P L D 1992 Lahore I (PLP)

(4)?? Insolent and disparaging remarks about members of Family of the Holy ???? Prophet; (5)?? Writings depicting Muslim Ummah as heretics and as an Ummah different from Qadianis with abuses hurled to eminent religious scholars of Muslims.

20. The relevant objected to views or the opinion concerning Muslims contained in the books and read out during the arguments are not being reproduced as the very reproduction of the same would provoke protest and uproar and further intensify the feelings of hatred. Mr. Mubashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners was of the view that reporting of the proceedings in the press (of the dates when these topics were being discussed) is likely to create hatred against Ahmadis but Mr. Mujeebur Rehman, Advocate took the stand ' that material produced i.e. the books referred to under the aforesaid topics, is such that it is not of a recent origin as it is in circulation since one century and if this literature was not provocative for all this period, why it should be treated as provocative at the particular juncture of centenary celebrations. He added that till 1983 annual general meetings of the community were being held, special trains used to carry Oadianis to Rabwah without any untoward incident and on account of Oadiani faith public peace was never disturbed or breached. Such a plea can be raised by ignoring the entire history of opposition offered by the Muslims to the Qadiani faith and to prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Some of the writings are couched in the most uncomplementary and abusive language for his opponents. Mirza Sahib as had proclaimed himself to be the Masih Maood (Promised Messiah) tried to substitute himself for Jesus as Promised Messiah is to be no other than Jesus son of Mary. He proclaimed: "God named me Mary in the third volume of Barahin‑i‑Ahmadiyyah (A book of Mirza Sahib containing his 'Divinal Revelations') was nurtured for a period of two years in a Mary‑like condition and was brought up in a womanly seclusion. Then the spirit of Jesus was breathed into me just as (it was breathed) into Mary. Thus I was considered to be pregnant in a metaphorical manner. After a period of several months, not more than ten, I was made ' Jesus out of Mary by the revelation embodied in the last parts of the fourth volume of Barahin‑i‑Ahamdiyyan; and thus I became Jesus, son of Mary. But God did not inform me about this secret during the time of Barahin‑i?Ahmadiyyah. Kashti‑i‑Nuh: Ruhani Khaz'in, Vol. 19, p. 50." 21 This did not end here as Mirza Sahib in his writings used disparaging, imprecative and provocative remarks about Jesus Christ. Though no authentic religious source suggests that Jesus (peace be upon him) was foul mouthed or was of lewd character yet Mirza Sahib came out with the atrocious and blasphemous remarks. Some of these read: "(Jesus) had the habit of uttering obscenities and frequently using foul language. ? (Zamimah Anjam‑i‑Atham) Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 11, P‑289 What is your opinion about the character of the Messiah? (it is that Jesus) was an alcoholic and gluttonous person, neither abstinent nor a pious worshipper, nor a reality seeker. He was a proud and a self? conceited claimant of Divinity. ?????????????? (Nur al‑Ouran) Ruhani Khazain, Vol.9, p.387 The root cause of all the damage that alcohol consumption has had on the Europeans was that Jesus used to drink alcohol, perhaps becasue of some disease or an old habit. ???????????????? (Kashti‑i Nuh) Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 19, p.71 Jesus could not portray himself as a pious man because people knew that he was a gluttonous alcoholic. (Satt Bachan) Ruhani Khazain, Vol.10, p.296.'

22. Even the episodes narrated in the Bible were distorted by Mirza Sahib as a way to deride holy Jesus (peace be upon him) and to defilc his sacred name as follows: .Jesus had an inclination for prostitutes perhaps due to his ancestral relationship with them, otherwise no pious man could allow a young prostitute to touch his head with her filthy hands, and massage his head with the unclean perfume purchased with the earnings of adultery, and rub his feet with her hair. Let the intelligent judge what sort of character such a person must possess. ???? (Zamimah Anjam‑i‑Atham) (Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 11, P. 291) A beautiful prostitute is sitting so close to him as though she is embracing him. Sometimes she massages his head with perfume or holds his feet and sometimes she lays her beautiful black hair on his feet and plays in his lap. In this situation Mr.Messiah is sitting in ecstacy. If someone rises to object he is scolded. Besides his young age, the habit of alcoholism and being a bachelor, a beautiful prostitute is lying in front of him touching her body with his. Is this the behaviour of a virtuous person? And what evidence or proof is there that Jesus did not get sexually provoked by the touch of the prostitute. Alas! Jesus could not even have the facility of sexual intercourse with any wife of his own after passing his glance upon that adultress. What sexual excitment would have been provoked by the touching of that adultress. What sexual excitement would have been provoked by the touching of that wretched adultress and her playfulness! The sexual excitement and arousal would have done its work to the full. This is the reason why Jesus could not even open his mouth to say, 'Oh adultress! keep away from me, it is well established in he Bible that that woman was one of the prostitutes, notorious for adultery in the entire city. ??????????????? (Nur al‑Quran) Ruhani Khazain, Vol.9, p.449"

23. As against the above version of Mirza Sahib, this very episode is narrated in the Bible as under:‑ "And one of the pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. He went into the pharisees's house and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the pharisees's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and then wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spoke within himself, saying, this man if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manncr of woman this is that touchcth him for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he said, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed 500 pence, and the other

50. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom'he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hath rightly judged. And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, seeth thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou givest me no water for my feet; and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou givest me no kiss; but this woman since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but this woman has anointed my head with ointment, Therefore I say unto thee her sins which are many, are forgiven; but she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. The New Testament St. Luke, Ch. 7:36‑50.' The above is confirmed in the Gospel according to John as follows:‑‑‑ "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of Spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with odour of the ointment. Then said one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simons son, which should betray him, why was not this ointment sold for 300 pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, let her alone; against the day of my burying had she kept this. For the poor always Ye have with you; but me Ye have not always. The New Testament St. John, Ch. 12:3‑8" And according to Matthew the story is narrated in the following "Now that Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, thert came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very, precious ointment and poured it on his head as he sat at meat. But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, to what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. Then Jesus understood it, he said unto them why trouble ye the woman? For she hath wrought a good work upon me. For Ye have the poor always with you; but me Ye have not always. For in that she had poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her. ???? The New Testament St. Matthew, Ch. 26:6‑13."

24. A close reading of the distorted version would show that the insinuation such as "as though she embracing him; ... *** *** .... she is playing in his lap; ... ... ... .. ... Mr. Jesus is sitting in ecstacy; .. ... ... ... a beautiful prostitute is lying in front .... ... ... .... her body is touching his body; ... ... ... . Jesus sexual provocations; ... ... ... have been added with a view to defile Jesus Christ though the Bible does not contain such bose episodes nor it depicts Jesus in this shade. The actual episode was that immoral woman had come to holy Jesus (peace be upon him) crying and weeping in order to seek forgiveness for her sins and Jesus had said: "Your sins are forgiven

