Muslims Have No Monopoly On Muhammad (PBUH) — And Why Claiming One Harms Us All: A Theological And Historical Reminder!

By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam 3 October 2025 The ethical way forward is peaceful scholarship, service and responsible leadership: True love for the holy Prophet (pbuh) is shown through humility, lawful conduct, interfaith respect, social welfare and media responsibility — not street power or viral outrage. Main Points: 1. Love for the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be monopolised by any group or sect: The recent “I Love Muhammad” campaign, especially in Bareilly, shows how spiritual devotion gets distorted when claimed as the exclusive property of a particular sect, cleric or political faction. 2. Politicising prophetic devotion leads to violence, repression and communal backlash: When slogans of love turn into street mobilisation and confrontation, they shift from spirituality to identity politics — resulting in FIRs, arrests, state crackdowns and negative media portrayal. 3. History and theology show that prophetic reverence has many peaceful expressions: Across Islamic history, devotion was expressed through poetry, service, scholarship and compassion — not coercive demonstrations. No cult or group owns the holy Prophet’s message. 4. Monopoly over devotion harms Muslims internally and externally: It fractures intra-Muslim unity, empowers state surveillance and fuels public mistrust — pushing Muslims further into isolation and suspicion. ----- In an earlier article at this portal nearly a month ago, this writer had reminded with a caution: "Literalist/fundamentalist groups such as the Ahl-e-Hadis, Salafis and Deobandis, as well as certain sections of the Barelwis—particularly those influenced by Pakistan-based movements such as Tahrik-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) and Dawat-e-Islami Pakistan—have, at times, displayed intolerant or exclusionary behaviours”. The recent “I Love Muhammad PBUH” movement across the nation and the subsequent arrest of noted Barelwi cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan — followed by clashes, mass FIRs and widespread detentions — was anticipated in the context of what was warned of. Now it should force a difficult but necessary conversation inside Muslim community across sects and denominations: love for the holy Prophet (pbuh) is not, and must not become, a monopoly of any one group, cult, political actor, or method of protest. What began as a slogan intended to affirm devotion has been rapidly politicised, weaponised on social media, and transformed into a street flashpoint that has done more harm than good. On and after the “I Love Muhammad PBUH” demonstrations, authorities say stone-pelting, vandalism and attacks on security personnel followed; large numbers of people were detained, cases were registered and several leaders, including one of the grandsons of prominent Islamic theologian Aala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Fazil e Barelwi—Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, were arrested and sent to custody. Police reports and press investigations also allege that organised online mobilisation and an “online toolkit” helped spread calls to gather. At the same time, the current Barelwi leadership and family members of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan have complained of heavy-handed policing and “police excesses.” Now this should alarm the Indian Muslims who genuinely love the holy Prophet (pbuh). Love for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is central to the life of Muslims everywhere. Yet these recent events surrounding the “I Love Muhammad” campaign in Uttar Pradesh — which culminated in violent clashes in Bareilly, mass FIRs, and the arrest of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan and numerous followers — force an urgent question: can any group legitimately monopolise a Prophet whose life and message were addressed to the whole of humanity? These events clearly show how prophetic devotion, when mixed with spectacle, coercion, or partisan mobilization, becomes a hazard to both religious dignity and public peace. Three key phenomena have emerged from this scenario: Shrinking the Prophet to a political emblem. Devotion to the Prophet (pbuh) is a spiritual reality that transcends politics, religious sects and sectarian schools. When a slogan such as “I Love Muhammad” is commandeered by a political actor or used as a rallying cry for a mobilised crowd, it shifts the conversation from spiritual devotion to identity politics. That makes the holy Prophet’s name into a tribal banner — and every banner invites a rival. This is how spiritual reverence becomes a pretext for confrontation between religious groups and communities, and subsequently between the state and a particular community. It hands the narrative to hostile actors. Once protests turn into scenes of violence or property damage, the incident ceases to be about sincere love and becomes a security story for state authorities and a talking point for polarising media. The result is what was already predictable: arrests, FIRs, curbs and curtailment of freedoms and emotional retrenchment among both majority and minority communities — exactly the opposite of the calm and peace that the prophetic devotion ought to bring. It legitimises vigilante or coercive forms of “defence.” Communities sometimes feel the need to visibly defend sacred figures; but when that defence is led by hotheads, opportunistic leaders, ‘faith professionals’ or crowds swayed by religious rhetoric rather than scholarship, it can normalize coercive behaviour — and invite legal consequences. The Bareilly cases show how a mobilisation intended as a public display of love can cross into violence and criminal liability for organisers and participants. A Theological And Historical Reminder! Across Islamic history, piety toward the holy Prophet has been expressed in many registers: poetry, scholarship, quiet Sufi devotion, public sermons, social welfare, and respectful debate. No single group — whether Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Barelvi, Deobandi, or any political movement — has an exclusive claim on him. The Prophet’s life and message were lived as a bridge between faith and plural society; reducing him to a party slogan is a misreading of that legacy. Political or politicized clerics such as the head of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC) Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan sahib were not aware of the practical risks of a monopoly claim over love and devotion for the Prophet (pbuh). As a result, their mobilization and unpragmatic attempts have led to the following issues further deepening the predicament or malaise of Muslims across the country: Fracturing intra-Muslim unity. When devotion becomes a marker of who “owns” religious identity, intra-community debates harden into factionalism. Energy that could be spent on social uplift, education, and communal harmony gets diverted to contests over authority and ritual. Empowering the state’s security logic. The state often responds to unrest with criminal