Fighting Muslim terrorists is not a betrayal of Islam—it is one of its highest forms of loyalty. It is an act of service to God, to humanity, and to the truth itself.

In recent years, a disturbing misconception has taken root in public discourse—both among some Muslims and many non-Muslims—that if a Muslim is practising his faith, he will avoid condemning or fighting so-called “Muslim” terrorists. This idea is not only misguided, it is dangerous. Islam’s moral and legal framework makes it clear: injustice and aggression are to be opposed, regardless of who commits them.

It is true that terrorism often hides behind religion to gain legitimacy. But when those committing violence claim to act in the name of Islam, the duty of practising Muslims to reject and oppose them becomes even greater. This is not a betrayal of our faith; it is its fulfilment.

The Qur’anic mandate to fight oppression

The Qur’an is explicit about our duty in such cases. Allah says in Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9): “And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.”

This verse leaves no room for doubt. When believers fall into conflict, our first duty is reconciliation. But if one side turns into an aggressor—whether through violence, injustice, or rebellion—it becomes a religious obligation to resist that side until the aggression ends. The fight is not for power, revenge, or political gain; it is for restoring justice and order. And crucially, when peace is restored, we are commanded to reconcile with fairness, not perpetuate hostilities.

This principle is profoundly important in today’s context. Groups such as Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and others claim to fight for Islam but commit atrocities against civilians, destroy communities, and distort the religion’s message. According to Qur’anic guidance, such actions are not just crimes—they are acts of oppression that demand a firm response from the Muslim community itself.

The Prophetic Precedent

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself set the precedent for dealing with extremist rebels. Among the most notorious examples in early Islamic history was the emergence of the Khawaarij. They were a puritanical faction who declared other Muslims as disbelievers and shed innocent blood in the name of religion.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) warned against them in multiple authentic narrations, describing them as people who would “recite the Qur’an but it would not go beyond their throats” and who would “exit the religion as an arrow leaves the bow.” He commanded the Muslim community to fight them when they became violent, because their actions endangered both faith and society.

This precedent destroys the myth that one must stay silent or passive in the face of violent Muslims. On the contrary, Islam considers it a duty to confront them, to protect the innocent, and to preserve the integrity of the religion from distortion.

Breaking the silence within the Muslim community

Sadly, in modern times, some Muslims hesitate to speak against extremist groups for fear of “washing dirty linen in public.” They worry that condemning terrorists will give ammunition to Islamophobes. This fear is understandable but misplaced.

The truth is, remaining silent only strengthens the extremists and allows Islam’s enemies to portray their crimes as representative of the entire faith. By contrast, openly opposing and dismantling these groups sends a powerful message: they do not speak for us, they do not act in our name, and they will be resisted from within.

In fact, this is precisely the kind of intellectual and moral leadership that is needed today. If we do not take ownership of the narrative, others will—and they will not portray Islam with justice.

A duty rooted in justice, not politics

One of the most remarkable features of the Qur’anic command in Surah Al-Hujurat is its emphasis on justice, even towards those we fight. The moment the aggressors return to obedience and abandon their violence, the Qur’an orders us to stop fighting and reconcile. This is not a call for vengeance or perpetual hostility. It is a framework for restoring peace, protecting lives, and upholding fairness.

This stands in stark contrast to how modern terrorist groups operate. Their violence is indiscriminate, their grievances are often politically inflated, and their methods directly contradict Islamic rules of war, which prohibit harming civilians, destroying property unnecessarily, or targeting places of worship.

The cost of ignoring this duty is immense. We have seen entire Muslim-majority countries destabilized by the unchecked spread of extremist violence. Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and parts of Nigeria are just a few examples. In each case, ordinary Muslims have suffered the most—losing homes, livelihoods, and loved ones.

Extremist violence not only harms individuals; it also damages Islam’s global image, making it harder for peaceful Muslims to practise their faith without prejudice. Fighting such groups is, therefore, both a moral obligation to protect the innocent and a strategic necessity to safeguard the religion’s honour.

