Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureHolidaysRamadan · 1 decade ago

Who is Hampher (hempher)?

Update:

Dont teel me to do google search please

Update 2:

sorry tell...

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer
    • Julian5 years agoReport

      There's so much factual evidence against Hempher's supposed "Confessions of a British Spy" being true that the only possible conclusion is that the "Confessions" are a fake, and Hempher never existed. Please check your sources more carefully before encouraging others to believe such nonsense.

  • 1 decade ago

    Its a Hamper... LOL

    How are you to learn if you choose not to do the research yourself at times?

    Source(s): Nobi Amurey
  • 6 years ago

    BASTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD NAJDIS ***** YOU KIDS OF BRITAIN who are here only to destroy Islam and to mislead REAL Muslims and call them Kafir. Sham on you Hampher's dogs.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Humphrey the elephant?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Humphrey’s ‘Memoirs’

    This book 30 was translated into Urdu in India and it was claimed by its publishers that Humphrey was an English spy whose duty was to spy on the Ottoman caliphate in the 18 th Century. He went through training in adopting an Islamic identity and learning Arabic, and then travelled to Basra where he met Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, and a strong friendship developed between the two. The Publishers claim that these memoirs remained hidden until they fell into the hands of the Germans during World War II, who published it as a way of slandering the British government. It was translated into French, Arabic and Urdu. A perusal of this book makes it abundantly clear that it is an imaginary fictional narrative, coined deliberately to discredit Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab and his followers by the British. Our evidence to prove the book is a concoction is twofold: historical evidence from its contents, and our fruitless search to find the original English version.

    1. We began with a trip to the British Library’s Rare Books Section, which contains books printed prior to 1975. There were 72 entries under Humphrey, but none related to our subject. We found one entry under Humphrey’s Memoirs (printed 1734), but these were the memoirs of the Duke of Gloucester who recorded his relations with the ruling family of the time.

    The publishers of the offending book had also given a number of alternative titles such as ‘Colonisation Ideal’ and ‘The English spy in Islamic countries’. Needless to say we found no such book, and neither did our search under ‘spy’ reveal anything useful. The advent of computers has made access to rare and remote books very easy, and we have been forced to conclude after an intensive search that no such book exists and that we have a fabricated translation published by the enemies of the Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab.

    2. Humphrey claims he travelled to Istanbul in 1710 at the age of 20. He returned to London and then travelled to Basrah in 1712 after a long sea journey lasting six months. This claim is irrational as sea travel between England and Gulf was not that long. He also claims to have met Shaikh At Taee, one of the Sheikhs of Basrah. He then met a carpenter of Iranian origins called Abdul Riza with whom he began working, and there he met a. young man who spoke Turkish, Persian and Arabic. He wore the garb of students and was known as Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. [31] The claim of this acquaintance is clearly false. Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab was born in 1703, attaining majority at the age of twelve when his father arranged his marriage. After travelling to the Hijaz for the Hajj, he returned to Najd and stayed with his father to study. He did not travel to seek knowledge until 1722 when he travelled to Makkah, Madina and Basrah. There is thus no possibility of the Sheikh and the fictional Humphrey meeting in Basrah as the dates do not correspond. And all the scholars who have researched the biography of the Sheikh have rejected claims that the Sheikh travelled to Turkey and Persia. [32]

    3. The book claims that the Sheikh expressed a desire to travel to Istanbul, but was advised against it by Humphrey for fear of persecution from the Ottomans. He advised the Sheikh to travel to Isfahan instead, and the Sheikh did so. This too is a lie. Syyed Abdul Haleem al Jundi quotes in

    ‘Al Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab ‘ the victory of the Salafi method’, ‘I discussed this with Sheikh ibn Baz, who denied the journey to Kurdistan and Iran. Sheikh Ibn Baz told me he took this information from his Sheikhs, including the grandchildren of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab, and especially his own Sheikh, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim’. [33]

    4. Humphrey claims that the Sheikh declared his da’wah in 1143 AH. This is the only time he uses the hijrah calendar in his book. It also reveals his ignorance of historical facts, as the Sheikh returned to Huraymilah three years before the death of his father in 1153, and declared his da’wah after the death of his father.

    5. There is yet more evidence that Humphrey was devoid of historical knowledge. Humphrey travelled to Istanbul in 1710, giving the ostensible reason that the British Empire was assigning great importance to its established colonies. The Empire was so vast it was said that the sun did not set within its boundaries. Although the British Isles were themselves relatively small, the extended territories including India, China and the Middle East were extensive and required careful governance. The Ministry for Colonies decided to recruit spies to gather information from the territories, and so Humphrey became involved. 34 It is historically inaccurate to place these events at the beginning of the 18 th Century. India at the time was not a colony; the East India Company began trading in the 17 th Century but had no political hold until.

    1757 when Bengal was captured. It began expanding until the rule of the Company was transferred to direct rule from England in 1857. Therefore, there was no Indian colony in 1710. There was also no British colonial involvement in China at the time; Hong Kong did not fall to the British until the Treaty of 1898.

    It is therefore clear that the inventor of the Memoirs has let his imagination run riot and abandon historical accuracy. He has set his story at the end of the 19 th Century in the heyday of the British Empire, when the sun truly did not set on its colonies. But in doing so, he has exposed himself to be a writer of fiction, not fact.

    6. The author attributes many actions and words to the Sheikh which are at clear odds with the beliefs, teachings and distinctly Islamic character of the Sheikh. There is no need to discuss these filthy slanders in any detail, as the authenticity of the facts in the book has been proven to be false.

    7. In order to lend credibility to his ‘memoirs’, the author sprinkles the novel with stories of plots by the British government to disunite the Muslims; to create ideological and religious upheaval among them; to spread evil among their men and women; to distance them from Arabic, the language of the Qur’an; to encourage the use of national and social languages; to establish missionary schools; and to weaken the position of the Muslims politically and economically.

    I have attempted to prove the fabrication of this book through its historical inaccuracy and doubtful authorship, as I believe that no one else has done so yet. In fact, a book as insignificant as this does not deserve even a second glance, let alone a serious critical study. But from a sense of duty and Amanah, I decided to shed light on the lies contained within it. And Allah knows best the intentions.

    • Cornatto6 years agoReport

      http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/htm/spy1.htm

  • brandy
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Thanks everyone for answering

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.