| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| The enemy within |
| 2016-07-16 |
| [NATION.PK] The attacks which spread through the Moslem world just before Eid were particularly horrific, because one of them struck uncomfortably close to home, in the shape of an attack on the Masjid-e-Nabvi, which is, along with the Haram in Makkah, one of the two most sacred sites in Islam. Though the grave of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) was never under threat, its being contained within the Masjid-e-Nabvi is the reason for the wave of horror within the Moslem world. Another related issue was raised in one of the attacks, by Bangladeshi krazed killers, who took hostage and then killed 20 people. There has been a claim that the attackers were prompted by lectures from Zakir Naik, the well-known preacher. It has also been noted with some consternation that the attackers did not fit the stereotype of madressah-educated fanatics, but were at some of the top educational institutions of the country. This was seen as parallel to Pakistain, where the Safoora Goth massacre, in which 46 people were killed, was an attack on Ismaili Shias, and was carried out by a group including IBA graduates. Naik was not named, but he is exactly the sort of person who could have influenced them. The immediate problem is that education is not the panacea it is cracked up to be. One reason seems to be that Western education is not about developing a well-rounded personality, as getting a job. Underneath the veneer of education, the unreconstructed Moslem remains. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #2 I note this is written by a Pakistani muslim Muslim Brotherhood want the Caliphate and this is exactly the propaganda they like to get it. Use violent jihadi attacks to justify their call for a caliphate a Caliphate is not the answer, it makes things 100 x worse no - secularism is the answer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-world-and-secularism_b_8033044 as Raza Habib Raja capably explains |
| Posted by: anon1 2016-07-16 02:45 |
| #1 a caliphate would only work if a non-aggressive caliph were head of it, and if we deported each and every muslim in the west to go and live in it. good luck with that other than that a caliphate can only be bad news because it reinforces 2 things: 1) that Islam should be a theocratic religion not a secular faith and 2) a caliph has the power to order offensive jihad. without territory Islamists are forced to torture logic into making jihadist attacks defensive in nature. a small but important difference - this is why we have so much violence since IS got a Caliphate together. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a caliph and an islamic scholar at that. he has the religous right to order offensive jihad, and he has done this. |
| Posted by: anon1 2016-07-16 02:43 |