A look at the Munir report

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

In the wake of the 1950’s attacks against Ahmadis the government at the time constituted a commission under justice Munir..it remains a fascinating read on how difficult it is for the ulema to agree on anything.

Daily Jang: Urdu News - Latest Breaking News update Pakistan - jang.com.pk

When the state was

Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954, to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953, also called Munir Report, carried an incisive analysis of the Ulema’s concept of the Islamic State and of a Muslim. Justice Muhammad Munir as president and Justice Kayani as member were appointed to investigate the causes of the trouble. The report concluded that the concept of a Muslim differed for different sects and if the fatwas of the Ulema were relied upon to determine whether an individual is Muslim or Kafir, then no sect could be called Muslim because of the lack of a single, coherent and unanimous definition of a Muslim and an Islamic State. Below are excerpts from this historic document:

An Islamic State

…The Quaid-i-Azam’s conception of a modern national State, it is alleged, became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949; but it has been freely admitted that this Resolution, though g*****loquent in words, phrases, and clauses, is nothing but a hoax, and that not only does it not contain even a semblance of the embryo of an Islamic State but its provisions, particularly those relating to fundamental rights, are directly opposed to the principles of an Islamic State…

The position of non-Muslims

…The ground on which the removal of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan and other Ahmadis occupying key positions in the State is demanded is that the Ahmadis are non-Muslims; and that therefore, like zimmies in an Islamic State, they are not eligible for appointment to higher offices in the State. This aspect of the demand has directly raised a question about the position of non Muslims in Pakistan if we are to have an Islamic Constitution…

This being the position, the State will have to devise some machinery by which the distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim may be determined and its consequences enforced. The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulema to give their definition of a Muslim…

The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be…

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir, Jama’at-i-Islami

"Q. Please define a Muslim.

A. A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).

Q. Is a mere profession of belief in these articles sufficient to entitle a man to call himself a Musalman and to be treated as a Musalman in an Islamic State?

A. Yes.

Q. If a person says that he believes in all these things, does anyone have a right to question the existence of his belief?

A. The five requisites that I have mentioned above are fundamental, and any alteration in any one of these articles will take him out of the pale of Islam."…

Apostasy

…Apostasy in an Islamic State is punishable with death…According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i- Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautifnl tree in the fatwa, Exhibit D. E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State…

The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims, and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death, if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge the consequences of this doctrine, when it is remembered that no two ulema have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim…

The death penalty for irtidad has implications of a far-reaching character, and stamps Islam as a religion of fanatics, which punishes all independent thinking. The Qur’an again and again lays emphasis on reason and thought, advises toleration, and preaches against compulsion in religious matters…

Reaction on Muslims of non-Muslim states

…The ideology on which an Islamic State is desired to be founded in Pakistan must have certain consequences for the Musalmans who are living in countries under non-Muslim sovereigns. We asked Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari whether a Muslim could be a faithful subject of a non-Muslim State, and reproduce his answer:

"Q. In your opinion is a Musalman bound to obey orders of a kafir Government?

A. It is not possible that a Musalman should be a faithful citizen of a non-Muslim Government.

Q. Will it be possible for the four crore of Indian Muslims to be faithful citizens of their State?

A. No."…

The answer is quite consistent with the ideology which has been pressed before us, but then if Pakistan is entitled to base its Constitution on religion, the same right must be conceded to other countries where Musalmans are in substantial minorities, or if they constitute a preponderating majority in a country where sovereignty rests with a. non-Muslim community. We therefore asked the various ulama whether, if non-Muslims in Pakistan were to be subjected to this discrimination in matters of citizenship, the ulama would have any objection to Muslims in other countries being subjected to a similar discrimination…

We have dwelt at some length on the subject of Islamic State not because we intended to write a thesis against or in favour of such State, but merely with a view to presenting a clear picture of the numerous possibilities that may in future arise if the true causes of the ideological confusion which contributed to the spread and intensity of the [recent anti-Ahmadi] disturbances are not precisely located.

Compiled by Minahil Zafar

2

Good read Zakk.. But whats the point of such reports, when the conclusion actually had no bearing on how events actually transpired.

3

It is actually this attitude which in result have created this hate against Ahmadies/Qadyanies.. thread after thread on same community/religion and same discussions...

