Blasphemy – The Chasm between Qur’anic Injunctions and its Practice in Pakistan

Blasphemy – The Chasm between Qur’anic Injunctions and its Practice in Pakistan

Arif Humayun

Background

Governor Salman Taseer’s assassination in Pakistan on January 4^th, 2011 has exposed the deep intellectual fissures in the country regarding Islam and its commandments.  Angered by the governor terming the controversial blasphemy laws as ‘black law’ and for seeking the pardon of a Christian mother sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy, his bodyguard shot him at point-blank range with a sub machine gun.

Promulgated as a Martial Law ordinance by Gen Zia ul Haq in 1984, this draconian law has been the fulfillment of the politicized clergy’s dream who had demanded it since the 1950s.[1] This law has permeated through the grain of the society and is now considered beyond discussion in Pakistan.  It mandates capital punishment for blasphemy and has frequently been exploited to victimize minorities for personal gains.

Many religious leaders, politicians, lawyers, and others have publicly justified the murder and treated the governor’s assassin as a hero; he was showered with rose petals and garlanded by supporters when he made his first court appearance.[2] Justifying the act as “defense of the dignity of the Prophet”, some Pakistani religious leaders have praised the murderer and warned those who expressed grief over the assassination with dire consequences because they themselves would become blasphemers; people were even warned against attending his funeral services![3]^, [4] A renewed campaign to protect the blasphemy laws was launched in Pakistan in December 2010 after the dismissal of coalition party minister from the Federal Government.[5]

Muslims must realize that their scripture, the Qur’an, does not prescribe death or any penalty for blasphemy, nor authorizes humans to penalize the blasphemer.  This paper will dispel that myth by presenting the Qur’anic position and the Prophet’s practices in dealing with blasphemers.  Implicit in this paper is a challenge to the supporters of the blasphemy law to provide scriptural justification for their endorsement of this legislation.

Introduction

Ayatollah Khomeni’s fatwa, calling for Salman Rushdie’s murder for blasphemy, started the race for competing calls for Rushdie’s head from the Sunni clergy (in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) who did not want to be left behind.  Kenan Malik[6] documents the political machinations which led up to the street protests in the UK and Pakistan and the issuance of the Khomeni fatwa against Rushdie in February 1989.  A majority of Islamic scholars remained silent but the politicized clergy exploited the situation to their advantage.  Almost a decade later, in September 1998, the Iranian government softened its stance and publicly committed that it would “neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie”.  This was done as a precondition for restoring diplomatic relations with Britain.[7]

Perhaps, no prophet of God was more blasphemed, maligned, insulted and abused during his life-time than Prophet Muhammad[8] himself.  He and his followers were subjected to verbal invective and physical harassment of the harshest form.  The severity of persecution forced him to migrate from Mecca to Medina with all his followers.  Ten years later he returned to Mecca as a triumphant leader, with thousands of followers; the city surrendered without a fight and its citizens welcomed him.   Much to the amazement of the Meccans, the prophet forgave their atrocities and announced a general pardon.  This was the prophet’s general attitude towards his enemies and blasphemous opponents throughout his life.  All Muslims claim to accept the prophet as a perfect exemplar; yet those who justify Governor Taseer’s killing have chosen to place their personal convictions above that of the prophet and the scripture.

For brevity, the BBC’s News Hour report[9] broadcast on January 5, 2011 seems to aptly describe the general sentiment of the average Pakistani Muslim.  The transcript of that report (Appendix 1) highlights the confusion, incoherency and fear in the responses of the interviewee who is the editor of an English language newspaper in Islamabad.  Similarly, several newspaper reports and TV talk shows in Pakistan[10] confirm this intellectual paralysis where people are not even willing to discuss the blasphemy law, characterizing it as sacred.  Sadly, the so-called ‘silent majority’ has been rather quiet in their condemnation.  This may be due to the rising tendency to forcibly silence voices of religious dissent – a tendency promoted by militant groups and religious forces active in the political sphere – or ignorance about the matter.  Moreover, as indicated in the BBC interview, the silent majority among Muslims could be a myth because Gen Zia’s forced Islamization policies during the 1980s may have permeated the minds of children brought up during that time.  This presents a very frightening situation indeed.

