Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, came out in support of Wahabis when the infamous Patna Trials were going on against certain Indian Muslims for waging the war against the British. The British believed that all the accused were Wahabis and Wahhabism was the driving force behind them but Sir Syed argued otherwise. He tried to prove that Wahabis were loyal to the British. Here, we are reproducing his article published in the Pioneer in 1871.
Dear Sir,
It is to be regretted that certain Anglo-Indian journals have misinterpreted the Futwa alluded to in your article of to-day’s issue, and have deduced therefrom that Mohammedans in India would be justified in waging war against our Government were the prospects of success certain. As a staunch well-wisher of the British Government, and at the same time as a well-wisher to true Wahabeeism (Wahhabism), I venture to claim the indulgence of space for these few lines in your next issue. It may shock some of my worthy friends to see me standing forth as the friend of Wahabeeism, but I trust they will acquit me from the imputation of being a Wahabee in the sense of being a Wahabee conspirator. Wahabeeism as exemplified by certain misguided men in India, is not Wahabeeism at all; and those who are really guilty of conspiring against Government are not acting up to the principles of their religious tenets. I say “really guilty” advisedly, as I have no doubt in my own mind that some persons, whose names I do not like to mention, were falsely imputed with such charges through the enmity and spite of certain parties. The true nature of the Wahabee case now pending in the Patna Court is unknown to me.
As regards the portion of the Futwa alluded to, as having been misinterpreted by the Englishman and other journals, I will now say a few words. The learned Moulavis, under whose authority the Futwa has been given out, declare Jehad against Government to be unlawful and unwarranted by the Mohammedan religion, and in support of their verdict they quote the following precepts:
- Mohammedans who live under the protection of a Government professing a different faith, are not justified in declaring a religious war against it.
- When there exists a treaty or peace between Mohammedans and some other people of a different religion, Jehad against the latter is unlawful.
- Jehad is allowable when there is every probability of victory to Mohammedans and glory to Islam.
It is the last which has caused the mistake into which Anglo-Indian journals have fallen, which has made them opine that were the Mohammedans strong enough to cope with the British, those in India would be justified in rising in rebellion against Government. This is a perfectly erroneous interpretation of the clause in question. Its real meaning is that when of two independent kingdoms, the one being a Mohammedan, the other of a different faith, when there is no treaty between the two, and when in the non-Mohammedan country Mohammedans are ill-treated and are interdicted from preaching their religion, then the followers of Mohammed are enjoined to consider their strength and chances of success; and should they deem the latter likely, they are then to draw the sword for the glory and welfare of Islam. For example, should the king of Persia think his chances of success against the Russian Emperor good, should that Emperor ill-treat Mohammedans, he would be justified, according to his religion, in declaring war at once. This not being the case, he is justified in remaining quiet. The Mohammedans in India are, as shown in the Futwa, in no way justified in engaging in any project having for its object the subversion of the English Government. They have perfect freedom of speech, and no one interferes with their religion; and even were their religion interfered with, their proper course, according to the Mohammedan religion, would be to leave the country and not to rebel against Government.
As regards the Wahabees in India, as far as my experience goes, their principles are identical with those of other Mohammedans as regards the unlawfulness of a Jehad against our Government. In 1857 when Bakht Khan was in Delhi, and endeavoured to compel the Moulavis of that city to issue a Futwa, declaring a Jehad against the British Government lawful, two persons, both Wahabees, boldly opposed him, backed up though he was by the bayonets of his soldiery. One of these was a famous Moulavi holding an influential position in Delhi. Again, only one Wahabee joined the rebels during the Mutiny, and he was forced to do so. I dare say I shall not be believed in my statement that true Wahabeeism is not inimical to our Government, and I have no doubt that many people will abuse me for my Wahabee proclivities. By the English I shall be suspected as an intriguer, and by many of my ignorant fellow-countrymen, I shall be condemned as a well-wisher to the Government, as one who lends his name and authority towards checking all unlawful (though in their eyes lawful) and ambitious schemes. I am prepared for – am indeed perfectly accustomed to-being misunderstood by both. Such has been my lot now for many years.
In conclusion, I will only say that I trust the Patna trial will be closely watched both by the Government and by the public. If the prisoners are really guilty of the offence with which they are charged, they have been guilty of a great crime against society and against the true principles of their religion. Let their punishment be sharp and severe. Government, however, must bear in mind that the sects called Wahabees and Bidaties (Bidati, a word mostly Wahabis use for Sunnis in general) are bitter enemies, that their feelings towards one another are as bitter as were those of the Roman Catholics towards the Protestants in the days of the Reformation; and that it is therefore not at all improbable in this land of intrigue that false charges have been laid against innocent men, and that hundreds of false witnesses will testify to their guilt.
Syed Ahmed
Benares, 31st March 1871.
