Fatwa Relating To Congratulating On Non-Muslim Festivals
“Tranlsated with ChatGPT” This column, titled “Nukta-e-Nazar” (Point of View), is dedicated to writings from various thinkers. The opinions expressed in the articles published here do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication. Supreme Court Decision in Mubarak Ahmad Sani vs. State Case The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Mubarak Ahmad Sani vs. State has been a topic of considerable discussion. This case involved the distribution of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood’s Tafseer-e-Saghir among Ahmadi students in an educational institution. An FIR was filed on the grounds that publishing a distorted translation of religious texts is legally prohibited and that Tafseer-e-Saghir is specifically banned. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, citing the Quranic principle of La Ikraha Fid Deen (no compulsion in religion) and constitutional provisions granting every religious community the right to practice, propagate, and manage their institutions. The Court ruled that a community cannot be barred from teaching its religion to its members within its institutions. The judgment seems to interpret “propagation” as the internal education and training of community members, not as public preaching. While some ambiguity arises when the Constitution’s broader provisions on Ahmadis are mentioned, it appears the Court’s intent in this specific case is not to allow public religious preaching but rather to affirm Ahmadis’ rights within their community. This decision has once again rejected interpretations by religious groups that attempt to curtail Ahmadis’ legal and religious rights. Last year, the Court clarified that Ahmadis have the right to perform their religious practices within their private spaces. This recent ruling reinforces that Ahmadis can publish and distribute their religious literature within their community, though they remain prohibited from publicly identifying as Muslims or proselytizing. Reaction and Propaganda The opposition to this ruling from certain religious factions has led to a propaganda campaign suggesting that the decision undermines constitutional laws related to Ahmadis. However, this campaign seems less about addressing ambiguities in the verdict and more about diverting attention from the core issue—that the ruling does not allow the banning of Ahmadis’ religious literature within their institutions. These campaigns also serve to perpetuate the perception that religious parties are the primary protectors of constitutional guarantees concerning Ahmadis and that state institutions are answerable to them. This narrative sustains the religious-political strategy aimed at maintaining public influence. Criticism of the Verdict Some critics argue that the Court should have restricted itself to the issue of the defendant’s bail and avoided broader discussions on religious freedoms. However, paragraph 10 of the verdict explicitly states that the case should not have been registered in the first place, as it violated constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. The Court’s reasoning draws parallels with the historical conflict over cow slaughter during colonial India. Muslims argued that they were not bound by Hindu religious beliefs and could not be legally or socially compelled to abandon this practice. However, they were willing to ensure that their practices did not offend Hindu sentiments. Broader Context and Ghamidi’s Perspective Prominent Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, in his book Maqamat , emphasizes that while certain beliefs or actions may be considered incorrect, those who profess Islam cannot be declared non-Muslim based solely on their interpretations or practices. Ghamidi’s approach does not endorse religious relativism but rather opposes the excommunication of individuals based on differing interpretations. Historically, this principle has been echoed by other scholars, such as Sheikh Mustafa Sabri of the Ottoman Empire and contemporary scholar Albani, who advocated against declaring entire groups as non-Muslim despite theological disagreements. Conclusion The Supreme Court decision highlights the need to uphold religious rights within the bounds of constitutional guarantees. It also emphasizes the importance of addressing theological disputes through dialogue and mutual respect rather than legal restrictions or social coercion.
Dr. Irfan Shahzad Sahab ( @Irfan76 ) has helped us found the right link. Please see the link below: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10235616116847940&set=a.10202002582730595