The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

October 9th, 2008

1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings

Our esteemed friend Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following.

Closed door session of Pakistan National Assembly.

Many new generation of Mullah opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM), and Qadianis, refuse to accept that 1974 National Assembly trial of LAM, that resulted in declaring LAM members as non-muslim and enacted 2nd constitutional amendment to 1973 Pakistan’s Constitution, was held in close doors and press/media were not allowed to report the proceedings.

Here is quote from Dawn newspaper:

“The first such secret joint sitting was convened in 1974 by then-prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to discuss the situation after anti-Qadiani riots, which led to a constitutional amendment that declared the Qadianis, or Ahmedis, outside the pale of Islam.”

Ref: ‘Military to share secrets with MPs’ The Dawn Internet edition, October 08, 2008.


What was national security issue that warranted ‘Secret joint setting’?
Answer: NONE.

38 Responses to “1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings”

  1. In my research I have found that:

    1.  The aaiil accused the AMI of seperating from Islam circa 1914.
    2.  The pakistani govt. accused the AMI of seperating of Islam circa 1891.
    3.  The muslim ummah accused the AMi of seperating from Islam circa 1891.

    I have to agree with all three of these bodies.  The fact is that it is not just the aaiil who accuse the AMI of seperating from Islam. 

    Any muslim that thinks that prophethood(perfect type) exists after the HP is not considered a muslim by 99% of muslims.  From a research standpoint that must be accepted as an “overwhelming consensus”. 

    On the other hand 99% of muslims believe in the metaphoric use of the word prophet.  But they dont like to use it.  Its not a friendly term that should be used by the normal people.  HMGA wrote that a prophet, rasul and muhaddas are equal in terms of being sent.  he also wrote that Mujadids were substitutes for prophets in this ummah.  Each mujadid was greater than the corresponding prophet.

    1.  Abu Bakr vs. Joshua
    2.  Ali vs. Aaron
    3.  HMGA vs. Jesus
    4.  Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi vs. John the Baptist

    And so on and so forth…………

    Another point is that HMBMA and Mirza Bashir Ahmad called muslims as Kafirs from 1914 to 1922.  The pakistani govt and M. ali accuse the AMI of this.  If you read the relevant data, any un-biased person can see this as very true.  At the time, the ramifications werent forseeable, m. ali warned HMBMA of this dangerous step that he was taking.  Maybe HMBMA thought that India would remain in british control.  As soon as the muslims came into power, it seems that the ahmadis were now liable for thier beliefs.

    A muslim is one who recites the Kalima.  HMBMA and Mirza Bashir Ahmad did not agree with this universal definition from 1914 to 1922.

  2. October 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    Some of the saner elements in Pakistan’s media -though still a tiny minority –  are beginning to speak out against the extremism and bigotry pervading Pakistani society . Here are a few extracts from the opinion column of Dawn:

    9/27/2008: Insecurity at all levels

    IF there is safety in numbers, then why should 160 million Pakistanis not feel secure? And yet never before has there been such a heightened awareness of our national and personal vulnerability.

    Minorities such as the Ahmadiyya and Christian communities feel threatened by an intolerant majority; the majority feels insecure from one and another. Our assassins today are not foreigners with unpronounceable names; they emanate from among us.

    9/26/2008:  Threat To the State

    The question for many is that if law and order agencies are unable to protect important people in high-security areas, then what can be the fate of ordinary people?

    This, indeed, is an imperfect question considering that both society and state remain silent for the most part on other occasions when innocent people are murdered. The reference here is to the brutal murder of two Ahmadis in Sindh by those presumably incited by the views of a self-professed religious scholar who instructed his television viewers twice this month to kill Ahmadis for being non-Muslims and flouting the fundamentals of Islam. This is what one would call incitement to murder.

    9/26/2008:  Jihad Revised

    IMAGINE you are a radical Islamist leading a war against the infidels from the badlands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In front of you is the statement, “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that.”

    9/21/2008: Not in the name of faith

    LAST week three funerals took place on three successive days. The dead came from different backgrounds, belonged to different places and professions. Common to the three was their faith.

    They were Ahmadis — and that was good enough reason for the unknown gunmen to kill them.

