pg. 207-208]

Salafīsm Follows the Footsteps of Past Jews and Christians Who Became Polytheists

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud (رضي الله عنه) explained that the Prophet warned his followers not to turn graves into places of worship just as Jews and Christians had done before, despite originally being monotheistic. Later, when Muslims became corrupt, they followed in the footsteps of those nations, falling into grave worship, ascribing God’s attributes to saints, seeking favours from the dead, and committing other forms of shirk. Salafīsm follows that same path by ascribing Allah’s attributes to ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), mirroring the earlier deviation of the Christians.

From Islamic sources, there is evidence that the era of monotheism preceded the era of polytheism. Islam appeared last of all — look at its history: it is a religion which, from beginning to end, presented pure monotheism, in which there was never any mention of spirit-worship. Its Prophet could not even tolerate that any companion should say to him, “Whatever you wish, will happen” (as has already been mentioned earlier under the verse “Do not set up rivals to Allah”).

When the Prophet was on his deathbed, he warned his people with these words: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they took the graves of their prophets as places of prostration” (Bukhari, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Prayer in Churches). When his community later became corrupt — what happened to them? They began prostrating at graves. They ascribed God’s attributes to saints. They sought favors from the dead. In short, there was no polytheistic practice they did not commit.

[Tafseer Kabeer, vol 1, pg. 318]

Salafis, also known as Wahhabis or Ghair Muqallids (non-conformists), commonly allege that Ahmadis oppose the majority of the Muslim Ummah and are therefore wrong and misguided. However, what is often overlooked in these discussions is the fact that prominent Salafi scholars themselves have openly acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, throughout history and across the Muslim world, do not follow the Salafi methodology and instead are overwhelmingly Maturidi or Ash’ari in creed. This article presents clear statements from their own scholars admitting this reality, exposing the inconsistency in using “opposition to the majority” as an argument to delegitimize other groups.

Salafi Scholarship: Salafis Are a Minority

MUHAMMAD IBN ABD AL-WAHHAB رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ (d. 1206H)

To start with, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ said that Islam will return to being strange just as it began, adhered to only by a few individuals. He warned against relying on the large number of people or their consensus as a proof of truth, noting that such reasoning was used by the disbelievers of the past to reject the messengers.

While a separate article will delve deeper into this “majority fallacy,” including how various scholars have understood the term Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, this article will specifically highlight how scholars respected within the Salafi tradition have themselves acknowledged that the majority of Muslims do not adhere to Salafi or Wahhabi interpretations.

[…] the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions described it before it occurred, warned people against it, and informed that none would adhere to the religion except one after another, and that Islam would become strange as it began. You have known that when ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the early days of Islam: “Who is with you in this?” He said: “A free man and a slave,” meaning Abu Bakr and Bilal. So if Islam returns as it began, how ignorant is one who argues based on the multitude of people and their consensus, and similar arguments, when faced with doubts that are great in the eyes of their adherents but insignificant before Allah and those of knowledge among His creation, as Allah says: “Rather, they say like what the former peoples said” [Al-Mu’minun: 81]. I know of no argument you use except that Allah has mentioned in His Book that the disbelievers used it to deny the messengers, such as the consensus of people, obedience to the elite, and other such things.

[Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 41]

SHAH ISMAIL DEHLVI رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ (d. 1246H)

Shah Ismail Dehlvi رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ was a respected scholar among Salafis who highlighted that the majority of Muslims are inclined toward shirk by engaging in acts such as istighatha (seeking help from deceased saints), which are largely considered permissible within the Ashari and Maturidi schools of theology. He similarly attributed this trend to a prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, who foretold that true believers would disappear.

Polytheism is generally widespread among the people and the concept of Monotheism is in scarcity. Many people who claim to be the bearers of Faith do not understand the meanings of Tauhid and Shirk (Monotheism and polytheism). Apparently they are Muslims, but they are unconsciously involved in the acts of Shirk. Therefore, first we should try to understand the meanings of Tauhid (Monotheism) and Shirk (polytheism) so that we may know about their advantages and disadvantages as directed by Qur’an and Sunnah. […] It means that the majority of people who outwardly profess to have faith in Allah are in fact entangled in the quagmire of polytheism. […] Allah will send down a blissful and chaste breeze which will end the lives of all those having the least amount of Faith whereas the vice-ridden and irreligious people shall be spared to live on. The hearts of these people shall be devoid of the dignity of the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) nor shall they have any interest in religion. They shall eagerly snap on the customs and rituals of their grand-fathers who were none other than the ignorant polytheists. A man who adopts the ways of the polytheists will naturally become one of them. […] Thus it becomes known to us that the old polytheism shall also be wide-spread during the concluding periodic phase of the world. Presently, all kinds of Shirk (both the ancient and new ones) are rampant among the Muslims. What the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) prophesied earlier seems to be coming true now. For instance, the Muslims are treating Prophets, saints, Imams and martyrs etc. polytheistically.

[English Translation PDF: Taqwiyat-ul-Iman]

SANAULLAH AMRITSARI (d. 1367H)

Building on the perspective of Shah Ismail Dehlvi رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ, who described the widespread prevalence of polytheism among Muslims, Sanaullah Amritsari, the editor of the Ahl-e-Hadith magazine stated that approximately eighty years ago, the Muslim population of Amritsar, Punjab, followed the same creed as those known today as Hanafi Barelvi, adherents of the Maturidi school of theology.

In Amritsar, the Muslim population is equal to the non-Muslim population. About eighty years ago, almost all Muslims followed the same belief, which today is called the Barelvi Hanafi school of thought.

[Sham-e-Tauheed, pg. 53]

AL-ALBANI (d. 1420H)

Salafis often maintain that it is within the fitrah (natural disposition) of lay Muslims to believe that Allah is above the Throne, so when asked “Where is Allah?” they instinctively point upwards. From this, they try to prove that the masses of Muslims follow the Salafi Athari creed. However, al-Albani disagreed with this view and remarked:

If we ask ordinary people and elites: ‘Where is Allah?’, we will find them looking at us with disapproving eyes, ignoring and unaware that it is the Prophet who decreed it for us in his Sunnah. Then, despite this, we see them confused and not knowing how to respond.

[Mawsuat al-Allamah al-Imam Mujaddid al-Asr Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, vol 2, pg. 593]

He further stated:

Know that the majority of Muslims today are either Ash’ari or Maturidi, will Islam succeed by them?

[Jami Turath al-Allamah al-Albani fi al-Manhaj wa al-Ahdath al-Kubra, vol 5, pg. 291]

For every Maliki is an Ash’ari, every Shafi’i is an Ash’ari except a few, and every Hanbali is an Ash’ari except a few especially in our time! […] The three Madhaheb, especially the Malikis and Shafi’is, are nothing but Asha’ira. And every Hanafi is a Maturidi.

[Jami Turath al-Allamah al-Albani fi al-Manhaj wa al-Ahdath al-Kubra, vol 5, pg. 412]

AL-UTHAYMIN (d. 1421H)

Al-Uthaymin corroborates this sentiment:

The Ashā‘ira are the most widespread in Muslims lands, and that is why we must know their beliefs entirely to know how to respond to them so that we can eradicate them entirely.

[Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim Surat al-Shura, pg. 104]

RABI’ AL-MADKHALI (d. 1446H)

Rabi’ al-Madkhali noted that during earlier centuries, the Salafi creed had nearly disappeared, with its followers across the Islamic world being so few they could be counted on one’s fingers.