This dangerous trend of religious intolerance is expanding to other Muslim countries as evidenced by the church bombing in Cairo, Egypt on 31 December 2010.[11]

It is thus important for Muslims to first understand the Qur’anic teachings of peace and compassion and reject any terrorist acts that are justified under the guise of Islam.  Such clear understanding may empower people – Muslims and non-Muslims – to convincingly condemn such atrocity and deny the perpetrators any chance to conceal their heinous crimes behind the Islamic façade.

Islam and Blasphemy

Freedom of speech and expression is vital for human dignity.  No religion is worthy of any consideration unless it addresses itself to the restoration and protection of human dignity.  Freedom of speech is particularly important for Muslims for the propagation of and the removal of misconceptions about Islam.  Contrary to the politicized clergy’s rhetoric, Islam does not deny freedom of speech and expression.  On the contrary, it upholds this principle in a unique and unprecedented manner.  Rather than outright condemnation of the differing viewpoint, the Qur’an seeks evidence from those who claim monopoly over heavens and declare that only their adherents would enter paradise,[12] or those who associate partners with God,[13] or those who claim superiority of their scripture over the Qur’an.[14] It goes on to assert that God will select representatives from all faiths as witnesses and seek proof to demonstrate His claims.[15] This bold and peaceful conflict resolution methodology should serve as a guiding principle for every person, especially Muslims, who must consider this as a religious obligation.

Islam strongly condemns blasphemy on both moral and ethical grounds.  It does not prescribe any physical punishment nor authorizes humans to penalize the blasphemer despite the commonly held contrarian view expressed and demonstrated in Pakistan after the governor’s killing.  While prohibiting indecent behavior and indecent speech, or hurting the sensitivity of other peoples, the Qur’an does not advocate any punishment for blasphemy in this world nor vests such authority in any person or institution.  My research of the works of several scholars with extensive knowledge of the Qur’an has failed to identify a single verse which declares blasphemy a crime punishable by man.  This poses an implicit challenge to those who support capital punishment for blasphemy in Pakistan to produce scriptural evidence for their stance.

My research identified five specific instances where blasphemy has been mentioned in the Qur’an.  The first is a general description of blasphemy against God and the prescribed action for the believers:

He has already revealed to you in the Book that, when you hear the Signs of Allah being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they engage in a talk other than that; for in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allah will assemble the hypocrites and the disbelievers in Hell, all together.[16]

When thou sees those who engage in vain discourse concerning Our Signs, then turn thou away from them until they engage in a discourse other than that. And if Satan cause thee to forget, then sit not after recollection, with the unjust people.[17]

The approved response for Muslims against blasphemy is to temporarily disassociate themselves from the blasphemer(s) by staging a walkout from an assembly where religious values are being mocked and ridiculed.  Without an audience, the blasphemer will get a clear message to desist from such behavior.  Registering the protest peacefully will send a strong message to the blasphemer that vane speech will not be appreciated and that action could cost them their friendships.  Interestingly, this broad directive covers all religions and does not specifically mention Islam.  The Qur’an also asserts that the boycott should be temporary and should last only for the duration during which the act of blasphemy is being committed.  No mention of any human punishment or authorization to humans to carry out any punishment is made in these verses.

The second mention of blasphemy is broader, where, in addition to God, blasphemy against idols or any real or imaginary objects of worship of other religions are also prohibited:

Revile not those whom they call upon beside Allah, lest they, out of spite, revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus unto every people have We caused their doing seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return; and He will inform them what they used to do. ^[18]

Directly addressing Muslims, this verse prohibits them from blaspheming idols or any object of worship used by followers of other faiths.  A sound and logical reason for this prohibition is also provided that if Muslims blaspheme or ridicule the objects of worship used by followers of other faiths, then they may, as retaliation, blaspheme against God.  In this assertion, blasphemy against God and idols is mentioned on equal terms to signify to the Muslims that they should be sensitive to and hold sacred the traditions of other faiths.  It is important to note again that no physical punishment is prescribed in this directive.  I am reminded of the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan in 2001 in spite of the international outcry against that act of unfound piety.  According to the above Qur’anic verse, they had no religious justification for that action.

