Acts of Terrorism in Pakistan

[waraich66]

If people anywhere want to change the system, then they need to do so through the ballot box.

As of now there is no means of determining what the people of Swat and Pakistan want. Only an election, in which some parties run on a platform of implementing Shariah, and others for continuing with the existing system, can determine what people want.

What is done in Swat is done, but the way it came about, with thugs and terrorists beheading people, blowing up schools and carrying out suicide bombings, is completely wrong, and you should have the decency to acknowledge that.

AM,

There is point to understand that when majority wanted shariah then any one trying to resist their will then WAR is allowed,and we know in WAR both sides kill each other in islam Katal of musrakeen or kufar is allowed.

Hazrat abu Bakar declared war against those people who refused zakat.

As far as girls education is concerned they will allow if not local people of SWAT will reject them.

Any how now nazam e adel established we should accept it whole heartedly.

 

[Flintlock]

Pakistan car bomb 'kills three'

At least three people have been killed by a car bomb which exploded outside the home of a government official in north-western Pakistan, police say.

They say that the bomb targeted a local anti-Taleban mayor in the suburb of Bazidkhel near the city of Peshawar. He survived but several people were hurt.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan car bomb 'kills three'

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

There is point to understand that when majority wanted shariah then any one trying to resist their will then WAR is allowed,and we know in WAR both sides kill each other in islam Katal of musrakeen or kufar is allowed.

Hazrat abu Bakar declared war against those people who refused zakat.

As far as girls education is concerned they will allow if not local people of SWAT will reject them.

Any how now nazam e adel established we should accept it whole heartedly.

Once again, you are assuming the majority wanted Shariah - where are the referendum results indicating this? Where are the election results indicating this?

There is no empirical evidence in support of this, only the claims of people like you.

Secondly, war is not allowed against the state if the people want the system to be changed and there is a means for changing the system (elections). Please show me where in the Quran it says this.

Hazrat Abu Bakr declared war against those people who were refusing to follow the writ of the state. The Taliban in Swat are doing the same thing, refusing to follow th writ of the State. In this situation it is the GoP that is in the position of Hazrat Abu Bakr, not the taliban.

Secondly, I have no problems with the Nizam-e-Adl if it brings about peace and is progressive. However, that does not excuse you from having to recognize the crimes committed by the Taliban.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Why you love them when Afghan -Russian WAR was going on, they are trained by CIA /ISI now they are well trained and ready for jehad any where in the world.This is seperate issue.

But SWAT local public dont have permanant militants or talaban , if SWAT people wanted Shariah you dont dislike them it is their right to select Shariah or British Tazirati Hind.

How do you know the people of Swat want Sharia, do you have any evidence to back this up?

As I said previously, if the Swatis really wanted Sharia then why didn’t they vote for Islamic parties? Why they voted for liberal-secularist parties ANP and PPP?

Btw, don’t get over-excited, this deal will not work, it will go down the drain, just like all the previous deals.

 

[rubyjackass]

AM,

There is point to understand that when majority wanted shariah then any one trying to resist their will then WAR is allowed,and we know in WAR both sides kill each other in islam Katal of musrakeen or kufar is allowed.

Hazrat abu Bakar declared war against those people who refused zakat.

As far as girls education is concerned they will allow if not local people of SWAT will reject them.

Any how now nazam e adel established we should accept it whole heartedly.

Why will the majority want shariah?
Do you think women will vote against their own rights?

 

[ejaz007]

Why will the majority want shariah?
Do you think women will vote against their own rights?

Only one way to be sure is to hold a vote than every thing would be clear.

However one thing should be clear that Islam does not in any way impose restrictions on women. Islam on the contrary protects women and provides them priviledges seldom provided in other religions.

This propoganda has been going on in western media and some on this forum also are without any reason and basis ranting about this. Either they should bring forward some proof of this or should not open their mouth.

Just couple of examples, for the first time in Islam women were given right to inheritance of the property. In hindu religion women were burnt when their husbands died. This was called satti and perhaps even today is practiced in some remote villages. Islam forbid this and even gave women right to remarry incase of her husbands death.

Islam fully endorses womens right to education.

What is been done against women in Afghanistan or Pakistan and even in India is due to cultural traditions and not because of religion. This needs to be understood. Because of uneducation and old traditions still being practiced in some remote areas women are suffering.

Even in India women are burnt due to dowry, pregnant women are forced to have abortion once sex of the child is known. Does this mean their religion is at fault.

 

[waraich66]

Once again, you are assuming the majority wanted Shariah - where are the referendum results indicating this? Where are the election results indicating this?

There is no empirical evidence in support of this, only the claims of people like you.

Secondly, war is not allowed against the state if the people want the system to be changed and there is a means for changing the system (elections). Please show me where in the Quran it says this.

Hazrat Abu Bakr declared war against those people who were refusing to follow the writ of the state. The Taliban in Swat are doing the same thing, refusing to follow th writ of the State. In this situation it is the GoP that is in the position of Hazrat Abu Bakr, not the taliban.

Secondly, I have no problems with the Nizam-e-Adl if it brings about peace and is progressive. However, that does not excuse you from having to recognize the crimes committed by the Taliban.

It is not just assumption it is fact that majority of NWFP population are shariah law loving , always they desired for that and in SWAT that system was prevailing in 60's.

We could have aviod this mess if GOP conducted refrendum or voting but they had not adopted peace ful way rather send PA , which failed to achieve task.

Unfortunately , after independence our country remain under the grip of lords and waderas , Concept of Pakistan was based on Nizam e Adel and million of muslim sacrified their life for Islam and shariah .

One think we should have in mind that we are muslim first then we are pakistani or any other country citizen.

If this is our believe , then it is very easy to understand what is going on in SAWT.

No body like violance , but latoo ka bhoot batoon se nahi mantee.

Regards

 

[waraich66]

How do you know the people of Swat want Sharia, do you have any evidence to back this up?

As I said previously, if the Swatis really wanted Sharia then why didn’t they vote for Islamic parties? Why they voted for liberal-secularist parties ANP and PPP?

Btw, don’t get over-excited, this deal will not work, it will go down the drain, just like all the previous deals.

Time will prove majority wanted shariah or not.

They have given their vote to first Halwa Mullahs MMA but they miserably failed because they are great munafeqeen

Now they have no other option other then to vote for ANP and again ANP was delaying their basic demand of shariah law then they decided to implement shariah through force and started resistance movement ,which was last option .They are not demanding independence from pakistan.

Why you support Kashmiri mujahdeen , they should not fight with indian government or challenge their writ ?

 

[Anwar2]

People of Swat will overwhelmingly vote in favor of Shariah if a single point YES/NO Referendum is held. Chief Election Commissioner is welcome to arrange such referendum.

The strongest religious parties boycotted the 2008 election, they had majority of seats in the previous National / Provincial assemblies.

People do not necessarily identify religious parties with Shariah Laws, Mullahs do not have a monopoly on Islam as such.

Some of the staunch supporters of Shariah belong to ANP, PPP and PML(N)

 

[truth]

Does the pakistani constitution allow for diff laws in diff provinces..I mean..the latest constitution..??!!

 

[RabzonKhan]

Sources of terror

Thursday, 19 Feb, 2009
By Dr Mahnaz Fatima

TERROR in Pakistan continues unabated despite countless attempts by the world in general and Pakistan in particular to keep it in check. The more the world tries, the more it spins out of control. Several sources of terror have been identified in the country.

First and foremost, terrorism is attributed to Pakistan’s alliance with the US in its various wars, beginning with the one against the former Soviet Union and now the war on terror. Another oft-cited source is the economic underdevelopment in the country which results in a steady supply of disgruntled men to terror outfits. In the larger scheme of things, there are the unresolved issues of Kashmir and Palestine. The list is not exhaustive. For as long as the sources are not analysed fully and other relevant factors identified, anti-terror attempts will continue to be shots in the dark.

Nevertheless, to say that terror is the result of Pakistan’s alliance with the US in the 1980s is merely a hypothesis. There is a need to rule out hypotheses claiming that this commenced much earlier. Even if terrorism began after the 1980s, we need to determine the extent to which this phenomenon was a result of poor human resource management. The volunteer fighters of that time ought to have been absorbed in the formal forces — their unbridled energies led to their being up for sale, establishing their own ventures or joining domestic terror outfits.

