P L D 1949 Lahore 282 (PLP)

(b) Does the ultimate truth of religion lie in its capacity to safeguard all the legitimate rights of man ? (c) Could a religion which denies equal rights of man be designated "revealed ?" (d) Could a "revealed" religion run counter to reason and commonsense ? Each question was separately discussed. It has been the boast of every religion that it furnishes complete guidance in the day to‑day life of man. Even some systems which could lay no such claim, have, under the changed conditions of the world, put it to ignorance their supposed failure to do so. The case system of Hindus is said to be the invention of ambitious and selfish Brahmins and not ordained by Hindu Dharma. The claim of Islam however, is not a new one like Hinduism, but it has been there since its very birth. It is universally acknowledged now that the primary object of function of "religion" is to recognize and protect human rights and its truth and efficacy is measured by the extent to which it does. This is as it should be, and religion could not be divorced from reason. Now, test "Divine Khilafat" on the principles enunciated above, "Divine Khilafat" connotes that Hazrat Ali(A.S.) and his descendants alone had the right and the privilege to be the "Imams" or the heads of the Muslims. If this be accepted as a "fundamental belief," it would neces sarily follow (a) that Hazrat Ali(A.S.), to the exclusion of the other com panions of the Holy Prophet(P.B.U.H.), was the only rightful Caliph, (b) that the spiritual office should descend from father to son as it were a kingdom, (c) that even the best of Muslims, not in the line, would never become the Imams, (d) that the Muslims should in perpetuity remain under the Imamat of Hazrat Ali(A.S.)'s descendants and (e) that the children of Hazrat Ali(A.S.) shall be the overlords and all other should unquestioningly bow their heads and obey their commandments. Would it not be "contrary to the basis and fundamental maxima of your commonsense? In other words, would it be possible, after accepting these beliefs, to fully safeguard the legitimate personal, social and national rights of men?" This theory will inevitably lead to (a) despotic heritable government, and (b) racial discrimination and superiority of the descendants of Hazrat Ali(A.S.). This is opposed to the main pillar of Islam; equality of man, and would interdict freedom of thought and freedom of man for which Islam stands. The practical consequences of the theory of "Divine Imamat" in working, may be observed in the two sections, of Khojas and Bohras, who almost worship their leaders. The Khojas look upon Agha Khan as the vicegerent of God upon earth. The Agha Khan and his son Prince Ali Khan "live in the beauteous pleasure resorts of Europe. Their wives observe no pardah. They squander crores of rupees every year on races. Horses worth a lac each are purchased. In short there is no luxury of life which they do not have." But this causes their followers no trouble or heart searching. Their adulation remains unabated and "the water of their bath is collected with care and administered to patients for cure. Their feet are washed and the refuse water drunk. The dust from under neath their foot is considered to be khak‑i‑shifa (curative dust). The prosecution vehemently contended that the followers of the Agha Khan from a class or section and they were brought into "hatred or contempt" by the above writing. The reputation of the Agha Khan for fabulous wealth and his taste for horse‑races, have not in any way lowered or tended to lower his community. This is no news and is commonly known for the last half a century. On the other hand, it is considered as enhancing the prestige of the Khoja community. Some objection could be taken to the practice of the followers of the Agha Khan to collect his bath water for medicinal purposes. This is the same thing as storing the wash‑water of‑ the tomb of a saint. To a few, this is an idle superstition, but the bulk of humanity has looked upon it an indicative of excessive love and devotion which has usually received its due need of praise. The society as whole, has yet to advance to learn that superstitions from no part of religion, much less of Islam, and a person has yet to be discovered who was excom municated or threatened to be ex‑communicated for indulging in superstitions. "Hatred" means abhorrence or ill‑will and "contempt" means scorn` or disdain and these feelings over a particular matter, should animate the large majority and not the insignificant minority, before they could be said to produce the repugnant effects, to guard against which classes (d) and (h) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act were enacted. Till the people are more educated and inforced about the true tenets of religion, some more advanced must continue to carry their campaign of reform and enlighten the common‑folk that religion is different from what they estimate is to be. Signs of awakening are not wanting even among the Khojas and the author asserts that the "educated section" has openly expressed their "disgust" over it. The entire Khoja community, therefore, is not calminated and the author thinks that the pro gress would be much more rapid