P L D 1954 Lahore 724 (PLP)

KAYANI, J.‑This is an application under section 99‑B‑of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of a book entitled "Jesus in Heaven on Earth", written by Kh. Nazir Ahmad, an Advocate of this Court and connected with the Lahore branch of the Ahmadiya sect, and published in 1952 by the Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust. The book in question was forfeited to the Government of Pakistan by an order of the Punjab Government in April 1953, on the ground "that it contains matter the publication of which is punishable under section 295 A of the Pakistan Penal Code, as it tends to insult the religious beliefs of one of the classes of subjects in Pakistan". In June 1953, an application was filed in this Court and by two representative Christians, Mr. C. E. Gibbon and Mrs. S. P, Singha, both members of the Legislative Assembly, praying, among other things, that they be allowed to be made a party to this case. They, pointed out that the book had, in the first instance, been brought to the notice of Government by Mr. Gibbon, and that although in pursuance of the order of the Government over five hundred copies of it had been seized, they had been subsequently returned by Government to Kh. Nazir Ahmad for export to foreign countries. It was therefore, prayed that the copies in question be ordered to be deposited m Court and that the publishers be restrained from exporting them. As to this prayer, the learned Chief Justice said he had no jurisdiction to pass any such order, and as to impleading Mr. Gibbon and Mrs. Singha, I am of the same opinion: the matter is between the Government and the publishers. But we had no objection to these' applicants assisting the Advocate for the Government, and as a step in aid, Mr. Gibbon has filed an affidavit that he was president of the Pakistan Joint Christian Board, that the book in question had caused serious resentment amongst Christians and outraged their religious feelings, that the passages referred to in Schedule A annexed to the affidavit insulted the Christian religion and the religious beliefs of Christians, that they ridiculed and brought into contempt several of the basic and fundamental beliefs of the Christians, that they had promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes, that the preface of the book shows how fully aware the author was of the hostility and hatred that the book was bound to produce not only between Christian, and Muslims but also between Muslims and Muslims, that in the first instance he had moved the Govern ment on behalf of the Pakistan Joint Christian Board and that dealt in action by Government had caused Mrs. Singha to give notice of moving a resolution in the Assembly, demanding proscription. The case for the Punjab Government was that this book was a vituperative attack on four of the fundamental Christian beliefs in respect of Jesus‑(1) Immaculate conception or virgin birth, (2) Crucifixion or death on the Cross, (3) Resurrection on earth soon after death, and (4) Ascension or raising to heaven. It says that Jesus was born of the wedlock of Mary with Joseph, that he did not die on the Cross but was removed while still alive, that after his wounds had healed, he and his mother went to Murree where the latter died, that thence he proceeded to Kashmir where he also died, that Murree has been named after Mary whose grave also is to be found there, and that the grave of Jesus is in Srinagar. The passages to which the Government took exception have been marked by us at pages 6, 8, 11, 13, 19, 100, 103, 107, 115, 188, 192, 200, and 222, while the passages referred to by Mr. Gibbon are many more, and form part of the Schedule. A preliminary objection raised by Kh. Nazir Ahmad that since the notification is based only on section 295A P. P. C., the argument should be confined to that section, may at once be repelled. The Government may forfeit a book under section 99 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it contains matter punishable under any of the three sections of the Penal Code mentioned therein, namely, section 124A, section 153A and section 295A, and under section 99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High y Court sets aside the order of forfeiture "if it is not satisfied that the issue of the * * * book * * * * * * contained seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 99A." That is to say, we are not concerned with the ground stated in the order: we are concerned with the grounds stated in section 99A. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, with some little assistance by Mr. Yaqub Ali on the legal issue, argued his own case with religious fervour, touching occasionally the high‑water mark of fanaticism so essential for a missionary. He said he belonged to a missionary body which aimed at converting Christians in Western countries, that his father, Hazrat Khwaja Kamal‑ud‑Din, was a missionary before him and had founded the Woking Muslim Mission, that attack on fundamental beliefs was a necessary part of religious controversy. He believed in Jesus as a Prophet and a man and had attacked, not the personality of Jesus, but the notions of godhead with which the Christians had invested him. He had done no more than the Qur'an had, in declaring certain passages in the Scriptures as forgeries. Take, for instance, Chapter III, verse 77 of the Qur'an, which states with reference to Jews and Christians: "And most surely, there is a party of them which lie about the Book, that you may consider it to be a part of the Book while it is not a part of the Book, and they say it is from Allah, while it is not from Allah; and they tell a lie against Allah while they know". If the Qur'an injured the feelings of the Christians, then he did not mind whether his book also had the same effect. If he believed the Qur'an to be the word of God, he must say Christianity was a forgery. I think he said something about an Islamic State also. As a Muslim, he said, it was his duty not to offend: he may have been carried away by the force of his feelings, but it was not his intention to injure feelings. He added that the book had been appearing in the Islamic Review from August 1945 to November 1948, but there had not been a little murmur against it, not a ripple of objection. It had appeared in "Light" between 1950 and 1952 and an Urdu version of it had appeared in Paigham‑i‑Sulh from 1947 onward, but had raised no protest. On the contrary, compliments had been paid