I am reading a book written by William Wilson Hunter titled The Indian Musalmans (1872). Hunter relates the story of Syed Ahmad Barelvi and how he rallied the Muslims of India, Afghanistan and Bengal to do jihad against Ranjeet Singh and the Sikhs. Hunter explained how the British were afraid of what jihad could do to their businesses. Jihad was a very dangerous concept and the Hunter thought that the British ought to have been aware of it. They also needed to find a way to quell any thoughts of rebellion amongst the Muslims. Hunter writes that legally a Muslim could not do jihad against a ruler who allowed Muslims to practice their religion peacefully. This was the strategy of the British once they came to power.
It is my opinion that Mirza Ghulam, who came from a long line of traitors, was commissioned not by Allah but by the British. I will provide documentation of these tendencies from a family in Qadian, India.
“On June the 11th, 1849, Mr. J. M. Wilson, Financial Commissioner, Lahore, wrote from Lahore to Mirza Ghulam Murtaza: ‘I have perused your application reminding me of you and your family’s past services and rights. I am well aware that since the introduction of the British Government you and your family have certainly remained devoted, faithful and steady subjects and that your rights are really worthy of regard. In every respect you may rest assured and satisfied that the British Government will never forget your family rights and services which will receive due consideration when a favourable opportunity offers itself. You must continue to be faithful and devoted subjects as in it lies the satisfaction of the Government as well as your own welfare.’ (Life of Ahmad by DARD pg. 17)
As you can see from the above quote, the British not only were indebted to the Mirza family but they were anxious to repay them for their services. Also, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father and uncles were in the Sikh army as they killed other Muslims. While Muslims were being killed this Mirza family that was fighting alongside the Sikhs!
“He [the father of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] then, with his brothers, entered the army of the Maharaja, and performed efficient service on the Kashmir frontier and at other places.” (Life of Ahmad by Dard pg. 16)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s brother: “General Nicholson gave Ghulam Qadir a certificate, stating that in 1857 the Qadian family showed greater loyalty than any other in the district.” (pg. 17)
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
In the Mutiny of 1857, muslims were the victims of a civil unrest caused mainly by Hindus. You need to learn your history my friend. 1857 can not be glorified as a holy war or even a secular war for independence. It was a war of opportunists who used all the tricks in the books to cause tyranny and murder.
I have little sympathy for those who hijacked poor old Bahadur Shah and sacked the city of Delhi in the name of independence. The British were legitimate rulers of most of the Indian subcontinent way before 1857 and any violence against them was un-islamic on all counts.
The shills and lapdogs of imperialism call it “mutiny”, but patriotic Indians called it – and still call it the First War of Indian Independence. (Your old friend Nehru called it that too.) There is some doubt about whether it was actually the first, but if it was good enough for many pre-partition Indians (though notably not some Punjabis), it’s good enough for me.
The British were not legitimate rulers. The Raj was not established until after the FWOII, before then, the country was ruled by a company, The East India Company. A bunch of dirty raiders and robbers who themselves were oppressive plunderers and common bandits. Fascists with hired local guns.
For you to side with greed, colonialism, plunder and outright murder, which is what the British inflicted on the Indians before and after the First War of Independence shows us very clearly what and who you side with, no matter who is right or wrong.
Your prophet called Syed Ahmed Barelvi a mujaddid. And yet his father and uncles were in the army that killed this great hero. Puts you and your prophet into a bit of a spot, doesn’t it?
You will side with the British whether they were right or wrong. They are your masters according to Mirza. After all, he told you that God was a majestic Englishman standing over you. Whereas Muslims are told to fight oppression and tyranny. Why don’t you quit with the pseudo-intellectual babble, all of which gets found out – and lend your voice to that of Muslims. Why waste the rest of your days in the service of falsehood?
Islam is your birthright Lutf. Embrace it.