  3. Is this judgment of Allah SWT?
    The 1974 trial of LAM was held behind close doors so that Pakistani public may not come to know the truth about LAM and HMGA, and hollowness of arguments of their opponents i.e. the Mullah Mafia.

    Now 34 years later, the People’s Party (PPP) Government in Pakistan is holding closed door meeting on the security situation in Pakistan. The shameful thing for PPP is that they cannot tell the truth to their National Assembly members, even though they have taken oath of secrecy. Members of national assembly especially of opposition parties are loudly asking for true and honest information.

    34 years ago, members of the national assembly held the truth from Pakistani nation. Now truth is held from members of national assembly! Should we call it, Judgment from Allah SWT?

  4. An article on Munir Inquiry Commission report.
    Khalid Hasan, journalist and press secretary of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, wrote an article on 1954 Munir Inquiry Commission report. As this talks about Ahmadis so I am posting its link here:

    The index of his articles is at:

  5. I was not aware that the 1974 session declaring both the AAIIL and the AMC as kafirs was a closed session.  I was wondering that since now it has been more than 30 years if it is possible for one to obtain transcripts of the session proceedings; esp the Q&A between Mufti Mehmood and the Ahmadi reps.  Does any one know where does one go for such records..national archives of pakistan, national library, some sort of record room of the NA open to the public????

  6. On some websites it is stated that the public galleries were packed to the full during the hearings, i.e. when the case for the motion was being presented. The “closed” part could relate to the time when the Assembly was considering its decision after the hearings.

    The Bhutto government placed a restriction on the proceedings being published for 25 years (although that limit has now passed). Various parties involved seem to have their own versions of the transcripts showing themsleves in a good light, from what I can gather!

    It seems those members who did not support the motion did not turn up to vote, for their own security. Also, a mob was gathered outside waiting for this result, or else the building would have been burnt down.

    By the way, it is now proved scientifically that Ahmadis are non-Muslims! How you may ask? Well, there is a website with the name: See home page. In another section of this website , it is argued that Ahmadis are non-Muslim. See this link.

    I can only presume that the author arrived at this conclusion scientifically!

  7. October 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    If any one wants to view the transcripts of those fateful NA proceedings, I am afraid they can only hope that they will stumble upon them by chance.

    The State of Pakistan does not have a very good history of sharing information with its citizens. This is probably the single biggest reason for the mess that is prevalent in Pakistan today. For this reason conspiracy theories abound in our dear Pakistan.

    1. It is not clear how Liaqatat Ali Khan was assassinated.
    2. How East Pakistan was lost is shrouded in mystery.
    3. The report of the Samdani Commission investigating the Rabwah incident was not made public.
    4. How Zia-ul-Haq met his end is shrouded in misery.
    5. It is highly unlikely we will ever know the true killers of Benazir Bhutto.

    Banning the AAIIL literature in Pakistan has contributed to the ignorance of the Pakistani public concerning the Ahmadis and HMGA. This has prevented the public from knowing about the relationship of prominent Muslim intellectuals with the Ahmadis. So whenever someone comes across those connections, their astonishment is there for all to see. See the Dr Israr video.

  8. This is what I found from an anti-ahmadiyya website:

    It’s a must read for all researchers….

  9. Qadianis YouTube video against AAIIL

    Qadianis have recently posted youtube video:

  10. Secret 1974 trial.
    According to marhoom Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, who represented AAIIL in Pakistan National Assembly and answered questions by Attorney General of Pakistan Yaya Bakhitar:
    1-     He had to take oath that he will not divulge in public in speech or writing what he testifies in assembly. This is the reason that on occasion of Salana Jalsa in 1977 he delivered speech on topic ‘Muqaam-e Maseeh-e Maood’, instead of referring directly to 1974 assembly proceedings, he writes: In a sitting where Maulana Sadar-Ud-Din was also present, I was asked question on status of HMGA….
    The requirement of testifying under oath to not to divulge information in public gives credence to fact that Question-Answer session/ witness testimony session was also held in close door session of national assembly.
    2-     According to Mannan sahib, proceedings of session were stored at a safe location.
    I am sure, it is very much possible, proceedings could still be safe and could be found if government wishes.