if the mind could be freed of the wrong doctrine of "Divine Imamat". The ignorant have elevated the Agha Khan above his status as man and made him a God. The same remarks apply with equal force to the Bohras. These words of advice were addressed by a Muslim to another Muslim, who, whatever their differences in minor details, yet owe com mon allegiance to one God, one Book and one Prophet. Islam sets its face sternly against anything which might, in any way, savour or associ ation of anybody or thing with the Almighty God in His worship or which might in any manner detract from the dignity of man or degrade him to the level of a beast. It is the privilege, may the duty of a Muslim to raise his voice of protest against the mal‑practices and show the way in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah. Truth might be unpalatable, but it has to, be told, and the only limitation placed is that it should be told in a manner free from malice and in a language free from abuse. The writer of the article was really discussing the theory of the "Divine Imamat" and in illustration of the pernicious results it might produce, a casual reference was made to Khojas or Bohras. He had no ill‑will against any of these sects, nor had he any direct concern with them. His predominant idea was refrom and as much would be amply covered by Explanation 4 to section 4 of the Act. So far the author was arguing on the plans of reason and com monsense. He goes further. He proves from the sayings of Hazrat Ali(A.S.) himself, on contained in some books considered authentic by the Shias themselves, that Hazrat Ali(A.S.) did not at all believe in "Divine Imamat and that at no stage of his life he considered that the first three Caliphs were usurpers or that their election was invalid." The doctrine of "Divine Khilafat", according to the' writer of this article, was a later invention to further political ends. The article con cl0des with the following appeal :‑ "After the establishment of Pakistan it is also our duty to put an end to the old tradition of Shias and Sunnis and think on the aforsaid lines because the work of making the greatest Islamic State in the world, foundation‑stone whereof has been laid under the name of Pakistan, the torch of guidance for the world in a true sense, can be accomplished only when we consider that the atmosphere of Tazias, mourning and elegies is not religion. buy rising above it, we look at the martyrdom of Hussain and the war between Hazrat Ali(A.S.) (A.S.) and Muawia, in their true spirit and try to under stand and popularise the lesson of human life contained therein". It is a thoughtful and a thought‑provoking thesis, and nothing was further from the thoughts of the author than to show any disrespect to the august personality of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.) or to give offence to an person who, in his unsophisticated belief in the "Divine Imamat," coup not think of its logical consequences. This was made clear in the late issue of "Ehsan" on the 26th November, 1948. The appeal is to reason and not to passion and the language employed could not be termed intemperate or deficient in sobriety. This article does not fall within mischief of clauses (d) and (h) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act. IV. Aya Apna Rai (30th November, 1948). The English translation fails to convey the hidden paths which is the very soul of this short poem. It has been needlessly considered an attack upon the "Government establishment by law." It is no such thing. To properly appreciate it, one should recall feelings and hopes before independence was achieved. All our miseries and all our misfortunes were laid at the door of "Foreign Rule," and it was thought that with the end of that rule, the millennium shall dawn. This feeling was shared by Hindus and Muslims alike. The Declaration of Independence of both, was signalised by mass scale slaughter and repine. The most precious possessions in this world were lost ; the honour of female was destroyed and the house was burnt. It is a cry from an agonised heart against the iniquity of his fellow‑beings. All fond hopes were dashed to places. It is not imaginary ; it is a hard fact Pathom the innermost sentiments of a men from the East Punjab, whose woman‑folk have been dishonoured and detained, whose house was reduced to ashes and whose green fields were gone for ever. In his agony he cries out. We were told that there was a golden age before the advent of the British ; that the British Rule was an evil, but what age have we all decended upon ?" In the preface to the poem the editor enquires "to what extent have we discharged our responsibilities ?" It is simply an incentive to action and not a massage of despair. The Government of the day does not figure in the picture. The Government was not responsible for what has happened ; in fact, it happened before the Government itself was established, and that too in the other Dominion but still yesterday the people of the other Dominion were no other than our own friends and brethren. To what depths man has fallen ? The above discussion shows that none of the publications Contra vences clause (d) or (h) of section 4 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. I would, therefore, accept these petitions with costs and set aside the orders of forfeiture made under section 3 and section 7 of the Act. Cornelius, J.