IN BRIEF:
Pakistan's blasphemy crisis exposes a deeper
tension between Islamic jurisprudence and the modern nation-state. Although
state executions for apostasy or blasphemy are relatively rare, mob killings
persist, particularly in Pakistan, demonstrating that religious punishment may
be enforced by communities even when state authorities refrain from carrying it
out.
The essay argues that this violence reflects more than failures of law enforcement. It arises from the interaction of traditional Islamic doctrines—enjoining right and forbidding wrong and individual obligation—with an honour-and-shame social framework that can encourage believers to punish perceived religious offences themselves.
The central paradox is that Muslim-majority states may resort to authoritarian rule to maintain civil order, yet struggle to reconcile their obligations to international norms and legal institutions with religious demands for the enforcement of sharia. Where state authority competes with religious authority, or fails to restrain vigilantism, coercive government and mob violence can coexist. The essay argues that this tension raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of traditional sharia-based obligations with the pluralism, rule of law, and institutional accountability required of the modern nation-state.
