certifired_img

Books and Documents

Books and Documents

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

Kh. Nazim-ud-Din discussed the subject with Mr. Daultana on or about the 4th August. Says Kh. Nazim-ud-Din: “I told him Dr. Qureshi thought that Mir Nur Ahmad had been supplying material to various papers in support of the movement. I pointed out that while the Pakistan Times, the lmroze, the Nawa-i-Waqt and the C. &. M. Gazette were silent, the Government-controlled papers, particularly the Zamindar, were fanning the agitation. He said that Urdu papers depended for circulation on a popular subject and it was difficult to stop them, but that his object was to control the vigilance of the campaign in the papers by advice. I told him the best way of tackling the situation was to prevent the papers from fanning the agitation and that he was the only person who could do so as these papers depended on him for patronage”.

Next: The Final Phase

Photo: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani

 

The author hides behind a smokescreen to weave together a quickie novelette that at best deserves the Bad Sex Award, for the tantric sex romps of its Hindutva- loving protagonist, Andrew Luyt, a foreign correspondent posted in India whose character is a gross misrepresentation of Tully’s long stay in India.

MacLithon too has an intriguing and suspiciously familiar author- bio: he describes himself as a foreign correspondent who holds the profound belief that India should have pride in its Hindu base. He claims to have interviewed six Indian prime ministers and dodged bullets on the India- Pakistan border. And, like Tully, he lives in Delhi with his partner. -- Neha Tara Mehta

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

“How long will the names of ‘prophet’, ‘promised Messiah’, ‘Ahmad’ and ‘Muhammad’ be dinned into our ears in this country in respect of an adulterer, drunkard, goonda, badmash, forger, liar and Dajjal, and how long will the pure and chaste mothers of the Ummat be allowed to turn in their graves, restless with shame, for a woman who is the disgrace of humanity?” (The reference is apparently to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his wife).

Next: The role of the newspapers in the campaign

Photo: Ahmadiyya Baitul Mujeeb Mosque, Monrovia - Liberia

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

On 24th July 1952, the D. I. G. informed Government that mock funerals of the Foreign Minister had been taken out at several places in the province and that this constituted an offence under section 23, Public Safety Act. The Home Secretary said that the Safety Act should not be used, but that the Chief Minister might talk to the Ahrar leaders to abide by the undertaking, as parleys with them at a lower level had proved futile. The Chief Minister signed the note on 30th July. In his statement in Court, he said he took no action because he agreed with the Home Secretary. But the Home Secretary, when he discouraged the Safety Act, was apparently thinking of section 3, by which a person is detained without trial. Section 23, however, is on the same footing as any section of the Penal Code, and if Mr. Daultana agreed with him because Mr. Daultana also had section 3 in mind, then it is very fortunate indeed for the law-breakers that both the Chief Minister and the Home Secretary had the same conception of section 23 as they had of section 3. But even Mr. Daultana admitted that in 1952 there were ninety persons detained under the Safety Act and that none of them was a political detenu.

Next: The Decision Of 24th December 1952

Photo: Ahmadiyya Central Mosque in Ilaro, Nigeria

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

On 20th May 1952, Mr. Anwar Ali wrote an exhaustive note recapitulating Ahrar doings and their effect since 1950. They may be summarised as follows:

(1) At Okara, in October 1950, Ahmadi preachers were waylaid and their faces blackened. (This, it must be conceded, was the result of “aggressive sectarianism”.) A school-master was killed.

(2) At Pindi, about the same time, an Ahmadi was killed, though the immediate cause had no reference to religious differences.

(3) At Sialkot, in January 1951, the Ahrar broke up an Ahmadi meeting.

(4) At Chak Jhumra, in February, a son of M. Ismatullah, an Ahmadi, was stabbed on the railway station by Ahrar workers.

(5) At Gujranwala, in March, an Ahmadi shopkeeper was attacked, but the police saved him.

(6) In April at Lyallpur following a threat by Ghulam Nabi Janbaz, an Ahmadi shopkeeper was attacked.

(7) At Samundri, in May, an Ahmadi mosque was burnt down.

(8) In November, at Lyallpur again, an Ahmadi meeting was broken up, resulting in casualties on both sides.

(9) In the same month, at Multan, the Ahrar tried to break up an Ahmadi meeting.

