1857 jihad tha ya gadar ya phir baghawat thi
There were non-muslims who took part and allied themselves with the Muslims in the revolt too. History calls it the war of independence/the sepoy mutiny etc, so it might have been a Jihad for Muslims who took part in it.
from the viewpoint of the modern world, lead by the human rights campaign of the USA, this effort was an act of terrorism and must be duly condemned....
all those who were involved, their families (up to three generations) shud be held in prisons where they r given no human rights....
jahan tak mujhay pata hai us wakt kay ulema e karam nay is ko jihad karar nahi diya aur sir syed nay bhi isay gadar hi kaha hoa hai jang -aszdi nahi. ap kay khial may yah kia thi. aur may nay jadeed dunya kay nukta e nazr say to koi baat poochi hi nahi.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by majzub_e_kamil: *
jahan tak mujhay pata hai us wakt kay ulema e karam nay is ko jihad karar nahi diya aur sir syed nay bhi isay gadar hi kaha hoa hai jang -aszdi nahi. ap kay khial may yah kia thi. aur may nay jadeed dunya kay nukta e nazr say to koi baat poochi hi nahi.
[/QUOTE]
Who told u this brother .....Ever heared of shamli ....it is a place in india where muslims established there governement for i think i week or so ..and that too was through jihad by ulema ...moulana qasim nantvi haji imadad ullah hafiz zamin ( who attained shahdah in attack) ...and so many otherss ...
Mr. Bao Bihari,
Here is what Maulvi Ashiq Ali of Deoband states in relation to Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gongohi of the Nidawatul Ulama:
[QUOTE]
'During these days, he had to fight the gangs of miscreants who roamed the country. He used to carry a sword with him to protect himself and he would attack like a lion amidst a barrage of bullets. Once, while in the company of Maulana Qasim al Uloom, Hadhrat Haji Sahib [Haji lmadullah Makki] and Hafiz Zaamin, the Maulana and his companions were confronted by a gang of Hindu rebels. However, this small group of patriots were not prepared to either run or surrender to the mutinying traitors of their Movement.'
[/QUOTE]
Ali, Maulvi Ashiq. Tadhkirah al Rasheed, pp. 74/75
Maulvi Ashiq All proceeded to state:
[QUOTE]
'They stood before the rebels like a rock and prepared themselves to sacrifice their lives for their Government. The courage shown by these people under such heavy odds was incredible. The situation could have easily caused fright in the hearts of the bravest of men. But, this small band of ascetics stood their ground and fought against the rebels. They were fired upon by the enemy and Hadhrat Hafiz Sahib was hit by a bullet. He died as a result of the wound sustained by him.'
[/QUOTE]
Ali, Maulvi Ashiq. Tadhkirah al Rasheed, pp. 74/75
It looks to me that those leaders that Mr. Bao Bihari mentioned were fighting against the rebles and not with the rebles.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bao bihari: *
Who told u this brother .....Ever heared of shamli ....it is a place in india where muslims established there governement for i think i week or so ..and that too was through jihad by ulema ...moulana qasim nantvi haji imadad ullah hafiz zamin ( who attained shahdah in attack) ...and so many otherss ...
[/QUOTE]
bao bihari sahib jahan tak mujhay yaad hai deobandi ulema,shia ulema,
ahl e hadis ulema aur bralvi ulema nay is ko jihad nahi kaha .mujhay nahi pata yah aop ko kis nay bataya hai kay ulema is jehad may shamil thay
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by majzub_e_kamil: *
bao bihari sahib jahan tak mujhay yaad hai deobandi ulema,shia ulema,
ahl e hadis ulema aur bralvi ulema nay is ko jihad nahi kaha .mujhay nahi pata yah aop ko kis nay bataya hai kay ulema is jehad may shamil thay
[/QUOTE]
Sir plz read the topic before posting ......i have given example of a very famous incident....
can u plz name the ulema who oopposed this jihad......and refrences ...if any ?