Abu’l-Qasim lived in the second half of the fifth century and the first third of the sixth century Hijri. During this time, various sects had fully emerged, including the Khawarij, Shia, Qadariyyah, Mu’tazilah, Jahmiyyah, Jabriyyah, and Ash’ariyyah, which was predominant in the Islamic world at that time. The Ash’arites called themselves “Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah” (People of the Sunnah and Community). The Salafi methodology, the approach of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the preceding Imams of Islam, had nearly disappeared. The creed of the Salaf had become strange, and its followers throughout the Islamic world could be counted on one’s fingers.

[al-Hujjah fi Bayan al-Mahajjah wa Sharh Aqidah Ahl al-Sunnah, vol 1, pg. 40]

SALEH AL-FAWZAN

Salih al-Fawzan admitted that historically even the Hanbali scholars of Najd followed the creed of the Ashʿariyyah and Maturidiyyah, stating:

As for the creed, they (Hanbali scholars of Najd) followed the creed of the Asha’irah and Maturidiyah, and they had Sufism, innovations (bid’ah), and whatever other lands had, in fact, they exceeded others due to the abundance of ignorance among them in their desert regions and villages.

[Sharh Aqidah al-Imam al-Mujaddid Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, pg. 10]

The so-called “Sunni” Muslims believe that when Isa (AS) returns to this earth, he will give non-Muslims only 2 options i.e. accept Islam or death. This means that Isa (AS) will fight and kill all non-Muslims who refuse to accept Islam. This is commonly referred to as الإسلام أو السيف (Islam or the sword).

This belief contradicts numerous verses of the Holy Quran, including the verse “There is no compulsion in religion”¹, yet it is one of their fundamental beliefs, and the majority of “Sunnis” accept it. We will list the view of their Ulema.

Ibn Kathir (d. 774H)

ولا يقبل منهم جزية، ولكن من أسلم قبل من إسلامه وإلاّ قتل، وكذلك حكم سائر كفار الأرض يومئذ، وَهَذَا مِنْ بَابِ الإِخبار عَنِ الْمَسِيحِ بِذَلِكَ، والتشريع له بذلك فَإِنَّهُ إِنَّمَا يَحْكُمُ بِمُقْتَضَى هَذِهِ الشَّرِيعَةِ الْمُطَهَّرَةِ، وَقَدْ وَرَدَ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَحَادِيثِ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ أنه ينزل ببيت المقدس، وفي رواية بالأردن، وفي رواية بعسكر الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَهَذَا فِي بَعْضِ رِوَايَاتِ مُسْلِمٍ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.

‘Eesa ibn Maryam will descend there and then kill the pig, break the cross, and refuse to accept their Jizyah. But whosoever accepts Islam from them, it will be accepted from him; otherwise, he will be killed. The same ruling applies to all the disbelievers of that time.“

[Boof of the end. Great Trial and Tribulations, pg 151]
[Arabic Scan]

Nawawi (d. 676H)

The correct view concerning this is that he will not accept it, and he will not accept anything from the kaafirs disbelievers but Islam. If any of them offer the jizyah that will not make him stop fighting them. Rather he will not accept anything but Islam or death. This is the view of Imam Abu Sulaymaan al-Khattaabi and other scholars (may Allah have mercy on them). 

[Islamqa]
[Sharh Sahih Muslim, v2, p190]

Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al Misri (d. 769 H)

Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence. The author of the main text is 14th-century scholar Shihabuddin Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri.

ومحل هذا قبل نزول عيسى عليه السلام أما بعد فلا يقبل منهم إلا الإسلام لأن أخذ الجزية منهم مغيا إلى نزول عيسى عليه وعلى نبينا أفضل الصلاة والسلام

After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them. for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace)

[Reliance of the Traveller, pg. 602-603]

Naeem-ud-Deen Muradabadi (d. 1367H)

اُس وقت یہود و نصاری کو یا تو اسلام قبول کرنا ہوگا یا قتل کرڈالے جائیں گے جزیہ قبول کرنے کا حکم حضرت عیسی علیہ السلام کے نزول کرنے کے وقت تک ہے

At that time, the Jews and Christians will either have to accept Islam or be killed. The order to accept jizya (tax) is valid only until the descent of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

[Tafsir-e-Quran Kanzul Iman, pg. 150]

Shaykh Muhammad Khaleel Harras (d. 1395H)

One of the most prominent Salafi teachers. His students include Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih Al-‘Uthaymeen, Shaykh Ahmad bin Atiyyah Al-Ghaamidee, and many more.

That is because Jesus will discontinue the Jizyah, and he will only accept Islam—otherwise, the sword. So, whoever refuses Islam, Jesus will hasten towards them with the sword.

[THE DECISIVE WORD REGARDING the Ascension of Jesus, pg. 38]
[Arabic scan, Fasl al-Maqal, pg. 21]

Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz, Muhammad ibn al-Uthaymin, and Abdullah ibn Jibreen

During his era, wealth would become in abundance. He will waive the Jizyah, and accept from people only Islam or the sword.

[FATAWA ISLAMIYAH, vol. 1, pg. 56]

References

Salafi Najdis create these non-existent criteria for Prophethood while at the same time believing a Mushrik can be a Prophet! Nauzubillah.

A person who rejects Tawhid can become a Prophet?

Saleh b. Abdul-Aziz Al ash-Sheikh says:

“It is allowed for the Prophets and Messengers that they would not be upon Tawhid before messengership and prophethood.”

[Al Wafi fi Ikhtisar Sharh Aqidah At-Tahawi p. 44]

Ahmadis believe Prophets are safeguarded from shirk

The Promised Messiah AS writes:

A study of the history of Arabia establishes that except for the forefathers of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, whom Allah, the Lord of Glory, had safeguarded from polytheism and other evils through his special grace, all other people, swayed by the reprehensible example of the Christians and affected by the evil influence of their conduct, had become engrossed in all kinds of shameful sins and vices.

(Nur-ul-Quran, Page 37)

Conclusion

It is very clear to see that non-Ahmadi Muslims like Salafis have deviant beliefs that are against Quran and authentic hadith. Najdis believe they are defending Tawhid but attack the nature of prophets and messengers who are the true defenders of Tawhid. They reject and ridicule Ahmed (AS) who defended Muhammed (SAW) and the religion of Islam as a Ummati Nabi but Najdis are ready to accept a Prophet that can (God forbid) be an idolater before prophethood!

قُلۡ لَّوۡ شَآءَ اللّٰہُ مَا تَلَوۡتُہٗ عَلَیۡکُمۡ وَلَاۤ اَدۡرٰٮکُمۡ بِہٖ ۫ۖ فَقَدۡ لَبِثۡتُ فِیۡکُمۡ عُمُرًا مِّنۡ قَبۡلِہٖ ؕ اَفَلَا تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ
فَمَنۡ اَظۡلَمُ مِمَّنِ افۡتَرٰی عَلَی اللّٰہِ کَذِبًا اَوۡ کَذَّبَ بِاٰیٰتِہٖ ؕ اِنَّہٗ لَا یُفۡلِحُ الۡمُجۡرِمُوۡنَ

Say, ‘If Allah had so willed, I should not have recited it to you, nor would I have made it known to you. I have indeed lived a whole lifetime before this. Will you not then understand?’ Who violates justice more blatantly than the one who forges a lie against Allah or who treats His Signs as lies? Surely, the guilty shall never prosper.

[Quran 10:16-17]

The life of the claimant of prophet-hood before his claim has been presented as a logical witness. Allah exhorts people to use their common-sense and intellect by saying that why you don’t ponder upon this fact that how it is possible that a person who has never told a lie, now suddenly turns into a liar.

