Indian Muslims’ Attitude Towards Modernity During The Changing Conditions Of 18th And 19th Centuries: Positive Or Negative?

By Dr. Javed Akhatar, New Age Islam 2 October 2023 Introduction: This article is based upon the thesis titled “Indian Muslim Attitudes towards the British in the early Nineteenth Century: A Case Study of Shah Abdul Aziz,” which was submitted by Professor Mushirul Haq to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Islamic Studies at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, in April 1964. Later, the Institute of Islamic Culture in Lahore, Pakistan, published it in book form in 1985. I have synthesized Professor Haq’s various ideas, propositions, and facts from this work and combined them to develop a single concept, which I have presented in this article for your consideration. This article is concerned with examining the attitude of Indian Muslims towards modernity during the changing conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries. There were primarily three kinds of challenges or questions facing the Muslim masses and the Ulama of that time: 1. Conflict between Company and Missionaries: This article also discusses that relationship between two major groups of Christians (the ‘East India Company’ and the ‘missionaries’) and how the Company’s attitude gradually shifted towards social toleration and friendliness, which was also influencing Muslim society. 2. Religious Challenges: There were questions concerning the legal status of the country (dar ul-harb or dar ul-Islam) according to the Shariah under the British rule. 3. Social Challenges: The other problem was whether the Muslims should engage in social contact with the British people; whether they should learn the English language, wear English dress, and dine with them. 4. Economical Challenges: Questions were raised about accepting jobs under the British government. In this article, we will see how Professor Mushirul Haq analyses the prevailing attitude of Indian Muslims towards modernity, particularly during the time of Shah Abdul Aziz. Were they characterized by optimism or scepticism? In the following pages, we shall attempt to address the above four questions. Tussle between Company and Missionary: Nowadays when most of the Indian Muslims study the British history of India, they very often overlook one important point. They tend to think that from the first day of their arrival in India the British had a plan to spread Christianity all over the subcontinent. Therefore, they think that the Ulama stood against the Christians. We will see that in the period under four study the British of the East India Company were not as much interested in Christianity as they were in their trade and economy. They did not consider themselves responsible for Christianity. The responsibility lay with the missionaries who were at first forbidden by the East India Company to set foot on Indian soil. However, the missionaries entered India without the permission of the Company’s Directors. When they did so the two were for a long time hostile to each other. The Company maintained a typically commercial attitude till as late as 1758. Until the third decade of the nineteenth century, the missionaries who wanted to enter India needed to obtain permit from the Company. When Lord Minto became Governor General of India (1807-1813), he “imposed severe restrictions upon the Baptist Mission Press at Serampore (Bengal) from which, unknown to the missionaries, there had recently been issued a number of violent attacks upon Islam and Hinduism”. But Lord Minto was criticised at home as hostile to missionaries. However, he soon assumed a liberal attitude to missionaries, and “finally took upon himself the responsibility of permitting two Baptist missionaries to proceed to Agra and Delhi”. It was in 1833 that the Company’s Charter was renewed and it was declared that the missionaries were no longer required to possess a licence in order to set foot in India. In the course of time, however, the attitude of the Company began to change. Though very often hostile to the Indians in their religious belief (however honest they might be in their own eyes), missionaries started public work to win the sympathy of the Indians. They aimed at dissemination of education, sanitation, and eradication of social evils. They established some schools, hospitals and social service centres. Their schools basically were to provide the scriptural guidance, but the door was open to all. Religious Challenges before Muslims It is now generally believed that Shah Abdul Aziz gave the fatwa in 1803 that India was Dar ul-Harb, when the East India Company became the de facto ruler of the Mughal India and thus it was obligatory for every Muslim to stand for jihad or to migrate from the country. To justify the claim, one may still say that when Shah Abdul Aziz issued this fatwa the Muslim rule in India was politically at an end. The Mughal ruler, who had the religious authority to declare jihad, was under the influence of the British, and therefore, Shah Abdul Aziz, being an alim, considered it his duty to declare jihad to restore the Muslim power. This thesis might be acceptable if Shah Abdul Aziz had proved this hypothesis by his own action. We all know that neither did Shah Abdul Aziz himself launch any jihad movement against the British nor did hid ever call the people to fight against them. Neither he nor any of his followers in his life time migrated from India. But if by his fatwa Shah Abdul Aziz did declare that India was Dar ul-Harb, but apparently did not at the same time open any war against the British, then:  We ought to know the purpose of the fatwa.  And it is also very important to see why the Muslims were so anxious to know whether India was Dar ul-Harb or Dar ul-Islam. This mystery will be solved when we examine the rest of the fatwa (here we will pick three Fatawa) issued by Shah Abdul Aziz. Istifta (a question) 1: “Is the whole domain (Mulk) of the Christians (nasara) Dar ul-Harb or not? And if it is, what is the decision about taking usury (suud) from Christians and about performing the congregational Friday prayer”. Fatwa (his reply was): All the necessary conditions for a Dar ul-Harb have been laid down in the fiqh books. A few of them are given below. If these conditions exist in the domain of the Christians, then it is Dar ul-Harb. And if the domain of Christians [according to these conditions] is Dar ul-Harb then [for a Muslim] it is permitted (ja’iz) to take usuary from Kuffar. As to the performing of the Friday prayers in a Dar ul-Harb, [it is written that] if there is a Muslim officer (hakim) in Dar ul-Harb appointed by [the ruler of] the infidels, then the Friday prayers will be performed by the permission of the [Muslim] officer. And if there is no Muslim hakim in Dar ul-Harb, the Muslims should select and honest man from among themselves and consider him as their leader (ra’is). They should perform their Friday and Eid prayers with his permission. Istifta (a question) 2: “Whether or not the region (‘amaldari) under the English (Angrez) administration and that of other similar non-Muslims were Dar ul-Hrab. And if they were Dar ul-Harb, whether or not it was allowed to take usury from the non-Muslims.” Fatwa (to this question he replied): According to Fiqh the usuary between a Muslim and an infidel of Dar ul-Harb is allowed. … It should be known that the opinion about Dar ul Islam as being not changed into Dar ul Harb at all is somehow weak. It is true that a Dar ul-Islam becomes Dar ul-Harb. Of course, on this point there is disagreement among the Ulama, as to when a Dar ul-Islam becomes Dar ul-Harb. One group says that if even one Islamic rite like azan (call to prayer) or khatna (circumcision) is forbidden by force the Dar ul Islam becomes Dar ul-Harb. Another group of Ulama says that just by abolishing the Islamic rites a Dar ul-Islam does not become Dar ul-Harb unless the infidel rites are openly practised in Dar ul-Islam. In the later circumstances a Dar ul-Islam becomes Dar ul-Harb, though all the Islamic rites are still existing. Some other Ulama have gone to this extent to say that Dar ul-Harb is country where no Muslim or zimmi (a non-Muslim subject) remains in peace under the aman-i-awwal, no matter whether Islamic rites exist or not, and whether infidel rites are openly practiced or not. The scholars (muhaqqiqin) have preferred this third opinion, and according to this opinion the region under the English and other similar non-Muslim people is, no doubt, Dar ul-Harb. Istifta (a question) 3: “After how long would conquering kuffar be considered according to the Shariah as the legal owners of the land and of the movable property of the Dar ul-Islam, and whether or not it was lawful (halal) for a man to accept anything from that property if the Kuffar granted it to him.” Fatwa (he replied): If the Kuffar capture some movable property and transfer it to their own country, they would