Page 2 of 7
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 7
Page 3 of 7 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. But it may still be the case that he either issued a Fatva: of the War of 1857 CE or pioneered it or signed it. How ever he never participated in the war it may be the case he motivated people to join the War of 1857 CE in its initial Battles and Stages.
Page 3 of 7
Page 4 of 7 First we want to discuss the claim that he issued a Fatva or Pioneered it or signed it. But Fad:l Haqq Khairaba:di did not state any thing in the alleged Autobiography in regard to the War. He is completely silence on the issue. This means that he neither Issued a Fatva: , nor Pioneered It ,nor Signed it other wise he must have stated the most important event of his life in his Autobiography unless and otherwise it is accepted that these contents are expunged from the alleged word inplying Perversion in the text [Tah:ri:f fil Mat-n]. It can be argued that this argument is an argument of silence and an argument of silence is considered as a weak argument in the world of argumentations and reasonings. We accept this in principle but in certain cases an argument of silence does gain power far beyond the normal arguments of silence and even more powerful then argument of speech.[ Speech opposite of Silence]. It may be an irregular case yet it is not an impossible case. The points which bestow super strength to the argument stated above are as follow:= 1] Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airabadi: is himself writing his biography in regard to his person’s involvement in the war. It is not thoughtable that he can skip the most important event of his life in the autobiography. 2]The British could not give him more punishment even if he had admitted that he had one of the three stated relations with the Fatva:. So he had nothing to hide for any reason. 3] He did not have any hope of reopening the case for himself as it appears from the end parts of his autobiography. So he could not hide this fact from his Autoiography. 4] He did confess different acts which must have been considered as high treason by the British Government and if he could write them fearlessly there was no reason to hide this fact if it was a fact. Second Evidence On Page 258 it is written:= “All it was happening , from some towns and villages, some brave Muslims took a Fatva: OF Necessity Of Jiha:d, written by Pious men ,Scholars and People of ‘Ijtiha:d and insurrected”. He had mentioned a Fatva: of others and not of him. Why? This shews that he did not issued a Fatva:. At least this Fatva: is not his, neither he signed it ,nor pioneered it nor issued it. He mentions the Issuers of Fatva: strictly other than him and does not make a single doubt of his inclusion in any regard. If he had been involved in an other Fatva: he must have stated it some where near it. He has stated all the necessary events from this Faqva to the invasion of Company forces but did not state his Fatva. This does shew that he was not invoved in any Fatva: what so ever. Page 4 of 7
Page 5 of 7 On page 268 Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq writes: “At that time my relatives, people of my house etc. were present in a large number ion Delhi [Dahli],I was also called, with it was the hope of victory, what so ever was to occur in future was written in past [ on Divine Tablet], I moved toward Delhi and reached there, and met by family there. I gave advices according to my perception and capabilities. But they did not accept my advices”. This does shew that after the war began Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq left Delhi and went somewhere probably to Kh:airabad. He did not participated in the War. He was called when the Indians began to lose the war in Dahli/Delhi. He somehow came there and gave advises to his members of Family but his advices were not accepted. Probably because he was not aware of the situations as they were as he was not present there during this period. On page 273 he mentions that he reached safely to his mother-town [Kh:airaba:d] . During this period he did not fight once again. Third Proof On page 362 Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq has given his statement as follows in the court. “I was in the sevive of ruler [Rahah] of Alor. I was there for 5 years. I was with him after the beginning of insurrection. After the death of Rajah Bannay Singh I did remain there. In August 1857 CE I left Alor and went toward Delhi. I stayed in Dehli [there] for fifteen days and then returned to Alor. I left my family there [in Alor] and then went towards Kh:airaba:d [Home-Town,MotherTown] in September 1857CE. I remained in my house and Neither did not do any service to any one Nor Met Instructors.. [Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq gives the name of His witnesses]. Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq confess that he had meeting with to British officials of the Company rules. 1] Brigadier Troop 2] Colonel Clark. [Dec 26-1857 CE] One 30th Dec. 1857 CE the Deputy Commissioner sent him to Lakhnow. [See page 362] On page 257 the following charges were accepted as true . 1] To Motivate people to fight during the war.
Page 5 of 7
Page 6 of 7 2] Particularly in Avadh. This matches with what Maulavi: Fad:l H:aqq himself wrote. This means that: Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq neither issued any Fatva of War, nor Pioneered it , nor signed it. If he would have done any one of the three thing he must have been accused for these acts. He did not come to Delhi as theorized by some of his supporterd like “Abdul H:aki:m Sharf Qa:diri etc. He only stayed for fifteen days in Delhi. He only motivated people to join the war to some extent while he was in Delhi but latter on he went to Alor and then to Kh:airabad. He did not motivate people after he left Delhi. On page 364 Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airabadi said : “Fad:l H:aqq is the Noun of an other person. I am arrested in place of him. He is now with Firoz Shah. He was Tah:s:i:l dar of Anolah. He was in sevice of Kh:an Baha:dur Kh:an and Begum, He is a Saiyid and a citizen of Shahjahanpur.” One may see the preceeding of the case published in BAGH:I HINDUSTAN compiled by the Barailvai Scholar Sharf Qa:diri, one of the worst Nemesis of ‘Ahlussunnah Deoband, Ahlul H:adi:th: and ‘Ima:m ‘Ash Sha: ‘Isma:”i:l ‘Ash Shahi:d Dahlavi RH:. He attempted to prove with thousand interpretations and self reasoned arguments that Fad:l H:aqq Kha:iraba:di: did take part in the War 1857 CE. But he was not successful . All the contents which he included proves the contrary on critical analysis and comprehensive study. How ever it does appear that the company Judges accused him of those acts which he acknowledges in his alleged Biography. An other point to be noted. How did British court was convinced the innocence of Maulavi Fad:l Haqq to release him when he was sentenced for all his remaing life to live in Andaman Island in Exile as the punishment. His sons and advocates must have convinced the court that := “Fad:l H:aqq is the Noun of an other person. I am arrested in place of him. He is now with Firoz Shah. He was Tah:s:i:l dar of Anolah. He was in sevice of Kh:an Baha:dur Kh:an and Begum, He is a Saiyid and a citizen of Shahjahanpur.” Those who still consider these sentence of Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq as just a legal technique to defend him probably thought by his Lawyers, consider him so weak in Moral Values that he was accusing an other person who was not involved just to get saved. Is this the character they want to ascribe to Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq which even we do not like to do?
Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7
Page 7 of 7