The moral of this teaching is rich in profound wisdom.  If one commits a crime against the spiritual sensibilities of others, the aggrieved party retains the right to retaliate.  Without being judgmental, the Qur’an acknowledges equal rights of retaliation to those who do not recognize the God of Islam and prohibits Muslims from embarking on that path.  Again, no punishment, nor authority to punish, the blasphemer is prescribed.

The third mention is an event of blasphemy against the Prophet where someone referred to the prophet in derogatory terms:

They say, ‘If we return to Medina, the most exalted will, surely, drive out therefrom the most mean,’ while true honor belongs to Allah and to His Messenger and the believers; but the hypocrites know not.[19]

The verse above refers to the comments made by Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul, an aspiring leader in Medina, whose leadership hopes were dashed by the Prophet’s migration to Medina.   This person is also known in the history of Islam as the Chief of Hypocrites.  While returning from an expedition, he declared that after returning to Medina, the noblest (referring to himself) would expel the meanest (referring to the prophet) from among the Medinites.  The prophet’s companions clearly understood that this insult was directed towards the prophet; tempers naturally ran high and the companions wanted to kill the blasphemer.  The extent of the indignation and rage could be estimated by the fact that the blasphemer’s son sought the prophet’s permission to kill his father arguing that if anyone else did so, he might entertain the thought of seeking revenge against his father’s killer in the future.[20] He not only refused to grant the son’s request, but also forbade his companions from punishing the blasphemer who, as already stated, is referred to as the chief of hypocrites.[21]

The prophet continued to deal with this blasphemer with mercy and compassion as an example for his companions.  When Abdullah bin Ubayy – the blasphemer – died a natural death in Medina, after having lived in peace, the Prophet gave his shirt to Ubhay’s son to enshroud his father’s body for burial—a singular act of blessing for every Muslim.  This act of generosity surprised everyone.  Moreover, his decision to lead Ubayy’s funeral prayers stunned everyone because the Muslims felt that the prophet had already shown enough compassion and mercy on the blasphemer by forgiving him.  They felt that the prophet should not lead his funeral prayer.  Umar, a close companions and the second caliph, advised him against the idea of leading the blasphemer’s funeral service; reinforcing his arguments to sway the prophet’s decision, Umar reminded him of the Qur’anic verse in which reference is made of some known hypocrites on whose behalf God would not accept even the prophet’s personal intercession; according to that verse, God would not forgive them even if he prayed for them (the hypocrites) seventy times.[22] The prophet responded: “I know better; if I know God would not forgive him even if I seek forgiveness seventy times, I would seek forgiveness for him more than seventy times”. He then led the funeral prayer.[23] This real life example from the prophet’s life should be an eye opener for those who kill and terrorize people under the false pretext to safeguard his honor.

Another event of severe persecution, repeatedly mentioned by Muslim historians and confirmed by Western researchers like Sir William Muir^[24] and W. Montgomery Watt,^[25] is the rough treatment the prophet endured during his visit to Taif, a town about 60 miles south-east of Mecca.  He went there to preach and took along Zaid, a slave whom he had freed and adopted as son.  The leaders of Taif rejected his message and ordered the prophet out of the city; the residents pelted stones at both men and severely injured them.  They bled profusely and sought refuge in an orchard outside the city where the prophet made a heartfelt supplication to God.  As a result, the Angel Gabriel appeared and sought his permission to crush the town between the surrounding mountains.  Exhibiting great patience and grace, the prophet sought forgiveness for his tormentors stating that someday their descendants would accept his message and prayed that God guide them because they were ignorant.

All forms of blasphemy and insult would have occurred during that event but the prophet exhibited a towering example of patience and forgiveness.  None of his followers retaliated against the residents of Taif for blasphemy even after they became victorious.

The other two mentions of blasphemers in the Qur’an are the doubters of Mary’s chastity after Jesus’ birth[26] and those who assert God having a son.[27] In neither case does the Qur’an prescribe any punishment nor does it authorize any person or institution the right to do so.

