MORE COVERAGE
In 1986, Sita Ram Goel’s Calcutta Quran Petition revealed a Delhi court’s bold judgment on 24 Quran verses, exposing mistranslations on jihad and paradise, while warning that banning books silences debate instead of truth
When speaking about India’s complex debates on religion, free speech, and communal harmony, one cannot overlook the controversial yet thought-provoking book Calcutta Quran Petition written by the noted historian and polemicist Sita Ram Goel. Goel, a staunch defender of Hindu thought, was known for his meticulous documentation and fearless commentary on sensitive subjects. His writings often examined the intersection of politics, religion, and society in India, and this particular book stirred deep debate by questioning whether certain verses of the Quran could be considered a source of communal discord.
The Calcutta Quran Petition was not merely an abstract academic exercise. It was inspired by a real legal case initiated by Chandmal Chopra, a businessman from Calcutta, who sought judicial intervention for the removal or banning of specific Ayats (verses) from the Quran that, in his view, promoted violence or enmity against non-Muslims. Goel, with his sharp pen, expanded the petition into a wider intellectual and political discourse, turning it into a detailed narrative that touched upon legal, social, and historical arguments.
In one of the opening chapters of the book, Goel contextualizes the issue by drawing attention to a significant judgment delivered in Delhi in July 1986. This judgment was pronounced by Z. S. Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi, and it dealt with a poster that had cited certain Quranic verses. Interestingly, many of these Ayats overlapped with those highlighted in Chopra’s Calcutta petition. For Goel, this judgment served as an important example of how India’s courts grappled with the question of whether scriptures, when quoted selectively, could be viewed as instigating violence.
The poster at the heart of the case had been published on behalf of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, by its President Indra Sain Sharma and Secretary Rajkumar Arya. Both were promptly arrested under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. These were the very same sections that Chopra had invoked in his petition against the Quran. The charges essentially accused the two of promoting enmity and offending religious sentiments.
The poster cited 24 Ayats from the Quran under a bold caption: “Why riots take place in the country.” Alongside these citations, the publishers included their own commentary, stating that “these Ayats command the believers (Musalmans) to fight against followers of other faiths” and that “so long as these Ayats are not removed [from the Quran], riots in the country cannot be prevented.”
The case became even more prominent because Indra Sain Sharma was also the Vice-President of the All India Hindu Mahasabha at that time. The prosecution, emboldened by this fact, seemed confident it had caught a major offender. Yet, the magistrate took a very different view. After carefully reviewing the evidence, he concluded that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient grounds for framing charges. Both accused were discharged, with the magistrate noting in his remarks that “With due regard to the holy book of ‘Quran Majeed’, a close perusal of the ‘Aytes’ shows that the same are harmful and teach hatred, and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other.”
What makes the episode even more striking is that the poster was not based on distorted or fabricated sources. It had been printed in Hindi, and the Ayats were taken verbatim from an authentic edition of the Quran published by Maktaba al-Hasnat of Rampur, Uttar Pradesh—a respected orthodox Muslim organization. This edition contained the Arabic text alongside Hindi and English translations presented in parallel. For the purpose of wider discussion, the English translations of the cited Ayats were later reproduced.
|
The Poster
The reproduced text of the poster began with the statement:
“Some Ayats of the Quran Majid command the believers (Musalmans) to fight against followers of other faiths:”
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive) and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then leave their way. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah 9, Ayats 5)”
“Ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean... (9.28)”
“In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. (4.101)”
“Ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you... (9.123)”
“Lo! Those who disbelieve our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise. (4.56)”
“Ye who believe! Choose not your father nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends such are wrongdoers. (9.23)”
“Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk. (9.37)”
“Ye who believe! Choose not for friends People of the Book and of the disbelievers. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers. (5.57)”
“Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter. (33.61)”
“Lo! Ye (idolaters) and that which ye worship beside Allah are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come. (21.98)”
“And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turneth from them. Lo! We shall requite the guilty. (32.22)”
“Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture. (48.20)”
“Now enjoy what ye have won as lawful and good. (8.69)”
“Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end. (66.9)”
“But verily, We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do. (41.27)”
“That is the reward of Allah’s enemies: the Fire. Therein is their immortal home, payment for as much as they denied Our revelations. (41.28)”
“Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs. They shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain... (9.111)”
“Allah promiseth hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them and theirs is lasting torment. (9.58)”
“Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. (8.65)”
“Ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrong-doing folk. (5.51)”
“Fight against such of those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (9.29)”
“Therefore, We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork. (5.14)”
“They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah. If they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose not friend nor helper from among them. (4.89)”
“Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. (9.14)”
The poster closed with a forceful conclusion:
“There are numerous (other) Ayats of the same sort. Here we have cited only twenty-four Ayats. Obviously, these Ayats carry commandments which promote enmity, ill-will, hatred, deception, fraud, strife, robbery and murder. That is why riots take place between Muslims and non-Muslims, in this country as well as [the rest of] the world. In the above-mentioned twenty-four Ayats of the Quran Majid, Musalmans are commanded to fight against followers of other faiths. So long as these Ayats are not removed [from the Quran], riots in the country cannot be prevented.”
