Muslim and Hindu leaders who were loyalists of British Empire

[Multani]

It is well known he was a friend of the Sharifs of Mecca and so was pro British, whether or not he took money from them is irrelevant in my view. Nonetheless the point is if someone invades your home country and occupies it then as Muslim you must be ready to fight, anybody who says otherwise and goes ahead and issues a fatwa in said regard has betrayed his faith.

That is BS, at the time Muslim-Hindu relations were not at a boiling point like the time of partition.

@FaujHistorian looks like the author is an Ahmadi, are you an Ahmadi yourself? You know it is so much easier to find Ghulam Ahmad's statements backing the British than to confirm any of the narratives presented here but he dismisses the accusation against the founder of Ahmadiya while denouncing others when their is so much more proof against the former LOL.

He was not pro-British. He hated them. He respected the Sharifs as they were Husayni Sayyids and protected Ulama in Hijaz.

There are Shariat Rules to apply before declaring " jihad". There are strict conditions and procedures to follow. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was not like jahil ISIS/TTP wahabis. He was a Hanafi jurist. It is the job of the jurist to weigh all options.

To explain to you using an easier example, Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was staunchly against the Khilafat Movement, because it meant greater harm to the Muslims of india. He was a jurist. He had to weigh all options. It is senseless to assume that Muslims leave and migrate to Afghanistan. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan knew that the Khilafat movement was a plan by the hindus to remove Muslims and take over their properties and land. And secondly, Afghanistan cannot take in all indian muslims. It was impossible for that time and circumstances. So he ruled against Khilafat Movement.

The British in india did not persecute the Muslims. They infact led to development in Punjab plains and northern india. Muslims were not at harm from them but were prospering. What happened in 1857, was long gone by the time of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan. And he ruled according to his own time and circumstances.

 

[KingMamba]

Well said. Even though I am not an Ahmadi, but I do stand by them and other Pakistani minorities for their right to prosper in our beautiful country.

Based on my studies, Mirza GA abhorred the militant Islam aka TTP like people.

Perhaps he was correct if we see the horrible atrocities committed by TTP on our own 50,000 people.

No doubt I agree with that and I already mentioned their leadership helped in the creation of Pakistan later but that does not mean they should distort history.
He abhorred Jihad itself saying that Brits should not be fought against he was by most accounts their agent who was told to create a sect to counter the Deobandis. Brits did the same in Arabia when they facilitated the takeover of the peninsula by the Wahabbis.

He was not pro-British. He hated them. He respected the Sharifs as they were Husayni Sayyids and protected Ulama in Hijaz.

There are Shariat Rules to apply before declaring " jihad". There are strict conditions and procedures to follow. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was not like jahil ISIS/TTP wahabis. He was a Hanafi jurist. It is the job of the jurist to weigh all options.

To explain to you using an easier example, Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was staunchly against the Khilafat Movement, because it meant greater harm to the Muslims of india. He was a jurist. He had to weigh all options. It is senseless to assume that Muslims leave and migrate to Afghanistan. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan knew that the Khilafat movement was a plan by the hindus to remove Muslims and take over their properties and land. And secondly, Afghanistan cannot take in all indian muslims. It was impossible for that time and circumstances. So he ruled against Khilafat Movement.

The British in india did not persecute the Muslims. They infact led to development in Punjab plains and northern india. Muslims were not at harm from them but were prospering. What happened in 1857, was long and gone by the time of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan. And he ruled according to his own time and circumstances.

Okay I can accept your explanation, I don't care either way I do not ascribe to any of these firqas but here is food for your thought written by noted British historians,

Francis Robinson , author of numerous books on the Muslims of South Asia, writes: “The actions of one learned man, the very influential Ahmed Rada Khan, Bareilly, present our conclusion yet more clearly. He was the foremost supporter of unreformed Sufism in India…At the same time he supported the colonial government loudly and vigorously, through out World War I, and the Khilafat Movement…Adherence to local, custom-centered Islam, and opposition to Internationally conscious reformed Islam, seemed to go hand in hand with support for colonial rule.” In his another book, Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces' Muslims, 1860-1923 (Paperback, 2007) Series: Cambridge South Asian Studies, Francis Robinson writes: “It is not clear where the Berailly school had its strongholds but Mashriq of Gorakhpur and Al-Bashir usually took notice of pro-government fatwas of Ahmed Raza Khan, and it seems that school’s permissive thinking on Islamic practice appealed especially to certain low status groups in Islamic society. The school adhered to corruption of Islam such as saint worship and intercession at tombs; these were common among converts, particularly in the rural areas, where often there were considerable similarities between Hindu and Muslim practices.”On p422 on the same book, Robinson writes about Ahmed Raza Khan:“Nevertheless his normal stand was of support for the government and he supported it throughout World War I, he opposed the Khilafat Movement, and in 1921 organized a conference of anti-non-cooperation Ulama at Bareily. He had considerable influence with the masses but was not favored by educated Muslims.

