On February 6, 2024, our country’s Supreme Court delivered a verdict regarding a person named Mubarak Ahmed Sani Qadiani. This decision has stirred up discussions and concerns among constitutional and legal experts, as well as within religious circles, creating a wave of unrest across the country. Although the Supreme Court issued a press release (which mistakenly dated February 22, 2022, even though it is 2024), they attempted to alleviate this concern by stating: “It is unfortunate that emotions get heated in such cases, and Islamic rulings are forgotten. The verses from the Quran in the decision were provided in their proper context.”
The writer points out that the Supreme Court’s directive for lower courts to handle matters of faith with great caution and its reliance on specific verses is completely misplaced, irrelevant, and taken out of context. The study of authentic interpretations can clarify this, especially since the verse referenced in paragraph 6, “لَا اِکْرَاہَ فِی الدِّیْنِ” (there is no compulsion in religion), is not applicable here. This verse prohibits forcing someone to convert to Islam, while the actual issue at hand is about labeling disbelief as Islam and elevating a self-made religion to the status of Islam.
The second point is that the topic of caution was supposed to take into account the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter, but interpreting caution in the mentioned decision through “لَا اِکْرَاہَ” seems to not just be a failure in caution but an invitation or permission for recklessness. On one hand, where the defendant’s charges have been dismissed under the false pretext of not mentioning sections 298-C and 295-B of the F.I.R., on the other hand, paragraphs 6-10 seem to give the impression of benefiting the criminal in comparison to the well-known law against Qadianism, leading to a clear encouragement for committing such crimes in the next phase.
The decision in question overlooks the clear Quranic truth and unfairly dismisses our Muslim community’s natural emotions and religious commitment as mere anger. This isn’t just an injustice; it raises questions about how we seek justice for those who violate Sharia and constitutional law, giving a free pass to those who distort the Quran and Sunnah by relegating their accountability to the afterlife and exempting them from worldly punishment. According to this decision, sections 298-C and 295-B will effectively become null and void.
The judge also argued from the other verse, “Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it,” that Allah has taken on the responsibility of safeguarding the religion.
This doesn’t mean that distortion is allowed in Muslim society or that it won’t cause any harm. Instead, the Quran actually commands that distortion should be made ineffective, and there are safeguards and measures against it. Yet, this verse is being interpreted in the opposite way. If we accept this interpretation as valid, then all security organizations should be abolished as well, since there is clear evidence in the Quran that Allah has arranged for the protection of humans through angels. Therefore, such meaningless interpretations of Quranic verses can fall into the category of semantic distortion, which Muslims are instructed to avoid.
The Supreme Court’s press release further stated that:
“2- In the decision, the clauses related to the religious freedom of non-Muslims that were quoted from the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan clearly have the condition that these rights will only be available ‘subject to law, public order, and morality.’
3: The translation of Article 20 of the Constitution is presented here:
‘Subject to law, public order, and morality:
(a) Every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, and
(b) Every religious group and each sect shall have the right to establish and maintain their religious institutions and manage them. In a case of this nature, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court has already provided a detailed decision on this subject. Zahiruddin vs. State 1993 SCMR 1718 from which the current decision does not deviate…’
I would like to point out that this clarification has been made in the press release, but when the wording of the decision is presented, it justly creates the impression that the Supreme Court has talked about granting religious freedom to this Qadiani accused. However, according to the Constitution, law, and the decision of the five judges of the Supreme Court in 1993, Qadianism is not a religion, but rather a group that is fraudulently exploiting the rights of Muslims.”