be considered as owners of those things. About the question, ‘after how long does a Dar ul-Islam become Dar ul-Harb’, it should be understood, that on this question the Ulama hold different opinions. Some of them say that a Dar ul-Islam never becomes Dar ul-Harb, till there is any other Dar ul-Islam in between the two aforesaid Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-Harb. The other hold the opinion that so long as even any one Islamic rite is publicly practised the country remains Dar ul-Islam. If all Islamic rites are abolished it will become Dar ul-Harb. Some other Ulama say that if the kuffar abolish even one Islamic rite (sha’ayar) the Dar ul-Islam would remain no longer. But the most reasonable opinion is this that country (mulk) remains Dar ul-Islam as long as the Muslims and infidels are fighting, and the Muslims have not lost hope of retaining their country, and they have not been completely subjugated, and the kuffar have not become strong enough to forbid Islamic rites, and the Muslims can live and carry on their business without the permission of kuffar. The temporary capture of infidels is of no value. This capture will be nullified by the victory of Islam. But if the Muslims have lost the battle and have submitted to them and are living in the country and carrying on their business with the permission of infidels, and the Islamic rites are practised only because the infidels are not prejudiced against them, and not because the Muslims are strong enough to practise them, the country is no longer Dar ul-Islam, even if the Muslims are thinking of waging war again after preparation. In these circumstances it is lawful for the kuffar to grant anything or everything from the conquered country. This is what we find in the Fatawa Azizi in regard to Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-Harb. After examining the first (famous) fatwa (of jihad), we concluded that Shah Abdul Aziz, by declaring the country as Dar ul-Harb, could not and did not declare a war against the British, and that the Muslim (or Muslims) who asked the question were not necessarily prepared to fight. That is why the first question is colourless and does not lead us to any conclusion. However, all the other questions clearly show the motives of the questioners. Instead of asking of their duties to restore the Dar ul-Islam they are anxious to know whether the new situation has opened the door of usury in field of economy. As long as India was Dar ul-Islam they could not take usury, though they must have been paying it to others. But if the political situation was changed and India had become Dar ul-Harb where usury was allowed why should they not themselves benefit form the new situation? Perhaps it would seem going too far saying that the question of Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-Harb was the product of an economic problem, but evidently this does not seem entirely baseless. The Indian Muslims, not only in the time of Shah Abdul Aziz, but even after him as late as the end of the 19th century, have been raising the same question of Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-Harb in connection with usury. For example, let us have a look at the fatawa of another alim, Mawlana Abdul Hayy of Lucknow, (1847-1886). He was a very famous alim and his fatawa have been collected in three volumes. In 1881 Mawlana Hayy was asked whether British India was Dar ul-Harb or not. He categorically replied that in accordance with the views of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, India would be Dar ul-Islam. On another occasion he was asked whether or not it was allowed for a Muslim to take usury from Hindus. This question arose because he had replied to a question saying he said that it was not allowed to take usury from Hindus, because India was Dar ul-Islam. A question came that in the British India the Muslims used to deposit their money with the Christins and receive interest, which was called wathiqah. The Mawlana was asked whether or not it was lawful to take interest on deposited money. He declared the interest to be lawful, because British India, as he said, according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, was Dar ul-Harb. In our present study we cannot go into detail to find out the reason for inconsistencies in Mawlana Abdul Hayy’s answers about the political situation of India. We are only to see the motives of the question about the status of the country. As we see, during this