Peter Hardi on p171 of The Muslims of British India paints a clear picture about different schools that were present at that time in the sub-Continent. He writes:“The collection of fatawa by Deobandi Ulama are of immense importance for understanding the pre-occupation of the Indian Muslims. The Ulama of Deoband prided themselves on being Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama, accepting the authority of the four orthodox Sunni mazahib, opposed to the Ahle Hadith, to the Ulama of Bariely schools, with their acceptance of intercession of saints and worship at the tombs and their ascription of semi divine qualities to the prophet, to the teaching of Sir Syed Khan Ahmed and the Ahmadiya.” He continues:“The prestige of Deoband as the active, confident and watchful guardian of the Sunni Islam was enhanced by its struggle against a new interpretation of Islam, which appeared in the late nineteenth century – the Ahmadiya – what engaged orthodox opinion was Mirza Ghulam’s Ahmed apparent challenge to the fundamental doctrine of KHATAM-E-NABUWWAT.” And on p170, he writes:“The most vital school of Ulama in India in the second half of the nineteenth century was centered upon Deoband, the Dar-ul-Uloom founded in 1867.”In the same book on p272, he goes on to say:“For every Alim [scholar] who issued a fatwa that India was Dar-ul-Harb, there would be one who declared that it was Dar-ul-Islam. Deoband represented the first response.” Now what did he have to say about founder of Beralwi madhab? “Ahmad Raza Khan of Bereily issued fatwa declaring India to be Dar-ul-Islam, making it a sin to associate with infidels [Hindus, against the British].”Ahmed Raza Khan had found few individuals who carried onto his mission even after his death. Two of those individuals were Abdul Hamid Badawni and Abdul Majid Badawani. Ahmed Raza Khan has highly praised Abdul Majid Badawani and his brother. Now what did P. Hardi had to say about these two brothers? He writes on p272 on the same book:“For their activates the brothers. Abdul Hamid and Abdul Majid were well rewarded by the government. Medals denotation the title of Shams-ul-Ulama dangled from their turbans, while for his anti-Khilafat work Abdul Majid was one of the most rewarded men in the province. At a provisional durbar in 1922, he received from the Harcourt Butler both a robe and a sword of honor.”Sadly, Ahmed Raza Khan died in 1921 or he would have also been invited to his court and honored with valuable gifts. When members of Majlis Maeed al-Islam sent their envoy to meet the Viceroy in 1917, who was part of that mission? P. Hardi writes:“Abdul Majid of Badaun, Wiliyat Hussain of Allahabad, Ahmed Raza Khan of Bariely and the two leading Shia Mujtahids of Lukhnow.”“The deputation was to include Shia Mujtahids as well as Wilayat Hussain of Allahabad and Ahmed Raza Khan of Bariely. The Deobandis characteristically objected to coming in with the Lukhnow lot.”So from above it is clear that Beralwis supported the British along with Shias and Qadyanis. Lastly, let us look at the role of Deobandi scholars against the British occupiers and their efforts to save the Ottoman Empire. P. Hardi writes on p86-187:“Despite Meston’s complacency in 1915 some Muslims from among the Ulama did engage in fifth column work against the British during the war of 1914-18. A leading alim belong to Deoband Mahmud al-Hassan Shaykh al-Islam [1851-1920] left for the Hijaz in 1915 in order to contact Turks. After meeting with Enwar Pasha [1881-1922] and Jamal Pasha [1861-1922] he was detained by Shareef Hussain’s men when they rose in revolt against the Turks and handed over to the British who interred him in Malta between 1917-1920. One of his aids Mawlana Ubaidullah Sindi went to Afghanistan and worked with German and Turkish agents there to stir up the tribesmen against the British in the North Frontier.”

This is written using Orientalist British sources which seem to state that the Barelvi movement along with the Qadianis were pro British. Now it also includes Shia and I have read elsewhere accusations against Aga Khanis especially but I think we can disregard the Aga Khani pro British position because they were indebted to the Brits for the very life of their Imam at one point.