25. Not only this but the teachings of Jesus were also belittled by Mirza Sahib. The aforenoted stance and views of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani are quite contrary to the position and status of Jesus described in Ouran as the entire Ouran (the Holy Book of Muslims) is free from any statement that may be construed in any way to reflect negatively on Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). The Quran is full of praises for Jesus and describes him as one of the? greatest five Prohets of God. Quran says in Sura 3, Verse 84: "Say: We believe in God and what is revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was entrusted to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to him we have surrendered.‑ Holy Quran praises Jesus, his mother and his family in these terms: "God selected Adam and Noah, Abraham's House and Imran's House over (everyone in) the Universe. They were descendants one of another. God is Alert, Aware. (Remember) when the wife of Imran said 'My Lord! I have vowed for you whatever is within my womb. Accept it from me. See! You, only you are the Hearer, the Knower. When she gave birth she said: My God! I have given birth to a daughter. God was quite aware of what she had given birth to, for a male is not like a female ‑‑‑ I have named her Mary, and ask you to protect her and her offspring from Satan the Outcast. Her Lord accepted her in a handsome manner and caused her to grow like a lovely plant and appointed Zachariah to take care of her. Every time Zachariah entered the sanctuary to see her, he found she had already been supplied with food. He said: 'Mary, Whence cometh unto you this (food)? She said: It comes from God, for God provides for anvone He wishes without anv reckoning. (Quran, 3:33‑37) And when the angels said: 0 Mary! See! God has chosen you and made you pure, and has preferred you above (all) the women of creation. 0 Mary! Be Obedient to your Lord, prostrate yourself and bow with those who bow (in worship). (Quran, 3:42,43) Even virgin birth of Jesus is stated in exalted manner in Sura 3 Verses 45‑47: "(And remember) when the angels said: 0 Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, Illustrious in the world and the Hereafter and one of those brought near (unto God). He will speak to mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous. She said: My Lord, how can I have a child while no human being has ever touched me? He said so (it will be). God creates anything He wishes. Whenever He decides upon some matter, He merely tells it: Be! and it is. (Quran 3:45‑47)" Again in Sura 19, verses 16‑32 story of birth has been told as under:‑ "And make mention of Mary in the Book, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East and had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent to her Our spirit and it is assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: I seek refuge in the Compassionate One from you, if you are God‑fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord, that I may bestow on you a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal has touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be) your Lord says: it is easy for Me. And (it will be) that we may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place. And the pangs of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had become a thing of naught, forgotten! Then (one) cried to her from below her saying: Grieve not! Your Lord has placed a rivulet beneath you. And shake the trunk of the palm tree toward you. You will cause ripe dates to fall on you. So eat and drink and be consoled. And if you meet any mortal say. I have vowed a fast to the Compassionate, and may not speak this day to any person. She carried him back to her family. They said Mary you have brought something hard to believe! 0 Sister of Aaron! Your father was no evil man, nor was your mother a loose woman. She pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to someone who is a child in the cradle? He said: I am God's servant. He has given me a book and made me a prophet. He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and has enjoined on me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive. And (has made me) dutiful towards her who bore me, and has not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was‑born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!". (Quran, 19:16‑32)."

26. Moreover the Muslims are forbidden to degrade or defile the men or leaders of others religions so that the others do not rind occasion to hurl slander on their leaders. It is true that on certain aspects there exist honest differences amongst Muslim and Christian Theologists but that cannot provide base or justification to defile each others religion or prophet. The prophet of Islam (p.b.u.h.) is reported to have said: "I am closest (in' love) to Jesus, the son of Mary, in this life and the hereafter."

27. These were the writings and views of Mirza Sahib on account of which Muslims as well as Christians opposed the claim of Mirza Sahib to prophethood and of being Masih Maood (Promised Messiah). There were events in the life‑timc of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well as after his death and even after creation of Pakistan when there were mass protests leading to imposition of Martial Law in Lahore in 1953 and riots involving attacks on train in 1974. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad noted the hostility of the Muslims generally to him in the following words in Izala Auham, page 11:‑‑‑ "It is this claim on which my people (non‑Ahmadi Muslims) quarrel with me and consider me an apostate??????????????????????????????????????????????????? They talked loudly and did not pay reverence to one who receives inspiration from Allah They said that he is a renegade, liar and an impostor But for their fear of the sword of the rulers they would have murdered me." The provocative nature of these writings does not end merely because some other writings contain views of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which are in accord with the views of Muslim Ummah. The reliance of Mr. Mujeebur Rchman on such writings is inapt. In order to demonstrate this, one particular instance may be quoted and analysed as it would also repel the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that recounting of history or repetition of particular views would not amount to commission of offcnce under section 298‑C, P.P.C.

