Tag Archive | "Ali Bhutto"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Blaming politicians alone for tarnishing democracy is actually less than half the story”- Benazir Bhutto’s interview to Herald (2000)

Posted on 19 January 2012 by Tea Server

“Tomorrow they may decide to kill me because I know too much. But I want this on record so that one day, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, somebody goes back and says: What was happening in Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan?”
Nearly twelve years ago monthly Herald published this interview of Benazir Bhutto (taken by Ali Dayan Hasan). This is perhaps the most revealing interview that BB gave to a local publication. In the context of Pakistan in 2012, this interview remains most relevant. This introduction to the interview is most insightful as it echoes many themes that we are living through once again. Her successor, Yusuf Raza Gilani has made similar remarks on the floor of the Parliament. At least we seemed to have inched a little forward though the destination of democratic Pakistan remains rather elusive. RR

In her most candid interview since 1988, Benazir Bhutto, twice elected prime minister of Pakistan, reveals the extent to which successive civilian governments have been held hostage, and destabilised, by the ‘security apparatus’ of the military. Bhutto, chairperson of the PPP — the single largest political party of the country — explains the helplessness of civilian governments in the face of Intelligence-inspired disinformation on the one hand, and ideologically motivated illegal activities of ‘rogue elements’ of the army on the other. She argues that the security apparatus of the country is out of control and that no government can hope to function smoothly unless these elements are brought under  formalised command structure that prevents them from taking on the role of a state within a state. There is much evidence to support Bhutto’s claims, including that of her adversaries — General Aslam Beg, General Hameed Gul and General Asad Durrani — all of whom conspired against civilian governments and have repeatedly gone on record to admit as much. “Blaming politicians alone for tarnishing democracy is actually less than half the story,” argues Bhutto. Here, she explains why.

To read the full interview click here BB’s interview 2000 Annual Issue

Here are a few pertinent passages from the interview:

Q. You have presided twice over a controlled democracy. What have you learnt from the experience?
A. There is a tendency in Pakistan, due to military dictatorships and one-man rule, to think that one person can make all the difference. But in a democratic system, it is not just one person that makes a difference. A democratic ruler, such as myself, functions within the confines of the constitution. We need a civic consensus on what a constitution should be and what constitutes freedom and plurality. I had to work on the mandate I was given and that is why I say that we did not achieve much. I had to work with the 8th amendment and a president who could sack the prime minister. In other words, some elements in the intelligence agencies used the president when they felt I was becoming too powerful. They never allowed us enough time to elect members of the senate which would have made my party — and the democratic forces — stronger. The real solution lies not with any individual. I can only give a clarion call. Then it depends on the masses whether they rally around that call to say that they want a constitution based on the supremacy of the will of the people and that the prime minister and parliament must determine national security and not the military.

Q. Did you attempt to rein in the intelligence agencies when you were in power?
A. Yes, I did. For instance, in December 1988, within a week of my forming the government, Brigadier Imtiaz working at the ISI Internal began contacting political parties to overthrow my government. My political adviser at the time, General Babar, moved to have him replaced. The army refused initially, though later, Brigadier Imtiaz was removed from the ISI Internal, not from the army itself. So, I tried but they defied me and because of the 8th amendment, I could not remove any officer myself. We collected proof, in 1989, of ISI elements visiting MNAs for a no-confidence move. We made audio tapes. The head of the MI entered my office and saw the photograph of the man who had been approaching my MNAs. He panicked, took the photograph and the tape and then sent me a report saying the man in question was deranged. In 1990, when the ISI launched a similar effort, we made a videotape called Operation Jackal . A serving army officer, Brigadier Imtiaz, technically not in the ISI but substantively still there, was taped saying: ‘the army does not want her, the president does not want her, the Americans don’t want her’. He was seeking the support of parliamentarians to oust the government. I gave that tape, substantive proof of treason, to General Beg. He filibustered.

