Historical documents state that Chief Ahnaf Mufti and his equally bigoted and ignorant companions from the clergy became excited at Hadhrat Nizam ud Din Aulia'srh surprise that they were prepared to give preference to the servant, Hadhrat Imam Abu Hanifalsrh opinion over the master, Hadhrat Muhammadsa. Hence, they exclaimed:
'We take refuge in God. This man has the audacity to belittle the Upholder of the Shariah and insult the supporters of Abu Hanifa's jurisprudence. He says, "Who is Abu Hanifa?" and only a few moments he claimed to be a follower of Abu Hanifa'
The Chief Ahnaf Mufti and his Ahnaf colleagues finally managed to excite the public at large and they all began to shout:
'Oh! He is insulting Imam Abu Hanifa. This man is a backslider. He is most insolent.'
Maybe, this episode of history might give Abdul Hafeez an indication of whose footsteps he seems to be following and one also hopes that he is not proud of his spiritual Ahnaf predecessors who caused such distress to one of Islam's most respected and venerable personalities, the Sultan ul Aulia, Hadhrat Nizam ud Din Auliarh.
The crux of the matter is that Jihad is not mentioned in this statement of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas in Ayyamus Solh because it has not been mentioned in the definition of either Iman or Islam by the aforementioned statements of the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa. But this does not mean that Hadhrat Ahmadsa did not consider Jihad to be an integral and also an essential part of the Islamic faith. The only difference between his concept of Jihad and that of Abdul Hafeez's is that of interpretation. While the latter believes that it only means the yielding of the sword to shed the blood of innocent people and coerce them into believing in Islam, Hadhrat Ahmadas believed that 'God has set forth clearly that there shall be no compulsion in religion' and that 'Islam does not permit the use of force or coercion for the purpose of the propagation of Faith.' He discussed this often in his writings and stated that 'striving in the cause of Allah which is designated Jihad is a doctrine, the philosophy of which needs to be clearly understood.' He then proceeded to state that 'the root of the Arabic word Jihad means striving and has been metaphorically applied to fighting in the cause of religion' but this did not mean that the Holy Quran gives an arbitrary command to fight. On the contrary, Hadhrat Ahmadas stated that the Holy Quran:
'gives the command to fight only against those people who prevent others from believing in God, and stop them from obeying His commandments and worshipping Him. It gives the command to fight against those who attack Muslims without cause, expel them from their homes and countries and prevent others from becoming Muslims. These are they with whom God is wroth, and Muslims must fight them if they do not desist.'
He was of the opinion there is a time for Jihad with the sword and Jihad through other means. He not only believed in Jihad through physical means if conditions which justify it with the sword are found existent but also supported it. He stated that:
'As to the means and arrangements to be used, whether for physical warfare or spiritual warfare, whether the battle is by sword or by the pen, the following verse is sufficient for our guidance: 'Make ready for them whatever force you can.' In this verse God empowers us to employ against the enemy all suitable means and to use the method which we consider to be most effective.'
However, he insisted that Islam 'commanded us that we should make the same kind of preparation to face the unbelievers as they do to confront us or, that we treat them as they treat us, and as long as they do not raise the sword against us, we do not raise it against them till then.' He argued that in the present 'age, the pen had been raised against Islam and it was through it that Muslims had been caused so much pain and suffering. Therefore, the pen should be the weapon of the Muslims.' He also 'believed it the duty of every Muslim to join this battle' but he did not disregard the injunction of undertaking Jihad by the sword nor abrogate it. On the contrary, he was of the opinion that Islam does permit 'the taking of the sword in opposition to people who take it up against Islam first and who embark upon slaughter first.' In his long exposition of the Islamic Jihad, he was quite insistent that under the prevailing conditions:
'The Jihad of this age is to propagate Islam and refute the allegation of the critics; to spread the beauty of the true religion, Islam, in the world, and to manifest the truth of the Holy Prophetsa to the world.'
