by Baber Sattar
If you are an “aashiq-e-Rasool” (devotee of the Prophet), should you be able to get away with murder? Can we, as a society, justify the cold-blooded murder of Salmaan Taseer by Mumtaz Qadri, merely because this killer believed he was discharging a divine duty? Can a citizen be allowed to execute another summarily in pursuit of a self-defined higher ideal of ‘justice’ not recognised by law, and can such logic be inducted as a valid justification for murder? Isn’t that the story of all psychopaths who pose a threat to society? Must we become apologists for vigilantism and crimes perpetrated in the name of religion, honour and tradition?
Notwithstanding what construct of justice and mode of reasoning one employs, the demand of the mullah brigade (and the anarchist band of lawyers who pelted flowers at a murderer and later ransacked the court that awarded him the death sentence) that Qadri must go scott-free is neither just nor reasonable. The argument against punishing Qadri is that in violating the law, he was actually meting out justice. Or in other words, meting out justice in the name of religion should be treated as justification (like self-defence) for an action that is otherwise a crime (i.e. killing a fellow citizen).
Law, most people agree, doesn’t have the moral authority it claims. But for any legal system to be credible and effective, the pursuit of morality in breach of law must attract penal consequences. What the law does is publicly declare certain rules that everyone is required to abide by. These rules might seem unjust at times, but they are binding. If you break a signal because you’re rushing to the airport to catch a flight, you are doing so with the knowledge that the challan or ticket that you might get as a consequence is an acceptable cost. But you cannot show up in court and justify your defiance of the law because a personal need or calling overrides traffic rules.
Those opposed to the law considered bad or unjust can either try and get it changed, or defy it. But when such defiance is with complete knowledge of the penal consequences that will follow, the punishment that results is not unfair.
Can we placate the frothing mullahs by adding an all-encompassing provision within Pakistan Penal Code holding that anyone whose religious beliefs are incensed by actions of another could legitimately inflict violence on such person? If the mullahs wish to make Qadri their hero for defying the law and killing a fellow human in pursuit of his belief-system, and hang his garlanded photo in their drawing rooms for their kids to emulate, there can be no accounting for such personal choice other than social censure.
But when they come out on the street and use violence to force our legal system and the society to accommodate violent crime and bigotry within the fold of rule of law, such coercive attempt to adulterate the legal system must be resisted forcefully.
There are many in Pakistan who believe that our blasphemy law is unjust, not because they support blasphemy, but because the law in its existing form is liable to abuse and has been abused continually.
The mullah brigade is not interested in a rational debate over the merits of the blasphemy law, as it exists and is applied in Pakistan. But its approach to scuttling debate has been considered and cunning. At step one is the argument that retaining the existing malfunctioning legal provisions related to blasphemy is essential to preempt impassioned ‘aashiq-e-Rasool’ from taking law into their own hands. In other words if law doesn’t allow persecution of those accused, the resulting vigilantism will be justified.
Step two is to condemn all critics of our blasphemy law as blasphemers themselves, who then become legitimate targets for the bigoted brigades. So if Salmaan Taseer is standing up for someone accused of blasphemy, he automatically transforms into a blasphemer and is liable to be killed.
And at step three is the assertion that when the killing of one human being by another is motivated by a higher ideal, such as executing the divinely ordained task of defending the honour of the Prophet, the law should make allowance for such self-assumed duty. As Mumtaz Qadri killed Salmaan Taseer in genuine pursuit of his religious ideals, the criminal justice system ought to treat intent behind such murder as benevolent.
The mullah brigade wishes that crimes of bigotry and hatred in the name of religion be declared as no crimes at all because the underlying intent cannot be deemed guilty. The reasoning being employed here, if accepted, would justify the genocide of non-Muslims and religious minorities in Pakistan. It would legitimise the targeted killing of Hazaras by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in Balochistan and Shias across Pakistan, and it would condone the slaughter of innocent citizens by the Taliban. The logical outcome of such train of thought is thus ghastly. It would wipe out the possibility of discussion, debate or divergence within the realm of religion.
