In a rare show of consensus, members of the Punjab Assembly virulently condemned Pakistan’s former High Commissioner to the UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, for an alleged interview he gave to an Urdu daily declaring that the decision to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims was wrong. However, in their zeal to denounce Ambassador Hasan, the Punjab lawmakers got two important facts wrong. The source of the comments was misattributed as the diplomat did not give any interview to a newspaper but made a speech at a peace conference in Alton, UK. More crucially, his tone and message were blown out of context since he was not making any theological arguments but rather was expressing regret about Pakistan’s nosedive into intolerance and parliament’s role in allowing that to happen. The essence of the speech was his plea for Pakistan to adhere to Jinnah’s unadulterated vision of a tolerant, liberal and progressive democracy, which could exist without contradicting Islam’s ideals of social justice. The content of the speech is considered and historically grounded and does not repudiate any Islamic tenet. As Ambassador Hasan noted in his clarification statement, it is regrettable that Punjab Assembly members would take up this small speech and make it such an issue while ignoring more pertinent problems facing the province. The furore over the speech clearly demonstrates that there is a tendency in our lawmakers to practice the politics of irrational outrage on the filmiest of pretexts. The fact that the mere word “Ahmadi” can set off such a passionate brouhaha in one of the highest political institutions suggests that the intolerance lamented by the beleaguered diplomat is pervasive and makes his comments even more pertinent. The callousness with which tragedies suffered by the Ahmadis over the years are sidelined or even condoned publicly is a blot on the face of the Pakistani state. Shamsul Hasan’s contention that parliament is an inappropriate body to legislate on matters of anyone’s faith is a legitimate argument. Even if one disagrees with that conclusion, constitutionally non-Muslims still have citizenship rights. However, the capitulation to the pressures of religious extremists vis-à-vis the status of Ahmadis that was started by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto has only opened the floodgates for the politics of prejudice and persecution. The issue is not one of engaging in a debate about the theological underpinnings of the Ahmaddiya faith, but one of respect for human life and dignity. What is not contentious, however, is that ever since the series of legislations marginalising Ahmadis have been introduced, they have become a walking target and their safety and peace of mind has disappeared. It is indeed a cause for solemn reflection that the only issue that can unite our lawmakers is one where they are inspired to assert their credentials of self-righteous intolerance. *