Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (d. 1831)

He was a Muslim military as well as religious leader who fought against Sikh rule in the North West of India, and is regarded as mujaddid of the thirteenth century hijra. It is recorded about him:

"When he was going forth to conduct jihad against the Sikhs, a man asked him: `Why do you go so far to fight jihad against the Sikhs, when the British are ruling the country and they are deniers of Islam. Conduct jihad against them in every house and wrest India from them; millions of people will support and help you'…

"He replied: The British government may be deniers of Islam, but they are not oppressing the Muslims, nor preventing them from religious obligations and worship. For what reason then can we fight jihad against them, and needlessly shed the blood of both sides, contrary to the principles of religion."

(Musalmanon Ka Roshan Mustaqbil, by Sayyid Tufail Ahmad, 3rd edition, 1940)

Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheed

He was the deputy of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, and died in a battle against the Sikhs. It is written about him:

[i.]"A man asked, Why do you not give a pronouncement of jihad against the British? He replied: In no way is it obligatory to fight jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in our performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and let not their government be harmed a whit."

(Hayyat Tayyiba, biography by Mirza Hairat of Delhi, 1972 edition, published in Lahore, p. 364)

[ii.]"Maulavi Ismail had announced that `jihad is not valid against the British government in the religious sense, nor do we have any dispute with them; we are only retaliating against the Sikhs for our brothers.' This was why the British rulers knew nothing, and did not stop his preparations."

(ibid., p. 201)

[iii.]"This was the reason why Maulavi Ismail of Delhi, who knew the Quran and Hadith, and acted upon them, did not fight in his country India against the British, under whose peace and protection he lived, nor did he fight the states of this country. Outside this country, he fought the Sikhs who interfered in the religious practices of the Muslims, prohibiting the loud sounding of the Azan."

(Al-Iqtisad fi masa'il al-jihad, by Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, published 1876, pp. 49--50)

Maulana Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi (d. 1902)

He was the top-most Ahl-i Hadith theologian.

[i.]In a fatwa, he wrote:

"Since the criterion of jihad is absent from this land, to conduct jihad here would be a means of destruction and a sin."

(Fatawa Naziriyya, vol. iv, p. 472)

[ii.] t is noted about him:

"In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it."

(Magazine Isha`at as-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, p. 288)

Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi

He was an Ahl-i Hadith leader and editor of Isha`at as-Sunna, who opposed Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad after his claim to be the Promised Messiah. In a book on jihad, he wrote:

"Uninformed Muslims should examine this implication and bear it in mind, and not consider fighting with every rival faith on account of its unbelief to be legal jihad. To fight with peaceful or covenanted people most definitely cannot be legal jihad, whether national or religious, but is rebellion and sedition. The Muslims who took part in the 1857 rebellion were serious sinners, and according to the Quran and Hadith they were rebels, mischief makers and wicked. Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts. Those known as the prominent and the Ulama were unacquainted with true faith, or lacking in understanding."

(Al-Iqtisad fi masa'il al-Jihad, p. 49)

Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal

He was an eminent Ahl-i Hadith religious scholar as well as political leader. In his book Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, he wrote:

[i.]"This book has been written to inform the British government that no Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power."

(Edition published in Lahore, 1895, p. 4)

[ii.]"Be concerned about those people who are ignorant of their religious teachings, in that they wish to efface the British government, and to end the current peace and tranquility by disorder under the name of jihad. This is sheer stupidity and foolishness." (p. 7)

[iii.]"During the mutiny [of 1857], some rajas and so-called nawabs and men of means interfered in the peace and calm of India under the name of jihad, and they fanned the flames of battle till their disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under any law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered…If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble-maker, and from beginning to end he would stain the name of Islam."

(p. 15)

[iv.]"In 1875, Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi…gave the reply that jihad and religious war against the British government of India, against the authority which has granted religious freedom, is forbidden by and contrary to the law of Islam, and those people who take up weapons against the British government of India, or against any sovereign who has granted religious freedom, and wish to conduct religious jihad, are all rebels and deservant of punishment. Then Maulavi Muhammad Husain, in support of his claim and reply, sent his ruling to all the Ulama of Punjab and other parts of India, and well-publicised it. He obtained the seals and signatures of approval of all the Ulama of Punjab and India in support of the ruling that the taking up of arms by Indian Muslims, and jihad against the British government of India, was opposed to the Sunna and the faith of the monotheists."

