There is a striking similarity between the uprising of 1857 in India and the9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States. Bothevents sparked off a heated public debate on the question of jihad in Islamiclaw, and the obligation of Muslims to calls to jihad by clerics or privateindividuals.
After quelling the uprising, the British came down heavily on Muslims, whom theysuspected of being the main fomenters of the revolt to fulfil their obligationto jihad. In fact, Lord Mayo mooted the question, "Are Indian Muslims bound bytheir religion to rebel against the Queen?"
In 1871, Sir William Hunter, who was asked to investigate the causes ofwidespread disaffection among Muslims, produced a book titled The IndianMusalmans, in which he asserted, "The Musalmans of India are and have been formany years, a chronic danger to the British power in India."
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan wrote a review of the book and strongly refuted theallusions of Hunter with particular reference to his poor understanding of jihadin Islam. He emphatically asserted that, "As long as the Muslims can affirmtheir faith in One God and preach it in peace, the religion does not permit themto rise against the rulers irrespective of their faith or race."
In addition to this review, Sir Syed wrote extensively to elucidate the conceptof jihad in Islam. In a commentary to the Quran, Sir Syed wrote that Islam haspermitted only two eventualities in which Muslims may resort to armed action.First, if the enemy, motivated by the desire to annihilate the religion, attacksMuslims, then they can take to arms to repulse such attacks. But this measure ofself-defence shall be qualified as jihad only if it is certain that theaggression has been committed purely on account of enmity towards Islam and notfor any territorial or worldly gains. Any other conflict, be it between twocontending Muslim parties or between Muslims and non-Muslims, is strictly atemporal affair and has nothing to do with religion.
The other justification for armed action is when Muslims, on account of theirreligion, are denied safety and security and freedom of faith. In this context,Sir Syed points out that armed action can be taken only by a free people to helpthe oppressed, not by the oppressed themselves if they are living as a subject.Their option is either to endure the oppression or migrate to some other land.
Sir Syed describes this as the beautiful way out shown by Islam and asserts thatthis is the armed action that Islam permits and has named it as jihad. He thenasks, can any fair-minded person describe this action to be against theprinciples of morality or justice?
Further he asserts that Islam admits no scope for mischief, treachery, mutiny orrebellion. In fact, whosoever guarantees peace and security, be he a believer ordisbeliever, is entitled to Muslim gratitude and obedience.
Sir Syed describes the laws of war in Islam as just and noble, but criticisesMuslim rulers for their barbarism and accuses them of profaning these pure laws.He also accuses the ulema [clergy] of violating the noble spirit of Islam bydefending these rulers. Sir Syed held that rulers like Mahmoud Ghaznavi andAurangzeb who oppressed people, did so in breach of Islam; their accountabilityis personal and individual and their evil deed must not be attributed to Islam.
Advertisement
Arif Mohammed Khan is a former Union Minister
