sparklingway
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,878
- Reaction score
- 0
For those arguing that religion has nothing to do with terrorism in our country :-
Toxic forms of every religion exist. Venom spewing and hate mongering sects exist in our country more than the global average. An Ahmedi is Wajib ul Qatl in many houses. Depending on which house you're born in, a Shia can be a heretic, Kafir, non-Muslim or Wajib ul Qatl. Similarly a Bareliv can be labeled the same, a Sufi can be labeled the same, a Bohri can be labeled the same, an Ismaili can be labeled the same and so on.
It all depends on your house of birth, your intellectual and philosophical leaning and your communal upbringing. I happen to have people in my family who label Shias as Kafirs as well.
Because the Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict has become a non-seller today and it is a political suicide, it isn't as visible yet it does not mean that it has died. The rise of LeJ and SSP, again, speaks volumes about the fact that self styled righteous, moralists, puritans and defenders of faith have resurfaced successfully. These groups aren't supported by India, Israel or the US, rather they have acted against these foreign powers. The foreign power that supports these self-styled defenders of faith, the champions of sectarian terror is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It seems that you people have forgotten what we had to bear against their terror. Throughout the late '80s and up until the early part of the previous decade we witnessed hundreds of terror attacks from these sectarian terror outfits and dozens in response from the Shia protection outfits that emerged in response (it has to be noted that Shias never armed themselves against the Sunnis, rather rose in defence as the Anjuman Sipah e Sahaba was the first organized sectarian terror outfit). You people seem to have forgotten the dozens of attacks on Imambargahs, the bomb blasts in sabzimandis, the bus bombings and numerous other targeted assassinations. Either you have forgotten, for this country suffers from widespread amnesia, or you are willfully denying it which is a clear sign of sympathizing with terrorists.
There were no sectarian outfits before the mid '80s because society did not tolerate sectarian battles. As violence and the kaslashinlov culture pciked up, thse organizations popped up as well. They rise directly from Wahabi petro dollars. Somehow every terrorist sympathize here tries to accuse you of targeting Wahabis. The fact is that they supported them, and continue to support them both ideologically and financially. This does not mean that I or anyone here ar targeting them, rather we're stating the obvious fact. Accept it.
There were no militant sectarian battles before Indpendence. Did Barelvis and Deobandis not exist then? Did Shias not exist then? They did and tried to live peacefully with each other. The whole scenario comes back to the questions I pose every time to the post-Zia indoctrinated children whose world view is that of a clash of civilizations, who views the world as a combined conspiracy against him, who is trained to be an ostrich and reject the obvious truth and hold on to his intolerant, irrational and mythical views about the historical role of religion in our society and state in general. The post-Zia cannot accept that the mess has its role in religious indoctrination and toxic dogmas that have been financed by the House of Saud, supported by our very holy guardians and bred by our very state. The snake is biting us, accept it.
It was disheartening to see a protesting crowd of Maulvis in Karachi stating that yesterday's attack was carried out by either Blackwater or by Ahmedis to avenge attack on their places of worship. This lunacy has to be stopped. Any sane person will tell you that no country can witness so much terror carried out by foreign powers when every, every single suicide bomber turns out to be one of our own.
Before Ahmedis weren't legally non-Mulsims, when there were no blasphemy laws, when there was no criminal offence of fornication, there was no legal ban of consumption of liquor, betting, gambling and when there was no article 227 (all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions), when there was no Federal Shariat Court or Council of Islam Ideology that interpreted state governance under religious ideology; were the people of Pakistan living an "un-Islamic" life? Were they non-Muslims or misguided? Were they confused about the separation of religion and state ? Were our elders misguided or was the re-born face of political Islam imported from Saudi Arabia and strengthened by our children of Maududi in direct confrontation with the previous strands of Islam in South Asia? Why did the people of Pakistan never demand a widely political role of Islam before that time? Were the lack of such "Islamic" provisions in our criminal and civil offences a symbol of "westernization", the dreaded "secularization" or directly "non-Islamic"?
The clear answer, No. The people were Islamic and the Islam they practiced was taught to them by the Sufis. It was tolerant, rational, peaceful and allowed it to prosper.
When did things change? It started slowly with the Khilafat Movement and the Majlis e Ahrar's rise. The Khilafat Movement, a failed Pan-Islamic dream that resulted in the historical error of the migration to Afghanistan which left thousands died and landed thousands in prisons across Afghanistan and Central Asia. When did it pick up? Slowly after Independence when Maududi an his likes hijacked the narrative of a country they opposed. Later, ZAB used Islam as rhetoric and a rallying point alongside India-bashing. The greatest contribution is by any margin the historical role of the Mard e Momin Zia ul Haq and the whole mass of his cronies. They nurtured terror, it's killing us.
Why are you denying it and labeling everybody who states the historical truth as the uninformed? Because you've been taught by your books, by your elders and by your society to disregard anything that is in conflict with what has been indoctrinated into you.
A terrorist sympathizer, a terrorist apologist or a hate-monger is no better than a terrorist.
Toxic forms of every religion exist. Venom spewing and hate mongering sects exist in our country more than the global average. An Ahmedi is Wajib ul Qatl in many houses. Depending on which house you're born in, a Shia can be a heretic, Kafir, non-Muslim or Wajib ul Qatl. Similarly a Bareliv can be labeled the same, a Sufi can be labeled the same, a Bohri can be labeled the same, an Ismaili can be labeled the same and so on.
It all depends on your house of birth, your intellectual and philosophical leaning and your communal upbringing. I happen to have people in my family who label Shias as Kafirs as well.
Because the Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict has become a non-seller today and it is a political suicide, it isn't as visible yet it does not mean that it has died. The rise of LeJ and SSP, again, speaks volumes about the fact that self styled righteous, moralists, puritans and defenders of faith have resurfaced successfully. These groups aren't supported by India, Israel or the US, rather they have acted against these foreign powers. The foreign power that supports these self-styled defenders of faith, the champions of sectarian terror is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It seems that you people have forgotten what we had to bear against their terror. Throughout the late '80s and up until the early part of the previous decade we witnessed hundreds of terror attacks from these sectarian terror outfits and dozens in response from the Shia protection outfits that emerged in response (it has to be noted that Shias never armed themselves against the Sunnis, rather rose in defence as the Anjuman Sipah e Sahaba was the first organized sectarian terror outfit). You people seem to have forgotten the dozens of attacks on Imambargahs, the bomb blasts in sabzimandis, the bus bombings and numerous other targeted assassinations. Either you have forgotten, for this country suffers from widespread amnesia, or you are willfully denying it which is a clear sign of sympathizing with terrorists.
There were no sectarian outfits before the mid '80s because society did not tolerate sectarian battles. As violence and the kaslashinlov culture pciked up, thse organizations popped up as well. They rise directly from Wahabi petro dollars. Somehow every terrorist sympathize here tries to accuse you of targeting Wahabis. The fact is that they supported them, and continue to support them both ideologically and financially. This does not mean that I or anyone here ar targeting them, rather we're stating the obvious fact. Accept it.
There were no militant sectarian battles before Indpendence. Did Barelvis and Deobandis not exist then? Did Shias not exist then? They did and tried to live peacefully with each other. The whole scenario comes back to the questions I pose every time to the post-Zia indoctrinated children whose world view is that of a clash of civilizations, who views the world as a combined conspiracy against him, who is trained to be an ostrich and reject the obvious truth and hold on to his intolerant, irrational and mythical views about the historical role of religion in our society and state in general. The post-Zia cannot accept that the mess has its role in religious indoctrination and toxic dogmas that have been financed by the House of Saud, supported by our very holy guardians and bred by our very state. The snake is biting us, accept it.
It was disheartening to see a protesting crowd of Maulvis in Karachi stating that yesterday's attack was carried out by either Blackwater or by Ahmedis to avenge attack on their places of worship. This lunacy has to be stopped. Any sane person will tell you that no country can witness so much terror carried out by foreign powers when every, every single suicide bomber turns out to be one of our own.
Before Ahmedis weren't legally non-Mulsims, when there were no blasphemy laws, when there was no criminal offence of fornication, there was no legal ban of consumption of liquor, betting, gambling and when there was no article 227 (all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions), when there was no Federal Shariat Court or Council of Islam Ideology that interpreted state governance under religious ideology; were the people of Pakistan living an "un-Islamic" life? Were they non-Muslims or misguided? Were they confused about the separation of religion and state ? Were our elders misguided or was the re-born face of political Islam imported from Saudi Arabia and strengthened by our children of Maududi in direct confrontation with the previous strands of Islam in South Asia? Why did the people of Pakistan never demand a widely political role of Islam before that time? Were the lack of such "Islamic" provisions in our criminal and civil offences a symbol of "westernization", the dreaded "secularization" or directly "non-Islamic"?
The clear answer, No. The people were Islamic and the Islam they practiced was taught to them by the Sufis. It was tolerant, rational, peaceful and allowed it to prosper.
When did things change? It started slowly with the Khilafat Movement and the Majlis e Ahrar's rise. The Khilafat Movement, a failed Pan-Islamic dream that resulted in the historical error of the migration to Afghanistan which left thousands died and landed thousands in prisons across Afghanistan and Central Asia. When did it pick up? Slowly after Independence when Maududi an his likes hijacked the narrative of a country they opposed. Later, ZAB used Islam as rhetoric and a rallying point alongside India-bashing. The greatest contribution is by any margin the historical role of the Mard e Momin Zia ul Haq and the whole mass of his cronies. They nurtured terror, it's killing us.
Why are you denying it and labeling everybody who states the historical truth as the uninformed? Because you've been taught by your books, by your elders and by your society to disregard anything that is in conflict with what has been indoctrinated into you.
A terrorist sympathizer, a terrorist apologist or a hate-monger is no better than a terrorist.
- but i guess life is more important
- who will now be finding 72 virgins in Hell 