On March 23, 1989, the army jawans mobbed me in a show of support when I went to the Pakistan Day parade. General Beg panicked. I was used to being mobbed and public adulation. I told him it was all right. The support waned when the intelligence agencies — sometimes the ISI, sometimes the MI, at others the FIT and the FIU and even the corps command — intrigued. Poisonous stories were prepared and circulated to the corps
remove you and replace you with General Imtiaz as COAS’. It was a ridiculous story but he believed it. They told Ghulam Ishaq Khan that, ‘If she gets a senate majority, she’ll impeach you and replace you with Yahya Bakhtiar’. They concocted these stories. They went to one of my party leaders and said, ‘Get 10 MNAs and we will make you prime minister’. A corps commander went to my husband in 1989 and said that they could not salute a woman. ‘Let her make you prime minister as we have no problems with the PPP’.
In 1993, they sent a Middle Eastern prince to tell me the same thing — that Nawaz was going but I should bow out because if I fought, things would be different.

Q. Can you provide further examples of how the military establishment and the intelligence agencies operated to destabilise democracy during your first tenure?
A. I have two witnesses who tell me that they attended two similar meetings arranged by a then- serving corps commander during my first term. In these meetings, the corps commander, Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden were present. Osama Bin Laden was told that a woman in this position was against Islam so he should give

Eventually, under pressure, Beg just retired the man whereas he should have been tried for treason. Then, when the no-confidence move failed, I was approached by my MPAs in the NWFP who said that General Beg had called them to the GHQ and said, ‘We want to get rid of her starting with the NWFP and could you please move a no- confidence vote against her.’ So, a
commanders and the jawans to put the seeds of hatred in people’s hearts. These included false stories of corruption, of Indian agents, of Jewish agents, of American agents, Sikh lists. Thus, an impression was created that we are corrupt traitors and even our supporters turned against us. Beg was with me till the Intelligence worked on him and convinced him that ‘she wants to
them money to overthrow me. And then Nawaz said that he would bring Islam to Pakistan. Does the public think these things need to be investigated independently or not? No one had heard of Osama Bin Laden then. I had not either. He is famous now. In those days he was unknown but he was sitting there interfering in my government. He paid 10 million dollars to finance the

Q. Can you provide further examples of how the military establishment and the intelligence agencies operated to destabilise democracy during your first tenure?
A. I have two witnesses who tell me that they attended two similar meetings arranged by a then- serving corps commander during my first term. In these meetings, the corps commander, Nawaz Sharif and Osama Bin Laden were present. Osama Bin Laden was told that a woman in this position was against Islam so he should give them money to overthrow me. And then Nawaz said that he would bring Islam to Pakistan. Does the public think these things need to be investigated independently or not? No one had heard of Osama Bin Laden then. I had not either. He is famous now. In those days he was unknown but he was sitting there interfering in my government. He paid 10 million dollars to finance theno-confidence move against me. At that time, we heard that the money came from Saudi Arabia. I sent a minister to meet King Fahd. He has been very kind to me and I really like him. He is an urbane, generous and kind man. I told my emissary to remind the king that he had said to me: ‘Ali Bhutto was my brother and my friend. I opposed his murder. I thought it was unjust then and I think it is unjust now. You are like my daughter’. Then how come he was sending money to overthrow my government?
He sent back a message saying that the Saudi government was not involved and it was a private Saudi citizen. Later on, from these two individuals who were with the PML then but are with us now, I learnt that the meetings involved Sharif, a then-serving corps commander and Osama and they wheedled 10 million dollars out of Osama to overthrow the government.
Meanwhile, my parliamentarians informed me that they were offered a million dollars each by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi to get rid of me. I like Mr. Jatoi. He treats me like a daughter and personally I have no problem with him. But I do think Mr. Jatoi and I both owe it to the nation that the facts should come out.
I set up my own Trojan horse. I told the MNAs to go ahead and take the money. ‘Let them think you are with them’. That is how they lost the no-confidence motion. My four MNAs were counted against me but they did not crossover and two more joined me. Otherwise they had it all set. And then we had this very funny incident when these four MNAs came to the prime minister’s house with briefcases of money and said, ‘You take it’, and I said, ‘No, I cannot’. In the end, of course, the money was not taken but the fact remains that these sorts of sums were paid for no-confidence votes. And they were not paid by the political parties but by the intelligence agencies and rogue elements in the military as well as right-wing adventurists.
And at the SAF games, Beg sat next to me with a very satisfied smile on his face. When three PML MNAs came and sat next to me, his face fell. ‘What are they doing here?’ he asked me in panic. I smiled and said they had joined the government. ‘Isn’t that wonderful?’ Beg just looked like a ghost. And then we were accused of horse-trading and corruption. Thus the intelligence agencies try to create a ‘heads, I win, tails, you lose’ situation for the political class. This simply cannot continue…

“We cannot have an army or intelligence agencies that constantly destabilise governments. We cannot have rogue elements incessantly violating their oath and plunging the nation into crises.”