‑I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother Muhammad Sharif, and would like to add some observations of my own. These cases afford a further instance of a practice which was the subject of some criticism by learned counsel for the petitioner in the recent case of the "Naya Zamana" decided on the 10th June 1949, namely, that in specifying in the notices issued in this case, as required by the Press Act, the "words, signs or visible representations", to which excep tion was being taken by the Provincial Government, three whole articles were annexed to those notices, the first of which covers two pages the second one and a‑half pages, and the third no less than 11 pages of printed foolscap in the paper book. At the hearing of the case, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General was kind enough to mark out in each of these articles the particular passages which he considered were of the kinds referred to in the notices, namely (a) such as were calculated "to bring into hatred or contempt a class or section of His Majesty's subjects", and (b) such as were calculated "to promote feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects; these passages cover only eight lines in the first article, two lines in the second and about thirty‑five lines in the third article. Learned counsel for the petitioner immediately raised the contention that the notices issued by the Government were bad in law for failure to specify, as required by the provisions of the Press Act, "the words, signs or visible representations" which were regarded by the Provincial Government as possessing an noxious character in the relevant sense. It was remarked by this Court in the "Naya Zamana" that the law does not require the Provincial Government to take the prescribed action only in regard to matters which can reasonably be regarded as falling within the mischief of section 4 (1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, and consequently the possibility cannot be overlooked that every word in each one of these articles was regarded by the Provincial Government or at any rate appeared to the Provincial Government at the time when it issued the notices, as possessing the requisite character. One cannot fail, however, to remark that to assume this in favour of the Provincial Government necessarily connotes an absence of discrimination in the authority issuing the notice, as regards matter falling within the sub section and matter not possessing that character, for it is plain to the most ordinary intelligence that apart from the very short passages speci fied by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, there is nothing in the articles which can be regarded as offending under section 4 (1) of the aforesaid Act. The law of course has provided in section 23 (1), power to the High Court to decide as the final arbiter whether the specified matter does or does not fall within section 4 (1) of the Act and, there fore, the interests of the Subject are not entirely unprotected. Never theless, it is admissible to observe that having regard in particular to the extreme importance which properly attaches to the Press and publicity in general in modern administrative organization, it cannot be helpful to the Provincial Government that in a proceeding taken on its behalf under forms of law, involving severe penalties on persons con nected with the Press, it should appear so patently that the dis criminating mind has not been applied to the published matter in respect of which the action was taken, so as to separate that which was offensive and injurious from that which was innocuous. It is true that besides the short passages specified by the Assistant Advocate‑General, reference was necessary to a portion or portions of the remainder of each article in order to appreciate the full scope and intent of the specified passages, but even these formed but a small fraction of the articles and might easily have been specified separately. In addition to the three articles mentioned above, there was also a poem entitled "Aya Apna Raj," the substance of which has been re produced in the judgment of my learned brother Muhammad Sharif. For a proper appreciation of the poem and the object with which it was published. I think it is desirable to reproduce here, a free translation as well as the short preface added by the editor :‑ "What were our ideals when we were struggling for independence ? ‑Preface. After achieving independence, to what extent have these ideals been realised ? To what extent have we discharged our responsibilities ? These are the matters dealt with by the poet in a picturesque form. What he says is by way of an incitement to action, not an inducement to despair.‑Editor.

1. Daughter, the daughter of the whole village. Daughter, the honour of all.‑Poem Daughter has been sold to‑day for cowries in each and every village. Our rule has come.

2. Who were my relations till now ? Daughter, sister and mother ; While I was busy counting my relations, my honour was despoiled. Our rule has come.

