This is an article on Jihad by someone in Saudi Arabia. This shows how confused Muslim are about this concept. Of Jihad.
On the one hand this gentleman says: Without question, the greatest jihad is personal jihad. On the other, he criticises the Ahmadiyya Movement for saying exactly the same thing.
He says : Ahmadiyya, . . . rejected the principle of fighting the colonialists. But then goes on to say : . . .I completely understand that we are bound by the conditions and limitations of [declaring] jihad, namely [that jihad can only be declared when] Muslims are being expelled from their land and [are subjected] to religious coercion.
But the Promised Messiah said exactly the same thing. Muslims in India were not being expelled by the British nor where they subjected to religious coercion. So what made jihad, in the sense of war, their duty? Indeed, other Muslims, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah all opposed a war of independence against the British.
The most interesting aspect of this writing from a Saudi is that most of the Saudi investment is in the USA. Surely, if what the author says is true then his own people should, as a first step, withdraw their billions from the US causing its economy to crash and bringing the US to its knees without firing a shot. Oddly, the author while blaming the Ahmadiyya Movement seems unaware of the history of his own country. During the First World War, the British sent Lawrence to Saudi Arabia to stir the Arabs up against the Turks who at that time ruled them. So the Sunni Saudis rose up against the Sunni Turks in support of Christians who were ruling India at the time. If the Saudis could not engage in a Jihad against the British the least they could do was not to support them against the Turks.
It is not only the concept of Jihad which needs to be re-evaluated but much of the Islamic fiqah’s details that need to be reinterpreted in the light of changing circumstances.