Page 2 of 3
THE ALLEGED JIHA:D OF FAD:L HAQQ KH:AIRABADI 1857 CE Confession Of Fa:l Haqq Khairaba:di: that He did not take part in War of 1857 CE. Page 19 (20 pdf)
Imam of Kh:airabadi: cult Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airaba:di: writes:= “I was sending farward those who were sitting aside, and sat aside when the war began. I was unable---- due to my inertness. I committed a crime [ of sitting during the war]. When the people of good destiny called me for Martyrdon[ to be martyred in the war] I remained absent [did not got present]. I was deprived of Martyrdom and the people of good destiny drank the cup of wine of Martyrdom�. [ Ba:hg:i: Hindusta:n ;Fifth edition Maktabah Qa:daryah Lahore PAGE 19,(20 PDF)] Sharf Qa:diri has tried to interpret these sentences according to his theological motivations. But we want to derive some results from the text.
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 Fad:l H:aqq did say the followings:= 1] He was motivating others to join the war . 2] He himself did not join the war. 3] He was idle and inert . 4] He was called to join the war. 5] He neglected the call and did not join the war. 6] He acknowledged that we was not Martyred due to the reason he did not join the war. So Fad:l H:aqq cannot be a Muja:hid since by his own Confession he did not join the war. This is a definite and certain proof that Malavi Fad:l H:aqq did not take part in Jiha:d. The Text is silent on the issue:= 1] Maulavi Fd:l H:aqq signed a Fatva: about the Jiha:d. 2] Fad:l H:aqq pioneered a Fatva: of Jiha:d. 3] Fad:l H:aqq issued a Fatva: of Jiha:d. As this is only on the issue of Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq’s participation in the War 1857 CE, it is clear that he by his own confession did not participate in the War. Sharf Q:adiri: on page 26 says as an objection on the research of ‘Imtiaz “Ali: “Arshi [Tah:ri:k] “ Participation of “Allamah Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airabadi: in the War of 1957CE is among Postulates [M-SALLMA:T] and to falsify it [Muh:aqqiq “Arshi:] would have published the Photo Copy of the original Letter”. But this is incorrect, since when Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airabadi: himself contradicteth the alleged postulate then the objection becometh invalid. All those who try to ascribe his role as a Muja:hid actually contradict him . Now if he is speaking truth then they are speakers of falsehood, if they are speaking truth then he is speaker of falsehood, both can not be true, neither both can be false. If he did write it in the book but his sons subtracted it then it is a proof of PERVERSION of Text of the book by his sons.
Page 3 of 3