Mullah Ka Tasawar-e-Pakistan


Courtesy Aaj Kal


Filed under Pakistan

44 responses to “Mullah Ka Tasawar-e-Pakistan

  1. YLH

    I hope our friends who can’t read Urdu don’t mind but we need to take the battle to the language of the rabble rousers.

  2. Majumdar

    I hope one of you will do us the favour of translating. We will certainly be interested in what this is all about.


  3. YLH

    Well I am not very good with translations …but I’ll try and get to it sometime over the weekend.

    Gist: it recalls the individual stances of the Ulema including Maududi etc in front of Justices Kayani and Munir…

  4. Majumdar

    Well, personally I think a most appropriate rebuttal to the mullahs can only come in thaith Punjoo.


  5. Milind Kher

    Once the translation is through, I believe that there will be a very interesting discussion.

    However, some elementary knowledge that I have about this issue is that Honorable Justice Munir and Justice Kayani prepared a 350 page indictment of Maududi and gang, flowing from the Ahmedia imbroglio et al.

    I believe that they had WARNED against the institution of Islamic Shariah in Pakistan because there wasn’t even any consensus on the DEFINITION of a Muslim.

    Shiahs were declared as kafirs (infidels) and murtads (apostates) by the Deoband seminary.

    And as per mullah definitions, if one school were to be accepted as Muslims, that automatically excluded the other school!

    The tragedy is that the death sentence against Maududi was never carried out.

    Modern day Pakistan is still suffering..

  6. @yasser Majumdar and Milind
    Justice Munir Report is available in PDF format on net…I have found it and have it in my PC….I will chk out the link or mail me on
    will send U all….and will request Yasser to publish it on PTH….though it is long so in do it in parts

  7. Milind Kher


    Will look forward to it. I am sure it will make interesting reading

  8. AZW


    Munir-Kiyani Report is huge. It runs to more than 370 pages and the first 150 or so pages go into the details about the activities of Ahrar and the Islamic parties right after the independence and leading up to the 1953 riots.

    I think a better option is to publish the interviews that the two justices conducted with the religious leaders of the Ahrar, Jamaat Islami and the Deobandi, Barelvi, and the various Maulanas belonging to other sects. These interviews appear approximately between pages 200-230, and jolt us straight into the confusing ideas that the religious right had (and still harbour) about the state of Pakistan. Not only the religious right seemed to have no vision to how an Islamic state should be in 1953, their ideas about the state of Non Muslims in an Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as well as their ideas about armed Jihad (where an Islamic state will be in a perpetual state of conflict against infidels (Dar-ul-Harb)) gave us ample clues how Pakistan would become an extremely volatile nation as Jihad entered the national consciousness some thirty years after the publication of this report.

    I have the full report in the pdf format and will try to synthesize those interviews in a form of a write up this weekend.


  9. mazbut

    Regardless of what the Mullah’s say the minorities are enjoying the same rights as others (Muslims) in Pakistan…..except those excepted in the Constituion of 1973.
    What is the fuss about then??

  10. I had the chance of reading “From Jinnah to Zia” by Justice Muhammad Munir while I was still in school and I cannot agree more with the author of the above column on the fact that the Munir report (or excerpts of it) should be made available in College/University/High Level syllabus.

    I strongly believe that the Mullah is still stuck in the so called ‘golden era’ of Islam. The terms like dhimmi, mu’ahid etc. require re-interpretation in this time and age. The rules relating to these terms were setup when Islam had political power over a large swathe of land. Times have changed now and we need to re-think how to tackle today’s issues rather than import old thinking and try to impose it on the general population.
    Islam is a dynamic faith, which treats people as humans first rather than Christians, Qadiyanis, Hindus, or Jews. This is where we need to start. I think that we can start by having the following as the first line of our Constitution :
    All Pakistanis are equal in the eyes of the State irrespective of their faith, caste, creed, or ethnic background

    Just my 2 cents!

