The allegation of the non Ahmadi Muslims is that Ahmadas did not allow or do physical Jihad of the sword against the British Government. The ones who raise this allegation are ignorant of the teachings of Islam and of what Islam says about Jihad and this has already been addressed under the allegations British agent and Abrogation of Jihad.
It is recorded that once Hazrat Ahmad Shah Barelvirh said that he was going out for Jihad against the Sikhs and was asked why he does not fight the British who are so close to him, yet he is travelling to fight the Sikhs. He replied by saying:
“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” (Barelvi, Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah, Musalmanon ka Roshan Mustaqbil)
The opinion was also shared with a follower of Hazrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvi, who was named Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaeed who stated:
’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”(Shaheed, Sayyid Muhammad Ismail, Hayyat Tayabba)
This belief was followed by many more non Ahmadi Muslim scholars as well.Sayyid Nazir Hussain who was a Muhaddith of Delhi and a leader of the Ahle Hadith in India stated:
’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” (Husain, Maulvi Nazir, Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, page 135)
He also stated:
“Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and sin” (Ibid, Fatwa Naziriyya, Volume iv, page 472)
He referred to the period of the Indian Mutiny of 1857 by stating:
’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” (Ibid, Page 15)
He further stated in regards to those who act against the British Raj:
“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.”(Ibid, Page 17)
Maulvi Hussain Batalvi stated:
“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.” (Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan, Tarjuman e Wahabiyya page 61)
He also stated:
“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.” (Ibid)
The ulama of Northern India issued a statement which wrote:
“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” (Ibid)
A fatwa of the ulama from the East Ulama 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.” (Ibid Page 219)
Maulvi Abul Ala Maududi also stated:
“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.” (Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala, Book on Interests, Pt 1, Pages 77-78)
According to the anti Ahmadis all of these scholars whom they treat as the most righteous of the Muslim Ummah, were all against Islam. It is interesting to see to what extent they go in the mockery of Ahmadiyyat and a Prophet of Allah, not knowing that their saints and scholars have such the exact same statements.