(p. 61)

Sultan of Turkish (Ottoman) empire

The Sultan of the Turkish empire used to be known as the Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen (Head of the Muslims), and was recognised as their titular head by vast numbers of Muslims. A history book records:

"The Sultan of Turkey, who was the Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen, thanked this assistance of the British [during the Crimean war] in this way, that in 1857 when the independent minded Muslims and Hindus of India joined forces to launch a war of independence against British rule, the Khalifa wrote and gave to the British a fatwa to the effect that the Muslims of India ought not to fight the British because the latter had proved to be supporters and well-wishers of the Islamic Khilafat."

(Tarikh Aqwam `Alam, Parts I and II, by Murtaza Ahmad Khan, p. 540)

Hunter's The Indian Musalmans

In 1872 a British scholar and civil servant in India, W. W. Hunter, published a now historic book entitled The Indian Musalmans, in which he gave the views of various sects of Islam on the question of whether Muslims were duty-bound by their religion to wage a war-like jihad against the British government of India. Regarding the Shiah sect, Hunter writes:

"Their present declaration of the non-obligation to rebel is spontaneous, and it is well that such a declaration has been put on record. It comes to us stamped with the highest authority which the Shias can give to any document, and will be permanently binding on the whole sect."

(p. 121)

Regarding the Sunni Hanafis, the majority sect, he then adds:

"I now pass to the Formal Decisions of the greater sect. The Sunnis, as they are the most numerous class of Indian Musalmans, so they have of late been the most conspicious in proclaiming that they are under no religious obligation to wage war against the Queen. To that end they have procured two distinct sets of Legal Decisions, and the Muhammadan Literary Society of Calcutta has summed up the whole Sunni view of the question in a forcibly written pamphlet…

"The Law Doctors of Northern Hindustan set out by tacitly assuming that India is a Country of the Enemy (Dar-ul-Harb), and deduce therefrom that religious rebellion is uncalled for. The Calcutta Doctors declare India to be a Country of Islam (Dar-ul-Islam), and conclude that religious rebellion is therefore unlawful."

(p. 122)

(The Indian Musalmans by W. W. Hunter, published by Trubner and Co., London, 1872, second edition)

The two rulings (fatwas) referred to here are given in English translation in Appendix II and III of The Indian Musalmans. In the first fatwa, the following question was asked:

"What is your Decision, O men of learning and expounders of the law of Islam, in the following: Whether a Jihad is lawful in India, a country formerly held by a Muslim ruler, and now held under the sway of a Christian government, where the said Christian Ruler does in no way interfere with his Muslim subjects in the Rites prescribed by their Religion, such as Praying, Fasting, Pilgrimage, Zakat, Friday Prayer, and Jama`at, and gives them fullest protection and liberty in the above respects in the same way as a Muslim Ruler would do, and where the Muslim subjects have no strength and means to fight with their rulers; on the contrary, there is every chance of the war, if waged, ending with a defeat, and thereby causing an indignity to Islam."

The fatwa given on this question, dated 17 July 1870, is as follows:

"The Musalmans here are protected by Christians, and there is no Jihad in a country where protection is afforded, as the absence of protection and liberty between Musalmans and Infidels is essential in a religious war, and that condition does not exist here. Besides, it is necessary that there should be a probability of victory to Musalmans and glory to the Indians. If there be no such probability, the Jihad is unlawful."

This fatwa bears the seals of the following: Maulavi Ali Muhammad, Maulavi Abdul Hai, Maulavi Fazlullah, Muhammad Naim, and Maulavi Rahmatullah, all of Lucknow, Maulavi Qutb-ud-Din of Delhi, Maulavi Lutfullah of Rampur, and others. See pages 218--219 of The Indian Musalmans.

In the second fatwa, given by Maulavi Karamat Ali of the Calcutta Muhammadan Society, it is first determined that India is Dar-ul-Islam, and then it is added:

"The second question is, `Whether it is lawful in this Country to make Jihad or not.' This has been solved together with the first. For jihad can by no means be lawfully made in Dar-ul-Islam. This is so evident that it requires no argument or authority to support it. Now, if any misguided wretch, owing to his perverse fortune, were to wage war against the Ruling Powers of this Country, British India, such war would be rightly pronounced rebellion; and rebellion is strictly forbidden by the Islamic Law. Therefore such war will likewise be unlawful; and in case any one would wage such war, the Muslim subjects would be bound to assist their Rulers, and, in conjunction with their Rulers, to fight with such rebels."