 

[Multani]

No doubt I agree with that and I already mentioned their leadership helped in the creation of Pakistan later but that does not mean they should distort history.
He abhorred Jihad itself saying that Brits should not be fought against he was by most accounts their agent who was told to create a sect to counter the Deobandis. Brits did the same in Arabia when they facilitated the takeover of the peninsula by the Wahabbis.



Okay I can accept your explanation, I don't care either way I do not ascribe to any of these firqas but here is food for your thought written by noted British historians,

Francis Robinson , author of numerous books on the Muslims of South Asia, writes: “The actions of one learned man, the very influential Ahmed Rada Khan, Bareilly, present our conclusion yet more clearly. He was the foremost supporter of unreformed Sufism in India…At the same time he supported the colonial government loudly and vigorously, through out World War I, and the Khilafat Movement…Adherence to local, custom-centered Islam, and opposition to Internationally conscious reformed Islam, seemed to go hand in hand with support for colonial rule.” In his another book, Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces' Muslims, 1860-1923 (Paperback, 2007) Series: Cambridge South Asian Studies, Francis Robinson writes: “It is not clear where the Berailly school had its strongholds but Mashriq of Gorakhpur and Al-Bashir usually took notice of pro-government fatwas of Ahmed Raza Khan, and it seems that school’s permissive thinking on Islamic practice appealed especially to certain low status groups in Islamic society. The school adhered to corruption of Islam such as saint worship and intercession at tombs; these were common among converts, particularly in the rural areas, where often there were considerable similarities between Hindu and Muslim practices.”On p422 on the same book, Robinson writes about Ahmed Raza Khan:“Nevertheless his normal stand was of support for the government and he supported it throughout World War I, he opposed the Khilafat Movement, and in 1921 organized a conference of anti-non-cooperation Ulama at Bareily. He had considerable influence with the masses but was not favored by educated Muslims.
Peter Hardi on p171 of The Muslims of British India paints a clear picture about different schools that were present at that time in the sub-Continent. He writes:“The collection of fatawa by Deobandi Ulama are of immense importance for understanding the pre-occupation of the Indian Muslims. The Ulama of Deoband prided themselves on being Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama, accepting the authority of the four orthodox Sunni mazahib, opposed to the Ahle Hadith, to the Ulama of Bariely schools, with their acceptance of intercession of saints and worship at the tombs and their ascription of semi divine qualities to the prophet, to the teaching of Sir Syed Khan Ahmed and the Ahmadiya.” He continues:“The prestige of Deoband as the active, confident and watchful guardian of the Sunni Islam was enhanced by its struggle against a new interpretation of Islam, which appeared in the late nineteenth century – the Ahmadiya – what engaged orthodox opinion was Mirza Ghulam’s Ahmed apparent challenge to the fundamental doctrine of KHATAM-E-NABUWWAT.” And on p170, he writes:“The most vital school of Ulama in India in the second half of the nineteenth century was centered upon Deoband, the Dar-ul-Uloom founded in 1867.”In the same book on p272, he goes on to say:“For every Alim [scholar] who issued a fatwa that India was Dar-ul-Harb, there would be one who declared that it was Dar-ul-Islam. Deoband represented the first response.” Now what did he have to say about founder of Beralwi madhab? “Ahmad Raza Khan of Bereily issued fatwa declaring India to be Dar-ul-Islam, making it a sin to associate with infidels [Hindus, against the British].”Ahmed Raza Khan had found few individuals who carried onto his mission even after his death. Two of those individuals were Abdul Hamid Badawni and Abdul Majid Badawani. Ahmed Raza Khan has highly praised Abdul Majid Badawani and his brother. Now what did P. Hardi had to say about these two brothers? He writes on p272 on the same book:“For their activates the brothers. Abdul Hamid and Abdul Majid were well rewarded by the government. Medals denotation the title of Shams-ul-Ulama dangled from their turbans, while for his anti-Khilafat work Abdul Majid was one of the most rewarded men in the province. At a provisional durbar in 1922, he received from the Harcourt Butler both a robe and a sword of honor.”Sadly, Ahmed Raza Khan died in 1921 or he would have also been invited to his court and honored with valuable gifts. When members of Majlis Maeed al-Islam sent their envoy to meet the Viceroy in 1917, who was part of that mission? P. Hardi writes:“Abdul Majid of Badaun, Wiliyat Hussain of Allahabad, Ahmed Raza Khan of Bariely and the two leading Shia Mujtahids of Lukhnow.”“The deputation was to include Shia Mujtahids as well as Wilayat Hussain of Allahabad and Ahmed Raza Khan of Bariely. The Deobandis characteristically objected to coming in with the Lukhnow lot.”So from above it is clear that Beralwis supported the British along with Shias and Qadyanis. Lastly, let us look at the role of Deobandi scholars against the British occupiers and their efforts to save the Ottoman Empire. P. Hardi writes on p86-187:“Despite Meston’s complacency in 1915 some Muslims from among the Ulama did engage in fifth column work against the British during the war of 1914-18. A leading alim belong to Deoband Mahmud al-Hassan Shaykh al-Islam [1851-1920] left for the Hijaz in 1915 in order to contact Turks. After meeting with Enwar Pasha [1881-1922] and Jamal Pasha [1861-1922] he was detained by Shareef Hussain’s men when they rose in revolt against the Turks and handed over to the British who interred him in Malta between 1917-1920. One of his aids Mawlana Ubaidullah Sindi went to Afghanistan and worked with German and Turkish agents there to stir up the tribesmen against the British in the North Frontier.”

