By Tehmina Kazi

The assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer is a wake-up call for anyone who doubted the virulence of Pakistan’s fanatics, or the fact that their influence has seeped into movements that are not normally associated with violence. Instead of being aligned with the usual suspects, Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri was a member of Dawat-e-Islami, a movement which is characterised by missionary work and claims to be apolitical.

Even as someone who has worked in minority rights for several years, nothing prepares you for the revelation that a leading politician and human rights campaigner took 27 bullets – yes, 27 – for defending a Christian woman on death row (especially when the aforementioned woman, Aasia Bibi, is accused of flouting a blasphemy law that regards malicious gossip as valid evidence, and is therefore a convenient tool for subjugating religious minorities).

Just a few months ago, I enjoined friends of mine to write to Mr Taseer because he appeared to be one of the few politicians who took the Sialkot lynchings seriously. And now, his life has been cruelly cut short because of the same “mob rule” mentality that has showered his killer with reverence and rose petals. The same mentality that does not believe in universal values of equality, fairness and human rights (unless a rabid fit of opportunism takes hold), and actively seeks to stifle voices that promote these values.

Not only is this attitude a departure from the principles upon which Pakistan was founded (Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, "You will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state,") but the majority of Pakistani people have rejected it. According to a poll published by the Pew Research Centre's Global Attitudes Project in July 2010, 44 percent of Pakistani citizens have recognised the struggle between progressive and fanatical groups in their country (for want of better descriptive terms). Of these, 61 percent identify with the progressives.

Further, supporters of Pakistan’s blasphemy law should bear in mind that such intolerant readings of the Qu’ran and Sunnah – and the concomitant mistreatment of religious minorities – belie the moral thrust of these documents. Since when did increased ‘piety’ have to correlate with a desire for everyone’s religious and spiritual trajectories to mirror your own? As well as indicating that God’s mercy is subject to discretion, the Qu’ran states: "Those who believe, those who follow Jewish scriptures, the Christians, the Sabians, and any who believe in God and the Final Day, and do good, all shall have their reward with their Lord and they will not come to fear or grief.”

Also, when detractors hurled abusive language at the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), he did not prescribe any legal punishment. Instead, he directed them to one of his Companions and encouraged open dialogue, to iron out any misunderstandings. Unfortunately, this mature approach does not seem to have filtered down to certain countries with a majority-Muslim population. As Brian Grim and Roger Finke discovered when they researched their book, The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century, 62 percent of majority-Muslim countries had at least moderate levels of persecution, with more than 200 people persecuted.

It is clear that fanatics are desperately trying to fill a hole left behind by what the International Crisis Group describes as “decades of mismanagement, political manipulation and corruption” which “have rendered Pakistan's civil service incapable of providing effective governance and basic public services”. The best hope for Pakistan’s current crisis is for the international community to provide greater financial and moral support to civil society practitioners on the ground: people like Karachi medical student Sana Saleem, who has braved death threats in order to write about human rights cases on her blog. Or the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, which came up with this pearl of wisdom back in 1999: “Laws are not only a reflection of society’s attitudes to any given issue; they can change the prevailing attitudes. Good laws can help foster tolerance; bad laws can fire hate. Attitudes once set into motion are hard to bring to rest. The blasphemy law has very rapidly incited hate, and its misuse continues with impunity.”

As a tribute to the grassroots activists who have exhibited such courage and insight, the least we can do is write about these issues from the relative safety of our office swivel chairs.