I am often told that the Crime Control Department (CCD) operates on the basis of Islamic law—that it follows the principle of “honor for honor, life for life, property for property.” But the question is: which Islamic law is being referenced?
Because the Islamic law we know does not give police officers the authority to act as judges, executioners, or juries.
Who Decides Punishment in Islam?
Under Islamic jurisprudence, judgment and punishment are carried out by a Qazi (judge)—not by a darogha (police officer).
A darogha may be skilled, experienced, or well-intentioned, but his role is limited to investigation and arrest. The power to decide guilt, consider evidence, evaluate circumstances, and impose punishment lies only with the court.
Islam does not authorize a police officer to decide:
-
Who deserves to die
-
Who should be spared
-
Who else in the family should suffer
Selective Use of Islamic Punishments
Those who justify police encounters often say:
-
A murderer must be killed
-
A robber deserves death
But Islamic law does not operate on emotional satisfaction or mob justice.
If someone commits theft, Islamic law prescribes specific conditions for punishment.
If someone commits robbery (dacoity), the punishment again depends on clear legal thresholds, evidence, intent, and circumstances.
Islam does not say:
“Kill first, explain later.”
So when people claim that killing suspects in encounters is “Islamic justice,” one must ask:
-
Under which verse?
-
Under which fiqh?
-
Under which court’s verdict?
One Accused, Many Bodies
Consider cases where:
-
One person is the main accused in a murder
-
Five or six people may have been present
-
Yet two people are killed in a police encounter
-
FIRs are registered against four or more family members
Which Islamic law allows this?
If one person delivered the fatal blow:
-
Why are others killed?
-
Who determined who the aggressor was?
-
Who examined mitigating circumstances?
-
Who decided intent, provocation, or self-defense?
These are judicial questions, not emotional reactions.
Collective Punishment Is Not Islamic
There is a dangerous practice in Pakistan:
When a case is registered, the FIR includes not only the accused—but also:
-
Brothers
-
Cousins
-
Father
-
Even women of the household
This is done to ensure that the entire family suffers.
Islam explicitly rejects collective punishment.
No one bears the burden of another’s sin.
Fake Narratives After Encounters
Often, the story goes like this:
-
A suspect is killed in a police encounter
-
Later, it is claimed he was killed by his own accomplices’ firing
-
Then his family is accused of trying to rescue him
This narrative conveniently justifies:
-
Extrajudicial killing
-
Raids on homes
-
Destruction of property
-
Looting during searches
Tell me—under which Islamic law is a suspect’s house demolished?
Law Must Be Used Lawfully
Law, whether Islamic or secular, must be applied through lawful means.
If the state believes police officers should have the power to kill suspects, then:
-
Pass a law
-
Declare it openly
-
Stop lying about encounters
Do not claim legality while practicing illegality.
Courts Decide on Evidence, Not Public Emotion
Courts do not punish to satisfy public anger.
They punish based on evidence.
Yes, there are flawed judges.
Yes, political decisions have damaged trust.
But the failures of a few judges cannot justify destroying the entire justice system.
A bad judicial decision does not authorize:
-
Police executions
-
Family victimization
-
False FIRs
-
Fake encounters
Conclusion
Islamic law does not allow police officers to replace courts.
It does not allow collective punishment.
It does not allow emotional killings in the name of justice.
If we truly believe in law, Islamic or constitutional, then law must be enforced through courts, not bullets.
May Allah guide us to understand justice as a responsibility, not a revenge.