Why Islam took a violent and intolerant turn in Pakistan

[Ahmad]

Again, I've accepted their brutality. But I am repeating myself again: did they come into power without the popular support of the people? Did they get the popular support of people by brutally torturing everyone when they came into power? I don't want to divert the issue.

Dear bilal, it looks like you read half of my posts. Didnt i say that the taliban have support in their specific areas? off course they have, but are they right and also their actions? hell no, they are not. Taht is why i gave you the example of the TTP, they have support, but they are not right.

 

[Ahmad]

You know what the interesting thing is? This video only further proves the vindication of the Pakistani government & authorities in their accused 'relationship' with the Afghan Taliban. I agree, some Pashtuns in FATA gave Afghan Taliban refuge in the Tribal Agencies after 2001. Many got inspired by them, & then went to Islamabad to get rid of the American puppet government, & install Shariat. Then Lal Masjid happened in May 2007, & the TTP was formed in December 2007 with Baitullah Mehsud as commander. It was these Pashtuns in FATA that gave refuge to Afghan Taliban under Pashtunwali after 9/11. And Pashtunwali is the reason why the Afghan Taliban still has safe havens in FATA (as well as ideological affiliations they have being inspired by the Afghan Taliban), Pakistani Law does not apply there. No Pakistani authority had stepped foot inside FATA even once before 2001, they let them handle their own affairs, to quell down movements for Pashtunistan, as there had been Pashtunistan movements in Bajaur Agency in the 60's coming from Afghanistan.

Not a good argument, if an indian and afghan is caught in pakistan then he is an offical agent, but if dozens of pakistans of pakistani nationals are caught then they are non state actors, you cant have it both ways. Nobody deny the pashtunwali element among the taliban, but paksitan took advantage of it for their policies, now we can disagree because everybody have their own opinion.

 

[53fd]

Dear bilal, it looks like you read half of my posts. Didnt i say that the taliban have support in their specific areas? off course they have, but are they right and also their actions? hell no, they are not. Taht is why i gave you the example of the TTP, they have support, but they are not right.

Who says the Afghan Taliban is right? Have I said they are right? Have I said they should be in power? All I'm saying is, stop blaming the Pakistani authorities for the Afghan Taliban when they clearly got refuge by certain people in FATA under Pashtunwali, who got inspired by them ideologically; & went to Islamabad into the Lal-Masjid, did their 'training' & Madrassah schooling there for children, & after the Lal-Masjid attacks in May 2007 by the Pakistani Army, formed the TTP in December 2007. That's all.

 

[53fd]

Not a good argument, if an indian and afghan is caught in pakistan then he is an offical agent, but if dozens of pakistans of pakistani nationals are caught then they are non state actors, you cant have it both ways. Nobody deny the pashtunwali element among the taliban, but paksitan took advantage of it for their policies, now we can disagree because everybody have their own opinion.

Your answer to this lies in my Post #273. Unless you have solid proof implicating the Pakistani government & intelligence agencies in this, I see no point in arguing this. The point of vindication for the Pakistani authorities is that the same people who gave the Afghan Taliban refuge, were inspired by them, & tried to bring Islami Shariat into Pakistan, & after the Lal-Masjid operation happened, it was these very same people who formed the TTP. No need for speculations that Pakistani authorities aid the Taliban.

Listen, I have to go right now, it's 6:33am in the morning here, I have to get up in a few hours. You can send me an email, & I'll respond. Or I'll check this thread in a few hours.

 

[Ahmad]

Who says the Afghan Taliban is right? Have I said they are right? Have I said they should be in power. All I'm saying is, stop blaming the Pakistani authorities for the Afghan Taliban when they clearly got refuge by certain people in FATA under Pashtunwali, who got inspired by them ideologically; & went to Islamabad into the Lal-Masjid, did their 'training' & Madrassah schooling there for children, & after the Lal-Masjid attacks in May 2007 by the Pakistani Army, formed the TTP in December 2007. That's all.

you were simply short of the word RIGHT, otherwise you tried and attempted everyting to give them a clean hand, you even wrongly said that they didnt target civilians.

 

[53fd]

Not a good argument, if an indian and afghan is caught in pakistan then he is an offical agent, but if dozens of pakistans of pakistani nationals are caught then they are non state actors, you cant have it both ways. Nobody deny the pashtunwali element among the taliban, but paksitan took advantage of it for their policies, now we can disagree because everybody have their own opinion.