to him by at least two Christian bodies and a Christian individual. The first was the Christian Voice of Karachi, which, in its editorial of the 31st July 1952, remarked that although "some Christians have been unduly disturbed by the book and have voiced the opinion that the volume should be banned as being hurtful to Christian sentiment," * * * "with such a view we disagree profoundly. If in this country we are striving to build up a democratic, not a theocratic state, then there must be freedom of expression. * * * * We insist on conceding this fundamental right to others and we demand it for ourselves turn." And in the same issue was announced a reply by Fr. Houben. But the editor concluded by saying that it was unfortunate that the author "should have used scissors and paste with the New Testament texts of St. Peter and St. James for the sole purpose of making St. Paul the villain of the piece." The second was the Humanist, a world digest issued from California, which reviewed the book briefly in November 1952 as "another contribution to the everfascinating under taking of separating fact from legend and myth in the life of Jesus." "The attitude toward Jesus throughout is one of respect. In fact the author recognises Jesus as one of the chosen prophets of God, second in rank, of course, to Muhammad. But following the lead of Loisy, Cuignebert, Renan, Kirsopp Lake and others, he does a very good demoli tion job on the stories of the birth, resurrection and ascension." But the editor concludes thus: "What shall we think of this very unusual 'life of Jesus'? One can see that Christians, even rather liberal Christians, will be ready to utter wails of protest. "To the Humanist, naturally, there is no reason whatever for excitement. * * If there is good reason to suppose that Jesus died in India, the Humanist will feel no objection." The front cover of the magazine gives the ideal of humanism in these terms: "We are seeking to present Humanism as a religious philosophy which denies no particular faith, but which provides a path over which all people can travel toward a unity that rises above the barriers of the beliefs which divide them. * * *" Lastly comes an "appreciation" from Bury St. Edmunds published at page 89 of the Islamic Review of September 1953, by a Mr. Percy Robinson, that many years ago, in his religious studies, he had rejected almost all the "creeds" and "dogmas" of Christianity, that the "Resurrection" only had remained to disturb him, but that, after reading Jesus in Heaven on Earth, he was freed "from all these priest‑made concoctions". My judgment on these three bodies is brief. Mr. Percy Robinson clearly longed for intellectual freedom ; the Humanist denies no particular faith and should welcome even blasphemy or atheism; the Christian voice has demanded a voice for itself in turn, and if that voice speaks of Hazrat Abu Bakr as Khwaja Nazir Ahmad has spoken of St. Paul, then although Khwaja Nazir Ahmad's philosophy will not be moved, he will have a big bill to settle with the devout citizens of the Islamic State of Pakistan. But even a non‑religious magazine like the Humanist apprehends that Christians, rather liberal Christians, will be ready to utter wails of protest. Since Khwaja Nazir Ahmad mainly relies on the freedom of speech and writing necessary for research and missionary work, it is well to state at the outset that to a very large extent his argument is theoretically on firm ground. The propagation of religion is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen, and if the object of a Christian missionary is to convert Muslims to his religion, he must not noly dwell on the good points of Christianity but also attack the funda mental principles of Islam. Conversely, a Muslim mis sionary will try to falsify the basic concepts of Christianity, the Son‑God theory particularly. (In the matter of virgin birth, crucifixion and ascension, Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, as an Ahmadi, differs from the majority of other Muslims, who on these points agree with Christians.) Both these efforts, whether on the part of the Christian or the Muslim missionary, howsoever honest, are bound to hurt the feelings, of Muslims in the one case, of Christians in the other that cannot be avoided. The honest preaching of a creed,[ however, which a man sincerely believes will lead to the salvation of humanity, being an effort worthy of emulation, the injury attendant thereon may be ignored. But a limit must be drawn somewhere, and even a laudable effort knows limits. It is the limit where controversy ends and malice begins, that is to say, where the speech or writing does not' further the ends of the controversy and says a thing which could be left unsaid without injuring the controversy, or saying it, not exactly "with sweets", but with as little bitter ness as can be brought to the occasion. And since Khwaja Nazir Ahmad said something about an Islamic State also‑by which I mean a state of the Muslims--‑I wish to clear the ground by making two emphatic statements. Firstly, as a judge of this Court, I say it with confidence that although toleration is a great virtue, no judge of this Court will tolerate an interpretation which, consis tently with a liberal reading of the law of the land, appears to him to impair the confidence that non‑Muslims and other minorities must repose in the law‑givers of the State. Secondly, it is well to remind the missionary that the manner in which religious controversy should be conducted has been indicated in the Qur'an itself in no uncertain terms. The subject occurs twice, first in An‑Nahl (The Bee) and again in A 1‑Ankaboot (The Spider) and each time the injunc tion is in similar terms Chapter XVI : 126‑ "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and have disputations with them in manner that is best and most gracious." I consider it very pertinent to reproduce here a note on this verse from the Commentary of Maulana Muhammad Ali, which the author himself regards as a "wonderful commentary". "The principle laid down for preaching and religious controversy by the 'unlearned Arabian' has yet to be learnt by the most‑advanced people, whose contorevrsies are carried on with no other object than that of fault‑finding and whose preaching only aims at carping at others. Chapter XXIX: 46‑ " And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except with means better (than mere disputation), except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is