Standing firm against distortion

As a practising Muslim, when I oppose violent extremists, I do so not because I am less religious, but because my faith compels me to. I take this stand not to appease anyone, but to fulfil a divine command. Those who threaten peace will not find peace from us, regardless of their slogans or claimed piety.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us about the harm of such groups long before they appeared in modern form. Our job is to heed that warning and act on it.

In the end, fighting Muslim terrorists is not a betrayal of Islam—it is one of its highest forms of loyalty. It is an act of service to God, to humanity, and to the truth itself.

The Qur’an commands it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) practised it. And history shows us the consequences of ignoring it.

For the sake of our religion, our societies, and the generations to come, we cannot afford silence. We must stand up, speak out, and, when necessary, take decisive action against those who bring violence into the name of our faith. This is not only our civic duty—it is our Islamic duty.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

If any country, including Pakistan, ever invades India in the name of Ghazwa-e-Hind, they will find Indian Muslims defending their homeland

Among the many ideas that have found their way into the modern Islamic revivalist narrative, few are as persistently misunderstood—or dangerously misused—as the concept of Ghazwa-e-Hind. Popularized in contemporary times by figures like the late Dr. Israr Ahmed, it has come to be viewed not as a historical episode or a symbolic metaphor, but as a yet-to-be-fulfilled call to military conquest. This interpretation, though emotionally charged, is divorced from Islamic orthodoxy, historical context, and contemporary political reality.

This misreading of Islamic eschatology has become especially potent in Pakistan, where it has been weaponized by a segment of the clergy and even military-linked media. But what the masses often don’t see is that such a vision not only contradicts Islamic legal tradition, but also threatens the harmony of the Indian subcontinent, especially the future of Indian Muslims.

A Historical View—Not a Military Manual

The hadith that mentions Ghazwa-e-Hind is reported in Sunan an-Nasa’i (Hadith 3175), Musnad Ahmad (Hadith 23804), and al-Tabarani’s al-Mu’jam al-Kabir. The narration speaks of two groups saved from Hellfire—one that fights in India and another that accompanies Jesus, the son of Mary, during his second coming. However, Islamic scholars have long disagreed about the authenticity, context, and timeline of these narrations.

Renowned Hadith scholar Shaykh Nasiruddin al-Albani graded some of the chains as weak (da’if), while others like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari considered them authentic but possibly fulfilled during the early Islamic conquests. Ibn Kathir, in Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, also noted that the interpretation of these ahadith was limited to earlier periods of conquest.

Classical historians like al-Baladhuri in Futuh al-Buldan detail the campaign of Muhammad bin Qasim into Sindh (712 CE) as a response to an appeal from Muslim merchants and not as a sweeping religious war. The conquest was confined to a narrow region and did not reflect any systematic plan to convert India. Furthermore, the Chachnama, a semi-legendary Persian text documenting this campaign, narrates how religious freedom was granted to local Hindus and temples remained operational under Islamic rule.

Islamic scholar Dr. Ayesha Jalal, in her book Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South Asia, asserts that Ghazwa-e-Hind has been inflated in Pakistan’s religious discourse not because of religious necessity, but due to state-sponsored ideology. She writes that this hadith has “resurfaced with renewed intensity in Pakistan’s strategic imagination, filtered through a millenarian lens.”

The Qur’anic Command: No Compulsion in Religion

The most authoritative source in Islam—the Qur’an—states unequivocally: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). This verse, supported by the consensus (ijma’) of scholars, has been interpreted as a foundational principle of religious freedom. In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Imam al-Qurtubi elaborates that Islam forbids coercion because belief requires conviction, not force.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), when inviting tribes to Islam, used persuasion, kindness, and exemplary character—not threats. As recorded in Sirat Ibn Hisham and Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, his approach to da’wah was rooted in wisdom, not warfare.

Moreover, Tafsir al-Tabari on verse 16:125—“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching…”—explains that this verse sets the tone for all Islamic outreach. Any idea that religious dominance can be achieved through military force runs counter to the Qur’anic message and Prophetic model.