To read the interview click here BB’s interview 2000 Annual Issue

Syndicated from: Pak Tea House

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bhutto’s Gallows Revisited

Posted on 15 January 2012 by Tea Server

President Asif Ali Zardari has made a reference to the Supreme Court of Pakistan to revisit the case in which Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was sentenced to death on the charge of ordering the murder of an innocent man Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan Kasuri. Interestingly enough the parliament has already prejudiced the case by passing a resolution in its initial session declaring the execution of Mr. Bhutto a ‘judicial murder.’

 In this background, the reference really is a request to determine whether or not the national assembly resolution had any merit or whether it was a contempt of court. The reference also establishes the principle that the judgment of the Supreme Court has greater meaning and weight than a resolution of the national assembly. In order to understand the case it is important to know the background.

Here are some clippings from Nation and Express newspapers and Wikipedia:
Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan, Kasuri’s father, was killed in 1974. Kasuri himself was the complainant for the murder case registered against Bhutto, who was eventually hanged in 1979. In April this year, 32 years after Bhutto’s death, President Asif Zardari filed a reference under Article 186 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court to reopen the murder trial.
Bhutto was convicted in a murder case and sentenced to death by the Lahore High Court (LHC) in 1979 during the dictatorship of the then army chief General Ziaul Haq. He was executed on April 4, 1979 by then military dictatorship.

A five-member bench of the LHC, headed by Maulvi Mushtaq Ahmad, had held the Bhutto trial for five months and awarded death sentence to him on March 18, 1978. The Bhutto family had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. A seven-member bench upheld his death sentence in its February 6, 1979, verdict with a bare 4-to-3 majority. His review petition was also dismissed on March 24, 1979. Bhutto was hanged at the Central Jail, Rawalpindi, on April 4, 1979.

Sheikh Anwarul Haq is a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan [September 23, 1977 - March 25, 1981]. He is often considered ‘ill-famed’ for giving legitimacy to General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq’s martial law and for upholding the decision of the Lahore High Court which sentenced Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to death for the authorization of the murder of a political opponent. Four Supreme Court judges headed by Chief Justice Anwarul Haq upheld the murder conviction of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. On 25 March 1981, S. Anwarul Haq became the first Justice and only Chief Justice to refuse taking the oath under the military imposed PCO and resigned on conscientious grounds.

Prime Minister Bhutto began facing considerable criticism and increasing unpopularity as his term progressed, the democratic socialists alliance who had previously allied with Bhutto began to diminish as time progresses. Initially targeting leader of the opposition Vali Khan and his opposition National Awami Party (NAP), also a socialist party. Despite the ideological similarity of the two parties, the clash of egos both inside and outside the National Assembly became increasingly fierce, starting with the Federal government’s decision to oust the NAP provincial government in Balochistan Province for alleged secessionist activities and culminating in the banning of the party and arrest of much of its leadership after the death of a close lieutenant of Bhutto’s, Hayat Sherpao, in a bomb blast in the frontier town of Peshawar.

Dissidence also increased within the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the murder of a leading dissident Ahmed Raza Kasuri‘s father led to public outrage and intra-party hostility as Bhutto was accused of masterminding the crime. Powerful PPP leaders such as Ghulam Mustafa Khar openly condemned Bhutto and called for protests against his regime. The political crisis in the NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and Balochistan intensified as civil liberties remained suspended, and an estimated 100,000 troops deployed there were accused of abusing human rights and killing large numbers of civilians.

On January 8, 1977 a large number of opposition political parties grouped to form the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA). Bhutto called fresh elections, and PNA participated fully in those elections. They managed to contest the elections jointly even though there were grave splits on opinions and views within the party. The PNA faced defeat but did not accept the results, alleging that the election was rigged. They proceeded to boycott the provincial elections. Despite this, there was a high voter turnout in the national elections; however, as provincial elections were held amidst low voter turnout and an opposition boycott, the PNA declared the newly-elected Bhutto government as illegitimate.