one, and to Him do we submit." Lest it should be argued that an exception has been provided in case of those "who act unjustly", I shall again reproduce from Maulana Muhammad Ali's Commentary "The significance of the words `except those who act unjustly' is not that controversy is to be carried on with these in a different manner, but that the unjust would not accept this reasonable interpretation of the principles of religion." In this context, I might also dispose of the argument that "if the Qur'an says the Scriptures are forgeries, who am I to say they are not?" As judges, we are not misled by comparisons, but avoiding as best I can the delicacy of the argument, I may be permitted to point out that the Qur'an, as we believe, is the word of God, and that no mortal may emulate its frankness. After thirteen odd centuries, it is somewhat late in the day to protest against the growth of a complex sociopolitical system which makes it possible for men to profess different religious beliefs without breaking their bones; and if we detect something which we believe to be a forgery and are not called upon to give a finding under the Penal Code, it is best to tell a man that "this appears to have been altered" than that he is a forger, unless it is intended to cast it in his teeth. Climbing down to forensic literature, I can find no better exposition of the limits of a religious controversy than the following passage in Starkie's Law of Libel and Slander (1897) edition, page 624): "There are no questions of more intense and awful interest "than those which concern the relations between the Creator and the beings of his creation ; and although as a matter of discretion and prudence, it might be better to leave the discussion of such matters to those who, from their education and habits, are most likely to form correct conclusions, yet it cannot be doubted that any man has a right not merely to 5 judge for himself on such subjects, but also legally speaking to publish his opinions for the benefit of others. When learned and acute men enter upon these discussions with such laudable motives, their very contro versies, even where one of the antagonists must necessarily be mistaken, so far from producing mischief, must in general tend to the advancement of truth, and the establishment of religion on the firmest and most stable founda tions. The very absurdity and folly of an ignorant man, who professds to teach and enlighten the rest of mankind, are usually so gross as to render his errors harmless, but be this as it may, the law interferes not with his blunders so long as they are honest ones, justly consider ing, that society is more than compensated for the partial and limited mischiefs which may arise from the mistaken endeavours of honest ignorance, by the splendid advantages which result to religion and to truth, from the exertions of free and unfettered minds. It is the mischievous abuse of this state of intellectual liberty which calls for penal censure. The law visits not the honest errors, but the malice of mankind. A wilful intention, to pervert, insult, and mislead and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by others, by means of licentious wilful misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mislead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt. A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equivalent to such an intention, in law, as well as morals,‑a state of apathy and indifference to the interests of society,‑is the broad boundary between right and wrong." This was quoted with approval by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in Reg. v. Ramsay and Foote ((Cox's Cr. C. Vol, XV, 1882‑86. p. 231).), from which judg ment the following passage may be reproduced with advantage: "The defendant Foote has admitted that these publica tions were intended to be attacks on Christianity and on the Hebrew Scriptures, and he has cited a number of passages from approved writers which he says or to the same effect, and that may be so, and I think that some of them are not only similar in matter, but in style and manner ; and he urged that, as these never were prosecuted, the law cannot be, as supposed, on the part of the prosecu tion, for it could not be that the offence consisted only in the style or taste of the publications, and that what was blasphemy in a penny paper was not so in more costly publications. Now, as to this, let me say that, as I under stand, it is, and I believe always has been, the law; and at all events I now lay it down as law, that, if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion. may be attacked without the writer being guilty of blas phemy. But no one can fail to see the difference between the works of the writers who have been quoted and the language used in the publications now before us; and I am obliged to say that it is a difference not only in degree, but in kind and nature. There is a grave and earnest tone, a reverent‑perhaps I might even say a religious‑spirit about the very "attacks on Christianity itself which we find in the authors referred to, which shows that what they aimed at was not insult to the opinions of the majority of mankind nor to Christianity itself; but real, quiet, earnest pursuit of truth. And if the truth at which they have arrived is not that which you and I have been taught, or at which perhaps we might now arrive, so it is not because their conclusions differ from ours that they are to be deemed fit subject for criminal prosecution. Therefore, as to many of these authors whose writings have been quoted by the defend ants, I think that they are within the protection of the law as laid down by Mr. Starkie in that passage I have cited as containing a correct statement of the law. As to some of the others, I confess I have a difficulty in distingui shing them from the publications now incriminated. They do appear to me to be open to the same complaint as those before you; and I should make no distinction in the application of the law between such authors and the defendant. So far as I can judge, some of them used strong and coarse expressions of contempt and hatred for the recog nised truths of Christianity, and for the Hebrew Scriptures. But this is no argument in favour of the defendant, who has to show that he himself has not violated the law; not that others are guilty, but that he is not so." The law in this country has some history behind it. Under section 153A of the Penal Code, to promote or attempt to promote "feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes" was an offence and was regarded as adequate to meet indecent attacks on religion until Dalip Singh J. held in the Rangila Rasul case (A I R 1927 Lah. 590.) that this section was intended to prevent a person from making attacks on a particular community and was not meant to stop polemics against deceased religious lealers, however scurrilous and in bad taste such attacks might be. Thereupon section 295A was introduced, and it punishes an insult to religion or religious beliefs, provided there exists " a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class". Since the view in Rangila Rasul case has not been adopted subsequently, section 295A might be regarded as being on the statute book by way of abundant caution. In Devi Sharan Sharma v. Emperor (A I R 1947 Lah. 594.) better known as the Vartman case, a Division Bench decided within three months of the Rangila Rasul case that although a critical and strong attack on a religion or its founder by way of comment to induce its followers to abandon it, though having a tend ency to promote hatred or enmity, may fall within the Ex planation to section 153A, a scurrilous and vituperative attack would require considerable explanation to take it out of the substantive part of the section. It was added that the words "promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity" "mean" a successful or unsuccessful attempt to promote" such feelings. It must be the purpose or part of the purpose of the accused to promote them and mere tendency will not be enough. The intention, however, must be collected from the internal evidence of the words used. Chakarvarti v. Emperor (54 Cal. 59.) was followed. The Rangila Rasul case was expressly dissented from by Dalal J. in Kali Charan Sharma v. Emperor (A I R 1927 All. 654.) who expressed himself in the following passage with some feeling: "Speaking for myself, I look at such a matter not as a somewhat learned Judge of a High Court, but as a common or ordinary citizen of a town in India. I would place myself in the position of a Muhammadan who honours his prophet, and then consider what my feelings would be towards a Hindu who ridiculed that prophet, not out of any accentricity, but in the prosecution of a propaganda started by a class of persons who are not Muhammadans In such a position, from the hatred of the author, I would, as an ordinary man, proceed to the hatred of the class to which the author belonged * * *" In Kali Charn Sharma v. Emperor (supra) a Special Bench held that the intention of the writer must be judged primarily by the language of the book itself and the author must be presumed to intend that which his act was likely to produce. In Champati v. Emperor (A I R 1932 Lah. 98,) also, a Special Bench made similar observations regarding the presumption that should be raised on the words used as to whether or not the author intended the result contemplated by section 153 A. In Shib Sharma v. Emperor (A I R 1941 Oudh 310.) where there was a conviction both under section 153A and section 295A, Thomas C. J. cited with approval the passage I have reproduced from the judgment of Dalal J. and expressed himself as to intention in terms employed in the above cases. He further held that section 153A applied where the author collects a number of passages from Muslim books which may be perfectly right and harmless in their proper setting, but which, when disconnected or detached, seem scurrilous, indecent and highly objectionable. While I have no doubt that section 153 A. applies to the present case, I am not sure of section 295A. For although the religious beliefs of Christians have been insulted by this book, it will not be easy to presume, on the strength of the words used, that the author had a "deliberate and malicious intention of outraging" their religious feelings. The intention is burdened with so many heavy adjectives that an attack be very clearly abusive, obscene or vulgar before it can cause mischief to section 295 A, or to Christians, or indeed to any religious body. The statement of Objects and Reasons said that although offensive writings can usually be dealt with under section 153 A, that was "only an indirect way of dealing with acts which may" properly be made punishable themselves, apart from the question whether they have the further effect of promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between classes". Accordingly the intentional insult to religion was by itself made an offence. "The Select Committee stated that the essence of the offence is that the insult to religion or the outrage to religious feelings must be the sole or primary, or at least the deliberate and conscious intention, We have accordingly adopted the phraseology of section 295" which requires "deliberate intention", that is to say, premeditated. Again, the Committee "were impressed by an argument to the effect that an insult to a religion * * * * * might be inflicted in good faith * * * * * with the object of facilitating some measure of social reform * * * * *"Consequently they amplified "deliberate intention" by inserting a reference to malice. Next, as to the word "outrage", a learned commentator has pointed out that while section 298 uses the word "wounding", this section employs the word "outraging", and that "outraging" is much stronger than "wounding". And the Select Committee say : "At the same time, we realize that the reference to the .outraging of religious feelings was inserted to provide for the case of an insult to the founder of a religion or a person held sacred by the followers of a particular religion where such an outrage does not amount to an insult of the religion. It has in one instance been held that an insult to the founder of a religion is not necessarily an insult to the religion although it may outrage the religious feelings of the followers of that religion. We have therefore provided that the new section shall only apply in cases where a religion is insulted with the deliberate intention of outraging the religious feelings of its followers." But if an insult to the founder of a religion is not necessarily an insult of the religion itself, then the insult, while "outraging the religious feelings" in the first part of the section, will not "insult the religion" as required by the second part, and the insult will remain unpunished. While hearing the case, my brothers and I found it easier to hold contrary to what was envisaged by the Select Committee

