Taliban claims responsibility for Pak mosque bombing that killed 50

[Yusuf]

The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia) each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. In the Ottoman empire, the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad. The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople (Christian Byzantium) by justifying ghaza as a basic duty. Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Persian Safavid dynasty. Thus both rival empires established a tradition that a ruler was only considered truly in charge when his armies had been sent into the field in the name of the true faith, usually against giaurs or heretics — often meaning each other. The 'missionary' vocation of the Muslim dynasties was prestigious enough to be officially reflected in a formal title as part of a full ruler style: the Ottoman (many also had Ghazi as part of their name) Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, 6th Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421–1451), literally used Sultan ul-Mujahidin.

The commands inculcated in the Quran (in five suras from the period after Muhammad had established his power) on Muslims to fight those who will neither embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (Jizya) were not interpreted as a general injunction on all Muslims constantly to make war on the infidels (originally only polytheists who claimed to be monotheists, not "People of the Book", Jesus is seen as the last of the precursors of the Prophet Muhammed; the word infidel had different historical uses, notably used by the Crusaders to refer to the Muslims they were fighting against). It was generally supposed that the order for a general war can only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which is vacant), such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states, always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad; there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate.

 

[Yusuf]

Is their any authority recognised in Islam that can issue Fatwas? Does Quran and Hadiths support Fatwa issuing by proper authority? Is there no mention of any proper authory as per Quran and Hadiths?

The answer to this question is not within the scope of this thread nor this forum.

 

[johnee]

I'm not a prophet but I haven't come across any such preaching of Kuran that those who do not believe in our religion should be killed. They have super flared the call to fight non believers of God into the call to kill non followers of Islam. There is a huge difference between the two.
Everyone is free to have his/her own faith. One cannot kill the other because they bank on a different faith.

By the way, who appointed Taliban as the front runners of Islam? Who certified Taliban as muslims?
Everyone is interpreting a book according to their own intellect and aims and are going to the extent of killing people. Why, because you think a book gives you the authority to do so? That's pathetic.

You are bemoaning that people give different interpretations to a book based on their intellect and aims. Yet, you indulge in similar interpretation of Quran(the bolded part). I can voice the same criticism that you had against Taliban: Who made you an authority on Quran?

In short, there are and will always be different interpretations. So, there is and will always be need for a proper authority to elucidate the true meaning of a text. So, who is that authority in Islam accepted by most? Atleast, there must be leaders who are accepted by one sect as authority? So, who are the authorities in various sects of Islam? And where do they stand on Taliban's actions?

I wonder where the common sense and basic human compassion went in all this.

It is overrided by the belief in God as espoused by their religion, or so they claim.

 

[nrj]

I am not interested in condemning one incident or one individual or one group. I am interested in deeper motivations that drive people to commit such horrendous crimes on fellow beings. I believe that unless the ideology that drives the men is not extinguished, horde after horde will continue to do exactly what they have been doing.

Whatever that motivation is, it does not justify their acts. Even if people behind it are able to somehow justify their acts through contextual understanding of Quran.

 

[nrj]

 

[johnee]

The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia) each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. In the Ottoman empire, the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad. The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople (Christian Byzantium) by justifying ghaza as a basic duty. Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Persian Safavid dynasty. Thus both rival empires established a tradition that a ruler was only considered truly in charge when his armies had been sent into the field in the name of the true faith, usually against giaurs or heretics — often meaning each other. The 'missionary' vocation of the Muslim dynasties was prestigious enough to be officially reflected in a formal title as part of a full ruler style: the Ottoman (many also had Ghazi as part of their name) Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, 6th Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421–1451), literally used Sultan ul-Mujahidin.

The commands inculcated in the Quran (in five suras from the period after Muhammad had established his power) on Muslims to fight those who will neither embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (Jizya) were not interpreted as a general injunction on all Muslims constantly to make war on the infidels (originally only polytheists who claimed to be monotheists, not "People of the Book", Jesus is seen as the last of the precursors of the Prophet Muhammed; the word infidel had different historical uses, notably used by the Crusaders to refer to the Muslims they were fighting against). It was generally supposed that the order for a general war can only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which is vacant), such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states, always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad; there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate.

So, who is the present authority for sunnis? And who is for shias?

Taliban are, I think, sunnis.

 

[johnee]

Whatever that motivation is, it does not justify their acts. Even if people behind it are able to somehow justify their acts through contextual understanding of Quran.

If a group of Nazis kill and torture jews. You condemn that group, it is given and understood. But, more than that you condemn Nazism for being the motivating factor.

 

[Virendra]

You are bemoaning that people give different interpretations to a book based on their intellect and aims. Yet, you indulge in similar interpretation of Quran(the bolded part). I can voice the same criticism that you had against Taliban: Who made you an authority on Quran?

In short, there are and will always be different interpretations. So, there is and will always be need for a proper authority to elucidate the true meaning of a text. So, who is that authority in Islam accepted by most? Atleast, there must be leaders who are accepted by one sect as authority? So, who are the authorities in various sects of Islam? And where do they stand on Taliban's actions?

Correct interpretation is no rocket science. Any sane mind following the faith can do that. Quran is not so puzzled.
But like I said, I'm not heavily armed with Quran's knowledge. I only rely upon what my muslim friends Quote from Quran and explain to me. Further more the correct interpretation would be the one which serves a benign purpose for the benefit of the faith and the benefit of humanity. No religion would conflict that. If you see a religion doing so, either the religion is bigoted or the interpretation is.