time also the question of Dar ul-Harb was mainly asked in order to know the possibility of taking usury. Social Challenges before Muslims The importance of such challenges during 18the and 19the centuries can easily be imagined from the following incidents: Muslims began to show interest in Mission Schools: In the beginning Muslims were afraid of Mission Schools. But soon they were also attracted by them. “The register of the boys in the free school at Benares, where no distinctions were permitted, contains the names of 142 pupils admitted between June 1824 and May 1833, and includes representatives of innumerable castes ranging from Brahmans to Sudras, Christians and Muhammadans”. Inclination towards new learning in Muslim quarters was seen even before that time. Warren Hastings, “roused by a petition from a considerable number of respectable Muhammadans, had founded a Madrasa, or College, in Culcutta, in 1781”. A few years later, in 1792, the Oriental College of Delhi (afterwards known as Delhi college) was founded; it was revived in 1825, when a new English class was started in the college. In the beginning the Muslims of Delhi suspected the policy of introducing an English class into Delhi College, but very soon they realised that their suspicion was not entirely based upon reason. And within three years, in 1831, the number of boys who took admission in the English class is said to have reached 300. Muslim participated in the College not only as students but they also took an interest in its establishment. A wealthy Muslim endowed a handsome amount to run the College, and the Ulama accepted chairs in the College under the Principalship of an English-man. Mawlana Mamluk Ali was the Head of the Arabic Department. Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotawi (the founder of Deoband school) also was on the staff, though for a very short time. Mufti Sadru Din Azurdah was one of the examiners. Inter-marriage between Muslims and Christians: Here we shall examine those who married English women, and whose English wives were welcomed into their houses. According to Islamic law, a Muslim is allowed to marry a Christian woman, but, as was felt particularly strongly at that time, not vice versa. In spite of this there are examples of Christians marrying Muslim women. “Some of them married into the best Mussulman families, like Major Hyder Hearsay (1782/3-1840), who married Zahur-ul-Nisa Begum, daughter of the deposed prince of Cambay and adopted as a daughter by the Emperor Akbar Shah II, … Col. Hearsay’s son married the Nawab Mulka Humani Begum, daughter of Mirza Suliman Sheko and niece of Akbar II”. Begum Samru (1753-1836) of Sardhana is also an example of this; by birth she was a Muslim girl and her father was a noble (amir) at the Mughal court. Now we shall see some cases of those Christian women who married Indian Muslims and were received warmly in Muslim-houses. There are not many examples available. Among the Ulama, however, there was one Mawlawi Ismail Muradabadi who married and English woman, and was called Mawlawi Landani (the Mawlawi of London). There is another Shia gentlemen, Mir Hasan Ali of Lucknow (son of learned Shia Imam Mir Haji Shah) who married an English woman. Eating Food with the Britishers: It happened that a mawlawi who was a munsif (a judicial officer) in the East India Company, somewhere in the Panjab, had his meal with his English officers at a common table. The Ulema of that locality declared him to have gone outside the fold of Islam. The mawlawi tried to convince them on the ground of the Qur’an and the Hadith and the Fiqh, but all in vain. At last, they came to Shah Abdul Aziz. At the entrance of the house, they met Shah Rafî’ud Din, his younger brother, and asked his opinion. He unequivocally said that the mawlawi was right. The opponents of the mawlawi did not accept his opinion and went to Shah Abdul Aziz. He after hearing the case, delivered a long speech, to the effect that the mawlawi had committed a great mistake, and that he had reached the verge of Kufr. The opponents of the mawlawi were delighted. The poor mawlawi and his relatives asked Shah Abdul Aziz what to do and how to re-enter the fold of Islam. Shah Abdul Aziz then replied that the mawlawi had not gone out of Islam, because jut by reaching the verge of Kufr no one could become Kafir. But, to be on the safe side, he asked him to recite “Kalimah-i Shahadah” (the words of witness to the faith) and made him drink the holy water