All the opposition leaders called for the overthrow of Bhutto’s regime. Political and civil disorder intensified, which led to more unrest. Bhutto imposed martial law in major cities including Karachi, Lahore and Hyderabad. However, Mr. Bhutto accepted that there were major irregularities in the election in a number of constituencies and a compromise agreement between Bhutto and opposition to hold fresh election in some constituencies was ultimately reported. This compromise theory was however probably a later day addition as a major PPP armed rally was in the offing.

Zia planned a the Coup d’état carefully as he knew Bhutto had integral intelligence in the Pakistan Armed Forces, and many officers, including Chief of Air Staff General Zulfiqar Ali Khan and Major-General Tajammul Hussain Malik, GOC of 23rd Mountain Division, Major-General Naseerullah Babar, DG of Directorate-General for the Military Intelligence (DGMO) and Vice-Admiral Syed Mohammad Ahsan, were loyal to Bhutto.

To remove this intelligence, Zia secretly contracted with the active duty British SAS army officers to maintain a staff course for the Army personnel while Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Mohammad Shariff quietly removed naval personnel loyal to Bhutto and his government from the Navy’s active duty. Zia ordered Bhutto’s loyal officers to attend a staff and command course and none of the officers were allowed to leave the course until the midnight. Meanwhile, Zia with his close officers, including Admiral Mohammad Shariff, then-Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, arranged the coup in the evening. On July 5, 1977, before the announcement of any agreement, Bhutto and members of his cabinet were arrested by troops of Military Police under the order of Zia by the evening.

Bhutto’s last personal appearance and utterances in the supreme court were not merely a long defence of his conduct he also made some matters clear. He mentioned the words of “heir” for his son “Mir Murtaza Bhutto”. He made some remark which indicated that he has views similar to a Sunni, though he was Shia albeit a non-practicing one. He also effectively cast doubt on the reliability of star witnesses against him i.e. Masood Mahmood who was a UK-trained lawyer and not merely a police officer and FSF chief. He mentioned repeatedly Lahori Ahmedi connection of Masood Mahmood in his testimony. He repeatedly brought the subject of his maltreatment in the death cell. Bhutto made it abundantly clear, even though indirectly that he wanted either freedom or death, not something in between, and appreciated Khar and his lawyer Yahya Bakhtiar.

While witnessing the dramatic fall of Bhutto, one U.S. diplomat in American Embassy in Islamabad wrote that:

During Bhutto’s five years in Pakistan’s helm, Bhutto had retained an emotional hold on the poor masses who had voted him overwhelmingly in 1970s general elections. At the same time, however, Bhutto had many enemies. The [socialist economics] and nationalization of major private industries during his first two years on office had badly upsets the Business circles… An ill-considered decision to take over the wheat-milling, rice-husking, sugar mills, and cotton-ginning, industries in July of 1976 had angered the small business owners and traders. Both leftists— socialists and communists, intellectuals, students, and trade unionists— felt betrayed by Bhutto’s shift to centre-right wing conservative economics policies and by his growing collaboration with powerful feudal lords, Pakistan’s traditional power brokers. After 1976, Bhutto’s aggressive authoritarian personal style and often high-handed way of dealing with political rivals, dissidents, and opponents had also alienated many….

U.S. Embassy, Pakistan, U.S. commenting of Bhutto’s fate,



                                                                    

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Skeptic’s Guide to the Imran Khan Jalsa

Posted on 27 December 2011 by Tea Server

From the onset it was clear that it was theintegrity of the country at stake for many of those attending the rally. Criesof ‘Who will save Pakistan? – Imran Khan, Imran Khan!’ rang out as we settledto our seats around noon at the large grounds across the Mazar, when the crowdswere still sparse.

For many of us apolitical types who reachedpolitical consciousness during the Musharraf area this was our first major politicalrally. Before this, joining politics was adhering to a different lifestyle- afar more dangerous life of mysterious murders and prison sentences. And thismore so in Karachi; a city torn apart by ethnic violence, street crimes, bhattamafias all intermingled with the city’s political culture.

For those growing up in even a little bit ofprosperity after the 90s such an existence was too much to ask. We asked to beleft alone in our enclaves in sections of the city; politics be for the corruptand the damned.

Yet here we were.

To be sure Imran Khan, this new messiah, hasproblematic ideas. His appeasement of the Taliban is worrisome. His promises torid the country of corruption seem unrealistic and utopian. In a country thatseeks easy answers to its problems to its problems, Imran Khan is hardlyturning the tide. In fact it seems of late that it is Nawaz Sharif who istaking bold positions by criticizing the role of the military in Pakistan’spolitics and its aggressive foreign policy against India.

But it’s slowly dawned on me that there can beno space for progressive politics if there is no rule of law in the country. Inthe run up to the rally there was also a looming sense that some historic eventwas about to take place. So I went as a sympathetic yet skeptical observer opento the idea of being won over. And besides no political movement perfectlyaligns with your views; they are made of coalitions of people with a widevariety of interests banding together for some shared values. And as the awamgot to the Mazar in busloads, and a gentle breeze lifted our spirits; it wasevident that people from all parts of Karachi still believed in collectivevalues worth fighting for.

They came together to pay tribute to theinherent diversity of Karachi – the heart of Pakistan. The jalsa’s festivitiesbegan by the DJ blasting music in Urdu, Sindhi, Pushto and Balochi. Politiciansfreely mixed their sentences with different languages and accents. But other,more somber issues also brought people together. People were fed up ofcorruption and the breakdown of law and order. A Pathan sitting behind me hadbrought his wife and young son along because he was frustrated with Pakistan’srole in the American occupation in Afghanistan and its operations in Pakistan. ThePTI won him over during a TV debate – a testament to the role the media hasplayed in shaping Pakistan’s politics in the past few years.


As dusk settled, a number of office-bearers roseto give speeches and the jalsa at this point seemed to drag on. The speechesreflected the mood of the country. The audience looked quite bored when ShahMehmood Qureshi rambled on about India and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Muchmore applause was given to the star of the night Javed Hashmi, whose speech wasa pleasant surprise. His fiery tribute to Karachi, East Pakistan and thecountry’s youth was exhilarating.

It was finally Imran’s turn. His roadmap forreform, disappointingly, consisted of selecting a technocratic team that would…presenta roadmap when he came into power. He reiterated his claim to eliminate majorcorruption in 90 days. Even though Khan is a man of integrity I really don’tsee how he can keep such a grand promise. The speech also seemed to give theimpression that militancy and radicalism did not exist in Pakistan since itwasn’t even mentioned once. But he deserves accolades for asking Balochistanfor forgiveness for the atrocities committed there. And it was hard for anyoneto argue against his vision for Pakistan as an Islamic Welfare state modeled afterBritain, with free education, health services and access to a legal system thatdoes not discriminate the rich against the poor.

Imran Khan could augur a new era ofaccountability in Pakistan. The 200,000 to 300,000 people that turned up were atestament to his vision. Yet the road to parliament is still treacherous –Imran Khan must make sure that he stays away from the establishment label andthe call for early elections. The electorate does not take too kindly to itsautonomy being eroded. But if his party does manage to come to power constitutionallyeither as a majority or in the opposition, its significance cannot bediscounted. A leadership that can push for accountability within an existingdemocratic framework has eluded the leaderless Arab Spring and the Anna Hazaramovement in India.

Imran Khan’s personal story is one of resilienceand his ability to overcome adversity and failure are inspiring. But is thatenough? Back in 1971 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in this country’s darkest hour, promisedto build a new Pakistan. Today, when the promised break of dawn seems furtherthan ever, Imran Khan too takes this pledge. Let’s make sure – for Pakistan’ssake- that he can fare better.

Syndicated from: Octagonal Tangents

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Young Benazir Bhutto.

Posted on 27 December 2011 by Tea Server

Benazir Bhutto , the clear foreign policy  leader.
Benazir Bhutto was a  political leader of Pakistan whose charm and charisma swept the people’s vote towards Pakistan Peoples Party in elections all over the country. From Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s dynamic, populist political legacy  to Benazir Bhutto’s determined thrust towards democratic people’s rule we see how this young, Oxford educated leader



Syndicated from: Mehernewspappar

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are Ahmadis Non-Muslims?

Posted on 15 December 2011 by Tea Server

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

(Written exclusively for PakTeaHouse. Please give credit when crossposting)

The poison of ignorance and extremism that Bhutto and General Zia jointly fathered during their dictatorial regimes has fully indoctrinated even those who otherwise describe themselves as educated.

This week the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN inched closer to the discovery of Higgs Boson or the God Particle as it were. In this extraordinary story of human achievement,  Dr. Abdus Salam is a key player who put Pakistan on the map of theoretical physics. In his homeland though, a group of self-styled champions of Islam have started a posthumous campaign of scurrilous slander claiming that Dr. Salam was giving out nuclear secrets. Forget that even a confirmed bigot like General Zia  held a ceremony in our only nobel prize winner’s honour or that no one ever accused Dr. Salam of any such thing; in Pakistan to be a hero you have to actually transfer technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Now consider the case of 11 year old Sitara Akbar. Every Pakistani and his mother in law are citing her as a crowning national achievement, blissfully oblivious of the fact that she is an Ahmadi. To them her religion is suddenly unimportant or irrelevant or is it? How many Sitara Akbars have been expelled from our schools for being Ahmadi? How many productive citizens of this republic have been killed and maimed for believing differently?

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s National Assembly imagined itself the Islamic equivalent of the Council of Nicea. Just as that ancient bastion of Christian orthodoxy excommunicated unitarian Christians for not believing in the trinity of the father, son and the holy ghost, the National Assembly saw it fit to – primarily at the instigation of the Prime Minister and his law minister- declare an entire sect non-Muslim. Just like the post hoc elevation of the principle of trinity at Nicea, Pakistan’s National Assembly located Islam in the principle of the finality of Prophethood.

This act of our sovereign legislature stood in sharp contrast to the view of this nation’s founding father. On 5 May, 1944, in response to demands of the orthodox vis a vis Ahmadis, Jinnah made it absolutely clear that anyone who professes to be a Muslim is a Muslim and welcome in the Muslim League and that those who were raising the issue were trying to divide the Muslims. Here I am forced to say that I am inclined to accept Jinnah’s view and reject the collective wisdom of our sovereign legislature. There are several reasons which may be cited in this regard:

  1. First and foremost Pakistan is bound by the United Nations’ charter. Therefore Pakistan is bound to ensure freedom of religion for all its citizens and freedom of religion means freedom of religion according to the definition of the subject of the said freedom.
  2. Identity is subjective not objective. The state of Pakistan or any other state cannot tell an Ahmadi that he is not a Muslim because it is intrinsic to the faith of an Ahmadi.  This is an inviolable, inalienable right as part of right to life which every state in the world is bound to protect. If Ahmadis say they are Muslims they ought to be accepted as such.
  3. Pakistan is a signatory to the ICCPR and without reservations since June 2011. Therefore every piece of legislation that discriminates against Ahmadis or forces a label upon them is ultra vires the ICCPR.
  4. The Islamic argument: According to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) anyone who utters the Kalima Shahadah is a Muslim. None of the Kalimas, including the Primary Kalima Shahadah contains any reference to the principle of the finality of Prophethood as understood by the Muslim majority today.
  5. Finally because by conduct and promise, Pakistani state is estopped from claiming otherwise. In 1947, Pakistan laid claim to Qadian as a Muslim holy place, a counter-blast to Sikh claims on Nankana Sahib and Hassan Abdal.  Similarly in 1946 elections which is the basic referendum on the question of Pakistan, Ahmadi votes were instrumental in getting Muslims Pakistan. These are undeniable facts of history.

 

Therefore- fully aware of the stigma attached to this statement- I concur with Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, thefounding father of Pakistan that Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise.

 

Syndicated from: Pak Tea House

Comments (0)

Register your blog:

Enter your blog address below to become a part of the TeaBreak network.

About TeaBreak:

TeaBreak.pk is a blog aggregator that syndicates pakistani blogs and categorizes them appropriately. Our mission is to give our readers a break from work and let them enjoy their blog time. And we are doing this by bringing all the popular blogs of Pakistan on one platform.