Prophecy ≠ Policy

Yes, Islam contains eschatological prophecies—many of which describe dramatic geopolitical changes in the end times.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) never told Muslims to build strategies around ghazwaat of the future. Instead, he focused on justice, reform, and internal purification.

Consider the Ghazwa of Abwa and Ghazwa of Ushayrah—expeditions that ended without a single arrow being shot. As documented in Al-Maghazi of al-Waqidi, many ghazwaat were precautionary or diplomatic. This is supported by Imam al-Nawawi’s commentary on Sahih Muslim, where he notes that military action in Islam is conditional on ethical, legal, and political necessities—not eschatological ambitions.

The Spread of Islam: A Moral Project, Not a Military One

Historically, Islam’s most significant growth occurred in regions where armies never marched. Southeast Asia, East Africa, and large swathes of India were introduced to Islam not through conquest but through trade and spiritual invitation.

Dr. Richard Eaton, in his landmark study The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, highlights how Sufi saints and local rulers facilitated Islamization in Bengal through land reforms, spiritual guidance, and social integration—not through war. Similarly, Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi in Islam and the World emphasizes that Islamic civilization at its best was spread through service, justice, and education.

The Prophet himself said: “I was sent to perfect noble character” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 8595). This foundational hadith is echoed in the works of Imam al-Ghazali in Ihya Ulum al-Din, who taught that spiritual excellence—not militarism—is the soul of Islamic revival.

Pakistan’s Fantasy vs Indian Muslims’ Reality

One of the more troubling developments is the Pakistani state’s occasional use of Ghazwa-e-Hind as a symbolic justification for cross-border ambitions. In textbooks, speeches, and even TV dramas, the narrative of a future campaign to “liberate” Indian Muslims is floated as a divine responsibility.

But such narratives overlook one major truth: Indian Muslims are not waiting for salvation. They are proud citizens of India, heirs to over a thousand years of Islamic contribution to the subcontinent.

India has produced towering Islamic scholars—Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi, Shah Waliullah al-Dihlawi, Maulana Azad, and countless others. Its institutions—from Darul Uloom Deoband to Nadwatul Ulama—have trained generations of global scholars. The Indian Muslim identity is not subordinate to any external power. It is deeply rooted in the land, language, and ethos of India.

If any country, including Pakistan, ever invades India in the name of Ghazwa-e-Hind, they will find Indian Muslims defending their homeland, not cheering from the sidelines. As the Qur’an instructs: “Stand firmly for justice…” (4:135). That includes standing against unjust aggression—even if it’s done in the name of religion.

From Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the hero of Nowshera, to Captain Haneefuddin, who laid down his life in Kargil, Indian Muslims have proven their loyalty with blood.

Let no one mistake their silence for weakness or their faith for disloyalty. The Prophet loved Makkah. The Indian Muslim loves India.

Time for Responsibility, Not Rhetoric

Dr. Israr Ahmed’s intellectual legacy is mixed. While he awakened many to the idea of Islamic revival, his fixation on militarism—untethered from contemporary fiqh and political wisdom—misguided many. Today, young Muslims must be trained not in war slogans but in the Qur’an, Hadith, ethics, law, and service.

The return of a Caliphate, if it happens, must mirror the model of the Prophet—founded on justice, consultation, and mercy. Not through firebrand nationalism or weaponized hadiths.

Ghazwa-e-Hind has become more of a political trope than a theological reality. When read responsibly, Islamic tradition offers no justification for cross-border aggression dressed in prophecy. The real ghazwa we need today is against ignorance, sectarianism, and political manipulation.

Let us turn our energies toward rebuilding our societies—through knowledge, reform, and character. That is the legacy of the Prophet. That is the path of the righteous.

Umar Shareef

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror.