28. Take the slogan "Hundred years of Truth" printed on the Tee Shirts or displayed on the banners or ceremonial gates. What does it convey? This slogan seen in the background of centenary celebrations of the community, conveys the message that claim to prophethood made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is true; the belief of Ahmadis that it is they who constitute Muslim Ummah is true; the others who do not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet or Maseeh Ma'ood are heretics; you the predominant majority despite constitutional mandate are heretics. The Advocate‑General rightly remarked that had the prohibition order not been passed, such a provocative act would have created serious law and order situation. He was also right in urging that the prohibited acts, taken individually do not appear obnoxious, injurious and harmful as putting of the ceremonial gates, hoisting of banners, illuminating a building or serving food to poor, or wearing by a person new clothes should not be a cause of annoyance to others. These acts arc to be seen in the background of the declaration made, the objective sought to be achieved, the message sought to be conveyed and the reaction that such acts are likely to produce. These acts, seen in historical perspective cannot be taken as innocent and harmless manifestations of a minority community which would like to commemorate its past events and eulogize its founder or leaders. In any case how do these public manifestations"fall within the domain.of 'professing or practising a particular religion'. The pleas that the performance of these acts is lawful and as such doing of lawful acts cannot be prohibited under section 144, Cr.P.C. merely because the doing of acts lawfully might lead another to act unlawfully and that preventive measures are to be taken against the person or the group of persons who are likely to act unlawfully may be examined.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing the aforenoted pleas, assumed that these acts, the carrying out of which was prohibited or the centenary celebrations as were being planned to be held were innoxious, innocent, harmless, rather lawful. This assumption is incorrect. Even assuming that it was intended not to cause annoyance or not to trigger friction and disturbances, still reaction that these celebrations were genuinely apprehended to have aroused, provided sufficient justification for making the impugned orders in the public interest. The principle relied upon by the learned counsel was enunciated in the case of Beatty v. Gillbanks, (1882) 2 O.B.D. 30& The facts were that members of Salvation Army insisted on marching through the streets despite violent opposition from the 'skeleton Army' and despite an order from the Magistrate that they should not march. The Divisional Court held that a man cannot be punished for acting lawfully if he knew that his so doing might lead another man to act unlawfully. This decision seems to be correct in allocation of criminal liability but it is not followed or in any case its operation has been modified in cases of exercise of police power of the State relatable to the maintenance of public peace. So in Humphries v. Connor (1864) 17 Ir. CLR 1) where an action or assault was brought against a policeman, the Irish Court held that the policeman was entitled to remove an orange lily from the plaintiff's clothes since this was necessary to prevent a breach of peace amongst a crowd in whom the emblem aroused animosity (see G.P. Wilson ‑‑‑ Cases and Materials in Constitutional & Administration Law, page 693). Again in O'kelly v. Harvey, a magistrate was held entitled to disperse a lawful meeting since he had reasonable grounds for supposing that Orangemen opposed to the meeting would use violence and that there was no other way in which peace could be preserved (see Wilson cases‑‑page 695). It may be alluded here that the cases of pasting badges with Kalima Tayyaba inscribed or the banners with Kalima Tayyaba displayed by the Qadiani are in point. Even in cases where the words or conduct is provocative or insulting the police power may be exercised for maintaining law and order. The case of Wise v. Dunning (1902) 1 K.B. 167) may also be referred. In this case, Protestant crusader was bound over to keep the peace after he had repeatedly insulted the Roman Catholic faith in Catholic area of Liverpool and breach of peace had occurred. It was held that on facts the magistrate was entitled to regard the hostile response by the Catholics as the natural consequence of Wise's insulting conduct.

30. Now the question whether display of badges or banners with Kalima Tayyaba is offensive may be examined. According to the Advocate‑General and Advocates for the respondents from the words "Muhammad‑ur‑Rasool Ullah" the Qadianis mean and refer to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as he (Mirza Sahib) proclaimed himself as "Muhammad‑ur‑Rasool Ullah" and his followers believe him as such. They submitted that when Qadianis display banners or wear badges on their person, they defile the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.). In support of this contention books including Kalimatul fasl by Mirza Bashir Ahmad which reads,‑~)s under were cited:‑‑‑ Reference was also made to pages 4,5, 7 and 11 of Ek Ghalti Ka Izala wherein it is recorded: Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the display of banners or wearing of badges with Kalima Tayyaba with the aforenoted sense and belief amount to offence under section 295‑C, P.P.C. which is punishable with death.