law and force. Protests that veer toward lawlessness invite a security response that can then be used to justify wider suppression of dissent. The arrests, bulldozer actions and mass FIRs reported around Bareilly are an illustration of that dynamic. Damaging public opinion. Violence and coercion alienate potential allies and confirm negative stereotypes — making it harder to advance the community’s larger interests. These issues matter because they show the precise ideological fault-line: a devotional slogan became the nucleus of a mass mobilisation with political overtones, and that mobilisation collided with law enforcement in a way that produced arrests, injuries and social disruption. The question the community must now address is not merely legal or political; it is more of an ethical and theological nature. Claiming a monopoly on the Prophet’s love is a gross theological and moral error. The reason is not difficult to see. The holy Prophet’s legacy is universal, not tribal. The Qur’an frames the Prophet (pbuh) as a mercy to all worlds (Rahmatan Lil-‘Alamin). Islam’s own classical and modern progressive traditions widen the Prophet’s role beyond narrow communal boundaries: he is a model of compassion, justice, and moral repair for all people. To treat devotion as a sectarian or political credential is to reduce the holy Prophet’s moral authority into a badge that can be brandished to produce conformity or to justify coercion. Furthermore, religious reverence is not won by force. Love is shown in acts of worship, service, knowledge, and humility — not by rallies, threats, or policing of expression. When leaders organise mass demonstrations whose tenor becomes coercive, the result is not respect but resentment, and sometimes a loss of credibility for the very values they claim to defend. Such a monopoly breeds exclusion and hypocrisy. If a religious symbol is publicly framed as “owned” by a subgroup, everyone outside that subgroup becomes suspect. This undermines intra-faith pluralism and the prophetic example of toleration of unity in diversity. The Prophet’s own practice — living as a neighbour, negotiating with plural communities, and engaging in compassionate outreach — runs counter to such attempts to fence devotion into narrow tribal property. The Politics Of “Slogans” And The Danger Of Spectacle! Slogans—especially short, emotionally potent ones like “I Love Muhammad”—are politically useful. They condense identity into a single slogan and can quickly mobilise people. But slogans are double-edged: they can unify, but they can also be weaponised into identity-claims that demand public validation. In an environment in which online virality and offline mobilisation feed each other, a slogan can change its texture from devotional to political in hours. That’s what happened in Bareilly: what began as a public expression turned, according to authorities, into a pre-planned mass mobilisation that escalated into violence, giving the state a security imperative and inviting arrests. When religious expression becomes performative mass spectacle, it invites three predictable outcomes: (a) it polarises public opinion, (b) it provides the state with a legal pretext for suppression in the name of law-and-order, and (c) it validates aggrieved responses from hostile actors who point to the unrest as justification for countermeasures. None of these outcomes protect the Prophet; all diminish the moral force of devotion. Thus, there are legal and civic risks of monopoly claims. Monopolising religious devotion also corrodes the internal solidarity of the Muslim community. When a particular group claims exclusive ownership of an emblem of faith, intra-faith debates harden into factional hostilities. Energy that could be devoted to education, social welfare, or constructive interfaith engagement is instead channelled into contests over symbols and authority. Moreover, episodes of violent protest feed negative public narratives about the community at large, making it harder for moderates and reformers to build bridges and shape public opinion. The Ala Hazrat family’s own statement decrying police excesses shows the internal dilemma: even within the same tradition there are competing views about tactics and accountability. This is not just a dispute about leadership; it is a claim about who gets to speak in the name of the Prophet — and that claim matters for communal coherence. Constructive Alternatives And Measures For Mitigation! Return to scholarship and example. Let well-versed theologians, thinkers, established scholars, educators and teachers lead public expressions of devotion: symposiums, interfaith sessions, and public service projects that reflect the holy Prophet’s ethical teachings. These are harder for opponents to caricature and harder for the state to clamp down upon without looking plainly repressive. Insist on lawfulness and non-violence. A public demonstration of love that breaks the law weakens the moral authority of the claim. If the goal is respect for religious figures, it should be pursued through lawful, peaceful means — and with an understanding of the plural and fragile public sphere in which we live, in a pluralist polity like India. Build cross-community forums of respect. Engage in dialogues with other communities about shared values: compassion, protection of the weak, respect for faith. Such engagement reduces the zero-sum framing — “your reverence vs my insult” — and replaces it with shared standards for public conduct. Accountability for leaders. Religious leadership carries responsibility. Leaders who mobilise crowds must be accountable for preventing violence and misinformation. Where leaders cross legal or moral lines, communities should have mechanisms (such as ethical councils, independent ulema committees, or internal inquiries) to examine conduct and, when necessary, censure or correct. Curb misinformation and weaponised social media. The Bareilly episode shows how coordinated online tools can rapidly escalate local tensions; communities must cultivate media literacy and refuse to be tools in viral mobilisation that trades on rage. A Final Plea: Love Without Lockdown! Love for the holy Prophet (pbuh) is a deeply personal and communal treasure. It should expand hearts, encourage service, and build bridges. When it becomes a monopoly, weapon or political brand, it withers into a battleground. Muslims in India — and everywhere — must resist the temptations of spectacle and factional ownership. Preserve the dignity of the holy Prophet’s name through humility, learning, non-violence and ethical public engagement. That is the best and truest defence of his honor, and the only path that will keep communities safe, respected and spiritually alive. ----- A Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar, Sufi poet and English-Arabic-Urdu-Hindi writer with a background in a leading Sufi Islamic seminary in India. He is currently serving as Head of International Affairs at Voice for Peace & Justice, Jammu & Kashmir. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/muslims-monopoly-muhammad-pbuh-theological-historical/d/137090 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism