Muslim sepoys Serving the british

Das_Reich · March 26, 2007, 8:33pm

were their any attempts to try those soldiers and esp. officers who served the british army fighting against the muslim turks in middleeast in WW1] as traitors to their faith after the creation of pakistan?

system · March 27, 2007, 12:44pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

No sir...the people like feroz khan noon which provided men of chakwal and gujrat( i am also from punjab but i do not call these pieces of lands my mother as i consider all pakistan equal ) to british became the PM of pakistan..punjab people are fighters...as all great warriors like Sikandar-e-azam..mahmood ghaznavi passed from that land..later they served in Rannjeet singh ..and then in British......they were awarded big lands....

but this was a complex period as Lawrence of arabia also started propaganda and saudis were also against turks under shareefa-i-makkah...so some of them also killed turks nside khana kaaba..... it was a big conspiracy and no one know who is at rigt most position....

Das_Reich · March 27, 2007, 2:17pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

I appreciate your sentiments ....but these people who cooperated with british against fellow muslims whether punjabi or nonpunjabi should have been tried for treason...why else do we call ourselves a "islamic " republic

[QUOTE]
punjab people are fighters...as all great warriors like Sikandar-e-azam..mahmood ghaznavi passed from that land..later they served in Rannjeet singh ..and then in British......they were awarded big lands....
[/QUOTE]

cooperated with ghaznavi was obviously the right thing to do ...but it is unfortunate that our local people prefered to cooperate with ranjeet singh

[QUOTE]

but this was a complex period as Lawrence of arabia also started propaganda and saudis were also against turks under shareefa-i-makkah...so some of them also killed turks nside khana kaaba..... it was a big conspiracy and no one know who is at rigt most position

[/QUOTE]

atleast they should have remained neutral ...at best mutined against their british masters .....it was an ideal time with the bulk of british manpower locked in the trenches of europe ...

CheGuvera · March 27, 2007, 4:35pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

The decendents of these people became the khan bahadurs and nawabs of yore and feudal lords of present...Also, the same tradition was transferred over the PA, which today in particular looks like British Raj's army...It has no connection to the more glorious tradition of those who resisted the East India Company's forces...In fact it has never fought on the behalf of muslim causes ever and has not tasted success after '47, only exception being the action seen by officiers and soldiers seconded to ISI during the Afghan Jihad...

system · March 28, 2007, 5:09am

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

sir...they became the God -Father as Cheguvera has rightly said that stilltoday 80 % of people in NA and senate are the same gransons and grand daughters which were awarded the murabaas and aikar zameen for thier "loyalty" to the British....India..whatever it is.but we must accept that they atleast abolished "Zameedara system" almost completely after 4 or 5 years after 1947 but still we are eating its fruits.... these tawanas..daultanas...makhdooms...ranghas...all are in the same text.tahts the real problem..if islam is rhere..there is no place for such people thats why they never willing to talk on this issues in thier assemblies ..as umar(ra) despite of its 25 lakhs sq. miles conquered land...strictly forbidden the muslim warriors and great sahabas to own any thier conquered land ....and let the land be to the peasent thats work on it...also there was a strong resistance at that time from many great sahabas but umar(ra)did not listen to them...and latter on throughout the history..it proved taht this is the best policy to keep these zemedaar making huge money..

its the same thing the zemeedar of a certain village whatever do ..all people of that village blindly follow him..thses zameedars also at that time ..for sake of land and money betrayed the common muslims....and all people followed them...the same old tradition ...

yes ..very true..it was a very good time...but see when any nation start living under some rule and oppression ...then its natural desire to come up with this situation ultimately dies...what we see when moosa(as) freed bani israel from firoan ...and ordered them to enter the desert seena..they started crying O Mossa ..you have ruined us..we weere better in Egypt where we atleast get food to eat...

that what iqbal smashed this "jamood" of 500 years and zafar ali khan and many other vigorous orators ..andwriters who made punjab out of 500 years of darkness of "ghulami" to some sort of self ego...azadi and hurriat .... thanks to all tose freedom fighters also like bhagat singh..and shorish kashmiri who removed the terror of british from punjab in particular and whole sub continent in general....

Das_Reich · March 28, 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

[quote=“dawa_i_dil”]

[quote=“Das_Reich, post:1765, topic:150990”]

bro u r right …I hope we dont start a sectarian debate here but just wanted to know if in your opinion is there any relation between emergence of SSP from Jhang esp. since many landowners there were shias [plz keep this political]

this is what i found …do you think this is a fair assesment?

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/15_umar_bin_al_khattab.htm#Land%20Administration

Land Administration
As a consequence of conquests on a large scale in Iraq and Persia and elsewhere a question arose as to the administration of land in the conquered territories. The Arabs followed the maxim, “Spoils belong to the victors”. On this basis all spoils that were won as a result of any victory were distributed to the extent of four-fifth among the conquering army, and one-fifth was sent to Madina as the State share. On this analogy the army insisted that all agricultural lands should be distributed among the conquering army, and the inhabitants should be made their serfs and slaves.
Umar convoked a special assembly at Madina to consider the question from all aspects. Eminent companions like Abdur Rahman b Auf and others supported the viewpoint of the army. They argued that the lands belonged to the conquerors, and future generations had no right to them. Bilal was so vehement in the support of the demand of the army that Umar had to exclaim “May Allah save me from Bilal.”
At the assembly Umar argued that as the conquering army had already had the spoils distributed among them that was enough and the land should belong to the State. Umar advanced the argument that if the lands in the conquered territories were divided up among the army, wherefrom would they get the necessary finance for the raising and equipment of the armies in future for defense against foreign aggression and for the maintenance of law and order within the country.
Ali, Usman, and Talha supported Umar but still no decision could be reached. Then Umar recollected Sura Al-Hashr which spoke of the poor who had fled, and of those to come thereafter. From these verses Umar inferred that lands were assets in which even the coming generations were interested and as such these should be the property of the State. These verses proved decisive and a consensus was reached:

(1) that the lands conquered would be the property of the State and not that of the conquering forces;

(2) that the former occupants of lands would not be dispossessed;

(3) that they should continue in possession of the lands and pay specified taxes to the State.
That was a wise decision attribute to the genius of Umar. Umar took settlement operations in a scientific way. In Iraq his Settlement Commissioners were Usman b Hanif and Hudhaifah b al-Yaman. These Settlement Commissioners measured land in Iraq with such care and precision as one measures cloth. Iraq measured 375 miles long and 240 miles wide with a superficial area of 30,000 square miles. The royal dynasty’s estates, endowments of fire temples, and the estates of those who had died heirless or fled the country were declared state property. The rest of the lands were left in the possession of their former occupants and assessed to land revenue per jarib according to the nature of crops sown. These rates were: wheat two dirhams per jarib per year; barley one dirham; sugar cane six dirhams; cotton five dirhams; grapes ten dirhams; date palm gardens ten dirhams and so on. In the first year the income from State land amounted to seventy lakh dirhams. Land revenue assessment under private occupation worked out at 86 million dirhams. The whole settlement was carried out in such a way that fresh lands were extensively brought under cultivation, and the land produce increased extensively. In the year following the settlement the land revenue increased from 86 million dirhams to 100 million dirhams.
In other conquered countries no special settlements were carried out. In such countries the existing systems continued and the records in existence were adopted. In Iraq and Persia the records were kept in Persian. Umar allowed the records to be kept in Persian even after their conquest by the Muslims. In Syria the previous records were kept in Latin, and in Egypt in the Coptic. In all such cases status quo was allowed to continue.
Under the Pharaohs taxes on land in Egypt could be paid in cash or kind, and the settlement was for a period of four years at a time. When the Romans occupied Egypt the same system continued but besides the normal land revenue they levied additional levies "hereunder large quantities of grain were collected for presentation to the authorities at Constantinople. Umar abolished the additional levies and the system in vogue under the Pharaohs was allowed to continue. The rules about the method of collection were made simpler and milder. In the time of Umar the land revenue collected from Egypt amounted to twelve million dinars.
In Syria the annual collection of land revenue in the caliphate of Umar was fourteen million dinars.

