Malabar History journal

Ulama and other religious leaders, such as thangals in Malabar, generally supported the Khilafat cause and were in favor of resisting British domination. For example, the Kerala Ulama Sangam, in a meeting held on 25 January 1921, passed a resolution supporting the Khilafat movement by appealing for contributions from zakat funds. Other religious leaders wrote texts establishing the religious legitimacy of disobeying the British and published appeals in printed periodicals urging people to join meetings and rallies. Scholars who would become leaders of prominent religious associations in the coming decades, such as K.M. Moulavi, actively supported the Khilafat cause.

Yet, there were ulama and religious leaders who called on Muslims to remain loyal to the British and considered participation in the Non-Cooperation or Khilafat movement, as launched by Gandhi and Shoukat Ali, to be a sin. Thus, a group of ulama and influential figures, predominantly from Ponnani, issued an undated public appeal, likely in late July 1921 or the following months, urging Muslims to abstain from joining the Khilafat movement. This group argued that the initiatives launched by Gandhi, Shoukat Ali, and Muhammad Ali (leaders of the Khilafat movement at the national level) were aimed at eroding Muslims’ deep-rooted loyalty to the British government. Loyalty to the government under which Muslims lived, they contended, was an obligation. Further, they argued that Islam does not allow murder, robbery, or forced conversion, and that the Quran teaches against actions that lead to self-annihilation. Therefore, they claimed, joining the Khilafat movement and entering violent confrontation with the British in the hope of achieving martyrdom (shahadah), as Mappila Muslims had done, was against Islamic teachings. The appeal concluded by prohibiting Muslims from forming organizations to coordinate the Non-Cooperation or Khilafat movements, and from supporting such groups in any way. The appeal carried the endorsement of many ulama based in Ponnani. Twenty-five signatories were listed, with claims that a thousand others had endorsed the view.

A similar notice, expressing these ideas and advertising a meeting to refute the theological claims of pro-Non-Cooperation ulama, was published on 19 June 1921. The meeting was called, according to the notice, to demonstrate, using evidence from the Quran, Hadiths, and scholarly opinions, that self-governance, Khilafat, and Non-Cooperation were against Islam. A response from an unnamed person to this pro-British view was published in Malabar Islam on 15 July 1921. It criticized the signatories of this notice for their ignorance of the necessity of preserving the Caliphate. The response also questioned their intentions, asking why they had refrained from addressing issues that plagued Muslims before this. The respondent alleged that the signatories preached these views not because the texts unequivocally supported them, but because they wanted to please their colonial masters and gain favors. Additionally, Aminanate Akath Pareekutty Musliyar, the author of Muhimmatul Muminin, a pro-Khilafat treatise, published a notice on 16 July 1921 accusing the views expressed in the notice of implying that Sharia was no longer relevant. He suggested that if the ulama who argued against Khilafat believed it to be against Islam, they should organize a debate with ulama from both sides, moderated by an impartial mediator.

A rebuttal to Muhimmatul Muminin, authored by Mamad Kutty Musliyar, was circulated during this period. It was endorsed by three prominent Mappila ulama: Ponnani Puthiyakath Abdu Rahman Musliyar (Kunjan Bava Musliyar), Veliyanogd Tattangara Kuttyamu Musliyar, and Ponnani Koudiayamantakath Abdulla Kutty Musliyar. These three signatories were well-known religious scholars of the time. However, the identity of the author remains unclear, and Abdu Rahman Mangadu notes that these three signatories were not known to hold such views, nor did they participate in the meeting organized by police Superintendent Hitchcock and A.S.P. Amu Sahib to rally ulama support for the British government.

The rebuttal, titled Mahkul Kilafa al Ismi al-Khialafa, was published in July 1921. Its stated aim was to correct the misunderstanding preached by those deceived by Gandhi, who wrote texts in local languages urging Muslims not to cooperate with or disobey the British government. The treatise’s position is stated at the very beginning of the text: Despite being ruled by the British for “two centuries,” Muslims have not been prevented from performing Islamic rituals (Shaairul Islam) and are allowed to pursue their religious and worldly goals. However, Gandhi had tricked Muslims into believing that the “skirmish” (chillara mushichil) between Turkey and Britain indicated that the latter was against the Caliphate, an issue that would affect all Muslims. Gandhi, the author argued, had deceitfully incited Muslims against the British, and the treatise compiled evidence to show that such a stance was against Islam.

The text employs several kinds of reasoning. First, it critiques the works of those who support the Khilafat movement, arguing that many Quranic verses cited by scholars like Pareekutty Musliyar in Muhimmatul Muminin have been abrogated and should not be considered sources of Islamic law. Second, it offers a different understanding of the relationship between the ruler and Muslims. Rather than opposing the king because he is not an imam appointed by Muslims, the text emphasizes that a ruler must be obeyed, and non-cooperation with them denies Muslims the responsibilities they owe to temporal kings. The author cites scholarly opinion that, in the absence of an imam, Muslims must follow their current ruler, as long as the ruler does not prevent them from performing obligatory prayers. Third, the text separates the theological question of the permissibility of non-Muslim entry into Hejaz from the issue of the Caliphate, stating that such entry can be governed by the local ruler. In general, the treatise opposes the pan-Islamism central to the Khilafat movement and argues for quiet obedience to British laws, as long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion. The author cites a prophetic teaching that those who stir unrest (fitna) will be cursed by God to support this view.

The main argument throughout the text is that Muslims have not faced any obstacles to practicing Islam. It marshals various historical examples, such as the emergence of notable Islamic scholars and saints during British rule, and the fact that the British government not only allowed kafirs to join Islam but also helped Muslims when they faced problems.

It is worth noting that nearly a decade after this debate, the Samatha Kerala Jamiatul Ulama (founded in 1926), the most prominent Muslim organization in present-day Kerala, aired views similar to those of the pro-British ulama at its 1933 conference. Resolution 11 of this conference prohibited Muslims from joining civil disobedience, arguing that it would harm Muslims both in this world and the hereafter. Resolution 12 stated that Congress, under the pretext of the Khilafat movement, had dragged Muslims into violent conflict, resulting in British police shootings and massive punishment. The resolution concluded that disobeying the orders of the government and opposing the rulers is prohibited in Islam, and therefore Muslims should neither join Congress nor cooperate with them.

References

• Gangadahran, M. Mappila Padanangal. Kottayam: D C Books, 2012 [2007].
• Mangad, Abdu Rahiman. 1921 Fatwakal Ahwanangal. Malappuram: Grace Educational Association, 2021.
• Menon, M.P.S. Malabar Samamram: MP Narayan Menonum Sahapravarthakarum. Calicut: IPH, 2020 [1992].
• Sadiq Faizi, P.A. Samastha Charithrathinte Naal Vazhikal. Calicut: Islamic Sahitya Academy, 2016.