Over the decades, the identity politics that was once seen as a pathway for the oppressed to voice their anguish and exploitation has transformed. Today, it has been made into a weapon for the oppressors to ostracise the exploited and the oppressed. Here, language has played an imperative role in shaping the rhetoric of identity politics, operating as a dominant discourse in stating every aspect of people’s lives.

The ‘mal-appropriation' of words and phrases to ostracise minorities has been rampant in recent times. Yesterday, at the centenary celebrations of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh , the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath invoked the phrase ‘political Islam’ in Gorakhpur, as he called for a complete ban on halal-certified products in the state. The preposterous argument by the chief minister suggested that the revenue generated through the sale of halal-certified products was directly linked to ‘Love Jihad’.

However, this instance of wrong Islamic appellations is not in isolation. The recent spate of incarcerations of hundreds of Muslim men as they carried out the Barawafaat (Prophet’s birth) procession in Kanpur, who were holding placards that read ‘I Love Muhammad’, is another case in point. This act was perceived as a threat by the ruling regime, which invoked the rhetoric of ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ to target the community.

‘Religion’ as a metaphysical category does not create political identities. However, today, being a Muslim bears a burden, and invoking selective religious slogans plays a crucial role in creating vitriolic rhetoric against the minorities in this country.

The invocation of ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ and its perpetual repetition by the ruling state government of Uttar Pradesh serve to further demonise the community and its intentions. By selectively choosing references and phrases from the Islamic traditions and then twisting their meaning to propagate them as a threat to the nation, along with the bans on wearing religious symbols or stigmatising communities based on inauthentic traditions, they, in fact, violate the secular and pluralistic principles enshrined in the constitution.

Also read: Satvik vs Halal: Exclusion Served with a Side of Communal Politics

When weak hadiths like ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ are misused to jeopardise the existence of an already marginalised community, it is both religiously illegitimate and politically destructive. For the sake of argument, if one wants to argue that this weak hadith is authentic, it must be contextualised. This could refer to the early engagements of Muslim frontiersmen during the era of the caliphs, guided by correct principles of just war: protection of civilians, limited scope of conflict and adherence to Qur’anic ethics. It cannot be applied retroactively to justify later imperial conquests, nor can it legitimise modern extremist violence – and, most importantly, it cannot be used to justify campaigns against Muslims and their right to practise religion.

Authentic hadiths provide a clearer guide for Muslim conduct, such as sayings of the Prophet Muhammad narrated by Abu Hurairah, companion of the Prophet. One example: “The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the people are safe, and the believer is the one from whom the people’s lives and wealth are safe.” This guidance defies any attempt to glorify violence or to instrumentalise religion for political gain.

Despite the fact that they are zayeef (weak, unsound), these obscure narrations are being weaponised in political rhetoric. Extremist groups have invoked them to justify terror, and now, political leaders use them as a pretext to brand Islam as inherently violent. This is not only theologically unsound but also profoundly dangerous in a region where two nuclear-armed states remain in tension.

In their bid to further polarise a nation suffocating under communal strife, the custodians of democracy – including leaders of state governments such as Yogi Adityanath – allow and perpetuate inflammatory statements about Islam to shape national discourse. They not only disrupt public order but also erode democratic values. To equate Islam with a distorted, obscure and rejected tradition, and to reduce the Prophet of Peace to a misquoted, inauthentic saying, is a grave injustice. It misrepresents his true spirit, one of peace, justice and protection of humanity.

Rummaging for obsolete, weak or inauthentic hadiths and announcing them from pulpits is really only an attempt to shred the sarva dharma sambhava spirit of our constitution.

Syeda Hameed is a writer and the founder chair of the Muslim Women’s Forum.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.