Scriptural examples contrasted with practice in Pakistan

The Pakistani clerics are unanimous in supporting the capital punishment for blasphemy.  The widespread support for Governor Taseer’s assassin by the professional bodies including lawyers, students, business community and newspaper editors, has been an eye opener, especially for Muslims living as minorities in western democracies.  The silence by the Muslim groups in the US and around the world has been deafening!  Persistent questions about the dichotomy between the claimed peaceful credentials of Islam and the killing of those who oppose draconian laws like blasphemy and support the rights of minorities that are discriminated against by these so-called Islamic laws, demand convincing responses from Muslims.

Sadly, Pakistanis have not provided any scriptural justification for defending this flawed law which has been repeatedly exploited for persecuting minorities and settling personal scores; they even refuse to discuss their position.  If the law is indeed Islamic, as asserted by the clergy, then irrefutable scriptural evidence must be provided.  Without producing any scriptural evidence, the clergy has launched massive rallies in Pakistan to pressurize the government to retain this law.  They are once again living by the axiom that offence is the best defense!

A political organization comprising virtually all religious political parties has been formed to safeguard the Prophet’s honor in Pakistan.  Known as the Tahaffuz Namoos-e-Risalat, this alliance was formed to pressurize the government to retain the controversial blasphemy law, abolish the committee set up to review the law and withdraw the proposed amendment bill from the parliament.  Virtually all political parties in Pakistan support the clergy’s demands.  To that extent, the federal and provincial governments have publicly supported the clergy’s position and repeatedly assured them that no changes to the existing blasphemy law would be made; some politicians have even termed the repeal of this draconian law as intolerable.[28]

The politicized clergy and the politicians draw inspiration from anything but the tolerant, understanding, and peaceful Islam practiced by the Prophet and his companions.  In contrast, a narrow, non-tolerant, and violent form is becoming more popular with the Muslim clergy in almost all Muslim countries because any opposition is silenced by force or threat of force.  The responsibility for checking the spread of this virulent form of radicalism is every individual’s – Muslim and non-Muslim’s – responsibility.  Each one of us must first understand the issues and then challenge and reject the concepts that are contrary to civil behavior and inconsistent with the Qur’an – Islam’s primary source.

The irony of the blasphemy law, its flaws, and its misapplications are demonstrated by the following recent examples.  A 45-year old Muslim prayer leader and his 20-year old son were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine on 10 January 2011.^[29] Mr. Shafi and his son Alam, belonged to the Deobandi Muslim sect and had removed a poster announcing an event from the front of their small, village grocery store. That meeting’s organizers – the competing Barelwi Muslims – reported that the poster contained Qur’anic inscriptions, and its removal and disposal amounted to blasphemy!  Both the Deobandi and Barelwi sects belong to the Sunni dispensation.

Similarly, a medical doctor from a minority community was arrested on December 12, 2010 under the blasphemy law on the complaint of a medical representative who called on him at his office.^[30] The alleged blasphemy occurred when the doctor reportedly discarded the medical representative’s business card.  Since the representative’s first name, Mohammed, was printed on the card, it amounted to blasphemy!  The doctor was released on bail pending trial.

The most glaring, public example of blatant misrepresentation of Qur’anic injunctions, which went unchallenged, was observed during a Pakistan TV talk show on 8 January 2011.[31] One of the two clerics arguing to defend Pakistan’s blasphemy laws recited a Qur’anic verse as evidence to prove that capital punishment for blasphemy is sanctioned by the Qur’an.  The second cleric reinforced that statement by referring to another Qur’anic verse.  On this rare occasion when the clerics claimed unanimity on the point of capital punishment for blasphemy and quoted the scripture, they simply exposed their ignorance or malice.  The first cleric Farid Piracha (Jama’at-e-Islami) recited verses 58 and 62[32] from Ch 33.  That chapter does not even mention blasphemy; its title – confederated tribes – reveals its content.  It refers to the event when a banished tribe formed a grand confederacy against the Muslims, who had migrated to Medina to avoid persecution, and marched against them to deliver a crushing blow to the rising power of Islam.  The other cleric, Ghufran Sialwi (head of the Sunni Movement) reinforced Piracha’s evidence by referring to another verse (Ch 9, v 13), which again is used out of context; it refers to those who break covenants, disregarding oaths and contracts, and attack Muslims.  Another cleric Fazal Karim, also invited as an expert, reemphasized unanimity of view with the other ‘experts’ and inferred scriptural sanction of capital punishment for blasphemy.

