P L D 1984 Federal Shariat Court 136 (PLP)

AFTAB HUSSAIN, C. J.‑.For reasons to be recorded later, we hold that: (1) The allegation in the two petitions as elaborated at the Bar that the impugned Ordinance violates the freedom of faith of the Qadianis of either persuasion or restrains them from practising their religion or affects their right of worship is not correct. The said Ordinance does not interfere with the right of the petitioners or other Qadianis to profess and practise their religion to accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. They are a liberty to profess Qadianism or Ahmadism as their religion and to profess their faith in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiani as a prophet or the Promissed Messiah or tire Promised Mehdi. They are also at liberty to practise their religion and worship inter alia in their places of worship according to the tenets of their religion.

2. The impugned Ordinance is iconsequential to the Constitutional Amendment of 1974 by which the Qadianis, whether belonging to the Lahori Group or others were declared non‑Muslims in accordance with the dictates of Islamic Sharia. In implementation of the Constitutional fiat which was disregarded with impunity by the Qadianis, they have been restrained by the impugned Ordinance from directly or indirectly calling or posing themselves as Muslims or calling their faith as Islam. ‑To cal: their places of worship by the name of Masjid (mosque) and to call people to prayers by calling Azan which (name for the place of worship and method foe calling people to prayer) are exclusive for the Muslims and distinguish Muslims from non Muslims, amounts to posing as Muslims. By the said name and the said call to prayers. _the unwary among the Muslims are likely to be deceived and to be drawn to offer their prayers behind a non‑Muslim Imam in a non Muslim place of worship. The prohibition against calling their places of worship as Masjid or calling Azan for prayer is thus consequential to the declaration of the Ahmadis or Qadianis as non‑Muslims or prohibition against posing them as Muslims. The Qadianis can call their places of worship by any other name and call the adherents of their religion to prayer by use of any other method. This does not amount to interference with the right to profess or practise their religion.

3. The prohibition against the use of epithets, descriptions an titles etc, reserved for holy personages among the Muslims is also likewise consequential and does not amount to interference with profession or practice or religion.

4. The use by the Ahmadis of such epithets as Ameerul‑ul‑Momineen, Khalifat ul‑Momineen, Khalifat‑ul‑Muslimeen in respect of Abmadis or use of epithet of Ummul‑Momineen for the Wife of MiraR Sahib amounts to posing them selves as Momen or Muslim. The wordy Sahaba or Radi‑Allah‑Anho are exclusive for the Companions of the Holy Prophet (P. B. U. H.) and the Muslim. Similarly the epithet Able Bait is exclusive for the family of the Holy Prophet (P. B. U. H.) The use of such epithets by the Ahmadis not only outrages the feelings of the Muslims but also amounts to their posing indirectly as Muslims. The prohibition does not interfere with the right of Ahmadis to profess and practise their religion.

4. The, prohibition against propagation of the religion of Ahmadis is not contrary to the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (P. B. U. H.). This prohibition is also cousequential to the declaration of Ahmadis or Qadianis as non‑Muslims and restraint against their posing as Muslims. Their entire strategy in preaching is to try to satisfy the Muslim to whom they preach that by conversion to Ahmadiism be shall remain .a Muslim. This would be contrary to the Constitution. For inter alia the above reasons the two petitions are without force and are dismissed. M.Z.M. Petition dismissed.