Muslim and Hindu leaders who were loyalists of British Empire

[KingMamba]

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,

You are blinded by your reverence for the man, at worst he betrayed the faith by declaring jihad as impermissible without having the authority to do so and at the very least he supported firangis over locals and that would make it a traitor of the nation at the time.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I hope you are not one of those who favours persecutions of the Ahmedis. This conversation has taken on a sinister tinge.

 

[KingMamba]

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

..........

I already mentioned the first two and you cannot call them pro Brit, I may have read up on a different fazlur rahman muradabadi but I doubt it. The middle dude I cannot find that work that is mentioned, can you provide the sources in reading format for the first two?

 

[FaujHistorian]

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

damn mullahs.

$tupid loag working against the interest of common man.

sadly.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

In all probability the author is a Shia. AFAIK, he is not himself an Ahmedi, but deplores their prosecution.

 

[Psycho Pakistani]

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

I am talking about most of the Barelvi molvis, off course not all of them would be pro-pakistan.

 

[KingMamba]

I hope you are not one of those who favours persecutions of the Ahmedis. This conversation has taken on a sinister tinge.

I have religious differences with them yes and that any Ahmadi on this site who I have spoken to will tell you but that is irrelevant to my statement which has entirely to do with the authors narrative of history being blinded by his bias. No, I do not favor their persecution.

Like I said I am not Barelvi, Deobandi or an Ahmadi so it does not concern me who was a British stooge or not however the author puts the former two groups leadership into the British camp while disregarding the latter entirely although you can easily find sources that put the latter into the British camp and they are more numerous at that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am weak in history and not too fond of it either - I would need back up here. @Contrarian, @Joe Shearer, @Capt.Popeye[/UameSER], @[USER=24361]Bang Galore.[/USER]

I would suggest that you name the individuals concerned and seek an opinion.

 

[FaujHistorian]

In all probability the author is a Shia. AFAIK, he is not himself an Ahmedi, but deplores their prosecution.

sadly so many of us are so deluded and so hateful that anyone standing up (even virtually) for the minorities immediately gets labeled as minority and thus liable to punishment of apostasy. Look what happened to Gov Taseer at the hands of a Brelvi nutjob

Oh how low have we fallen as a nation and as a community.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have religious differences with them yes and that any Ahmadi on this site who I have spoken to will tell you but that is irrelevant to my statement which has entirely to do with the authors narrative of history being blinded by his bias. No, I do not favor their persecution.

Like I said I am not Barelvi, Deobandi or an Ahmadi so it does not concern me who was a British stooge or not however the author puts the former two groups leadership into the British camp while disregarding the latter entirely although you can easily find sources that put the latter into the British camp and they are more numerous at that.

I agree that the Ahmedi leaders were not exactly anti-British!

 

[Multani]

You are blinded by your reverence for the man, at worst he betrayed the faith by declaring jihad as impermissible without having the authority to do so and at the very least he supported firangis over locals and that would make it a traitor of the nation at the time.

Do you honestly think our Deen is this fragile? Any tom and harry can rise up and start declaring "jihad" like the maniacs TTP and their ideological freinds ISIS are doing?

Jihad has specific conditions, and only the Hanafi jurist can verify and tell the awaam of their existence. That is the job of jurisprudence. It is for no other reason but examination. It is a serious matter and the lives of Muslims are at stake. India itself according to Shariat [ of all groups including shia and deobandi and ahle hadith ] is Dar al Islam. You cannot have "jihad" in Dar al Islam. Brother i dont think you know about basic islamic principles.

He preferred Ahle Kitab [ christians ] over idol worshippers.[hindus] based on usool.

One of the main Islamic institutions in india is Farangi Mahal of Lucknow. The word "farangi" was not a bad word.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I have religious differences with them yes and that any Ahmadi on this site who I have spoken to will tell you but that is irrelevant to my statement which has entirely to do with the authors narrative of history being blinded by his bias. No, I do not favor their persecution.

Like I said I am not Barelvi, Deobandi or an Ahmadi so it does not concern me who was a British stooge or not however the author puts the former two groups leadership into the British camp while disregarding the latter entirely although you can easily find sources that put the latter into the British camp and they are more numerous at that.

You highness King M,

please read OP. The author does say the following about Mirza GA.

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.

Do you honestly think our Deen is this fragile? Any tom and harry can rise up

It is fragile indeed. Very very fragile. Just see the bralvi dickhead who assassinated Gov Taseer

And the rest of bralvis made the dick as there lingum hero.

There are plenty of examples from Iran to KSA from UK to France as to how Islam is fragile "mome ki naak" to be broken and shattered and bent beyond recognition by the hateful vengeful Mullahs and their blind followers.

Sadly

 

[Multani]

I am talking about most of the Barelvi molvis, off course not all of them would be pro-pakistan.

yes, you are right. The vast majority of Islamic Scholars in Punjab / Sindh / Kashmir and KPK [ who were AhleSunnat ] [ except much of east Punjab beyond sutlej ] were in favour of Pakistan. Why? Because they were native to the lands being proposed as Pakistan and knew about ground realities for Pakistan.

 

[KingMamba]

You highness King M,

please read OP. The author does say the following about Mirza GA.
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.

Jihad always meant more than qital, any Muslim who knows anything about their religion will tell you as such. That is not what he did or else there would not have been so much backlash against him. What he said was physical jihad was no longer necessary and that Muslims should not go up in arms anywhere, here is an example from his own writing which the author seems to have never come into contact with (sic)-

"From my early age till now when I am 65 years of age, I have been engaged , with my pen and tongue, in an important task to turn the hearts of Muslims towards the true love & Goodwill & sympathy for the British Government and to obliterate the idea of Jehad from the hearts of stupid (Muslims). " (Kitab-ul-Bariyah, Roohani Khazain vol 13 p.350)

The rest is true before he declared himself Mahdi and other stuff he was indeed considered a scholar. As for his opposition against the Christian church he was at odds with them because of his claims about Jesus second coming being fulfilled within himself.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.



He never wanted to meet that gandhi, the imposter

And that is the best that you can find to say about this illuminary? Against the physical violence faced by millions, the torture, the imprisonment, the personal sacrifices, the setting aside of all other issues?

He returns a letter with the stamp set upside down, and he never wanted to meet Gandhi, the impostor?

That's it?