(ibid., p. 219)

Dr Barbara Daly Metcalf of the U.S.A. has written a book entitled Islamic Revival in British India, 1860--1900, published by the Princeton University Press, Princeton (1982), based on her doctoral research work. At various places in this book, the views of famous Muslim theologians and prominent figures of the last century have been given on the question of jihad in relation to British rule of India. Some extracts are given below.

The Deobandis

Regarding the attitude and mode of conduct of leaders of the Deoband school, it is written about one of the founders, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi:

"Further, Rashid Ahmad sanctioned turning to the government for aid in disputes with Hindus. `Do not fight and die [to reclaim the site of a mosque from Hindus],' he wrote, `but turn to the government.' The Deobandis made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty. Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5000 Rupees a year from the Shah of Afghanistan for fear that a political link might be suspected. And the school celebrated ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crises, like Queen Victoria's last illness, with fitting prayers and messages."

(pp. 154 -- 155)

Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan

His views have been quoted above from his book Tarjuman al-Wahhabiyya. This book is described as follows by Dr Metcalf:

"After the Mutiny [of 1857]…some among the British still feared that Muslims would once again resort to open warfare, as they had done in the 1830s. Those who did saw the Ahl-i Hadith as the heirs of the jihad tradition and singled out Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan as its exponent… But far from fomenting jihad, he had written Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat to prove that the Ahl-i Hadith were loyal. He quoted Lord Northbrook's testimonial to Muslim loyalty. He pointed out that Bhopal had aided the British in the war in Egypt. He cited, as did all the writers on this subject, the obligation of Muslims to accept a ruler who had provided security and with whom one had made an agreement."

(ibid. p 279)

Deputy Nazir Ahmad

He was a famous literary figure of the time who also translated the Quran into Urdu. His attitude is recorded as follows:

"He mocked those who aped British dress and manners. Still he enthusiastically embraced British rule, writing at length during the 1870s to deny the legitimacy of jihad."

(p. 332)

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898)

He is considered as one of the greatest Indian Muslim leaders during British rule. About his views it is written:

"Gradually he became convinced that British rule was long to stay, and that those Muslims aligned with it would be both true to their religion and prosperous. He had to convince his fellow Muslims of the truth of this position…To the British he had to show that the Muslims were both loyal and important to the stability of their rule... His efforts --- if not his religious thought --- were to be welcomed by many Muslims of his day."

(p. 319)

ULAMA USE WORD `HARAM' ABOUT JIHAD

Hazrat Mirza is accused of having described jihad as haram (forbidden by the religion). Below are quoted writings of some Ulama in which they have used the word haram in the same context.

Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi

[i.]"To fight against this government [i.e. British rule of India] or to aid those who fight against it, even though they be one's Muslim brothers, is clear treachery and haram."

(Al-Iqtisad fi masa'il al-jihad, p. 49)

[ii.]"It is not permissible for Muslim subjects to fight, or aid those who fight, against their government, whatever be the religion of that government, when they are performing their religious obligations with freedom under its peace and law. On this basis, it is haram for the Indian Muslims to oppose, and to rebel against, the British government."

(Isha`at as-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, p. 287)

Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal

"I do not support war, nor can any Muslim support it bearing in mind the limits imposed by the Shari`ah. According to Quranic teachings, there can only be two types of jihad or war: defensive and corrective. In the first case, it is only under the condition…that when Muslims are wronged and expelled from their homes, they are permitted, not ordered, to raise the sword…For territorial expansion, it is haram in Islam to conduct war, and it is also haram to raise the sword for the propagation of the faith."

(Makatib Iqbal, collection of letters of Iqbal, Part I, p. 203)

Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi

"No true reformer can decide to adopt only one of the sword or the pen for the execution of his reform work. He needs both of these to accomplish his task. As long as preaching and exhortation by the tongue can be effective in teaching people morality and civilisation, to raise the sword is not only not permitted, but it is haram."

(Al-Jihad fil-Islam, 3rd edition, p. 27)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote in precisely the same vein. In a well-known poem, he wrote:

"Drop the idea of jihad at this time, O friends; To spread the faith by war and qital (fighting) is haram now.

No coercion is there for you from an alien nation; it does not forbid you prayer and fasting.

That Messiah has now come who is the Imam of the faith; an end has been put to religious wars.

The Holy Prophet had said; that Jesus would postpone the wars.

To imagine that a mahdi would come to shed blood; and expand the faith by killing unbelievers.

This is all sheer falsehood, O heedless ones; it is slander, without proof, without light."