During the Zia era, sectarian violence increased manifold. Lashkars and sipahs sprang up to thwart rival thinkers. This violence later saw the kidnappings and killings of foreigners and this worsened over time. However, none of this can be linked to the long festering issues of Kashmir and Palestine, which have been highlighted to the point that Kashmir even found its way into one of Obama’s campaign speeches. Also, the nature of today’s violence is hardly a direct consequence of the war against the former Soviet Union or the dearth of economic opportunities in the country. But it is terror all the same, emanating from factors independent of the three oft-cited ones.

Questions abound regarding the situation in recent years. When Maulana Fazlullah started his hate campaign in Swat, why was this activity not nipped in the bud? Campaigns against women’s education and women NGO workers in remote areas preceded actual bombings of schools and NGO offices. Why were these not blocked in good time? Apathy or disguised complicity brought the situation to such a pass that even the secular ANP conceded to the demand for tribal style Sharia in Swat.

We also need to now how and why weapons were allowed to be amassed in Lal Masjid. In fact, it is inaction or delayed action that triggers the kind of crisis we face today. Inaction either emanates from indifference or tacit support for so-called fighters or from a lack of administrative and management capability. Perhaps, it is a sad combination of all three.

If it is apathy or a lack of administrative capability, clearly the government is responsible and should be held accountable for its inability to take decisive action. However, when it does decide to act, it shows results as it did by averting the Taliban threat to Peshawar last year. Effective action needs to be replicated elsewhere too to keep militants out of our cities and to eliminate them in the tribal areas.

For this, indifference must give way to action before the entire country is taken over by militants and extremist thought. One way of doing so would be to use the religion factor effectively. This would mean emphasising to the general public, perhaps backing assertions with the edicts of religious scholars, that there is no room for extremist thought in religion. Since this is not done on a wide scale, a large chunk of even the silent majority tends to either support terror or vacillates in its views. Opinion mobilisation against terror is required on a vast scale and only then will it be possible to sell it to civilian and military personnel. Unless they own the fight against terror, few strategies will work. The number of militants killed is no gauge of performance unless the threat is eliminated.

While there are goals, there is no sense of mission as the people and so-called implementers of policy are unclear on what the fight is about. Policy and strategy require unified intent for successful execution. Since strategic intent is not widely diffused, we lack a broad-based sense of commitment to uproot it. It translates into action without visible results. Unless the extremist image of religion is countered with an equally forceful campaign to demonstrate that terror is repugnant to it, lack of resolve will continue as militancy grows in the country.

 

[asq]

Once again, you are assuming the majority wanted Shariah - where are the referendum results indicating this? Where are the election results indicating this?

There is no empirical evidence in support of this, only the claims of people like you.

Secondly, war is not allowed against the state if the people want the system to be changed and there is a means for changing the system (elections). Please show me where in the Quran it says this.

Hazrat Abu Bakr declared war against those people who were refusing to follow the writ of the state. The Taliban in Swat are doing the same thing, refusing to follow th writ of the State. In this situation it is the GoP that is in the position of Hazrat Abu Bakr, not the taliban.

Secondly, I have no problems with the Nizam-e-Adl if it brings about peace and is progressive. However, that does not excuse you from having to recognize the crimes committed by the Taliban.

Excellent, logical and fair response, Mr Agnoatic.

 

[lowe1941]

When the Palestinians started the use of terror against Isreal, and the use if suicide bombers I argued against it,,,if you think its right to murder isrealis civlilians then its not hard to make the leap to the mind set its ok to murder any one you disagree with or hate, and now the chickens have come home to roost to the middle east,,,, many more muslims and arabs and persians are now being killed by terrorist, bombers and suicide bombers then americans or Isrealis...WE ARE REAPING THE SEEDS WE HAVE SOWEN,, MAYBE GETTING JUST WHAT WE DESERVE

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No body like violance , but latoo ka bhoot batoon se nahi mantee.

So in essence you are justifying terrorist attacks such as the suicide bombing in DI Khan today.

You are a sick and perverted mind Warraich,

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is not just assumption it is fact that majority of NWFP population are shariah law loving ,

It can only be a fact if there is empirical evidence (Such as election or referendum results) indicating such a thing. We have neither.

The excuse drummed up by your like is that the 'Islamic parties did not participate', well boo hoo, that is their loss. The fact is that whether they participate or not, there is no evidence indicating that the majority of the majority of the people wanted shariah (at least when violence between the Taliban and Army was not present - now the case may be different as the people look for respite).