|
Defects in English translation
As I continued reading Sita Ram Goel’s Calcutta Quran Petition, one section that stood out was his close study of the translations of the Quranic Ayats used in the controversial poster. In this chapter, Goel points out that the English versions often fail to capture the real force of the original Arabic words, or even the Hindi translation that accompanied them. He explains that these mistranslations are not trivial—they actually soften the severity of the commands and make them sound far less militant than what Islamic theology and tradition have emphasized over the centuries.
For example, Goel draws attention to Ayat 8.69, which appeared as No. 13 in the poster. The Hindi version uses the phrase “ghanamat ka mal”. This is precise, because it reflects the Arabic meaning: plunder obtained through war. But the English version reads “what you have won.” Goel argues that this is a very weak expression, one that strips away the context of violence. He makes it clear that a more accurate translation would be “war booty” or “plunder acquired through war.” The Quran, he reminds his readers, contains several promises of such plunder for the faithful. The Prophet himself claimed one of his unique distinctions was that, while earlier prophets did not have the right to spoils of war, Allah had granted it to him. The rule laid down was simple: one-fifth of all loot went to Allah and the Prophet, while the rest was divided among the fighters. This sacred share—khams—eventually became a formal source of state revenue in Islam, alongside kharaj, jizya, and zakat.
Goel also highlights another mistranslation in Ayat 66.9 (No. 14 in the poster). The English version uses the word “strive.” On the surface, it sounds harmless, almost noble. But the Hindi rendering uses the phrase “Jihad Karo.” That single word changes everything. Goel reminds us that, while “jihad” may literally mean “to strive,” in the Prophet’s own usage and in orthodox Islamic theology, it evolved into an entire institution of aggressive war. It was not about inner struggle, as some modern interpretations claim, but about military campaigns meant to spread Islam until unbelievers either converted, submitted as humiliated taxpayers, or were killed. Allah Himself urges Muslims in several Ayats to give their wealth and lives “in the way of Allah”—a phrase Goel underlines as a euphemism for jihad. The poster’s cited verses, especially Nos. 1, 4, 17, 19, and 21, drive this point home with clarity. In Goel’s narration, jihad was held up by the Prophet as the most superior deed, above prayer, fasting, or pilgrimage. Those who fought and killed were honoured as gazi, while those who died in battle became shahids (martyrs), promised immediate entry into paradise.
Another example comes from Ayat 41.27, listed as No. 15. The Hindi translation uses “yatana”, which corresponds well to the Arabic “azab”, meaning torment. But the English phrase “awful doom” is far too mild. Doom, as Goel notes, suggests a one-time finality. But the Quran’s descriptions of punishment are of continuous and escalating torment, not a single end-point. Verses like Nos. 5 (4.56), 10 (21.98), 16 (41.28), and 18 (9.58) illustrate in horrifying detail the kind of punishments awaiting unbelievers. According to Goel, “terrible and everlasting torment” would have been a far more honest translation than “awful doom.”
Lastly, Goel turns to Ayat 9.111, at No. 17. The English translation says “Garden.” The Hindi version, more accurate to Arabic, uses “jannat.” The difference matters. A garden is pleasant, full of trees and breezes, but it does not reflect the Quranic promise of paradise. In Goel’s words, the Quranic jannat has always been described in vivid and sensual imagery. What truly made it enticing for believers was not just greenery but the promise of beautiful virgins, eternally youthful, who never lose their charms and never tire of offering new pleasures. Islamic lore, starting with the Quran and extending into the Hadith, built an entire tradition around these detailed descriptions of paradise, which Goel presents as a lure offered in exchange for loyalty and sacrifice in jihad.
Through these comparisons, Goel’s point is clear: by mistranslating or softening the words, the English versions rob the Ayats of their true force and meaning. His chapter makes a strong case that the original Arabic and Hindi renderings convey a far more militant, violent, and sensual picture than the watered-down English translations.
The Judgement
In his book Calcutta Quran Petition, Sita Ram Goel reproduces a large portion of the judgment delivered by Z. S. Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi, dated 31st July 1986. This judgment dealt with the controversial poster issued by the Hindu Raksha Dal, which had cited 24 Ayats from the Quran. Goel presents the text so readers can see for themselves how the court weighed the prosecution’s arguments against the defense.