(10) In March 1952, at Sargodha, an Ahrar procession was taken out in defiance of a ban. We have already noticed it.

(11) In April 1952, at Rawalpindi, a youth got up in a meeting and urged people to kill Chaudhri Zafarullah Khan.

(12) In the same month, at Gujranwala, two mock funerals of Chaudhri Muhammad Zafarullah Khan were taken out with the accompaniment of a humiliating chorus—“Zafarullah puttur chor da; Na’ra maro zor da”.

(13) In May 1951, at Lyallpur, Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari promised large-scale demonstrations.

(14) According to a letter intercepted by the C. I. D., paradise was promised to whosoever should kill the Foreign Minister.

Next: Assurance by the Ahrar on 19th July, 1952

Photo: Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque, Mangoase, Ghana

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

Meanwhile an Ahrar agency reprinted an obscure pamphlet entitled Ash-Shahab originally written by Maulana Shabir Ahmad Usmani, the “Archbishop” of Pakistan, apparently with the author’s permission. This pamphlet justified the stoning to death of two Ahmadis by the Afghan Government many years ago. In June I950, Mr. Anwar Ali noted that “for obvious reasons” it was not advisable to ban the pamphlet, but that Master Taj-ud-Din and other leaders should be warned. The Chief Secretary (Hafiz Abdul Majid), the Chief Adviser and the Governor agreed and the Governor also observed that since previous warnings had not proved effective, they should be told that if they did not desist from these activities, Government would be forced to take action

Next: The Ahrar workers are out to sabotage safety and peace

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

Straight and sincere as he is in his religious convictions, he held the ulama in deep veneration. He was also conscious of the great influence the ulama had come to exert on the affairs of the country. Their high position was implicit in the Objectives Resolution, and some of them who had associated themselves with the movement were members of the Ta’limat-i-Islami Board, attached to the Constituent Assembly. A head-on clash with them was, therefore, unthinkable. Of course he could have accepted or promised his personal support to the demands. In that case there would have been no fuss, except possibly when the matter came up before the Constituent Assembly. Disturbances in that event there would have been none, and Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din would have been a popular hero in Pakistan. The Ahmadis were a small community and could not have possibly offered any resistance or created any disorder. There might have been some stir in international circles over Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s removal but the populace of Pakistan would have acclaimed the step.

Next: Attitude of pro-League papers.

Photo: Baitul Islam Mosque, Ontario - Canada

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

His own belief was that if ninety per cent of the Ulama agree that a believer in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a kafir, or that he should be stoned to death, he would bow his head to the decision. But the fatwa of kufr does not necessarily turn a community into a non-Muslim minority. The basis of the Demands has, therefore, no connection with the demand for an Islamic state. Fatwas of kufr have been quite a feature of Islam since the Four Caliphs, but they have never resulted in the denial of civic rights to the individuals or classes against whom the decree was made. This is very comforting indeed, in a state where fatwas are likely to become as necessary as guns and butter. The last remark is our own.

Next: Kh. Nazim-ud-Din’s regard for Ulama.

Photo: London Road Mosque

 

The subject of The Good Jesus... is this ‘presumption’ and the bowdlerisation of a humanist philosophy. Written in a startlingly spare style, Pullman points to Scottish folktales and ballads as a model. He’s clear about his atheism. “I hope my characters deal with a strong moral compass. But the physical, the natural has an incredible beauty.  I don’t need religion; I find ‘it’ in the material world,” says the writer who grew up as a Christian but describes himself now as a “cultural Christian”....

One realises after closing this slim book that Pullman has written a novella about organised lying and its power structure. Through two blokes. -- Indrajit Hazra

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

The Gujranwala and Sargodha contraventions of the order under section 144 were very apt illustrations of the manner in which religion was being exploited for political purposes. At Sargodha a regular public meeting had been held in a mosque on a Friday at 10 o’clock, and nothing more was needed than a challenge to the organisers of that meeting to show that Juma prayers could be said at 10 o’clock, with the name of the President of the meeting and the list of speakers having been previously and formally announced. The same had been the case in Gujranwala. This meeting also had been announced by posters and loudspeakers on the preceding day by the Ahrar; it had been stated in these announcements that Ahrar leaders whose names were mentioned were coming from different places to address the gathering. The meeting was again announced by a person while the khatib was delivering the Khutba, and it was actually held after Juma prayers were over. If any effort had been made by the leaders of the Muslim League to expose these tactics of the Ahrar, we have not the slightest doubt that people would have revised their attitude and understood and appreciated the Government’s view.

