The historic Karachi trial and Mohammed Ali Jauhar’s famous address to the jury- Part 4

Loading

Read part-3

The Quran’s Injunctions

Take another case. The Maulana goes in a train and finds Moslems going to Mesopotomia to fight against other Mussalmans and the Khalifa or against people who are waging Jehad. The Maulana tells them—” It is unlawful; this is not allowed by Islam.” The Prophet says “Do not become Kafirs after me by killing each other.” Will you give the Maulana no protection of the law? You may say—Well; it is alright for him to say this in his prayer. And when somebody comes and asks him what is the Islamic law, it is right for him to say so as a religious teacher. But it is not his duty to go to the house-top and proclaim it from there, then it would be seduction. Then it would come under section 505 and section 117, or, for that matter  section 121-A or 121-B. I say that even that is intolerance because the Quran lays down clearly who will receive salvation and who will not. (Quotes from the Quran). I am quoting that small chapter of the Quran in which God swears by the world’s history. In that God says—”I swear by the world’s history.” I swear by all the time that has passed before that all are certainly in perdition but the faithful who will do good works and tell other people to do the right thing and to have fortitude in case they are not successful. The four conditions required for a Moslem to win salvation are contained in this the shortest chapter of the Quran. A man’s salvation depends upon these. That he must have faith. Then he must act upon that faith. Man who believes in Islam, says his prayers, gives alms, fasts in the Ramzan, goes to Mecca and does not hurt anybody. Do you think that he will have salvation with only this? No because the Quran says—the third step, too, you must take—that you must go and preach those good things to everybody. You must go and propagate these doctrines.

You are not born to save only yourself. You are here to save your neighbours as well. Therefore the three things that a Moslem must do are that he must believe, he must act according to his belief and he must also propagate that belief. If a Muslim says that he believes the killing another Muslim is haram and he goes and kills him, he may not win salvation. But he is nevertheless a Muslim if he really believes that he is a sinner. Of course if he denies that it is haram, he fights the Quran and then he is Kafir. But suppose he believes that it is haram and does not kill another Muslim, he may not yet win salvation if he sits idly and lets others kill him. But if he is not idle and goes and tells other people also that it is haram then he may win salvation. If he fails in his propaganda and he suffers because of section 505 and section 117 and is sent to jail, what is he to do? He must show fortitude. He may be hanged, he may be drawn, he may be quartered. But he must show fortitude and persevere in his mission Then only will he win salvation and escape perdition. He must not try to change God’s Word even one single syllable. He must abide by it and face all the consequences.

Gentlemen, it is not an easy thing to go to Paradise and claim the embraces of the Houris. An Urdu poet says: “It is to step boldly towards this critical altar of Love.” People imagine it is easy to be a Musalmaan. By clipping one’s moustache or growing a long beard and muttering prayers one does not become a Muslim.

He has got to do all those things; but he has got to do many other things besides, because we are required to do all these things by our religion. It is not enough that I should not go to war. I have got to go and induce other Muslims also not to go to war to fight their brothers.

I shall induce him in every possible way. I must take the rifle out of his hand but not by force, not by compulsion—but by clearly expounding our religious law. We are saved only when we have saved the people from going to fight and kill other Mussalmans.

Who are Real “Seducers”?

Gentlemen, a military gentleman, like Colonel Gwyer in this case, went to Bombay. His name is Colonel Beach on the 20th October, so a telegram in the Pioneer tell us, this gallant officer who had gone down from the Army Head Quarters, Simla, met the members of my profession—perhaps to seduce them from their duty (laughter)— Editors of local newspapers and news-agencies in a round table conference and among many other things this military officer said as follows with reference to the arrest of Ali Brothers, though the matter was still sub judice and it seems to me that from the Viceroy down to this Military officer all at Simla are privileged to do that (laughter) (Reads from a paper). Referring to the arrest of the Ali Brothers, Beach, speaking as a soldier, said “that it would be worthwhile asking those who are trying to seduce soldiers to consider for a moment if a soldier who once turns as deserter would be loyal to any other cause to which he was won over.” That was Colonel Beach speaking as he tells you as a soldier. Well done! Colonel Beach (laughter) A most sound doctrine and a remarkably good logic for a soldier (laughter)! But speaking not as a soldier but as a Mussalman, may I ask who is the seducer? Every child born into this world is first a soldier of God and it is men like Colonel Beach and Colonel Gwyer who are the seducers that seduce him from his first duty and his sole allegiance. May we not equally ask these Beaches and Gwyers, God’s soldiers, who once turned deserters, would they be loyal to them and to their cause to which they had been won over?

