LIBERALS saw Mumtaz Qadri’s execution as the triumph of reason, while Islamists declared him a martyr. Friday sermons thundered at the injustice of rulers. In such polarised times, is there a middle ground? If we support Salmaan Taseer’s right to life, must we celebrate Qadri’s death? I believe that a middle ground exists — and that we can settle moral controversies such as blasphemy peacefully, if we try to understand the Muslim juristic tradition (fiqh) and its place in Pakistan’s legal system.

Pakistan’s blasphemy law combines a definition of blasphemy, which is loosely based on the opinions of Hanafi jurists regarding apostasy, with colonial criminal and procedural codes. Rights activists have amply documented that the law is used to settle personal vendettas; a plaintiff can make an accusation, on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, after which a defendant is imprisoned and caught in a cycle of court hearings, appeals, and legal fees, which can drag on for years. The blasphemy law leads to rights abuse, due to the way its drafters combined juristic opinions with secular codes, and due to structural problems in our judicial and law-enforcement systems. On this point, liberals and Islamists can agree.

However, on the larger question of whether or not Islam requires the death penalty for blasphemy, they are unlikely to see eye-to-eye. On hearing of this punishment, liberals typically respond by saying that it is not mentioned in the Quran. They then recount that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) forgave the woman who threw trash on him whenever he passed her home. If he forgave someone who offended him, who are we to punish someone in his stead?

Liberals have the right to hold this belief, but the bottom line is that our madressah-educated ulema believe that early jurists had a consensus that there should be the death penalty for apostasy, which they extrapolate to blasphemy. There are literally hundreds of associations, with mobilisation in the thousands, whose sole purpose is to defend the Prophet’s honour, which they see as protected through the blasphemy law. The ulema parties and the Jamaat are the most moderate of the associations invested in the blasphemy issue, because they have stakes in the political system. But they cannot go against the consensus view of madressahs and retain any credibility as representatives of the Islam-pasand.

Can we evolve a consensus on the blasphemy law?

During the Aasia Bibi trial, the Jamaat said that Taseer should let the case be processed through the judiciary. If she was innocent, a higher court would overturn her conviction. But Taseer launched a media campaign for her release. He called mullahs ignorant. And he asked Zardari to give a presidential pardon to Aasia Bibi, which religious parties have long agitated against because they believe that a ruler doesn’t have the right to overturn capital punishments for Islamic laws (although courts can).

This is what inflamed the situation. In the eyes of grass-roots mosques and madressahs, a ruler was trying to overturn what they regarded as God’s law.

Pakistani human rights activists and liberal politicians have agitated for the repeal of the blasphemy law with little success. Liberals call Islamists obscurantist, Islamists call them Western puppets. Western observers frown at what they see as the ‘backwardness’ of Islam. A brave ruler may be induced to take a minor step, only to be thwarted by the protests of conservatives — and in some cases, such as Taseer’s campaign, by vigilante attacks. During this stalemate, citizens who have been falsely accused under the law continue to languish in prison.

An alternate approach can be to use our political institutions to build consensus on an amendment. A parliamentary committee, which includes liberal lawyers and leaders from the ulema parties and the Jamaat, can first identify changes that must be made to the secular provisions of the law to protect citizens. The ulema parties and Jamaat can assure madressahs that these changes are being made to prevent the law from being misused — that the state is not trying to overturn what they regard as God’s law.

To amend the doctrinal section, the Council of Islamic Ideology could circulate a questionnaire to muftis asking them which juristic opinions could be adopted to protect defendants from false accusations. For instance, early jurists suggested the death penalty for apostasy but gave defendants three chances to recant their statement and return to Islam. It is questionable whether they intended this punishment for non-Muslims. Not in the most conservative of juristic texts is there an evidentiary requirement as low, and punishment as immediate, as in Pakistan’s blasphemy law. The CII could help the parliamentary committee redraft the doctrinal section of the law, with the consensus of ulema of different sects.

Building consensus with madressahs may seem too apologetic to some liberals, but it may be the most effective way to protect citizens targeted through this law.

The writer has a PhD in political science from Columbia University.

Published in Dawn, April 6th, 2016