ismail ahmad wahabi qateel not shaheed. the deobandi elders fought WITH the British against the 'Mutineers' in the legitimate jihad of 1857. evidence can be found in the biography of rasheed ahmad gangohi. i think it is called tazkiyah rashidiyah but i might be wrong. anyway it was written by one of his admirers so any claims of 'barelwi' bias are out. after 1857, many deobandis including mawlana ashraf ali thanavi actually gave fatwas that india under british rule was not dar al harb and he therefore did not consider fighting against them as jihad unlike the wahabi ismail dihlavi. in this issue thanawi sahib was in agreement with ala hazrat too as india was not dar al harb according to classical hanafi fiqh. also ala hazrat opposed the khilafah movement because it contained many unsavoury and unislamic elements such as making gandhi--an idol worshipper--its leader and it meant working with bad-mazhabs. ala hazrat was not willing to abandon islamic principles for whatever political gain. when gandhi desired to meet him he declined. and the movement was a disaster and many of its leaders were corrupt. allama iqbal too refused to be a part of it or of the gandhian non-cooperation movement--related--for the same reasons. nevertheless ala hazrat encouraged his murids to send monetary donations to the turks and helped to raise money for this separately from the khilafah movement. one argument was that according to shariah the ottomans were not caliphs anyway --whatever they may call themselves--but rather sultans. ismail qateel's disastrous 'jihad' and fatwa of india being dar al harb led many naive muslim peasants to leave for afghanistan and the amir of afghanistan refused to allow them in. in this way tens of thousands of innocent muslims died for no reason on the way and many more lost their livelihoods since they'd sold everything before setting off for afghanistan! this is what half-baked fatwas can lead do. 'little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. sound familiar to today's wahabis? you bet!