Pakistan is a religious state hence culminating Blasphemy laws that are not Secular at their core like in majority of the states but Islamic which has produced a society that commits extrajudicial killings of certain people without a single proof if hinted that they were foul mouthing towards "The Last Prophet"(my belief) Hazrat Muhammad (SAWW) but goes on saying that Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani was nothing but A con man who died in his washroom while taking a s*** for crying out loud.
Hamza Ali Abbasi asked a few days earlier whether a state had the right to define the believers of a certain religion or not, as an anchor person of a religious show. Now, he should not be bashed for anchoring a religious show or asking this question while being a part of the "glamour fraternity" because that would be an Aristotelian logical fallacy of relevance, but should be criticized for asking this question while only one of the parties contesting for this right was present. He was asking Maulanas about a right of the state that was seriously contested over by Maulanas and State in the first place, meaning that he pretty much ascertained that the answer went his way. Maulanas predictably replied that it should be maulanas having the right to call someone believer of a particular religion or not.
Should this question be asked? Yes, because every question should be asked.
Should this question be asked in a way of assertion rather than an inquiry? No Hamza, do not be naughty.
Should this question be asked when the answer is pretty predictable and on the inquirer's side? You are getting cunningly wise in journalism Hamza. You should be bashed for that.
Ideally this question should have been asked in the presence of a Maulana from every Muslim Sect, a maulana from Ahmidi Community, a representative each from the two houses of the parliament and a Judge from the Supreme Court. Yes, it is that big a matter. Any setting less than this in which this question is posted is unfit and is unjust, immoral and unethical on the journalist's part. However the usage of electronic media to put this question in somehow manages to achieve this setting but it is still not the desired equal footing.
The other thing that the usage of electronic media achieves is putting this question in the mainstream societal discourse where lies the problem.
Should this question be in the mainstream societal discourse? Being a question,Yes.
Is it that difficult to answer? No.
Is it more pertinent than the asking of a question of blasphemy laws that are unable to give protections to the emotions of Ahmidi community? No it is not, get over with it already.
The answer to the question is both yes and no. A state does not have the right to declare someone a believer or otherwise of a religion but a religious state like Pakistan (the context of Hamza's question) not only have the right but also a responsibility to explicitly define who belongs to the said religion and who does not. Religion is a personal matter. Pakistan is a religious state. It has every right to define it's religion according to it's own beliefs. If Hamza Ali abbasi does not want Maulanas and the general public to be defining him as "Kafir" or "Muslim" then so does it go for an Islamic state. It has to explicitly define what it means by Islam and Muslims so as to not let any misconceptions to occur in the future.
It is the need of the hour that Pakistan even define Islam in a way so as to expel "Talibans" and "ISIS" from the Islam Pakistan as a state follows. So hamza, your question was impertinent, foolish, and setting wise immoral, unjust and unethical. Better keep such questions to yourself rather than causing this much fuss on electronic and social media.
Now the real questions? Do Blasphemy laws are only their to protect the prophet of Islam? Do even an Islamic state have the right to give rise to such Blasphemy Laws that only protect Islam? Is calling Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani a con man not the violation of Blasphemy Laws?
Muslims of sub-continent being a minority asked for a separate homeland to liberate themselves from the tyranny of the majority and has done nothing but the same oppression after becoming a majority in The Islamic Republic of Paikstan. As a result, The Nation is Bleeding...