  11. I checked out the link given by Bashir.  Unfortunatley it does not contain the testimony of the Lahore Ahmadiyya representative which is of interest to me.  Abdul Momin, while I agree that details pertaining to most sensetive issues in Pakistan never see the light of day; I would still like to know, if any one has this information, where does one exaclty go to view declassified transcripts of the NA proceedings.

  12. October 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    “Abdul Momin, while I agree that details pertaining to most sensetive issues in Pakistan never see the light of day; I would still like to know, if any one has this information, where does one exaclty go to view declassified transcripts of the NA proceedings.”

    Brother if I knew, I would have shared this information a long time ago. Any time I see something interesting, I am only too willing to post it on this forum for all to see.

    The fact that “Various parties involved seem to have their own versions of the transcripts showing themsleves in a good light, from what I can gather!” as Dr Zahid Aziz writes, clearly shows that people having access to the Pakistani government’s records through their personal connections are the only ones who can obtain those records. Maybe this situation will improve in the future. I don’t know about the present.

    Three years ago, I provided a copy of the Munir Commission report to a Supreme Court lawyer in Pakistan. He told me that even this report was considered to be a rare manuscript in the country. If something of interest to the legal community is so rare, that should tell us something about the state of affairs!

  13. Let me make several points here.

    1. There is a book in Urdu I have read published by some anti-Ahmadiyya ulama claiming to be the transcripts of questions and answers of the 1974 hearings. For authenticity the maulvis claim in it that when they became involved in the South Africa case (I think the second one), Zia-ul-Haq, in order to help them, released the record of the 1974 proceedings to them. I have seen it but don’t remember the name of this book. What I do remember is that it reports Mirza Masud Baig sahib (our General Secretary) as answering some questions as: Aain baain shaain. Now obviously the late Mirza sahib did not actually utter this expresssion. That is the interpretation of the compilers that he said something unintelligible or dithered. Knowing the late Mirza sahib, I can’t believe this.

    2. The Qadiani Jamaat made available on their website, about 3 years ago, a document called Mahzar Nama, in Urdu as well as English translation. For the Urdu see this link (the link opens a 4.5MB pdf file).

    This is the document they say they submitted to the Assembly before the hearings. The English version appeared first in about 2005 and I started to write some comments on it but never finished them. Basically, they have included pre-1901 statements about prophethood! I e-mailed a friend with some comments and if you wish I can forward you that e-mail.

    The most bizarre thing is that in the Introduction it is written (I quote from the English version):

    “This document — Mahzarnama — was prepared in advance and distributed among the members of the National Assembly. Some members of the Assembly made their personal copies of it available to their Ahmadi friends. One such copy which reached the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at, United Kingdom, is being published by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at, United Kingdom …”

    The question which obviously comes to mind is: As this document was prepared and officially submitted to the National Assembly of Pakistan by the Qadiani Jamaat itself, how can the same Jamaat say that it obtained a copy of it through some members of the National Assembly who had given it to some Ahmadi friends of theirs?

    By the way, some Qadiani friends of mine have always claimed that if the transcripts were released the result would be that “a half of Pakistan” would immediately become Ahmadi (Qadiani) because of Mirza Nasir Ahmad’s presentation of their case!

    3. Once in the mid-1990s when I was visiting Lahore, a worker of the Anjuman said that he could get us copies of the Munir Report for just 50 Rs from a shop. I already had a photocopy but obtained the original printing as well in this way. That man brought copies for as many of us as wanted it! Justice Munir himself writes in his later book From Jinnah to Zia: “Now neither this report nor the record of the proceedings is available” (p. 42)

    The proceedings at the Munir enquiry did used to be published in the newspapers. I have uploaded the first two reports from Paigham Sulh, the first 8 July 1953 here and the second 15 July, here.

    An anecdote: Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib used to relate that when our Jamaat applied to be a party at the Munir enquiry, Justice Munir said: “Why have you come here? Everyone knows that you are Muslims!”

  14. This book under discussion is the same one that has excerpts translated in English and available on an anti-Ahmafi website (see links provided by Bashir above). The book is “Parliament mein Qadiani Shikast” by Allah Wasaya

    I got it from the Duty Free Shop in the departure lounge of Islamabad’s Airpot several years ago. Yes I try to collect as many anti-Ahmadi “gems” as I can 🙂

  15. October 18th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    While I not only welcome but also encourage everyone belonging to the AAIIL to seek and improve their knowledge, and if any member comes across anything interesting and relevant, to please continue to share it with us, I tried to make the point that there is no institutional arrangement in Pakistan – like there is in the USA – for dissemination of knowledge  pertaining to the public interest. If there is an institutional arrangement it is not functional. 

    My previous posts concerning this issue really relate to the part of the National Assembly proceedings dealing with the AAIIL. I suspect that these would be hard to obtain on the open market because the Assembly members would not have a clear cut case or advantage over the AAIIL. Therefore those proceedings might not have much propaganda value. Even if available on the open market, it would be present in very limited quantities in very limited places, because printed matter like everything else, also depends on consumer demand. So one really would have to find out where such material is available.

    The same would be true regarding the Munir Report. After I had passed a copy to the lawyer that I mentioned previously, he informed me that he was printing another copy – from the CD I had provided – for a very prominent member of the Pakistan Senate.

  16. A book published by anti-ahmadiyya in Urdu authored by Allah Wisaya. This book has so called “transcripts” of AAIIL representatives’ testimony in 1974 national assembly trial.
    Mannan Omar sahib new about this book, and rejected it. According to him only two persons spoke in assembly. In the beginning of the proceedings, Maulana Sadar Ud Din took oath and stated what ever Abdul Mannan Omar sahib testifies are AAIIL beliefs. After that Mannan Omar sahib took oath and answered questions of attorney general. When Mannan sahib finished his testimony Maulana Sadar Ud Din sahib was asked to record again his statement. Sadar ud Din sahib again on record said that what ever Abdul Mannan Omar sahib has stated, I have listened to his every word and I fully agree with him, and these are beliefs of my jamaat.  According to Mannan Omar sahib, Mirza Masud Baig sahib was there among others to assist Mannan sahib (i.e. look for references in HMGA books) but he NEVER took the stand and answered direct questions.  Actually, on one occasion attorney general Yahya Bakhitar tried to play trick and wanted Mirza Masud Baig to answer a question but Mannan sahib stopped that.  Following is detail:
    Yahya Bakhtiar was trying to make point that spilt in 1914 was all political and there is no difference in beliefs of Qadianis and AAIIL. This he tried by asking Mannan sahib: How many candidates were there for the office of chief leader (sarabara-e-jamaat)?
    Mannan sahib replied, “only one, it was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad”. At this point, Mirza Masud Baig sahib, there were verbalized two candidates and one was Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib (thinking that Mannan sahib is making a mistake). So, Mannan sahib again repeated, “Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was the only candidate”.  At that moment Yahya Bakhtiar suggested to Mannan sahib to consult his friend (Mirza Masud Baig sahib). Mannan sahib replied, what I am saying is the correct answer and my testimony.
    So, book authored by Allah Wisaya on 1974 trial has no credibility.

  17. Unfortunately all of the people directly involved have since passed away. What exists in the public domain for now are snippets of indirect information that have been verbally passed on to various people.

    BTW, I am not contradicting what Rashid has said above. Just making the point that the best source of information to shed light on what happened is a transcript of the actual proceedings.

  18. Agreeing with Tariq may I repose the original question:

    Where does one ago, the practical uselessness of doing so notwithstanding, to view or obtain the official transcripts of declassified NA proceedings?  If a proper mechanism exists, even if only on paper, then there is a chance one may be able to get the transcripts after some “string pulling.”  Also I wonder if any Ahmadi can move a court of law to obtain these transcripts on the basis that these pertain to his/her fundamental rights?

  19. Z.A. Bhutto’s government imposed a 25-year ban on the publication of those proceedings. That lapsed 9 years ago. So someone should be able to request their publication.

    ZAB used to boast after that constitutional amendment that he had solved a “90 year old” issue. Why didn’t he want to show people how he did it! He should really have claimed to have solved a 1300/1400 year old issue, because the definition of “Muslim” in the Quran, Sunna, Hadith and Islamic Fiqh was proved by him to be inadequate, and he perfected the definition.