3. Fields, palaces, double‑storied palaces, Everything has been reduced to ashes, The well‑to‑do world has become poor and needy. Our rule has come. 4. "This is an evil age ; that (a past age) was the age of truth." We were constantly remarking and to In what age have we now landed ? I am ashamed to give it a name. Our rule has come. I am in entire agreement with my learned brother Muhammad Sharif in thinking that in order properly to appreciate the word pictures in this poem, one must enter into the feelings of some inhabitant of the territory now known as East Punjab, who was driven from his home and obliged to seek refuge in West Punjab, immediately following the partition of the Punjab which coincided with the grant of independence to the new Dominions of India and Pakistan. No formal evidence is needed to prove that such persons, to the number of lacs, suffered in precisely the manner described in the poem. Their female relations were dishonoured before their eyes, their self‑respect and honour reduced to the dust ; they lost all their liberty and from being in comfortable circumstances were reduced to starvation and penury ; and all this was the immediate consequence of the grant of independence which for so long had been represented to them by their political leaders and others as being the only desirable end, which would bring in its wake peace and prosperity. 13y "Apna Raj," I can only understand "self government," or what was popularised some years ago as "Sawaraj," viz., freedom from Government by foreigners coupled with liberty to device and establish our own form of Government. The learned Assistant Advocate General attempt to argue that by "Apna Raj" was meant "the present Provincial Government," or "the present Central Government of Pakistan," but I am satisfied that no such meaning can be read into this expression and that it is in truth to be interpreted as meaning self Government or independence, as distinguished from government by the British which come to an‑end in August, 1947. The poem is a cry of deep disappointment, expressed in terms of the bitter anguish and sufferings which millions underwent immediately following the grant of the much‑heralded independence. If there be any doubt about its mean ings, that is completely dispelled by the Editor in his prefatorial note, asking the reader to remind himself of the hopes and ideals which inspired the fight for independence, and to compare them with the realities which have followed the grant of independence. Striking a note of challenge, the Editor asks the reader to search his heart and say whether he has faithfully carried the responsibilities of independence, and in closing, he adds that the poem must not induce despair in the reader but must act as a whip to action. Taken in this light, which I am convinced is the true aspect, this poem is completely innocuous in every respect in the relevant sense. Coming now to the articles, it will be convenient to deal first with the second of the three, in which only a single line was regarded as objectionable by learned counsel for the Crown. The article carries the heading "Story of infidelity of Kufis at Karbala," and the article itself contains a professedly factual account of the history of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.), and in particular of the circumstances under which he left Mecca for Kufa on his last journey, the treachery of the Kufis, the negotiation with the emissaries of the Caliph Yazid, and the messacre in which he finally lost his life. The article closes with the following paragraph :‑ "Karbala is one of those heart‑rending events in history, the memory of which always brings agony to good‑hearted persons. For the Muslims it is a contemptible memory of treachery and infidelty. How shameless were the Kufis who sent thousands of letters to Imam Hussain inviting him to come to them, and when he did come, they gave him no help so that he had to say: "Our Shias withdrew from me the hand of their support!" As the main charge in respect of these articles is that they are calculated to wound the feelings of the Shia sect amongst the Muslims, and by reference to certain age‑old controversies which nevertheless are maintained as living issue of doctrine to‑day, to exacerbate feelings between the Shias and the Sunnis, this reference to Shias might have been represented as derogatory to that sect, but it has been urged before us that here, the expressions "Shias" is not used with reference to the Shia sect as it is known to‑day, but in the true derivative sense of the word "Shin" which is Arabic means merely "sect." The remark attributed to Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.) can, therefore, only mean that his sectarians or supporters had failed. This, however, was not the sentence relied upon by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. The objectionable remark in this article, according to the Crown, is one appearing in the early part of the articles, which deals with a period of twenty years in the life of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.), which he spent living with his brother Hazrat Imam Hassan in Medina ; it was remarked with reference to them that during this period:- "They used to receive lacs of rupees as stipend and spent their lives in comfort and happiness." It was suggested on behalf of the Crown that these words were used to give the impression that they gave themselves up to self‑indulgence and luxury. Heading the articles as a whole, it seems quite clear that no such intention lies behind these words, but on the other hand, the writer wished to emphasize the extent of the sacrifice made by Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.) when, in response to the eager invitation of the Kufis, he gave up his comfortable life at Medina and took the road which finally led through