A Wahhabi is simply a pure worshipper— a puritan of Islam, a follower of the uncontaminated faith of the Prophet. To represent him as invariably a se… - Syed Ahmed Khan

It is a great mistake that the country can only be either a Dar-ul-Islam or a Dar-ul-Harb in the primary signification of the words, and that there is no intermediate position. A true Dar-ul-Islam is a country which under no circumstances can be termed a Dar-ul-Harb and vice versa. There are, however, certain countries which, with reference to certain circumstances, can be termed Dar-ul-Islam, and with reference to others Dar-ul-Harb. Such a country is India at the present moment... If you have power, jihad is incumbent upon you. If you do not have power, it is unlawful.

And, further a Juhad, according to the principles of Mohammedan faith, really cannot take place under the present regime! The reason is, that the Mohamn1edans are living under the protection of their European rulers, and the f)rotected cannot make a crusade against their protectors. The Britisl1 have obtained <lo1nination in Hindoostan by two 1no<les viz., by conquest an<l by cession. In either case, the Mohammedans have, as a natural consequence, become their subjects, and enjoy peace an<l protection under their a<lministration, while the Government reposes confidence in their loyalty anll submission. How then could the Mohammedans rise against the Government in a Juha<l, when the very first condition of a religious war is, that there should not subsist the relations of protected and protectors between the crusaders, and those against whom the cn,sade is undertaken? This point is distinctly laid down and enforced in the book of Alungeeree, in which the author says, that there are two indispensable requisites to a J uhad,-first, that there be no ummun or protection,-and secondly, that there be no treaty or engagement between the parties. 44

In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mahomedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.