    I have looked at the link given above by Bashir to a translation of the questions of the attorney-general to Mirza Nasir Ahmad and answers. At one point we have this exchange:

    Attorney-General: An Israeli Jewish spy gives a declaration of falsely being a Muslim and arrives in Saudia from Belgium and enters the Holy Places. Does the Saudi government have the right to arrest him or not?

    Mirza Nasir: He is a spy, and that is why he will be arrested; not because he is a non-Muslim.

    Attorney-General: In other words, he could not be arrested on the false declaration.

    Mirza Nasir: He will be arrested; why did he give a false declaration.

    Attorney-General: Thank you very much. But as to whether the declaration is wrong or right, which authority will distinguish and differentiate that?

    Mirza Nasir: About the declaration or the religion.

    Attorney-General: Declaration, in which the name of the religion was used in a wrong way – being a non-Muslim, he was making himself be known as a Muslim. The declaration contains a falsehood. Does some authority have a right to prosecute this falsehood?

    Mirza Nasir: Yes.

    Why does an Israeli need to pretend to be a Muslim to spy in Saudi Arabia? There are plenty of Muslims who can be easily bought for that purpose! Mirza Nasir Ahmad’s first answer is correct, that whoever spies will be arrested for spying. But his subsequent answer (“He will be arrested; why did he give a false declaration”) will only apply if the man himself admitted making the declaration falsely. So long as the man claims to be a Muslim and testifies to the kalima shahadat in support of his claim, he cannot be charged under (true) Islamic law with falsely claiming to be a Muslim.

    Perhaps the attorney general (Yahya Bakhtiar) should himself be asked this question: If Arabia is under Muslim rule by Turkey, and a British agent goes there and persuades the Arabs to rebel against their fellow-Muslims, what should be the punishment for those Arabs?

    Perhaps another question could be: Arabs in London frequent casinos for gambling and are welcomed in such establishments. If a Jew, in order to facilitate his entrance into a casino, pretends to be a Muslim Arab, what is his punishment? The Jew falsely obtained the rights which belonged to Arabs!

  20. October 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    1. I am surprised that Mirza Nasir Ahmad did not raise the question whether the National Assembly members were aware who was a Muslim by definition, before deciding if the Qadiani jamaat members met that definition or not. He could well have cited the Munir Commission as a reference. 

    2. The Attorney-General provided only hypothetical scenarios (non of which has yet occurred since the time of those proceedings) in order to prove that the State had the right to judge if a person was a Muslim or not. All or most of those scenarios involved a false statement on the part of the claimant. In other words, if the claimant was lying about his religion, the lie could only be proved if it was established that the defendant had no religion or had a different religion (assuming the defendant was of “sound mind”). In this case, since the Qadianis were like other Muslims in performing their religious obligations and they had not named their religion anything other than Islam, what kind of lie on their part could be proved? In other words, what was the yardstick for comparison if they were Muslim or not? And what mechanism did the State have to ensure that each and every one of its citizens met the standards of that yardstick?

    3. At the end of this unpleasant episode in the sad history of Pakistan, there was still no definition provided by the NA as to who was a Muslim. All the NA did was to establish a negative, (Ahmadis are not Muslims) without providing the positive (who was a Muslim). It was left to a dictator to provide one 10 years later, which itself looks like a sick joke.

  21. Here is another snippet of indirect information which was related to me by an elder who knew one of the members of the Assembly at that time. According to this parliamentarian,” it was the leading questions by the Attorney General and the hostile attitude of the audience which messed things up”. This is one opinion of a non-Ahmadi from his vantage point, and he may or may not be biased in his views. I suspect that the same reason may apply to an extent to the Qadinais as well.

    In all fairness we must remember that this was not an impartial court of law presided by a sober judge, who controls the atmosphere in the courtroom as well as is able to correct any in appropriate line of questioning. It was a hostile atmosphere, with jeering audience members (who were the judge and the jury by the way) and a questioner who seemed to be looking to gain approval of the audience members. You can even get this sense from what is available at that website. I don’t think it mattered how you answered the question, the result was pre-determined and this event was more of a show.

  22. Tariq is absolutely correct. It was a show trial with a pre-determined conclusion. The aim of the questioning was to mock and ridicule any Ahmadi representative and get cheap laughs from the audience. Such trials were commonplace in former communist countries.