No one in Pakistan can use the claim that when an Indian is caught, it means the government of India is complicit in activities inside Pakistan; this is not credible proof my friend. This is not any substantive proof. And especially with the element of Pashtunwali, you cannot deny that it was certain people in the FATA regions themselves that gave these people refuge. At the time, these Afghan Taliban & their Pashtun hosts in FATA were sitting peacefully there, & not causing any harm to the Pakistani nation, so Pakistan saw no reason to go after the Afghan Taliban & stir another hornet's nest in FATA.

 

[53fd]

you were simply short of the word RIGHT, otherwise you tried and attempted everyting to give them a clean hand, you even wrongly said that they didnt target civilians.

When did I do that? I said they didn't nearly target enough Afghans when they came into power, which is why they came into power through the popular support of the people at the time. They targeted much more people after 9/11, and you know that. Do I condemn their brutalities? Yes, I do.

 

[53fd]

Buddy thats so predictable.

Your self serving statements and pure lies (Taliban brutality AFTER 9/11!!!) are just mental gymnastics to justify your self interests, that includes supporting terrorism in neighboring countries.

Being a product, you are not eligible to analyse the process.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what we're talking about? I'm a Shia btw, I live in America, I hate Al-Qaeda, Taliban & all extremist groups!

 

[Ahmad]

When did I do that? I said they didn't nearly target enough Afghans when they came into power, which is why they came into power through the popular support of the people at the time. They targeted much more people after 9/11, and you know that. Do I condemn their brutalities? Yes, I do.

the bolded part was strange. but in your initial post which triggerd my reaction you plainly said they didnt target civilians. anyways, right now i am at work, but if i got time i will provide you proofs of their atrocities before 9/11. Post 9/11 of taliban atrocities is known to all of us as they are responsible for the death 75% of all civilians.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

So, Why did Islam turn violent in Pakistan -- That is the focus of the Thread -- The Islamican brigade has offered that Islam is not violent in Pakistan but it's Muslims who are violent in Pakistan, this is a reflection of their moral and intellectual bankruptcy, after what they are arguing is that Islam and Muslims have no relationship. Failing this their position is to ask that the thread be closed.

Now, others have offered that Islam in the hands of the ignorant, lead to a ignorant islam -- Now, that's a reasonable positon, it's rather obvious, but the Islamican brigade cannot have that, because it put their claim that nothing about Islam changes to a lie --- see, when the lens of the observer change, the object being observed changes - right?? Obvious, right?? But see, the Islamican cannot agree with that, and it has to do with their Utopian ideology.

You will recall that some will suggest that "true islam" is X, Y and Z and all other "Islam" are rubbish --- In other words "pluralism" does not exist within islam (in other words the idea that there as many ways to God as there are faithful, is a lie).

But why does Pluralism in Islam have to be denied and "fought against"??? Utopia!! After all, how many versions of Utopia can there be? See, since there is this mutiplicity, it makes control and arrest of change, problematic --- Just consider, why are Talib blowing up shrines?? There can be only one way for the Islamican and everybody else is in blasphemy and of course we know that for the sake of God and the loveof the Prophet, bombing and killing becomes a religious duty, acts of conviction (for they cannot be acts of faith, Islamicans can by definition not have FAITH, though they have plenty of certitude)

So, friends, why is Islam in Pakistan, violent??, Why is it intolerant?

Because it is informed by ideas hostile, aggressive ideas ---

But wait, doesn't that mean there is some "true islam" somewhere?? See, I told you there had to be, it's just hidden or maybe it's holding out in Turkiye??

No it's it's not, sorry - Islam is and always will be what it's adherents, Muslims (muzlums) practice. And see, since they practice in so many different ways, to suggest that there is a single "true" correct" way is to declare war on all others - Oh, wait, so that's why Islam in Pakistan is violent

this is actually a very lame argument... Islam can never be what Muslims practice... If a Muslim practice engaging in Riba or sex outside marriage or theft or drinks alcohol or becomes a serial killer... can you call all that as Islam?

I have a feeling you are a learned man but not learned in the disciplines of the deen... with all due respect to you as always...

Perhaps there is a need to add that yes there are issues in which the disagreement and different opinions are legitimate and valid... There is a term used for this called Ikhtilaf... So to give an example there is an opinion that Music is forbidden in Islam and there is an opinion that Music is permissible in Islam... this is ikhtilaf and both sides have valid arguments however both cannot be correct at the same time... so there is need for adoption and individuals are free to choose whatever they want to adopt in their personal lives, making sure that they allow room for others who disagree with them... thus in the Islamic State music was always permissible...

