Three in One — Page 237
of India or against any sovereign who has granted religious freedom, and wish to conduct Jihad against them are all rebels and deserve punishment. 164. Apparently, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British: 'to all the ulama of Punjab and other parts of India and well publicised it. He obtained the seal and signatures of approval of all the ulama of Punjab and India in support of the ruling that the taking up of arms by Indian Muslims and Jihad by them against the British Government of India was opposed to the Sunnah and the faith of monotheists. 165. In case Abdul Hafeez wishes to contest this claim, he ought to be advised that in an edict of 17th July, 1870, the ulama of northern India ruled that: 'The Musalmans here are protected by Christians, and there is no Jihad in a country where protection is afforded, as the absence of protection and liberty between Musalmans and infidels is essential in a religious war, and that condition does not exist here. 166. Similarly, such a Fatwa was also procured from the ulama of east India who declared India to be Darul Islam67 and stated: 'Jihad can by no means be lawfully made in Darul Islam. This is so evident that it requires no argument or authority in its support. Now, if any misguided wretch, owing to his perverse fortune, were to wage war against the ruling power of this country, British India, such war would be rightly pronounced rebellion, and rebellion is strictly forbidden by the Islamic law. . Therefore such war will likewise be unlawful and in case anyone does wage such a war, Muslim subjects would be 64. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyya, p. 61 66. Hunter, W. W. The Indian Musalmans, p. 218 65. Ibid. 67. Ibid. , p. 122 237