    If the investigation had been fair, the Ulama who called for Ahmadis to be declared non-Muslim should also have been questioned, as they were at the Munir enquiry.

    There was another show trial in the Shariat court in 1984. I was in Cape Town with Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib marhoom in October 1984 when the attorney for the opposite party passed to our attorneys the then recent Shariat court judgment from Pakistan rejecting a challenge by two Ahmadis (one Qadiani, one Lahori) to Zia’s ordinance. Our attorneys got very worried seeing the huge size of this document as well as by the fact that it was by a Shariat court.

    However, after they read it, they described it as a travesty and mockery of justice, since the judges clearly sided with the party that was opposing the Ahmadis and in their judgment they openly carried out anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda. That judgment mentioned the Lahori petitioner in one small paragraph while the rest of the judgment dealt with the Qadiani petitioner’s arguments. That judgment was not going to impress anyone who adhered to the least fair and decent legal standards.

  23. Although I agree that this was a politicaly inspired mock trial with a forgone conclusion; I am still anxious to examine the transcripts to see how clearly was the case presented by the Lahore Ahmadiyya representative (Manan Omer Sahib).  In the interest of justice (innocent until proven guilty) one should give the parlimentarians of the time benefit of the doubt.  After all declaring a Muslim as a non-Muslim is commiting a grave crime and injustice; which could have a bearing on how Pakistan as a country may be judged in the divine court.  We have seen the fate of ZAB (for whom we know for sure this was a political decision); does a similar fate await the Pakistani nation?

  24. October 21st, 2008 at 5:07 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    1. A colleague of mine in school with biggoted views concerning Ahmadis, at the time of the NA decision said that as far as the Lahori group was concerned, according to him and other friends in his village, it was a travesty of justice.

    2. One story I heard at that time was that Prime Minister Bhutto asked to know the total number of Lahoris in Pakistan. When informed of that, he said that it was better that they be declared non-Muslim along with the Qadianis, otherwise the general Muslims will crush them.

    3. The Shariat Court case was a complete farce. General Zia was in touch with that Court constantly and pressurized it to arrive at an early judgement without looking into the merits of the case. This same General would not hold elections in Pakistan unless he was guaranteed “useful results”. What interest would he have in administering real justice which went against his Ordinance? But isn’t it ironic that less than 2 years after that Judgement, one of those Shariat Court judges went to the Lahori petitioner’s house to offer condolences and raise his hands for Dua for the soul of a deceased relative?

  25. As to the question above about what fate awaits the Pakistani nation because of the 1974 NA decision, it is not some external, unconnected penalty that one has to face, but something which is a direct consequence of what one does. That decision encouraged and exacebated sectarianism and intolerance, as a result of which the general Muslims of Pakistan are being killed today by extremist groups who don’t regard them as real Muslims.

    When Z.A. Bhutto appealed against his death sentence, he appointed Yahya Bakhtiar (the attorney-general who conducted the 1974 hearings) for his defence. Mr Bakhtiar couldn’t save Bhutto. They themselves faced the same kind of biassed, politically-controlled court as they had made the NA into in 1974.

    During that appeal, Bhutto had to defend himself against the allegation of being a Muslim in name only. Then suddenly he and his camp remembered the following:

    “He said that it was an acknowledged principle that the person who recites the Kalima is a Muslim, and no one has the right to call him a non-Muslim. Citing an instance, chairman [of the People’s Party] Bhutto said that Abu Sufyan, a great enemy of the Holy Prophet, was brought to him. He claimed to have recited the Kalima, but the Holy Prophet’s Companions argued that he had not done it with his heart, and they wanted to kill him. But the Holy Prophet said that as he had recited the Kalima, he was now a Muslim, and could not be harmed.”

    (Urdu Daily Masawat, Lahore, Wednesday 20 December 1978, front page, column 1)

    So Bhutto, Yahya Bakhtiar etc. had to defend themselves with the same arguments that they rejected from Ahmadis in the NA in 1974.

  26. Further on the fate of Pakistan being affected by the NA 1974 decision, there is something quite obvious to note. The demand to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim by the Islamic parties was only the first step in their drive to impose their outlook on the law and society of the country. The Munir enquiry recognised this, which is why they questioned several ulama on their conception of an Islamic state, and their views on matters such as jihad and rights of minorities.