Such a move for homogeneity in the belief-system of Pakistanis while incapable of succeeding will certainly foster further anarchy and violence. If every Pakistani believes that he/she has a license from God to enforce his/her religious convictions on others, such mindset excludes the possibility of ours being a pluralistic society. If you legitimise violence inflicted on others in the name of religion or declare that the intent to harm others when driven by religious fervour is absolved of guilt, you are merely corrupting your system of justice from within by leaving no objective criteria to determine criminality.
And once you endorse that (i) any individual can assume agency and act as judge, jury and executioner in relation to another citizen if so commanded by his personal religious belief, and (ii) some actions/opinions against established religious dogma, or cultural/tribal values or entrenched concepts of honour are so wrong that any person associated with them doesn’t even deserve the protection of due process of law, you are sounding the death-knell of rule of law and constitutionalism.
But the mullahs are not interested in debating any of this within the sphere of religious thought or on the temporal plain as exhibited by the fact that they killed both Mufti Sarfraz Naeemi and Salmaan Taseer.
The nature of radicalism and intolerance being advocated, practiced and defended by the mullah, if left unchallenged, will gravitate toward more violent extremism. As the mullah’s instrument of persuasion is violence, it works seamlessly when the state chooses to step aside as an indifferent bystander. The ordinary citizen is incapable of confronting the bigotry and coercion of the mullah because no level playing field exists. If you dare to confront the mullah you do so at the peril of being declared an apostate, infidel or heretic, and such a label instantly denudes you of your most fundamental entitlement: the right to life and liberty.
The violent mullah and his reign of terror are not natural products of evolution. They are byproducts of our state policies and priorities. Religious militias cannot sustain themselves unless condoned by the state and treated as part of the national security paraphernalia. Armed religious groups cannot operate freely across Pakistan intimidating people, perpetrating violence and radicalising the society, unless the state conceives such harm as acceptable loss in pursuit of strategic objectives. And religious extremists cannot continue to brainwash our youth, if the state regulates the curriculum of madrassahs and provides free education to all children as our constitution mandates.
Unless the state changes its policy and our civil, military and thought leaders exhibit the courage to stand up to self-proclaimed agents of God, the coercive consensus on issues related to religion will develop into a conformist consensus, leaving little hope for progressive change.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
Notwithstanding what construct of justice and mode of reasoning one employs, the demand of the mullah brigade (and the anarchist band of lawyers who pelted flowers at a murderer and later ransacked the court that awarded him the death sentence) that Qadri must go scott-free is neither just nor reasonable. The argument against punishing Qadri is that in violating the law, he was actually meting out justice. Or in other words, meting out justice in the name of religion should be treated as justification (like self-defence) for an action that is otherwise a crime (i.e. killing a fellow citizen).
Law, most people agree, doesn’t have the moral authority it claims. But for any legal system to be credible and effective, the pursuit of morality in breach of law must attract penal consequences. What the law does is publicly declare certain rules that everyone is required to abide by. These rules might seem unjust at times, but they are binding. If you break a signal because you’re rushing to the airport to catch a flight, you are doing so with the knowledge that the challan or ticket that you might get as a consequence is an acceptable cost. But you cannot show up in court and justify your defiance of the law because a personal need or calling overrides traffic rules.
Those opposed to the law considered bad or unjust can either try and get it changed, or defy it. But when such defiance is with complete knowledge of the penal consequences that will follow, the punishment that results is not unfair.
Can we placate the frothing mullahs by adding an all-encompassing provision within Pakistan Penal Code holding that anyone whose religious beliefs are incensed by actions of another could legitimately inflict violence on such person? If the mullahs wish to make Qadri their hero for defying the law and killing a fellow human in pursuit of his belief-system, and hang his garlanded photo in their drawing rooms for their kids to emulate, there can be no accounting for such personal choice other than social censure.
But when they come out on the street and use violence to force our legal system and the society to accommodate violent crime and bigotry within the fold of rule of law, such coercive attempt to adulterate the legal system must be resisted forcefully.