The Quranic Evidence: Truthfulness of The Promised Messiah – Ansar Raza

وَجَعَلَہَا کَلِمَۃًۢ بَاقِیَۃً فِیۡ عَقِبِہٖ لَعَلَّہُمۡ یَرۡجِعُوۡنَ

And remember when Abraham said to his father and his people: ‘I positively disown what you worship,

[Quran 43:26]

Non-Ahmadi Muslims (Sunnis and Shias) believe that sexual pleasures with a minor (pre-pubescent) wife are permissible. This belief is shared across all four Sunni madhabs and Shia schools.

Islam teaches the opposite. Islamic law requires consummation only between two consenting adults. Yet non-Ahmadi interpretation allows any intimate interaction before puberty. Sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent wife is considered lawful if it does not endanger her physically.

For example, a five-year-old girl may be taken to bed by her husband for intimate relations. Her consent is not required since pre-pubescent children cannot provide valid consent.

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī (Arabic: أبو زكريا يحيى بن شرف النووي;‎ (631A.H-676A.H) (October 1230–21 December 1277), popularly known as al-Nawawī or Imam Nawawī, was a Sunni Shafi’ite jurist and hadith scholar.^[11] Despite this, he authored numerous and lengthy works ranging from hadith, to theology, biography, and jurisprudence that are still read to this day.

And the sleeping with a minor age wife and having intercourse with her, if the husband and the guardian of the wife agreed upon something that is not harmful for the minor age wife, it is legitimate and if they did not agree upon then Ahmad and Aboo Ubayd say that if she is at nine years of age she can be forced to, not the younger ones, and Malik and Shafi’i and Aboo Hanifah say that the criteria is that she can bear intercourse, and the differences of opinion about this issue comes from these scholars. But the correct opinion is that it does not depend upon age.

[Saheeh Muslim Sharh Al-Nawawi, vol. 9, pg. 295]
[IslamQA]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (Arabic: ابن حجر العسقلاني;^[a] 18 February 1372 – 2 February 1449 CE / 773 – 852 A.H.), or simply Ibn Ḥajar,^[4] was a classic Islamic scholar “whose life work constitutes the final summation of the science of Hadith.”^[6] He authored some 150 works on hadith, history, biography, tafsir, poetry, and Shafi’ijurisprudence, the most valued of which being his commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, titled Fath al-Bari.^[7]

Nikah of a minor age to an adult is allowed, there is consensus of scholars on this, even if she was in cradle, but he should not sleep with her until she can bear it.

[Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari, vol. 11, pg. 347]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Hanafi)

From the famous and most authoritative Fatwa website of “Sunnis”.

According to the Shariah, if a girl is a minor (did not attain puberty), she may be given in marriage by her father. There is no age limit to be intimate with one’s wife even if she is a minor.

[IslamQA]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Salafi)

فإن كان المقصود بالسؤال مفاخذة الرجل زوجته الصغيرة فهذا جائز كما بيناه في الفتوى رقم: 56312.

وأما إن كان المقصود بالسؤال مفاخذة غير الزوجة فهذا محرم سواءً كان المفاخذ صغيراً أو كبيراً ذكراً أو أنثى، وهو من مقدمات الوطء الحرام، ولا نظن أن حكم هذا الفعل يخفى على عاقل. وانظر في ذلك الفتوى رقم: 35464.

والله أعلم

Question: What’s the ruling on thighing minors?

Answer: If the question refers to the thighing of a minor wife by her man then this is permissible. But if the question refers to the thighing of a non-wife then it’s forbidden whether it’s the thighing of a minor or an adult, a male or a female.

[Islamweb]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Hanafi)

This quote proves that sexual intercourse is allowed even with a pre-pubescent (minor) girl.

If a person has sexual intercourse with a minor girl, ghusl will not be obligatory on her. But in order to get her into the habit, she should be made to bath.

[Bahishti Zewar, pg 71]

The author even supports the idea of making the child do ghusl so she gets into a habit. The author is Ashraf Ali Thanvi, the founder of the Deobandi Sunni sect in Islam. They are Hanafi by Madhab. He has millions of adherents around the world.

“Sunni” (Hanafi)

This is from one of the most important Fiqh books for Hanafis. A 12th-century legal manual by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, is considered to be one of the most influential compendiums of Hanafi jurisprudence (fiqh).

Thereafter, the option available to a virgin is annulled by her silence, but the option available to a boy is not annulled, unless he says, “I consent,” or he does something that conveys the meaning of consent, the latter rule applies to a girl as well if her husband has had intercourse with her prior to her puberty. These situations are analogous to the situation at the time of the conclusion of the nikah contract.

[Al Hidayah, pg. 497]

“Sunni”

Syed Abul A’la Maududi is one of the most influential scholars of the past century with millions of followers. In his tafsir of Quran 65:5, he says that the husband can live with a pre-pubescent wife (those who have not started menstruating yet). The Urdu word used is خلوت which includes any relations between a couple, including sex.

اس لیے ایسی لڑکیوں کی عزت بیان کرنا جنھیں حیض آنا شروع نہ ہوا ہو، صریحاً اس بات پر دلالت کرتا ہے کہ اس عمر میں نہ صرف لڑکی کا نکاح کر دینا جائز ہے بلکہ شوہر کا اس کے ساتھ خلوت کرنا بھی جائز ہے۔ اب یہ بات ظاہر ہے کہ جس چیز کو قرآن نے جائز قرار دیا ہو، اسے ممنوع قرار دینے کا کسی مسلمان کوحق نہیں پہنچتا۔

Therefore, regarding mentioning the Iddah for those girls who have not yet started menstruating openly indicates that at this age, not only is it permissible for a girl to get married but it is also permissible for her husband live with her. Now it is evident that whatever has been declared permissible by the Quran, no Muslim has the right to declare it forbidden.

[Tafheem Ul Qur’an, vol. 5, pg. 570-571]

“Sunni” (Hanbali)

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Nāṣir al-Saʿdī (Arabic: الشيخ عبد الرحمن بن ناصر السعدي), also known as al-Siʿdī (1889–1957), was an Islamic Scholar from Saudi Arabia. In the tafsir of Quran 65:4, he proves that the Iddah (waiting period) is needed even for wives that are pre-pubescent i.e they have not started menstruating.

So for those who are thinking how does it prove that one can have sexual relations with a pre-pubesecent? Well, you would have to understand why Iddah (waiting period) is needed. It is needed to make sure that the wife is not pregnant with a baby after the passing away of the husband. So since a pre-pubescent has an Iddah, it proves it is also allowed to have sexual intercourse and other sexual pleasures with her.

Thereafter, the option available to a virgin is annulled by her silence, but the option available to a boy is not annulled, unless he says, “I consent,” or he does something that conveys the meaning of consent, the latter rule applies to a girl as well if her husband has had intercourse with her prior to her puberty. These situations are analogous to the situation at the time of the conclusion of the nikah contract.

[Tafseer As-Sadi, vol. 10, pg. 141]

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

This fatwah is from the Islamqa website under the Shafi’ madhab section. They also agree that Quran allows intercourse with a girl who has not reached puberty. The only consent allowed is that of her father and husband. Her consent does not matter.

Once the young girl is married, she may move in with her husband and partake in sexual intercourse, whether she reached the age of puberty or not, when the following conditions are met:

1. The father permits and deems it an acceptable practice.
2. She could physically bear sexual intercourse
3. Society in terms of its practice and culture approves of it
4. That the law of the country one lives in, is not contravened.

[Islamqa]

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller)^[1][2] is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence.

A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.

[Reliance of Traveller, pg. 567]

“Sunni” (Salafi)

This is one of the most famous contemporary scholars of “Sunnism”. He also explains that Quran 65:4 allows nikah and consummation with pre-pubescent girls.