Interestingly, each of the talk show guests belonged to radicalized political parties.  None is considered a scholar of any standing.  They proudly proclaimed themselves as the custodians (monopolizers) of Islam, a role that was even denied to the prophet.[33] Allowing an intellectual debate, among real scholars on this and similar critical topics, is the need of the time.  That debate may not be possible in any Muslim country and the best venue for such discussion may be the Western democracies!

Murtaza Rizvi[34] provocatively describes the situation as “[f]lagrantly misrepresenting the scripture, these politicized clerics represented hypocrisy and self-righteousness wrapped in layers of personal piety and religiosity”.  The media should use its hard won freedom judiciously and should have invited scholars who could effectively refute the politicized clergy’s misrepresentations.  Articulating his thought further, he questions the rationale for allowing the supporters of Governor Taseer’s murderer to publicly support the crime and provide a scriptural façade was akin to pushing the obscurantist agenda and honoring General Ziaul Haq’s memory and asks the obvious question: Why is it always the mullah who must adjudicate affairs across the board amongst adherents of a faith that does not allow for priesthood in the first place?  But that is how one-sided the discourse has become in the new, brave, independent media today.

Concluding Comments

The Qur’an does not prescribe any punishment for blasphemy; it does not authorize humans or any institution to punish blasphemers.  The prophet himself forgave blasphemers, exhibited an unrivaled degree of forgiveness and compassion towards his tormentors, and established an example for his followers.

Sadly, governor Taseer’s murder in Pakistan and the unexpected, but widespread, support for his assassin, even among the affluent middle class groups of the society, confirms the chasm between the Qur’anic directives and its application in Pakistan.  Propagated and conducted to defend the prophet’s honor, the perpetrators’ actions are contrary to norms of civilized behavior, the injunctions of the Qur’an, and prophet’s practices which should serve as examples for Muslims.  It is hoped that this paper will empower people to question the clergy and seek scriptural confirmation that blasphemy is indeed a capital crime in Islam.

Appendix 1

Transcription of BBC’s News Hour

Interview with Tariq Khattak is editor of Pakistan’s Observer Newspaper

Broadcast on 5 January 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00cs3d1)

You are listening to the BBC World Service; this is Owen Bennet Jones (OBJ) with News Hour.

OBJ: Huge crowds have turned out in Pakistan for the state funeral of the Governor of Punjab Province, Salman Taseer, assassinated yesterday.  This is a show of support for his liberal attitudes but there have also been shows of support for his killer.  Ali Makbool (Ali M) reports:

Ali M: Because of his prominent anti-extremist stance, there were fears Salmaan Taseer’s funeral itself may have been targeted by militants but it took place peacefully with full military honors.  It was attended by thousands of people.  For many of them the governor was not just a politician but also a champion of the oppressed – a rare liberal hero of Pakistan.  But at the same tome in the city of Peshawar, is an altogether different gathering of people with a very different outlook.   It was a demonstration to celebrate the governor’s murder, calling for the release of his assassin, Mr. Taseer’s body guard, Mumtaz Qadri.  We the students are proud of him.  The job which Mumtaz performed, we are all with him.  The governor said the blasphemy law was a black law.  That is why Mumtaz killed him.  He did a tremendous job; we are proud of him.

OBJ: It does seem that Salman Taseer’s recent stand on Pakistan’s stringent blasphemy laws is the reason Mumtaz Qadri killed him.  The governor called for the laws to be scrapped, was the most prominent supporter of a Christian woman in Punjab who was sentenced to death because of them.  His views angered more hard line Muslims like those on the streets of Peshawar.  Of course, the feeling among many observers is that Pakistan has steadily veered towards becoming more conservative, even radical place.  It has gone to a stage where there is now clearly a deep fissure that runs through the society here, exposed by the governor’s death.  There are those that are morning the loss of a liberal hero and those who regarded him as a figure of hatred.  And that was Ali Makbool reporting.

Tariq Khattak (Tariq K) is editor of Pakistan’s Observer.  It is based in Islamabad, not a huge selling newspaper but it represents the strand of opinion that over the years have been considered close to the security and specially the nuclear establishment.  So what was his reaction to the death of the Punjab governor?

