Influential accused

During the second term of Benazir Bhutto’s government, when pressure started coming from the United States against Article 295C, the deceased made it an issue with her Law Minister Iqbal Haider. Iqbal Haider used to make speeches and statements against this section. This convinced the United States that Benazir was serious about removing the clause.

At that time, Maulana Fazlur Rehman came on the front with full enthusiasm to defend the clause. During that time, several people were killed in an protest by policemen. Thus, Benazir told the United States not to mention this issue for the next ten years because the nation is on the verge of death.

Understanding the delicacy of the situation, not only the United States but the entire West remained silent on this issue for many years to come. The narrator says that then Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Maulana Fazlur Rehman were on “one page” regarding this issue.

The two seemingly rival leaders were playing together against the United States. At that time, many interesting statements of Benazir Bhutto and Maulana Fazlur Rehman against each other were the adornment of newspapers but two of them were very important.

One day Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto issued a meaningful statement to which Maulana Fazlur Rehman responded. It seemed that Maulana had reacted but in fact Maulana had fulfilled the real purpose of her statement.

Benazir’s statement was something like this: No law is required for the Namoos-e-Risalat, the people of Pakistan can protect it themselves. Maulana’s reaction to this was as follows: Instead of enforcing the law, she wants to promote a culture of public bloodshed.

Politics is a very complex game but also an art. Sometimes those who appear to be rivals are not really rivals, and the above- mentioned politicians are considered masters. It would be foolish to expect Benazir Bhutto to think of “public justice” instead of the law.

The two leaders must had addressed the Pakistani people, but all that was meant to United States. So looking at these two statements in the same context, it becomes very clear what they were trying to convince the United States. The same thing would not have happened if Benazir said so in a meeting with the US ambassador, but it became a wake-up call when the conversation between the then prime minister and the seemingly rival religious leader came to a head.

It is noteworthy that what was said 28 years ago through these two statements has the status of a principle. Through their two statements, these two leaders have clarified that if there is no rule of law then there will be public rule, that is, law of the jungle.

This is not a complicated matter for any lawyer to understand. Every constitution of the world, every law and every provision of it has been made so that the law of the jungle cannot make room, there should be a system of justice in the state and the same system should be responsible for punishment and retribution.

The next day on a news channel, an “individual” was found saying on the Sialkot incident that if someone had committed blasphemy  in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or His Companions, would he have been treated in such a way? This question is very important, but incomplete. The side questions of this question are as follows.

In the days of the Prophet (PBUH) or His Companions, in cases of blasphemy , is there was a policy that the accusation was false or it was made for personal purposes? Did camels or horses come from Rome and Persia during the Prophet’s (PBUH) time to pick up criminals of blasphemy ? And they managed to escape safely? Did anyone in those days even dare to say that the law of blasphemy  should be abolished?

Our political acumen is so shattered that we cannot witness how the West always rush to save every culprit of blasphemy . The West not only puts pressure on governments and courts, but also protects the insolent by sending chartered planes, even giving the status of a minister to some notorious insolent (Ghustakhi) ones.

So what happens now is that the governments, in order to get the accused or the culprit to board their chartered plane, justify in advance that he is innocent, he has been implicated in this case for personal gain. There is no justification for supporting incidents like Sialkot because crime and punishment is an intrusive police matter.

If the police, the courts and the state do not fulfill their duty, it does not give the people the right to become police, judges and executioners themselves. Islam itself does not accept such a move, but it would be a crime to ignore the established principle that the weaker the rule of law, the more lawlessness will increase.

If only the insistence that the citizen is not allowed to take the law into his own hands could have worked, then parliaments around the world would have lost their legitimacy. Why are new laws being passed every day even in the most developed countries of the world? Because the human mind also develops in the field of crime.

Pakistan’s problem is not only that there is a challenge of legislation for new types of incidents, but also that influential criminals escape even in the crimes for which there are laws. The accused who are killed by the opposing party in the court premises every day are the influential individuals.

When it becomes clear to the opposite party that justice is not being done, they are just being pushed by the courts every day, then they decide to do “justice” themselves. No matter how much you insist that it is wrong, it will continue to happen. Its path can only be blocked by real implementation of the law.

Believe it or not, but the fact is that Pakistan’s most influential accused is accused of blasphemy. The United States is behind it, no matter how fragmented it may be. So as much as you and I condemn incidents like Sialkot, and insist as much as you want that this is wrong, the problem will not be solved.

These influential accused will continue to be killed like this. This can only be stopped if the United States and the Desi liberals stop backing these criminals and ensure a clear and transparent rule of law.