But this did not mean that Jihad by the sword now abrogated. On the contrary, Hadhrat Ahmadas stated clearly that under the present conditions:
'This is Jihad, until God produces different circumstances in the world.'
These statements should therefore establish that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not discount the prospects of Muslims resorting to the use of the sword to conduct Jihad if conditions demanded. However, until then, he considered it against the essence of Islamic teachings to unnecessarily shed the blood of innocent people. He stated:
'The Holy Quran clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and good example of Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. The sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self defense against the enemies of Islam and for the purpose of establishing peace and security. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith.'
It is, however, sad that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas opponents cite his statements out of context to allege that he abrogated Jihad and Abdul Hafeez merely follows the wont of his predecessors who have, in the past, often accused Hadhrat Ahmadas of the same. Hence, he claims to cite the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on the question of Jihad in his book Two in One without actually providing any reference of the statement he is alleged to have made because this sly pir of Gujjo knows that if one was to consult the original works of Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would find that what he actually said was:
'I have brought you a commandment which is that Jihad with the sword has been ended but the Jihad of the purification of your spirit must continue to be waged. I say this not on my own part but in order to proclaim the design of God. Reflect on the hadeeth of Bukhari wherein it is stated that the Promised Messiah would put an end to fighting for the faith. Accordingly, I command those who have joined my ranks that they should discard all such notions. They should spread peace on the earth, for this would cause their faith to spread.'
Now, when Hadhrat Ahmad'sas aforementioned statement is studied in the context of his claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Hadeeth of Hadhrat Muhammadsa in which it is stated that the Promised Messiah will terminate all wars the authenticity of which Hadeeth has been numerously accepted by non Ahmadi Muslims, one cannot see what feasible objection could Abdul Hafeez have to Hadhrat Ahmadas expressing such ophions which he clearly stated were within the framework of Islamic teachings and prophecies of Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa.
Incidentally, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas ophions in relation to Islamic Jihad have been shared by Muslims throughout the history of Islam. For instance, Hadhrat Imam Fakhr ud Din Razirh stated:
'As for the verse, Strive against them a great Jihad, some say that it refers to efforts in preaching while others say it refers to fighting. Some others say it includes both. The first meaning is most accurate because this verse was revealed at Mecca and the command to fight came after the emigration.'
The famous Indian intellectual, Maulana Abul Kalam Azadwas also of the opinion that:
'There is a serious misconception regarding what Jihad is. Many people think that Jihad means only to fight. The critics of Islam too labor under this misunderstanding whereas to think thus is to utterly narrow the practical scope of this sacred commandment. Jihad means to strive to the utmost. In the Quran and the Sunnah terminology, this utmost exertion, which is undertaken for the sake of truth rather than personal ends, is indicated by the word jihad.'
This view was shared by Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi of Deoband who stated that 'Jihad is generally taken to mean qital and fighting, but this limitation of significance is entirely wrong.' He then proceeded to state:
'It means striving and effort. Its technical meaning is also close to this, that is, to undertake all kinds of struggle and exertion for the supremacy, propagation and defense of the truth and to make sacrifices and employ in the way of God all physical, material and mental resources which He has given to His servants, so much so as to sacrifice one's own life and that of one's family and nation. To oppose the efforts of the opponents of the truth and foil their plans; counter their attacks and be ready to fight them in the field of battle is also Jihad. Regrettably, our opponents have reduced the scope of this important and broad significance without which no movement in the world has or can succeed to merely war with the enemies of the faith.'
Maulana Muhammad Hasan Rampuri also, was of the opinion that war is not Jihad, but qital and only arises now and then while Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God. Maulvi Abu Ala Maududi shared this opinion and hence he declared that 'in the terminology of the Shar'iah, qital and jihad are two different things' while an organ of the Jami'at Mile Sunnat explained that:
'Jihad is derived from Jahd, meaning literally effort and striving. In the technical sense, it is used for proclaiming the word of God and the supremacy of the success of Islam.'
Hence, in view of such opinions, Muslim scholars of numerous persuasions have maintained that Jihad does not mean to be engaged in constant strife and blood shedding and killing of innocent people but it means to strive in several other ways in the cause of the truth - an opinion which Hadhrat Ahmadas had expressed and one on account of which people like Abdul Hafeez falsely allege that he abrogated Jihad. Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan maintained that 'Jihad is not simply that one should pick up a sword and dash out to a battlefield but it also includes struggle by speech and writing' and so did the late king of Saudi Arabia, Faisal ibn Saud declare:
'You have been called to raise the banner of Jihad in the way of God. Jihad is not taking up the guns or raising the sword. Jihad is to invite to the Book of God and the example of the Prophet; to hold fast to them and to stick to them despite all kinds of difficulties, distress and affliction.'
It is also a recorded fact of the history of Muslims that despite differing views on many aspects of Islamic teachings, scholars and leaders of numerous sects have universally agreed that Jihad of every age is different and has to be conducted through means which are appropriate to the times. Hence, Maulvi Saeed Abinad of the Jami'at al Ula'a Hind censured the blood thirsty mullahs who insisted that Jihad must be essentially conducted with the sword only and stated that 'the Jihad of every age is different. At Mecca, there was one type of defense and at Madina another.' In our present age, however, the famous Muhaddith of Delhi, Allama Abul Haq Haqqani explained that 'to debate and argue with the heretics is also Jihad' since, as maintained by the one time leader of the Ahle Hadeeth in India, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi:
'The age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword, it is necessary to wield the pen.'
Since Abdul Hafeez finds Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi's views unacceptable because he finds him to be a controversial figure one can assure him that his views to the effect that the age of the sword was no more and this was the age of the pen was shared by the majority of the Muslim ulama of that time. This is evident from Abdul Hafeez's spiritual mentor, Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari's statement in which he referred to that period of history and stated:
'As at that time our ulama had declared Jihad with the sword to be rebellion and insurrection, and to be haram, and the opponents of Islam were waging war by the pen, the need then was for Jihad with the pen.'
This opinion was, amongst others, shared by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, held in high regard by Abdul Hafeez for his unfavorable statements against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. He stated that:
'The powers of Islam are not limited. There was an age of the sword. Today is the age of the pen. It attacks from within and without, and compels you from every angle to accept it.
Incidentally, such views continue to be held by Muslims of several persuasions. Maulvi Zahid al Husaini, for instance, stated not too long ago:
'This is the age of Jihad by the pen. Today, the pen has spread much trouble. The person who does Jihad by the pen is the greatest Mujahid.'
So did the Director General of the Islamic Foundation at Leicester declare that 'Jihad represents to Muslims all efforts to strive seriously and ceaselessly to fulfil the divine will in human life but:
'The war of aggression, Islam rules out, because Islam has come to bring an end to aggression and establish peace.'
This is exactly the kind of Jihad against which Hadhrat Ahmadas argued. He censured the mullah who persisted in giving currency to a belief that 'the employment of the sword for the purpose of the propagation of the faith is a prescribed obligation' and stated that such 'false doctrines are utterly contrary to the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Holy Prophet of Islam.' Yet, although he insisted that the 'failure of the appreciation of the philosophy of Jihad has caused people to entertain serious misconceptions concerning it and has rendered the teachings of Islam open to criticism whereas Islam is a holy religion which is a mirror of the law of nature and manifests the glory of God, he did not consider the use of necessary physical force contrary to Divine will. He believed that 'it is a great error on the part of Islam's opponents that they should imagine a revealed guidance to, under no circumstances, inculcate resistance to the enemy and that it should demonstrate its love and mercy only by way of meekness and gentleness since contemplation of the Divine law of nature clearly shows that such resistance is certainly pure mercy also because mercy does not manifest itself by way of gentleness and tenderness in all circumstances.' Nonetheless, he insisted that:
'No true Muslim has ever believed that Islam should be spread by the sword. Islam has always been propagated through its inherent qualities. Those who, calling themselves Muslims, seek to spread Islam by means of the sword are not aware of its inherent qualities and their conduct resembles the conduct of wild beasts.'