”It should be noted here that in their early days the
Qadian family could not be expected to show any
sympathy towards the British Government. The
reason for this was that they belonged to the ruling
family at Delhi. When they saw, however, that the
Mughal rule had lost its usefulness to the country and
that India now needed a new power to regain its
former glory, they set themselves whole-heartedly to
support the British Government to the best of their
ability, even at the sacrifice of their private sentiments
and ambitions.” Life of Ahmad, DARD
You need to realise that the primary purpose was to bring back the stability of India. It is better for the british to rule and bring back the stabilty of India than to support a lost group with no power that is unlikely to bring back stability. Stability is to be priortised.
You said:
‘while Muslims were being killed this Mirza family that was fighting alongside the Sikhs!!!!!’
You are trying to imply cleverly that the family was fighting against the muslims. What evidence is their to support this?
also
‘the Sikhs were still in power and the family remained in
straightened circumstances.’ Life of Ahmad, DARD
This is more likely to imply that the family was not in support of the Sikh rule.
I assure you that there were other thousands of other muslims fighting alongside the british all over India – it was not a religious war as your’e implying.
In Chapter 4 Hunter writes, “The Indian Musalmans, therefore are bound by their own law to live peacefully under our Rule”
You see, this book was written in the early 1870’s, it was actually the british who spread the rumors that muslims couldnt do jihad against them. The Brits did this so that the muslims would quietly lay down their arms, and succomb to british rule. They needed the muslims to chill out so to speak. Hunter writes about how Syed Ahmad Barelvi almost succeeded with a theory of jihad against the Sikhs. Hunter warned the Brits that Jihad could affect the success of the Brits in India.
MGA and other muslims spread the same idea, or they tried to spread the idea that muslims should lower their heads to the WHITE MAN. Meanwhile the brits raped India for billions of dollars. Meanwhile, these so-called muslims were getting “kick-backs” from the brits in terms of land and money and other favours like 22 dancing girls, see the marriage of ghulam qadir (mirzas brother).
MGA lied and wrote that the it was the messiah’s job to stop jihad with the sword (1900), this was a blatant lie, he was justifying his previous arguments, in other words this “ass clown” twisted the words of hadith and the Quran just to please the WHITE MAN’s REGIME. What kind of life is that? What kind of muslim is that? That is the worst thing that any muslim has ever done in the history of islam.
Batalvi was also of the same opinion, he was also spreading the same idea that muslims shouldnt wage a holy war against the brits, but he never claimed that the Quran had temporal injunctions. Or that the hadith contained some hints that Muhammad preached that the messiah would stop the holy wars, MGA blamed the stopping of Jihad on Muhammad, he argued that Muhammad said that the messiah would do this.
In fact it was the WHITE MAN, or the brits who were stopping the Holy wars, and they found a bunch of cowardice muslims to help them….
Face it, your messiah supported the brits in everything they did, he was probably paid off by them to do such a thing. Im sure the brits paid muslims to become traitors!!!!
MGA’s dad wanted his land back, the brits asked them to join them, THEY DID, the mirzas got their land back….
Wow. Very powerful brother.
@ peace. I will show you a reference where the MGA’s dad and two brothers were part of the army that assasianted Syed Ahmad barelvi.
“Then followed the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who gradually brought all the petty chiefs of the country under his sway. In about 1818 he allowed Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, the son of Mirza ‘Ata Muhammad, to return to Qadian. Mirza Ghulam Murtaza and his brothers thereupon joined the Sikh army and rendered excellent services in several places, including the frontier of Kashmir, which was annexed by Ranjit Singh in 1819. He took Peshawar in 1823. (life of ahmad, pg. 13)
and:
Ranjit Singh was, however, so impressed with Mirza Ghulam Murtaza’s goodness and nobility that in the latter period of his reign, sometime in 1834-35, he restored to him five villages out of his lost ancestral estate. (LIFE OF AHMAD, PG. 14)
it seems like you casually missed reading these very important sentences.