    Z.A. Bhutto thought he was being politically astute in having their demand about Ahmadis accepted, so that he could then get the popular acclaim for himself. But that was the first solid victory of what was later called Islamic fundmentalism. As we know, they made further demands on him, such as making Friday as the weekly holiday, which he kept on meeting, till they finally had him ousted from office.

    Then as the religious parties’ vision was more and more put into practice by Zia-ul-Haq, this spread extremists ideologies among future generations right from childhood, with the catastrophic consequences that we see today.

    Incidentally, Yahya Bakhtiar is said to be an old Muslim League hand from the pre-partition days who knew Mr Jinnah.  Didn’t he know of Mr Jinnah’s views about Ahmadis, or about calling other Muslims as kafir?

  27. October 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    According to Ardeshir Cowasjee from Dawn, Mr Jinnah is believed to have said that each successive generation of Pakistani politicians would be worse than its predecessors. Mr Yahya Bakhtiar and Mr Daultana probably did not want the latter day Pakistani politicians to steal all the “glory” for themselves when dealing with the Ahmadis. They themselves wanted to set such precedents that no later day politicians could outstrip them in infamy. Of course General Zia did.

    An article, Politics in Punjab, at the following link:

    illustrates how Mr Daultana, soon after independence of Pakistan, undermined the ministry of the Nawab of Mamdot, so that he could become Chief Minister of Punjab himself.

    As we all know, his next intrigue was to let the Majlis Ahrar start the anti-Qadiani movement (as if just 6 years after its birth – with half a million Muslim lives lost – Pakistan had nothing better to do).

    After the breakup of Pakistan in 1971, Pakistan should have experienced a second “birth”. It did. This time it took less than 3 years for it to finally “solve” the source of all its problems in 1974.
    Why do I link Pakistan’s birth and rebirth with the Ahmadi issue? Because I strongly feel that a nation which was dominated by a foreign power for nearly two centuries and then later feared Hindu domination, should have decided on a positive direction after independence in 1947. It was not to be. After 1971, there was a second chance for that nation to rise from the ashes. But again, it closed its eyes and again focused its attention on non-issues, not caring about justice at all. 

    From the Holy Quran and the Bible, it is obvious that God has very little respect for the unjust.

  28. Usman, according to Mannan Omar sahib when Maulana Sadar Ud Din sahib asked him to represent LAM, he refused. His answer was Bhutto is staging a drama, and he will definitely declare LAM members as non-Muslim. Maulana Sadar Ud Din sahib replied, that at least we will get chance to present our beliefs to national assembly members. Again, Mannan sahib refused. It was on insistence of Abdur Rehman Misri sahib, who remined his relation to him and said, “my relation to you, is also of a father (Mannan sahib in his infancy was nursed by wife of Misri sahib) and in that position I am asking you to represent jamaat”. Mannan sahib agreed.
    Abdul Momin, when Maj general Abdullah Saeed sahib (oldest son of Hazrat Amir Dr. Saeed Ahmad khan sahib) passed away, General Zia Ul Haq visited Darus-salam, Lahore and offered Fatiah/ condolences.
    Col Rafi Ud Din was military liaison with Bhutto in last few months of his life. He wrote book, ‘Bhutto Kay Akhari 313 din’ (Last 313 days of Bhutto).   According to him, he asked Bhutto why did he declare Qadianis Kaffir? Bhutto replied, “like Jews in United States they were becoming King Maker”. Obviously, Bhutto had political motives.
    It is interesting to see that Allah punishes a person, who knows the truth and still gives an unjust decision, especially when it is a matter of religion. We are witness to fates of Bhutto, Justice Fakhar-e-Alam, and Gen Zia.

