Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 159 of 1976, decided on 9th June 1976.

Muhammadan Law‑

‑

Kalima‑Expression "La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah"‑ Constitutes Kalima Taiyaba for all Muslims‑Expression "La‑Ilah‑a‑ Illallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah, Ali Walidllab, Wasi Rasul Allah, and Khalifa Bila Fasl" as printed in booklet "Rahnuma‑i‑Asatiza" did not represent view point of Government‑Ulema of Shia School of Thought‑Never subscribed to view of Kalima Taiyaba being any thing else except "La Ilah‑a‑Illallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah" Bona

fides, of Shia School of Thought also established by statements of Shia Advocates unequivocally affirming Kalima Taiyaba to be only "La Ilah‑a‑Illallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah" and that by recitation of "Ali Waliullah, Wasi Rasul Allah, and Khalifa Bila Fasl" they only affirm "Imamat" and proclaim adherence to "Shi'iat"‑Unanimity, held, exists in respect of fact of Kalima Taiyaba being "La Ilah‑a Illallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah".

There is no doubt about the fact that "" for all, Muslims is " So far as the Sunni School of Thought is concerned, it needs no clarifica tion. By the publication of the original book entitled " doubts were cast as to the doctrine of Shia School of Thought and it gave an impression that " " for Shias was

It did not represent the view point of the Government. The Ulema

of Shia School of Thought also never subscribed to the view that " '' was anything else except

The fact that it was an innocent mistake is borne out by the subsequent conduct of the Government, which took immediate action to rectify the mistake. The bona fides of the Shia School of Thought are also established by the statements of Shia Advocates appearing in case arming unequivocally that " " ". If they recite

" " it is not for the reason that it is a part of " "but by that they only affirm "Imamat" and proclaim, adherence to "Shi'iat". Hafiz Kifayat Hussain, who was one of the most prominent Shia Scholars, had, before the Court of Inquiry constituted under the Punjab Disturbances (Public Inquiry) Act, 1953, made a statement in this behalf which is worth special notice and is reproduced :‑

"A person is entitled to be called a Mussalman if he believes in (1) tauheed, (2) nubuwwat, (3) qiamat. These are the three fundamental beliefs, which a person must profess to be called a Mussalman. In regard to these three basic doctrines there is' no difference between the Shias and the Sunnies"

There is thus unanimity among Wema of all Schools of Thought that ". By that we re‑affirm our faith that there is no Ilah except Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger. To be a Muslim, a person must believe in " " and should also have faith in the absolute and unqualified finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). There is unanimity in respect of the fact that " " is

" " This is what the petitioners claimed : this is what the Government has affirmed and that is what is the faith and affirmation of the Shias. [pp. 1133, 1134, 1135]A, B, C & D

Irshad Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Syed Afzal Haider and Syed Wilayat Hussain Haidree for Petitioner (iny Cr. O. 32‑W of 1976).

Date of hearing : 9th June 1976.

In order to lay down guidelines for the teaching staff of the Secondary Schools, the Government of Pakistan, through its Ministry of Education, published in the year 1975 a book It is Annex. A' to this judgment. The First Part was introductory; it gave reasons why Islamiat should be taught to the young generation, and also the method of teaching the students. Part II of the book contained certain basic and funda mental principles of Islam as agreed by different Sunni Schools of Thought. Part III of the book was devoted exclusively for Shia students. The third Part started from page 35 of the book, with an instruction to the teacher to emphasis on the students the importance of "". It then proceeded on to make inter alia the following statement at page 35 of the book:‑

Then, at foot of page 36 " " had been stated to be as under:‑

2. On the 21st of January 1976, Plr Syed Abrar Muhammad, President, ‑Tanzimal Aima, Lahore (Khatib, Jamia Masjid Darul Haq, Township Scheme, Lahore) and Maulana Muhammad Shah Josh, Mohtamam, Markiz Isha'at i‑Islam, Jamia Masjid, F‑Block. Model Town, Lahore, filed this petition under

,Article 199 of the Constitution, taking exception to the " ub'" as published

.at page 36 of the aforesaid book entitled r'.:53l.y11 ",its translation at

page 37, and the other statement at page 35 reproduced in the preceding para ;graph of this judgment, and sought a declaration to the effect that "the .original and actual Kalima‑i‑Islam is

:.and the act of the respondent whereby it has prescribed a different Kalama, ;namely : ,

is without lawful authority and of no legal effect" and that the respondent be . directed to make amendments in the book entitled accordingly.