Now remember, these same sikhs were not allowing muslims to say the adhan, yet the father and uncles of the so called messiah joined them. If other muslims joined the sikhs as well, that makes them traitors as well. Ranjit Singh was so impressed by the work of the Mirzas that he even gave him back some villages!!!! They must have killed many muslims.
Barelvi was murdered in Peshawar in 1831, (HUNTER PAGE 18). This was by the army of Ranjit Singh, and the mirzas were lieutentants of them, they probably told them everything they knew about muslims.
Remember, MGA wrote that Barelvi was like John the Baptist, inasmuch as John the Baptist got his head chopped off like Barevli did. He compared Barelvi to a prophet. He also compared Abu bakr with Joshua–this was all in an attempt to point out similarities. ( i will have to find the reference for that).
Great post brother. Well done on pointing out the treason of the Mirza clan.
@ lutf. This entire thread was began after i read the first 25 pages of Hunter. I havent read the whole book as of yet. I remember in my studies on ahmadiyyat that Hunter mentioned the family of MGA in this book. I havent gotten to that point yet. I am sure that Hunter praised this family of traitors.
I will report on that as soon as I get there.
The brits were raping India dry of resources and manning, remember that they sent over 20k indians to the FIJI islands to work and mine the precious resources therin, they also sent people to Guyana in south america.
The Brits were not good people at all, do you know what they did in Australia, do you know that when gold was found in Australia, the brits declared Australia as white only territory…
you should read a book…
watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhY9PBceqYY&feature=related
DUMB DUMB
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO–CIRCA 1883
I FOUND THE REFERENCE, READ IT AND WEEP:
“Just as before Jesus, the prophet John the Baptist was martyred while preaching the oneness of God, similarly before me in this very land of Punjab Sayyid Ahmad was martyred while preaching the message of the oneness of God. This was another similarity, which God fulfilled.” (Badr, 7th November 1907)
MGA forgot that his dad and uncles were enlisted in the same army that assasinated these two islamic saints who were fighting for the rights to say the adhan without persecution.
I found another:
“The twelfth khalifa of Islam, who should have come at the head of the thirteenth century, corresponds to the prophet Yahya … Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi is the twelfth khalifa of the system of Muhammadiyya khilafat, and is the like of Hazrat Yahya and is a Sayyid.” (Tuhfah Golarwiya, p. 63.)
Brother Rationalist,
What is the your premises here ?
In addition to your own insightful commentary, so far you have produced some references, from Ahmadiyya books, that point out that Mirza Sahib’s father or brother served in Sikh army before his birth.
I am failing to understand what this has to do with Mirza Sahib’s claims and theology.
Mirza Sahib’s loyalty to British government is a well discussed topic and it is worth discussion because of his own stated positions about British government, and not because of what his father did before his birth.
Whilst I apprecaite the best efforts of the brothers to highlight the deceit and treachery of this disgusting cult, do you really think history books will achieve this goal?
After all the much more powerful word of Allah in the Quran and the way of the most righteous person ever to have walked this planet have failed?
Somehow I don’t think so. These people surely display traits of those upon whose hearts Allah has placed a seal and accursed are those people without a doubt.
May Allah guide these ignorant, deluded people to Islam. Ameen.
Dear Ex-Ahmadis
We cannot expect this from you. If Allah has shown you the light, He will insha’Allah show them the light too.
As we believe, Hazrat Muhammad sws was the last of the prophets. Now no one can make a statement that a certain person’s heart has been sealed. We don’t know and Allah knows.
We should continue our efforts.
However, I agree that if Ahmadis will have no reply, they will simply reject the book of Mr Dards. So it is best to focus on the books of Mirza Sb.
For clarification I have not said that Allah has placed a seal
on any individuals hearts rather I said generally that some of these people display traits of those upon whose hearts Allah may have placed a seal, may Allah protect us from that.