thats what i thought too, it would make a great “what if” discussion, esp. its implications in middleeast…since many of the territories mandated under league of nations to Entente were from there

system · March 28, 2007, 4:26pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

in my humble opinion..ssp was a reaction of poisonousliterature(no doubt yu can disagree with anyone within limit but i myself have a chance to look at this..nangi galian to sahabas and aysha(ra) ....yes you are right..may be some possibility of oppression of shia land-lords like abida and imam etc ...also ssp found a good ground thier..but brother personally i am not 100 % with the motto of ssp...or what it did.....tahts what i think so...

regarding umar(ra) ..aray yaar ..its far better than what is happening in gwadar lands to all army generals and brigadiers...which CJ also took notice but......

and last oint.. i fully agree with you

Best regards..
wasalam.

Das_Reich · March 28, 2007, 4:43pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

bhai the "nangi galian" has been there for a long time, so why did the SSP just formed in the 80s?though i dont deny that the tabarra must have been a factor in recuritement
but as far their genesis is concerned i think it was also combination of genuine grievances of the lower classes coupled with a little help from our saudi friends ...anyway it would be interesting if someone could research the rise and fall of SSP from a neutral standpoint

[quote]

regarding umar(ra) ..aray yaar ..its far better than what is happening in gwadar lands to all army generals and brigadiers...which CJ also took notice but......

[/quote]

yaar you misunderstand I agree with Umar[ra]'s land policy totally... if you see the caliphate of Ali[as] he followed the same policy in land reforms but did not follow the policy concerning the stipends thats a whole another issue]
I was asking for your assesment of the article

Das_Reich · March 28, 2007, 4:48pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

....

system · March 28, 2007, 5:19pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

ok iagree with you..saudia is always a factor..recently Jmiat ahle-hadees is pakistan second most richest party as declared...so you kow that where it is funding...regarding SSP...i know nangi galia were here ..but in 80's when khoeimieni trid to "export" his revolution...the poisonous literature flooded the pakistan... and that as the turning point as mullahs can easily brain wash thrugh this literature ..which in case of absence of such literature cannot be done so easily.....

regarding umar(ra) land reforms.. i am sorry.. really i did not read it..actually i was busy with Lifestyles post...uus ka bhi bara bhaikara para hua hai..but now i have a sorry with Dushwari.....
anyways... youknow that i am always been a "umar -lover" ..not only that i am also a "ali-lover"...both of these are unique men of not islamic history but human hisory ..i strongly believe that......

mAd_ScIeNtIsT · March 28, 2007, 5:30pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

There's no such crime as "treason to faith" in Pakistan. There are laws against treason to country, and laws against blasphemy.

Additionally, in 1914, there were virtually no desi officers in the British Army. All Indian regiments were officered by British officers, to make sure that if rebellion broke out then there would be no experienced commanders for large scale operations (they learnt the lessions from 1857 quite well).

Lastly, Pakistan's main allies in the Muslim world have always viewed the Ottoman Caliphate as a cruel overlord that lost it legitimacy as caliph through its oppression. Prosecuting soldiers who fought in a war that our allies view as havingled to their liberation would have risked alienating those countries and deprived us of economic and military support.

system · March 29, 2007, 4:20am

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

^ thankyou for the informative post.....

system · March 31, 2007, 11:55am

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

dawa-i-dil:

yes ..very true..it was a very good time…but see when any nation start living under some rule and oppression …then its natural desire to come up with this situation ultimately dies…what we see when moosa(as) freed bani israel from firoan …and ordered them to enter the desert seena..they started crying O Mossa ..you have ruined us..we weere better in Egypt where we atleast get food to eat…

that what iqbal smashed this “jamood” of 500 years and zafar ali khan and many other vigorous orators ..andwriters who made punjab out of 500 years of darkness of “ghulami” to some sort of self ego…azadi and hurriat … thanks to all tose freedom fighters also like bhagat singh..and shorish kashmiri who removed the terror of british from punjab in particular and whole sub continent in general…

no. 8 of this…
http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/ICBN/969-416-202-002/p0011.php

system · March 31, 2007, 11:59am

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

as punjab also remained the centre of quran farosh hujra nasheeno and taweez farosh sufia…

http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/ICBN/969-416-202-002/p0017.php

http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/ICBN/969-416-202-002/p0019.php

hareem01 · March 31, 2007, 12:12pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

[quote=“Das_Reich, post:1765, topic:150990”]

I’m surprised to read that Mr Jinnah (father of the nation) was against Tehreek e Khilafat.