Marriage of Minors before Puberty with Suitable Consent Unanimously Approved

Praise be to Allah. Following recent times, there has been an increase in journalistic interventions and the interference of journalists in legal rulings without knowledge, which is an action that could have adverse consequences on society. One such intervention is their involvement in the issue of marrying minors who have not reached puberty to suitable partners and their demand to set an age for the marriage of girls. This interference touches upon a legal ruling that refers to the people of knowledge and is based on the Quran and the Sunnah. There is nothing in Sharia law that specifies the age at which a girl can be married. Instead, Sharia law indicates otherwise. Allah Almighty said in Surah At-Talaq: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated.” This refers to young girls who have not yet reached the age of menstruation, so their waiting period is three months, similar to those who have not menstruated out of menopausal age. This is evidence from the Quran that young girls can be married, divorced, and subject to waiting periods. The Sunnah also supports this, as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. This is evidence from the Sunnah on this matter, and the scholars unanimously agree on its permissibility.

Imam Bukhari said in his Sahih: “Chapter on the marriage of a man’s young daughter.” He mentioned the verse: “And those who no longer expect menstruation.” So, he set their waiting period to three months before puberty. It was narrated by Muhammad ibn Yusuf, who narrated from Sufyan, from Hisham, from his father, from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, and she stayed with him for nine years. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fath: He set their waiting period to three months before puberty, which indicates that marrying them before puberty is permissible. This is a good inference, although the verse does not specifically mention this concerning the father or the virgin. The origin of transactions is prohibited unless there is evidence, and there is a hadith narrated by Aisha about her marriage to Abu Bakr while she was still a minor, so whatever is not mentioned therein remains on the original ruling. Ibn Hibban commented on this narration saying that it is agreed upon that it is permissible for a father to marry off his young daughter, even if she has not reached puberty.

Ibn Batal said in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari: “The scholars unanimously agree that fathers can marry off their young daughters, even if they are in their cradle, but their husbands should not consummate the marriage until they are fit for intercourse and capable of bearing children, and their situations vary according to their physical development and capabilities.” When the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Aisha, she was six or seven years old and he consummated the marriage when she was nine. This practice was legislated for this Ummah, just as the companions used to marry in their youth and adulthood without specifying a certain age. No one should legislate except what Allah and His Messenger have legislated because therein lies sufficiency. Whoever opposes this has wronged themselves and legislated for people without Allah’s permission. Allah, the Exalted, said about such people: “Or have they partners [i.e., other deities] who have ordained for them a religion to which Allah has not consented?”

It is obligatory for those who call for setting an age for marriage to fear Allah and not contravene His Sharia or legislate something that Allah has not permitted. Judgment belongs to Allah, and legislation is His right alone, shared by no other. This includes marriage rulings, and Allah has encouraged marriage in the Quran: “And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “O young people! Whoever among you is able to marry, should marry, for it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty.” May Allah guide everyone to what He loves and is pleased with and protect everyone from contravening His Sharia and religion.

Written by:

Saleh bin Fawzan Al-Fawzan

Member of the Council of Senior Scholars

12/10/1432 Hijri Calendar

[Alfawzan.af.org.sa]
[Archive link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Fatwa of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is one of the most influential Shia scholar to this day.

There is, however, no objection in other enjoyments like touching lasciviously, hugging and rubbing the thighs, even with a suckling infant

[Tahrir Al Vasilah, vol.3, pg 229]

Shia (Twelvers)

Fatwa of Ayatollah Sistani, a Twelver Shia Iranian–Iraqi Grand Ayatollah and marja’.^[1][2][3][4] One of the most senior scholars in Shia Islam,^[5] he has been described as the spiritual leader of Shia Muslims worldwide (as of 2003),^[6] “the undisputed leader of Iraq’s Shias”,^[2] included in top positions of “The Muslim 500: The World’s Most Influential Muslims”, from 2009 to 2023,^[7][8][9] and named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2004 and 2005

لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، وأما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها

Issue #8: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, kissing, embracing, and thighing (i.e. rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it.

[Minhaj al-salihin, vol.3, pg 10]

Shia (Twelvers)

Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad-Sadiq Husayni Rohani (Persian: محمد صادق حسینی روحانی; 16 July 1926 – 16 December 2022) was an Iranian Shia marja’.

فصل مسألة 1 – لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل اكمال تسع سنين حرة كانت أو أمة دواما كان النكاح أو متعة بل لا يجوز وطء المملوكة والمحللة كذلك، وأما الاستمتاع بما عدى الوطء من النظر واللمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ فجائز في الجميع ولو في الرضعية.

Issue 1: It is not permissible to have intercourse with a wife before completing nine years of age, whether she is free or enslaved, and whether the marriage is Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage). Likewise for an owned or made lawful slave girl. As for intimacy besides intercourse such as looking, touching with desire, embracing and thighing, it is permissible with all of them, even with a suckling infant.

[Urwa-Tul-Wusqa, vol. 2, pg 469]
[Scan]
[Archived link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Musawi al-Khoei was an Iranian-Iraqi Shia marja’. Al-Khoei is considered one of the most influential twelver scholars. After the death of Muhsin al-Hakim in 1970, he became the spiritual leader of much of the Shia world until his death in 1992. He is also the teacher of Sistani!¹

 ومما يزيد في ذلك وضوحاً ملاحظة صحيحة ابن أبي يعفور عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) ، قال في الجارية التي لم تطمث ولم تبلغ الحبل إذا اشتراها الرجل ، قال: «ليسوأما الاستمتاع بما عدا الوطء من النظر واللّمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ فجائز في الجميع(1) ولو في الرضيعة

Furthermore, to make this clearer, there is a notable observation from the reliable source, Ibn Abi Ya’fur, who reported from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him). He mentioned concerning a young girl who has not yet menstruated and has not reached the age of pregnancy, if a man marries her, he said, “There is no harm in enjoying her in any way other than sexual intercourse, such as looking, touching with desire, embracing, and fondling, and this applies even if she is an infant.”

[Sharh Urwa-Tul-Wusqa, vol. 2, pg 125-126]
[Archived link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Mohammed Kazem Tabataba’i Yazdi (Persian: محمد کاظم یزدی; 1831–1919) was a Twelver Shia Marja’ based in Najaf, most famous for compiling a collection of religious rulings, al-Urwa al-wuthqa. The book is considered as the most prominent compilation and Fiqhi book of him so that it is mentioned there are many—Islamic—scholars who hold this book with themselves.

فصل (مسألة): لا يجوز وطء الزوجة (1) قبل إكمال تسع سنين حرة كانت أو أمة دواما كان النكاح أو متعة، بل لا يجوز (2) وطء المملوكة والمحللة كذلك. وأما الاستمتاع بما عدا الوطء من النظر واللمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ فجائز في الجميع ولو في الرضيعة.

Chapter (Issue): It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse with a wife (1) before she completes nine years, whether she is a free woman or a slave, whether it’s in the context of Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage). Moreover, it is not permissible (2) to have sexual intercourse with a female slave or a woman who has been temporarily married. As for enjoying other intimate activities apart from sexual intercourse, such as looking, touching with desire, embracing, and fondling, it is permissible for everyone, even if it involves an infant girl.

[Urwa-Tul-Wusqa, vol. 5, pg. 502]
[Archived link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Muhsin al-Hakim was an Iraqi Shia religious authority.

إذا تزوج الرجل الجارية وهي صغيرة، فلا يدخل بها حتى يأتي لها تسع سنين ” (* ۱)، وفي خبر زرارة عن أبي جعفر (ع): ” قال: لا يدخل جرة كانت أو أمة، دواما كان النكاح أو متعة (۱) بل لا يجوز وطء المملوكة (۲) والمحللة كذلك. وأما الاستمتاع بما عدا الوطء من النظر واللمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ، فجائز في الجميع (۱)، ولو في الرضيعة.