That having been said to deny the finality of the Prophet Muhammad shows a serious disease of the heart and renders any individual upon this outside of the fold of Islam.
Now I am sure even you will agree that to be outside of Islam is surely an accursed and disastorous place to be.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I personally do not label anybody a kaafir, and I accept that a lot of Ahmadis are unaware of how heretical the Ahmadi beliefs really are.
However those who know exactly what the beliefs are and still maintain them, profess them and openly call to them, then for those I pray that Allah guides them to the truth or breaks the backs of the fallacies and lies they spread in the name of Islam.
This is how all Muslims should believe and feel towards any non believer who wants to damage and distort the pure and infallible message of Islam.
I do not let the fact that I have large members of my family still
in this cult detract me from how I should feel towards their heretical, insulting and far fetched beliefs.
Agreed
@ asad. I have showed the evidence that proves that the MIRZA family were a group of deserters and traitors.
Here are some points:
1. The uncles of MGA hated islam, all of their sons left Islam, see imamuddin and the case of muhammadi begum, when MGA’s brother got married his father got him 22 dancing girls (see DARD). This shows a trend of irreligious-ness in the Mirza family in general.
2. Jihad was a hot topic in India (from the time syed ahmad–mujadid, 1820), the british viewed the fact that the sikhs would not allow muslims religious freedom as a major error in the SIKH regime. They knew that to calm the muslims down they needed to allow religious freedom.
2.a. MGA took the jihad thing a step further and asserted that it was the job descreption of the messiah to eradicate holy wars from the Islamic persprective.
2.b. MGA called verses of the Quran as temporal injunctions in his pursuit of eradicating JIHAD.
2.c. MGA twisted hadith to make it sound like the messiah was supposed to eradicate JIHAD.
3. The british supported all islamic organizations that sanctioned peace among the muslims. MGA’s #1 enemy (Batalvi) was also trying to calm down the muslim spirits in terms of Jihad.
THE BRITS WANTED THE MUSLIMS TO LAY DOWN THERE ARMS, MGA TRIED TO HELP THEM BY TWISTING ISLAM.
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO–CIRCA 1883
Rationalist,
You don’t need to read a book to decide whether colonialism was good or bad for the world. Like all other worldly systems, colonial era has its history. If you read the Tafseer of Surah Kahaf from Ahmadiyya sources, you will find references to Ashabe Raqeem, the businessmen who wrote down contracts and made profits for themselves. Colonials were such businessmen. They were wrong to invade other lands. And those who defended their lands against them are heros. Tipu Sultan and Sirajud Daula are great heroes for all muslims of subcontinent.
But once a power establishes itself as a ruler on a land after victory and grants the residents acceptable rights, there should be no more violence. And we see that Ulema of the time, both from Deoband and Ahle Hadith schools agree with it. We are not concerned about the wealth that British made from their colonies as judging them from a 21st century point of view will be unfair. Same as judging Usmani caliphate for keeping armies of slaves who fought for them.
AS for Sikh rule, it was indeed dispotic after the death of Maharaja Ranjeet singh. Ranjeet himself was not a bad ruler. Yes, he had advisors who were islamophobic, but he himself was a wise and just man. During his time, Sikhs had tried to persecute muslims and succeeded in many areas, but Ranjit Singh himself tried his best to protect his muslim subjects from his own generals. After his death, power ended up with the ignorant sikhs who caused widespread trouble for muslims in Punjab. Promised Messiah (as) has written about this phase of despotic sikh rule while comparing it with the good governance brought by the British.
India went through many changes in late 19th century. You can generalize everything in 2010 while disregarding historic truths and details, but in the end, you are only showing yourself to be an unjust person.
As for Sayyad Ahmad Shaheed of Baraili, he was a martyr of the highest order who fought against the sikhs in the most Islamic manner. He did not cause a civil war, but fought at the borders of the sikh state in the open.