The recent Pahalgam terror attack has once again tested the patience and resolve of the Indian nation. The aftermath has taken us to the brink of yet another war-like situation between India and Pakistan. In response to the brutal killing of 26 Indian civilians, the Indian government launched Operation Sindoor, a precise military strike aimed at dismantling Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

According to reports, the Indian Air Force targeted 14 locations, including the JeM camps in Bahawalpur—reportedly killing 13 individuals associated with the terror outfit, some of them family members of the group’s chief, Masood Azhar. This decisive retaliation is a reflection of India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism, particularly those sponsored or sheltered across the border.

But what followed was telling.

In retaliation, Pakistan shelled the border town of Poonch in Jammu & Kashmir. The victims were not military targets—they were civilians. Among the dead were Kashmiri Muslim children and women. These were our own people. This act by the Pakistani army reflects not strength, but a moral bankruptcy that has long plagued its strategic outlook. Instead of countering India’s military moves tactically, Pakistan chose to engage in indiscriminate shelling, targeting those who had no weapons, no uniforms, and no role in the military operations—just ordinary Indian Muslims.

This isn’t the first time Pakistan has committed such atrocities. If history teaches us anything, it’s that we’ve seen this script before. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the Pakistani army reportedly killed over 300,000 Bengalis, according to the Bangladesh Genocide Archive. Most were Muslims. Many women were raped. Entire villages were wiped out. And yet, Pakistan continues to cloak itself in the garb of Islamic righteousness while violating every ethical and humanitarian code Islam prescribes.

This duality is not just deceptive—it is dangerous.

To the leaders of the Islamic world, I pose some hard questions:

Is Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor consistent with Islamic ethics?

Can the killing of Muslim children in Poonch be justified under any circumstances?

Is this the conduct of an “Islamic Republic”?

As an Indian Muslim, I say this with clarity and conviction: India is my homeland. It is a sovereign, pluralistic, democratic country that upholds the rights of all its citizens—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others. Our Constitution protects us, and our armed forces include us.

I was deeply moved watching a recent press conference where Colonel Sophia Qureshi, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, and Ambassador Vikram Misri stood united, explaining the strategic aims of Operation Sindhoor. It was a portrait of unity: a Muslim woman in uniform, a Sikh diplomat, and a Hindu officer—this is the India we live in, and this is the India we love.

Let no one tell us we do not belong.

The Qur’an commands us clearly: “And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make peace between them. But if one oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah…” – Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9)

This is not a call to bloodshed—it is a call to justice. We fight oppression, not people. We fight terrorists, not civilians. And when peace is offered, Islam commands us to accept it. But if one side continues to shelter groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or The Resistance Front, who actively undermine regional stability, then standing by and doing nothing is not an option.

Yes, Operation Sindoor may have caused some collateral damage. No life lost is ever trivial. But the mission had a clear objective: dismantle terror networks—not harm civilians. India’s action was measured and targeted. Pakistan’s was indiscriminate and vengeful.

As Indian Muslims, we draw our strength from both faith and patriotism. We are heirs to the legacy of Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the “Lion of Nowshera,” who laid down his life defending Kashmir in 1948. We remember Captain Haneefuddin, who fought bravely in the 1999 Kargil War. These are our heroes, our martyrs—Muslims who defended India against Pakistani aggression.

It is critical to understand that Islam encourages peaceful coexistence. When the Prophet Mohammed established the state of Madinah, he created a pluralistic charter involving Muslims, Jews, and pagans. He taught that alliances with non-Muslims are not just permissible, but necessary in the cause of justice and societal harmony. The story of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, who sought refuge with the Christian King of Abyssinia, is a powerful reminder that justice transcends religion.

We Indian Muslims face many challenges—from Pakistani propaganda to the rise of far-right elements at home. Yet, we stand firm. We will not be pawns in foreign agendas. We will not be deceived by narratives that seek to divide us.

We say with dignity: Inqilab Zindabad. Hindustan Zindabad. Victory to India.

We may critique our government or hold differing political opinions, especially with regard to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That is our democratic right. But our nation is not defined by any one party. India is defined by its people, its Constitution, and its unity in diversity.

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror. And peace cannot be preserved if Pakistan continues to target civilians and shelter jihadist outfits.