31. At this stage reference may be made to the contents of the affidavit filed by Mirza Khurshid Ahmad, petitioner, in this respect. Paras. 4 and 5 of the affidavit read:‑‑‑ "

4. That the deponent solemnly declares that while reciting Kalima? Tayyeba by the words (? )the petitioner unreservedly means the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

5. That the dcponent solemnly repudiates any allegation to the effect that by the words "Muhammad (peace be upon him) the deponent means Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Any such allegation is false, incorrect or ill‑informed. The deponent most solmenly repudiates any such insinuation, which is contrary to the beliefs of the deponent and all Ahmadis at large". In view of the abovenoted stand taken in the affidavit, Mr. Mujccbur Rehman was asked, as to the belief of Mirza Khurshid Ahmad and other members of Ahmadiyya community regarding status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and as to his writings wherein he claimed prophethood and whether Kalima Tayyaba alone is to be recited by a person entering Qadiani faith or something else is also to be accepted, recited or believed. The answer given was that Qadianis do not believe in absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) and they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a Mehdi, Masech Ma'ood. He added that what has been relied upon by the opposite side has been clarified by the founder of the community in Izala? auham pages 169‑170, Kashti‑e Nooh, Roohani Khazain, Vol. 7, page 67; Vol. 14, page 323; Vol. 8, page 252 and in Paigham‑e‑Sulch contained in Roohani Khazain, Vol. 23, page

459. This message acco;ding to him was written by? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad one day before his death i.e. on 25th May, 1908. He explained that what has been stated in Ek Ghalti Ka Izala, Aaiena‑i‑Kamalat or? Tabligh‑i‑Risalat is to be understood in the concept of Zil ?and buruz which is the concept of spirtual resemblance and identity and means complete subservience of one person into the other. According to him this concept does not in any manner involve physical reappearance or reincarnation.

32. The most important thing which Mr.Mujeebur Rehman conveniently missed and which was not refuted was that anyone entering the Qadiani faith has to believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood is inherent in the Prophethood of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the true shadow or exact resemblance (. ) buruz, of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. It could also not be denied that in the form to be signed while entering the Oadiani faith, one has to agree and accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet, Mehdi and Masceh Ma'ood. The words used, inter alia, in this form arc‑‑‑ The Muslims since after the Holy Prophet, in all ages have rejected the claim of prophethood made by imposters from time to time. The claim made by Mirza Sahib was also rejected by all sections of Muslims. As regards the claim to prophethood made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a detailed discussion has been made in the case of Mujeebur Rehman (supra). It was further observed as under: "It would be seen that the consequences of the dictum that Mirza Sahib himself was Muhammad and Ahmad (they were the names of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) were anomalous enough. The companions of Mirza Sahib became the companions of the Holy Prophet. In the formula recited by Muslims there is no God but God and that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is His Prophet, Muhammad is Mirza Sahib, Whenever the word Muhammad is recited or read, it means Mirza Sahib". 33.??????? The plea of learned counsel for the petitioners that concept of Zil and buruz ( ) does not in any manner involve physical reappearance or reincarnation, appears to be contrary to the views expressed by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself and his known disciple Dr. Abdul Qadir Mahmood. This aspect is discussed at page 74 of the report as under:‑ "Now the concept itself may be analysed. It has been explained in Al? Falsafatul Sufiatu fil Islam by Dr. Abdul Oadir Mahmood, pages 5‑11 that the meaning of expressions Zilli (? ) and Buruzy ???????????????????????????? resemble very much the concept of incarnation or transmigration among the Hindus. Mirza Sahib himself admitted that buruz means avatars. In his lecture at Sialkot, dated 2nd November, 1904 (page 23) he said: This may be made dear that my advent on behalf of God is not only for the reform of the Muslims. The reform of all the three communities Muslims, Hindus and Christians is required. As God sent me as promised Messiah for the Muslims and ' the Christians, so I am as an avatars for the Hindus Raja Krishna as has been made evident to me was in fact a perfect man .... He was the avatars of his time or prophet ?????????????????????????????????????? It was the promise of God that during the final age, he would create his buruz meaning avatars, In Zamima Risala‑i‑Jihad (printed 1900) he wrote: God . ssentt me as an avatara of Jesus. Similarly He named me as Ahmad and Muhammad and made me an avatara of? Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) after making my habits, manners, style (as of the Holy Prophet) and after clothing me in the mantle of Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) so that I may (propagate and) spread unity? (concept of oneness of God)? ..so that I am a Jesus as well as Muhammad Mehdi in this sense and it is that manner of manifestation which technically is called buruz in Islam (pages 6 and 7). It is clear that Mirza Sahib treated avatara and buruz as equivalents of one another. In strict Shariah Of Islam there is no concept of incarnation or transmigration. These are terms emanating from those who believed in transmigration like Mazdak and Laman. Similarly there is no such notion as shadowism in Islam (Khatimun Nabiyyin by Anwar Shah Kashmiri, page 210). In Maugiful Jamatil Islamiyya, Maulana Muhammad Yousaf Bannori wrote that from the comparative study of religions it. appears that the entire concept of shadowism ( _) and incarnation is a Hindu concept and no such concept is there in Islam. Abdul Qadir Baghdadi (d.429 A.H.). also said that the view in favour of Hulul is false and absurd (Usul Ul Din, page 72). Mujaddid Alf Sani, whose writings were relied upon by Mirza Sahib refutes the concept of Zil (shadow) in prophethood. lie said in his letter No.301 that prophethood connotes nearness to Allah which it has‑ not even the hint or doubt of Zilliat (shadowyness)".

34. The third aspect pointed out by the respondents was that device adopted in the form of allegiance () to be signed by a person entering Qadiani faith is yet another deception being played and a trap being ?????????? laid to mislead Muslims as well as others by presenting their faith as Islam and by representing Mirza Sahib as a new prophet of Islam. It may be pointed out that by use of the words (Z%_~) after the words in the form of allegiance it does not admittedly mean and imply that there would be no prophet after Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) as contrarily such a person has to have faith in all claims made by Mirza Ghularn Ahmad, which includes his claim of being Prophet. According to Muslims, there will and cannot be any Prophet till the Day of Judgement as Prophet of Islam has reportedly said, there will be no prophet and that the word means that the seal having been affixed, there is no question of the arriving of a new prophet. As against this, Mirza Ghularn Ahmad in "Ek Ghalti Ka Izala" said, that though the seal of prophethood shall not be broken but it is possible that a prophet may come in this world in buru7y manner (as incarnate) not only once but a thousand times and may manifest his prophethood and perfection as incarnate.

35. It may be pointed out that what is stated in "Izala Auham" of the year 1891, Karamat‑e‑Sadeqain of 1893, contained in Roohani Kha7ain, Vol. 7: Ayyam‑e‑Suleh of 1899, contained in Roohani Khazain, Vol.. 14, does not paint the Final picture of the claim to prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the relevant writings of Mirza Sahib in this connection would be the writings from 1901 to 1908 and "Ek Ghalti Ka Izala" is the basic writing. In this context it may further be pointed out that Paigbam‑e‑Suleh of 25th May, 1908 printed in Roohani Khazain, Vol. 23 is also not relevant as this message was addressed to Hindus and not to Muslims and the question of acceptance of Mirza Sahib as prophet would have arisen only when the Hindus had accepted Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) as Prophet and true Messenger of God. In view of the specific claim of Mirza Ghularn Ahmad, it is apparent that belief of Ahmadis is that Mirza Sahib is Prophet Muhammad and souse of the words( AJWL)_,~p,~,~) in the banners or the badges worn by any Ahmadi would be at his own peril as it amounts to defiling the sacred name of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and such acts certainly fall within the purview of section 295‑C, P.P.C.