  11. mazbut

    Islam does envisage human rights for all yet it expects to perform in its own parameters as ordained by the holy Quran. Islam cannot be made into a hotch potch of religious beliefs…Islam is a code of life and in an Islamic state it prevails above everything!
    It’s a pity that Muslims forget this aspect of Islam and tend to rely on Mullahs even for simpler interpretations of Quranic injuntions and commands.

  12. Ummi

    Who says Jinnah was the secularist?. The biggest Mullah should be declared to Quaid-e-Azam who fought the case of Ghazi Ilm Deen Shaheed who attacked a Hindu because he abused the Prophet of Islam(saw).

    Self acclaimed Jinnah specialists like to throw up every time to prove him other wise.

    More can be read here:

  13. aliarqam

    Yup…I agree to U….There should be a debate over the extension of Mullah Ka Taswwar E Pakistan…and that part of Munr report dealing with the clergies Q & A’s will be useful….Am looking forward to be published here at PTH…No better place than here..

  14. mohammad

    Mulla is and was a part and parcel of our daily life. However a mulla with violent, intolerant, and isolationist idealogy came into prominance after partition. The mulla in question is deobandi, who is a minority but attracts western style educated people, the type of people on the top of the economic paradigm. These followers of mulla hold sway and important positions from military to industry. This mulla not only questions spirituality of masses but tolerance as well. To be honest deobandi mulla has it all , on one side is missionary wing in the form of tablighi jammat on other extreme violent outfits like TTP , sepah sahaba, jaish mohammad, lashkar jhangvi, lashkar taiba and on political front hypocrates like JUI and JI. To mrs clinton it may seem a syndicates of terrorist parties , but in reality they are the same followers of in fashion mulla. If this mulla has anything to do with M Ali Jinnah vision of pakistan, well we all know the answer.

  15. aliarqam

    Here is link to Munir report in pdf format….

    Click to access report_1953.pdf

  16. karun1

    @YLH and others.

    I just read the story of ‘gazi ilm deen’ on the net.

    This chap seems like a plain cold blooded murderer.

    Jinnah’s and Iqbal’s role looks very dubious and communal indeed.

    I hope there is a rebuttal for this.

    I am shaking my head in disbelief.

  17. AZW


    I would try to summarize it some time over the weekend. This is a very important subject, and I feel even summarizing the relevant portions of the report will require considerable time. Therefore bear with me if it doesn’t appear in the next few days.

    I wrote a four part series on PTH back in October about the vague relationship with Islam that Pakistan has maintained since its birth. Part 3 included healthy excerpts from the Munir-Kiyani Report. You may want to take a look at it in the meanwhile here:


    If you like to quote one off event (not really sure what your Ghazi Ilmuddin example says in your rambling comment), and quote selective history to build an opinion about Quaid, I would like to prescribe a few books for your reading to get a good idea of that personality. After you have read many of his speeches, correspondences, and actions spanning the decades of 1920s, 30s and 40s, we would be more than happy to hear your opinions. You may concur that plucking single example to generate sweeping statements seldom establishes your credibility. Try starting with Stanley Wolpert’s Jinnah of Pakistan, or maybe Dr. Ayesha Jalal’s “The Sole Spokesman”. KK Aziz wrote some good books on Partition of India. Trust me KK Aziz was quite an independent historian. I would humbly suggest that reading more about Jinnah introduces us to the complex political atmosphere that he operated on. We will find him talking about the basic principles of secularism in his speeches, his overt and explicit negation of theocracy and divine laws; yet we also find him speaking of Islamic principles at times assuring them that laws of Pakistan will not go against basic tenants of Islam.

    It is a fascinating study of seemingly contradictory statements that are hard to fathom until we review the entire message he gave us throughout the struggle for Pakistan and the one year after the birth of the country. Quaid may be blamed for giving mixed messages at times, but the gist of the message and the explicit negation about Pakistan not being a theocratic Sharia governed country remains quite vivid.