“When a man marries a young female slave, he should not consummate the marriage until she reaches nine years of age” (1), and in the narration of Zurara from Abu Ja’far (peace be upon him): “He said: Do not engage in relations with a free or enslaved girl, whether it’s a Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage)”. Rather, relations are not allowed with an owned slave girl or one made lawful in this manner as well. As for deriving pleasure from that which is between a female slave’s legs until she reaches nine years of age, other than relations, such as looking, touching affectionately, embracing, and thighing, it is permissible with all, even an infant girl.

[Mustamsak al-ʿUrwā al-wuṯhqā, vol. 14, pg. 78-80]
[Scan]
[Archived link, vol 17, pg 78]
[Archived link, vol 17, pg 79]
[Archived link, vol 17, pg 80]

References

Maulvi Abdul Wafa Sanaullah Amritsari’s View

ثناء اللہ امرتسری مرزائیوں کو اسلامی فرقوں میں شامل کرتے ہوئے لکھتے ہیں کہ ”

‘اسلامی فرقوں میں خواہ کتنا ہی اختلاف ہو مگر آخرکار نقطہ محمدیت پر جو درجہ ہے والذین معہ کا سب شریک ہیں۔۔۔۔۔مرزائیوں کا سب سے زیادہ مخالف میں ہوں مگر نقطہ محمدیت کی وجہ سے میں ان کو بھی اس میں شامل جانتا ہوں۔ (بحوالہ ؛ اخبار اہلحدیث امرتسر ص ۳۔ ۱۶ اپریل ۱۹۱۵)

_{[Ahl-i-Hadith April 23, 1915 page 3]}

ثناء اللہ امرتسری کے نزدیک مرزائی اور شیعہ سب کے پیچھے نماز جائز ہے

ہفت روزہ اہلحدیث،2 اپریل 1915

_{[Ahl-i-Hadith April 2,1915 page 6]}

Unlike Ahmad Raza Khan who said that anyone who doesn’t call Qadiyanis kafir is kafir too, Ahlul Hadith’s “Shaykh ul Islam” Sanuallah Amritsari said that calling a person who doesn’t call Ahmadis kaffir, a kaffir is unecessary.

Akbar Ahl-i-Hadith

Ahle Hadees alim(Shamull Haq) admitted that Sanaullah Amritsari said that it is allowed to pray behind an Ahmadi and

ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے قادیانیوں کے پیچھے نماز جائز ہونے کا فتوی دیا! غیر مقلد شمس الحق عظیم آبادی کا اعتراف اور بٹالوی کو خط

غیر مقلد عالم ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے اپنے رسالہ اہلحدیث میں قادیانیوں کے پیچھے نماز جائز ہونے کا فتوی دیا تھا جس کے آجکل کے غیر مقلد بن منکر ہیں۔ غیر مقلدین کے عالم شمس الحق عظیم آبادی نے اعتراف کیا کہ ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے یہ غلط فتوی دیا تھا اور شمس الحق عظیم آبادی نے محمد حسین بٹالوی کو خط لکھا جس میں شاء اللہ امرتسری کے فتوی کار د کیا گیا اور اس کو گمراہ کہا گیا۔ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ شمس الحق عظیم آبادی نے تسلیم کیا کہ ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے اپنے غلطیوں کو تسلیم نہیں کیا تھا۔ (حیات شمس الحق عظیم آبادی ، صفحہ 129-130)

غیر مقلد و! لگاؤ فتوی اپنے شیخ الاسلام ثناء اللہ امر تسری پہ جو قادیانیوں کے پیچھے نماز کو جائز کہتا تھا۔

ہم کو اس مسئلہ امامت و اقتدا میں جس کو مولوی ثناء اللہ صاحب نے شائع کیا ہے، اور

قادیانی کے اقتدا کے وہ مجوز میں سخت خلاف ہے ۔اب جب یہ حالت پر چہ اہل حدیث کی رفتار کی

ہے کہ قادیانی کو جائز کہ دیا، اور قبل اس کے چند مسائل منکر و شائع کیا ہے، تو اب آ ئند واندیشہ اس کا

ہے کہ نہ معلوم اب کیا مسائل اس میں شائع ہو ۔اب اس کو پر چہ اہل حدیث‘ کہنا خطا ہے۔ یہ سب

اتفاق ہے ۔ بلکہ ہم تو بالا علان اس کو بھی کہتے ہیں کہ مولوی ثناء اللہ صاحب نے اپنے اغلاط کو مکابرین

تسلیم نہیں کیا با وجود ثابت ہو نے براہین قاطعہ علی الاغلاط کے ۔ بلکہ اشاعتہ السنہ کو اشاعتہ المنازعة اس

لئے لکھا تھا کہ آپ نے ہر شخص کو اپنا فریق بنا کر سخت کلامی شروع کر دی، اور سب کو جماعت اہل حدیث سے نکال کر صرف اپنی ذات کو اس کا ایک فردقرار دیا ہے۔ وهل هذا الا دعوى باطلة۔

ابو طیب محمد شمس الحق عظیم آبادی حیات و خدمات (Abu Tayyib Shams ul Haq Azeemabadi Hayat o Khidmat) page 129-130

Book Link

What fatwa will the Ahle Hadith put on their “Shaykh ul Islam” Abdul Wafa Sanaullah Amritsari for not only consideirng Ahmadis Muslims but also considering it valid to pray behind them!

Maulvi Abu Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Batalvi’s Change of Heart
Firstly, lets turn to Tadhkirah:

1893

I saw that this man [Maulavi Muhammad Husain] will acknowledge my being a believer before his death and I saw that he had given up calling me Kafir [disbeliever] and had repented of this position. I saw all this in a dream and I am hoping that my Lord will make it come true *356 . [Hujjatul-Islam, p. 19, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 6, p. 59]

• 356 Note by Hadrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad(ra): In 1914, twenty years after this prophecy, Maulavi Muhammad Husain had the following testimony recorded in the court of Magistrate Grade 1, in the District of Gujranwala, with reference to different sects of Islam:

All these sects believe the Holy Qur’an to be the Word of God. Like the Qur’an, all these sects also believe in hadith. A new sect, Ahmadi, started a short time ago ever since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian made his claim to be the Massiah and Mahdi. This sect also believes equally in the Qur’an and hadith.… My sect certainly does not consider any of the above mentioned sects to be kafir [disbelievers].

[For details see al-Fadl, vol. 1, no. 35, February 11, 1914, p. 3]

[Tadhkirah, pg.305]

More Explanation is given in the book the Great Reformer:

Some people at the time interpreted the prophecy to mean that Maulvi Batalvi would openly become a disciple of Hazrat Mirza. This, however, was an erroneous interpretation because the second part of the prophecy qualified what was stated in the first part. The words “as if” clearly indicated that Maulvi Batalvi’s reassessment of Hazrat Mirza as a believer would be in the form of a cessation of accusatory charges of infidelity and a halt to all such future actions. The prophecy was fulfilled precisely in this manner. After the death of Hazrat Mirza and during the period of Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s leadership, Maulvi Batalvi gave a sworn statement in the court of Judge Lala Devki Nandan of Gujranwala District that the followers of Hazrat Mirza were Muslims. This clearly showed that he had recanted his former position of calling Hazrat Mirza’s followers unbelievers. [The Great Reformer, Vol. 1, pg 456]