This is written using Orientalist British sources which seem to state that the Barelvi movement along with the Qadianis were pro British. Now it also includes Shia and I have read elsewhere accusations against Aga Khanis especially but I think we can disregard the Aga Khani pro British position because they were indebted to the Brits for the very life of their Imam at one point.

Imam Ahmad Rida Khan did not write pro-British fatwas. He wrote rulings after balancing options. If this specific British historian thinks they were "pro-British" , then that is his interpretation. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan had no love for the British. His rulings were not "pro-British".

He refused any participation in politics. He never attended any. Gandhi invited him, but refused famously saying that what purpose he has in politics? He refused to attend nadwatul ulama political gathering in Lucknow for the same reason.

He was more concerned of how to best benefit the Sunni Muslims of india.

He preferred the British over the Hindu for dealings with Muslims, because the British were Ahle Kitab according to Islami Usool.

 

[KingMamba]

Imam Ahmad Rida Khan did not write pro-British fatwas. He wrote rulings after balancing options. If this specific British historian thinks they were "pro-British" , then that is his interpretation. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan had no love for the British. His rulings were not "pro-British".

He refused any participation in politics. He never attended any. Gandhi invited him, but refused famously saying that what purpose he has in politics? He refused to attend nadwatul ulama political gathering in Lucknow for the same reason.

He was more concerned of how to best benefit the Sunni Muslims of india.

He preferred the British over the Hindu for dealings with Muslims, because the British were Ahle Kitab according to Islami Usool.

The last line alone even if we disregard all else would still make him a traitor, like I said Hindu Muslim relations at the time were not as bad and yet he still chose videsi over fellow desis so what else would one call him LOL.

 

[Multani]

No doubt I agree with that and I already mentioned their leadership helped in the creation of Pakistan later but that does not mean they should distort history.
He abhorred Jihad itself saying that Brits should not be fought against he was by most accounts their agent who was told to create a sect to counter the Deobandis. Brits did the same in Arabia when they facilitated the takeover of the peninsula by the Wahabbis.



Okay I can accept your explanation, I don't care either way I do not ascribe to any of these firqas but here is food for your thought written by noted British historians,