of the Qadam Sharif (the holy foot). This attitude of Shah Abdul Aziz may be understood as if he was of the opinion that the Muslims should not mix with the non-Muslims; otherwise, like his brother, he would have said very frankly that the mawlawi was right. But, if we remember the situation in which he was living, we should at least have to give some credit to him for his intelligent way of handling the situation. Muslims on Wearing English dress: On the question of wearing English dress Shah Abdul Aziz said: “A resemblance between Muslims and kuffar is forbidden. But only that resemblance is forbidden which is born with the intention of exhibiting oneself like infidels or winning their sympathy. Otherwise, there is no harm in using the things which are especially related to infidels with the intention of providing more comfort to the body” Muslims thought to Learn English Language: Now we shall see those Muslims who saw the changing situation of the county and decided to learn English language. Not only did they think about it, but they learnt it without attending any school. Allama Tafazzul Husayn was a famous Shia alim. He had not only profound knowledge of Arabic, Persian and Urdu, but had also learnt Greek, Latin and English. He is said to have translated some works of Newton into Persian. About Nawab Rawshanud Dawlah, Abdul Qadir Rampuri says that he could read and write the English language, and he compiled and English Dictionary. Mawlawi Muhammad Ismail Muradabadi knew English language very well. He had been in England and had married an English woman. His nephew, Mawlana Wahhajud Din alias Mawlana Munuu had learnt the English language from his aunt, Mrs. Ismail, and had “full command over the language”. Among such persons there is one Lutfullah whom we shall study in some detail. As we see there are several Indian Muslims at that time who learnt the English language, but, perhaps, Lutfullah is the first Indian Muslim who studied the language and wrote his biography (1854) in English and had it published in London. One may ask why Muslim society was not provoked at this social toleration and friendliness. This is a question which needs an answer. And that answer, perhaps, will lead us to another question as to why this social toleration did not succeed. Economic Challenges before Muslims Whether Muslims should cooperate with the British or not: The next most important question was whether Muslims should cooperate with the British or not. About this problem we read the opinion of Shah Abdul Aziz when he explains the Qur’anic verse: “And do not collaborate in sin and transgressions”. (Qur’an 5: 2) he says: The collaboration (mu’awanat) is of two kinds, paid and unpaid. Nowadays the paid collaboration is called ‘service’ and the other one is called ‘assistance’. In either case there are some kinds of work which are admissible and some of them are forbidden. If the infidels are preparing themselves to fight with Muslims or to conquer a Dar ul-Islam, it is forbidden then to serve them or to assist them, and it is a grave sin to do so. If the infidels fight each other and employ the Muslims [to fight the infidels] then it is permitted, according to the Shairah. Likewise, it is permitted to serve the infidels if they employ the Muslims to keep watch over their property or to manage the civil administration of their country, as it is permitted to assist them in tailoring or in trading etc. But now after a lot of deliberation, it appears to me that the above-mentioned services also are not altogether free from unlawfulness (hurmat). At least man feels hesitant in refusing their illegitimate [in the eyes of the Shariah] orders, and gradually he becomes their obedient servant. Thus, the number of unbelievers goes up and their strength, power and prestige increase. But if this [service or assistance] is of the kind in which man has not to be very close with the infidels, then, undoubtedly this is lawful. There were several Ulama who served the East India Company. Mawlana Fazl-i Imam Khayrabadi (d. 1828), Mufti Sadruddin Azurdah (1789-1863), Mawlana Mamluk Ali (d. 1851), Mawlawi Abdul Qadir Rampuri (1780-1849), and Mawlana Fazl-i Haq Khayrabadi (1797-1861) were among the well-known names. Whether to accept jobs under the Christians: On another occasion when he was asked about accepting jobs under the Christians, he said: Service under the Christians or under any infidel are of different kinds. Some of them are permissible (mubah), some of