  29. Who was Justice Fakhar-e-Alam?

  30. October 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    To further emphasize the politicization of institutions of justice in Pakistan, I reproduce a quote from a prominent Pakistani cricketer, Abdul Razzaq. This player, along with other cricketers joined a rebel cricket league, not officially sanctioned by any of the respective national cricket boards. As a result he was banned from playing for Pakistan, along with other cricketers. On July 16, 2008 in an article in it is stated: 

    However, he cautioned that taking the PCB to court over the bans isn’t the solution as it’s impossible to challenge government bodies in Pakistan and hope for a fair hearing.
    “In England, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law but in Pakistan that’s not the case. You can’t challenge the government or government bodies like the PCB. The courts belong to the government and so does the PCB, why would one overrule the other? This sort of thing can’t be successful in Pakistan.”

  31. Justice Fakhar-e-Alam:
    He was judge of Federal Shariat Court and in his decision on the petition orginally filed by Qadiani lawyer Mujib Ur Rahman, declared Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib as Kafir (NAUZUBILAH). May be Abdul Momin can tell us what happened to his progeny, when family was returning from a trip to Thandiani (Abbottabad).

  32. Thanks, Rashid.

    I remember the incident of Thandiani.

  33. what was the incident at thandiani?

  34. October 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    While one can learn many lessons from the fates of Mr Bhutto and General Zia, Justice Fakhre Alam was a very small player in a very big game that has now plagued Pakistan for more than half a century. As I have pointed out previously, and everyone knows it in Pakistan, the judiciary is not independent in Pakistan. It is subjected to all kinds of pressures that we in the west cannot even imagine. For the past few years it has become highly politicized. Each succeeding ruler has made this politicization worse. 

    The same was true during General Zia’s rule. For me it would be highly inappropriate to comment on Justice Fakhre Alam’s family tragedy on a public forum and connect it with divine retribution for the unjust decisions that were handed out by the Shariat Court. There were 3 other judges on the bench and a fourth who retired just before the decision was announced. In my opinion, all were equally responsible. I have it on good authority that this particular judge viewed the Lahori Ahmadis case in a favorable light. That is all I need to say.

    I would sincerely advise everyone not to advance an unwinnable argument. We are all prone to suffer similar tragedies. Let us pray to the Almighty that he may not subject us to such trials. Ameen.    

  35. Although I am not aware of the Thandiani incident invlolving Justice Fakhr-e-Alam, I can now extrapolate from the posts on this forum; and would agree with Mr. Abdul Momin that it may not be appropriate to associate specific personal tragedies with past actions.  Especially as no one can say for sure that he/she is personally worthy of divine protection from personal tragedies.  Moreover, Allah also tries his chosen ones with loss of earthly possessions, including loved ones.  So lets just echo Mr. Momins prayer: “Let us pray to the Almighty that he may not subject us to such trials. Ameen.”

  36. October 25th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    Thank you Usman.

  37. My take on Justice Fakhar-e-Alam:
     Shariat Court short order decision was orginally supposed to be written by Justice Aftab Ahmad (i think he had some LAM connection). Gen Zia had figured he will not right a “tough” decison that pleases Mullah Mafia. So, he was sent on Umra, to Saudia Arabia. (I don’t know even if he served after that on Shariat court).

    Responsibility fell on Fakhar-e-Alam. He knew what was expected from him. Yes, there was pressure from Zia. When time to write decison arrived, he wrote the decision. His decison was read as headline on 9PM Khabar-Nama, on PTV. I still remember the words: Wafaqi Shariat Adalat Nay Fasila Dia Hay Kay Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani Kaffir Hay [Nauzubilah] (Federa Shariat Court gave the decsion that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is Non-Muslim).

    The point is that Fakhar-e-Alam decision like Bhutto’s decision was on record and became law of the land. His dicison was not like a “dog barking in a street” as Mullah-Mafia people do in Pakistan. And especially when he knew that what he is doing is WRONG and HMGA was at least a decent and good Muslim. He did it to keep his job, income and to have inheritance left for his children/family. Same was the case with Bhutto and Zia, they both knew what they were doing is wrong. Where as compared to them Street Mullahs in Pakistan do NOT know what they are saying is not true. When a person makes wrong decision, especially in matters of religion for others, while knowing they are doing wrong are held more accountable by Allah SWT. There is difference in decisions of person who are man of authority and those who have no authority. This has been true at least from Pharoh’s (faroon) time to this era.

  38. October 26th, 2008 at 2:38 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    If the judge had been killed, I might have given this ……….. a thought. His family members had nothing to do with that decision.