Ikhtilaf is acceptable... Inhiraf is not... Inhiraf means that you reject the source of legislation and decide right and wrong from your own mind...

Furthermore, the reason why some people start behaving like animals in the name of Islam is described by the golden words...

Neem Hakeem Khatrae Jaan Neem Mullah Khatrae Iman...

The Quran does say to kill the Kafir wherever you find them... but thats just one verse and if someone wants to establish Islam around this single verse then I need to kill at least five hundred non Muslims a day to become a good Muslim... but this cannot happen because Islam is about context as much as content... There has to be a method and a holistic approach towards forming valid opinions in our deen... Those who dont understand this spanning from the conservative far right or the liberal far left in our country keep bringing Islam a bad name... and ultimately this is so because its a pain to read some books and ask questions... sad

 

[Pride]

What conclusive evidence do you have to support your claim, besides the conjecture of the think tanks & the conspiracy theorists?

Are you serious or trying to create some sense of humour here?

So you are denying the fact that Mujahideens were created by You or are you trying to convey that with out Pakistan's support Taliban ruled in Afghanistan??

 

[Vinod2070]

Whether they left voluntarily or involuntarily, they left in millions; & that accounted the decreased % of minorities in Pakistan, not because they were ethnically cleansed.

That is the definition of ethnic cleansing! Forcing people to leave their homes and making them refugees from their own lands.

They were not invaders to the lands, they were the natives.

Read this, it was started by Sikhs in Amritsar:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/The_Battle_for_Amritsar,_1947

It says that the Muslims were plotting to take Amritsar and make that a template for the whole of Punjab.

That had to be resisted at all costs.

I have no fascination with them, I'm a Shia. I have no love for extremist ideologies. But I was giving you the reason why they got into power in the first place, they didn't terrorize the people then, & came in through popular support of the Afghans. Their brutality later has been seen by the world, but most of it is as a result of the post 9/11 events.

No, they indulged in genocides and atrocities well before 9/11. As soon as they came to power.

It is to easy to check on these facts. I am surprised you are not aware of these basic facts.

There is a difference between the Mujahideen and the warlords of the 1990's. Only a few of the Mujahideen were warlords, many of the Mujahideen 'off-shooted' & formed their own groups, such as Mullah Umar, Haqqani forming the Taliban, Ahmed Shah Masood forming the Northern Alliance, Hekmetyar forming the Hizb-e-Islami Gulbudeen, all rivals of one another.

The same people were called Mujahideen earlier and they became warlords or terrorists later.

There is no difference except that the West supported them earlier and condemned them later.

 

[Vinod2070]

People get killed in wars my friend, just in case you forgot that. There weren't 25000 Palestinian losses, I just looked it up, it says anywhere between 2000-10,000. You're always good with exaggerations

Black September in Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depends on what source you refer!

The role of General Zia-ul-Haq in the events of Black September (1970), involving killing of 25000 Palestinians in Jordan

Would you dismiss the Palestinan deaths at the hands of Israelis with the same cavalier "People get killed in wars my friend"?

 

[Vinod2070]

So Muslims are not the only ones who have used religion for fighting then. Metro over there was stating that if followers of a certain religion use it for violent means, then there is something wrong with the religion itself. He also alluded to the fact that it was only Islam which has been used to fight others, so you have proven him wrong and clearly stated that Hindu's too used religion for violence.

Worse is debatable but they were clearly not succesful enough.

Not for (mindless) violence but to mobilize people for repelling invaders from our land. There is a difference.

We are talking about recent times and your thinking follows the same line put forward by Muslims extremists.

The same is happening in recent times as well. But let's not go there for now.

So does everything that happens in the Muslim world because of religious beliefs. Your logic too is a bit twisted, just becuase they are a fraction of what happens in the Muslim world does not make them right, does it.

Its time to reevaluate the interpretation then.

No, it doesn't make them right!

It was you who came up with the analogy I guess, not me.

 

[Vinod2070]

When you are the second biggest religion in the world, & the fastest growing one too, & its 'Mecca' is in/belongs to Saudi Arabia, a Wahabi proxy of the West, bad things tend to happen, not to Islam, but to the people that follow them. Simple as.

And there is no one to prevent those bad things? No inherent institutional strength in the religion?

So what was different in Islam if it was so easy to manipulate and twist? Why all those claims?