Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Indian Rebellion of 1857" in English language version.
Nor did most Muslims share the rebels' hatred of the British, even as they deplored the more egregious excesses of colonial rule.
During the 1857 uprising, the ulema could not agree whether to declare a jihad.
Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi (1833–1879), the great Deobandi scholar, fought against the British...Along with Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (1828–1905), he took up arms when he was presented with clear evidence of English injustice.
Many Muslims, including Sunni and Shia ulema, collaborated with the British.
Several of Nanautawi's fellow seminarians in Deoband and divines of the Ahl-i-Hadith reputed for their adherence to Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi rejected the jihad.
Maulana Sayyid Nazir Husain Dehalvi was the most influential of the Ahl-Hadith ulema in Delhi at the time of the revolt. The rebels coerced him into issuing a fatwa declaring a jihad...he ruled out armed jihad in India, on the grounds that the relationship with the British government was a contract that Muslims could not legally break unless their religious rights were infringed.
Charles Ball.
Modern Indian historiography on 1857 still seems, at least in part, to be responding to the prejudice of colonial accounts ... I see no reason to downplay, or to exaggerate, the atrocities carried out by Indians simply because such events seem to offend our post-colonial sensibilities.
Colonial-era sources most commonly referred to individuals whom scholars today often describe as 'white' or 'British' as 'European' or 'English'.
Colonial-era sources most commonly referred to individuals whom scholars today often describe as 'white' or 'British' as 'European' or 'English'.
Colonial-era sources most commonly referred to individuals whom scholars today often describe as 'white' or 'British' as 'European' or 'English'.