Tariq K:  My opinion is that he deserved it because he had violated the Islamic law.

OBJ:  “He deserved to be killed”?

Tariq K: Yes

OBJ: Because he didn’t agree with the blasphemy law?

Tariq K: Yes.

OBJ: Gosh! So anybody who doesn’t agree with that law should be killed?

Tariq K: Its not so simple.  Let me explain you.  As far as the law of Pakistan, it is one thing.  Laws are made and can be amended and they are broken, it’s OK.  But as far as Islamic law is concerned, it is over thousand years.  It is intact.  It is not that he was attacked due to insulting a law of the state.  It was Islamic Law.

OBJ:  There are many Islamic countries that don’t have this blasphemy law.  Are you saying that in those countries don’t want the blasphemy law like the one in Pakistan, should be killed?

Tariq K: It is not my opinion; it is in the Islam, in our religion.

OBJ:  No, No, that is open to interpretation.  There are many Muslims who don’t agree with what you are saying.

Tariq K: Yes, but there are many who agrees to it.

OBJ: Yes, and all those who disagree with you should die?

Tariq K: Aaa, Ya.  This is something a bit tricky.  As far as I know, anyone who disagrees with any law our religious scholars call him a traitor.

OBJ:  What you are saying is so extraordinarily intolerant.  That anyone declared by a religious scholar, so called, to be wrong, can be killed?

Tariq K: Ya, as far as I know about my religion.

OBJ: What I think many people listening to this around the world will think this to be the most stunning statement,  because on that ground, you could kill millions of peoples.

Tariq K: Ya, this could be and this can also lead me into problems, but I cannot give a wrong statement to please anyone.

OBJ: Oh I see, you are afraid of being killed if you don’t support this?

Tariq K: No I don’t think that I am such an important person.  But I am afraid of what I am talking right now because my country, and my people, and my departments can do something about it.

OBJ: I see.  So you are really saying there is an atmosphere of such fear in Pakistan; such intolerance that as a public figure, you know you are the editor of a newspaper, if you express an opinion which contradicts that of religious clerics, you fear for your life?

Tariq K: Yes, but I will never contradict it.

OBJ: Obviously, you want to stay alive, I presume?

Tariq K: I want to stay alive, number one. And number two, I am also answerable to God, and I eventually, I have to die and face him.

OBJ: Do you not think that some clerics might be wrong?

Tariq K: Some clerics might be wrong and they are wrong, they can have a different opinion in their private life and in private gathering with the people who are close to them but they cannot publically, because this will make them a target.

OBJ: And you are just describing a situation in which there is no freedom of thought whatsoever.  You are hostage to the view of clerics and frankly many of whom are barely educated.

Tariq K: They are barely educated from other point of view or other standards, say your standards or the education system in Pakistan but as far as their own system is concerned, they are educated.

OBJ: Do you think there are different interpretations of Islam?

Tariq K: Yes, there are.

OBJ: And so do you not think it is the responsibility of an individual in a public position like you to work out yourself which you think is the correct interpretation and then state it?

Tariq K: Yes, but as far as I know there are no two opinions about blasphemy.

OBJ: Oh there are many opinions. The last government tried to revoke this law.  It is widely considered within Pakistan as well as without to be used by neighbors who have grievances against people in their villages to resolve disputes because as soon as you accuse someone, they basically get killed; they go to jail and when they come out, they get killed.

Tariq K: Yes, but a person can also misuse a knife. A surgeon also uses knife to heal a person, to heal humanity.

OBJ: But what I am saying is that many people in Pakistan think this law is badly framed and abused often.

Tariq K: I will not disagree that it is abused.  Some people may like to abuse it as I have heard that some people are land mafia who grabs land of poor Christians, uses it. So this is no justification that some people are misusing the law to meet his own ends; so you cannot blame the law for it.

OBJ: If a substantial number of people think this guard was correct as you seem to think he was, we know that there are substantial number of people in Pakistan who don’t agree with that, there have been thousands at the politicians funeral today, do you think a clash between these two world views is now inevitable?

Tariq K: Yes, a clash can take place but I don’t see in near future because the death of the governor of Punjab will caution many who use to issue such statements that are not liked by majority. So they would be on guard.

