Mumtaz Hussain Qadri turned against the state the day when in 2011 he killed a sitting governor. Not only did he murder an unarmed human being he also breached his oath of serving and protecting the state (officials) under the constitution. Qadri later confessed to his crime before the judiciary. However, he attempted to make a case in the name of religion: that Salmaan Taseer, the then governor, was a blasphemer by siding with Aasia Bibi, the Christian woman who had allegedly committed blasphemy. According to press reports, Qadri was deeply religious, and gradually radicalised on account of association with and exposure to extremist literature produced and propagated by extremist elements whose number is countless in our society. From a legal perspective, Qadri’s case was very simple. He committed a murder and confessed his crime. Hence, the apex courts in 2011 sentenced him to death. The case legally might have been over but it lived on for five years socio-religiously. Scores of Muslims, especially from the Barelvi sect, not only sympathised with Qadri but also supported his cause wholeheartedly. Amongst his fans, a section of lawyers was at the forefront. His counsels were pretty sure that noting was going to happen to Qadri, the ‘champion’ of Islam, and the Pakistani state — being a religious republic — would never dare to take action against him. Such a perception is not unfounded, as our state and society have exceedingly religionised over the decades with the effect that a lay Muslim like me does not find space to express his humble opinion on any matter that pertains to religion. The latter indeed has become the sole domain of the clergy, a majority of whom view the world from a primordial perspective grounded in the 7th century of Arabian Peninsula. The colonisation of the ‘Muslim land’ compounded the problem by providing the religious establishment with an enabling environment to implement their version of a political Islam in the post-colonial states such as Pakistan. The Islamic project was somehow endorsed by the founding fathers including Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The latter used religion for political and electoral purposes and, after independence, was unable to reverse the growing trend. Little wonder that after the Quaid’s death the Objectives Resolution was adopted, which was hailed as a victory by the pro-Islam political forces. Pakistan’s subsequent constitutions did contain Islamic provisions and, in the mid-1980s, with the incorporation of section 295 the British-oriented blasphemy laws were expanded. If history is a guide, the mentioned laws were legislated by respective parliaments comprised of ‘infallible human beings’. However, the collective human tragedy in Pakistan’s context is that we fail to think independently. We are unable to understand the fact that (any) religion is to be learned and practised as per our faculty of reasoning. God, His prophets and angels are all there, but we need to know why God made this universe, why the prophets were appointed and why Islam is needed. In addition, we have been poorly trained by our families, educational system and the state structure that we lack comprehension of legal procedures in the application of a particular law. For example, if someone dishonours our prophet(s), there are certain legal procedures to be followed. In the case of Qadri, if Taseer had indeed committed blasphemy, Qadri was legally required to follow the set rules by reporting such an incident to the police, which would have contacted and arrested the alleged. The alleged then would have been put on a legal trial by the established judicial system. If found guilty evidentially the alleged would have been sentenced accordingly. Here, it is to be noted that death penalty is one part of punishment. Life imprisonment is also an option for the courts. It is tragic to see that whenever someone is accused of blasphemy, individuals feel it is their religious duty to take the law into hands and kill the accused instantly. This tragedy happened with a Christian couple near Lahore recently. If we apply the foregoing to the case of Qadri, he failed to abide by law. He could not bring counter arguments to substantiate his allegations against Taseer. Importantly, he confessed to his crime. As per criminal procedures, he was liable to be punished and the apex court preferred capital punishment to life imprisonment. The office of the President of Pakistan, as per the law, possess powers to pardon a murderer who has pled for mercy. Qadri’s appeal was not entertained, and ultimately, on February 29, he was hanged. His hanging was kept a secret by the state authorities. It seemed that all institutions of the state, especially the military establishment, were on board. Hence, from the selection of hanging time and day — 29th February that comes after four years — to media control to deployment of paramilitary contingents at sensitive points, everything seemed well planned and executed. Probably for the first time in its modern history, the Pakistani state has shown the will and determination that asserts that it is the state that has the legitimate right to violence. Indeed, such an understating is based on Qur’an and Sunnah. If the Muslims have established a political order through mutual consultation, this has to be followed in letter and spirit (32:38). In Pakistan, the Muslims, who enjoy a vast majority, established a political order democratically (1945-46 elections) and constitutionally (1935 India Act). No individual/group possess the legal and moral authority to attempt to undo the established structure until the vast majority wanted to do so – and in this case, prescribed legal/constitutional path is to be followed. Last but not the least, the case of Qadri is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many such cases that linger in the courts. There are many who are already radicalised in the name of religion in society as well as the state. It is never late to revisit our collective approach to religion and the way it impacts politics, society and the state. We must keep in mind that it is God who is the final judge. This life on the earth is very short. Why not live it peacefully as Islam suggests. Finally, our state needs to know that killing a man before an idea carries little impact. There is need to do more at the ideational front. Our masses need to own the state and vice versa. Otherwise, we will go nowhere but deep down into anarchy. The writer is a DAAD fellow and the head of department of social sciences at Iqra University, Islamabad. He has authored Military Agency, Politics and the State in Pakistan. He tweets at @ejazbahhty