Brother Rationalist,
” The uncles of MGA hated islam, all of their sons left Islam, see imamuddin and the case of muhammadi begum, ………. This shows a trend of irreligious-ness in the Mirza family in general.”
And Mirza Sahib was always reminding some of these people to adopt Taqwa. I do not understand how it can be held against Mirza Sahib. Also brother rationalist, the argument about family does not seem a very reasonable line of thinking. Should we judge prophet Ibrahim, Nuh, and Lot by the actions of their father, son or wife ? Even in your own case, you are an ex-ahmadi and you believe you have seen the light. Do you want to be judged by the actions of your Ahmadi family members, who are still in the darkness according to your belief ?
@ lutf:
Your ideas are non-sensical. You are asking muslims to surrender. You might be a coward, but other muslims aren’t. “A coward dies a thousand deaths a soldier dies but once” You have probably never gotten into a fight in your life…
If someone comes to my house and takes over and then asks me to pay rent while they make billions of off me–thats grounds for war.
Your prophets uncles and father helped the army that killed a mujadid of Islam? Why dont you address that issue? You are trying to defend your prophet, which I expect….dont call the brits anything more than evil rulers who only wanted money.
And what did Barelvi believe about Jesus? What about prophethood? Should I even go there?
What about what the brits were doing in africa? What about Australia and the southern pacific. These people stole from the world. And a prophet supported them?? Please, go play on the freeway–the muslims aint buying it.
@ asad:
The point is as such:
This family shows tendencies of following the money….. wherever the money went they only wanted their land back and other favours…it was all about the money stupid…
rationalist, You can not look at history in an objective manner. I see the same mindset when certain islamophobes interpret the early islamic history and prove that Islam overpowered the world with sword. You present the historical context to them and they come back with their comparisons with the modern world. Why should you be any different?
Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rai Baraili considered himself to be the Mahdi at one point in his life. It is unclear to me if he openly claimed it or just expressed his opinion. He was very clear on the matter of Jihad though. He declared war and fought it by defending muslim lands around the Sikh state of Punjab.
Anyways, that story aside.. read what he said about the British.
حضرت سیّد احمد صاحب بریلوی شہید جنہوں نے جہاد کیا اور جہاد کے لئے آپ سرحد کی طرف روانہ ہوئے اور سکھوں سے بھی لڑائی کی وہ ایک مقدس دل ضرور تھا جس میں مسلمانوں کی غیرت موجزن تھی لیکن جہاں تک انگریزی حکومت کا تعلق ہے اس کے متعلق وہ کیا سمجھتے تھے اس بارہ میں آپ کے سوانح نگار محمد جعفر تھانیسری کی زبانی سنئے۔ وہ ’’ سوانح احمدی کلاں ‘‘ کے صفحہ ۷۱ پر لکھتے ہیں :۔
’’ کسی شخص نے آپ سے پوچھا کہ آپ اتنی دور سکھوں پر جہاد کرنے کیوں جاتے ہو ؟ انگریز جو اس ملک پر حاکم ہیں اور دین اسلام سے کیا منکر نہیں ہیں۔ گھر کے گھر میں ان سے جہاد کر کے ملک ہندوستان کو لے لو۔ آپ نے فرمایا ۔۔۔ سرکار انگریزی گو منکر اسلام ہے مگر مسلمانوں پر کچھ ظلم اور تعدی نہیں کرتی ۔۔۔ اور نہ ان کو فرض مذہبی اور عبادت لازمی سے روکتی ہے ہم ان کے ملک میں اعلانیہ وعظ کہتے ہیں اور ترویج مذہب کرتے ہیں وہ کبھی مانع اور مزاحم نہیں ہوتی۔۔۔ ہمارا اصل کام اشاعت توحیدِ الٰہی ہے ۔ اور احیاءِ سنن سیّد المرسلینؐ ہے ۔سو ہم بلا روک ٹوک اس ملک میں کرتے ہیں ۔ پھر ہم سرکار انگریزی پر کس سبب سے جہاد کریں اور خلاف اصول طرفین کا خون بلاسبب گراویں یہ جواب باصواب سن کر سائل خاموش ہو گیا اور اصل غرض جہاد کی سمجھ لی۔ ‘‘
As for uncles and brothers of Promised Messiah (as), their actions were a result of their particular situation at that time. i.e., being the citizens of an “estabished” sikh state. The Kashmir campaign of Ranjit singh was against the Afghan rulers. Who are recalled as despotic rulers of Kashmir in history books. I have no problems with that. Even RusoolAllah (saw) took part in a battle taking side of Meccan idolators.