India reserves the right to protect itself. Under Public International Law, every sovereign nation has the right to eliminate threats to its people. That is what Operation Sindoor was about—and that is what justice demands.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Umar Shareef

Hamas doesn’t listen to Saudi advice or seek guidance from them. So, why would Saudi Arabia START A WAR FOR something that was started by Iran?

We have come across many social media forwards depicting the Arab nations as silent spectators during the current war between Hamas and Israel. Many cartoons show these Arab nations as cowards and selfish to keep their nations safe, while Gaza is being bombarded with airstrikes by the Israeli army.

Here are some points to understand the reality of the matter.

Hamas was the initiator of this conflict with Israel, following communication with Iranian officials and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. So, the onus lies upon Iran to attack Israel first, if they care for the welfare of the Palestinians. But sadly, Iran has never fought any war against Israel directly.

Interestingly, Iran was the second country to acknowledge the two nation theory to recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Many who glorify Iran as a Muslim World Leader, fail to understand that the undercurrent hatred of Iran for the Sunni Muslim states is real.

Iran and Hezbollah, both adhering to Shia ideology, have a historical interest in destabilizing the Sunni nations’ harmonious systems. Their actions in the past have demonstrated a willingness to counter Sunni influence as a means to secure themselves against potential Sunni aggression.

In numerous countries, the Shia-Sunni conflict often takes a violent and destructive turn, leading to bomb blasts in mosques fueled by mutual hatred. This grim reality makes the notion of Muslims uniting against Israel seem irrational, given the deep-seated hatred between the two groups.

Furthermore, Hamas doesn’t listen to Saudi advice or seek guidance from them. So, why would Saudi Arabia start a war for something that was started by Iran?

Saudi Arabia currently seeks to avoid any war and prioritize the protection of its borders against potential attacks. The country knows a misstep could result in a situation similar to the rise of leaders like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. If Saudi Arabia were to take action against Israel, it could prompt Israel’s allies to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Germany, and other European countries will support Israel, while Saudi Arabia may not find significant international backing. Even if Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan align with Saudi Arabia, their chances of prevailing against the U.S. and its allies appear quite slim.

And the fact is that, in the past, in 1948, 1967, and 1973, three wars were fought between Israel and Muslim countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. And the fact is that Israel came out victorious, and occupied more lands after every war, except the 1973 war that led to initial success to the Muslim allies, while it almost ended as an equalizer.

So, Israel alone is strong enough to handle the Muslim countries that are not sophisticated enough to face the intelligent enemy. That’s the impact of the nation of PHDs.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations would face significant hardships in a conflict because they lack the same level of weapons production capabilities as Israel, the USA, and other European countries. These countries worldwide source their ammunition from Israel, the USA, and Europe. While Russia and China are capable of manufacturing weapons, their involvement could escalate the situation into a potential Third World War.

The earlier world wars caused significant devastation to many countries. Germany, Japan, and Vietnam all suffered greatly in the aftermath of those conflicts. In the First World War, the Ottoman Caliphate lost most of its territories, leaving only modern-day Turkey. This highlights the immense toll of such large-scale wars. Such conflicts often don’t yield clear-cut results due to the complex geographical alliances and positions of the parties involved.

Interestingly, modern nation-states have unique dynamics. For instance, there are American Palestinians who are U.S. citizens and have their political loyalty to the United States. Likewise, Muslims in countries like Britain and France will follow the decisions made by their respective national authorities. This complexity makes the resolution of such matters quite challenging.

Egypt and other nearby nations have engaged in conflicts with Israel in the past, but they were unable to secure victory. As a result, they chose to enter into treaties. Making treaties under such circumstances is not an act of cowardice; rather, it is a pragmatic approach to ensure the safety and well-being of their populations when continued conflict threatens both sides.

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations made efforts to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. However, groups like the Ikhwanul Muslimeen, Shia factions, and other Muslim factions strongly opposed this idea, as their priority was the liberation of Palestine before considering normalization with Israel. Consequently, they used social media to share anti-Saudi content.

