Three in One — Page 234
JIHAD AGAINST THE BRITISH. This second argument on the basis of which people like Abdul. Hafeez concoct a charge of the abrogation of Jihad against. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas refers to his declaration that one of the 'principles on which he has been established is the clarification of the doctrine of Jihad which has been misinterpreted by some ignorant Muslims' and that he 'has been given to understand by God Almighty that those practices that are currently regarded as Jihad are entirely opposed to the teaching of the Holy Quran. 154 Hence, he admonished Muslims that, under the prevailing conditions in the sub continent of. India at that point, it was not permissible for them to wage war against a 'benign government or entertain rebellious designs and ill will against it when it afforded them freedom and complete security to discharge their religious obligations to the full. 155. Alas! were this ignorant pir from Gujjo to know that Muslim divines and scholars were universally agreed that Jihad against the British rule at that point of the Indian history was contrary to the principles of Islam. It is, for instance, recorded in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad Shah Barelvish that when he was going forth to conduct Jihad against the Sikhs, a person asked him why should he go so far to fight against the Sikhs when the British were ruling the country and they were the deniers of Islam, he replied: 'The British government may be deniers of Islam, but they do not oppress Muslims nor prevent them from their religious obligations and worship. For what reason then should we fight jihad against them and needlessly shed the blood on both sides, contrary to the principles of Islam. 156. This opinion was shared by Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah 54. Ibid. , Tohfa Qaisariyya, p. 10; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 12, p. 262 56. Barelvi, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ahmad Shah. vide. Musalmanon ka Roshan Mustaqbil 234 55. Ibid.