Francis Robinson , author of numerous books on the Muslims of South Asia, writes: “The actions of one learned man, the very influential Ahmed Rada Khan, Bareilly, present our conclusion yet more clearly. He was the foremost supporter of unreformed Sufism in India…At the same time he supported the colonial government loudly and vigorously, through out World War I, and the Khilafat Movement…Adherence to local, custom-centered Islam, and opposition to Internationally conscious reformed Islam, seemed to go hand in hand with support for colonial rule.” In his another book, Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces' Muslims, 1860-1923 (Paperback, 2007) Series: Cambridge South Asian Studies, Francis Robinson writes: “It is not clear where the Berailly school had its strongholds but Mashriq of Gorakhpur and Al-Bashir usually took notice of pro-government fatwas of Ahmed Raza Khan, and it seems that school’s permissive thinking on Islamic practice appealed especially to certain low status groups in Islamic society. The school adhered to corruption of Islam such as saint worship and intercession at tombs; these were common among converts, particularly in the rural areas, where often there were considerable similarities between Hindu and Muslim practices.”On p422 on the same book, Robinson writes about Ahmed Raza Khan:“Nevertheless his normal stand was of support for the government and he supported it throughout World War I, he opposed the Khilafat Movement, and in 1921 organized a conference of anti-non-cooperation Ulama at Bareily. He had considerable influence with the masses but was not favored by educated Muslims.
Peter Hardi on p171 of The Muslims of British India paints a clear picture about different schools that were present at that time in the sub-Continent. He writes:“The collection of fatawa by Deobandi Ulama are of immense importance for understanding the pre-occupation of the Indian Muslims. The Ulama of Deoband prided themselves on being Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama, accepting the authority of the four orthodox Sunni mazahib, opposed to the Ahle Hadith, to the Ulama of Bariely schools, with their acceptance of intercession of saints and worship at the tombs and their ascription of semi divine qualities to the prophet, to the teaching of Sir Syed Khan Ahmed and the Ahmadiya.” He continues:“The prestige of Deoband as the active, confident and watchful guardian of the Sunni Islam was enhanced by its struggle against a new interpretation of Islam, which appeared in the late nineteenth century – the Ahmadiya – what engaged orthodox opinion was Mirza Ghulam’s Ahmed apparent challenge to the fundamental doctrine of KHATAM-E-NABUWWAT.” And on p170, he writes:“The most vital school of Ulama in India in the second half of the nineteenth century was centered upon Deoband, the Dar-ul-Uloom founded in 1867.”In the same book on p272, he goes on to say:“For every Alim [scholar] who issued a fatwa that India was Dar-ul-Harb, there would be one who declared that it was Dar-ul-Islam. Deoband represented the first response.” Now what did he have to say about founder of Beralwi madhab? “Ahmad Raza Khan of Bereily issued fatwa declaring India to be Dar-ul-Islam, making it a sin to associate with infidels [Hindus, against the British].”Ahmed Raza Khan had found few individuals who carried onto his mission even after his death. Two of those individuals were Abdul Hamid Badawni and Abdul Majid Badawani. Ahmed Raza Khan has highly praised Abdul Majid Badawani and his brother. Now what did P. Hardi had to say about these two brothers? He writes on p272 on the same book:“For their activates the brothers. Abdul Hamid and Abdul Majid were well rewarded by the government. Medals denotation the title of Shams-ul-Ulama dangled from their turbans, while for his anti-Khilafat work Abdul Majid was one of the most rewarded men in the province. At a provisional durbar in 1922, he received from the Harcourt Butler both a robe and a sword of honor.”Sadly, Ahmed Raza Khan died in 1921 or he would have also been invited to his court and honored with valuable gifts. When members of Majlis Maeed al-Islam sent their envoy to meet the Viceroy in 1917, who was part of that mission? P. Hardi writes:“Abdul Majid of Badaun, Wiliyat Hussain of Allahabad, Ahmed Raza Khan of Bariely and the two leading Shia Mujtahids of Lukhnow.”“The deputation was to include Shia Mujtahids as well as Wilayat Hussain of Allahabad and Ahmed Raza Khan of Bariely. The Deobandis characteristically objected to coming in with the Lukhnow lot.”So from above it is clear that Beralwis supported the British along with Shias and Qadyanis. Lastly, let us look at the role of Deobandi scholars against the British occupiers and their efforts to save the Ottoman Empire. P. Hardi writes on p86-187:“Despite Meston’s complacency in 1915 some Muslims from among the Ulama did engage in fifth column work against the British during the war of 1914-18. A leading alim belong to Deoband Mahmud al-Hassan Shaykh al-Islam [1851-1920] left for the Hijaz in 1915 in order to contact Turks. After meeting with Enwar Pasha [1881-1922] and Jamal Pasha [1861-1922] he was detained by Shareef Hussain’s men when they rose in revolt against the Turks and handed over to the British who interred him in Malta between 1917-1920. One of his aids Mawlana Ubaidullah Sindi went to Afghanistan and worked with German and Turkish agents there to stir up the tribesmen against the British in the North Frontier.”

This is written using Orientalist British sources which seem to state that the Barelvi movement along with the Qadianis were pro British. Now it also includes Shia and I have read elsewhere accusations against Aga Khanis especially but I think we can disregard the Aga Khani pro British position because they were indebted to the Brits for the very life of their Imam at one point.

We should ask this important question. Is there any instance in the life of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, where he was rewarded by the British, or he attended their political gatherings, or sat with them? There is absolutely none.

Extrapolating from the Badauni brothers attendance of a british event and making an assumption against Imam Ahmad Rida Khan shows what an awful piece this is, and clearly flawed. The writer should be honest and not misuse the British orientalist's book.

 

[FaujHistorian]

We should ask this important question. Is there any instance in the life of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, where he was rewarded by the British, or he attended their political gatherings, or sat with them? There is absolutely none.

Extrapolating from the Badauni brothers attendance of a british event and making an assumption against Imam Ahmad Rida Khan shows what an awful piece this is, and clearly flawed. The writer should be honest and not misuse the British orientalist's book.