that certain passages in the book insulted the religious beliefs of the Christians, but more difficult to hold that religious feelings had been deliberately and maliciously outraged. Consequently, the safeguards and further safeguards and additional safeguards to define the limits almost in six dimensions has caused some confusion in my mind and the author is entitled to say that at least he was not in the contemplation of the Select Committee. Finally, we come to the book itself. In the Foreword, the effect of what the book might accomplish is thus stated :‑ "The enquiry upon which I am about to enter may result the annihilation of the greatest and most valuable part of that which Christians have been wont to believe concerning their `saviour', Jesus. It may uproot all the animating notions which they have gathered from their faith, and wither all their consolations. It may irretrievably dissipate the ailment of humanity under which it has suffered for the last twenty centuries. It may level the sublime with the dust, and divest their son‑;god of his glory." Again, "I am quite alive to the fact that the which I have dealt with the subject, and the conclusion have come to, will provoke abundant hostile criticism from Christian and certain other quarters." (1) The first and most formidable attack is directed against St. Paul, and it begins with quotations in support of the author's view from certain other writers, which may, for the purposes of comparison, be profitably reproduced. Thus, Dr. Meyer is quoted assaying: "Paul, it is true, wrought a work of tremendous historical importance in that he raised Jesus from the position of a Jewish Messiah to that of the Divine Redeemer of the Gentiles and of the whole world." Dr. Johannes Weiss said: "Hence the faith in Christ as held by Paul was something new in comparison with the preachings of Jesus ; it was a new type of religion." Wrede said: "The paint which was everything to Paul was nothing to Jesus. But the author says he cannot leave the matter here, as these three eminent scholars have done, by merely pointing out the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the creed which Paul built upon them. He must go deeper and ascertain the extent to which Paul's imagination had come into play. Paul himself relied on a vision, which he had when he was near Damascus, when he heard a voice saying unto him : Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? " So terrified was Paul that he could neither hear nor see anything for three days. To cure him Jesus had to appear to Ananias and to direct him to go to Paul "for he is a chosen vessel unto me * * *. "It is most extraordinary", says the author, "that neither of these incidents is mentioned by Paul himself. If Paul was in fact the chosen vessel surely Jesus could have announced it to him at the time he appeared to him or he should have appeared again. But super‑natural events, they say, happen in a manner beyond the understanding of man. This much is certain, that Paul never had any direct revelation from Jesus and such as he claims to have had was merely the result of his own imagination, because "he did not see Jesus again even in his dreams. The audacity and shamelessness of Paul has no parallel in history. He resorted to falsehood, and being conscious of it, protested most vigorously against those who dared charge him with the lies he had told. In his Epistle to the Romans, he wrote: `For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged a sinner ? "Such, then, is the foundation upon which Paul built his creed. Then follows a paragraph about Paul's character as a lier. He did not hesitate to tell a lie" in order to escape punishment. When he was attacked by the Jews, he told them he was a Jew ; when he was taken to the Chief Captain, he said he was a Roman. In Rome he was twice imprisoned for "misdemeanour". Now I have no doubt that if the author wished to be moderate in the use of words, he could have expressed himself more forcefully than Dr. Mayer and the other two scholars without calling Paul an audacious and shameless lier, and one ought to be well versed in the history of the world's eminent liers before he can say with confidence and without exaggeration that the falsehood of Paul, or indeed of any person, had no parallel in history. And what is an exagger tion but a euphemism for lying ? And conscious as we are of the veneration in which Paul is held by Christians, it would be idle to argue that there was no intention to hurt because the primary intention was to expose the falsehoods of Christianity by drawing on parallel falsehoods from human history. But, argues Kh. Nazir Ahmad, Paul himself said he resorted to lies, and it was by lying that he glorified the eternal truth. Now that quotation about the truth of God having "more abounded through my lie unto his glory" is from the third Chapter of Romans (Rom, III : 7) and if you look into the passage, you will feel that Paul has been sadly misrepresented. Paul lived in a world which consisted of Jews and Gentiles. He himself was a Jew, and the Jews followed "the law", which was the law of Moses, and were distinguished by circumcision, which they superstitiously believed to be an adequate substitute for a moral life. In the first Chapter of Romans, Paul denounced the Gentiles as "backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents". (Verse 30) In the second Chapter, he "turns swiftly upon a typical Jew, whom he imagines as listening with self righteous complacency to the foregoing denunciation of the Gentile world, and accuses him of being infected by an equally deep moral corruption". (Commentary by Charles Gore etc.) Thus says verse 25 : "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made un‑circumcision". And verses 28 and 29: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God," Then starts Chapter III, with the following verse: "What advantage then hath the Jew ? or what profit is there of circumcision ? Verse 2 : "Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God". One car. see that Paul puts a question to himself, as though by way of objection, and then answers it. The first verse in the question, the second the answer. Gore's Com mentary explains Chapter III in these words : "This digression is couched in a form very usual with St. Paul and specially characteristic of this epistle, that of a compressed dialogue with an imaginary Jewish objector. Its obscurity is due to y the fact that there are no distinguishing