A man’s first duty is to his God. The Quran tells us that before men’s souls were not into their bodies they were asked by God,  “Am I not your Lord “, and they answered in unison “Aye”; well, hang all the souls, Gentlemen. There was all the agreement that you need for a criminal conspiracy under section 120-A and 120-B (laughter). No, Gentlemen, it is your Beaches of the Army Head Quarters of Simla and your Gwyers of the Western Command that seduce soldiers from their duty. If you have any faith, if you have any belief in God then your first duty, your prior allegiance is to God. Is it not the duty of Christians who believe in Christ, is it not the belief of the Hindus—is it not a Hindu’s first duty to obey Lord Krishna? Still we talk of allegiance to Kings, still we talk of loyalty! An Englishman—not a Mussalman—but a Christian, Mr. H. G. Wells, wrote a book after the war, a sort of allegory of the whole British nation— I do not know whether any of you has read it. It is called “Mr. Britling sees it through”— And what does he say? What does Mr. Britling, who is supposed to be the average Englishman, see through the terrible war? He says that religion is the first thing and it is the last thing. A man who does not begin with it and who does not end with it has not lived true life, has not found the true meaning of life. His only allegiance—his only duty— is to God. He might have his craps of honour, he may have his fragments of loyalty, but when it comes to the test of loyalty to God, allegiance to God, and these fragmentary loyalties, all these craps of honour,—they are like a mere scrap of paper passed through fire that shrivels up and is scattered to the four winds or merely blackens a man’s hand. And it is after this war that God’s law is to be brushed aside for us in India because man’s law—Section 123-B & 131 & 505 & 117 are to prevail over God’s law. When I have Swaraj I will see to it that I do not let anyone seduce my fellow- countrymen from their true loyalty. But so long as I want to reside in British India. I claim the protection of the Queen’s Proclamation. If I were a Hindu I would have said the same thing. What was Christ supposed to have said—(interrupted) (The Court rose for the day in the midst of the sentence).

Maulana Mahomed Ali—Well, Gentlemen the court stops me at Christ I shall tell you tomorrow what Christ is supposed to have said.

Hamdard, the Urdu daily started in 1913 by Mohammed Ali Jauhar
Proceedings of 27th October

Moulana Mahomed Ali, continuing his address to the Jury, said :— Gentlemen of the Jury, I was explaining to you that the proclamation of the Queen made in 1858, confirmed by the late King Edward, in the Proclamation, made on the fiftieth anniversary of the Queen’s proclamation and also confirmed by letters addressed to the Princes and the people of India by King George after his accession to the throne gave the protection of the law to His Majesty’s subjects in India with regard to their religious beliefs and religious practices, and I was telling you that that was the whole of our case. And that whatever may be an offence according to the Penal Code, or for the matter of that any other code, if any person—be he Hindu or Mussalman or Christian—does a thing which his religion requires him  to do, then even if that is an offence under the Penal Code or any other law that is enforced in British India, that law cannot stand in his way and he cannot be punished. The law gives him its protection, as stated in the three Proclamations. But it is not his sword that you are to take; he has got to prove it that his religion requires it. He has got to explain it.

As I had told you yesterday, this trial is really a very important trial because, after all, the clear issue involved in it is whether God’s law is to prevail or whether man’s law is to override God’s law—whether the Queen’s proclamation has any value—whether the King’s solemn pledge has any value or not, whether the Judge is bound by it—whether the Jury is bound by it or not. It will not be possible for me to explain my case when the Judge has summed up. I do not know how he is going to sum up. But it is on this point that the Judge’s summing-up will be of importance. You cannot take the law either from the Public Prosecutor or from me. But you have got to take it from the Judge. But, at the same time, I ask you to understand, Gentlemen of the Jury, that if you to-day deny a Hindu or a Mussalman or a Christian, his right to do his duty to God—to do what his Faith enjoins him to do under pains and penalties—though not of this world but of another, a future world—if you do not allow him to do what his religion demands of him to do, then I say, you yourselves will be a party to the destruction of the religious freedom enjoyed in this country and given by the Queen’s Proclamation.

It is not a question of a particular faith—it is not a question of the Hindu Faith or the Christian Faith or the Muslim Faith or the Jewish Faith. Every Faith, even that of sceptic—even that of an atheist—has to be protected—but the freedom of all these people will be taken away and I ask you—will you be a party to this?