extreme hardship to martyrdom. Thus, nothing in the second article can be said to fall within the mischief of section 4 (1) of the Press Act. The first article is entitled "Muharram and Mussalmans," and may be paraphrased as under. Speaking to Muslims in general, the writer reminds them that the first month of the Islamic year, namely, Muharram has started, and remarks that while other nations celebrate the advent of their new year enthusiastically looking forward to a whole year of joy, the Muslims through ignorance spend Muharram, which should be a month of action, as a month of mourning Certain Muslims wear black clothes rend their garments and wound their breasts, in commemoration of the martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.). (The reference is clearly to Shias, though they are not named). In contrast with the pump and show with which the martyrdom of Hazrat Ismail is celebrated in the month of Zilhaj, Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.)'s martyrdom, which teaches the same lesson, viz., preparedness, to lay down one's life in the way of God, is commemorated in month of Muharram by mourning and by practices savouring of polytheism. One of these is taziadari, i.e., the making of highly ornamented frames of bamboo sticks or wooden salts in the shape towers (We were told at the hearing, that this was not confined to Shias but was practised also by members of other Muslim sects and even sometimes by non‑Muslims). These structures are treated till the tenth day of Muharram as if they were sacred, and thousands of ignorant persons make vows and offerings before them and scatter flowers on them. Another such practice is zul jinnah described in these words :‑ "On the 9th and 10th days people station a horse before the tazia and begin to cry and indulge in self beating." We were informed at the hearing that this is done exclusively by Shias in commemoration of the noble behaviour of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.) at the battle of Karbala. Such practices are poor commemoration of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.)'s martyrdom ; the extravagant display of emotion inculcates cowardice and the veneration of tazia and horse is idolatry in a worse form then the worship of idle respectably housed in a temple, for after the festival, the tazias are left to rot, and the horse is employed once again as a beast of burden. And the mourning is out of place, for the faithful believe that Hazrat Imam Hussain is alive and happy with God and besides it wrongly gives to the word the impression that the Muslims begin their year with sorrowing, and continue to mourn the whole year round. Taziadari has been abolished even in Iran which is the home of the Shia sect; there the Government celebrates Muharram Day with displays of military drill and demonstra tions of courage and intrepidity. In conclusion, the writer calls upon Muslims of Pakistan to adopt the Iranian method of celebrating Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.)'s martyrdom, whose object was quite the opposite of those served by taziadari. They should prepare to oppose the present day "Yazidizm" even to the sacrifice of their lives, and remember that the Holly Quran forbids that one who has been slain in the way of Allah should be spoken of as if he‑were dead. The contention raised by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General is that by imputting idolatry and superstition to persons who practise taziadari and zuljinnah, the majority of whom are Shias, the article tends "to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different clases of His Majesty's subjects "as well as" to bring into contempt a class of His Majesty's subjects," namely, the Shias. We are required to estimate in this case the effect upon the minds of devotes of a particular faith of a writing which characterizes practices of long standing which are dear to them, and which they hold in veneration, as idolatry and superstition, and at the same time to Judge the opinion regarding such persons, created by such characterization, in the minds of believers in a different doctrine. It is by no means as easy task and is made no easier by the consideration that differences in religious beliefs have in the history of the world been productive of the most violent conflicts and hatreds known to man. Yet, for the evalua tion of an article such as that before us in the light of the controls placed upon publications of this kind by the Press Act, certain principles are available, whose application is by no means difficult. Our task is made the easier by the consideration and it is of the effect upon such sensibilities as possessed by the sect whose practices are discussed in the article and as displayed by the opposite sect, that we have to judge. The discussion of disputed matters of religious doctrine in the news papers is not regulated by law, except to the extent that such discussion may give rise to one or other of the effects specified in section 4 (1) of the Press Act. The article will come within the mischief if it tends to arouse feelings of enmity or hatred or contempt. Much of these feelings is in the nature of an emotion. If the article is expressed in emotional terms, there will prima facie be as tendency in it, to arouse emotions in the minds of its readers, but on the other hand, if the appeal be to the head, rather than to the heart, if reason and not the emotions be exercise or invoked, the presumption will be 'to the contrary, namely, that no emotions are likely to be aroused. If at the same time the agreement be of a careful nature and although persuasively yet inoffensively expressed it will be difficult to regard it as being either intended or calculated to give arise to such violent feelings as are meant by the expressions enmity" "hatred" and "contempt". Any form