I mean yes the Attack on Ahmadi/Qadyani worship place is act of terrorism and my sympathies are with the families who have lost their loved ones... and yes the govt has to do its best to bring these terrorist down.. doesn't matter if it takes to throw the relatives and take-over the wealth/properties of the families associated to these terrorists...

However, it does not allow following

1) Right to act as victim, whole Pakistan is under-attack, no one is spared, so saying that this lone incident is against any community/minority is just baseless

2) Qadyanies/Ahmadies have been declared non-muslims and this declaration is not in result of likes and dislikes of any person and/or group it is based on the very religious believes of the Ahmadies/Qadyanies... As a matter of fact, Qadyanies/Ahmadies Consider non-Ahmadies Kafir.... So the changing constitution in wake of these attacks, does not make any sense, Qadyanies/Ahmadies do enjoy certain privileges under the same constitution and let me inform the mis-informed that the 95% of the Pakistani Population are deprived of their basic human rights and this is without any discrimination

3) Right to preach their religion and try to prove that they are muslims...

Hundred of thousands people have been directly affected from the terrorism and thousands have been affected by the natural disasters... people of Pakistan has so far helped the IDPs and they are committed to do so ( Govt. Does not included when i say people of Pakistan) but not at the cost of their religion and believes...

If Qadyani/Ahmadies have changed their stance and say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadyan is not Prophet nor does he is Massiah of kind, and they never had this belief and they are victim of propaganda of certain cult of Islam and have been wrongly accused of such belief then yes they have the case, otherwise, no matter what they say... they are non-muslim...

4

Well said!
Do not waste ur time with "victims" like Med911. There have been a plenty of attacks in lahore and many other people from all different communities have been killed! Nobody in their right mind will not condemn this barbaric attack on their places of worship(just like there was one on a lahore mosque where many sunnis got killed). No need to drag the entire nation and constitution in to this. Hell, the people who did this probably dont give a crap about constitution anyway!
Med911,
If u want to blame somebody blame the PML-N or blame the thugs with the gun, aka army. It is the arm/isi that kept this islamist going after the afghan war.

5

i think you're missing the point of the Munir report..its objective was to ascertain how the ulema defined who is a Muslim..the report concluded they couldn't agree.

6

Re: A look at the Munir report

Good work, .. and countless reports likes this on every problem state of Pakistan faces today.. are somewhere in dustbin.. !

7

Who gives a fiddlers fart about who is the Mahdi and who is a nabi and blah blah blah...

At the end of the day, the issue is whether the GOVT has a right to be involved in relgious matters. And as Jinnah hmself said, religion is NOT the business of the state.

Religous matters are for the mosque. The govts job is to make sure people have access to basic needs, defense, etc. None of which they are very good at I should add.

8

And yet they went ahead with declaring Ahmadis Non Muslim? What kinda a knuckle head govt do we have!!?!?

9

They didn't but Qadyani did and declared everyone who do not believe on the prophet-hood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadyan is Kafir...

and as far as reports are concerned, there are tons of reports on every problem and its solution none of them is implemented.. so again no discrimination at all

10

The State of Pakistan didn't declared them anything until it was called for and that is by themselves... if you want to know how and why, please google it, there are plenty of websites and articles giving the details of the prosecution...

11

When was this?

12

Can you further explain this part? Called for? By who? The Islamic Parties. I thought the State governed everyone, I thought the State was obligated to protect everyone, not just the majority????

What does that have to do with the argument that the State shouldn't have the right to decide matters of religion?

Prosecution or Persecution, there is a difference you know.

13

Please google it, i am sure there is plenty stuff on this issue you'll know that why it happened in 70s...

14

Re: A look at the Munir report

i read bits of the document recently... and it really is brilliant reading. pages 203 - 234 especially.

should be required reading for college students.

15

some interesting answers of Ulema-e-Ummat. (Excerpts from Munir report ). "bila tabsara"

[QUOTE]

The confusion on this point in the mind of Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, is apparent from the following: —