Next: CENTRAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS KHAWAJA NAZIM-UD-DIN v. MR. DAULTANA

Photo: Ahmadiyya Mosque in Haifa

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

 “Do not consider the policeman, the thanedar and the Deputy Commissioner as your rulers. Do not be afraid of them and do not care for them.” “Muhammad Ali (the reference is to the present Prime Minister) went to Delhi to find a solution for the Kashmir problem. Well and good. But why did he take his wife ‘ummul-momineen’ with himself? Brothers! his wife must be ‘ummul-momineen’, because he himself is ‘amir-ul-momineen’. Well, ‘ummul-momineen’ went to Delhi. The question involved was of the life and death of 35 lacs of Musalmans, but her little son got a scratch on the thumb and she ran back to Karachi.”

 “Thirty-five lacs of Musalmans are facing death in Kashmir and this man (the reference is again to the present Premier) proclaims himself as the younger brother of Nehru. I would say ‘Be a dog but do not be a younger brother’.” Referring to officers in that speech he said they were all disciples of the British and immoral. They gambled and they drank. “I once mentioned to Mr. Noon, the Chief Minister”, he said, “that the Deputy Commissioner of a district gambles all night and doses during the day in Court. This representative of twelve lacs of people is a gambler and an adulterer. He has a depraved character but is Sahib Bahadur. Nothing was done on this complaint.”

Next: The part played by the Muslim League leaders

Photo: Ahmadiyya Mosque, Nairobi Kenya

 
In The Name Of The Father
Chandrahas Choudhury

Songs Of Blood and Sword| Fatima Bhutto

Of all the stories available to human beings, none is as instantly fascinating as that of a powerful family riven down the middle, feuding in public view and throwing the entire world out of shape with its might. This storyline is central to our epics, and is often reprised by contemporary events, especially in feudal societies. In such cases, the testimony of any one participant inevitably turns the story into one of good versus evil—the stakes are too high for it to be anything else, but the thrill of receiving the inside story more than compensates for the lack of detachment in perspective.

Just such a story—long-awaited since the first metaphorical gunshots were fired in recent years—is served up by Songs of Blood and Sword, 28-year-old Fatima Bhutto’s angry and sometimes incoherent retelling of the macabre lives and internecine warrings of the first family of Pakistani politics, the Bhuttos of Sindh. -- Chandrahas Choudhury

Photo: Songs of Blood and Sword: Penguin, 470 pages, Rs699

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

The ideology on which an Islamic State is desired to be founded in Pakistan must have certain consequences for the Musalmans who are living in countries under non-Muslim sovereigns. We asked Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari whether a Muslim could be a faithful subject of a non-Muslim State and reproduce his answer:—

“Q.—In your opinion is a Musalman bound to obey orders of a kafir Government?

A.—It is not possible that a Musalman should be faithful citizen of a non-Muslim Government.

Q.—Will it be possible for the four crore of Indian Muslims to be faithful citizens of their State?

A—No.”

The answer is quite consistent with the ideology which has been pressed before us, but then if Pakistan is entitled to base its Constitution on religion, the same right must be conceded to other countries where Musalmans are in substantial minorities or if they constitute a preponderating majority in a country where sovereignty rests with a non-Muslim community. We, therefore, asked the various ulama whether, if non-Muslims in Pakistan were to be subjected to this discrimination in matters of citizenship, the ulama would have any objection to Muslims in other countries being subjected to a similar discrimination. Their reactions to this suggestion are reproduced below:—

Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan:—

“Q.—You will admit for the Hindus, who are in a majority in India, the right to have a Hindu religious State?

A.—Yes.

Q.—Will you have any objection if the Muslims are treated under that form of Government as malishes or shudras under the law of Manu?

A.— No.”

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi:—

“Q.—If we have this form of Islamic Government in Pakistan, will you permit Hindus to base their Constitution on the basis of their own religion?

A—Certainly. I should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of Government as shudras and malishes and Manu’s laws are applied to them, depriving them of all share in the Government and the rights of a citizen. In fact such a state of affairs already exists in India.”

Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ata Ullah Skak Bukhari:—

“Q.—How many crores of Muslims are there in India?

A.—Four crores.

Q.—Have you any objection to the law of Manu being applied to them according to which they will have no civil right and will be treated as malishes and shudras?

A.—I am in Pakistan and I cannot advise them.”

Mian Tufail Muhammad of Jama’at-i-Islami:—

“Q.—What is the population of Muslims in the world?

A.—Fifty crores.

Q.—If the total population of Muslims of the world is 50 crores, as you say, and the number of Muslims living in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Egypt, Persia, Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Turkey and Iraq does not exceed 20 crores, will not the result of your ideology be

to convert 30 crores of Muslims in the world into hewers of wood and drawers of water?

A.—My ideology should not affect their position.

Q.—Even if they are subjected to discrimination on religious grounds and denied ordinary rights of citizenship?

A.—Yes.”

This witness goes to the extent of asserting that even if a non-Muslim Government were to offer posts to Muslims in the public services of the country, it will be their duty to refuse such posts.

Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:—

“Q.—Do you want an Islamic State in Pakistan?

A.—Surely.

Q.—What will be your reaction if the neighbouring country was to found their political system on their own religion?

A.—They can do it if they like.

Q.—Do you admit for them the right to declare that all Muslims in India, are shudras and malishes with no civil rights whatsoever?

A.—We will do our best to see that before they do it their political sovereignty is gone. We are too strong for India. We will be strong enough to prevent India from doing this.

Q.—Is it a part of the religious obligations of Muslims to preach their religion?

A—Yes.

Q.—Is it a part of the duty of Muslims in India publicly to preach their religion?

A.—They should have that right.

Q.—What if the Indian State is founded on a religious basis and the right to preach religion is disallowed to its Muslim nationals?

A —If India makes any such law, believer in the Expansionist movement as I am, I will march on India and conquer her.”

So this is the reply to the reciprocity of discrimination on religious grounds. Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari:—

“Q.—Would you like to have the same ideology for the four crores of Muslims in India as you are impressing upon the Muslims of Pakistan?

A.—That ideology will not let them remain in India for one minute.

Q.—Does the ideology of a Muslim change from place to place and from time to time?

A.—No.

Q.—Then why should not the Muslims of India have the same ideology as you have?

A.—They should answer that question.”

The ideology advocated before us, if adopted by Indian Muslims, will completely disqualify them for public offices in the State, not only in India but in other countries also which are under a non-Muslim Government. Muslims will become perpetual suspects everywhere and will not be enrolled in the army because according to this ideology, in case of war between a Muslim country and a non-Muslim country, Muslim soldiers of the non-Muslim country must either side with the Muslim country or surrender their posts. The following is the view expressed by two divines whom we questioned on this point:—

Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan:—

“Q.—What will be the duty of Muslims in India in case of war between India and Pakistan?

A.—Their duty is obvious, namely, to side with us and not to fight against us on behalf of India.”

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi: —

“Q.—What will be the duty of the Muslims in India in case of war between India and Pakistan?

A.—Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

NEXT: Responsibility for Disturbances

Photo: Haqiqat-ul-Islam Ahmadiyya Mosque in Paramaribo, Suriname

Munir Commission Report—28: THE AHRAR
Munir Commission Report—28

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

Abdul Haye’s evidence before us proves that even during the disturbances in one of the speeches made at Lahore by the Ahrar leader, Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Pakistan was described as a prostitute which the Ahrar had accepted perforce. On Partition the Ahrar came to Pakistan as a defeated and frustrated party.

Some of the Ahrar leaders stayed behind and according to a report published in the ‘Zamindar’ of 16th January 1948, the All-India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organisation and accepting that in India no political organisation other than the Congress was called for. The resolution advised the Musalmans to join the Congress and to acknowledge the leadership of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. They decided to confine their future activities to khidmat-i-khalq (service of humanity) and for the protection of their religious rights the Musalmans were advised to join the Jami’at-ul-Ulama organisation.

 In Pakistan they kept quiet for some time, trying to discover some new ideology for themselves. They repeatedly said that they had not given up politics and that they intended to assume the role of opposition in Pakistan (vide the ‘Azad’ for 26th December 1950, and 27th May 1952, and the ‘Ta’meer-i-Nau’ of 5th December 1949), We have already pointed out how after a period of inactivity they began to awake as a political party but finding that there was no scope for their old ideology in Pakistan and that the Muslim League would not permit them to come into prominence, they surrendered their politics in favour of the Muslim League and declared that in future they would devote themselves to tabligh (religious propaganda).