3. Before the petition could be set down for bearing, the petitioners filed on the 2nd of March 1976 a petition (Criminal Original No. 31‑W of 1976) under Article 204 of the Constitution alleging that Mr. Muzaffar Ali Qazalbasb, President of All‑Pakistan Shia Conference, while addressing a meeting of Shia leaders and workers on the 27th of February 1976, had chosen to extend threats of dire consequences to the petitioners, and had made a,specific reference to the subject‑matter of the writ petition which was ‑pending determination. It was further stated that the comments of the respondent on a matter which was sub judice in this Court amounted to "a grave and serious contempt" of this Court, and he should, therefore, be suitably punished.

4. Sh. Mazbar Ali Javed, General Secretary, Shia Mutual Society ‑Pakistan (Regd.) also tiled a petition (Criminal Original No. 32‑W of 1976) alleging that the contents of the writ petition had been given wide publicity by distribution of its copies amongst the people of the country, and that the ‑writ petition had been translated in Urdu and its copies had extensively been distributed with an appeal to the people to witness Court proceedings in the case on the 8th of March 1976. It was alleged that the repeated publication in Urdu and English languages and distribution of the writ petition bad "resulted in the building up of a movement against a sizeable number of population of Pakistan before the actual fixation of the case" and that this act of the writ‑petitioners, their counsel and the printers (Qaiser Printers. Lahore) bad a tendency to prejudice determination of the case and they had, therefore, rendered themselves liable to an action in accordance with Article 04 of the Constitution. I propose to dispose of all the three matters, viz . Writ Petition No. 159 of 1976, Criminal Original No. 31‑W of 1976 and Criminal Original No. 32‑W of 1976 by this order

5. The matter came to the notice of the Prime Minister. He, in his usual zeal to resolve the sectarian differences which is necessary for the national solidarity and also for harmony among different classes of the people took immediate action. A meeting of the Ulema of the Sunni and Shia Schools of Thought was convened under the auspices of the Minister for Education and after due deliberations a new book with the same caption, namely "e.)SLl 2")" was published. It is attached as Annex. B' to this judgment. To mark differences, relevant portions from the two publica tionS are extracted below in a juxtaposition:‑

Original Publication New Publication

Simultaneously with the publication of the revised book entitled " "

the Government also published two more books entitled " " containing courses for Sunni and Shia students of Ninth and Tenth Classes. The book for Sunni students is attached with this judgment as Annexure'C' and the one for Shia students as Annexure 'D'. In Annexes. 'C' and 'D' " is stated at pages 48 and 52, respectively, to be

6. The petitions came up for hearing on the 9th of June 1976,. when the following statement was made by the petitioners in the writ; petition "Statement of

(1) Pir Syed Abrar Muhammad son of Pir Syed Ijaz Muhammad. Presi dent. Tanzimal Aima, Lahore. Kbatib, Jamia Masjid, Darul Haq, Township Scheme, Lahore ; and

(2) Maulana Muhammad Shafi Josh, Mohtamam Markiz Isha'at‑i‑Islam, Jamia Masjid, F‑Block, Model Town, Lahore.

