Three in One — Page 245
91 has already been shown that the revered saint declared that even though the British were deniers of Islam, they did not oppress Muslims nor prevent them from their religious duties and therefore, not only was there no reason for Muslims to undertake Jihad against them and needlessly shed blood on both sides but such an action would be contrary to the principles of. Islam. His deputy, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail™ also declared that it was in no way obligatory for Muslims to fight the British and if someone attacked them, then Muslims must fight the aggressors and not let their government, i. e. , the British. Government, be harmed a whit. 92 Incidentally, it may be relevant to state here that both these saints fell in battle at. Balakot in 1831 fighting against the Sikhs. 93 Why then should the author of Two in One want to distort the facts of history? Is it possible that he is ignorant of true facts or is he lying intentionally?. Finally, while still on this question of Jihad, Abdul Hafeez begs a question of Ahmadi Muslims as to whether they are against. Jihad. 94 If he must know, he is assured that they are not against true Islamic Jihad. What they are against is the kind of wanton savagery witnessed during the 1857 mutiny which his own aforementioned spiritual predecessors called un Islamic and sinful; an act of great mischief and wickedness and a breach of covenant as well as an act of banditry. They are against this kind of brutality against which his mentors, Meer Mehboob Ali,. Haji Imadullah Makki, Hafiz Zamaan, Maulvi Rashid Ahmad. Gangohi, Syed Muhammad Ahmad Lucknowi and also Hadhrat. Muhammad Qasim Nanotovith fought, not only verbally but against which they also raised the sword. 91. Barelvi, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ahmad Shah, vide. Musalmaon ka Roshan Mustaqbil 92. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ismail. vide. Hayyat e Tayyaba 93. Hasan, Prof. Masud ul. History of Islam, vol. 2, p. 674 94. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 36 245