marks in the text to show which sentences are meant to be Jewish objections and which St. Paul's replies". I shall now reproduce the remaining verses up to the seventh, with paraphrase: 3. "For what if some did not believe ? Shall their un belief make the faith of God without effect?" (This is in continuation of the answer in verse 2, and means that even if some of the Jews have been false to their side of the covenant with God, it does not affect God's side of the covenant with 4. "God forbid: Yea, let God be true, but every man a lier : as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings and mightest overcome when thou are judged". (The second part of the sentence is an echo from Psalms 51 : 4: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight : that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest". Which means, as Christians understand it : "I have sinned, O God, in thy sight, so that thou mayest be shown to be in the right when thou givest sentence and be proved clear of wrong when thou passeth judgment". Paul's reply, therefore, is that notwithstanding that some Jews proved false to their covenant, God's eternal truthfulness should be regarded as axiomatic, even though this may involve the consequence that all men are liers. gust as the Psalms say : "I sin against God so as to justify God's sentence against me".) 5. "But, if your unrighteousness commend the righteous ness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ? (I speak as a man)." (The objector says that if our badness brings into clearer relief the goodness of God, are we not thereby rendering a service to God ? And if we are rendering God a service by our sins, must it not be unjust in him to punish us on the Last Day ?) 6. "God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world ?" (St. Paul's reply is : God is the judge of the world, and therefore cannot be unjust). Now read verse 7 : "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner ?" (The objector insists : But if my unfaithfulness to my covenant with God really brings out into relief His faithfulness to His part of the covenant, my sin must be deemed to minister to His glory, and the obvious conclusion is : Go on sinning). 8. "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that good may come ? Whose damnation is just". (The Apostle interjects an indignant parenthesis into the middle of the objection, to the effect that this is precisely the doctrine of doing evil that good may come, which he has been slanderously accused of maintaining. Then he replies that men who employ arguments of this kind thoroughly deserve the condemnation which they will receive on the Day of Doom). So far, therefore, as the verse in Romans III goes, far from detracting from Paul's character, it raises him in human estimation, and if that is "the foundation upon which Paul built his creed",‑the foundation of lies, as Kh. Nazir Ahmad thinks‑I cannot conscientiously regard it as a shaky foundation. But consider how palpably he has been mis represented in this passage. That, I believe, is what the Christian Voice means by "scissors and paste". And even if the verse could be attributed to Paul as reflecting his own ideal of virtue, are we utter strangers to the profoundly pious frame of mind according to which "our sins and the loving‑kindness of our God are both without limit ?" (2) Next, I was attracted by the following verse at page 7 of the book, although neither Mr. Gibbon nor the Crown counsel has drawn attention to it. "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". I was attracted because it seemed an echo of epicurean philosophy‑Eat, drink and be merry‑and I could not associate Epicure with St. Paul. It is from I Corinthians XV 32, and the complete verse is as follows : "If, after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not ? Let us eat and drink ; for to‑morrow we die". The last part of the verse has been taken by Paul from Isaiah, XXII : 13, which is as follows :‑ "And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine : let us eat and drink ; for to‑morrow we shall die". If I just said that these words were uttered by the prophet Isaiah, one can very naturally get an impression that Isaiah believed in eating and drinking. But in Chapter XXII he is addressing himself to the levity of Jerusalem, "the valley of visions", "a tumultuous city, a joyous city" (verses 1 and 2). Jerusalem is face to face with grave danger, and her children spend the time in feasting and debauchery. The prophet with his outward eye sees a joyous city, its people eating and drinking; but with his inward eye he sees men dead from famine or disease, and the nation's leaders in flight or cap tivity. So much for Isaiah. Now turn to Paul. Chapter XV of I Corinthians deals with Resurrection. In the first eight verses Paul tells the Corinthians how he had told them earlier that Jesus had died for "our sins", had been buried and had risen on the third day. From the Resurrection of Jesus he comes to the resurrection of man in verse 12 : "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ?" If there is no resurrection, there is no life hereafter, and "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable". (Verse 19) Nay, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (verse 22), that is to say, resurrected. Consider how much is bound up with the belief in resurrection. Such a practice as vicarious baptism would obviously be without value if there were no resurrection. "Why are then they baptised for the dead ?" (verse 29) Next he think: of the uselessness of his life of peril if there were no resurrection. "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour "' 31. "I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily". (He swears by the pride they take in him, which he possesses in Christ, that he is in daily danger of death). 32. "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Euphesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not : let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die". (If I have fought like a spiritual gladiator, and there is no life hereafter, then I have fought in vain. It were better if I had taken to more congenial pursuits, like eating and drinking). 33. "Be not deceived : evil communications corrupt good manners". (Do not deceive yourself. Do not make these evil suggestions to yourself, for intellectual error leads to moral laxity). 