Question:
A claim is circulating that Prophetﷺ said there would be a war in India and those who participate would be rewarded. This claim is used to suggest Muslims have a religious duty to wage war in India.
Is it Authentic?
Answer:
A news item is spreading on Facebook and YouTube. What is spreading? It is claimed that Prophetﷺ Muhammad said there would be a war against India, and that they would be an excellent group. Based on this hadith, Muslims came and invaded India repeatedly. It is said that the very intention of Muslims is to wage war in India.
A YouTuber has made a video explaining this and refuting it. I am not blaming him. Where did he get this? Apparently, a teacher from a madrasa, a Maulvi, spoke about this hadith. He said that the Prophetﷺ stated there would be a group that would wage war in India, and they would be aided by Allahﷻ. Based on this, some fanatics and those who have lost their minds say that jihad must be done in India.
This YouTuber is speaking based on what such ignorant ‘Aalim Shaa’ have said. So, we need to provide a proper answer to this. Just abusing is not an answer. If it is claimed that the Prophetﷺ said such a thing, is the narration authentic? Or is that the intended meaning? We have a duty to explain these matters clearly. So, first, let’s hear what that YouTuber says to understand. Ustad Peer Muhammad Siddiqui, who is the principal of a girls’ madrasa in Kambam, released a video on a website.
In that video, what does he say? He quotes a hadith. He says, the Prophetﷺ and his wives and generals recorded events from their lives. To gain clarity on certain matters from the Quran, we can obtain that clarity from hadith. This is a belief within that sect. So, just as the Quran holds importance, hadith also holds the same importance. In this book, it says like this. What does it say? Allahﷻ will protect two groups from the fire of Hell. Who will He protect? He will protect the one who invades India and conquers it.
The basis for the continuous invasions over so many years on this country is this hadith. He invades year after year, for a thousand years he invades. Why are waves of invasions targeted specifically against this country? Because these invasions stem from this religious belief. So, when it came time to partition this country, Jinnah used this same hadith. When Tipu Sultan came and invaded, he also used this same hadith.
The Mughal emperors also used this same hadith. For ages, certain religious verses have been used for terrorist activities and anti-India activities. I quoted this to highlight this issue. Look, this person also quotes this hadith. There is already a history associated with this hadith. If we allow this to grow again in our country, what will happen to our nation’s security? We must ask this question. Is it wrong to ask this question? “Why are you quoting a hadith here?” I am not quoting the hadith; I am quoting the hadith that Ustad Peer Muhammad quoted.
Second, what is wrong with quoting such a hadith? I am stating what exists. You are saying we should destroy evidence by creating a non-existent problem. What is Sanatana? Today, I have the right to explain that. But is it wrong to state what exists? If I had stated something non-existent, I might even be eligible to be Deputy Chief Minister of this state, look at the state of this country.
Not only that, he also says that the Caliphate (Khilafat) rule should be re-established here. This Khilafat rule was ended with World War I by the Muslims of the world, including Arabs, because it caused religious problems worldwide. What does that mean? Under that Khilafat flag, they had to come under the laws of that Caliphate. Dr. Ambedkar’s constitution would not be able to exist in this country if this Khilafat rule comes, they say that the laws of this country would have to be discarded. So, if I quote how such a person spoke, they file a case against me.
This makes me doubt whether the police and laws of this country prioritize protecting the country, or do they prioritize protecting those who are against it? Police… So, does every Muslim need to know the answer to this? Or not? Why? When we look at this, it seems like “Why do so many Muslims say to invade India? While living in India, they talk about waging war against India.” At such times, Muslims living in India are not only viewed with suspicion, but this also creates a perception that Islam is against India. This is the hadith they use, right? They can use it to create such a perception. There are hadiths related to this, right? None of those hadiths are authentic.