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries are home to millions of expatriates. Just consider the impact on Saudi Arabia if these expats were to leave due to fear. The economy would suffer a significant downturn.

The fact is that the expatriates from India and Pakistan, who constitute a significant population in Saudi Arabia, are not serving in the Saudi military. Instead, they work as technical professionals and businessmen, primarily motivated by the desire to earn money and support their families back home. Even a delay in receiving their monthly salary would be a source of discontent among their families in their home countries.

This underscores the reality that none of these expatriates would stay and fight for Saudi Arabia if a war were to break out; they would promptly return to their home countries. It’s important to note that the Indian Muslim minority alone exceeds the entire population of Saudi Arabia, revealing that their strength may not be as substantial to go for a fight.

Therefore, the practical choice for Palestine is to pursue a ceasefire, followed by diplomatic treaties. If Israel were to act deceitfully, then migration might become the only viable option if fighting them leads to further losses.

In the context of war, there are moments to engage in combat, moments to step back, and moments to seek peace. Making treaties when wars don’t yield positive results is not a sign of weakness but rather a display of wisdom.

Prioritizing the preservation of lives is a wise decision, and it is often the path to success. Setting aside ego can lead to more favorable outcomes.

Islam does not advocate engaging in irrational conflicts. War should not be driven by emotions but rather by careful planning and strategic considerations. A meaningful war aims to establish political control over a territory, enabling the implementation of law and order and the administration of justice for all. In contrast, a futile war only results in loss of life and little else.

For all those who call Saudi as traitors and so on, here is what you must do if you are not like Saudi. Cancel your citizenship with your respective countries, through Citizenship renunciation process, and migrate to Gaza and join the army of Hamas if you want to be true to your claims.

I’m sure not even one percent of you would do such a thing. How is it that you want the Saudis to fight the losing war, while you want to watch cricket and basketball tournaments on your televisions in India, Pakistan, America, and Britain?

I mean, why don’t you do what you want others to do? I know you cannot, due to your circumstances. And the same applies to Saudi and other countries. ‘Hubbul-Duniya’ is not limited only to the Saudis, it applies to you as well.

Egypt is not even opening the Rafa Border to allow the Gazans migrate in, out of fear of Hamas forming militant groups in their soil. That’s the level of trust between nations at the moment.

Historically, the Arab Spring and other revolutionary and rebellious movements have often resulted in increased turmoil and significant losses. Countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria experienced tumultuous periods. Syria is currently in a dire state, akin to an intensive care unit, while Iraq is grappling with significant instability.

The current efforts to propagate hatred towards Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations are being driven by the Ikhwanul Muslimeen, who draw inspiration from figures like Syed Qutb, Maududi, Dr. Israr Ahmed, and similar individuals. Their rigid interpretation of politics has had far-reaching and negative consequences.

The factions stemming from Ikhwanul Muslimeen are cropping up in various parts of the world today. It is essential to scrutinize their strategies before aligning with their initiatives to ensure they have a judicious approach to discerning the truth of the issues at hand.

It is about time that the Muslim world has pragmatic and purposeful debates over these topics of Geo-politics, before causing more losses than gains.

We place our trust in God. Secure the camel, and have faith in God. It’s not sufficient to simply release the camel and claim trust in God afterward. God doesn’t alter a people’s circumstances unless they change themselves from within.

I understand that this article may not be well-received by everyone. I encourage those who disagree to offer counterarguments with knowledge and evidence, if they are capable of doing so. While Saudi Arabia and Turkey may have their imperfections, promoting hatred against them is unlikely to yield positive results, as it is not a righteous course of action.

The Ottoman Caliphate’s downfall was partly due to criticisms of their weaknesses. No nation is without faults, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, like any other, are not governed by perfect leaders. Perfection is unattainable. Focus on what is within your control, and avoid going to extremes with your words and actions.

