From Ghazi to Qadri By Waseem Altaf Oct.

21, 2011 Ilam Din pleaded not guilty but later filed a mercy petition with King George th e Fifth. Jinnah was implicitly supporting an act which today is being defended b y retired Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif and retired Justice Mian Nazir Ak htar During the 1920 s the Muslims from the Punjab province and the Hindu Arya Samaj were engaged in confrontational politics, when a pamphlet was published allegedly by a Muslim depicting Hindu goddess Sita as a prostitute. It is said that in retaliation, Krishn Prashad Pratab, a follower of Swami Dayan and of Arya Samaj, under the pen name of Pandit Champupati Lal wrote a pamphlet by the title Rangeela Rasool. It was published in 1923 by a Lahore-based publish er, Rajpal. The document focused on the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad with Ha zrat Ayesha, much younger than him in age, the ills of polygamy and the problems faced in marriages when the partners are of disparate age. The publication also included some selected ahadis (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad). The Muslims, highly incensed by the contents of the pamphlet, took the matter to a trial court which convicted Rajpal. Later on, the Sessions Court upheld the j udgment in appeal. However, Rajpal went to the High Court which acquitted him on the grounds that the matter was not covered under section 153 of the Indian Pen al code. The decision of the High Court was deeply agitated by the Muslims. Ilam Din, 19, was an unlettered son of a carpenter, who along with a friend was passing by Lahore s Masjid Wazir Khan when they heard a highly inflammatory sermon b y a mullah thundering and urging the people gathered there to take action agains t the infidels insulting the prophet of Islam. It is said that the orator was Sy ed Ataullah Shah Bukhari. On April 6, 1929, Ilam Din purchased a dagger for one rupee, went to Rajpal s shop l ocated in Urdu Bazaar Lahore and stabbed him to death. He made no attempt to esc ape, was immediately arrested and was shifted to Mianwali jail. Ilam Din had murdered a person who had not authored the document. Ilam Din and R ajpal both may not have even read the pamphlet. Yet the extremely powerful orato ry of the mullah instigated a 19-year-old boy to commit the most heinous of crim es against someone whom he had never even seen before. Ilam Din pleaded not guilty through his trial lawyer Farrukh Hussain and claimed that he was not only innocent but was also framed. However, the court ruled aga inst him and sentenced him to death. An appeal was then filed in the Lahore High Court and Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the lawyer in appeal. However, the case was l ost. Later on, Ilam Din filed a mercy petition with King George the Fifth which was also rejected. On 31st October 1929 Ilam Din was hanged. Ilam Din was buried in Mianwali, while the Muslim community wanted his body to b e brought to Lahore for burial. The English feared that it might incite unrest a nd may lead to Hindu-Muslim riots. It was only after assurances given by Allama Mohammad Iqbal and Mian Abdul Aziz that the body was exhumed from the grave afte r 15 days and brought to Lahore for burial. Allama Mohammad Iqbal refused to lea d the funeral prayers by stating that he was a sinful person and was not compete nt to lead the funeral prayers of a matchless warrior of Islam. However, he carr

ied the funeral bier and declared that an illiterate surpassed the educated ones like him. Maulana Zafar Ali khan, the journalist cum poet, regretted that he co uld not achieve that blessed status. The conduct of Muslim leaders in case of Ilam Din was less than desirable. Allam a Iqbal, later to be the national poet, and Maulana Zafar Ali Khan not only eulo gized him but also glorified him as a hero. The rightists claim that Jinnah fought the case free of charge is not correct. He d id charge a fee, however, the actual amount is not known. Apologists assert that he was merely a lawyer whose job was to render the best possible defense to his client on payment of a certain amount. The fact remains that he was not just a lawyer. In the 1920 s Jinnah was a prominent leader and a public figure. It is also true tha t Jinnah s legal practice was primarily based in Bombay, whereas in this case he cam e all the way to Lahore, while being fully aware of the communal character of th e case.