Next: MUSLIM LEAGUE

Photo: Ahmadiyya mosque at Frogner in Oslo, Norway

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

The second difference between the Jama’at-i-Islami on the one side and Majlis-i-Amal and the Ahrar on the other relates to the conduct of Maulana Sultan Ahmad at the meeting of the Majlis-i-Amal held on 26th February in the office of the khatm-inubuwwat movement in Karachi. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi’s version is that though he had received a notice of this meeting he himself was ill and had given certain instructions to Maulana Sultan Ahmad by telephone which were followed by a detailed letter written to him on 22nd February 1953, the substance of the letter and the telephonic message being that the Jama’at-i-Islami’s view that direct action should not be resorted to, nor any unconstitutional step taken, should be pressed at the meeting and that if this proposal was not accepted, Maulana Sultan Ahmad should declare that the Jama’at had resigned membership of Majlis-i-Amal.

Next: THE AHRAR

The Bait ul Hameed Mosque (Ahmadiyya Mosque) in Los Angeles, California

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

Responsibiltiy

The written statement of Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiya, Rabwah, lays responsibility for the disturbances on the Ahrar, the Jama’at-i-Islami, the ulama and the Provincial and Central Governments. The Anjuman accuses the Ahrar of having exploited a religious issue for the purpose of regaining their lost position and rehabilitating themselves with the public. Similar motives are attributed to Jama’at-i-Islami, and it is alleged that Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi’s object in emphasising on an Islamic Government for Pakistan was; to occupy the first place in the State and that it was with this ulterior object that Jama’at-i-Islami made a common cause with the Ahrar and the other ulama. The addition of a ninth demand to the eight demands of Jama’at-i-Islami for the future Constitution of Pakistan, which was intended to assign to the Ahmadis the position of a non-Muslim minority in the Constitution itself, is pointed out as having been prompted by a political and not by a religious motive. The same motive is attributed to the ulama who allied themselves with the Ahrar in the campaign against Ahmadis, and it is alleged that the object of the ulama was precisely the same as that of Jama’at-i-Islami, namely, to acquire political power and control by emphasising the religious aspect of the future Constitution. The Central Government and the Provincial Government are brought in for a share of the blame because of their indifference to the storm which, as a result of intensive propaganda, had been brewing for a long time, without either Government having made any effort to stop it. The Punjab Chief Minister’s proclamation of 6th March 1953, that the Punjab Government accepted the correctness of the demands and was deputing a Provincial Minister to go to Karachi to place the Punjab’s point of view before the Central Government, is stated to have caused complete collapse of law and order and let loose a reign of terror against Ahmadis, and in proof of this allegation several cases of murder, loot and arson that occurred in Lahore after that proclamation are mentioned.

Next: The conduct of Maulana Sultan Ahmad at the meeting of the Majlis-i-Amal

Photo: Ahmadiyya-Moschee in Berlin

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

“Q.—Please give the definition of a Musalman?

A.—The word ‘Musalman’ is a Persian one. There is a distinction between the word ‘Musalman’ which is a Persian word for Muslim and the word ‘momin’. It is impossible for me to give a complete definition of the word ‘momin’. I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophethood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.”

Next: Reaction On Muslims Of Non-Muslim States

Photo: Main Lahore Ahmadiyya mosque in Paramaribo, Suriname

 
MUNIR COMMISSION REPORT-PART 22: JIHAD
MUNIR COMMISSION REPORT-PART 22

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

The third difference between the two parties arises out of the scope of the doctrine of jihad, the texts relating to which are to be found in Sura XXII verses 39 and 40, Sura II, verses 190 to 194, Sura LX, verse 8, Sura IV verses 74 and 75, Sura IX, verse 5, and Sura XXV, verse 52, which are as follows:—

Sura XXII, verses 39 and 40:

39. “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged;—and verily, God is most Powerful for their aid;—

40. (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,—(for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is God.’ Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid His (cause);—for verily God is Full of Strength, exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).”

