A look back for Qadri supporters Yasser Latif Hamdani
In the case of Muslims, the offence that merits the death penalty is not a one-time offence but repeated and habitual offence, and as a last resort
After the recent conviction of Salmaan Taseers assassin, Mumtaz Qadri, and the hoopla surrounding it, we must as a nation consider the root of the issue: how is it that the assassin of a governor comes to be celebrated as a hero and modern avatar of Ilam Din, the celebrated young assassin of Raj Pal in the 1920s?
When considering the historical angle, we must consider the role of two of the finest intellectuals produced by the Muslim community in Punjab whose support for Ilam Din is quoted as justification for the support for Qadri, i.e. Dr Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Dr Mohammed Din Taseer who, incidentally, was Salmaan Taseers father.
Iqbal and Taseer, both Cambridge educated gentlemen, were in essence modern Muslims and it therefore is a compelling argument to quote them as justification for the actions of some educated members of the middle class today who are protesting Qadris conviction. Here we must consider whether there is any real parallel between the actions of Mumtaz Qadri and Ilam Din beyond the fact that both of them acted out of a feeling of religious veneration. Without condoning Ilam Dins actions, first and foremost it must be noted that the context was entirely different. Raj Pal published an offensive pamphlet as part of the ongoing pamphlet war between Arya Samajists and Muslims in Punjab. For this, he was tried under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted. The trial court stated: Except to make a wanton attack upon the Prophet of Islam, to hold him up to ridicule and contempt, to ridicule his religion and thus to wound the feelings of his followers.
This judgment was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Court, which said, The pamphlet was intentionally offensive scurrilous and wounding to the religious feelings of the Mahomedan community and that it was undoubtedly malicious in tone and intention, and that, in the case of this publication, the intention was obviously to wound and insult the feelings of a particular community.
This case then went to the Lahore High Court. Even Justice Dilip Singh, who was later accused of anti-Muslim bias, concluded that the pamphlet was a scurrilous satire aimed at the life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). This is what Dilip Singh wrote in his judgment: Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the pamphlet does not show any such intention and that it was only meant to show the evils of polygamy and marriage between persons of disparate age. I have no hesitation in rejecting this explanation of the pamphlet. It undoubtedly is nothing more or less than a scurrilous satire on the founder of the Muslim religion but I cannot find anything in it which shows that it was meant to attack the Mahomedan religion as such...the tone of the pamphlet as a whole is undoubtedly malicious and likely to wound the religious feelings of the Muslim community...Section 153-A intended to prevent persons from making attacks on a particular community as it exists at the present time and was not meant to stop polemics against deceased religious leaders however scurrilous and in bad taste as these attacks might be.
Consequently, Raj Pal was acquitted and ultimately murdered. It must also be mentioned that even the division bench that presided over the Ilam Din appeal noted that Raj Pals pamphlet was scurrilous and offensive. It was in this atmosphere that Muslim intellectuals including Iqbal and Taseer formed the Ghazi Ilam Din Committee. The background itself was the communal relations in Punjab and the united front put forth by Muslims in Punjab against the communal excesses of Arya Samaj. This, of course, is no justification for violence and murder but by the same token it distinguishes entirely the Ilam Din case from Qadris case.
The thin and plainly concocted arguments put forward by Mumtaz Qadris defence team need to be considered against this background. They allege that Salmaan Taseer committed blasphemy and therefore his assassin was justified in killing him. In the presence of 295-C, what was there to stop Mr Mumtaz Qadri or anyone else from bringing a criminal complaint against Salmaan Taseer? The answer to this is that even by 295-C, which the ulema put forward as the infallible word of God, the late Mr Taseer could not be convicted of blasphemy for asking for amendments.
It must be remembered that Mr Taseer had simply asked for the law to be brought into conformity with Islamic jurisprudence. There is a very strong view held by the majority of Hanafi scholars that mens rea (intent) is a key element for establishing guilt for blasphemy. Besides, have we not heard the well known ahsan (confirmed) hadith of the Holy Prophet (PBUH): All actions are judged by intentions? What is more, under Islamic law, a Muslim accused of blasphemy becomes apostate. The juristic application of this key point is that a Muslim accused of blasphemy can at any time ask for forgiveness and perform shahadah (the act of entering Islam) again to come back into the fold of Islam. Therefore, in the case of Muslims, the offence that merits the death penalty is not a one-time offence but repeated and habitual offence, and as a last resort. As for non-Muslims, Imam Abu Hanifa is on record as having laid down the dictum that non-Muslims cannot be awarded death penalty for blasphemy. The reasoning for this, given by the great Islamic jurist, is that the very act of staying outside the circle of Islam is spiritually worse than blasphemy and since Islam affords freedom of religion for non-Muslims it cannot logically punish by death a non-Muslim for blasphemy.
Therefore, it is time that both camps, i.e. liberals and ulema, modify their extreme positions for the sake of Islam and our country, both of which have been brought into disrepute through these goings on. Liberals must acknowledge that the blasphemy law, unpalatable as it might be to us, is what the majority wants but such a blasphemy law should be in conformity with the spirit of Islam and human rights. The ulema must also concede that 295-C, as it exists, is not in conformity with the spirit of Islam and is misused. They should get together to improve the law and work to create an additional anti-incitement law to ensure the holy name of our Prophet (PBUH) is not used to settle personal scores. Why should they fear a reasonable proposition such as this, which will only serve to protect our most revered personality from concocted scurrilous attacks created and motivated by other factors? When an accuser accuses an innocent person of blasphemy and concocts false evidence to prove it, is he not also committing blasphemy? There is no law that targets such cynical blasphemers.
Furthermore, the ulema should also reconsider their ill-conceived support for Mumtaz Qadri whose crime is unpardonable. Mumtaz Qadri not only killed another human being in contravention of the law but forfeited his duty and killed a man he had sworn to protect. This hits at the root of all known Islamic principles.
This is our country and all of us liberal and conservative, religious and irreligious have to live here together. Let us find that elusive middle point for I assure you that compromise would be the most Islamic act we do as a nation in 64 years.