Multani yaar. just a side note.

We in Pakistan call him Raza.

Why you keep on calling him Reeda?

Trying to spread Arabic culture here or what?



on topic. Why you ignore his pro-British fat fat fatwa?

 

[Levina]

@FaujHistorian
I dont know much about others in the article but I always found Gandhi to be a confused soul.
On one side he would fast and protest against the british and on the other side he helped form Ambulance corps staffed by Indians in Britain during WW1 and also encouraged Indians to join the army and even supported some resolution on it in Delhi. (I am bad at remembering names and dates)
He condemned modern industrialization and yet took lavish donations from industrialists like the Birlas.
On one hand he talked about liberalizing the society on the other hand he suppressed his own wife.
Wherever he went he had an entourage of disciples following him. Once Jinnah pointed that his train fares were lower because he had to book ticket for only one person unlike Gandhi.
Gandhi may not exactly have been on british payroll but his actions did support them, one reason why Subhash chandra Bose decided to go against Gandhi's wishes.

 

[KingMamba]

We should ask this important question. Is there any instance in the life of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, where he was rewarded by the British, or he attended their political gatherings, or sat with them? There is absolutely none.

Extrapolating from the Badauni brothers attendance of a british event and making an assumption against Imam Ahmad Rida Khan shows what an awful piece this is, and clearly flawed. The writer should be honest and not misuse the British orientalist's book.

The British orientalists have no beef in the barelvi-deobandi drama baazi so they will state facts as they were. According to them Deobandis caused trouble for Brits while Barelvis did not. They have provided reasoning for said conclusion now whether or not you accept it is up to you. I for one do not care either way because as far as I am concerned Barelvis vindicated themselves in 1947 whereas Deobandis have become a nuisance for every year since.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here is an excellent essay by mr. hamdani.

show which Muslim Mullahs were on payroll of British.

• Maulana Fazlur Rahman Muradabadi with having facilitated the English capture of Lucknow.
• Maulana Rashid Gangohi, Tazkira-e-Rasheed, on page 80 has the great Deobandi freedom fighter claiming that he was entirely loyal to the British Empire
• Dean of Darul Uloom Deoband, Hafiz Maulana Muhammad Ahmad, was given the title of “Shams-ul-Ulema” by the British governor of UP
• Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi was principally a supporter of British rule and declared jihad against the British to be unlawful.
• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, made his name as a recruiter for the British Empire before and during the First World War. For his stellar services to the British Empire, in 1915 Gandhiji was awarded the Kaiser-e-Hind medal — the highest honour for a loyal British Indian subject.

Please do not forget to read the last paragraph before commenting. Thank you


Loyalists of the British Empire

Almost all Deobandi religious leaders and all Barelvi ulema were on the payroll of the empire. This is how they sustained a living and ample proof can be found in their own books

Yasser Latif Hamdani
July 07, 2014




Canadian activist and polemicist Tarek Fatah, responding to my article ‘Shorish Kashmiri, Azad and partition’ last week (Daily Times, June 30, 2014) thought it wise to declare, on Twitter, that what I had written about Shorish Kashmiri was inspired by Ahmedi propaganda. He declared that no Ahmedi had fought against the British and that the British had sustained the Ahmedi community and rewarded it time and again. This, of course, is the standard line of the mullahs in Pakistan, a line that has been forwarded time and again by Tehreek-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat and Majlis-e-Ahrar. This was also the elaborate fiction that Shorish Kashmiri invented along with Ataullah Shah Bokhari and Mazhar Ali Azhar of Ahrar in the 1940s to attack the Muslim League and discredit it as the authoritative representative of Muslims. What is strange however is that a self-styled progressive refusenik like Fatah, who does not tire of attacking Muslims otherwise, has chosen to repeat this distortion of history.

The biggest issue the scholars of Deobandi and Barelvi schools had with the Ahmedis was that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the sect, had reinterpreted the doctrine of jihad as more than qital (fighting). Consequently, the Ahmedi community as a whole remained constitutional and law-abiding citizens of British India. The Ahmedi religious movement itself had been at the forefront of the missionary activities of the church. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, before founding the Ahmedi sect, had been considered the intellectual champion of Muslims against the onslaught of the Christian west and the re-absorption activities of Hindu sects like the Arya Samajists. A peaceful, hardworking and enterprising community, the Ahmedis produced the likes of Sir Zafrullah Khan who was one of the finest advocates in law, the president of the Muslim League for a while, one of Pakistan’s founders and later head of the International Court of Justice. For this reason, Ahmedis are denounced as British agents even though there is not a single Ahmedi who received any patronage or pension from the British Empire.

