The decision of the Pakistani federal government to ban Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) has occurred against the backdrop of violent protest amidst the co-constitutive dynamic of religion, law, and security. Although the action has been described as one of restricting religious freedom, the action has been justified as a constitutional and moral move to prevent bloodshed in the name of religious activism. It is the duty of the state to protect the citizens, and maintaining order so that there is free practice of religion without hindrance is what the recent action has tried to tread that delicate tightrope.

Argument and discussion are acceptable in Islamic education but never compulsion and coercion. The Qur'an prescribes, "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best" (Surah An-Naml 16:125). Good argument and good discussion are thus preferable and thus necessarily obviously clearly demarcate religious practice must be in decency and legality. Demonstration is one act of destruction of human property, act of obstruction, or destruction of human life under the category of fasad fil-ard, corruption on earth, abhorrent to Islamic law. It is never reserved by scholars like Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan to pronounce the judgment that intellectual and moral contents of Islam can never be followed under religious coercion in the name of violence. TLP, established in 2016, had undertaken the politics anonymously of maintaining the dignity of the Prophet (PBUH), a goal closest to the polity of Muslims. TLP violence against the party rally in recent times has, however, cost human lives lost, city lockdown, and case filed against the state authority, all of which are testaments to the fact that the threat is not so much theological as it is behavioral.

Earlier attempts at reconciliation with the TLP, as in 2021 with banning partially, have also been half-hearted. Muridke violence and recent terrorist attacks are symptoms of a trend of violent activism in the form of illegal picketing, intimidation of security apparatuses, and takeover of city center roads. Federal government action to ban the TLP is in the interest of law and order, not religious persecution. Anti-Terrorist Act gives the state an opportunity to ban terror groupings, and some examples of violent crimes, unlawful weapons, and use of the Internet for promotion of violence have been given in the Interior Ministry statement. Article 17(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan also permit action against any political party threatening sovereignty or to the public order. Those federal and provincial procedural laws and legal maxims as they exist corroborate that the prohibition was ideological and not capricious. The resumption of activity by the state is also validated by Islamic law. Khuruj, armed revolt against legal order, has been shunned by classical minds as a detestable sin. Imam Nawawi himself, compiling Sahih Muslim himself, was strict in the matter that rebellion is never permissible except where it's a case of face-revealing disbelief because of the bloodshed and violence that result from this.

TLP's actions directly come under this matter of rebellion by blocking motorways, scaring citizens, and threatening law enforcers. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) hadith "The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand others are safe" (Sahih Bukhari, 10) also reminds us of the sanctity of peace and life, both of which are adulterated if religion becomes a means and not an end. To be an Islamic republic of Pakistan is a double-edged responsibility: to maintain faith and to ensure social order. If religiosity is to be politically exploited, it may fall into extremists' lap as well. The proscription of TLP by the state is an experiment with public interest doctrine or maslahat of Islamic statesmanship. There is precedent: Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) would say that the survival of the state was reliant on justice, even when their subjects had infidels among them. Safeguarding innocent lives against violence is remaining faithful to such religious obligation without losing sight of enlightened engagement for religious practice.

The state must now balance legal action and social action. Security operations must be complemented by civic education, deradicalization campaigns, and mass media outreach. Civic leaders and religious intellectuals stand to gain the most by re-claiming the agenda of peace and moderation, de-legitimizing the radicals' agenda, and reclaiming public trust. Middle voices franchising turns obedience to the Prophet (PBUH) into a virtue, not a vice. The case against banning TLP on lifting grounds is that it would, at some point, alienate religious segments of society. The bill at least separates act from creed: it is not people's religion that is against the law, but acts that are prejudicial to public security.

Political liberty could not be allowed to individuals who are involved in objectionable activities, Minister Talal Chaudhry stated, citing the age-old truism that terrorism and democracy cannot go hand in hand. Likewise, the prohibition is a step toward the consolidation of democratic institutions and religious extremism itself. Ordinary rule of law over a religious pluralism of citizens is sufficient. Banning the TLP is not war against religion or any step towards religious suppression, but a healthy interaction between state policy and constitutional imperative, between morality and the very spirit of Islam itself. In driving armed groups of violence from political and social life, the government is trying to create room for healthy religious expression, liberation of citizens from fear and insecurity. Finally, the bill reminds us of an even more important lesson of moral and civic education: religion to free men, and not to terrorize them; religion to purify, and not to blackmail. As Allama Iqbal himself has so rightly said, "Deen-e-Mullah fi sabilillah fasad" or religion politicized is a source of disorder and not of counsel.

It is Pakistan's role to uphold the spirit of Islam without imposing any group religion to advance goals that are against law, peace, or human decency. It does so by reaffirming the value that sincere piety has a friend in justice, temperance, and the sanctity of life.

Shane Richie is an independent commentator based in Islamabad. Her areas of research include perception building, information warfare, and cognition. She is also interested in Middle Eastern affairs and counterterrorism dynamics.