NEXT: IDEOLOGY BEHIND THE DEMANDS

Photo: An Ahmadiyya Mosque Suya, Benin

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

With this statement of the doctrinal differences between the Musalmans and the Ahmadis and of the activities of the latter, we are in a position to understand the grounds on which the three demands were put forward. We have said earlier that almost all the ulama are agreed that each of the three demands was based on their conception of Islam. Maulana Daud Ghaznavi,. Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi and some others further claimed that the demands followed as a corollary from the Objectives Resolution which had been passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 12th March 1949 after a prolonged and heated debate. And throughout the inquiry every one has taken it for granted that the demands were the result of the ideology on the strength of which the establishment of an Islamic State in Pakistan was claimed and had been promised from certain quarters. The point which must be clearly comprehended to appreciate the plausibility or otherwise of the demands is that in an Islamic State or, what is the same thing, in Islam there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and one distinction which may at once be mentioned is that the non-Muslims cannot be associated with the business of administration in the higher sphere.

Next: What is the definition of a Muslim?

Photo: Ahmadiyya Mosque, Tamale

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

With this more or less chronological statement of the case in the course of which we have stated relevant facts and events with our findings on points which were in issue between some of the parties, we proceed to sum up our conclusions and to return a reply to the terms of reference. By section 4 of the Act, Punjab Act II of 1954, we were commissioned to inquire into the circumstances connected with, and the responsibility for, the disturbances in accordance with the following terms of reference:—

(a) The responsibility for the disturbances;

(b) The circumstances leading to the declaration of the Martial Law in Lahore on the 6th of March 1953; and

(c) The adequacy or otherwise of the measures taken by the Provincial civil authorities to prevent, and subsequently to deal with, the disturbances.

The direction in clause (b) regarding the circumstances does not mean that we are merely to state the events which occurred before or during the disturbances; we interpret it to mean that we are to discover the causal connection, if any, between the events and incidents that occurred before or during the disturbances and the proclamation of Martial Law in Lahore. The Act also requires us to find where the responsibility for the disturbances lies and, therefore, from the very nature of the inquiry, there must be overlapping of discussion, reference and findings in coming to conclusions regarding the responsibility for the disturbances, the circumstances which led to the promulgation of Martial Law and the measures taken to prevent or deal with the disturbances.

NEXT: JIHAD

 

Islam, like all other religions, can be interpreted in diverse ways. Not surprisingly, therefore, there is no unanimity among Muslim scholars on the details of the Islamic concept of jihad and Islamic teachings about relations between Muslims and others. Radical Islamists regard jihad, in the form of physical warfare, as a permanent duty binding on all Muslims. Like some conservative ulema, they also believe that Muslims must necessarily hate what they regard as ‘disbelievers’ and ‘infidels’, seeing that as an expression of their love for Islam and as being mandated by the Quran. These supremacist understandings emerge from their own reading of the Quran and Hadith, the corpus of sayings attributed to or about the Prophet Muhammad. They are also reflected in some strands of traditional Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh, which developed in the centuries after the demise of the Prophet. On the other hand, numerous other Muslim ideologues and scholars vehemently disagree with radical jihadists on their understanding of jihad, their political vision and their interpretation of Islamic teachings about relations between Muslims and others. – Yoginder Sikand

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

Khushi Muhammad tell it himself:—

“One of the men, who came out dancing with knives, offered his chest to receive a bullet, but I told him that so long as he remained on the other side of the tape, he would get no bullet ; but that the moment he crossed the tape, he would get one. When the firing began, I did not see this man at all. He had disappeared in the crowd. After the first firing a maulvi came up and started abusing the army and the police describing them as kafirs. I told the bugler to blow the bugle. As soon as he heard the bugle, ho rushed back, jumping over the crowd.”

In the afternoon an A. S. I. and a constable were mobbed near the railway station and the revolver of the A. S. I. and the rifle of the constable snatched and their uniforms burnt. Another foot constable, who was carrying some case-property, was assaulted and relieved of the property. Two Ahmadis were stabbed and the houses of three others looted by the mob.

Mr. S. N. Alam, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, arrived in the evening and found that the District Magistrate had handed over the situation to the military. He thought that such handing over was not justified and in consultation with the Commissioner decided to take over from the military. He addressed the police who had become demoralised by the incidents of the 3rd and 4th March and made arrangements for patrolling the city. The military shifted their Brigade Headquarters to the City Kotwali.