Let us, however, look at the roles of those other groups who were considered to be at the forefront of the Independence Movement. That the Hindu reform and revival movement itself owed a great deal to British patronage after 1857 can hardly be disputed. Needless to say, the most celebrated freedom fighter in all of South Asia, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, made his name as a recruiter for the British Empire before and during the First World War. When Jinnah asked Gandhi to join the movement for Indian self-rule, Gandhi’s condescending reply, in olde English, was, “First ye seek the recruiting office” and then the British will open their doors to his petitions. For his stellar services to the British Empire, in 1915 Gandhiji was awarded the Kaiser-e-Hind medal — the highest honour for a loyal British Indian subject.

Hindus were not the only ones to receive this patronage by the empire. Almost all Deobandi religious leaders — supposedly the most militant of anti-British elements — and all Barelvi ulema were on the payroll of the empire. This is how they sustained a living and ample proof can be found in their own books. For example, in Sawanay-e-Qasimi — the biography of Maulana Qasim Nanawatvi — page 103 credits Maulana Fazlur Rahman Muradabadi with having facilitated the English capture of Lucknow. On page 247 of the same book we find that Deobandi religious figures were proud of being pensioners of the British Empire and used it to prove their loyalty to the monarch. The biography of Maulana Rashid Gangohi, Tazkira-e-Rasheed, on page 80 has the great Deobandi freedom fighter claiming that he was entirely loyal to the British Empire. On page 160 of the Tehreek-e-Shaikh-ul-Hind, we find that another ‘freedom fighter’ and the Dean of Darul Uloom Deoband, Hafiz Maulana Muhammad Ahmad, was given the title of “Shams-ul-Ulema” by the British governor of UP. His most famous student was Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, the great ally of the Congress Party and the leader of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind — another ‘freedom fighter’. He is considered a great hero of the freedom movement by Pakistani Islamists and Indian nationalists. The entire Deoband edifice was built on official patronage and British pensions.

Now let us come to the other side of the Hanafi Sunni coin: the Barelvis. Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi was principally a supporter of British rule and declared jihad against the British to be unlawful. His fatwa can be found on page 447 of his treatise Al-Mohajat, Al Mohtamanat Fi Ayat-al-Mumtahanat. Francis Robinson, in his book Separatism Amongst Indian Muslims: The politics of UP Muslims 1860-1923 on page 268 confirms the pro-government fatwas of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi.

Similarly, the Shias by and large remained loyal and law abiding citizens of the empire though it must be said to their credit that, unlike the Barelvis and Deobandis, they were not patronised by the British. A sub-sect of Shia Islam, the Ismailis, both Agha Khanis and Bohris, looked towards the British Raj as a means to protect them from hostile sectarian majorities. Indeed, so close was the relationship of Sir Agha Khan to the British that Kemal Ataturk publicly accused the Agha Khan of working for the British against Turkey, though unjustifiably. Needless to say, Kemal Ataturk himself has also been accused of being a British agent by latter day votaries of the pan-Islamic khilafat.

The point I wish to make is this: people interacted with the empire in different ways. Some people, very few and far between, did take up arms against the empire, more often for reasons wholly unsavoury than noble ones. Others worked within the system or were its beneficiaries. The accusation targeting one community or the other of having been ‘British agents’ is therefore farfetched and wholly unfounded. As free men and women in the 21st century, we should approach modern realities without the rancour that our blinkered views on history cause. As for Tarek Fatah, given his penchant to attack minorities like Ahmedis, the logical question is whether he feels any pang of hypocrisy vis-à-vis the fact that he is a Canadian subject of the Queen of England?

@Azlan Haider, @Joe Shearer (you probably know all this)

Loyalists of the British Empire

A fascinating post.

Some personal observations.

Although YLH is my daughter's age, I have found him an invaluable guide in aspects of Modern Indian History, specifically those relating to the Muslim League, the leadership and personality of M. A. Jinnah, and the events leading to partition and independence. His leadership of a brilliant exchange of ideas on PTH was like participation in an advanced post-graduate seminar, and inspired me to abandon my forty-year old indifference to Modern Indian History and take up research into it with a vengeance. However, compared to him, and given his Urdu skills, I will always be trailing behind him. On certain aspects, especially on questions of the positions of individuals on the freedom struggle, his knowledge is matchless, at the moment, perhaps only equalled, in an unsystematic and brilliant but indisciplined fashion by he who was known as Bloody Civilian on PTH.

