Otherwise Pakistan should change its name from Islamic republic to just Pakistan.
Don't give me the "created in the name of religion" argument. I'll shatter all your arguments to the bone if you try to hold this line of reason.
The post-Zia mind that has never read objective history perhaps does not even know that the "Pakistan ka Matlab Kiya La Ilaha Illa Allah" slogan was never raised from the platform of the Muslim League and was created by a Sialkoti poet for his election campaign in 1945 and when he suggested Jinnah to use it Jinnah rejected the proposal. Kids watching PTV dramas directed post 1979 are led to believe that this slogan was being raised on March 23, 1940. If you've read only hagiographies you have no knowledge of the Pakistan movement, what it stood for, who supported it and who hijacked this nation after Independence. (Don' tell me I;m creating facts for I have documentary evidence spanning more than a dozen books to support this claim like many other history buffs).
On the topic of the necessity of declaring Ahmedis as non-Musl;ims, follow this line of argument, if you may:-
As an example of the differences between social values and legality, let me present a couple of bright bulbs. Social values can be based on a cultural values, religious values or a mixture of both.
Before the promulgation of the The Offence of Zina (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, fornication (sexual intercourse outside marriage between two unmarried people) was not a criminal offence. Adultery was a crime and is specifically described to be between one or both being married and was defined by Section 497 of the PPC. It read:-
The crime of adultery was not gender-neutral in its definition (meaning a woman could not be accused of rape (zina bil jabar) against a man, or possibly a woman). The Zina Ordinance used "persons" and was thus gender-neutral.
What I wanted to establish here is that although fornication was not a criminal offence before 1979, it did not mean that people fornicated on every corner of the street, in parks or society was "morally lewd" in general. Here social values were far more relevant and held ground.
Before 1977, Consumption of Liquor and Gambling were legal as well. This did not mean that the entire nation was drunk or gambled. In these situations, social values held the higher ground and these were looked down upon regardless of their legality.
Similarly before the enforcement of the draconian and widely misused for victimization Blasphemy Laws, there were no such injunctions and cases were admitted under civil jurisdiction of hatespeech and promoting enmity between different groups among many injunctions.
Thus, the Pakistan before 1977 would have been a shocker to the post-Zia trained mindset that is susceptible to religious rhetoric and regards that anything deemed tantamount to religious values (even if with malafide intentions) needs to be banned, prosecuted and criminalized.
The constitutional provision and amendments to the PPC to deem Ahmedis non-Muslims have had little value above prosecuting minorities, committing violence against minorities and inciting hatred. Before the passage of the 2nd amendment, general consensus held them to be non-Muslims since the days of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself. Thus regardless of the legal standing, social values and religious interpretation widely acceptable held major ground.
Explicitly defining them as non-Muslims was not a job of the state nor was it the state's duty to deem it necessary that we sign oath of Muslim definitions while obtaining identity documents. Such state powers allow for prosecution of minorities and accusing dissenters of such association and prosecuting them. It is inherently against the structure of the state and the system of governance to define religion and interpret it for the people. Interpretation of religion is left the scholars, its acceptance to the public and its judgment to the creator. It is not the state's job to do so.
Islamic jurisprudence, even the mainstream and orthodox one, has extensive mentions of the separation of religion and state, a concept that seems criminal to the post-Zia children.
I'll repeat questions I posted yesterday:-
My single question to the post-Zia children who have never understood the narrative of our past (the real version):-
Before Ahmedis weren't legally non-Mulsims, when there were no blasphemy laws, when there was no criminal offence of fornication, there was no legal ban of consumption of liquor, betting, gambling and when there was no article 227 (all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions), when there was no Federal Shariat Court or Council of Islam Ideology that interpreted state governance under religious ideology; were the people of Pakistan living an "un-Islamic" life? Were they non-Muslims or misguided? Were they confused about the separation of religion and state (there being no popular demand for such religious laws and these were promulgated forcefully rather than based on public opinion)? Were our elders misguided or was the re-born face of political Islam imported from Saudi Arabia and strengthened by our children of Maududi in direct confrontation with the previous strands of Islam in South Asia? Why did the people of Pakistan never demand a widely political role of Islam before that time? Were the lack of such "Islamic" provisions in our criminal and civil offences a symbol of "westernization", the dreaded "secularization" or directly "non-Islamic"?
I would not be surprised that most post-Zia adults who have been indoctrinated with such ideology where state and religion are so intertwined, two opposing ideologies of religious identity and nationalism intertwined and the widespread state religious powers used to criminalize offenses that need not be mentioned by the state prevalent would find the Pakistan pre-1977 perhaps and pre-1973 entirely to be "un-Islamic" in their definition of what constitutes "Islamic" and whether it is necessary for the state apparatus to hold "Islam" as well. The people of Pakistan of that era will most likely be deemed traitors, agents, infidels and liberal fascists by these indoctrinated minds for well and good.
I demand answers from the post-Zia children (not that I am not one of them but I do not agree with the post-Zia narrative handed down and accepted by our urban middle class youth)