I was telling you yesterday what Mr. H. G. Wells has said in his book ” God, the Invisible King” and also in another book of his, a novel “The Soul of a Bishop. ” He writes— a saying has been attributed to the Master Jesus Christ—on whom let there be peace—”Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s.” And then he asks— who is this Caesar that wants to share this world with God? What is Caesar’s that is not at the same time God’s? The world is not divided into two parts—one God’s and the other Ceasar’s. No! There are not the two Kings of Brentfort. God is the sole Ruler, And if the king or any other human creature, he be the head of a republic or the Judge or a member of the Jury demands from you anything he must demand for God and through God. If they demand from you anything which is against God, then that demand is not to be satisfied. It is God alone whose demand is to be satisfied. This, says Mr. H.G. Wells, is coming to be the universal Modern Religion. Whether it is that or not, it is certainly the religion for every Muslim. It is not a question of my individual faith—my own whims and idiosyncrasies. I challenge the Government, I challenge the Public Prosecutor to produce any man in this trial to produce any man, to say any Mussalman who could say that, in spite of what God says, if the Government of the day says “you must not do this although his religion requires it,” any Mussalman who could say well, in that case, I must follow the Government. And a Mussalman who says that, I say openly, is not a Mussalman. And I believe that this is also true of the Hindus, Christians, Jews— true in the case of everyone who believes in God.

About the Amir of Afghanistan

You have got to see to this that every Mussalman who lives in British India anywhere that a Moslem dwells he is under the protection of the Queen’s proclamation. He is to follow the law of the land but without prejudice to his faith. When we were interned we said the same thing to the Viceroy as we are telling you now. When he wanted to release us from internment, but on certain conditions that we shall do this and not do the other, we said “we shall agree to those conditions without prejudice to our faith.” Again as long ago as the 9th July, 1939, we sent a letter through the Superintendent of the Betul Jail where we were confined to the Viceroy. Therein we said that since Government is apparently uninformed about the manner  in which our Faith colour and is meant to colour all our notions including those which for the sake of convenience are generally characterised as mundane one, things must be made clear, and it is this: Islam does not permit the believer to pronounce any adverse judgment against another believer without more convincing proof: and we could not of course fight against our Moslem brothers without making sure that they were guilty of wanton aggression and did not take up arms in defence of their faith.” (This was in relation to the war that was going on between the British and the Afghan in 1919).

“Now our position is this. Without better proof of the Ameer’s malice or madness we certainly do not want Indian soldiers including the Mussalman, and particularly with our own encouragement and assistance to attack Afghanistan and effectively occupy it first and then be a prey to more perplexity and perturbation afterwards—these were Mr. Montagu’s own words and leave it to us to add one more appeal to the many already made so frantically and so utterly helpless for the evacuation of Moslem territory and for sparing that remnants of the temporal power of Islam.” And we said—’This is only a repetition in brief of that which we have stated clearly enough and at considerable length in our representation of the 24th April to Your Excellency and for this we have ample authority in our religion.” I pass on. “In the presence of the Magistrate and the Police Officer who used to attend the Friday Service at the Mosque we more than once made that position clear. If, said we, His Majesty the Ameer desires to enlarge his dominions at the expense of our inoffensive country and seeks to subjugate its population that has never wished him [harm] till then we not only do not advocate assistance being given to him by Indian Mussalmans but we will most zealously advocate and lead the stoutest resistance against such wicked and wanton aggression. This is precisely what in September, 1917, we had told the Hon’ble the Raja Saheb of Mahmudabad who had visited us at Chindwara and had referred to the possibility of foreign aggression; and he had thereupon wired to Simla to the Hon’ble Mr. Jinnah, apparently for communication to the Government, that he was entirely satisfied about our political attitude. We do not want a change of masters but we do want the speedy establishment of a Government responsible to the united people of India, and we hoped we have made the matter clear beyond the possibility of any doubt or misunderstanding.” “But if, on the contrary, His Majesty the Ameer has no quarrel with India and her people and if his motive must be attributed, as the Secretary of State has publicly said, to the unrest which exists throughout the Mahomedan world, an unrest with which he openly professed to be in cordial sympathy,—that is to say, if impelled by the same religious motive that has forced us to contemplate Hijrat, the alternative of the weak, which is all that is within our restricted means, His Majesty has been forced to contemplate Jehad, the alternative of those comparatively stronger, which he may have found within his means if he has taken up the challenge of those who believe in force and yet more force, and he intends to try conclusions with those who require Mussalmans to wage war against the Khalifa and those engaged in Jehad; who are in wrongful occupation of the Jazirut-ul-Arab and the Holy Places; who aim at the weakening of Islam; discriminate against it; and deny to us full freedom to advocate its cause; then the clear law of Islam requires that, in the first place, in no case whatever should a Mussalman render any one any assistance against him; and, in the next place, if the Jehad approaches any region every Mussalman in that region must join the Mujahidin and assist them to the best of his or her power.”

(To be continued)

Related Documents

Project 2025: Trump, Power, Deep state

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, summarized the vision presented in his organization’s 2023

“Loss, confusion, pain”-A Gazan mother’s story of survival

The aggression following “Aqsa Storm” has been a horrific chapter in the history of Gaza.

Kautilya’s Kutayuddha 300 BCE–300 CE: Part 4

Kautilya’s arthasastra and Ancient Chinese Philosophy: A Comparative Analysis The Chinese tradition was characterized to