A first-hand account.
1- It’s a matter of record that on May 29, 1974, two thousand Qadiani fanatic youths, under the leadership of Qadiani chief Mirza Tahir, beat and injured Muslim students at the Chenab Nagar railway station, even breaking their bones. In response to this, the Movement for the Finality of Prophethood emerged in 1974, leading to the Qadianis being unanimously declared a non-Muslim minority by the National Assembly.
2- Exactly fifty years later, on May 29, 2024, a hearing took place in Supreme Court Bench No. 1 regarding the review of the bail decision for Qadiani accused Mubarak Sani.
3- The hearing was conducted by a three-member Supreme Court bench, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Honorable Qazi Faez Isa. The other members were Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
4- This case was listed as number six on the cause list, and the hearing began as scheduled.
5- The entire courtroom of Supreme Court No. 1 was packed with lawyers, scholars, and leaders from various sects. Some individuals had to stand in the hall due to lack of space. This situation persisted throughout the entire day of court proceedings.
Dr. Abul Khair Muhammad Zubair of the National Unity Council, Dr. Fareed Ahmed Paracha, Maulana Syed Hussainuddin Shah, the head of Jamia Naeemia, a servant of the Movement for Finality of Prophethood, Faqir Raqim (Allah bless him), the representative of Sindh Ahl-e-Sunnat, Mr. Mufti Muhammad Hanif Qureshi, Maulana Aziz Kokab, and others were in the front row of chairs. Maulana Mufti Abdul Salam, Maulana Muhammad Tayyib Farooqi, Maulana Mufti Abdul Rasheed, Maulana Qazi Haroon Rashid, Maulana Abdul Waheed Qasmi, Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir, Hafiz Maqsood from Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Hadees, Qari Tanveer Ahmed Ikrar, and leaders from all other sects and groups were also well represented. The courtroom was filled with guests and renowned lawyers.
The plaintiff Mr. Hassan Muawiya, along with his team of lawyers, was present, along with the lawyer from Jamaat-e-Islami, Mr. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, the lawyer from Jamiat Ulema Islam, Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Senator and senior lawyer Mr. Chaudhry Ghulam Mustafa Advocate, Mr. Fazal Rahman Khan, Mr. Saifullah Gondal Advocate, Mr. Saeed Bhutta Advocate, Mr. Tariq Advocate from Talagang, in addition to dozens of other lawyers. Limited passes were issued for entry into the Supreme Court. The remaining crowd stayed outside all day, and there was quite a rush.
At the beginning of the hearing of the case on the sixth number, the Chief Justice stated that the collective opinion of the five institutions will be presented first. Then, the other institutions from which opinions were sought will be heard. To organize the proceedings, the file was assigned to the court staff, and the hearings for other cases began. After a court break, it was time for this case again. Overall, this case was heard continuously for about four hours.
8- The head of the Wafaq-ul-Madaris Al-Arabia, Hazrat Maulana Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, has written a comprehensive opinion spanning several pages regarding the case of judicial review. Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani of Darul Ulum Karachi, Hazrat Maulana Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman of Jamia Naeemia Karachi, Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Yasin of Jamia Salfiah Faisalabad, Jamia Islamia Imdadiyah Faisalabad, and the Quran Academy (established by the late Dr. Israr Ahmad) collectively agreed and signed Maulana Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani’s opinion. The Islamic Ideological Council, Uroodat-ul-Wuthqa Lahore, Jamia Al-Muntazir Lahore, and Jamia Muhammadiyah Bhera each sent their separate opinions.
9- Among the ten institutions from which the Supreme Court requested opinions, nine were in agreement that the Chief Justice’s decision regarding the bail in the Qadiani Mubarak Sani case was incorrect and required correction and clarifications. The Advocate General of the Punjab Government, the plaintiff’s lawyers, and nearly thirty other institutions or personalities involved in the review all expressed in writing and verbally their consensus that the court’s decision was not correct, with not a single opinion supporting its correctness.
10- Consequently, the Chief Justice of Pakistan himself observed during the hearing that “the Supreme Court may have exceeded its powers in this decision.”
