Why Are the Followers of the Holy Qur’an Not United?

Continuing from the previous discussion…..

Awham entered the room and hurriedly said to Mushir, “Today I’m going to see Ihtijaj bhai. Will you come with me?”
: Okay, I’ll go. But why?
: With another question.
: Alright. But he is a very busy person. Call him and find out when he can give time.

Hearing Mushir’s words, Awham was surprised and said, “Did the Prophet of Islam give da‘wah according to his own convenience? And did our predecessors seek knowledge by checking the time?”

At such a question, Mushir was left speechless. Unable to find any answer, he unconsciously stood up and said, “Let’s go! I’m ready.”

Seeing Mushir and Awham approaching from a distance, Ihtijaj stepped forward. He warmly welcomed them, exchanged greetings, and embraced them.

Mushir said, “Ihtijaj bhai, if you hear what Awham said on the way, you won’t be able to help but be amazed.”
: What is it?
: Mushir narrated everything that happened before arriving.

Hearing such thoughtful words from Awham, Ihtijaj happily embraced him again and praised him.

Ihtijaj said, “So what is your question today?”
: “Today’s question is, brother: ‘The Qur’an, the speech of Allah, is one. Then why is there so much اختلاف (difference) among those who claim to follow the Qur’an? Shia, Sunni, Mu‘tazila, Wahhabi, Qadiani, Khariji—why are these groups not the same? And even within the Sunni community, why are there four madhhabs like Hanafi and Shafi‘i?’”

Look brother, Arj Ali sahib made a mistake in identifying who the followers of the Qur’an actually are. Simply being born in a Muslim family does not make one a follower of the Qur’an. A follower of the Qur’an means someone who follows Islam. Right?
: Yes.

Being born in a Muslim family does not automatically make someone a follower of Islam. Rather, one becomes a follower of the Qur’an only after adhering to what Islam commands. To understand this, let me give you a simple example. In our Bangladesh, there are some atheists. Many of them were born to Muslim parents—such as Arj Ali, Ahmad Sharif, Humayun Azad, Asif Mohiuddin. Are they children of Muslims?
: Yes, of course.

But later they became atheists. So can we say that one group of Qur’an-followers are atheists? Never. Because they did not follow the Qur’an, even though they were born among Qur’an-followers, they could not remain followers of the Qur’an.

Now let us see: those whom Arj Ali sahib mentioned as followers of the Qur’an—are they really followers of the Qur’an? Or has he falsely labeled them as such?

Discussion on the Shia Community

First, let us see who the Shias are.

Do you know who the leader of the Shias is?
: No.

The leader of the Shias is the Jewish scholar Abdullah ibn Saba, who outwardly became Muslim but joined the ranks of the hypocrites.

The fundamental principle of Qur’an-followers is belief in one Allah. Yet, in the name of elevating the status of Hazrat Ali (RA), they have gone as far as calling him God.

Tell me, can they still be considered Muslims? If they are not Muslims, how can they be considered followers of the Qur’an?

They also claim that Allah sent revelation to Ali (RA) through Jibril, but Jibril mistakenly delivered it to Muhammad (SAW). Ma‘azallah!

Yet Allah has declared in the Qur’an: “Muhammad (SAW) is the last Prophet” (Surah Ahzab).

Revelation is sent to the Prophet. But the Shias do not even accept him as a Prophet, let alone the final one. Those who clearly oppose the Qur’an—how did Arj Ali sahib consider them followers of the Qur’an? They reject many fundamental aspects of Islam. To understand their errors, you may read the books “Why the Shias are Disbelievers” and “Islamic Creed and Deviant Ideologies.” Yusuf Ludhianvi’s book “Ikhtilaf-e-Ummat aur Sirat-e-Mustaqim” also elaborates on their deviations. In any case, the Shias are not truly a Qur’an-following group.

Secondly, he mentioned a group called “Sunni.” We will come to that later. Let us finish the others first. Okay?
: Okay.

Mu‘tazila Doctrine: A Separate Ideological Stream

Next in the question is the issue of the Mu‘tazila. In history, Wasil ibn Ata (80–131 AH) is known as the founder of the Mu‘tazila. One day, he said in the gathering of Hasan Basri (RA) that a person who commits major sins is neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but remains in an intermediate state. Saying this, he left the gathering and formed a separate circle. Hasan Basri then said, “Wasil has separated himself from us,” and from that point they came to be known as “Mu‘tazila.”

There are also other explanations for their name. Let us see why they are not true followers of the Qur’an. Neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith state that a person committing major sins leaves faith and enters an intermediate state. Rather, the Qur’an and Hadith show that even a sinful believer is still called a “believer.” There are many examples—such as Surah Hujurat (9) and Surah Tahrim (8). The Prophet also gave glad tidings that sinful believers will eventually enter Paradise. This proves they do not leave faith. If they had, they would never enter Paradise. However, if one dies without repentance, they may be punished in Hell before entering Paradise due to their faith.

The Mu‘tazila do not accept this. Thus, their beliefs contradict the Qur’an.

Wahhabi: Reality and Propaganda

Then he mentioned the “Wahhabi.” Let us see who the Wahhabis are. “Wahhabi” was not originally the name of a group. It emerged from the movement of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (born 1703). The movement was named after his father, Shaykh Abdul Wahhab, though its leader was actually Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. So if it were to be named properly, it should be called the “Muhammadi Movement,” not the Wahhabi movement. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab followed the Hanbali school.

His mission was to protect Islam from innovations and superstitions, and he took a firm stance against them. However, some of his views involved excess, which were his own interpretations, not directly from the Qur’an and Hadith, so we do not accept those.

But in the Indian subcontinent, “Wahhabi” does not refer to his followers. Rather, during British colonial rule, any scholar opposing innovations and superstitions was labeled “Wahhabi” as propaganda. The British compared the reform movement of Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rae Bareli (1786–1831), who fought against British rule, with the Arabian Wahhabi movement to discredit it, even though they were unrelated.

Tell me, is fighting against oppression wrong? Is striving for independence wrong?
: Of course not.

Innovation refers to practices with no basis in Islamic law, yet people consider them virtuous. Are such practices not harmful to society? Do they not distort the image of Islam? Do they not obstruct presenting true Islam? Because of these, many people misunderstand Islam and even turn to atheism, as Arj Ali did. They blame Islam as a religion of superstition, while in reality, those who practice these innovations are responsible.

Thus, various groups have emerged under the label of Qur’an-followers, but in reality, they are not. They use the Qur’an as a means for their own agendas. In truth, the real followers of the Qur’an are not multiple groups but one. Despite following different madhhabs, they share the same essence.

So tell me, is opposing innovation and superstition wrong?
: Never.
: Then tell me, is there really a separate group called “Wahhabi” among Qur’an-followers, or is it merely propaganda by the British and innovators?

Before Awham could respond, Mushir said, “Of course, it’s just propaganda. There is no such group as Wahhabi in Islam.”

Ihtijaj said, “Awham, have you noticed that even the so-called ‘self-taught philosopher’ Arj Ali has fallen victim to this propaganda? He claimed to oppose superstition, yet when real reformers were defamed by the British and innovators, he accepted that propaganda instead of rejecting it. Why? By doing so, did he not support the oppressors and the innovators? If someone supports superstition and tyranny, how can he be called a reformer or a humanist? I cannot understand.”

So, Awham da, “Wahhabi” is not actually the name of any separate Qur’an-following group. Rather, it is a “civilized insult” invented by superstitious innovators to abuse the true followers of the Qur’an.