    Until then, all the best.


  18. karun1

    @Adnan still i will like a clarification from you of what you make of this ‘gazi ilm deen’ incident.

    i am still not able to make sense of the story and i do need to hear the other side of the story if there is any asap.

    The sinking feeling in my heart is growing steadily …..pls do enlighten and pls give your own personal interpretation if you have already wrestled with the issue.

  19. Bloody Civilian


    what is this role, from what you’ve read?

  20. karun1

    The case went to court and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was his defence lawyer. Jinnah urged Ilm Din to enter a plea of not guilty plea and to say that he had acted due to extreme provocation.

    Allama Iqbal carried the funeral bier along its final journey. As Iqbal placed the body of Ilm Din into the grave, he tearfully declared: “This uneducated young man has surpassed us, the educated ones.”

    The killing of Ilm Din had far-reaching repercussions. A provision was added to the Penal Code, making insult to the religious beliefs of any class an offense. Allama Iqbal’s proposal of a separate Muslim state in 1930 resulted in the creation of Pakistan in 1947. The Pakistan Penal Code makes it a crime for anyone who “by words or visible representation or by an imputation or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Muhammad”. In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing “defiling the Holy Qur’an” with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for “use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet” in keeping Islam’s hudood (prescribed punishments). Ilm Din’s legacy is still visible across Pakistan, where parks, hospitals and roads carry his name.

    I am not sure. is this all hogwash/propaganda?

  21. Farooq Khan

    Gist of above Urdu article:

    For the reason that in the eye of respected scholars only a Muslim is entitled to full civil rights (in Islamic state), therefore honourable judges individually asked the opinion of prominent scholars regarding the definition of ‘Muslim’. The scholars who were asked this question included:
    Syed Abu-al-aala Moudoodi Amir Jamaat Islami,
    Syed Abul-Hasnat Muhammad Ahmed Qadri, President Jamiat Ulma-e-Pakistan (Brelvi),
    Maulana Ahmed Ali, President Jamiat Jamiat Ulma-e-Islam West Pakistan (Deobandi),
    Ghazi Siraj-uddin Munir (Ahl-e-Hadeeth),
    Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia (Deobandi),
    Hafiz Kafayat Hussain, organization for the the protection of Shia rights (Shia),
    Maulana Abdul Hamid Badauni, President Jamiat Ulma-e-Pakistan (Brelvi),
    Maulana Muhammad Ali Kandhalvi, Dar Al Shahabia Sialkot (Tableeghi Jamaaat?),
    Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi (Founder of Jamaat Islami with Moudoodi but left him later)
    Honourable judges wrote about the answers:

    “if we deliberate on various definitions (of Muslim) provided by scholars then there is no need of any comment from our side except that no two scholars agree on this fundamental issue. If we make a definition of “Muslim’ by ourselves, just like every scholar has done, then they will all jointly declare us out of the circle of Islam. And if we adopt a definition of any single scholar then we will stay Muslim in the eye of that scholar but as per the definition of other scholars we will become Kafir.”

  22. Bloody Civilian

    Thanks Karun1

    jinnah was the brief.

    the alleged quote from iqbal does ring a bell. however when maulana muhammad ali jauhar and a couple of others were clamouring for insulting prophet muhammad to be exlpicitly included in the ‘blasphemy’ laws of 1927 (ie, inter alia, section 295A). both iqbal and abul kalaam azad thought it unnecessary (they directed their enquirers to think of how the prophet reacted to such abuse).

    ilmdin was sentenced to death and the high court – hearing the appeal – observed that it needed to make an example since the particular excuse for murder was especially dangerous. the lahore high court, after independence, specifically referred to and followed this precedent in the case of the first anti-qadiani movement murder case coming to the court, of a qadiani teacher by a young villager – who was an ex-pupil.

    the murderer had claimed that he had been incited by one of the speakers of the anti-qadiani movement he had listened to at a public meeting. ilmdin had heard about the book in a speech by the leader of the ahrar – ataullah shah bukhari (btw, it was his right-hand man mazhar ali azhar who coined the insult kafir-e-azam for jinnah). since you’ve been following the partition debate here at PTH.. like the JUH, ahrar were congress allies, actually goons, freely funded by the congress.