11- The institutions that were consulted by the Supreme Court declared the decision to be incorrect. However, one institution established by Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, named Al-Mawrid, acknowledged that it is not a Darul Ifta (fatwa issuing institution) and comprises individuals with diverse opinions. Nevertheless, they included writings from Mr. Maulana Abul A’la Maududi and Mr. Amin Ahsan Islahi in their response, even though these were completely unrelated to the case, making their inclusion an act of dishonesty and deception. They also attached photocopies of books and articles by Mr. Ghamidi and Mr. Ammar Khan Nasir. Mr. Ghamidi’s individual opinions, which starkly contrast with the consensus view of the community and promote Qadianism, state, for example, that he does not categorize Qadianis as non-Muslims and opposes the inclusion of “Islamic Republic” in Pakistan’s name, arguing that the state should not be linked to any religion. These beliefs reflect Mr. Ghamidi’s personal views, which appear to conflict constitutionally and legally with the community’s consensus, raising questions about the appropriateness of seeking opinions from those who do not agree with the constitution of the country— “what sense does that make?”
12- During the hearing, Dr. Fareed Paracha came to the rostrum and stated: Maulana Maududi believed that Qadiyanis are non-Muslims, and including their writings with the stance of Idara Al-Mawrid is a deceitful and dishonest plot to defame the founder of the community, which I strongly condemn. Dr. Fareed Paracha shattered the despicable act of facilitating Qadiyanis by Idara Al-Mawrid.
13- During the hearing, Justice Irfan Sadiq Khan loudly recited the Oneness of God and the testimony of faith, remarking that all the judges on the bench have complete faith in the finality of Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This was supported and reiterated by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and Justice Sadiq Khan. At that moment, the Supreme Court resonated with the blessings of acknowledging the finality of Prophethood. He stated this driven by his faith and Islamic pride; no one had demanded this from him. English newspapers misreported this.
14- The Chief Justice referenced a verse from Surah Al-Ahzab and observed that the matter is settled; whoever denies this verse is not a Muslim, and there can’t be two opinions about the finality of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); this cannot be discussed further, nor can there be any other interpretation of this Quranic verse. The entire chamber filled with cheer at the Chief Justice’s observation.
15- At one point, the lawyer for the accused Mubarak Ahmad Sani alleged that working against a specific community and filing cases is the plaintiff’s profession, to which the court responded, and Justice Irfan Sadiq Khan remarked that maybe he is doing this for the protection of the honor of Prophethood (peace be upon him). The courtroom erupted in applause in response to Justice Irfan Sadiq Khan’s remarks.
16- The issue of burning a girls’ school in North Waziristan was also raised in court, and it was questioned why the clerics do not condemn this act. The clerics present at the rostrum unanimously stated that this is an act of oppression and we condemn it, there is no doubt about it, and it should not be placed on our heads. The court then chose to remain silent in happiness regarding this statement.
17- During the hearing, when the Chief Justice referred to the decision in the case as his own, he emphasized calling it the court’s decision instead.
18- The lawyer for the Punjab government requested a review of paragraphs 8 to 10 of the court’s verdict and argued that the interpretation in the “Tafseer-e-Sagheer” involves the distortion of the Holy Quran; this book is not a interpretation but rather a distortion of the Quran.
19- The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution do not apply to Qadianism, the Ahmadiyya community, and the Lahore group, as they mislead people under the guise of Islam, and they are required by law to refrain from promoting their beliefs in public places openly. The Qadiani lawyer for Mubarak Ahmed stated that when the incident regarding the distribution of Tafseer-e-Sagheer occurred in 2019, it wasn’t considered a crime under the law; the ban on Tafseer-e-Sagheer was imposed in 2021. The government lawyer responded that even in 2011, publishing materials based on the distortion of the Quran was a crime. The court agreed with this, leading to a noticeable reaction from the Qadiani lawyer.
20- When the case began, the Chief Justice mentioned that five institutions, including Dar-ul-Uloom Karachi, Jamia Naeemia Karachi, Quran Academy Lahore, Jamia Salfia, and Jamia Imdadia Faisalabad, submitted a joint response. He said they would first hear this response and then those from other religious schools of thought. A representative from Jamia Naeemia, Maulana Peer Syed Hasnain Shah’s son, Maulana Mufti Habib-ul-Haq read the joint response, which requested a review of paragraphs eight to ten of the court’s decision and argued that the Quranic verses referenced by the court have no relevance to this case. The joint response also stated that the matter concerning the accused should be left to the trial court, allowing it to decide according to the law and facts without being influenced by any observations of the Supreme Court.
21- When the consensus statement was being read that said “the Quranic verse should be removed,” the Chief Justice asked, “The Quranic verse should be removed?” The reader clarified, “The verse included in this decision, which is unrelated, should be removed from the decision.” Thus, the matter became clear.
22- It became evident to everyone that the collective opinion of the five institutions closed the door to any possibility of an incorrect decision arising from dissent among various institutions.
23- The Islamic Ideological Council had submitted a statement to the court containing its opinion. To read and follow it, Mufti Inamullah, Mufti Ghulam Majid, and Dr. Umair Siddiqui took the stand. The latter is no longer a member of the Ideological Council, but he was unanimously asked to read the statement. The Chief Justice raised an objection and observed that the Ideological Council should discuss the matter in light of the Quran and Sunnah, as the court and lawyers are present to address the legal aspects. The Chief Justice said: We are aware of each other’s boundaries; the task of the Ideological Council is to look at the Shariah aspect, while the interpretation of the law is the court’s job.
24- When the representative of the Ideological Council referenced the law in his statement, the Chief Justice replied, “So, you’re talking about the law?” At this, a lawyer from the back asked if anyone other than the court or lawyers could reference the law. This led to silence. However, a little later, the court ordered the same representative of the Ideological Council to read different provisions of the constitution and law, which he did confidently. At that point, someone from the back remarked, “So now has it become acceptable for the court to draw legal conclusions outside of lawyers?”
25- After that, when the court asked to hear the position of Aurat al-Wuthqa, their representative was not present. It also happened that the name Aurat al-Wuthqa didn’t even cross the Chief Justice’s lips, so he had to ask what the name was. This shows that he doesn’t know this institution personally. The individual who provided a list of various institutions to the Chief Justice included Al-Mawarid based on personal preference to take advantage of dissenting opinions, and he is known as Dr. Mushtaq, the alleged advisor to the court. This action calls for the attention of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding what kind of service he is providing to the court.
26- With the representative of Aurat al-Wuthqa not being present, Dr. Umair Siddiqui offered that if the Supreme Court permits, he could read it, to which the Chief Justice kindly granted permission, and Dr. Umair Siddiqui read out some parts of the statement from Aurat al-Wuthqa.
27- The representative of the Islamic Ideological Council and a former member stated that Articles 19, 20, and 22 of the Constitution do not apply to Ahmadiyyat; it is not a religion but a false disguise, and the court should remove the sentences present in the verdict.
After the discussion on the Urwa al-Wuthqa case, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shir Khan came to read the statement submitted to the Supreme Court regarding the case of Jamia Muhammadia Bhera. With limited time, he suggested that the written statement from our institution is available, and he would add a few points beyond that. Mufti Shir Muhammad informed the court that public places are not allowed for preaching and promoting, and doing so is legally a crime. All schools of thought agree that the judicial observation regarding the promotion of religion should be withdrawn.
a. Qadianis cannot use Islamic terms or practices privately in their own homes, places of worship, or properties in a way that could be perceived as them being Muslims. This would be against the constitution; they cannot present their disbelief under the guise of Islam at home. Once discovered, the law should prevent their unlawful and un-Islamic activities.
b. The Mosque of Dhirar was a private space and property for hypocrites; it had a separate boundary, and they used their disbelief and hypocrisy there under the name of Islam. However, the Holy Quran completely nullified their efforts.
c. The group of Musailmah the liar used to utilize the adhan, prayer, sacrifice, declaration of faith, and Quran privately among themselves, but Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) thwarted their conspiracies.
d. Can someone privately keep heroin in the name of earning a living?
e. Can someone secretly run a brothel in their home?
f. Can someone secretly store illegal weapons in their home? No! So Qadianis also cannot use Islamic terminology and symbols illegally in their own homes, such as during sacrifice, etc.
29- When Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir came to present his stance at the rostrum, the lawyers and scholars objected, stating that he didn’t have the authority letter from the institution. Due to the objections from the lawyers and scholars present in the courtroom, the court did not allow Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir to be heard.
30- The lawyer for the Punjab government stated that the laws of Pakistan’s Penal Code, Section 295-B apply to the Tafseer Saghir. When asked by the court, he clarified that the accused, Mubarak Ahmed Sani, was not named in the initial FIR and was later added through a supplementary statement. He claimed that the accused did not deny the charges and that by presenting himself as a Muslim and distributing a book containing distortions of the Quran, the laws of Pakistan’s Penal Code, Section 295-C apply.
31- At that moment, the complainant, Hassan Muawiya, approached the rostrum and mentioned that the school principal was named in the initial FIR. The Punjab government’s lawyer said that the accused had confessed to the crime, to which the Chief Justice responded, asking the Punjab government’s lawyer: Are you proceeding based on this confession? Should we then dismiss all criminal laws? (After the hearing was completed, the decision was reserved.)