‘Now remember, these same sikhs were not allowing muslims to say the adhan, ‘…
Surely this is not a claim for jihad because of religious oppression? Are not all Muslims in the West not allowed to say Adhan outside their mosques or homes. … and to respect the sensitivities of the community they live in? Otherwise….you are calling for jihad here in the West.
That’s my 2 pence worth. … keep the change.
Element, obviously you havent read the books of your wanna-be prophet, MGA wrote that the Jihad that was performed by Syed Ahmad Barelvi was legal, havent you read that???
Read this, dumb dumb:
“Just as before Jesus, the prophet John the Baptist was martyred while preaching the oneness of God, similarly before me in this very land of Punjab Sayyid Ahmad was martyred while preaching the message of the oneness of God. This was another similarity, which God fulfilled.” (Badr, 7th November 1907)
Have you even read the contents of this thread???
@ LUTF: When did the HP (saw) side with the idolaters? Please show me.
Also, you totally miss the point here, the point is Muslim unity, muslim helping muslim. The Brits, Sikhs and hindus hated the muslims collectively. It was probably the brits that funded the Sikh dynasty of the 1800’s. It was probably the Brits that caused the meltdown of the Mughals.
How does all of that data not register in cerebral cortex?
The Brits were very dangerous people, they suppressed the muslims for years, almost 250 years later the muslims still have not been able to recover….
And the messiah supported these people???
Go play on the freeway or something…
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883
In one of those battles, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) attended on his uncles but did not raise arms against their opponents. His efforts were confined to picking up the arrows of the enemy as they fell, and handing them over to his uncles. [Ibn Hisham 1/184-187; Qalb Jazeerat Al-Arab p.260]
http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Books/B0033P0006.aspx
Also, if you look at the accounts of British officers, they trusted muslims to be more loyal and honest (some even considered them to be more intelligent than Hindus). There was definitely a factor of pride and love for faith that muslims held above all others qualities, but the British kept the freedom of faith as one of their key policies throughout their stay in the country.
British army which fought the mutineers of 1857 had a huge number of muslim soldiers. Pathans made sure that the British regained power in India. Same Pathans are the Taliban of today..
Did you quote ibn Hisham?? Do you know that this guy wrote that the satanic verses actaully happened? What about the wives of Muhamadd? Do you know what he wrote about that?
This is your reference?? Are you serious? Even if this report is authentic (which i doubt), did he kill someone for his enemies??
The british paid muslims to die for them, the brits needed soldiers, they were doing whatever it took to get more soldiers. This is “war strategy”, the brits created disorder in the land, they even had muslims fighting muslim, what an EVIL RACE!!
How would you feel if ahmadis were killing other ahmadis?? Doesnt fell to good does it!!
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883
Please these questions to countless Ahle Hadith (salafis), Deobandi maulvis who issued fatwas against the rebellion. Also, Muftis from Makkah called India “dar-ul-Islam”. Its a problem for you to solve as Ahmadis do not use Taqiyyah as part of our faith.
@ Lutf….
you cant defend ahmadiyyat much longer…. your heart will turn, I predict that much….
All we can do is pray for Lutf and to continue to convey the message to him. Hidaayah is from Allah (SWT) alone. May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis to Islam.