Everyone was astonished to read this announcement, including Hazrat Mirza’s own disciples. Was it ever possible that such a dangerous and hardened enemy, who was the architect of the entire opposition, would ever abandon calling Hazrat Mirza an infidel, retract his decree of heresy and consider him a believer? Maulvi Batalvi, too, laughed at the absurdity of this announcement, which only spurred him on to greater opposition. He intensified feeding misinformation to the government and resorted to all means possible to oppose Hazrat Mirza even to the extent of secretly participating in assassination plans. However, Hazrat Mirza repeatedly stated that one day, Maulvi Batalvi would abandon the charge of heresy. This led some of Hazrat Mirza’s disciples to ask him: “Then should we consider him our friend and not our opponent?” Hazrat Mirza replied: “Dealings with a person are conducted according to the current position. What will happen in the future should be left to God.”8

8 Once the prophecy about Maulvi Batalvi was under discussion and Hazrat Mirza said, “There is no doubt that I have forcefully claimed that he will return (to the right course) and Allah has fated it as such. Actually, Muhammad Hussain was a shrewed person but I could see from the beginning that he was self-conceited. Hence, Allah desired to purge him in this way; this is an emetic for him…” Hazrat Mirza further stated, “Allah knows best but he has at least done one (good) thing; he wrote the review of Barahin Ahmadiyya with great sincerity because at the time, his condition was such that he would sometimes pick up my shoes, dust them and put them in front of me. Once he took me inside his house so that it may be blessed and once he insisted on pouring water for my ablution. In short, he used to show great sincerity. Several times he expressed the intention to come and live in Qadian but I advised him that this was not the right time. Then he faced this trial. It would not be strange if God brings him to a good end because of this sincerity.” A brother asked, “What should we consider him now?” He replied, “The present decisions have to be made on the current situation. He is an enemy of this Movement. See, as long as a life-germ stays as such, it is called a life-germ although it can become a person. As it changes states, its name also changes and it becomes a clot (alaqa), a lump of flesh (mudghah) etc. and finally becomes a person at the appointed time. The same applies to him. At present he is an opponent and an enemy of this Movement, and this is how he should be considered.” – Al Hakam, January 17, 1903.

[The Great Reformer Vol 1. pg 799-800]

More information was also presented on what Muhammad Husain Batalvi said in court:

Towards the end of Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s life, Maulvi Batalvi softened somewhat, and the intensity of his opposition declined. Some people thought he was tired but, in fact, he was having a change of heart. He had seen that despite his best efforts to oppose Hazrat Mirza Sahib, God was granting Hazrat Mirza Sahib success and his Movement was growing continuously. Maulvi Batalvi, on the other hand, was facing failure and disappointment on all sides. Hazrat Mirz Sahiba’s reputation was growing exponentially while Maulvi Batalvi’s considerable reputation at the start of his campaign against Hazrat MirzaSahib had totally eroded, and disgrace and humiliation had embraced him on all sides. The final act of this change of heart came in the year 1913, after Hazrat Mirza had passed away and Maulana Nur-udDin was the head of the movement.

A lawsuit was filed in the court of Lala Devki Nandan, Civil Judge First Class, Gujranwala in 1913, which was identified as case #300, Ms. Kareem Bibi daughter of Muhammad-ud-Din Lohar (Plaintiff), versus Rahmat Ullah, son of Abdullah, caste Lohar, resident of Nizamabad (Respondent). Maulvi Batalvi appeared as an expert witness and gave a statement on oath in which he declared members of the Ahmadiyya sect as Muslims and affirmed openly that they were not infidels. A portion of his statement is reproduced below. Giving evidence about the creed of his sect Ahl-e Hadith, Maulvi Batalvi said:

The first sect was Hanafi; it was followed shortly thereafter by the Maliki sect that is attributed to Imam Malik; after that was the Shafai sect and after that was the Hanbali sect that is attributed to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In the beginning, all the followers of Islam had the same religion and it was an era of peace with no internal contentions. There was peace in the period of the Messenger of Allah because of his presence, and after him peace prevailed because of the presence of his Companions and those who followed them. There were no major disputes to cause mutual recrimination or opposition. This period gave way to an era of selfishness and innovations and people began turning to the Imam they loved and in whom they had faith. They became his followers and the sects were established. All these sects consider the Quran to be the word of God, and like the Quran, these sects accept the Hadith.

One sect, the Ahmadiyya has been born recently since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian claimed to be the Messiah and Mahdi. This sect too accepts the Quran and the Hadith alike…our sect does not consider any of the sects mentioned above as entirely heretical.

The court’s understanding of this statement, which was reflected in the judgment, was as follows:

And likewise in the opinion of Maulvi Abdul Hakim sahib, witness for the plaintiff, members of the Ahmadiyya sect, who are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, are infidels although in the opinion of the witness Maulvi Muhammad Hussain they are not infidels.

Once during the period of Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain sahib came to Simla for fundraising and asked for donations from our Ahmadiyya branch in Simla. When we refused to give him any donations, Maulvi sahib said, “Even Maulana Nur-ud-Din has given me a donation for this religious work and this work is for the welfare of the Muslims generally.”

We then inquired from Qadian and Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote back, “The donations should not be given individually; a collective donation from the party may be given.”

Even the Hanafis acknolwedged that this indeed happened in the book Wahabiyyat Aur Mirzayyat.

Maulvi Abu Syed Muhammad Husayn Batalvi goes against the view of Maulvi Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan and says that Mahdi will not fight wars but rather

(امام مهدی)

بھی حضرت مسیح موعود کی طرح اپنے مشن میں سیفی جنگ و تلوار و تفنگ سے کام نہ لیں گے بلکہ صرف آسمانی نشانات اور روحانی برکات سے دنیا میں دین اسلام کی اشاعت کریں گے “

(Imam Mahdi)

Like the Promised Messiah, he will not use swords and guns in his mission, but will spread the religion of Islam in the world with heavenly signs and spiritual blessings.

Ishatus-Sunnah Volume 22 , Number 4, page 113 1909

Full Book

Maulana Shibli Nomani

It is often claimed that the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam had ties with the British but what is ironic is that the Ahle Hadith movement arguably had stronger ties towards the British. We will start by quoting Abū Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Baṭālvī who was a leading Ahle-Hadith scholar in Punjab. If there was a list of opponents of Mirza Sahib, Batalvi’s name would be at the top surpassing Sanaullah Armitsari as it was Batalvi who gathered the Fatawa of 200 ulema takfiring Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and it was Batalvi who was the one who continually responded to his books. Deobandi Shaykh Mumtaz ul Haq saluted him for his efforts for “Khatme Nabuwaat”.

Jihad against British Haram

Maulvi Muhammad Husayn Batalwi

Some of our Muslim brothers believe that the present misfortunes of the followers of Islam cannot be removed without the sword. It is no use acquiring worldly education. However, looking at the present condition of the Muslims, this belief appears improbable.”

“Brethren! the age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword it is necessary to wield the pen. How can the sword come into the hands of the Muslims when they have no hands. They have no national identity or existence. In such a useless and weak condition, to consider them as a nation is to exceed the imagination of Shaikh Chilli (a proverbial, comical figure in Urdu fiction).”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 12, December 1883, p. 364]
[Book Link]

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 10, December 1883, p. 288]

In our Ahle-Hadith Madhab, the ruler under which we live under in peace, doing jihad is haram

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 10, no 25, page 36]
[Book Link]
[Computerized Urdu]

ہندوستان کے تمام طبقات رعایا سے صرف یہی ایک فرقہ اہلحدیث (؟) ہے۔ جو اس سلطنت کے زیر سایہ رہنے کو بلحاظ امن و آزادی، اسلامی سلطنتوں کے زیر سایہ رہنے سے بھی بہتر جانتا ہے، کیونکہ اس فرقہ کو بجز اس سلطنت کے کسی اور سلطنت میں (اسلامی کیوں نہ ہو ) پوری آزادی حاصل نہیں ۔

Among all the subjects of India, the Ahl-al-hadith are the only sect of Muslims (?) who know living under the shadow of this empire in terms of peace and freedom is better than living under the shadow of Islamic empires, because this sect does not have full freedom in any other empire (even if it is Islamic) except in this empire.