them are desirable (mustahab), and some of them are forbidden (haram), and some of them are gross sin (kabirah) and near to kufr. If some one accepts a job under infidels for good purpose, e.g., protecting people from thieves and robbers, or providing Shariah witness in the court, or constructing a bridge, or building or repairing a building like a caravanserai for the use of the general public, then, no doubt, these kinds of service are permissible, even desirable. If someone accepts a position under the infidels just to promote social contact with them, and if because of the nature of his work he happens to see the things which are against the Shariah, or if he has to assist them in injustice, for example, if he works as a clerk, or as a domestic servant or as a soldier, or such types of work in which he is supposed to respect them beyond a limit, or he has to humiliate himself before them while standing or sitting, then these kinds of service are forbidden. If someone accepts a post under them to kill a Muslim or to destroy a [Muslim] state or to promote infidel practices or to find faults with Islam just for the sake of criticism, then all these services are grave sin and near to kufr. We see this is not a categorical statement. Shah Abdul Aziz has not clearly said that service under the British was forbidden. He has classified the services and then mentioned what types of service were forbidden. No doubt all these services which Shah Abdul Aziz has classified under the forbidden services are forbidden according to the Shariah, whether the employer is Christian, infidel or even Muslim. It is therefore, hard to say that Shah Abdul Aziz was totally against serving the British. In the Fatawa Azizi we read a letter from Shah Ghulam Ali (a famous sufi of his time) to Shah Abdul Aziz. It goes on: “Someone has told me that there is a proposal in our school for Mawlawi Abdul Hayy (the nephew of Shah Abdul Aziz), to accept a position as a mufti under the European infidels. By God I was shocked to have heard this news. I prefer to sit like a beggar instead of being a wealthy man by holding an office under them. For God’s sake Mawlawi Abdul Hayy must not entertain the idea of accepting such inauspicious service. He had better remain content with a loaf of bread. He should teach the students and be busy in meditation. In no case this offer, be accepted”. Shah Abdul Aziz replied to him: “This is a fact that Mawlawi Ri’ayat Ali Khan, the agent of the British (Mukhtar), had written to me several times to send to him an austere alim who knows Islamic law, and could advise him in judiciary affairs in the light of fiqh. We replied to him saying that it was possible that they (the British) might ask the alim to do something against the Sariah. Moreover, there was a likelihood that the alim would have to mix with them. Thus, he would become indifferent to Islamic rites. He (Ri’ayat Ali) wrote to me again saying that the alim should never mix with them, nor would he be asked to do anything against the Shariah. The alim would reside somewhere in the city, and would advise according to the Shariah-i-Muhammadi without any fear.” Then Shah Abdul Aziz discusses this problem in detail in the light of the Shariah and Tariqah. From the Shariah point of view, he quotes the example of the Prophet Joseph who served the infidel king to benefit the common people. And from the Tariqah point of view he thinks that if a man is without any family liability it is preferable for him not to indulge in any means of livelihood, although otherwise he may do so. He further quotes the examples of muftis and qazis who had hight places in the field of the Shariah and the Tariqah but were engaged in state affairs. After quoting these examples and discussing the matter in detail he concludes: “In this particular case we should see carefully whether or not there is anything which makes this service against the Shariah. We know that Mawlawi Abdul Hayy will not mix with infidels, nor will he be indifferent to religious affairs; he will neither participate in infidel practices nor flatter them not tell lies. Since none of these forbidden habits is found in Mawlawi Abdul Hayy it is suggested that he should go and stay there. If he finds things there otherwise, he should come back”. The compiler of the Fatawa does not inform us whether or not Mawlawi Abdul Hayy accepted the job, but most probably he did. Conclusion: By now we have seen and discussed the phases relevant to our study, and we are in a position to summarize the whole discussion. The major questions which the Muslims were asking at that time were of the following type: 1. Can Dar ul Islam become Dar ul-Harb? 2. Is the British India Dar ul-Harb? And if it is, then, what is the decision about taking usury (suud) from non-Muslims? 