The Qadiani group can only benefit from this law if they declare themselves as a distinct independent sect with their own specific identity, similar to other minority religions, according to Islamic Sharia and the country’s constitution. However, Section 298-C of the Prohibition of Qadianiat Ordinance (Part of Pakistan Penal Code) prevents any member of the Qadiani sect from calling themselves a Muslim for various reasons, or from promoting and disseminating their sect. This legal clause specifies the Qadianis, thus granting them the general right to religious freedom like other non-Muslim minorities is not constitutionally correct under the religious freedom law. According to Sharia and the Constitution of Pakistan, they are not declared as a religious group. As stated earlier, the 1973 Constitution lists this group as the “Qadiani group” rather than a religious sect. Since they do not accept the constitution and Sharia, they are considered heretics; despite being declared non-believers under Sharia and the constitution, they insist on seeing themselves as Muslims and believe their distortions to be valid interpretations of the Quran, viewing the devilish sayings of their Qadiani leader as divine revelation. If they acknowledge their false status and seek their religious rights with a distinct identity separate from Muslims, they could claim rights as a non-Muslim minority group; otherwise, they cannot.
Therefore, a group that does not fulfill the basic requirements of Sharia and the constitution to obtain religious rights should rightly be seen as not deserving of those rights in any circumstance.
Paragraph 10 states: “If the responsible authorities of the state acted according to the Holy Quran, considered the constitution, and reviewed the law, FIRs would not be registered for the mentioned crimes.”
This statement creates a common impression that the criminal Mubarak Ahmad Thani’s activities of publishing, promoting, teaching, and openly distributing his Qadiani interpretations are not questionable, and that the state institutions’ efforts to prevent such actions is a violation of the Holy Quran and a result of ignorance of the constitution. In reality, engaging in such unnecessary discussions in this matter is not only out of place but also shows a lack of understanding of the meanings and implications of the Holy Quran.
Secondly, it’s not always necessary for the state to be the claimant in every case. If, God forbid, the Holy Quran is being subjected to distortions and the state does not take a stand, can no individual or group raise their voice against these distortions? Or do we have to wait for the state to act? If the state remains oblivious, will it be acceptable for the Muslim public to take the law into their own hands out of natural emotions?
In conclusion, we would like to mention that the Supreme Court’s press release refers to Article 20 of the constitution, stating that this freedom will be subject to law, public order, and morality. Everyone knows that all our national institutions, whether it’s the legislature, judiciary, or executive, are bound by the constitution. This constitution has, according to its procedures, granted various positions to individuals like the president, the prime minister, the chief minister, judges, and the chief justice. However, it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court, in seeking opinions from certain institutions regarding this decision for re-hearing, has given an opportunity to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s institution and others influenced by his thoughts to present a “Sharia perspective” in the case involving the Qadiani accused. This has turned the court’s commendable action into a matter of debate, as institutions linked to “Al-Mawrid” and its ideology have long been associated with various contradictions and ambiguities, especially since they do not believe in religious foundations for the state, treating religion as a private preference. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has openly stated multiple times in his writings and speeches that “the state has no religion.” Isn’t this a denial of Article 2 of the constitution, which declares that Islam will be the state religion of Pakistan?! Similarly, is there not a violation of Article 20, which states that religious freedom will also be subject to this constitution and the law of Pakistan?
Furthermore, the constitution and law grant the Supreme Court the right to make decisions, and it is bound to make decisions according to this law and constitution. So how can it be constitutional or lawful to seek opinions from those who do not recognize this constitution and law?! Additionally, people who hold this ideology do not recognize Qadianis as non-Muslims, even though the National Assembly unanimously declared them a non-Muslim minority, and to counteract their deception, the Anti-Qadiani Ordinance of 1984 was issued.
In summary, guidance on this issue should be sought from the established schools of thought among Muslims and the Islamic Ideology Council (which is a constitutional body), but opinions should not be solicited from those who do not recognize the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or do not accept Qadianis as a non-Muslim minority as defined by the constitution. Otherwise, it will create confusion, and there will be a reaction from Muslims that will be difficult for anyone to handle.
May Allah Almighty guide us all to walk on the straight path, keep us steadfast, and grant us the ability to make the right decisions. May He protect us from the trials of our own selves, the devil, and the mischief-makers. Ameen.