  23. YLH

    The Ilmdin myth and the facts:

    Ah mullahs and their stories. Ummi is an idiot who doesn’t know history. Ilmdin was my grandfather’s cousin and the record of the Ilmdin case is available for everyone to see in Lahore High Court.

    Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. He was the lawyer of the appeal at the high court level. Jinnah did not have to ask Ilmdin to enter a not guilty plea because Ilmdin had entered a Not Guilty plea from the trial court onwards.

    Jinnah argued first that Ilmdin was innocent. Once it was proved that he was not Jinnah’s argument was that he was riled up the Mullahs and was a young man of 19 or 20 and therefore should not be sentenced to death.

    The facts are:

    1. Ilmdin was an impressionable young man of questionable character (I know this because he was a relative of mine) who was riled up and was in any even under influence of Hashish.

    2. Ilmdin’s plea through out was that he was not guilty. He contested the trial on this basis and lost.

    3. Jinnah’s role as the lawyer in appeal was that he did not defend the action but tried to get the sentence mitigated on grounds of extreme provocation (which was caused the Mullah in the mosque).

    The blasphemy law debate should be revisited. Jinnah made some observations about the blasphemy law in even its mildest form – when 295 was introduced by the British government in 1927. In Jinnah’s view any such law should not be allowed to infringe on genuine criticism of religion. This famous statement in there on record on either 6th or 7th of September 1927 or 1928 debate on the Indian central legislative assembly floor. A man like that would have never approved of the blasphemy law in its current form.

    People like Ummi are crooks and liars. So are there are brothers from another mother ie Karun.

  24. YLH

    Also this bravado associated with Ilmdin of refusing to enter a not guilty plea is a lie.

    Not only did Ilmdin claim from day 1 that he didn’t do it- he even filed a Mercy Petition to the Rex Imperica King Emperor of India to pardon him.

    So much for Ilmdin the Ghazi and Shaheed.

  25. Milind Kher

    The mullahs always distort everything.

    A person who sacrificed all his time, money and energy to help the Holy Prophet (SAWA) and even put his life in danger for him is called a kafir.

    On the other hand, a person who steadfastly opposed the Holy Prophet (SAWA) and embraced Islam only when he saw the writing on the wall is hailed as a believer.

    Such are the beliefs that are propogated.

  26. YLH

    Ummi mian,

    Btw John Adams contested the case of British soldiers accused of the Boston massacre in 1770. I suppose that means that the man credited most with bringing about a consensus on the declaration of independence was a British loyalist…

    I have already given the real facts about the Ilmdin case as can be found in the Lahore High Court library as well as the Punjab Library.

    But would this open your little mind? I doubt it.

  27. mazbut


    I skimmed over the Ilmdin article but couldn’t find anything which proved that he was ‘brave’ enough to admit his crime through ‘plead guilty’. Ilmdin simply couldn’t bear the insult Rajpal hurled at the Holy Prophet and the Muslims in general and was emotionally aroused to take down his life. This reminds me of one of the American Presidents who had said that interference in religion could be disastrous for any state. (not the exact words, though)

    For Muslims, the best way to look up for the tenets of the holy Quran is the Quran itself. Those who are literate shouldn’t have difficulty in doing this. There is hardly any need to refer to Mullah’s or Justice Muneer’ report for assistance. Needless to say if any Muslim deviates from the basics of the faith of Islam as stipulated in the Quran and denies or alters them is but not a Muslim!

  28. YLH

    Mazhur mian,

    For the myth to hold that Jinnah convinced ilmdin to enter a not guilty plea, one would have to claim either that Ilmdin entered a guilty plea or that Jinnah was somehow the trial lawyer.