 

[Yusuf]

So, who is the present authority for sunnis? And who is for shias?

Taliban are, I think, sunnis.

Like i said, the answer to this question is not in the scope of this thread or forum.

 

[johnee]

Johnee,

Lets keep aside Taliban's philosophy for a moment.

What's your view? Are you defending this attack which killed 50+ innocents including children when they were offering prayers of ramdan in majid?

BTW, before we go on to brand the dead as innocent, the critical question that needs to be asked is would they support a similar murders if they believed islam sanctioned it? If these people would have supported such murders based on islam, then what differentiates them from Taliban?

However, innocent or not, once they are dead, one can mourn them...

 

[nrj]

Deputy chief of the semi-autonomous administration Khalid Mumtaz Kundi had said 117 people were also wounded in the attack.

"It was a suicide attack. The bomber was wearing about 8-10 kg of explosives and was on foot. He detonated in the main prayer hall," he added.

Witness Gul Jamal Afridi, 46, a local truck driver told AFP that he had been thrown to the ground in the intensity of the blast.
"I saw smoke and fire. People were dying and crying for help, some were running in panic. I saw body parts and human flesh, it was horrible," he said.

Student Saqib Ullah, 24, said he had tried to help those lying near him after the bomb went off, but found most were already dead.
"I saw my uncle lying in a pool of blood. I ran towards him and picked him up to carry on my back, but he had already died," he said.

Bomber kills 53 at Jamrud mosque | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[nrj]

If a group of Nazis kill and torture jews. You condemn that group, it is given and understood. But, more than that you condemn Nazism for being the motivating factor.

Advocates of Nazism can defend their acts. So can Talibanis. What's the point?

 

[johnee]

Correct interpretation is no rocket science. Any sane mind following the faith can do that. Quran is not so puzzled.
But like I said, I'm not heavily armed with Quran's knowledge. I only rely upon what my muslim friends Quote from Quran and explain to me. Further more the correct interpretation would be the one which serves a benign purpose for the benefit of the faith and the benefit of humanity. No religion would conflict that. If you see a religion doing so, either the religion is bigoted or the interpretation is.

Can there be no bigoted religion?

Your clever definition that whatever is benign for mankind is the correct interpretation is not equiped to solve the quandry because all religions(and other ideologies) and interpretations claim that they want to do good to humanity. Most heinous crimes have been conmmitted in the name of doing good to people.

During inquisitions, people were burnt on stake to cleanse their soul. In short, each have their own understanding of what is good for the humanity.

Quran may not be puzzled, but if there are different interpretations and if there are claims that other interpretation is wrong. Then, who is the proper authority to decide on the correct interpretation?

 

[johnee]

Advocates of Nazism can defend their acts. So can Talibanis. What's the point?

Therefore, its not Nazis that are the threat but Nazism. Its not Taliban that are the real threat but what drives them...

 

[nrj]

BTW, before we go on to brand the dead as innocent, the critical question that needs to be asked is would they support a similar murders if they believed islam sanctioned it? If these people would have supported such murders based on islam, then what differentiates them from Taliban?

However, innocent or not, once they are dead, one can mourn them...

You are posing hypothetical questions.

 

[Virendra]

BTW, before we go on to brand the dead as innocent, the critical question that needs to be asked is would they support a similar murders if they believed islam sanctioned it? If these people would have supported such murders based on islam, then what differentiates them from Taliban?

However, innocent or not, once they are dead, one can mourn them...

I somehow didn't like the tone of that part
johne don't tell me that you won't consider that kid lying dead in the van as innocent. She was perhaps more innocent than you and me.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[johnee]

Like i said, the answer to this question is not in the scope of this thread or forum.

If a sunni has a doubt and wants to clarify himself by referring to proper authority, where should he turn? Thats the simple question. Are you saying that this question cannot be answered in this thread or even in this forum?

Who is the authority of particular belief? This question is of practical importance, and is not venturing into theology...

 

[johnee]

I somehow didn't like the tone of that part
johne don't tell me that you won't consider that kid lying dead in the van as innocent. She was perhaps more innocent than you and me.

Regards,
Virendra

Virendra,
the critical question is what would these people do if they were in the position of Taliban. If these people believed that murders are sanctioned by their belief, what would they do? Would they behave like Taliban or would they behave differently?

As I said, any death is mournable...

 

[johnee]

You are posing hypothetical questions.

Maybe. The question puts proper perspective on where the victims stand vis-a-vis Taliban. If the victims are similar to Taliban, then you cannot call one as innocent and other as criminal. Either both are innocent or both criminal...

 

[Virendra]

Virendra,
the critical question is what would these people do if they were in the position of Taliban. If these people believed that murders are sanctioned by their belief, what would they do? Would they behave like Taliban or would they behave differently?

As I said, any death is mournable...

Every human bought up as a human has that basic tenacity to make the call between right and wrong. Actually this quality it is more basic than any religion or faith. One doesn't need to evaluate a religion to have that much sanity.
If those people dead were good human beings, they would understand and question as soon as an overlaying concept of religion starts to infringe on the basics like humanity and society.
We call it a crime to kill innocents, yet we understand that every animal is food to some other animal in the food chain and do not challenge it.
We call it a crime to kill innocents, yet we understand that if there is an open war of survival nothing is of surgical accuracy and collateral damage has to be accepted by a heavy heart.
This was not collateral damage because these people were killed deliberately.

At least in this case I don't find anything similar between the victims and the Taliban except the region they live in and perhaps the costumes, language, food etc.
Regards,
Virendra