3. Could a Muslim serve a non-Muslim government? 4. Was it permitted for a Muslim to learn the English language and to wear English dress? So far as the first question is concerned, we have seen that Shah Abdul Aziz said that the territory under the non-Muslims was Dar ul-Harb. But, as we have seen, neither was he asked, nor did he himself define what he really meant by the term Dar ul-Harb. We can say that the term was not used by Shah Abdul Aziz in its strict technical sense. Replying to a question about performing the Friday prayers in a Dar ul-Harb he also suggested the selection of an honest Muslim to supervise their personal and religious affairs without worrying about eh political condition of the country. One wonders why the Muslims were so anxious to understand the complexities of the new situation. As we have seen, in none of the questions about the legal status of the country did they ask about their duties as members of a gradually dying Dar ul-Islam. On the contrary the emphasis was more and more on the rights which the changing situation could offer to them. For example, instead of asking whether or not it was obligatory for them to oust the British who were responsible for making the country Dar ul-Harb, the Muslims were eager to know whether or not they were permitted to take usury from the non-Muslims. So far as the question of accepting jobs under the British and learning of the English language was concerned Shah Abdul Aziz gave his consent. At the outset he described different kinds of service. It was forbidden to hold some of them; others of them were “allowed” or “preferred”. But as we have already seen the reason for forbidding was not on the ground that they were offered by the British. Shah Abdul Aziz clearly gave his opinion on the basis of the nature of work involved in different services whether the employer was Christian or Muslim. On the question of learning the English language and wearing English dress, Shah Abdul Aziz declared them lawful provided that the Muslim concerned was not intending to merge his identity with the British. We have also seen that the attitude of the East India Company differed from that of the Christian missionaries. The East India Company was not prepared to create any difficulty in its way by arousing hostile religious sentiments. Their main purpose was to establish their political power and to expand their trade, but not necessarily their religion. The Ulama were in the service of the East India Company. Even Shah Abdul Aziz had allowed his son-in-law, Mawlawi Abdul Hayy, to accept the office of the Mufti under the East India Company. He must have realised that the policy of military resistance was no longer feasible. Opposition in those circumstances meant courting death. He, therefore, must have adopted a policy after which he could not be accused of hostility to the British, and could thus proceed with his mission. His mission was to prepare the Muslims to face the changed political circumstances. Having realised the hopeless condition of Muslim political power he asked the Muslims not to live in the world of dreams. To Muslim, as w have seen, there were two alternatives, jihad (struggle or effort) or hijrah (migration), if they were to take the classical Fiqh – options on their face value. Otherwise, they had to find out their own way in that new situation. It was the responsibility of Shah Abdul Aziz to find out a third way (or a safe way). This he did. He came forward and, without allowing his character and personality to be harmed and without compromising his religious identity, he tacitly told the Muslims how to cooperate with the new power (in a new situation). ------ 1. As the debate between dar ul-harb (abode of war) and dar ul-Islam (abode of peace) is very lengthy that is why here its comprehensive account is beyond the scope. For a full description see Mushirul Haq, Shah Abdul Aziz: His Life and Time, Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, 1985, pp. 37-44. 2. I made changes to the wording of the sentence without altering the underlying concept or idea. 3. Kenneth Ingham, Reformers in India (1793-1833), Cambridge, 1956, p. 8. 