36. Moreover such banners and badges also tend to cause annoyance by H outraging religious feelings of the predominant majority of citizens. This will provide another justification for banning celebrations as these would have caused breach of peace. It will be recalled that right to profess and practise religion was only claimed but the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to show how the holding of the celebrations in public and in the manner contemplated and planned infringe or abridge the right to profess Qadiani faith. The Oadianis continue to profess and practise their faith and enjoy all the freedom like Hindus, Sikhs, Parsics and other religious minorities but a difficult situation is created by their own conduct of passing off as Muslims and use of Shaa'ir Islam or Kalima Tayyaba which are one of the fundamentals of Islam.' No untoward situation or incident will arise in case the constitutional mandate is adhered to by Qadianis and they treat themselves as a community different and distinct from Muslims‑‑which is their own case. The role of substituting themselves for Muslims and of excluding general body of Muslims from the fold of Islam is not to be accepted by the Muslim Ummah. Their loyalty to the country, Constitution and their separate entity would ensure their safety and well being. Why should they be allowed to highjack Islam. They are welcomed to have any faith but why should they insist to impurify the faith of Muslims. Any act of Muslims taken for safeguarding the purity of their faith should not disturb the Qadianis or should give them no cause of grievance. ????

37. The power of the kind vesting under section 144, Cr.P.C. as well as police power ' of the state can legitimately be exercised for a purpose which is considered to be for public good or to be in the interest of the people of the country. The two cases of the members of scientology cult may be referred to. In the case of (Schmidt and another v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969) 2 Ch. 149), it was noted that scientology as per its proponents is a, reli gion. It originated in America, its faith and belief, its teachings and practices are taught to students at a College in Sussex England. This College is owned by an American Corporation called the church of Scientology of California. The petitioners Schmidt and Joseph Murranti, citizens of United States had permits of entry for limited time. The term expired and the Home Secretary refused extension as the view of the government was: "Scientology is a pseudo‑philosophical cult introduced into this country some years ago from the United States and has its world headquarters in East Grinstead. It has been described by its founder Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, as 'the world's largest mental health organization ....... The Government are satisfied having reviewed all the available evidence, that scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practices are a potential menace to the personality and well‑being of those who deluded as to become its followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them. There is evidence that children are now being indoctrinated." Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in his judgment dealing with the argument that Home Secretary had used his power for the purpose of disapproval of, and to bring. into disrespect a religious sect which was not prohibited by law, observed:‑‑‑ "I think the Minister can exercise his power for any purpose which he considers to be for the public good or to be in the interests of the people of this country. There is not the slightest ground for thinking that the Minister exercised his power here for any unauthorised purpose or with any ulterior motive. The Minister's purpose was clearly disclosed in the statement which was made to the House of Commons. He thought that the practices of these people, these scientologists, were most harmful to our society, and that it was undesirable in the interests of the people of this country that alien students of scientology should be allowed to stay any longer or that any new ones should be allowed to come in. That purpose was entirely justifiable. It was exercised by the Home Secretary in the interests of the ordinary people of this country: and I do not think we should admit any doubt to be thrown on its validity." ????? 38. . The refusal to extend the permit was upheld. The petition for leave to appeal against the aforenoted judgment was dismissed by the House of Lords (See? Note‑ at page 174 of the same report). The right of freedom of movement was I thus subjected to the considerations of the public: good. This very principle was also applied by the European Court of Justice in the case of Van Duyn v. Home Office (1.975). 1 Ch. 358). In this case a clause in the Treaty of Rome which guarantees freedom of movement to workers within the nine countries of the community was subjected to the reasons,of public policy. Miss Van Duyn arriving at Airport declared that she is to take up employment as Secretary at the. College of Scientology. The entry was refused saying that it was undesirable to give any one leave to enter United Kingdom to be in employment of the Church of Scientology. The refusal was challenged and the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice at Luxemburg and the refusal made was upheld.

39. The 'reasons of public policy, public good and interests of the ordinary people of the country thus provide justifiable basis for banning the celebrations, making of the directions by the District Magistrate as well as J Resident Magistrate. It has already been pointed out that activities of Ahmadis and propagation of their faith is resisted by people in general i.e. Muslim Ummah to keep the mainstream of faith pure and unpolluted and also to maintain integrity of the Ummah. While doing so that right to profess and practise faith by Qadianis in no manner stands infringed or violated.

40. For the reasons given above. this petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. M.4A./k‑4/L