The historical fact remains that by then Jinnah had not only parted ways with th e Congress, he had also come up with his 14 Points on March 28th , 1929.While realizi g that it was a golden opportunity to capitalize on the popularity of Ilam Din a mong the Muslims of India, he decided to take up his case. In all fairness, Jinnah should have avoided accepting the case even at the appel late level. This would have been the conduct of any statesman or visionary. Notw ithstanding its deleterious effects on Hindu-Muslim relations it also lent suppo rt to the view that Jinnah was for an extra-judicial act committed against a bla sphemer. In other words, Jinnah was implicitly supporting an act which today is being def ended by retired Chief Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif and retired Justice Mian Nazir Akhtar of the Lahore High Court; appellate defense lawyers in the Mumtaz Q adri case. True leaders may not have bread to offer but vision which has far reaching conse quences for the nation and the course of events for many years to come. To gain cheap popularity our so-called leaders exploited the whole Ilam Din issu e but forgot that support for a murderer in the name of religion, regardless of the motive behind the act would render him a hero and would continue to haunt th e Muslims and non-Muslims alike for all times to come. To date hundreds have been killed extra-judicially. And not only several Christi ans, Hindus and Ahmadis (declared non-Muslims by the state) are rotting in jails throughout Pakistan, a sizeable number of Muslims accused of blasphemy are also behind the bars. Many of them had property disputes; a few had personal enmity while some challenged the powerful. They are all facing charges which have made them extremely vulnerable even within the confines of the prison. It was October 1929 when short-sighted Muslim leadership was making thoughtless proclamations while the masses were staging rallies in support of Ilam Din. This is October 2011 and we witness widespread support for Mumtaz Qadri on the same grounds. Mullahs have held protest rallies demanding his release; right wing col umnists wrote columns in his support while our educated lawyers fraternity attempte d to ransack the office of the judge who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri. Conduct of national leaders at one point in time is imitated by the masses and b ecomes an integral part of the national psyche. It continues to impact attitude formation and group behavior for a long time.

Justice delayed is justice denied. In British India Ilam Din who murdered Rajpal on 6th of April 1929 was hanged on 31st October 1929; in less than seven months me. In the Islamic Republic, Mumtaz Qadri killed Salman Taseer on 6th January, 2 011and the Islamabad High Court stayed his death sentence on 11th October 2011. Will Mumtaz Qadri Source: Viewpoint URL: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamRadicalIslamismAndJihad_1.aspx?ArticleID= 5915 s sentence ever be carried out? Perhaps never!

ti

Forward to a friend

Print

COMMENTS 11/18/2011 12:46:18 AM satwa gunam I agree with jb. Probably I have become less secular than what I was earlier til l I did not visit Christian and Muslim countries. So when I come back I expect t hat Hindu majority shall give the same right to other as they received elsewhere . I feel there is nothing wrong on the same. Hindus also can use the brute maj ority to silence the minority as we are learning lessons from Muslim countries. How does that sound?

11/18/2011 12:39:45 AM Ghulam Mohiyuddin JB asks, "Are you telling me that the act was justified in 1929?" My reference w as not to murder. I was referring to whether a lawyer who takes on such a case s hould be reviled.

11/17/2011 2:17:09 PM JB What this shows is Islamic fanaticism has existed since its inception. Imagine t he brouhaha if a Hindu outfit had decided to take to task a Muslim who blaspheme d against Hindu religious icons? Mr. Mohiyuddin: Are you telling me that the act was justified in 1929? Of course this only a microcosm of Islamic fanaticism that led to the Islamisation of Pun jab/Sindh etc. I guess you are worried that Hindus will realize the magnitude of Islamic atrocities on Hindus over the last millennia.

11/15/2011 1:16:55 PM Ghulam Mohiyuddin Judging the actions of 1929 by the standards of 2011 seems somewhat unfair.