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.' 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.'
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 Barelvirh 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.'
This option was shared by Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvi'srh disciple, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh, who was, incidentally, martyred at Balikot while conducting Jihad against the Sikhs. when he was asked as to why did he not give a pronouncement of Jihad against the British, he replied:
'In no way is it obligatory to fight Jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in the performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and not let their government be harmed a whit.'
Sayyid Nazir Husain, the then Muhaddith of Delhi and the most prominent leader of the Jama'it e Ahle Hadeeth in India was a contemporary of Hadhrat Ahmadas. Although opposed to the entire realm of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's philosophy, he expressed an opinion that:
'The authority of the British in India is lawful and in accordance with the Quranic injunction: "0 ye who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority amongst you" 'it is unlawful to wage war against the British Raj.'
The Muhaddith of Delhi declared British India Darus Salam, i.e., the land of peace, and stated:
'Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and sin.'
Another prominent leader of India, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal of the Wahabbi section of the Ahle Hadeeth censured those people who wished to create disorder in British India under the pretext of Jihad. He warned:
'Be concerned about those people who are ignorant of their religious teachings, in that they wish to efface the British Government, and to end the current peace and tranquillity by disorder under the name of Jihad. This is sheer stupidity and foolishness.'
He referred to the period of the Indian mutiny of 1857 which fanned the flames of battle and stated that:
'If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble maker and from the beginning to the end, he would stain the name of Islam.'
The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he:
'is not only a mischief maker in the eyes of the rulers but he shall be the farthest from what Islam requires and from the way of the believers, and he shall be regarded as a violator of the covenant, unfaithful to his religion, and a perpetrator of the greatest sin. What his condition will be on the Day of Judgment will become evident there. '
Such pronouncements by Muslim divines, scholars and leaders were neither few nor far in between. The author of Two in One may reject the opinions of Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi on the grounds that he had always been a controversial figure but that does not deny the fact that in 1875, he declared that:
'all religious wars against the British Government of India and against the authority which has granted religious freedom, is forbidden by and contrary to the law of Islam and those people who take up weapons against the British Government of India or against any sovereign who has granted religious freedom, and wish to conduct Jihad against them are all rebels and deserve punishment.'
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 publicized 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.'
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.'
Similarly, such a Fatwa was also procured from the ulama of east India who declared India to be Darul 1slam 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 bound to assist their Rulers, and in conjunction with them, fight such rebels.'
Such pronouncements which declared India Darul Islam were also forthcoming from the Muftis of Mecca and Medina and other Arab divines including Sheikh Jamaluddin ibn 'Abd Allah, Sheikh Umar Hanif, Sheikh Anmad ibn Zihni Shafi and Sheikh Hussain ibn Ibrahim They issued such edicts because. as stated by the leader of the Jamaat e Islami, Maulvi Abul Ala Maududi:
'when the British supremacy was established and Muslims had accepted to live in India under their own personal law, this territory was no more Darul Harb.'
What opinion would Abdul Hafeez now express in relation to all the aforementioned Muslim divines and leaders who agreed with Hadhrat Ahmadas that Jihad against the British rule was not permissible? Would he state that they too had abrogated this essential injunction of the Islamic faith?
Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmadas agreed with the ulama of the time that Jihad with the sword was not permissible against the legitimate government of India, he still considered India to be Dar ul Harb, i.e., a place of war where Muslims were under a religious obligation to conduct a different kind of Jihad. Hence he declared:
'This country is Dar ul Harb as against Christian missionaries. We should therefore not sit idle. But remember that our war is of the same kind as theirs. We should go forth with the kind of weapons with which they have come forth. That weapon is the pen. '
INDIAN MUTINY OF 1857
Finally, Abdul Hafeez attempts to make a capital issue of the assistance afforded to the British Raj by the feudal lords of Qadian during the Indian sepoy mutiny of 1857. In the first instance, he ought to realize that this assistance was given to the British not by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but by Mirza Ghulam Murtaza who belonged to the Jamait e AhIe Sunnat wal Ahle Hadeeth of India and not Jamaat e Ahmadiyya. Hence, neither Hadhrat Ahmadas nor the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community can, under any criterion, be held responsible for the actions of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas ancestors who subscribed to a school of thought whose leadership committed itself to his opposition after he established the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. More so when it has already been shown that it was a decree of God Almighty that the name of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas ancestors be blotted out and a foundation of a new family be laid with him. Hence, he stated that God Almighty had revealed to him that:
He will cut off thy ancestors and will begin thine family with thee.'