OBJ:  And just one last thought, I mean, this man you say he is justified according to your religion in committing murder but he did commit murder so presumably you think he should face the death penalty for that?

Tariq K: Courts and judges will also be too cautious to announce a verdict which is against the thinking of majority of the people.

OBJ: too cautious, you really mean too frightened, don’t you?

Tariq K: Yes, of course, judges are also human beings and they also live in a society. They don’t live outside the society and they go to the courts and they have to face the people.

OBJ: That was Tariq Khattak, one of the crucial questions now is how representative that kind of point of view is. For an assessment of that aspect we turn to Amir Ahmad Khan (Amir K), the head of the BBC’s Urdu service.

Amir K: Well I can certainly say that he is not the only one saying that.  Within an hour of the assassination yesterday, somebody put up a Facebook page in support of the killer and it started clicking likes at the rate of about 600 an hour before somebody complained to the Facebook and it was pulled down.  By that time it had clocked well over three thousand likes.

Today, this morning, when the killer was taken to the court for the judicial remand, he was greeted by hundreds of lawyers. He was garlanded; rose petals were showered over him.  And one of the lawyers told our reporters that in Islamabad court that three hundred lawyers had signed a petition and sent it to the judge requesting permission to represent Mr. Qadri.

OBJ: Now we often hear that radical Islam represents only a minority of Pakistanis and most people are very moderate and tolerant.  Is that changing?

Amir K: I think one of the most insightful tweets that I have seen over the last 24 hours was from a person I do not know, he is a blogger, goes by the name of kala kawwa (means black crow).  And he tweeted that “all the stock about there being  silent moderate majority [is] rubbish, utter rubbish”.   I think that just about sums up because all we have seen in debates after this assassination on Pakistan television channels and you know that talk shows,  political talk shows, are very very popular in Pakistan.  We had very well-known journalists coming on to those talk shows and saying that Mr. Taseer basically got what he deserved.

OBJ: Senior journalists say that?

Amir K: Yes, senior journalists.

OBJ: So it is not only the Security establishment, which always used to be frankly but now it is also journalism and the legal profession and the public.

Amir K: I think the opinion we are getting, yes, it may be a moot point whether that is a majority opinion or a minority opinion but I think the opinion that we are getting in support of Mr. Taseer’s killer is generally a representative opinion in Pakistan.  Not the government may say that oh it is minority, it is not the majority, but if you compare that …

OBJ: it is a growing opinion

Amir K:  … it is a growing opinion it is definitely a growing opinion and now as the trial stage starts, you will see this growing opinion translating into street action.

OBJ:  He has not going to get much punishment, is he?

Amir K: He is played it very very smartly.  The way he has done it and he knew even as he was doing it that if he survives the first few seconds at the time of the assassination, very unlikely  that he is going to come to any kind of harm.

OBJ: he dropped his weapon and taken alive

Amir K: And this is something that we have seen members of some of Pakistan’s extremist organizations being  specially trained in that whenever you confront Pakistani security forces the first thing that you do is drop your weapon and raise your arms.  If you survive that few seconds, we’ll get you out of the courts, we’ll get you out of whatever legal bind the government creates around you.  And that is what we have seen happening consistently over the last many many years of the country.

OBJ: When you look ahead, do you think this kind of clash we are seeing in Pakistan now between those who support the governor and those who oppose him, is this going to turn into a wider conflict?

Amir K: A conflict can only happen when there are two sides. I don’t see the moderate side coming out in force.  Or willing to risk its life, the way the extremists are willing to risk their lives and the way they are willing to act openly in pursuance of their beliefs.  And as long as there is a reluctance on the part of the moderates and that is why they are moderates, as long as that reluctance is there to translate their beliefs into actions, it is difficult to see a conflict shaping up or a clash shaping up but what we can see a gradual submergence of whatever little moderate opinion is left in Pakistan.

OBJ: And that was Amir Ahmad Khan, he is the head of the BBC Urdu Service.  Later in the program, we come back to this issue asking your opinion about how secure the nation’s nuclear arsenal, in fact this latest security lapse did involve the one of the guards who came from very elite police unit, the Elite police Force based in Lahore.  So we will discuss a little later on and just now some of the things you have been saying……