I did not know these facts, and am fascinated to read them. It would be appropriate to prepare a similar compendium relating to the Hindu side and to post that. Perhaps over the next three months.

A declaration of personal interest:

1. My mother's mother was awarded a Kaisar-i-Hind medal for her social work, especially with the Guild of Service;
2. My father was a member of the Imperial Police;
3. I have been for a considerable period an employee of a major British aerospace organisation.

With these legacies of the past, I still try to be objective, and not to see too many virtues in the British.

 

[Multani]

The last line alone even if we disregard all else would still make him a traitor, like I said Hindu Muslim relations at the time were not as bad and yet he should videsi over fellow desis so what else would one call him LOL.

That is a very extreme judgement. You know what a traitor means.

Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was not a traitor to the Islamic cause. He was a jurist. He had to weigh all options available to Muslims of india based on ground realities and Islamic principles. According to Shariat, india was Dar al Islam.

He advised Muslims to be a separate nation apart from the hindus. He cautioned Muslims against the British, because he considered the British the enemies of Islam.

But, based on ground realities in india, and shariat rules,

 

[Joe Shearer]

@FaujHistorian

How about the leaders of the Muslim league? - I read they were quite close to the British empire - lackeys even.

Different individual leaders had different individual profiles - naturally! - so you may have to be more specific. Which leaders?

Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was once sent a letter with the Queen's stamp on it. He sent the letter back but with the stamp now placed upside down. He did not engage in politics, and never accepted any money whatsoever from the British.

What a pathetic way of displaying sturdy independence of character and resistance to the colonial power! Are you sure that he did not also pass portraits of the Queen invariably presenting his back to the portrait? Must have terrified the British.

 

[Multani]

The British orientalists have no beef in the barelvi-deobandi drama baazi so they will state facts as they were. According to them Deobandis caused trouble for Brits while Barelvis did not. They have provided reasoning for said conclusion now whether or not you accept it is up to you. I for one do not care either way because as far as I am concerned Barelvis vindicated themselves in 1947 whereas Deobandis have become a nuisance for every year since.

The British orientalist is wrong about Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, plain and simple. And this ahmedi author has added to the twist and is lying

These British orientalists have spread a lot of lies against Islam and Muslims all over the world. Especially their preaching to the masses of the mis-conception that Sufism is perennialism.

Different individual leaders had different individual profiles - naturally! - so you may have to be more specific. Which leaders?



What a pathetic way of displaying sturdy independence of character and resistance to the colonial power! Are you sure that he did not also pass portraits of the Queen invariably presenting his back to the portrait? Must have terrified the British.

He never wanted to meet that gandhi, the imposter

 

[Psycho Pakistani]

The British orientalist is wrong about Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, plan and simple. And this ahmedi author has added to the twist and is lying

These British orientalists have spread a lot of lies against Islam and Muslims all over the world. Especially their preaching to the masses of the mis-conception that Sufism is perennialism.



He never wanted to meet that gandhi, the imposter

Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi will be the last person to be an agent of British. He could have given legitimacy to many "Bidaa" but he was never ever an agent of British, Almost all the Barelvi Molvis were pro-pakistan during independence movement whereas many Deobandi molvis were staunch Congress supporter and anti-pakistan.

 

[Multani]

Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi will be the last person to be an agent of British. He could have given legitimacy to many "Bidaa" but he was never ever an agent of British, Almost all the Barelvi Molvis were pro-pakistan during independence movement whereas many Deobandi molvis were staunch Congress supporter and anti-pakistan.

Imam Ahmad Rida Khan and his sons were against the creation of Pakistan

 

[FaujHistorian]

The British orientalist has no beef in the barelvi-deobandi drama baazi so they will state facts as they were. According to them Deobandis caused trouble for Brits while Barelvis did not. They have provided reasoning for said conclusion now whether or not you accept it is up to you. I for one do not care either way because as far as I am concerned Barelvis vindicated themselves in 1947 whereas Deobandis have become a nuisance for every year since.

may be some deobandis caused troubles but the following were pro-brit mullahs.

• Maulana Fazlur Rahman Muradabadi with having facilitated the English capture of Lucknow.
• Maulana Rashid Gangohi, Tazkira-e-Rasheed, on page 80 has the great Deobandi freedom fighter claiming that he was entirely loyal to the British Empire
• Dean of Darul Uloom Deoband, Hafiz Maulana Muhammad Ahmad, was given the title of “Shams-ul-Ulema” by the British governor of UP
  

..........