    Both of these statements are untrue. Ilmdin filed a not guilty plea at the trial court claiming that he was falsely accused.

    Secondly the significance of the fact that Jinnah was the counsel in appeal is probably lost on laymen. The appeal at high court is largely on the question of law and procedure…therefore Jinnah did not (and could not) ask Ilmdin to change his plea as is claimed.

    There is no doubt that Jinnah took the appeal because he was looking to (at the time as an Indian Nationalist) raise his stock amongst the Muslims of Punjab … but his defence was not of the action but to get the court to ultimately mitigate the death sentence.

  29. mazbut

    @YLHVakeel Sahib!

    I take your point….
    quite factual and logical indeed!

  30. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hi people… no this is not the translation I promised 🙂 but I spent the better part of the day reading the Munir Report spanning close to 400 pages of legal script on legal size paper… and I am amazed by the courage and the forthright manner in which the honorable judges carried themselves…. it is one of the most intellectually honest documents that I have come across….through detailed interviews they establish just how exactly the Mullah came to hijack Pakistan.

    The role of Majlis-e-Ahrar (truly the real grandfather organization of all Islamic Extremist Parties in the subcontinent and also of all anti-Shia and anti-Ahmadi agitation in Pakistan) is the most significant. This was a pre-partition body of Nationalist Muslims who had sided with the Congress throughout the independence movement and had been part of satyagraha (this is significant) … at the time they believed in secular nationalism and secular India… and in 1931 formed itself as a Indian Nationalist Muslim body , separate from the Congress, but always in support of it and in staunch opposition to the Muslim League. It started its anti-Ahmaddiya movement in 1933 … when it clashed with All India Kashmir Committee – a rival organization fighting against Dogra Rule in Kashmir. Besides Dr. Muhammad “Allama” Iqbal (who was till 1933 or so an Ahmadi and whose father and elder brother were staunch Ahmadis), the AIKC consisted of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud – the second caliph of Jamaat Ahmaddiya… the rivalry of these two organizations turned Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam against the Ahmadis altogether. (Ironically Bashiruddin Mahmud’s presidency of the said organization turned Dr. Iqbal against Ahmadis as well but that is another story)…

    Majlis-e-Ahrar is clearly the oddest Islamic movement in the subcontinent… it was for “secular” and “united India”, was extremely anti-Ahmadi and was also fighting for “Madh-e-Sahaba” (or the honor of Sahaba) against Shias while its president – another significant point- was a Shia Muslim by the name of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar. So it was an Indian Nationalist “Secularist” anti-Ahmadi, anti-Shia, anti-Jinnah Movement led by a Shia Alim!!!! Ironies never cease. I hope my Indian friends are taking note …. the Majlis-e-Ahrar was part and parcel of the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress and denounced the Muslim League for not taking part in it.

    Majlis-e-Ahrar’s greatest propaganda was against Mahomed Ali Jinnah … who they denounced as “Kafir-e-Azam”… Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar or Azhar Ali Mazhar…. wrote the famous couplet:

    “Ik Kafira kay peechay Islam ko chora,

    Yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai kay Kafir-e-Azam”

    Repeatedly Pakistan was described as “Palidistan”, “Kafiristan” and “Khakistan” by the Majlis-e-Ahrar.

    In 1946…. it’s candidates were soundly defeated by the Muslim League’s candidates. This is when Maulana Azhar Ali Mazhar said “Madhe Sahaba can be a weapon against the League” …. an obvious reference to Jinnah’s own background as a Khoja Shia Mahomedan.

    When the Muslim League launched its Direct Action especially in Punjab against the Unionist government, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam logically remained completely aloof from it (This is also very significant- I’ll come to it later… because Muslim League’s short sighted policy in Punjab also met its come-uppance) .