Advocate for a ceasefire, not for war, as you are not adequately prepared. Encourage sending your children to school, engage in productive work at the market, look after your elderly parents, and show loyalty to the land where you reside. Avoid confusion by seeking clear guidance.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

If mosques are not seen as an integral part of Islam, then what are they? Why do the Muslims pray in the mosques? Why do they construct mosques from the very lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

First argument

They say that the prayers can be prayed anywhere in the world. And that little understanding made them conclude that the mosques (masjids) are not the integral part of Islam.

Hence to them, the entire world has replaced the status of the mosques. Therefore it would also mean that “the mosques are not an integral part of Islam, the whole world is an integral part of Islam”.

Since the whole world is now the integral part of Islam; because the prayers can be prayed anywhere in the world, then it would also mean that the “mosques in the whole world are all part of that integral part of Islam”.

That’s because all the mosques are within the world – the integral part of Islam. This is just simple reasoning based on what is inferred from the basic statements that are aired.

The next argument

Are mosques not an integral part of Islam? Then is the church an integral part of Christianity? Is the Gurudwara an integral part of Sikhism? Is the temple an integral part of Hinduism? Is the synagogue an integral part of Judaism? Is the Jain temple an integral part of Jainism? Is the Buddhist temple an integral part of Buddhism?

Then what are the Popes, Purohits and Imaams doing out there? There are too many on the list.

Let me ask my simple question now: If mosques are not an integral part of Islam, then that would imply that the religious places are not an integral part of any religion. In that case, all churches and temples are also on the same status, since people pray to their gods too in those religious places.

If that is the case, then how only the mosques are in the discussions, while other religious places are not in the news? Are the minarets of the mosques poking the eyes? Just asking. Take it in good humour.

The third argument

Now it’s time for some real humour.

Are Mosques not an integral part of Islam? That would possibly and probably; and plausibly imply that the mosques are not required to pray the congregation prayers.

Now comes a reasoning mind in action. Based on that analogy, here comes the argument: Kitchens are not an integral part of a house since a person can eat in the hotels and canteens. Bedrooms are not an integral part of a house since people can sleep on the footpaths too. Aren’t people sleeping in the streets of India? Then what’s the problem!

Toilets are not an integral part of a house since people can take a leak on the highways and pathways. So what can we infer from this? People need not live in the houses, while they can sleep anywhere.

Please check the lovers in the parks; they are almost there. The parks have replaced the bedrooms to many of them. Do you agree with me?

If we go by this analogy, then people don’t need houses, when they can live anywhere anyhow. So, my conclusion is that houses are not an integral part of life.

Houses are not from the essentials to make a living! That’s syncing with the notion that the mosques are not an integral part of Islam. You may find me absurd.

The fourth argument

Now some serious thoughts.

How did some conclude that the mosques are not an integral part of Islam and that a person can pray in any part of the world? They came to this conclusion, because the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, the whole world is a place of sajdah (prostration), except the graveyard.

They have probably taken only one statement of the Prophet while having ignored too many other statements made by him.

The same Prophet also said: I feel like burning the houses of those men who didn’t join the congregational prayers in the masjid. But I stop myself from doing that, only due to the women and children in there.

So, here the Prophet is expressing the importance of praying in the masjids. He used to lead the congregations for the obligatory prayers in the masjids. And that is an established fact.

A blind man once met the Prophet and asked if it is obligatory for him to pray in the masjid since he was finding it hard to walk up to the masjid. The Prophet enquired whether the blind man could hear the azaan – the call for the prayer. The man answered in an affirmative. So the Prophet asked him to walk up to the masjid and pray his 5 daily obligatory prayers. Even a blind man is not exempted from praying in the masjids. That shows the place of a masjid in Islam.

The Friday sermons are given in masjids. People flood to the masjids every Friday. Marriages are conducted in the masjids, while the marriage registers are maintained by the masjid authorities. Funeral rites are conducted in the masjids. The masjids are places where the last rites for the dead are done.

Social services, conventions and many activities are undertaken through the masjids. And still, they say that the masjids are not an integral part of Islam! That’s a shocker for the Muslim scholarship.

The Prophet said that a person gets 27 times more rewards while praying in the masjid, than praying at home. There are many number of verses in the Quran and Hadeeth that talks about the rights of the masjids that needs to be observed. What to supplicate before entering the masjid? What to supplicate while exiting the masjid?

Everything is taught in great detail by our Prophet. That’s simply impeccable indeed. And still, they say that the masjid is not an integral part of Islam!

If mosques are not seen as an integral part of Islam, then what are they? Why do the Muslims pray in the mosques? Why do they construct mosques from the very lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Why were they constructed by Abraham and Ismael, even before thousands of years before the birth of the Prophet? Prophet Muhammad is the role model for the Muslims. Did the Prophet lead the 5 daily obligatory prayers in his house, or at mosques? Mosques!!! It’s only when the Prophet was travelling, while there was no mosque in the deserts, the Prophet led the congregational prayers in the wilderness.

Islam allows us to pray outside of the masjids too. But the first lookout in a place would be for a masjid to pray the 5 daily prayers. The 5 daily prayers are from pillars of Islam.

If prayers are from an integral part of Islam, then the places of prayers cannot be detached from the religion of Islam.

The first thing that the Prophet did when he established his rule in Madina was the construction of the masjid. And the first thing that the Prophet did when he entered Makka during the conquest of Makka, was to clean the masjids from pictures and idols.

He removed all the idols since the masjid that was built by Abraham was a place that was without idols. And therefore it had to return to its original form while it was built. And that shows what a Masjid is in Islam.

The next argument

If we go by what they say, it would mean that the prayers can be prayed in any place. So shall we pray in the Parliament?

So can we pray the congregational prayers at the temples, since the whole world is a place of worship? Can we pray at the shopping malls? Can we pray on the highway roads? Can we pray at the Supreme Court? The answer is: Yes, but conditions apply.

What are the conditions: The conditions are that the owner or the ones in authority of those places must permit to pray there, and the Muslims may pray there in such a manner that they don’t cause any discomfort to anyone there. Hence the Prophet forbade us from praying in pathways where people have to use them for walking.

So to my dear Muslims, please don’t get into any shopping mall and start praying in the congregation there. The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t mean that you can pray anywhere? Even if they said that the Muslims can pray anywhere, they don’t actually mean that. Then what do they want to say? Never mind.

Having said all of this, here is a reminder to the Muslims: To most of the Muslims in India, you stopped your women from entering masjids, and Allah has humiliated you.

You stopped your children from taking the front rows, and Allah has humiliated you. You don’t encourage the non-Muslims to visit your masjids, and Allah has humiliated you.

You commit shirk, kufr and bid’ah in the masjids, and Allah has humiliated you. And lastly, you don’t pray the 5 daily obligatory prayers in masjids, and Allah humiliated you.

The Prophet didn’t stop the women from praying in the masjids; nor did he forbid well-mannered children from taking the front rows in the masjids. He even had non-muslim guests visiting him inside the masjids. We have started to contradict him, and we are paying the price for that.

Even when the Prophet was in his deathbed, he asked his companions to carry him to the masjid to let him pray his obligatory prayers. He couldn’t even walk then; still, he wanted to pray the obligatory prayers in the masjid itself. And that incident can make any sane person understand the importance of the prayers and the status of the masjids where the prayers are conducted in congregations.

So, if the Muslims want humiliation to be removed, then they must return back to the Deen – religion of Islam, as taught by the Prophet himself.

Prayers are broadly classified into obligatory and voluntary prayers. The obligatory prayers are to be prayed in the masjids only for the men.

For women, they are permitted to pray either in the masjids or in their homes. They have their choice. And the voluntary prayers (for both men and women) may be prayed either in masjids or at homes, or at any place in the world that is clean and suitable for praying.

In the event of not being able to pray in the masjid, the next options are always open. But then prayers are to be offered every day, 5 times a day, until the last breath of one’s life. There’s not a single holiday for prayers. This is from the essence of the word “Islam”, which means “surrender to the will of Allah”.

My question to the people who say that the mosques are not an integral part of Islam: If they are not an integral part of Islam, then what are they? Please give an answer if you have.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect The Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.