34. "Awake to righteousness and sin not * * *. If you read all these verses, and then take out a seemingly immoral quotation from verse 32-Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die-you would be deliberately and maliciously perverting the philosophy of Paul. In one sentence, the philosphy of Chapter XV is that if you do not believe in the resurrection of man, then go to the public house. But since Paul believes in resurrection, does it take any thinking to see that he is not for a life of eating and drinking Now read the passage at page 7 of the book "Paul did not believe in the observation of the law for he said that 'if righteousness come by the law then Christ died in vain'. Paul pointed out that those who were the Works of the law were under a curse. The propagation of these views had a three-fold object: first, to preach that a man is justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law ; secondly, it was a gibe at James, brother of Jesus, who held the opposite view; and, thirdly, it won on Greek soil many licentious adherents to the Pauline creed, for they were assured of salvation without any good deeds. In fact to such, by way of encouragement, Paul had said Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." It means that the disciples of Paul read just this one line to the "licentious adherents" of Greece, and, believing this to be a merry religion, they embraced the Pauline creed. I think it is not necessary for a man to be a Christian to be outraged by such deliberate distortion, perversion and misrepresentation. The Christian Voice was very modest indeed when it used the words "scissors and paste". (3) At page 8, the author says that Paul "falsely alleged that he was 'speaking by the words of the Lord', though "he manifestly was giving out only his own ideas". The quotation in single inverted commas is from 1 Thessalonians, IV : 15-17, and it is true that Paul was giving there an impression that what he was saying had been revealed to him by God, but I do not see how it could be regarded as '`manifest" that Paul was foisting his own ideas on God ? How can a spiritual manifestation be contradicted except by another spiritual manifestation, which the author does not claim for himself ? (4) At the bottom of page 8, the author turns to Peter, and describes him thus "His character is well depicted in his denial of Jesus thrice in one night before the cock crowed. Likewise, here we find him adopting the line of least resistance. In his Epistle he advised his 'beloved brother' Paul to be sober in habits and to 'watch unto prayer' and be charitable. For such a meek attitude James had to dub Peter aptly as 'double-minded'! But as Paul began to exceed all limits Peter had to style him, of course not by name, as a 'false teacher', who had introduced into the faith 'damnable heresies', and 'pernicious ways'. But when the divergence of their views became too apparent Peter not only attacked his 'dearly beloved brother Paul' but also warned his followers against him. Referring to the Epistles of Paul he said: 'As also in all his Epistles speaking in them of these things ; in which are some hard to be understood, ..Ye, therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also being led away with error of the wicked fall from your own steadfastness". This appears to me to be one of the passages where, according to the Christian Voice (as I understand the passage), the texts of St. Peter and St. James have been mutilated "for the sole purpose of making St. Paul the villain of the piece". To enter into the spirit of what Peter said, you must read what the book has omitted of 2 Peter, III : 16-17, as also verse 15 which precedes them. 15. "And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation ; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you". 16. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in which are some-things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". 17. "Yet, therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stead‑fastness". Without the help of a commentary, I would read these verses to convey this meaning. The suffering of Jesus has occasioned our salvation, and this is what my brother Paul also has been telling you in his letters, in his own manner. (verse 15). Some of these are hard to understand‑(this apparently is due to Paul's manner of address) ‑and the ignorant and vicious twist them according to their purpose, as they do "other scriptures", and work out their own moral destruction. (verse 16) You should beware of being led away by the error of these wicked men who twist the texts of Paul. (verse 17). But if you read verses 16‑17 in the book under examina tion, you will have no doubt from the words placed by the another in italics that St. Peter found St. Paul an impossible man for understanding, regarded him as being wicked and warned people not to be misled by Paul's wickedness. This is because the author has omitted in verse 16 the necessary reference to the unlearned and unstable persons who twist the texts of Paul, "as they do other scriptures" The words "as they do other scriptures" are tell‑tale : they show that the epistles of Paul were, in the eyes of Peter, ejusdem generis or on the same footing with "other scriptures". (5) I shall refer only one more passage to its proper context in the Bible. It occurs at page 11: "Paul, therefore, is the least reliable for our knowledge of the real life of Jesus. Similarly, the remaining Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude do not add anything of importance to our knowledge, except that Peter makes Jesus descend into hell to preach to the dead and the Transfiguration is recalled". The remark that Peter makes Jesus descend into hell to preach to the dead is based on 1 Peter, III : 19, which, taken with verse 18, reads as follows: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime were disobedient. What Peter says is that Jesus, in spirit, went to preach to the "spirits in prison", that is to say, spirits which were in punitive confinement for past misdeeds. One could argue, with a different mentality, that Jesus does not forget sinners even after his death. But in any case, St. Peter does not use the word "hell", nor speaks of any "descent," into hell. It is the author's passion for ridicule which thus holds up the narrative to contempt. Originally I had thought it possible to suggest the excision of the offensive passages by the author himself so as to preserve an otherwise useful contribution to critical religious literature. The few passages which have