We filed Writ Petition No. 159 of 1976 and took exception to the following statements at pages 35‑37 in the book entitled 'Rahnuma‑i‑Asatza' printed by the respondent in the year 1975 and published by the Reproduction Unit, Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of Education, Islamabad ‑

SOME WORDING IN URDU

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, another book with the same title has, however, been published by the respondent, Part III of the new publication deals with Shia students. The statements now made at pages 35‑36 are in the following terms

Since it has been made clear that " " is only

the objection raised by us no longer exists. To the other statement, viz. .

'We have no objection, because it is meant only for Shia students.

3. Our grievance stands redressed by the new publication and we, therefore, do not press the petition, which may be disposed of accordingly."

‑Eyed Afzal Haider and Syed Wilayat Hussain Haidree, Advocates (counsel for Sh. Mazhar Ali Javaid, petitioner in Criminal Original No. 32‑W of 1976) .also made the following statement

"We have seen the new publication of the book entitled 'Rehnuma‑i Asatza' wherein the following statement appears at page 36 (Part III) relating to the Shia students

We have no objection to it.

2. We have heard the statements of Pir Syed Abrar Muhammad, Maulana Muhammad Shafi Josh in Writ Petition No. 159 of 1976 and of Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate, in Criminal Original N. 31‑W cf 1976. We also do not press Criminal Original No. 32‑W of 1976, as a gesture of good‑will. The petition may be disposed of accordingly."

Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Original Wo. 31‑W of 1976 also made a statement in the following terms :‑

"In view of the new publication, my clients have made a statement in Writ Petition No. 159 of 1976 stating that since their grievance stands redressed they do not press the writ petition. As a gesture of good‑will, I do not press the contempt petition which may be disposed of accordingly."

7. There is no doubt about the fact that " d " for all Muslims i ail J6..) 4 au l yl AJ I

No tar as the Sunni School of Thought is concerned. it needs no clarification. By the publication of the original book entitled "o. l..l l.x " (Annexure , 'A') doubts were cast as to the doctrine of Shia School of Thought and it gave an impression that "a .b a... " for Shias was "

It did not represent the view point of the Government. The Ulema of Shia ' School of Thought also never subscribed to the view that was anything else except

The fact that it was an innocent mistake is borne out by the subsequent conduct of the Government, which took immediate action to rectify the mistake. The bona fides of the Shia School of Thought are also established by the statements of Syed Afzal Haider, a Senior Advocate of this Court, and Syed Wilayat Hussain Haidree, Advocate, affirming unequivocally that ,

If they recite " " it is not for the reason that it is a part of " but by that they only affirm "Imamat" and proclaim adherence to "Shi,'iat". The doubt, if any, as to the .belief of Shias cast by the original publication of the book entitled " " also stands removed. No one should engender any doubt as to the belief of Shias also in this respect. Hafiz Kifayat Hussain, who was one of the most prominent Shia Scholars, had, before the Court of Inquiry constituted under the Punjab Disturbances (Public Inquiry) Act, 1953, made a statement in this behalf which is worth special notice and is reproduced

"A person is entitled to be called a Musalman if he believes in (1) tauheed, (2) nubuwwat, (3) qiyamat. These are the three fundamental beliefs wnich a person must profess to be called a Musalman. In regard too these three basic doctrines there is no difference between the Shias and the Sunnies." There is thus unanimity among Ulema of all Schools of Thought that A..tS' is I

. " "

By that we re‑affirm our faith that there is no Ilah except Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger. To be a Muslim, person must believe in

and should also have faith in the absolute and unqualified finality of Prophet 1 hood of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

8. In view of the new publication of the book entitled Annexure B' to this judgment) the petitioners have made a statement to the effect that their grievance having been redressed they do not press the petition. In Criminal Original Nos. 31‑W and 32‑W of 1976, counsel for the respective parties have made statemeits thst as a gesture of goodwill they do not press the Petitions. The same alto stand disposed of accordingly.

9. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that the disposal of this petition should not be considered to be the success of one party or they' failure of the other. There is unanimity in respect of the fact that

This is what the petitioners claimed ; this is what the Government has affirmed and that is what is the faith and affirmation of the Shias.

s. A. H. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.