Next: CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor

After the Chief Minister’s statement of 6th March several Muslim League organisations in the Province passed resolutions in support of the demands. Thus, on 6th March the Muslim League, Mian Channu, passed a resolution that a law should be passed to the effect that no person shall use the word nabi in respect of himself and that if he did so, he would be guilty of an offence. On 7th March 1953, the City Muslim League, Wazirabad passed two resolutions, one of which enjoined every councillor to offer financial help “to the local Majlis-i-Amal and to lay down his life, if necessary, in support of the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement. The resolution further declared that the Muslim League as a body shall not interfere with the programme or activities of Majlis-i-Amal. By the second resolution it was decided to inform the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Chief Minister of the Punjab by telegram that the demands of the Majlis-i-Amal should be accepted within three days and that failing that members of the City Muslim League would resign en bloc and would request M. L. As. from their constituencies to start a, movement to canvass support for a no-confidence motion against Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan. By the same resolution the measures taken by Government forcibly to suppress the religious demands of the Musalmans were strongly disapproved. On the same day the City Muslim League, Jalalpur Jattan, passed a resolution supporting the khatm-i-nubuwwat movement without any reservation and the statement made by the Chief Minister on 6th March, and in the light of that statement offered its support to any step taken by him. The resolution stated further that members of the League were waiting for instructions from the high command to take practical steps to achieve their object.

Next: Two Ahmadis were stabbed and the houses of three others looted by the mob.

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor 

The Chief Secretary was asked to draft a statement for issue over the signatures of the prominent citizens summoned to the afternoon meeting, but as he was called to the Secretariat where clerks had gone on strike, the statement was drafted by the Home Secretary. The draft prepared by the Homo Secretary was considered by the Governor to be too condemnatory of the demands to have any chance of acceptance by the representatives of the public. On return from the Secretariat the Chief Secretary also attempted a draft but then the idea was given up.

At the afternoon meeting the Inspector-General of Police as desired by the Governor and the Chief Minister gave a detailed account of the situation. He was followed by two more speakers, namely, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi and Mr. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, M. L. A. The Maulana described the situation as a civil war between the public and the Government and asserted that unless the Government expressed its willingness to consider the demands of the people, he would not subscribe to any appeal.

Next: MR. DAULTANA’S LEAD FOLLOWED BY MOFUSSIL LEAGUES

Photo: Maulana Abul Ala Maududi

 

Justice M. Munir commission investigated the large-scale riots against the Ahmadya sect in Pakistan in 1953. His report is an eye-opener. It shows that our ulema are not even able to agree on a definition of who a Muslim is. Justice Munir had called heads of all Islamic schools of thought and asked them the definition of a Muslim. No two ulema agreed. It also exposes the pusillanimity of our so-called scholars of Islam and their near-total disregard of the beauty and generosity of Islam. – Editor 

The members of the Action Committee were arrested in Karachi on 27th February. On instruction’s received over the telephone in Lahore from the leaders of the movement who were in Karachi, some batches of volunteers had already left Lahore for Karachi. The one that left on 27th February under the leadership of Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din was intercepted and detrained by the Punjab Police at Railway Station Lodhran, while the other two, one of which had left on the 25th under Miraj-ud-Din Salar and the other on the 26th under Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, succeeded in reaching Karachi and were arrested there.

Action decided upon in Karachi on the night of 26th/27th February was taken by the Punjab Government and persona whose list had been prepared by the Inspector-General of Police on his return from Karachi were arrested. These arrests generated a wave of resentment and lawlessness throughout the Province, more especially in Lahore and the district towns of Sialkot, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi, Lyallpur and Montgomery.

Next: Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi described the situation as a civil war between the public and the Government

 
1 2 ..36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45


Get New Age Islam in Your Inbox
E-mail:
Most Popular Articles
Videos

The Reality of Pakistani Propaganda of Ghazwa e Hind and Composite Culture of IndiaPLAY 