4. Lord Minto in India, p. 81, as quoted in Ingham, op., cit., p. 8. 5. Kenneth Ingham, op., cit., p. viii. 6. Husayn Ahmad Madani, Naqsh-i-Hayat, Deoband, 1954, v. ii, p. 4; and Muhammad Miyan, Ulama-i-Hind ka Shandar Mazi, Delhi, 1957, v. ii, pp. 85. 7. To substantiate the assertion, my sentence. 8. It refers to those religious, social and political rights which the Muslims and Dhimmis enjoy in a Dar ul-Islam according to the Shariah. 9. See his Fatawa, Persian, v. I, p. 361; v. ii, p. 196. 10. Ibid., v. I, p. 301; v. iii, p. 98. 11. Ibid., v. iii, p. 99. 12. To substantiate the assertion, my sentence. 13. Church Mission Society, Ecclesiastical Papers, Mss. Package 156, North India, as quoted in Ingham, op., cit., p. 25. 14. Ingham, op., cit., p. 57. 15. Abdul Haq, Marhum Dilli Kalij, Awrangabad, 1933, p. 2. 16. C.F. Andrews, Zaka Ullah of Delhi, Cambridge, 1929, p. 34. It is not clear what was the Muslim representation in this figure. And, perhaps, there is no way to find out the answer. Moreover, Abdul Haq (op., cit., p. 11) doubts the statement. According to him this 300 was the total strength of the college, not the English class only. 17. Abdul Haq, op., cit., p. 148. 18. Rahman Ali, Tazkirah Ulama-i-Hind, (Persian) 2nd ed. Lucknow, 1914, p. 210 Urdu translation by Muhammad Ayyub Qadiri, Karachi, 1961, p. 456. See also Imdad Sabiri, Farangiyon ka Jail, Delhi, 1949, p. 266. 19. For this aspect of the life of the English gentlemen in India see, for example, Percival Spear, The Nabobs, Oxford, 1963, p. 106; also, Hilton Brown, The Sahibs: The Life and Ways of the British in India as recorded by themselves, London, 1948, 64; also, J.K. Stanford, Ladies in the sun-The Mem Sahib’s India (1970-1860), London, 1962. 20. For a short life account see Buckland, Dictionary of Indian Biography, London, 1906, p. 197. 21. Hugh Pears, The Hearsays, p. 53, as quoted in Percival Spear, The Nabobs, p. 92. 22. Hugh Pears, op., cit., p. 64, as quoted in Percival Spear, op., cit., p. 92. 23. For a recent reference see: Beecham House, created by Gurinder Chadha, Paul Mayeda Berges, Shahrukh Husain, series 1, episode 6, Bend it TV, 2019. (Cited by Dr. Javed Akhatar) 24. There seems to be no original source available about Begam Samru excerpt what some English writers have written in their memoirs. According to W.H. Sleeman, Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, London, 1844, v. ii, p. 378, she belonged to a Sayyid family, and according to some other writers (see for example, Brajendra Nath Banerji, Begum Samru, Calcutta, 1925, p. 14) she was a Kashmiri girl, and did not belong to a Sayyid family. However, all agree that she was a Muslim. 25. Cf., Rahman Ali, op., cit., p. 179, Urdu, p. 414; Abdul Qadir, Waqai Abdul Qadir Khani, Persian, Urdu tr., Karachi, 1961, v. I, p. 161. 26. Mrs. Meer Hassan Ali, Observations on the Mussulmauns of India, ed. By W. Crooke, Oxford, 2nd ed. 1917. This account is the study of the social life of Muslims of Lucknow in particular, and of Awadh in general. 27. Altaf Husayn Hali, Hayat-i Javed, Lahore, 1957, p. 727. 28. Qadam Sharif was the mausoleum of prince Fath Khan son of Firoz Shah (d. 1374). In that mausoleum there was a stone bearing a foot print. According to public belief that was the foot print of the Prophet. The mausoleum, therefore, was called the Qadam Sharif, the Holy Foot. The people used to fill the foot print with water and drink it. Cf. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Asarus Sanadid, Kanpur, Nami Press, 1904, Ch. III, pp. 37-38. 29. Fatawa Azizi, Persian, v. i, pp. 110. Urdu, v. i, pp. 199. 30. S.M. Ikram, Rawd-i- Kawsar, Karachi, p. 418. 31. Najmul Ghani, Tarikh-e Awadh, Lucknow, 1919, v. v, pp. 199-236. 32. Abdul Qadir, op., cit., v. I, p. 193. 33. Ibid., p. 246. 34. Muhammad Miyan, op., cit., v. iv, p. 418. 35. Lutfullah, Autobiography of Lutfullah, London, 3rd ed. 1858. 36. Fatawa Azizi, Persian, v. i, pp. 195 ff. Urdu, v. i, pp. 327, ff. 37. For a similar statement, see, Fatawa, Persian, v. ii, p. 119, Urdu, v. ii, pp. 258, 259. 38. Fatawa Azizi, Persian, v. i, pp. 91. Urdu, v. i, pp. 168. 39. Ibid., pp. 91. Urdu, v. i, pp. 169. 40. Ibid., pp. 92. Urdu, v. i, pp. 170. 41. Ghulam Rasul Mihr, Jamat-i-Mujahidin, Lahore, 1955, p. 111. ----- Javed Akhatar is Assistant Professor (Contractual), Department of Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-society/indian-muslims-modernity-centuries-positive-negative/d/130805 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism