Personally, I oppose the death penalty and believe that killing perpetrators of even heinous crimes is just an act of collective societal vengeance. However, now it seems that our Prime Minister (PM) has decided that killing people who do bad things is a must. I may not agree but I feel that if execution of convicted terrorists is supposed to be a deterrent against future terrorist activity then it must be done properly. Killing a convicted terrorist in the middle of the night and that also by hanging makes no sense. From my limited knowledge of religious texts, hanging is not mentioned as a punishment for any crime. Personally, I think that the correct Islamic way to kill anybody convicted of crimes worthy of the death penalty should either be stoning to death or else in the ways that were prevalent in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or during the times of the great Muslim empires. Muslim history should definitely be our guide for what indeed could be better than following in the footsteps of the likes of the great Aurangzeb Alamgir, who, based on most historical records, killed many including his older brother and his brother’s children and grandchildren but he never hanged anybody. Before we go on to the method of execution we should dwell a bit on the purpose behind the recent removal of a ban on executions. Clearly, it is not just a matter of retribution that has driven the PM’s decision. If the purpose, as it seems, is more along the lines of deterring future terrorists from committing terrorist acts then, as I pointed out above, a middle of the night hanging just does not cut it. To be effective the method of execution of terrorists captured and convicted should be as brutal if not more brutal than that of the terrorists themselves. The way things are done should inspire fear in those who watch it. First, a few lessons from past conflicts. The Mongols never took prisoners because they had no way to hold them. So the first possible approach is ‘take no prisoners’. What happens if the other side takes our people prisoner? We have seen videos of the Taliban playing with the severed heads of our soldiers so we know what to expect in that situation. As far as what happens when the army moves into the cities to take care of Taliban types and their fellow travellers, well the best way out I suppose is what Mian sahib, the younger, was accused of promoting during a previous tenure as chief minister of Punjab: ‘miscreants’ were just killed in fake encounters. Whatever else, it clearly saved the government the trouble of proving culpability and then housing these people for years in jails. Let us not forget that Pakistan is a poor country and saving money is important. This is not a regular war and the enemy is definitely not a signatory to any Geneva Convention. So niceties do not enter into calculations. Clearly, these extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Once a terrorist is proven such then whatever punishment is to be meted out should be such that it persuades all witnesses to never want to emulate the terrorists. Even before any physical punishment is contemplated, a full fledged confession of guilt, a begging for mercy and utter emotional collapse before being executed should be recorded and broadcast on television at the appropriate time. Now, to the most important part: the execution. Here, a famous execution designed for absolute deterrence is worth remembering. Hussain bin Mansoor al Hallaj was executed for heresy in Baghdad in 922 CE. According to Louis Massignon, Hallaj was first publically stoned, then crucified, then quartered and then burnt. Such was the fear instilled in all and sundry by this mode of execution that, for centuries, people did not even dare to refer to Hallaj by name. Personally, I strongly believe that something similar must be the way to execute all terrorists, though the crucifixion part might be a trifle boring for our public viewers and participants. So, here is my suggestion about the way these convicted miscreants should be executed. Of course the venue has to be a large public stadium and the proceedings must take place on live television. Students from all the local madrassas (seminaries) and all the mullahs from the local mosques must attend and Mian sahib, the elder, must make a point of attending as many of these as he can. First, the convict should be stoned but the stoning must be done by the mullahs and should be recorded to be rebroadcast. The names, the attached mosques and the ‘sects’ of the mullahs doing the stoning should be broadcast with the cameras zooming in on the mullah as his name is mentioned. The stoning, however, is not meant to kill and the convict must survive for the next step. After the stoning the convict should be quartered. For those who do not know what that means, basically it involves a person’s four limbs being attached to four horses that then pull the person apart. It will be necessary that the person, as he is being pulled apart, is fully captured on camera with his anguished cries, his facial expressions as well as close-ups of his limbs as they are ‘torn asunder’ and all this is televised remotely but also to the participants on large television screens like they do during cricket matches. Once quartered, the remains of the convict should be burned (cremated) and the ashes thrown into the nearest river or canal. The Islamist types will raise a hue and cry about religious requirements for burial but then these Islamist types have always insisted that people who perpetrate the sort of crimes attributed to the Taliban could never be committed by ‘real’ Muslims. So then, how can these Islamists demand Muslim burials for those they do not consider Muslims? The writer has practiced and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com