Global Terrorism and Islam; M J Akbar provides The Indian PerspectivePLAY 

Shaukat Kashmiri speaks to New Age Islam TV on impact of Sufi IslamPLAY 

Petrodollar Islam, Salafi Islam, Wahhabi Islam in Pakistani SocietyPLAY 

Dr. Muhammad Hanif Khan Shastri Speaks on Unity of God in Islam and HinduismPLAY 

Indian Muslims Oppose Wahhabi Extremism: A NewAgeIslam TV Report- 8PLAY 

NewAgeIslam, Editor Sultan Shahin speaks on the Taliban and radical IslamPLAY 

Reality of Islamic Terrorism or Extremism by Dr. Tahirul QadriPLAY 

Sultan Shahin, Editor, NewAgeIslam speaks at UNHRC: Islam and Religious MinoritiesPLAY 

NEW COMMENTS

  • These shows need a villain and at this time a Muslim terrorist is a convenient villain, although most....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • just as islam denigrates the kuffar, he is free to denigrate all those.....
    ( By hats off! )
  • it is amazing to see you "refuting" the literal meaning of such a simple....
    ( By hats off! )
  • This series provided an effective counter-narrative blow against....
    ( By Shadab Misbahi )
  • I have not used any inappropriate word, I fee he was Munafiqe....
    ( By Aayina )
  • God would never ask us to kill anyone. He is the Creator of both....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • For Hats Off, no judgement is just unless it is anti-Muslim! How many Buddhist structures.....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • Thanks for sharing such informative and well defined scholarship. '
    ( By Malik Aadil )
  • no judgement is just until it is in favor of islam and muslims. the fact that....
    ( By hats off! )
  • Newageislam.com is doing the same work
    ( By GGS )
  • Good question Neyazi Sahib. Muslims must come forward and sack these elect their good representatives in AIMPLB
    ( By GGS )
  • Owaisi brothers are BJP 2.1. How do people and organisations....
    ( By Ayaan Neyazi )
  • Alliance between Zionist entity and Saudi Arabia is well known to mainstream...
    ( By GGS )
  • Majority of Indians want there to be peace and coexistence around them....
    ( By GGS )
  • Those who are self proclaimed Muslim representatives in All India Muslim Personal....
    ( By GGS )
  • t is not good to make hue and cry over SC resolution....
    ( By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi )
  • Approximately two dozen IS operatives mostly from Kerala used....
    ( By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqiغلام غوث الصديقي )
  • It is also paramount to counter the online threat by promoting religious moderation, tolerance and coexistence....
    ( By Kaniz Fatma )
  • This is indeed a very good article.'
    ( By Kaniz Fatma )
  • GM saheb has rightly put it: "we do not ask for evidence in matters of faith". It is much in the same ....
    ( By GRD )
  • Sickular Shahi Throor is ready to write about the blunder of their own party on Shahbanoo case....
    ( By Aayina )
  • Opportunity of goodwill is lost by Muslims anyway it reflect. The Negative statement and Muslims after Supreme Court....
    ( By Aayina )
  • If Hinduism believe in God, Muslims should not bother who get the place. Why? One day, they will ...
    ( By zuma )
  • Good article. We must prepare our children to succeed in today's....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • It is a flawed verdict from the legal point of view but we can live with it. If Hindu masses....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • Muslims who should lead only in prayers have become....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • A historical example brilliantly cited here: "The mosque of reconciliation will be a living tribute to our Indian humanism. History....
    ( By GRD )
  • What I liked the most in Maulana Azad's epistemology of usul al-din (principles of religion) is that....
    ( By GRD )
  • Militant religiousness and xenophobic fear causing violencee rywhere. '
    ( By Arshad )
  • Muslims should shun sectarianism to come out of this crisis '
    ( By Moin Siddiqui )
  • Hats Off has such a simplistic understanding of historical forces that he sees them only as an ...
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • islamophobia could have saved persia, syria, egypt, indonesia....
    ( By hats off! )
  • For Hats Off, defiling the wisdom of others with his own hatefulness....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • He should be remembered for his being open to the currents....
    ( By Ghulam Mohiyuddin )
  • Hates off
    ( By Arshad )
  • it does not matter what ever else the gurus said as long as they did.....
    ( By hats off! )
  • Yes but o we the years, the practice lost its purpose. Islam revived it.'
    ( By Arshad )
  • Whatever the merit of the verdict, if is a matter of great relief that no life was lost in it's wake. The ....
    ( By Arshad )
  • Maulana Azad was trapped in the quavmire of the political Abra cadabra of his time. He could have ....
    ( By Arshad )
  • was hajj practiced before Islam came?'
    ( By R. Ahmad )