    The creation of Pakistan and partition of India in 1947 came as a complete shock to the Ahrar leadership. They went underground, resurfacd in May 1948, announced that they were disbanding as a political party and would continue as a religious group only. They also declared that in political matters they would take Muslim League’s lead but refused to join it on account of “unIslamic views” of Sir Zafrulla and Mian Iftikharuddin. In Pind Daddan Khan in 1949, they raised two significant demands:

    1. Ahmadis be declared Kafir.

    2. No Non-muslims should be allowed to hold positions in the new state’s government (Please note above that till 1947, the same group was advocating a United Secular India and was completely fine with Hindus or any other group ruling India….

    In 1949…. the same year Sahibzada FaizulHassan – another crook (who later hobnobbed with Ayub Khan) from the Majlis-e-Ahrar declared that:

    1. All women without Purdah- especially Raana Liaqat Ali Khan- were prostitutes.

    2. Muslim women were raped in East Punjab because Quaid-e-Azam wanted to be the governor general of Pakistan.

    By 1950, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam began to reinvent itself politically. Their objective was to gain state power…. for this purpose alone they formed Majlis-e-Amal (consisting of religious parties) …. which raised again the demand that

    1. Ahmadis be declared Non-Muslim

    2. Zafrullah being a Non-Muslim should be thrown out of the government.

    By 1953… they gave Khawaja Nazimuddin – the Prime Minister and the leader of the Muslim League- an ultimatum- either accept the demands or face civil disobedience i.e. “Raast-Iqdaam”… the plan for Raast Iqdam was modelled on the “Satyagraha” of the Quit India movement… with individuals offering themselves for arrest and so and so forth. But what is significant is the name “Raast Iqdam”… Raast Iqdam translates neatly into English as “Direct Action”… Muslim League was getting a taste of its own medicine and in this one stroke, Mullahs were about hijack the Pakistan idea… the same Mullahs who had not only stayed away from the League’s Direct Action but had opposed the Pakistan Movement tooth and nail.

    Khawaja Nazimuddin – himself a veteran of the League’s Direct Action- knew that civil disobedience in the subcontinent was never peaceful immediately arrested crooks in chief the leaders of the Majlis-e-Amal which led to open rioting in Lahore.

    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. Furthermore… I think the pre-partition politics of civil disobedience of both Congress and the League was totally disastrous… and here one must give Congress the credit of having spawned, funded and encouraged what in my opinion was the first real terrorist group of the subcontinent i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar. Given that LeT chief Hafiz Saeed is “intellectually and morally inspired” by Maulana Ataullah Shah Bokhari of the Majlis-e-Ahrar, I think not just Pakistanis but Indians are paying for the Congress’ encouragement of the Mullahs starting with the Khilafat movement … and throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

    Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was a profoundly religious man himself, refused the demands saying that the issue of whether Ahmadis are Muslim or not is upto the constituent assembly … and two that Zafrulla was appointed by Jinnah himself and there was no way a Muslim Leaguer would remove him. I wish … Daultana and Bhutto had the same courage.

  31. Ummi

    once again psuedo left wing apologists trying their best to prove Jinnah anti-Islam just like molvis of partition time declared him a kaafir.

    Mazhar et all, the Ilm Deen case that Jinnah was not anti-Islamic or the guy who considered Islam not capable enough to deal with all kind of things including state affairs. Jinnah got agreed to fight for Ilm Deen because Jinnah did consider him innocent and Jinnah did have respect for the prophet of Islam(saw).

  32. Ummi

    “Ilmdin was my grandfather’s cousin”

    No wonder, I find similar short temper issue in you as well. Did your dada also murder somone in his pind?

    Also, don’t play with words silly boy. The case of Ilam deen is available on net as well including the reason jinnah fought the trial.

    You agree or not, Jinnah was a Muslim rather than anti religion moron like you.

