Nadeem F. Paracha writes in his recent article, "The
1974 ouster of the ‘heretics’: What really happened? ":
"But I believe panning Bhutto for introducing
legislative and constitutional expressions of bigotry has become too much of a
cliché. It’s become a somewhat knee-jerk reaction, and an exercise in which the
details of the 1974 event have gotten lost and ignored in the excitement of
repeatedly pointing out the starling irony of a left-liberal government passing
a controversial theological edict."
After reading above lines from Mr. Paracha, here is the composition of my thought process.
Bhutto’s government declared Ahmadis non-muslim in the 2nd amendment of
the 1973 Constitution.
Qadianis/Ahmadis were still calling themselves Muslim and
acting as Muslim.
So, Zia proceeded to the next step and issued the ordinance XX,
which prohibits Ahmadis to act as Muslim and, in case of violation, it punishes
them.
According to Dr. Asrar (late) and other Mullahs, a third and
final step is needed: to give capital punishment to Qadianis after declaring
them “apostate” or “Murtad”.
As of now, if this third step of death punishment for Ahmadis
is practiced by some ruler, some intellectual
would say it is too much of a cliché and knee-jerk reaction to blame that
person for the cruelty while Zia and Bhutto passed laws against Ahmadis in
past.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah could have had the status of Bhutto by
declaring Ahmadis non-mulsim, but he did not bow down to religious extremists like
Bhutto did.
I want to quote Yasser Latif Hamdani from his article on Pak Tea House:
“As a
secular liberal Jinnah could not imagine how someone who considered himself
Muslim could be called something else.
He
said:
‘I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the
Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with
particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the
constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that
any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided
he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form
of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir
not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under
one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can
Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other
communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole.’
Mr. M. A. Sabir tried as hard as he could to persuade the Quaid-i-Azam to declare Qadianis as being out of
the fold of Islam. But the Quaid-i-Azam stuck resolutely to his principle and
kept on replying: `What right have I to declare a person
non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim’.
(23rd
May, 1944, Srinagar)”
No logic can take down Bhutto’s status as being the first
ruler to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim or Zia as a successor who pushed it to the
next level when he prohibited Ahmadis to practice their faith.
When Bhutto’s fans give credit to Bhutto, they praise him for
a particular action but when they try to avoid a wrong action, they shift the
blame by claiming that the national assembly of that time made the decision.
When a fact is reproduced as a knee-jerk response, it is
also called a universal or established fact, like “The sun rises in the East”.
Some one could say tomorrow that it is a cliché and knee
jerk response to mention Taliban and their allies as extremists.