of more dislike is not enmity ; the feeling must be gone of hostility antagonism and ill‑will. Similarly, hatred is must stronger than mere opposition ; it means aversion carried to the point at which there is a desire to injure or destroy the object of the emotion, and contempt meats more than regarding the object as inferior ; it involves an opinion that the object is of a vile, despicable or worthless character. To arouse feelings of this kind by a writing it is necessary to write provocatively, employing the arts of emphasis, exaggeration, and misrepresentation so as to exclude all possibility of the action criticised being excused on any such innocent ground as mistake or misconception. The language commonly is employed immoderate, touching if it does not exceed, the boundary between fair criticism and abuse, and the appeal is rarely to the intellect by the processes of ratiocination, but almost always to ignorance and prejudice. Incitement to such violence of thought may of course be prefaced by learned discourse or morals or theology, accompanied by reasoned analysis, but unless the incitement is perceptible in there writing, there can be no conclusion to that effect merely because the argument results in show ing that in some respect, the activity under discussion is ill‑advised or misguided. Applying these principles, can it be said that the present article exceeds the limits by section 4 (1) of the Press Act ? To me it seems to deal with a sacred subject with a high degree of reference, and in language which is throughout the language of sobriety. There is no vituperation or invactive ; there is nothing in the nature of more abuse. There is an attempt to analyse the meaning and the purpose of the martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.) for the guidance of faithfull Muslims, and in the light of the conclusions drawn from this analysis on the basis of reason, an opinion is expressed regarding the practices of taziadari and zuljinnah. That opinion too is stated in guarded language, and I cannot see anything in the words employed, that can have the effect of inducing persons who do not follow these practices to regard those who do with enmity, hatred or contempt in the full sense of those words. It is true that the practices are characterized as idolatry and superstition but that conclusion is reached after a close and thoughtful analysis of fundamental facts relating to the incidents which those practices are intended to commemorate ; there is a reasoned argument behind it, and the language employed does not provoke the reader to violence, even of thought, for the appeal is to the intellect, and at the worst, the conclusion is that the followers of these practices misguide themselves. To induce a person to believe that another is misguided in what he does, does not ordinarily incite the first named person to hate or despise the other or regard him as an enemy, and here no words are employed from which such an effect can be deduced. In my opinion, the co‑ercive processes of the Press Act are not in tended to check, far less to prohibit the expression of view of this kind notwithstanding that they may be contrary to the cherished beliefs of a section of the population, provided that they are written with full consciousness of the delicate nature of the subject which is being treated. The language here employed, while it expresses the writer's opinion clearly, avoid giving offence by defaming the section of the population to whose practices the article principally refers, or by any appeal to the violent emotions of enmity, hatred or contempt as aid to emphasis ing his point. I now proceed to examine the third article, which is by far the largest of the three. Although the marked passages in this article are comparatively short, it is necessary to attempt a paraphrase of the entire article, in order that the writer's intention, and the value of the expres sions he has employed should be properly appreciated. It is a learned 'and carefully reasoned thesis of which the burden is that in the light of modern reason and democratic conceptions, the theory of Divine right as the justification of religious hegemony is unsound and leads to pernicious results. The writer's particular object is to demonstrate that the belief that there is an inherent right to leadership in Islam vesting in the descendants of the Holy Prophet(P.B.U.H.), is unsustainable. The article opens with the question whether the observances of Muharram are to be explained by any belief in the "kingship of the Ahl‑i‑Bet", i.e., the family of the Holy Prophet(P.B.U.H). The writer immediately proceeds to lay down certain principles which he asserts are the sole and final proofs of the truth of any revealed religion, and of Islam in particular. Put briefly, these requisities are that the religion should carry a message of peace and prosperity for the common man, besides furnishing a programme for his social, political mental and moral betterment ; it should safeguard the legitimate rights of man ; it should not deny the valid and legitimate demands of any group or class in the community and its fundamental doctrines should not be opposed to sound reason and common sense. Such of these propositions is then canvassed a great length, and after declaring that his approach to the subject is not dialectical but is based on simple common sense, the writer proceeds to draw certain logical consequences following from belief in the Divine Khilafat of Hazrat Ali(A.S.)