Here are the references:
Reference 1:
Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal
[QUOTE]
'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 tranquillity by disorder under the name of Jihad. This is sheer stupidity and foolishness. (Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Taijuman e Wahabiyya, p.7)
[/QUOTE]
He referred to the period of the Indian mutiny of 1857 which fanned the flames of battle and stated that:
[QUOTE]
'If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble maker and from the beginning to the end, he would stain the name of Islam.'(Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Taijuman e Wahabiyya, p.15)
[/QUOTE]
The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India,
[QUOTE]
he is not only a mischief maker in the eyes of the rulers but he shall be the farthest from what Islam requires and from the way of the believers, and he shall be regarded as a violator of the covenant, unfaithful to his religion, and a perpetrator of the greatest sin. What his condition will be on the Day of Judgment will become evident there.Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Taijuman e Wahabiyya, p.17)
[/QUOTE]
Reference 2:
Sayyid Nazir Husain, the then Muhaddith of Delhi
[QUOTE]
'The authority of the British in India is lawful and in accordance with the Quranic injunction: "0 ye who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority amongst you" 'it is unlawful to wage war against the British Raj.(Husain, Maulvi Nazir. vide. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, p.135 )
[/QUOTE]
The Muhaddith of Delhi declared British India Darus Salam, i.e., the land of peace, and stated:
[QUOTE]
'Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and sin.(Husain, Maulvi Nazir. Fatwa Naziriyya, vol. iv, p. 472 )
[/QUOTE]
Reference 3:
In an edict of 17th July, 1870, the ulama of northern India ruled that:
[QUOTE]
'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.' (Hunter, W.W. The Indian Musalmans, p.218 )
[/QUOTE]
Similarly, such a Fatwa was also procured from the ulama of east India who declared India to be Darul 1slam and stated:
[QUOTE]
'Jihad can by no means be lawfully made in Darul Islam. This is so evident that it requires no argument or authority in its support. Now, if any misguided wretch, owing to his perverse fortune, were to wage war against the ruling power 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 anyone does wage such a war, Muslim subjects would be bound to assist their Rulers, and in conjunction with them, fight such rebels( Hunter, W.W. The Indian Musalmans, p.219)
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Bao Bihari,
In my previous post, I mentioned the whole incident and those Muslim figters were martyred fighting the rebles and not the british.
Mr Fateh Ahmed
sorry i did not saw your post yesterday ....just saw what majjoob had posted and replied...
khair ..
If your are giving refrence of book tadhkira tu rasheed by moulana ashiq illah bulandshehri /ashiq ilahi merrithee... (plz confirm the full name )
Can u scan the above quote from the book ..the book i have does not mention these things at all .....kindly scan the full page so that i can see in what context he made such remarks ....
second--
YOu mention the other refrence of ahle hadith aalim nawab hassan khan .......if true then it may be his personal opinion ...
can u plz confirm that the shamili incident was not against english ...because we normally see that even shia books mention an incident of that time ( moulana qasim nantvi saying to police offcer who came to arrest him ..abhi to qasim yahin tha ) .....
qasim nantvi s student and first graduate of deoband ..moulvi mehmeood was repadtly quoted as saying ...meri ragoon main ungraze kay khila nafrat bhree hoi hay ........remeber moulvi mehmood was one who started *tehreek reshmi roomal *....
and ur quoted fatawas also seem very starange to me ..as u mention the name of ataullah shah bukhari ..who was the worst enemy of british raj....
and there were fatwas for tehrek e hijrat ..to do hijrah from india to afghanistan .....
i doubt your refrences fateh Ahmed...
Mr. Bao Bihari,
Please go to the following website:
Why Single out Sir Syed
It is from DAWN newspaper. Please read through to the incident at Shamli and then express your opinion.
Secondly I never quoted Attaullah Shah Bukhari. The statement was actually made by then Muhadith of Delhi and not by Attaullah Shah Bukhari.
quote:
You mentioned the name of ataullah shah bukhari here…
And the newspaper story is not credible at all …i have refrences to prove my point specially the shamli incident ..tazkiraturasheed is misquoted here…agar time mila to original book say scan kar kay post kar doon ga …
any way ..by just socaled newspaper refrence we can not call those ppl as suppoters of raj ..they were the worst enemies of raj and that was why they disliked sirsyed …
Mr. Bao Bihari,
Where did I say that the statement was made by Attaullah Shah Bukhari. Please read the post again! The statement was made by then Muhadith of Delhi (during 1857) Sayyid Nazir Husain. I don't know why you can't know understand such a simple point.
And I would realy appreciate it if you could post the references.
if i have read this correctly 1857 was more of a inkalaab then a jihad, it was a matter of national pride and ragaining the lost homeland
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr. Bao Bihari,
Where did I say that the statement was made by Attaullah Shah Bukhari. Please read the post again! The statement was made by then Muhadith of Delhi (during 1857) Sayyid Nazir Husain. I don't know why you can't know understand such a simple point.
And I would realy appreciate it if you could post the references.
[/QUOTE]
And where did i said that u made that statement ...khair.....
Inshallah i'll post refrences as oon as possible ..meanwhile u can post ur refrences ....as u r making a claim not me ....every one knows how deobandis hated the raj and now u are saying that they suported the raj ..how strange...