The most noteworthy aspect of the episode is the incredible popularity of Ilam Din which could be gauged through the mammoth size of his funeral in Lahore.But after that he was hardly mentioned until Zia took over the reins of power.

After riding high on the wave of political popularity Majlis-i-Ahrar and Ataullah Shah Bokhari were forced on to the back foot by Zafar Ali Khan with his activism on the issue of the Shahid Ganj mosque. The Ahrar leaders realized that their political survival was at stake and they had to fight for it. Ilam Din’s sainthood was constructed long afterwards.

Mumtaz Qadri’s assassination of Salmaan Taseer was a heaven-sent opportunity for Barelvi clerics to assert themselves and to seek prominence as a political force.The arena had so far belonged entirely to Deobandis.

Acting in the name of Namoos -i-Risalat, Barelvisappropriated the issue of blasphemy.Prof Haq also points to wrangling among various Barelvi leaders to seize the centre-stage at Mumtaz Qadri’s funeral, which marked the moment of Barelvi political rejuvenation because of the traction it received from the masses. Three contenders eyeing the top slot were Khadim Hussain Rizvi, Hanif Qureshi and Asif Ashraf Jalali. Khadim Rizvi had the last laugh in this contest.

Prof Haq is spot on in bringing these two personalities under a scholarly focus because the debate on the issue of blasphemy began with Ilam Din’s assassination of Raj Palwho had published the book Rangila Rasulin 1924.The book had deliberately mocked the Prophet (peace be upon him).The blasphemy law repeal or amendment became virtually impossible for a long time after Qadribecame popular with the masses. Taseer had promised support for Asiya Bibi, aChristian woman who was sentenced to death for blasphemy on the basis of questionable evidence.

The central theme of the book is a dissection ofSection 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) which was written into law by Ziaul Haq in 1986. The law lays down the penalty of death or life imprisonment for any person who “by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

The provision stems out of an Indian Penal Code (IPC) statute passed by the British as IPC 295-A. It was passed and enacted in 1927 and it imposed a three-year prison term or fine on anyone who “by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class.”

British legal experts based their understanding of Islamic law on religious texts like Quran and hadith. By doing so, they discounted the relevance of the historical process of evolution that it had gone through.

The codification of loose religious edicts has turned them into a rigid and exclusionary set of laws, which run counter to the pristine spirit of Islamic injunctions. British legal experts based their understanding of Islamic law on religious texts like Quran and hadith.By doing so, they discounted the relevance of the historical process of evolution that it had gone through.

Casting some basically oral injunctions into an immutable frame, which, earlier on, were employed while keeping in view the local context, the muftis and qazis made their decisions independent of the state. With the advent of the British colonial state all this changed. It is in this legal (textual) context under the British that the actions of Ilam Din and Mumtaz Qadri and their respective motivations are discussed in the book under review.

After relating the actions of the two ‘saintly’ assassins in quite a fascinating manner, the author traces the origin of blasphemy.This takes her to the Christian religio-epistemic ethos. She agrees with Asad Ahmad’s standpoint that blasphemy has no existence in the theological frame of Muslims because no credible source has so far been identified from the days of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) to show that he meted out any punishment to anyone betraying insolence to him. Thus, blasphemy as a religio-ethical category is essentially Christian. That is followed by an interesting debate between a lawyer, Ismael Qureshi and Indian Islamic scholar, Maulana Waheed ud Din Khan.

Qureshi came to the media spotlight when he campaigned against Ahmedis and pleaded against their use of Muslim symbols. His role in the institution of blasphemy law and the extreme punishment for anybody found guilty of it, is well known.

Khan is a prolific writer on the issues of Muslims. His insights on matters pertaining to Islam are illuminating and grounded in history. His writing style is accessibleand rational.

The two men represent two distinct weltanschauungs. Qureshi subscribes to the legal-punitive action against the perpetrator whereas Khan espouses quite the opposite arguing that Dawah (persuasion) is the primary objective of Islam which does not accord primacy to punitive measures. Legalistic-punitive retribution may actually drive people away from Islam, he says. Out of the two, the author finds more sense in Khan’s standpoint.

While laying the context of blasphemy law’s eventual promulgation in Pakistan, Prof Haq alludes to various speeches of Quaid-i-Azam, including his August 11 speech. She then goes on to rivet her attention on the Objectives Resolution that opened the door for maulvis to assert their will and the way secularists circumvented them. That part of the book is very interesting, pithy, and profound.

The Punjab disturbances, when religious parties and factions joined hands and put pressure on the state authority to exclude Ahmadis from the fold of Islam, is the next topic she engages in. These events are of seminal importance to make proper sense of the blasphemy law in Pakistan.

The author adopts a horizontal approach, bringing in the experiences of Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey. In some of these countries, blasphemy law is operationalbut the punishment is not as harsh as it is in Pakistan. That probably is the reason for the higher conviction rate in countries like Indonesia.

(to be concluded).