The magistrate’s words are worth reading in full:
“I have heard learned APP [Assistant Public Prosecutor] for the state and counsel of the accused and have gone through the relevant record on the file. The main thrust of the prosecution is that the above words in the disputed poster tend to create communal disharmony and [the comment] is an act with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular class of citizens of India and is an attempt to insult the religion or the religious belief of the said class. It is also submitted that ‘Aytes’ in the form published in the poster are not available or are the distorted version of the same...”
The magistrate then addressed the core dispute directly:
“There is a dispute that the 24 ‘Aytes’ published in the poster have not been taken from the ‘Quran Majeed’ translated by Mohammedan writer. It is found that they are reproduced in the same form as are translated in the said ‘Quran Majeed’. In my opinion the writer by writing the above words has expressed his opinion or suggestion and at the most it can be branded as a fair criticism of what is contained in the holy book of Mohammedans. By no stretch of imagination the opinion expressed by the writer that unless these ‘Aytes’ are removed from holy book of ‘Quran Majeed’ there will be no hope of stopping the communal disturbances in different parts of India, can be said to promote and attempt to promote feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India. In my opinion it is a sort of suggestion to the readers or at the most a fair criticism and by publishing such suggestion or criticism, the writer or publisher has not in any way outraged or attempted to outrage the religious feelings of Mohammedan community nor it tends to create communal disharmony or hatred between two classes. With due regard to the holy book of ‘Quran Majeed’, a close perusal of the ‘Aytes’ shows that the same are harmful and teach hatred and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other.”
The magistrate went further and stated:
“I have personally compared the disputed ‘Aytes’ with ‘Quran Majeed’ translated in Hindi with notes by one Mohd. Farookh Khan and have found that most of the ‘Aytes’ have been reproduced in the poster in its original form as is available in the ‘Quran Majeed’...”
He dismissed the prosecution’s charge that the verses were distorted or misrepresented:
“The close reading of all the ‘Aytes’ published in the poster and read from the book do not in any way give different meanings nor suggest anything that the same were published with malicious intention. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of the learned APP that ‘Aytes’ Nos. 2, 5, 9, 11 to 19 and 22 are either not available in ‘Quran Majeed’ or they are distorted version of the said ‘Aytes’...”
Finally, Magistrate Lohat delivered his verdict:
“In view of the above discussion, I am therefore of the view that there is no prima facie case against the accused as offences alleged against the accused do not fall prima facie within the four corners of Sections 153-A/295-A and hence both of the accused are discharged. Dated 31st July 1986 Sd/ Z. S. Lohat”
Goel notes that the technical portions of the judgment—citations of case law, or detailed arguments about word choices in the Hindi translation—were left out in his book, since they distracted from the flow of the magistrate’s observations. What mattered most was the conclusion: the court found no legal ground to convict the publishers, and instead described the poster as a form of opinion and criticism.
Banning of the books is counter-productive
In his commentary, Goel makes it absolutely clear that his purpose was not to argue for censorship. He reminds readers that when he first published the documents relating to the Calcutta Quran Petition in 1986, a wrong impression may have been created. To remove any doubt, he writes unambiguously that “we do not stand for a ban on the publication of the Quran. We take this opportunity to state unambiguously that we regard banning of books, religious or otherwise, as counter-productive.”
Instead, Goel’s position is the very opposite: more people should read the Quran, not fewer. As he explains, “In the case of the Quran, we believe and advocate that more and more non-Muslims should read it so that they know firsthand the quality of its teachings.”
Goel insists that his real purpose in publishing the court documents, along with his long preface, was not to silence but to spark public discussion. He writes that “Our only intention in publishing the court documents of the Calcutta Quran Petition and providing a long preface to it was to promote a public discussion of Islam as a religion, particularly its claim that every bit of the Quran and the Hadis has a divine source.”
For Goel, the issue is that this claim of divinity has often been used to shut down scrutiny of Islam’s texts. He points out that “This claim is used at present to prevent a close examination of what the book contains and what message Islam has for mankind at large.” Unlike other religions, which have long been subject to rational inquiry, Goel believed that Islam had escaped such examination, remaining a “closed book.”
His plea, as he recalls from the Preface to the first edition, was simple: “Our plea in the Preface to the first edition was that if such commandments as we find in the Quran emanate from what is proclaimed as a divine source, then the character of that source should also invite questions. Our rational faculties and moral sensibilities should not stop functioning the moment Allah’s name is mentioned. The character of Allah as revealed in the Quran also invites a close examination.”
Through these words, Goel framed the Calcutta Quran Petition not as a demand for suppression but as a call for open debate—a challenge to subject the Quran to the same kind of scrutiny that every other religion has faced in the modern age.
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
 |  |  |
| ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
