The Riots of 1953 — Page xvii
ix of the Punjab of standing by and allowing the violence to devel- op and spread across the province, as well as provincial govern- ment affiliated newspapers who helped whip up support for the anti-Ahmadi movement through editorials and comment pieces. The report further concluded that not only did the state have no right to interfere with a person's religious beliefs, but that there was no consensus among Islamic scholars as to an agreed definition of what it meant to be a Muslim. After hearing the testimonies of the ulema the two justices concluded: But we cannot refrain from saying here that it was a mat- ter of infinite regret to us that the ulama whose first duty should be to have settled views on this subject, were hope- lessly disagreed among themselves. . . Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama , need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental [definition of a Muslim]? If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama , we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs ac- cording to the definition of every one else. Also called to testify before the Court of Inquiry were the then head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Pakistan, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad ra , and the country’s foreign minister Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadi by faith and one of the main targets of the agitators. The former provided his testimony between 13-15 January 1954, and the latter on 16 January. The primary administrative body of the movement in Pakistan, Sadar Anjuman Ahmadiyya, also submitted a written