Such a Divine promise of the beginning of a new dispensation with Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas was also recorded by the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on another occasion when he stated that God Almighty had informed him:
'God, Who is the Possessor of many blessings and Who is Lofty and Pious has increased your piety over and above your family. From now on, the mention of your family would cease and God will lay the foundation of a beginning with you.'
Incidentally, this promise of blotting out the mention of his ancestors included the name of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas father also who had given this assistance to the British Raj. Hence, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community stated that God promised him:
'From now, the mention of your famous father and grandfather would cease and God will lay the foundation of your family with your family as it was done with Abraham'
And this promise, the recorded facts of the history of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas family prove, was fulfilled to the letter. Apparently, his ancestors had been granted a pension in consideration of their services to the British Raj but as suggested by Abdul Hafeez's own citation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature, it was suspended when Hadhrat Ahmadas assumed the position of the head of this family. Hence, he quotes Hadhrat Sahibzada Mirza Bashir Ahmadra, the son of Hadhrat Ahmadas as having stated:
'The British confiscated our family lands and fixed an honorary [sic] pension of Rs. 700/- only per year in the form of cash which was reduced to Rs. 180/- only at the death of my Grandfather and stopped completely after my uncle's [Fathers elder brother] death.'
Although this happened as a consequence of the Divine decree that the name of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas ancestors be blotted out the British Raj did not feel obliged to continue this pension any longer after the death of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas elder brother because Hadhrat Ahmad'sas had not rendered any service to the British Raj and was therefore not entitled to any pension. Hence, one cannot see under what criterion Abdul Hafeez can blame Hadhrat Ahmad'sas for the action of his ancestors.
Secondly, one cannot see any reason why the conduct of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas ancestors should be found censurable by Abdul Hafeez considering that the sepoy mutiny of 1857 was acknowledged to be a rebellion by Muslim divines as well as scholars of the Indian sub continent. For instance, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi declared that:
'All those Muslims who took part in the mutiny of 1857 were, according to the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet'ssa Traditions, grave sinners, mischief makers and wicked. Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts and those considered prominent ulama were either not acquainted with true faith or lacked proper understanding.'
The famous Indian educationalist, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, was much more harsh in his estimation of the conduct of the mutineers. He stated:
'This was a mere act of bastardliness and no more. They have the least connection with Islam.'
The author of Two in One may, conveniently, discard the edicts issued by Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan in relation to the mutiny of 1857 on the grounds that 'these two persons have always been controversial in this matter and their opinion carries no weight' but this does not alter the fact that the views of these controversial persons was universally shared by the religious as well as secular leadership of the Muslim ummah. The then Sultan of Turkey who was considered to be the Khalifatul Muslimeen issued an edict in favor of the British when pockets of Muslim insurgents joined forces with the Hindus in 1857. It is stated that:
'in 1857, when independent minded Muslims and Hindus in India joined forces to launch a war of independence against the British rule, the Khalifa gave a fatwa to the effect that the Muslims of India ought not fight the British.'
The Sultan of Turkey may have had his own reasons for not being in favor of Muslims being engaged in the mutiny of 1854 but according to the Muslim ulama of the Indian sub continent, the action of the mutineers was positively defined as sinful. Hence, it was recorded in relation to the then Muhaddith of Delhi:
'In terms of true meaning of Jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be a legal Islamic jihad. He thought it faithlessness, a breach of covenant, and mischief and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.'