Jinnah’s problems with the Congress began with the ascent of Mohandas Gandhi in 1918, who espoused non-violent civil disobedience as the best means to obtain Swaraj (independence, or self-rule) for all Indians. Jinnah differed, saying that only constitutional struggle could lead to independence. Unlike most Congress leaders, Gandhi did not wear western-style clothes, did his best to use an Indian language instead of English, and was deeply spiritual and religious. Gandhi’s Indianised style of leadership gained great popularity with the Indian people. Jinnah criticised Gandhi’s support of the Khilafat Movement, which he saw as an endorsement of religious zealotry.[13]](Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Wikipedia) By 1920, Jinnah resigned from the Congress
Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Wikipedia

system · March 31, 2007, 1:55pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

sis..jinnah was not against tehreeka-i-khilafat..this great man was against tehreek adma-i-taawun(nom-coperation) and tehreeka-i-hijrat which both proved latter poisonous for muslims while hindus benifited themselves from muslims interests...

system · March 31, 2007, 2:00pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

M A Jauhar said in zeal and zest with hidus aligarh M U should not recieve fud from british..so many students left..but when gandhi appealed the same from Banaras university...they did ot listen and no student left..so loss came to muslims...in hijrat..thousands sold thier vaaluable proprty to hindus..agghanistan also closed..again loss of muslims...jinnah was really a genious..he was not a man of emotions but action so when time came for students to leave in 1945-46 elections..he himself ordered...now leave...so a drastic victory for muslims in elections mainly of Punjab Student Federation..

Zakk · April 1, 2007, 8:28pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

There was a high rate of desertion amongst troops in fact many Hindus deserted along with their Muslim comrades in arms..out of sympathy. The British resorted to mixing troops up to prevent mutinies. They found many of the Muslim future nawabs as the best resources in recruiting..as has been said in Punjab and various princely states served especially loyally to the British. Those who opposed British rule have rarely been recognised by the government, whether it was the Khosa's of Southern Punjab or the Hurs of Sindh..the reason is simple many of those who ended up ruling Pakistan after Quaid e Azam died had zero participation in the Pakistan movement, many were just people who jumped on to the bandwagon when they saw which way the wind was blowing. The genuiane politicians like Nishtar, Suhrwardy etc were all sidelined.

CheGuvera · April 2, 2007, 10:13pm

Re: Muslim sepoys Serving the british

[quote=“hareem01, post:26, topic:158692”]

Name Chain.......part 3

I’m surprised to read that Mr Jinnah (father of the nation) was against Tehreek e Khilafat.

Jinnah’s problems with the Congress began with the ascent of Mohandas Gandhi in 1918, who espoused non-violent civil disobedience as the best means to obtain Swaraj (independence, or self-rule) for all Indians. Jinnah differed, saying that only constitutional struggle could lead to independence. Unlike most Congress leaders, Gandhi did not wear western-style clothes, did his best to use an Indian language instead of English, and was deeply spiritual and religious. Gandhi’s Indianised style of leadership gained great popularity with the Indian people. Jinnah criticised Gandhi’s support of the Khilafat Movement, which he saw as an endorsement of religious zealotry.[13]](Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Wikipedia) By 1920, Jinnah resigned from the Congress
Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Wikipedia

Should not be surprising…In fact he had given up mid-stream and left for greener pastures in the merry old england…There is a lot of falsehood regarding Jinnah’s role in the creation of Pakistan and his larger then life, an almost deit-like adulation in Pakistan is pretty sickening…the real credit for the creation of Pakistan should go to people like the Johar brothers, Chaudary Rehmat Ali, Nishtar, Iqbal, and many others…