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 19, 194-195]
[Computerized Urdu]

This makes sense as there was extreme bad blood between the Ahnaaf and the Ahle Hadith in India. For example, if an Ahle Hadith did Rafa Yadain in a Hanafi Mosque he could be beaten and kicked out of the mosque. Ahmad Raza Khan, who defended traditional Hanafi Orthodoxy, in India said that Wahabis are not only Kafir but also Wajib ul Qatl and that they are followers of Satan.

“The King of Turkey is a Muslim King but so far as law and order and administration are concerned (leaving aside the religious aspect) the British Government is also of no less pride for us, the Muslims more so for the people who are known as Ahl-i-Hadees, this Government is of a greater pride for peace and freedom of conscience (as compared with Turkey, Iran and Khurasan)”

[Ishatus-Sunnah, vol. VI, Shumara 10, p. 292]
[Book Link]

Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalawi severely condemned the 1857 mutineers who rebelled against the British. He writes:

“Uninformed Muslims should examine this implication and bear it in mind, and not consider fighting with every rival faith on account of its unbelief to be legal jihad. To fight with peaceful or covenanted people most definitely cannot be legal jihad, whether national or religious, but is rebellion and sedition. The Muslims who took part in the 1857 rebellion were serious sinners, and according to the Quran and Hadith they were rebels, mischief makers and wicked *(BAGHI Aur BAD KIRDAR). Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts. Those known as the prominent and the Ulama were unacquainted with true faith, or lacking in understanding. Knowledgable Ulema did not participate in the rebellion nor did they sign the Fatawa for Jihad.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-Jihad, P. 49 – Rebels are Beasts]

“To fight against this government [i.e. British rule of India] or to aid those who fight against it, even though they
be one’s Muslim brothers, is clear treachery and haram.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, p. 49]

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British:

Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels.

[Interpertation of Wahabiya, pg 105-106]

Battalvi lies that he does not believe in the Mahdi and Messiah that fights the non-Muslims using the sword. As per him, Mahdi will only use heavenly signs in support of his claim as the Bukhari has the hadith that the war will be abolished at the time of the Messiah.

This contradicts the “Sunni” view which claims that the Mahdi and Messiah will have armies and fight governments using the sword and kill all disbelievers. No non-Muslim will be left alive until they are done with their mission. Everyone will either accept Islam or will be killed.

He could not put forth this belief in front of the government, so he lied to the public and wrote lengthy articles in his magazine and the English Magazine, like below:

“It is also untrue to say that the belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi is dangerous, for the learned Muhammadans do not believe that the Promised Masih and Mahdi will propagate Islam by the sword. According to Sahih Bukhari, a book unanimously believed to be an authority by Sunnis, the promised Masih will put an end to all fighting and will propagate Islam simply by means of heavenly signs and spiritual powers. Imam Mahdi will also come at the same time and there shall be no bloodshed and no Jehad. Islam will be spread by peaceful methods. I have written a lengthy article on the subject and it is about to be published shortly, so I need not go into details here, but I may declare it most emphatically that the Muhammedan belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi does in no way constitute a danger to the country’s peace.”

[Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – 19 July 1907]

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi – Founder of Ahle Hadith in India

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi (1805-1902) was a very prominent and influential Salafi (Ahlul Hadith) scholar in British India. Today’s Ahlul Hadith of the Indian subcontinent look up to him as a very important scholarly figure. He was the highest Ahl-i hadith theologian.He made it explicitly clear that Jihad against the British government was prohibited:

پس جب کہ شرط جہاد کی اس دیار میں معدوم ہوئی، تو جہاد کرنا یہاں سبب ہلاکت اور معصیت کا ہوگا۔

“Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and a sin.”

[Fatawa Naziriya; v. 3, p. 275]

Nazir Husayn Delawi says this after putting four conditions of Jihad and says that there is no reason to do. Jihad in British India. Here is more context.

“Shaikh al-Kul Maulana Syed Muhammad Nazeer Hussain Muhaddis Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: ‘So I say that in this era, none of these four conditions are present — so why would Jihad take place? It absolutely will not take place…’”

[Fatawa Nazeeriya, vol: 3, pg: 284]

ہندوستان میں اس وقت انگریزی حکومت ہے وہاں ہر مذہب والا آزادی کے ساتھ اپنے شعار مذہب کے ادا کرنے کا مجاز ہے۔ کوئی مسلمان نہ جمعہ سے روکا جاتا ہے نہ جماعت سے اور یہاں اسلامی سرزمین اور مسلمانوں کی حکومت میں ہم لوگ طواف کعبہ اور جمعہ و جماعت سے مجبور ہیں۔

At present there is British rule in India where every religious person is allowed to freely practice the tenets of their faith. No Muslim is barred from Jummah or Jamaat, yet in this Islamic land and under a Muslim government, we are prevented from Tawaaf e Kaaba and Jummah and Jamaat.

We are but helpless to say that the English Government is God’s Mercy (Khuda Ki Rehmat) for Muslims of Hindustan.

[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, p. 91]

It is noted about him by Muhammad Husayn Batalvi:

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Ishatus-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, p. 288]

“Maulavi Nuzir Husein is a leading Moulavi in Dehli who in difficult times has proved his loyalty to the British Government and in his pilgrimage to Mecca Thope any British Officer whose help or protection he may need will afford it to him as he most fully deserves it.”

(Signed) J.D.Tremlett BCS. Commissioner & Sup Delhi Division.

AUGUST 10, 1883.

[Ishatus Sunnah, vol. 6, no. 10, pg. 294]
[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, pg. 83]

Maulvi Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan Bhopali – Co-founder of Ahle Hadith in India

He was an eminent Ahl-i hadith religious scholar as well as a political leader. In his book Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, he wrote:

“No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power….This book has been written to inform the British government that no Muslim subject of India and the Indian states
bears malice towards this great power.”

[Edition published in Lahore, 1895, Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 6]

عیسائی لوگ ہو جا دینگے تمام ہوا مضمون احادیث وغیرہ کا ان حدیثوں سے یہ بات معلوم ہوئی کہ اگر چہ حکومت اسلام کی ضعیف ہو جاوے یا جاتی رہی لکن بالکل مسلمان دنیا سے نہیں مٹین کے یہانتک کہ قیامت آجاوے اور طول و عرض دولت عیسائیوں کا بہت ہوگا اور یہ لوگ سب پر غالب اور حاکم ہو جا وینگے چنانچہ مطابق او سکے دیکھا سنا ہوجا اس دیکھا جاتا ہے پیس نکر کرنا اون لوگون کا جو اپنے حکم مذہبی سے جاہل ہیں اس امر مین کے سکوت برٹش سٹ جیا وے اور بیہ امن و امان جو آج حاصل ہے فساد کے پردہ میں جہاد کا نام لیکر اوٹھا دیا جا رے سخت نادانی و بیوقوفی کی بات ہے بہلا ان نا عاقبت اندیشون کا ہا ہوگایا اویس سید صادق کا فرمایا ہوا جسکا کہا ہوا آج ہم آنکھوں سے دیکھہ رہے ہیں۔

“Christians will dominate everywhere — this is the essence of the discussion based on Hadith. From these Hadiths, it is understood that even if Islamic rule becomes weak or disappears, Muslims will never be completely wiped out from the world until the Day of Judgment. The dominion and expanse of Christian power will be vast, and they will become dominant and rulers over all. This is exactly what we are seeing and hearing today. To incite unrest under the guise of Jihad during this peaceful and secure time — when British rule has brought stability — is sheer ignorance and foolishness. What has become of those shortsighted people? It is just as Syed Sadiq had said, and we are witnessing his words come true before our eyes.”

[Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 10]

“During the mutiny [of 1857], some rajas and so-called nawabs and men of means interfered in the peace and calm of India under the name of jihad, and they fanned the flames of battle till their disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under any law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered. … If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble-maker, and from beginning to end he would stain the name of Islam.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 22-26]

“In the treacherous era, those people who fought against the British government and broke their oath – that was not jihad, it was depravity.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 54]

“No sect in our research is more benevolent, peace-loving, desirous of the comfort and tranquility of the public, and appreciative of a fair government than the group that calls itself Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Hadith (People of the Sunnah and Hadith), and it is not a Muqallid of any particular Madhab”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 58]

The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he:

One who is insincere and violates his promises is, according to his own religion, looked upon as having committed a great sin; and to what punishment is such a man to be ultimately doomed will be perfectly known on the Day of Judgment. In short, such a man is a loser in this as well as in the world to come. When the laws of Mahomed enjoin the fulfilment of our promises during the whole term of a treaty, it is incumbent upon every native Prince or Chief to observe the same till the period of its close, and faithfully carry it out without a thought of violating it.

[Interpreter of Wahabism page 39]

” The current number of the Ishaatus-sunnat contains a long leading article under the heading ‘ Wahabis,’ attempting to prove that the Wahabis of India (who in the article under notice are styled as Mowahideens) are as good and loyal subjects of the Queen as any other section of the Mahomedan community. The article in question commences by stating that the name ‘ Wahabi ‘ is regarded by the Mowahideens in the same light as that of bidati, that is> superstitious, by the Sunnis. The reasons why they regard it so are many. In the first place the word whatever be its meaning from a religious and literary point of view has long been associated with disloyalty, as the Sunnis have long laboured to impress on the rulers of the country, that Mowahideens of India, like the Wahabis of Hazara and other frontier tribes, are the enemies of order and peace, and that they hold it lawful to make jehad, or religious war, against the British Government. That the Mowahideens have cleared themselves of this most malicious and serious charge, is evident from the fact that, in 1875 Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels. This pamphlet he caused to be circulated among a large number of the most learned Maulvis of the Punjab and other provinces, for the purpose of eliciting their opinions on the subject and ascertaining whether the quotations made by him in support of his statements were from competent authorities or otherwise. All Maulvis, among whom the treatise in question was circulated, unanimously testified to their entire concurrence with the opinions of Maulvi Mahomed Hossein and declared his authorities to be unimpeachably trustworthy, putting down their signatures and seals on the pamphlet as a mark of concurrence with its contents.

[Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Interpreter of Wahabism, p.105-106]

“No wise, experienced, and discerning man can for a moment believe that the learned will justify jihad against the British Government, in the present state of India or think that the conditions for it exist; except those Mullas who have had no perfect knowledge of their religion and no correct information.”

[interpreter of Wahabism, p.21,86]

48 References from Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah can be found at this Link where Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan calls the rebels “stupid”, that jihad against the British is haram, that the British give religious Freedom, and that the rebels were creators of fasad and traitors and tried to ruin the peace established by the British – The full book can be read at this link

Shah Ismail Shaheed Delawi(RH) – Respected by Deobandis, Ahle Hadith, and Ahmadis

He was the deputy of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, and died in a battle against the Sikhs. It is written about him:

“A man asked, ‘Why do you not give a pronouncement of jihad against the British?’ He replied: In no way is it obligatory to fight jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in our performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of
freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and let not their government be harmed a whit.” ()

[Hayyat Tayyiba, biography on Shah Ismail Shaheed by Mirza Hairat of Delhi, pg 462]

It should be remembered that Mirza Hairat of Delhi was an opponent of Promised Messiah AS and would mock him.

“This was the reason why Maulavi Ismail of Delhi, who knew the Quran and Hadith, and acted upon them, did not fight in his country India against the British, under whose peace and protection he lived, nor did he fight the states of this country. Outside this country, he fought the Sikhs who interfered in the religious practices of the Muslims, prohibiting the loud sounding of the Azan.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, by Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, published 1876, pp. 49–50]

Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Batalvi also writes:

Maulana Isma’eel Shaheed waged Jehad against the Sikhs on account of their intervention in the religion of Islam. He composed that particular sermon to motivate others for Jehad. He neither declared Jehad against the British Government, nor does this sermon contain any explicit, or inplicit, reference to waging Jehad against this Government. As a matter of fact, he did not consider it legitimate to wage Jehad against this Government.”

[Isha’at-us-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11 dated 1886]

A leading follower of the famous Maulavi Muhammad Ismail Shaheed, he wrote:

“War is not jihad. War is called qital, and it only arises now and then. Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God, and this goes on for a long period. It is only your misconception that you term qital as jihad.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 108]

More references for Maulana Shah Ismail Delawi RH

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (d. 1831) – Respected by Ahle Hadith, Deobandis, and Ahmadis

He was a Muslim military and religious leader who fought against Sikh rule in the North West of India, and is regarded as a mujaddid of the thirteenth century Hijrah. It is recorded about him:

When he was going forth to conduct jihad against the Sikhs, a man asked him: ‘Why do you go so far to fight jihad against the Sikhs, when the British are ruling the country and they are deniers of Islam. Conduct jihad against them in every house and wrest India from them; millions of people will support and help you’

The British Government—although a disbeliever in Islam—does not treat the Muslims with any cruelty or high-handedness, nor does it prevent them from attending to their religious obligations or observing the obligatory acts of worship. I preach and propagate (the Faith) in their kingdom but they never impede or oppose it. Rather, if someone commits any excess against us, they are ready to punish him. Our real task is the propagation of Tauheed—the Unity of God—and the renaissance of the Sunnah—precepts—of the Chief of all the Messengers—which we perform without let or hindrance in this country. So why should we wage a Jehad against the British Government and, contrary to the principles of our Faith, needlessly shed blood on either side.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 71]

“The British government has granted Muslims the freedom to fulfill their religious duties.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 115]

1) Syed Ahmad Barelvi Angraiz Dost Ya Angraiz Dushman By Inayat Ullah Chishti Chakralavi – Article

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%207%20hawaly

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%208%20hawaly

https://ia803107.us.archive.org/25/items/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi.pdf

Those who did Rebellion against British were Mushrik/Sinners/Animal

“No one has heard even to the present day that a Muwahhid (monotheist) obedient to the ordinances of Mahomed, the Koran and the Hadis, has ever violated his promise, been faithless or intent upoen violence and rebellion. All those who proved troublesome to, and rebellious against, the British officials were mukallids of the Hanafia church, and not the followers of the Hadis.”

[Interpreter of Wahabism, p.41]

Scholars getting favors from British

Muhammad Hussain Batalvi gets paid by the British government. He got paid in 100 acres of land. He mentions this himself in his newspaper to thank the government.

“The agricultural land that Allah Almighty has granted me through the government is 4 Murabba (100 acres) in size.”

[Ishaatus Sunnah, vol. 19, no. 1, 1902]

Nazeer Hussain Dehlawi is awared with special British military protection for his services in helping the British in 1857 when the rebels

“Maulavi Nuzir Husein is a leading Moulavi in Dehli who in difficult times has proved his loyalty to the British Government and in his pilgrimage to Mecca. I hope any British Officer whose help or protection he may need will afford it to him as he most fully deserves it.”

(Signed) J.D.Tremlett BCS. Commissioner & Sup Delhi Division.

AUGUST 10, 1883.

[Ishatus Sunnah, vol. 6, no. 10, pg. 294]
[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, pg. 83]