Three in One — Page 241
Secondly, one cannot see any reason why the conduct of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as ancestors should be found censurable by. Abdul Hafeez considering that the sepoy mutiny of 1857 was acknowledged to be a rebellion by Muslim divines as well as scholars of the Indian sub continent. For instance, Maulvi. Muhammad Hussain Batalvi declared that: 'All those Muslims who took part in the mutiny of 1857 were, according to the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Holy. Prophet'ssa Traditions, grave sinners, mischief makers and wicked. Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts and those considered prominent ulama were either not acquainted with true faith or lacked proper understanding. 178. The famous Indian educationalist, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, was much more harsh in his estimation of the conduct of the mutineers. He stated: 'This was a mere act of bastardliness and no more. They have the least connection with Islam. 179. The author of Two in One may, conveniently, discard the edicts issued by Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and Sir Sayyid. Ahmad Khan in relation to the mutiny of 1857 on the grounds that 'these two persons have always been controversial in this matter and their opinion carries no weight¹80 but this does not alter the fact that the views of these controversial persons was universally shared by the religious as well as secular leadership of the Muslim ummah. The then Sultan of Turkey who was considered to be the Khalifatul Muslimeen issued an edict in favour of the British when pockets of Muslim insurgents joined forces with the Hindus in 1857. It is stated that: 'in 1857, when independent minded Muslims and Hindus in 78. Batalvi, Maluvi Muhammad Hussain. Al Iqtisad fi Masail al Jihad, p. 49 79. Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad. Baghawat e Hind 80. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 68 241