There are many in Pakistan who believe that our blasphemy law is unjust, not because they support blasphemy, but because the law in its existing form is liable to abuse and has been abused continually.
The mullah brigade is not interested in a rational debate over the merits of the blasphemy law, as it exists and is applied in Pakistan. But its approach to scuttling debate has been considered and cunning. At step one is the argument that retaining the existing malfunctioning legal provisions related to blasphemy is essential to preempt impassioned ‘aashiq-e-Rasool’ from taking law into their own hands. In other words if law doesn’t allow persecution of those accused, the resulting vigilantism will be justified.
Step two is to condemn all critics of our blasphemy law as blasphemers themselves, who then become legitimate targets for the bigoted brigades. So if Salmaan Taseer is standing up for someone accused of blasphemy, he automatically transforms into a blasphemer and is liable to be killed.
And at step three is the assertion that when the killing of one human being by another is motivated by a higher ideal, such as executing the divinely ordained task of defending the honour of the Prophet, the law should make allowance for such self-assumed duty. As Mumtaz Qadri killed Salmaan Taseer in genuine pursuit of his religious ideals, the criminal justice system ought to treat intent behind such murder as benevolent.
The mullah brigade wishes that crimes of bigotry and hatred in the name of religion be declared as no crimes at all because the underlying intent cannot be deemed guilty. The reasoning being employed here, if accepted, would justify the genocide of non-Muslims and religious minorities in Pakistan. It would legitimise the targeted killing of Hazaras by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in Balochistan and Shias across Pakistan, and it would condone the slaughter of innocent citizens by the Taliban. The logical outcome of such train of thought is thus ghastly. It would wipe out the possibility of discussion, debate or divergence within the realm of religion.
Such a move for homogeneity in the belief-system of Pakistanis while incapable of succeeding will certainly foster further anarchy and violence. If every Pakistani believes that he/she has a license from God to enforce his/her religious convictions on others, such mindset excludes the possibility of ours being a pluralistic society. If you legitimise violence inflicted on others in the name of religion or declare that the intent to harm others when driven by religious fervour is absolved of guilt, you are merely corrupting your system of justice from within by leaving no objective criteria to determine criminality.
And once you endorse that (i) any individual can assume agency and act as judge, jury and executioner in relation to another citizen if so commanded by his personal religious belief, and (ii) some actions/opinions against established religious dogma, or cultural/tribal values or entrenched concepts of honour are so wrong that any person associated with them doesn’t even deserve the protection of due process of law, you are sounding the death-knell of rule of law and constitutionalism.
But the mullahs are not interested in debating any of this within the sphere of religious thought or on the temporal plain as exhibited by the fact that they killed both Mufti Sarfraz Naeemi and Salmaan Taseer.
The nature of radicalism and intolerance being advocated, practiced and defended by the mullah, if left unchallenged, will gravitate toward more violent extremism. As the mullah’s instrument of persuasion is violence, it works seamlessly when the state chooses to step aside as an indifferent bystander. The ordinary citizen is incapable of confronting the bigotry and coercion of the mullah because no level playing field exists. If you dare to confront the mullah you do so at the peril of being declared an apostate, infidel or heretic, and such a label instantly denudes you of your most fundamental entitlement: the right to life and liberty.
The violent mullah and his reign of terror are not natural products of evolution. They are byproducts of our state policies and priorities. Religious militias cannot sustain themselves unless condoned by the state and treated as part of the national security paraphernalia. Armed religious groups cannot operate freely across Pakistan intimidating people, perpetrating violence and radicalising the society, unless the state conceives such harm as acceptable loss in pursuit of strategic objectives. And religious extremists cannot continue to brainwash our youth, if the state regulates the curriculum of madrassahs and provides free education to all children as our constitution mandates.
Unless the state changes its policy and our civil, military and thought leaders exhibit the courage to stand up to self-proclaimed agents of God, the coercive consensus on issues related to religion will develop into a conformist consensus, leaving little hope for progressive change.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment