Creed of Islam
Source: Pak Tea House
By Raza Habib Raja: The author is a PhD student at Maxwell School, Syracuse University and can be contacted at rhr53@cornell.edu
Frankly I would like to say at the onset that I think the Second Amendment which declared Ahmedis as non Muslims is one of the blackest and most shameful act of legislation ever passed in the National Assembly. Its reprehensible content is reinforced by the fact that it was not an ordinance imposed by a dictator but actually passed by majority through legislative process.
The Second Amendment was passed unanimously and compared to other controversial legal ordinance such as Hadood, appears to have a “democratic’ semblance. In fact at times more than the religious arguments the supporters of the Second Amendment come up with the “democratic” defense.
Supporters say that after all democracy is a game of numbers and if the law was passed unanimously then it reflected the entire collective will of the people. They also say that democracy has to be consistently interpreted and applied. They say that you cannot be “selective” about democratic norms and apply it to your own wishes. The votes cast by the representatives are the most appropriate approximation of the public will and if a bill is passed unanimously then public will has to prevail. The art of legislation is the way of ensuring prevalence of public will.
Though apparently supported by “democratic” credentials, a critical look would reveal that actually this argument is flawed on at least two major accounts.
To begin with, any law duly passed by the legislature does not necessarily possess the direct approval of the populace. This is actually a classical principal agent problem where agents have been given authority by the principal to act on their behalf. In a legislative setting the agents are the members who are representatives. However, once elected it is not possible for them to revert back to public on each and every bill. Generally speaking the assumption is that since public has given them the vote and therefore in some ways also endorsed their manifesto. And here also vote does not necessarily imply that every single point in the manifesto has been endorsed by all the voters. There is thus a perception asymmetry here. Following this logic the only bills which have some implicit approval of the electorate are those which are based on the manifesto of the party. The Second Amendment was not the part of manifesto of the ruling party at that time and therefore the argument that it had direct approval of the electorate is flawed. I admit here that numerous other bills also may also suffer from the same problem but since supporters of Second Amendments often tout “overwhelming” support of the electorate therefore dissection of this argument was needed.
However, skeptics may retort by saying that even if a direct referendum is held there are chances that populace may still decide the same. But then is democracy just numbers?
I think the strongest case against so called democratic credentials of the Second Amendment comes from the philosophical side. Democracy in true essence is not merely a game of numbers but at a philosophical level much more than that. DEMOCRACY HAS TO BLEND IN WITH A TOLERANT CULTURE OTHERWISE ITS POPULAR HEGEMONY OF THE MAJORITY. Hitler was also after all apparently democratically elected.
Laws which are contradictory to tolerance and equality, even if completely endorsed by the majority, though apparently democratic would still not meet the modern liberal spirit of democracy. There is a reason as to why all the civilized democracies have taken extreme care to ensure that while majority does get its way most of the time but not all of the time. Thus a liberal democracy in principle while agreeing to majority rule has to enshrine protection of minorities from possible tyranny of majority. Yes, majority is needed for ensuring expression of popular will but it does not mean that majority should coalesce to infringe the basic rights of the minority particularly when the later is defined along religious or ethnic lines.
For example in United States, Bills of Right go extra step to protect basic individual freedom. These catalogue the rights that have to be upheld by the government, thus protecting, the rights of ANY minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy. Essentially the Bills of Right RESTRICT the scope of majority and try protecting the minority.
Additional Reading
Amman Message Exposes the Illegitimacy of 1974 Pakistan Decision Against Ahmadis
Categories: Ahmadis And Pakistan, Ahmadiyyat: True Islam, Anti Islam act by Muslims, Asia
Nicely argued.
True and brave
The irony is that if tomorrow any Western Nation apply the same according to their Majority, we all will be calling them agents of Jews and so and so. The best example is the life of our Holy prophet of Islam and in his life time, how he protected even his staunchest enemies rights. He protected Jews, Christians and even so called Muslims(Munfiqeen) who constantly conspired against Islam and life of Holy prophet of Islam. That was the reason his enemies bowed to him at the end.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah repeated what was given to all muslims by Anhazur MUHAMMAD S.A.W at Arafat on the occasion of Khutbah HajjatulWida. United Nations have endorced it, muslims have pledged to convey it and act upom it.
Please add to all that the White paper issued in the time of Zia ul Haque. It reported that all the members of Bhutto assembly were rascals, swindlers, robbers, rapists and the like ( I have not described in exact words. But such were the words….)
It means that even if there was consensus in that assembly about declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims, it was a consensus on bad side and there was nothing good in that. It was the worst deed that could be committed by an assembly.