In fact, this universally acknowledged leader of the Jami'at e Ahle Sunnat wal Ahle Hadeeth in India issued an edict that:
'This mutiny was not jihad but an act of banditry and a punishable offense. '
Another prominent leader of the Ahle Hadeeth, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal alluded to the mutiny of 1857 and stated that 'during the mutiny, some rajas and so called nawabs and men of means interfered with the peace and calm of India under the name of Jihad. They fanned the flames of battle until disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under the law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered.' He, then, proceeded to declare:
'If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble maker, and from the beginning to the end, he would stain the name of Islam.'
This however, was not the extent of the opposition to the Indian mutiny of 1857 by non Ahmadi Muslim divines and scholars of India. The spiritual predecessors of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's most committed opponents, the ulama of Deoband warned Muslims against involvement in this dispute and cautioned them that it could be counter productive to the interests of Islam: It is, for instance, stated in Arwah e Salasah, published with notes and commentary by the Deobandi leader Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi:
'Many a divine of India were against the Mutiny. They did not accept the rebellion as Jihad and Meer Mehboob Ali Sahib was one of those divines who was opposed to the revolt. He dissuaded the Muslims from participating in the disturbances.'
If Abdul Hafeez's opinion on the question of this conflict is correct then the leaders of Deoband, on the evidence of their own history, stand guilty of treason against the ummah of Islam because Maulvi Ashiq Ali of Deoband states in relation to Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gongohi of the Nidawatul Ulama:
'During these days, he had to fight the gangs of miscreants who roamed the country. He used to carry a sword with him to protect himself and he would attack like a lion amidst a barrage of bullets. Once, while in the company of Maulana Qasim al Uloom, Hadhrat Haji Sahib [Haji lmadullah Makki] and Hafiz Zaamin, the Maulana and his companions were confronted by a gang of Hindu rebels. However, this small group of patriots were not prepared to either run or surrender to the mutinying traitors of their Movement.'
This struggle which Abdul Hafeez and his colleagues are today so anxious to define as Jihad was fought against by the leaders of non Ahmadia Muslim persuasion who were even wounded, nay, killed fighting against the mutineers. Hence, Maulvi Ashiq All proceeded to state:
'They stood before the rebels like a rock and prepared themselves to sacrifice their lives for their Government. The courage shown by these people under such heavy odds was incredible. The situation could have easily caused fright in the hearts of the bravest of men. But, this small band of ascetics stood their ground and fought against the rebels. They were fired upon by the enemy and Hadhrat Hafiz Sahib was hit by a bullet. He died as a result of the wound sustained by him.'
Incidentally, many of these non Ahmadi Muslim divines were generously rewarded by the British also. It is recorded by Muslim sources that:
'After the suppression of the Indian mutiny, the Sultan ul Ulama, Syed Muhammad Ahmad, a leading divine of Lucknow was also among those generously rewarded by the British. He was granted a pension of Rs. 800 per month and this pension was subject to inheritance by his succeeding generations.'
Not even Abdul Hafeez dare deny that these people who were a part of the Indian history at the time of the sepoy mutiny of 1857 were better qualified to determine as to whether this conflict was an Islamic Jihad or an act of wanton savagery. Yet, this ignorant scholar of Islamic history in the subcontinent of India has the nerve to challenge the opinion of people more qualified than him to give this thoroughly un Islamic act of a small section of Muslim fanatics a color of religious legitimacy. The extent of Abdul Hafeez's ignorance in these matters is evident from his assumption that the British had some cause to fear the movement of Hadhrat Syed Ahmed Shahrh while it 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 Ismailrh 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. Incidentally, it may be relevant to state here that both these saints fell in battle at Balakot in 1831 fighting against the Sikhs. 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. 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, Haflz Zamaan, Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Syed Muhammad Ahmad Lucknowi and also Hadhrat Muhammad Qasim Nanotovirh fought, not only verbally but against which they also raised the sword.