  33. yasserlatifhamdani

    1. Jinnah did not consider Ilmdin innocent as I showed above.

    2. Jinnah’s personal religious beliefs are best known to him.

    3. Who said Jinnah was anti-Islamic? Being secular is not the same as being anti-Islamic.

    4. I am not anti-religion. I am anti-Mullah.

    5. Your language is as usual on display. Now when I respond in kind, you will start whining like a little bitch on heat.

  34. yasserlatifhamdani

    And where is the case available on the net? Produce it… because I have read the real thing in the Lahore High Court library.

  35. AZW


    Don’t bother with Ummi. I don’t believe he has capacity, or willingness to understand anything being said here. Best leave him blabbering his own incoherence.

    Great summary of Munir-Kiyani Report. The concluding paragraph of Munir-Kiyani Report was enlightening. At the end, the riots of 1953 were first and foremost transgression of the laws of the land. A clear thinking government with a good administrative machinery should have no problem quelling the problem. It was a classic case of an opportunist provincial government playing with fire to further its own agenda, and allowing a simple agitation perpetrated by deluded religious leaders (who had shown remarkably ironic shifting stances, as you have mentioned) to develop into a mass rioting situation.

    This is a lesson for us, and our future generations: Maintaining law and order should be divorced from government’s agendas at all costs. Otherwise small problems morph into huge catastrophes when nations sacrifice the rule of law at the cost of “strategic” or “political” considerations.

    The Justices Munir and Kiyani concluded this famous report with the following words:

    “And it is our deep conviction that if the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order, without any political considerations, one District Magistrate and one Superintendent of Police could have dealt with them. Consequently, we are prompted by something that they call a human conscience to enquire whether, in our present state of political development, the administrative problem of law and order cannot be divorced from a democratic bed fellow called a Ministerial Government, which is so remorselessly haunted by political nightmares. But if democracy means the subordination of law and order to political ends—then Allah knoweth best and we end the report”

    M. MUNIR

    M. R. KAYANI

  36. Milind Kher

    One learning that history gives us that if development does not get the focus it deserves, and if conscious efforts are not made to strengthen the state machinery, rabble rousers will always be able to create trouble.

    Now may be a good time to get all right thinking people together, when everybody is striving against the terrorists.

  37. mazbut

    @ Ummi

    You do not seem to know that the appellate courts generally do not re-open the case nor interfere with the investigations of the lower courts. In Ilmdin’s case the accused had already denied murder even though all evidence went against him. I think …yes I think…Jinnah must have been inclined to fight his case at appellate level on the basis of ”point of law’ and as everybody knows nobody was better at law than him!

    Secondly, nobody here said Jinnah was a kafir…the Ahrari leaders used to say so ….but that was mere ‘mullai propaganda’ against his liberal view of religion especially the Qadianis!

    Justice Munir’s quotation is inspiring but hasn’t done much to make our so-called ‘eunuch leaders’ realize the harsh truth contained in it(term used by Ezra Pound!!)

    Finally I would request posters here not to be swayed by anger on dissenting comments of others and rather respond and counter , if necessary, without being personal and berserk and in conformity to the decorum of this esteemed forum.

  38. rex minor

    why choose urdu? How many in the sub-continent understand it? The Latin language instead would have been more appropriate, if the idea was that most should not follow what is being stated!

  39. Milind Kher

    @Rex minor

    Being a Pakistani blog, the underlying assumption would be that they can all read Urdu. Possibly, the IMPACT of what was written could be felt more in Urdu than anything else.

  40. Aliarqam

    Writer of the above Column Athar Nadeem yesterday died of a heart attack…
    Inna Lillah….

  41. vajra

    His death is mourned. May his near and dear ones find the strength to face this bereavement.

  42. AZW

    I am really saddened to hear of Mr. Athar Nadeem’s demise. May his soul rest in eternal peace.

  43. khalid khan

    pakistani mullahs are bloody ******s. these are the same bastards who were against the creation of pakistan and these ****s of ghandi want to rule us.