(A.S.). These are briefly that Khilafat and Imamat being reserved to Hazrat Ali(A.S.) and his family alone the succession must follow the same rule of legiti macy as in an absolute monarchy, and no other Muslim, however, virtuous, pious or intelligent he might be, could aspire to the Khilafat, even if the entire world became Muslim, but the whole Muslim world be bound to remain under the perpetual hegemony of the descendants of Hazrat Ali(A.S.) and must till eternity make submission to them. Applying the tests already devised by the writer, the conclusions he draws are that the Muslim world would then pass under despotic Government, and under the guise of legitimacy racial discrimination would arise. Despotism, whether that of an autocratic ruler or that of a dictator, was undesirable, and so was racial discrimination. And the writer declares that this will be contrary to Islam. He then proceeds to illustrate his argument by reference to two Shia sects, namely, the Khojas and the Bohras, and the passages in the article which the learned Assistant Advocate‑General regarded as objectionable are those embodying these instances. They may with advantage be reproduced at length :‑ "Why go far ? Look at those sects in the Indian sub‑continent, who accept Divine right, and judge, for yourself how the Muslims of the world would fare if they were all similarly placed. "You have heard of His Highness as the Agha Khan. He is Imam of the Khoja section of the Shias and has a direct lineal connection with Hazrat Ali(A.S.). The Khoja section believe that he as God's vicegerent is the Chief and Master of all Muslims, both religious and secular, and that after him, his son, Prince Ali Khan would be the Leader and Chief. This is the precise belief that we are dis cussing. What is its result ? "Who does not know of the kind of life that the Agha Khan and his son lead % They live in the beautiful pleasure resorts of Europe. Their wives do not observe purdah. They spend crores of rupees every year on races. Horses are bought for as much as a lac of rupees each. There is no luxury which they do not enjoy. Despite this, the Khoja community, one and all, are their slaves by mental conviction. The water they bathe with is collected and administer ed to the sick as a remedy. And why not, for Nur‑i‑Muhammadi has passed into them from father to son ? The water in which their feet are washed is drunk. The dust under their feet is believed to have curative powers. Many of the things that are done in this connection are hardly credible. "Leaving aside the Agha Khan, you may visit, if in Bombay, the gorgeous place of audience of Sayyedina Pir Saif‑ud‑Din Tahir, Although he does not claim descent from Hazrat Ali(A.S.), he is yet the spiritual and secular head of the Bohra community by virtue of his Divine Imamat. Every Bohra pays him an annual tax, and there are other taxes for special occasions, such as Aqiqah, circumcision, marriage and death, the accumulation of which amounts to several crores of rupees. The Hazur Sayyedina lives in a grand house, has several motor cars, keeps a lavish table and also travels first class or perhaps a special saloon. Wherever he goes, the people actually touch his feet, and praise be to Allah, he has four wives also, as allowed by Muhammadan Law, perhaps he has some slave girls too". The writer goes on to say that if the doctrine of the Divine Caliphate was generally accepted, the state of which Muslim world would have been the same as that of the Bohras and Khojas, and observes that even among the latter the educated section openly express their disgust at the existing state of affairs and a section of the Bohras is in open revolt against the Hazur Sayyedina who has ex‑communicated them. A further result of the belief in the Divine Khilafat will tie strophy of the mental and physical faculties of men, a destruction of human liberties of speech and action, perpetuation of discrimination between man and man and a setting up of false goods. Protecting his sincerity in all what he says, the writer then proceeds to quote, from the traditions, the sayings of Hazrat Ali(A.S.) having a bearing on the subject of the discussion, and concludes that Hazrat Ali(A.S.) himself never claimed any Divine Imamat for himself. Referring then to the history of the times in which the controversy con cerning the succession of Hazrat Ali(A.S.) and his descendants to the Caliphate first arose, the writes declares that the question was really a political one. Rival factions making the conflict for power centre round belief in the Divine Khilafat. Further references to the early writings here follow, which are characterized as the product of partizan politicians and the article concludes with quotations from two modern writers to the effect that the doctrine of Divine Imamat is a mere political difference of a minor kind, on the basis of which the writer declares that with the establishment of Pakistan it is the duty of Muslims to bury these old conflicts, and rising above accidentals and mere practices to keep their eyes on the true lessons of the martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain(A.S.)(A.S.), and the war between Hazrat Ali(A.S.) and the Caliph Muawia. It is manifest that in this article also, the appeal is throughout to the intellect the argument is based on rationalistic and logical principles; the language employed is chaste and sober, befitting the subject ; nothing is said which is calculated to arouse the emotions in any direction, and there is no incitement of any kind to violence in thought or practice. The article is replete with references to historical facts and quotations from the traditions acid from learned writers, and is in itself a composition of no small merit regarded as a literary essay in historical theology. It is axiomatic that for the purposes of appreciating whether or not a particular piece of writing falls within the mischief of any of the prohibitions enumerated in section 4 (1) of the Press Act, it is necessary that the article should be read as a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit, not concentrating on isolated passages or words, but endeavouring to grasp the theme and intention of the writer from