“Q.—Have you ever read the aforesaid speech (the speech of the Quaid-i-Azam to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947)?
A.—Yes, I have read that speech.
Q.—Do you still agree with the conception of Pakistan that the Quaid-i-Azam presented to the Constituent Assembly in this speech in which he said that thereafter there would be only one Pakistan nation, consisting of Muslims and non-Muslims, having equal civic rights, without any distinction of race, religion or creed and that religion would be merely a private affair of the individual ?
A.—I accept the principle that all communities, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, should have, according to their population, proper representation in the administration of the State and legislation, except that non-Muslims cannot be taken in the army or the judiciary or be appointed as Ministers or to other posts involving the reposing of confidence.
Q.—Are you suggesting that the position of non-Muslims would be that of zimmies or any better ?
A.—No. By zimmies are meant non-Muslim people of lands which have been conquered by an Islamic State, and the word is not applicable to non-Muslim minorities already living in an Islamic State. Such minorities are called mu’ahids, i.e. those people with whom some agreement has been made.
Q.—What will be their status if there is no agreement with them ?
A.—In that case such communities cannot have any rights of citizenship.
Q.—Will the non-Muslim communities inhabiting Pakistan be called by you as mu’ahids?
A.—No, not in the absence of an agreement with them. To my knowledge there is no such agreement with such communities in Pakistan.”

So, according to the evidence of this learned divine, the non-Muslims of Pakistan will neither be citizens nor will they have the status of zimmies or of mu’ahids.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir :—

“Q.—Do you want an Islamic State in Pakistan?
A.—Surely.
Q.—What will be your reaction if the neighbouring country was to found their political system on their own religion?
A.—They can do it if they like.
Q.—Do you admit for them the right to declare that all Muslims in India, are shudras and malishes with no civil rights whatsoever?
A.—We will do our best to see that before they do it their political sovereignty is gone. We are too strong for India. We will be strong enough to prevent India from doing this.
Q.—Is it a part of the religious obligations of Muslims to preach their religion?
A—Yes.
Q.—Is it a part of the duty of Muslims in India publicly to preach their religion?
A.—They should have that right.
Q.—What if the Indian State is founded on a religious basis and the right to preach religion is disallowed to its Muslim nationals?
A —If India makes any such law, believer in the Expansionist movement as I am, I will march on India and conquer her.”

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan :—

“Q.—What will be the duty of Muslims in India in case of war between India and Pakistan?
A.—Their duty is obvious, namely, to side with us and not to fight against us on behalf of India.”

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi : —

“Q.—What will be the duty of the Muslims in India in case of war between India and Pakistan?
A.—Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

[/QUOTE]

16

Re: A look at the Munir report

The prelude to the Munir report has an interesting parallel to now..the Punjab Chief minister Daultana during an election period allowed anti Ahmadi sentiment to be used as an election tool against his opponents in the central gvernment and in Punjab. For a in depth analysis of the prelude and the Munir report read this The Vangaurd of the Islamic Revolution "s1.6.15"

17

Re: A look at the Munir report

hi

18

Re: A look at the Munir report

Munir Report is the most significant document in Pakistan’s history. It establishes the roots of Anti-Ahmaddiya movement in the erstwhile anti-Pakistan forces amongst the Muslim clergy who now used the age-old dispute to weaken the new state. It also exposes shameless opportunists like Daultana- a feudal politician with otherwise a largely secular and left-leaning world view (a Punjabi forerunner of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and a Punjab Leaguer- who encouraged the Ulema to strengthen his own position and then even had the audacity to suggest that it was happening because of Ahmadis’ attitude and because Pakistan had a vague religious basis for creation which gave too much power to the Mullahs. The last statement is significant, however. There was nothing vague about what Jinnah said on 11th August or repeatedly about the principle of equal citizenship… but the Muslim League leaders subsequently (including Sir Zafrulla himself) did deliberately create the vague religious basis legally when they passed the Objectives Resolution. However Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly had also passed a resolution promising equal citizenship without any bar and the right to profess and propagate one’s religion without any fear. And there was nothing vague about Nehru-Liaqat Pact between India and Pakistan, wherein, largely on Pakistan’s suggestion, the same principle was embodied. The Munir Report’s statement that “a party even of the background of Ahrar could bring down a government in the name of religion in Pakistan” … shows how urgent it was for Pakistan to be declared a secular state.

19

Re: A look at the Munir report

Pakistan ka mutlub kia? La Ila Ha Illallah

Pakistan is a Muslim country, not a secular state - and Pakistanis WANT it that way. That's the REASON Pakistan was CREATED.

Therefore, the Munir report does not apply - as it is presenting the recipe for SECULAR Pakistan - and we DON'T want that.

20

plz speak for yourself.. many of us want a secular pakistan..

by the way pakisatn doesn't mean La illaha illalah, it means "land of the pure".. go luk up a dictionary if u don't believe me.. also, those words wid caps lock are very annoying.. we get u even without caps lock..