been examined, however, suggest a radical change in the entire mental outlook of the author before one can be certain that he does not intend such contumelious presentation or misrepresentation as is bound to cause offence even to the liberal members of class. Such passages as‑ (1) "The unscrupulous early Fathers of the Church", (page 11). (2) "The early Fathers * * were not very artistic in committing forgeries in the Apocryphal Gospels". (page 13). (3) "As soon as Jesus became Christ, an object of worship, a cultural legend regarding his virgin birth and resurrection became necessary". (page 19). (4) "The early Christians were masters of the art of forgery" (page 100). (5) "I will explain how the word virgin was dishonestly introduced into this verse". (page 107). (6) "A physical union with God was stressed" in the verse "Thou art my son : this day have I begotten thee". (page 107). (7) "If the prayer of Jesus was heard and granted, as it must have been, he could not have died on the cross. But if it was not heard, and he was in fact crucified, this cry of Jesus, at a moment of extreme weakness of mind and the extreme limit of physical torture, is an ever‑lasting answer to the blasphemous dogma of Christians that Jesus, the son of God, knew that in fulfilment of His Divine will, he was dying for the sins of others", (page 188). (8) "The early Church Fathers. whose dishonesty and unscrupulousness have no parallel in human history and who never hesitated to tell lies or commit forgeries for the glory of their son‑god, expunged an identical passage from Matthew" (page 192). (9) "Lo and behold, the two miracles, the Resurrection and the Ascension, on which is founded the entire Christian faith, disappear. The stupendous Christological super structure so laboriously built, falls into a heap of rubbish",

‑offensive as they are, are infinitely less offensive than those where phrases have been pulled out of context to bear a particular meaning, where the entire purpose of the text has been perverted, where consequently, the intelligent members‑of the class, who are well read in the Bible, cannot but breed an intense feeling of hatred towards a treatment of their holy book which may justly be regarded as unscrupulous. And just as the Muslims fell out with the entire Hindu universe when but one solitary Hindu wrote the Rangila Rasul‑‑I do not mean this is as bad as the Rangila Rasul‑so every Christian will, if he is a human being, be offended with the entire Muslim population notwith standing the insistence of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad that he spoke only for himself. It was unnecessary for Mr. Gibbon to file an affidavit, and it was futile to argue that Mr. Gibbon alone was offended. We do not expect Mr. Gibbon to arm himself with a kirpan and preach violence from the steps of the Assembly building to a very peaceful community. But if we look for resolutions and protest meetings, and processions carrying blackened faces on donkeys and fireworks and tear‑gas before we take action, then we foster cold contempt and hatred and sap the foundations of the State. I would, therefore, refuse to vacate the order of for feiture. SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother but will add just a few remarks of my own. It is difficult to come to a definite finding that the book falls within the purview of section 295A of the P. P. C. which on its language is applicable to those insults to religion or religious beliefs which in addition to being deliberate and malicious are intended to outrage the religious feelings of the followers of that religion. It is true that section 295A was enacted to counteract the effect of the decision of Dalip Singh, J. in Raj Paul v. Emperor (A I R 1927 Lah. 590.) but it is doubtful if the section has achieved that object. However, there is no difficulty in coming to a finding that the book offends against section 153A of the P. P. C. and the question that arises is if the order of the Provincial Government can be upheld on a ground other than the one which the Government was of the view was applicable to the case. The relevant part of section 99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:‑‑ "On receipt of the application, the Special Bench shall, if it is not satisfied that the issue of the newspaper, or the nook or other document, in respect of which the application has been made, contained seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 99A, set aside the order of forfeiture". The plain meaning of the above part of section 99D is that the order of the Provincial Government passed under section 99A can be set aside only if it could not have been passed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 99A and not merely on the ground that the writing etc., which has been forfeited contains matter which though it falls under section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not offend against that section of the Penal Code which the Provincial Government was of the view that it offended. In this connection, it cannot be overlooked that the order of forfeiture passed by the Provincial Government is not a charge to which the person against whom the order is passed has to plead when he comes to the High Court, but even if it were deemed to be a kind of charge, there could be no objection to altering it at a subsequent stage provided the alteration did not take any of the parties by surprise. If the legislature had intended that the order of the Provincial Government with regard to forfeiture was to be the only ground on which the High Court was to decide whether or not that order should be set aside, section 99D would have said that if the writing etc., is not of the kind it was stated by the Provincial Government in its order to be, the order of forfeiture would be set aside by the High Court. The offences dealt with by sections 153 and 295A of the P. P. C. are to some extent similar in nature and if prejudice, which is a relevant consideration when one is dealing with the question of the alteration of a charge, were relevant for the purposes of section 99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I would say that in view of the fact that the petitioner was given full opportunity to show that the writing objected to did not fall within section 153A of the P. P. C., the petitioner has no ground for complaining that he had been taken by surprise and therefore prejudiced. M. SOOFI, J.‑I agree with my brother. A. H. Petition dismissed.