Ideasdesk: Resources Blog

Muslim Movement In 19th Century >> Syed Ahmad Shahid (1786-1831)

October 29th, 2007 | by Qurratulain |

Syed Ahamd Shahid was born on November 29, 1786, at Rai Bareli (UP). He made a poor progress at Maktab and took more interest in sports, games and outdoor activities. In his childhood he used to say that he would wage a Jihad against the atheists.

At the age of eighteen, he came to Delhi and became the pupil disciple of Shah Abdul Aziz. After nearly two years of study under Shah Abdul Aziz he left Delhi for his home. During his stay at Delhi he had acquired the essential knowledge of the Quran and the Hadith and picked up Persian.The academy of Shah Abdul Aziz produced a passionate believer in the teaching of the Quran and Hadith.

In  1821, Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi went to Mecca from Calcutta to perform Hajj and stayed for two years. During his stay in Arabia he came into contact with many scholars and acquired knowledge of the various movements of the world of Islam. He was inspired with new thoughts and ideas. On his return to Indo-Pakistan, on August 6, 1923, he devoted himself to the religious and social reforms and preparation of Jihad. The teaching of Syed Ahmad Shahid may be classified into four heads:

1. Fight against corrupt practices and innovation.
2. Attitude towards Taqlid (conformation) and Ijtihad (individual judgement).
3. Reforms of Sufism.
4. Political aims and objects.

Syed Ahmad Shahid was a Sufi.But unlike most Sufis of the sub-continent he did not exclusively to one or the other of the well-known schools-Qadriyah, Chistiyah, Naqshbandiyah and Mujaddidyah. He had the initiative in all these schools and was glad to admit followers into any one or all of them. In addition to these, he was the founder of a movement called Mujahideen.

Political Object of His Movement:

The movement of Syed Ahmad Shahid aimed at the renaissance of Islam in Indo-Pakistan in the religious as well as political spheres. According to European historians, the political part of his movement was directed against the British. But others are of the opinion that the movement was exclusively led against the Sikhs who had forbidden the call of azan and who used to interfere with the Muslim religious practices in the Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province. When Syed Ahmad Shahid heard of ill treatment of the Muslims at the hands of the Sikhs, he at the instance of Shah Abdul Aziz decided to wage a holy war (Jihad) against the Sikhs. He made necessary preparations for the Jihad. In order to popularize the movement he, with his party, visited Gwalior, Tonk, Ajmer, etc. He proceeded to the scene of action via Panipat, Karnal, Thaneswar, Sind, Baluchistan and Afghanistan. In a word, his journey from Rai-Bareli to the Frontier was meant to enlist the support of the people of these places for his cause. Velayet Ali, Inayat Ali and Keramat Ali in the central provinces and Shah Ismail Shahid and Abdul Hai in the North-West Frontier Province joined his party and strengthened his hands.

Capture of Peshawar:

In 1826, Syed Ahmad Shahid and the Mujahids made an attack on the Sikh forces which were led by Budh Singh, a cousin of Ranjit Singh. Budh Singh was defeated and a large number of Sikhs were killed. The Mujahids attained a series of successes in the beginning. Peshawar was captured by the end of 1830. But later Ranjit Singh sent Ventura, the French General against the Mujahids and also tried to create disruption in the camp of the Mujahids through his agents who described the reforms of the Syed as un Islamic. The Pathan leaders misunderstood the Syed and left his party. The machinations of the Sikh propagandist were successful for the time being. But yet Syed Ahmad Shahid did not lose heart. He met the Sikhs courageously at Balakot (in the Abbottabad district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan) in 1831, and a severe battle was fought in which Syed Ahmad Shahid, Shah Ismail Shahid and many other leaders of the movement died a martyr’s death. Their death for the cause of the country inspired the Muslims to fight the battle of independence for many years to come.In the opinion of Dr.Sachin Sen, author of the ‘Birth of Pakistan the movement led by Barevli is the precursor of the later Muslim National Movement in Indo-Pakistan. This statement deserves a critical in the interest of the truth.

Causes of the Failure of the Movement:

The movement failed due to the absence of cooperation between the Hindustani followers of the Syed and the local populace, lack of proper funds, poor war equipment and want of proper military training, the sectarian propaganda against the reforms introduced by the followers of Syed Ahmad Shahid and the dissension created by Ranjit Singh among the Pathans.

Though the movement received a great set back at Balakot, Velayet Ali of Patna carried on the political work of the Syed. The subsequent extension of the British power over the Punjab brought the Mujahids into direct conflict with the British who fought against the Muslims a number of battles and brought the movement to an end.

W.W hunter and some others writers tries to link up this movement of Syed Ahmad with the Wahhabi movement in Arabia started by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab of Najd in the later part of 18th and the first part of the 19th century in order to save Muslims from moral and spiritual degradation. This argument is not tenable in the face of facts. The teachings of Syed Ahmad Shahid differed considerably from those of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Syed Ahmad Shahid had already formulated his ideas of reform before his departure for Arabia. Moreover, the Wahhabis had been disloged from Hejaz before his arrival in Mecca. He might have come across the Wahhabis and Wahhabism but the movement as apolitical force was at the lowest ebb while he was in Arabia. So it is wrong to say that he was influnced by the Wahhabism of Arabia. Over and above, there were many important points of differences between the two schools of thought. Syed’s moderate views on Taqlid and his attitude towards Sufism may be cited as examples. The former followed middle course regarding Taqlid and Sufism while the latter rejected both absolutely.