There are two types of hadith. The Quran is the word of Allahﷻ, conveyed to us by the entire community unanimously. Hadith, however, is narrated by one or two individuals who claim the Prophetﷺ said something. The majority of hadith may be correct, but sometimes the narrator might err, or the one who heard from him might err, or the one reporting from him might err. There are those who fabricate and add things, or misunderstand. Therefore, in hadith sciences, scholars have classified hadith into acceptable and unacceptable. So, if the narrator of a hadith is not reliable, even if it’s attributed to the Prophetﷺ, it is not considered a valid hadith. They have categorized them into various types like weak hadith and fabricated hadith. You cannot just accept any hadith immediately.
There is even a hadith claiming the Prophetﷺ said that whoever eats bottle gourd will go to heaven. That is not an authentic hadith; it was fabricated by a bottle gourd merchant in the name of the Prophetﷺ, and they discarded it back then. Regarding the hadith about waging war in India, because the narrators were unreliable, it was deemed unacceptable from the start. It is a hadith that was rejected. Scholars consider it fabricated by some individual. Ulama and Maulvis should not propagate such hadith. It is because you propagate based on such hadith that you face these questions. So, before we explain the details of that hadith, how many versions exist, and what deficiencies they have, let me first state a fundamental point and then explain.
What is this fundamental point? Even if we assume this hadith is correct, meaning there is a group that will wage war on India and be aided by Allahﷻ, what exactly is ‘India’? Has the region called India been the same fixed geographical area from the Prophetﷺ’s time until today? No, India has been constantly changing. Whether it is a country or not, its borders expand, contract, disappear, or reappear.
Countries are not permanent entities. For example, take the Mughal period. Before that, Punjab alone might have been considered India. Just as here in Tamil Nadu, the Chera, Chola, Pandya, and Nayak kings ruled, in North India, various kings ruled; all that might have been India. Later, Muslim kings unified about 80% of India, and that was India. Then, during the British period, India included Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Now, what is India? It is the region excluding Bangladesh and Pakistan. So, if we consider the statement that a group will wage war in India and receive Allahﷻ’s help, when the Prophetﷺ said ‘Hind’ (India), what was considered India at that time? ‘India’ does not have a single permanent form; it cannot be assigned to one fixed country. So, firstly, the very idea of a specific war in India is not correct. Even if we assume it for the sake of explanation, we can clarify some points and then explain why it’s not correct. So, did the India we know today exist during the Prophetﷺ’s time? Did it exist? It might have existed, but was it called India? It was not. For about 200-300 years after the Prophetﷺ’s time, what was India? The region we now call Pakistan was considered India.
The Sindh River in Pakistan – the region associated with the Sindh River was called ‘Hind’, which became ‘India’. So, wherever ‘India’ is mentioned in hadith, it refers to Pakistan, not the current India. Such a thing did not exist in India during the Prophetﷺ’s time. So, if the Prophetﷺ mentioned ‘India’, it primarily refers to Punjab. Punjab was Pakistan. They divided Punjab in half and made Pakistan. That’s where the Sindh River is. From ‘Sindh’ came ‘Hind’. So, if the Prophetﷺ mentioned a war in India during his time, it refers to what was India then, not what you call India now, whether you make it larger or smaller, or even if it encompasses many more countries later. If you consider the maps from the 14th century until today, you’ll see that ‘India’ has had many different forms. So, claiming that the hadith refers to the current nation of India is ignorance. Understand this first. When the Prophetﷺ said ‘India’, did the India we live in now exist under the name India? Was it called India? No. As an example, last week we explained about Turkey.
The Prophetﷺ said you would fight with the Turks. We should not interpret ‘Turks’ to mean the current nation of Turkey. When the Prophetﷺ said ‘Turk’, he did not mean a country called Turkey. The nation of Turkey itself came into existence only after the 1200s. So, when there was no country called Turkey, there is a hadith saying you will fight with the Turks. What does ‘Turk’ mean then? The Mongols are called ‘Turk’. ‘Turk’ refers to an ethnic group. The Mongols, with their flat noses and broad faces like Genghis Khan, are the Turkic people.
The Prophetﷺ said you will fight the Turkic people. When a country named Turkey later emerged, you should not interpret that hadith to mean a war with the nation of Turkey. If you want to understand what the Prophetﷺ said, when he said you will fight the Turks, there was no country called Turkey in the world. So, he must have meant the Turkic ethnicity. Who are the Turkic people? The Mongols under Genghis Khan; such a war happened. Similarly, regarding any country’s name, even if Muhammad mentioned a country name a thousand years ago, you must interpret it based on what that name referred to in his time.
You cannot create a new meaning a thousand years later and apply it to what he said a thousand years prior. That would not be appropriate. Therefore, even if we assume this hadith is correct, even if it is an authentic hadith, it would mean you should fight in Pakistan, because Sindh is there. At the time of the Prophetﷺ, Pakistan was India. What we now recognize as India was not called India then.
Many wars have occurred in that Pakistan region. The hadith that a war will occur in India and that there will be an aided group there does not refer to the invasions of Delhi, or Malik Kafur’s invasion of Madurai, or the various Muslim kings’ invasions, or Babur’s arrival. They came to Delhi and Agra. That region might have been considered India at that time? It was not part of India as it was during the Prophetﷺ’s time. If we understand this, then this propaganda becomes irrelevant for us.
Regardless of whose statement it is, suppose I am speaking about India today. I say something about the India we live in, and then I die. Five hundred years later, people take my speech, but India has changed drastically by then. How should they interpret my statement? They should interpret it based on what India was when I spoke. Similarly, every person who mentions a country’s name refers to what that country was at the time of mentioning. How many countries have we seen form, split, scatter, merge, change? The Soviet Union existed, a union of countries. Does it exist today? Russia is separate, and the other countries are separate.
So, in such a geopolitical structure, names and boundaries constantly change. Scholars of religion must have this knowledge. What knowledge? This was said 1400 years ago. Whether the Prophetﷺ said India, or Turk, or Iran, or Iraq, we must understand what Iraq was in his time. What was Persia (Fars) in his time? What was Rome in his time? We must consider the geography of his time, not bring in modern changes and try to fit them into his statement; that is foolishness. So, the claim about a war in India is false.
Even if we assume it is correct, people of other faiths won’t understand these nuances. Let’s assume ‘India’ is correct. What was that India? We see with our own eyes how much India has changed. So, if the hadith is indeed correct, it refers to Pakistan. Pakistan is today’s ‘India’ in that context. That’s all ‘India’ meant then. So, the war would have to be fought in Pakistan, not here. This is the first thing to understand.
Furthermore, this hadith appears in Musnad Ahmad. What does it say? It says: “Two groups from my Ummah will be protected by Allahﷻ from the Fire. One group will be those who fight in India (Ghazwat-ul-Hind), and the other group will be those who are with Prophetﷺ Isa (Jesus) in the end times.” This is a narration in Musnad Ahmad. Who narrates it? It is narrated by Thawban. The chain is: Abdul A’la narrates from Luqman bin Amir, who narrates from Abu Bakr bin al-Walid.
This Abu Bakr bin al-Walid is a weak narrator. Luqman bin Amir is also a weak narrator. Due to the weakness of these two narrators, this narration is not acceptable. This hadith is also in Al-Nasa’i. In it, the same two narrators appear. In Al-Nasa’i, it is narrated by Luqman bin Amir, who is unknown, and Abu Bakr bin al-Walid al-Jubaidi, who is also unknown and weak. The same hadith appears in Bayhaqi’s Sunan al-Kubra, narrated by Luqman bin Amir, who is weak.
So, in all these sources, it’s the same weak narrators. There is another narration in Musnad Ahmad with the same weak narrators. This hadith also appears in Al-Tabarani’s Al-Awsat, narrated by Luqman bin Amir, who is unknown. In Al-Tabarani’s Musnad al-Shami, it is also narrated by Luqman bin Amir. So, all versions go back to this unknown person, Luqman bin Amir.
Therefore, based on all this, the hadith about two groups receiving Allahﷻ’s mercy – one with Isa (AS) and one fighting in India – is narrated only through this unknown narrator, Luqman bin Amir, and Abu Bakr al-Jubaidi, who are both unknown. Hence, scholars do not accept this hadith as authentic.
This is not something new said today because of the ‘saffron’ propaganda. A thousand years ago, they had already recorded that this narration is not authentic. But some ignorant ‘alims’ don’t bother with what was written. They think they can use it for their propaganda. You should do it with proper knowledge like this. They have recorded that this is not correct. It seems that ‘alim’ has spoken nonsense. In response, those from the ‘saffron’ side are spreading such videos.
Another hadith on the same topic is narrated by Abu Hurairah. What does it say? The Prophetﷺ promised us the conquest of India. Abu Hurairah says that if he gets that opportunity, he would dedicate his body, wealth, and soul for it. So, does it say the Prophetﷺ promised the conquest of India? In this narration, two weak narrators appear.
One is Ja’far bin ‘Abdillah. He is a weak narrator, with poor memory, and his integrity is not proven. The one narrating from him is Sayyar. Sayyar is also an unknown person. No scholar has praised him. No scholar has given any note about him. So, this hadith is also rejected. Even if we assume it’s correct, when it says the Prophetﷺ promised the conquest of India, what was India then? Pakistan.
There is another narration from Abu Hurairah, where Hasan al-Basri narrates from Abu Hurairah. But Hasan al-Basri never met Abu Hurairah. He is from a later generation. So, he cannot narrate directly from him. The one narrating from Hasan al-Basri is Faraj. Faraj is also a weak narrator. All scholars consider Faraj bin ‘Abdillah al-Kanawi weak. So, this hadith about the Prophetﷺ promising the conquest of India is also weak.
Another similar hadith is in Ibn Abi Hatim’s book “Al-Jihad”. The narrator there is Hashim bin Sayyad. Scholars like Ibn Ma’in and Abu Hatim said he should not be considered. So, a thousand years ago, hadith experts had already dismissed it. This decision is not a recent one made because of the current situation in India and criticism from ‘saffron’ groups. These scholars I mention lived a thousand years ago. They rejected this narration when it was spreading in their time.
Even if we assume it’s correct, the India they referred to did not include the India we live in now. That’s an important point. Another hadith in “Al-Fitan” also mentions this. It is a narration from Abu Hurairah, but it doesn’t mention who narrated from Abu Hurairah; it just says, “from a man from Abu Hurairah”. In hadith, such a narration is not accepted. It should specify who Abu Hurairah told. There is a missing link.
This also makes the hadith unreliable. So, none of the hadiths on this topic are authentic. There are two types: one narrated by the Sahabi Thawban, which has weak narrators like the unknown Luqman and Abu Bakr al-Jubaidi; and another narrated by Abu Hurairah, which also has weak narrators like Ja’far and Sayyar, or Faraj and Hasan al-Basri (who didn’t meet). So, the concept of waging war in India is a false one.
However, we don’t need to be angry with the person criticizing this. Why? Because you yourselves spread this by calling it a hadith. If you say it’s in the hadith, and then someone criticizes it, the full responsibility lies with the ‘alim’ who delivered the sermon. He should have the proper knowledge before speaking about hadith, especially controversial ones. Only someone with knowledge of hadith should speak on them.
The ‘alim’ he mentioned seems to be a foolish ‘alim’. If he was a true scholar, he wouldn’t have read and spread it. So, the critic is responding to what you said. The mistake lies with us. When we convey such information, we must explain it clearly to the people.
Three things need to be said:
1) If any hadith mentions a war in India, we must interpret ‘India’ as what it meant at that time.
2) The hadith narrated through the Sahabi Thawban is weak, and we have explained why.
3) The hadith narrated through Abu Hurairah is also weak, and we have explained why.
These are the three points. So, when they spread this, we need to provide this clarification. They ask, “Why are you saying this when we don’t even accept such things?” But our weakness is that this person gave a sermon as if it were proven hadith. This is the criticism that arises from such ignorant ‘alims’ (religious scholars).
So, it should be Understood like this.