the words he has employed, attempting to estimate at the same time the effect of those words, and the manner of their employment, upon the mind of the average reader. Viewed in this light, I think it may be said without hesitation that the intention of the present article is to contend and maintain by argument that the doctrine of the Divine Khilafat vesting in the descendants of the Holy Prophet(P.B.U.H.) through Hazrat Ali(A.S.) conflicts with rationalistic and modern democratic views and is likely to lead to deleterious results, some of which appear in the instances cited. Even these instances, although they relate to actual sects, which are represented in Pakistan albeit probably in far less numerical strength than in the Province of Bombay in the Dominion of India, are couched in language from which the average reader, even supposing that he be unsympathetically inclined towards Shias, would not draw any con clusion worse than that the followers of the Agha Khan and Sayyedina Pir Saif‑ud‑Din Tahir are misguided, and that their practices savour of idolatry and superstition. If a person contends regarding the practices of a section of the population, and maintains by reasoned argument, that they involve ido latry and superstition, does he necessary invite persons who do not follow these practices to regard those who do, with enmity or hatred or contempt ? There have of course been states of civilization and there still are great countries, in which idolatry and superstition, in the derogatory sense in which they are here used, were and are common practices of the religious life of the people. In such a country or civilization, such a charge could of course never produce antagonism of the kind mentioned above, except perhaps against the writer of the article. We must assume a general belief in the population that Divine or supernatural attributes cannot belong to any concrete thing, whether animate or inanimate, if there is to be any sting in such a statement at all. I have before me an article written by the well known writer Aldous Huxley entitled "Modern Fetishiam" (The Olive Tree, Chatto and Windus, 1936)‑. The writer refers to the. projected purchase in 1933 by the British Government of the Codex Sinaitious, an early manuscript of the Bible, for a sum of a hundred thousand pounds. He is opposed to the purchase and after kiting the views of Government supporters to the effect that the expenditure related to the duty of ''watching over the intellectual needs as well as the material needs of the nation" and would be properly spent on the people's "minds and souls", he observes as follows :‑ "But the money spent on the Codex Sinaitious is not money spent on 'minds and souls'; it is money spent on a ralic a mere feitieo (charm). And the Government which helps to purchase such feiticos is not 'watching over the intellectual interests of the nation; it is indulging, at the tax‑payer's expense, in a costly gesture of superstition and idolatry". Then follows an argument, commencing with the proposition that spiritual values fall into three categories, viz., the Good, the True and the Beautiful; and maintaining that the Codex does not fall in any of these categories, he concludes that, having no value either by its beauty or its truth, and but little power to propagate the good, it possessed on the contrary "power to propagate a habit of stupid and irrational idolatry". He proceeds further to criticise the Government whose busi ness it is, in words "to encourage all manifestations of the Good, the True and the Beautiful" for spending the tax‑payer's money on a fetish "for idolatry and mere bibliophily" supposing that the restrictions of the Press Act were applicable in relation to this article could it be said that by asserting, with reference to the proposed purchase of the Codex Sinaitious, that the Government was propagating idolatry and superstition, when its duty was to encourage "the Good, the True and the Beautiful". The writer was bringing the Government established by law into contempt or hatred? The answer must be clearly in the negative. "The writer is presenting a point of view, in forthright language, but throughout on the basis of reasoned argument, and with out saying which is likely to arouse in the reader feelings of hatred or contempt, in the full sense of those terms. If bona fide criticism of public activities by men of learning or wisdom or analytical power above the ordinary, be not permitted, how can there be any assurance that evils such as idolatry and superstition which are universally held in reprobation in countries such as England and Pakistan, will be rigorously suppressed in every walk of public life? The tendency to attribute magical powers to objects, both animate, which is the foundation of idolatry, is very deep‑rooted in human beings, and can be traced back to the earliest times of which anything is known, and it is apt to find expression in the practices of the people, even in these modern times, if not held in check. In the present article relating to the Divine Khilafat, the implication of idolatry and superstition is made with respect to the practices of certain sections of the Shia community; those sections may resent the suggestion, but there can be no doubt that it made bona fide for the public good and as it is plainly neither intended nor calculated as bring those sections into hatred or contempt, or to excite enmity towards them, the restrictive powers of the Press Act appear not to be properly attracted in respect of this article as well. A. Muhammad Jan, J.‑Agree with my learned brothers that the articles and the poem complained of in this case do not offend against the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. The petition must, therefore, be accepted, and I consider it a fit case to award costs to the petitioner. A.H. Petition accepted.