Taliban claims responsibility for Pak mosque bombing that killed 50

[johnee]

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.
Regards,
Virendra

They would be collateral in the long-term...

 

[LurkerBaba]

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.

Yusufji, the the tidbit about the Ottomans is interesting.

The Ottomans actually declared a jihad on the Safavids, who in turn did the same.

Is this un-Islamic ? If yes, then Ottoman Turkey and Persia didn't have muslims ? (or rather their rulers were not Muslims ?)

 

[nrj]

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...

You don't know that.

I appreciate the jumps of your imagination leading to the alternate perspective. But without any firm evidence, we can not conclude anything on it from the philosophical stand point of view.

 

[Virendra]

They would be collateral in the long-term...

They would not be, because the killings were deliberate and for a cause which these people did not support. That is why they were killed.

 

[johnee]

You don't know that.

I appreciate the jumps of your imagination leading to the alternate perspective. But without any firm evidence, we can not conclude anything on it from the philosophical stand point of view.

I dont know that. So, their innocence is not conclusive.

However, there is good chance that the deceased would not hesitate to support the murder of fellow based on their belief, given the radicalisation of pakistan society.

The whole issue is that this is an inter-sect war within Islam in Pakistan. Both sides of the party share many similar traits.

 

[Virendra]

I dont know that. So, their innocence is not conclusive.

That way nobody is innocent. If you are never known to have committed any crimes or blamed for such, aren't you considered innocent. If you aren't considered innocent still then I guess we're in a big problem.
Every one is supposed to go through a court case and establish their innocence
Even then, how are you going to proceed?
This is becoming a strange discussion

Regards,
Virendra

 

[nrj]

I dont know that. So, their innocence is not conclusive.

However, there is good chance that the deceased would not hesitate to support the murder of fellow based on their belief, given the radicalisation of pakistan society.

The whole issue is that this is an inter-sect war within Islam in Pakistan. Both sides of the party share many similar traits.

You are doubtful over the innocence of children. Fair enough.

It was always known that difference of views among Islamists in Pakistan is the reason behind whole issue.

 

[Yusuf]

Yusufji, the the tidbit about the Ottomans is interesting.

The Ottomans actually declared a jihad on the Safavids, who in turn did the same.

Is this un-Islamic ? If yes, then Ottoman Turkey and Persia didn't have muslims ? (or rather their rulers were not Muslims ?)

Islamic or not, it was nothing but a power struggle to establish superiority. Islam has been used by everyone to capture power. It started the day the Prophet died.

 

[johnee]

That way nobody is innocent. If you are never known to have committed any crimes or blamed for such, aren't you considered innocent. If you aren't considered innocent still then I guess we're in a big problem.
Every one is supposed to go through a court case and establish their innocence
Even then, how are you going to proceed?
This is becoming a strange discussion

Regards,
Virendra

When we have no idea of what the deceased where and what their past records are, how are we to conclude whether they are innocent or not? They died, so they must be innocent, is that the argument?

There is fair chance that they may be innocent. However, when there is no direct evidence we need to see circumstantial evidence. The circumstances of pakistan and its society is that they are growing more and more radical and different sects are fighting each other by branding the other sects as unislamic. In this scenario, there is also a great chance that the deceased may hold same attitude towards life as that of Taliban.

I am not suggesting that the deceased are not innocent. I am only questioning the pressumption that they are innocent.

Anyway, each to his own, I guess.

 

[johnee]

You are doubtful over the innocence of children. Fair enough.

It was always known that difference of views among Islamists in Pakistan is the reason behind whole issue.

All along I was assuming the word 'innocent' to mean 'as not holding any criminal views towards fellow beings'. If on the otherhand, innocence is strictly used on its meaning, then children are, of course, innocent. But if they held the same views as Taliban by parental indoctrination, would they be necessarily good for the world?

Even youngsters have been used as suicide bombers...
'

 

[Virendra]

All along I was assuming the word 'innocent' to mean 'as not holding any criminal views towards fellow beings'. If on the otherhand, innocence is strictly used on its meaning, then children are, of course, innocent. But if they held the same views as Taliban by parental indoctrination, would they be necessarily good for the world?

Principally we can question it as "violent by thought". However I'd hold off to see the further manifestation of these thoughts before pulling them out of the "innocent" range. Do they really take actions to harm the world in any way or only have sympathy towards Taliban?

Even youngsters have been used as suicide bombers...

Those guys kill and die as Taliban. These were killed by Taliban. I think we can see that much difference at least.

When we have no idea of what the deceased where and what their past records are, how are we to conclude whether they are innocent or not? They died, so they must be innocent, is that the argument?

No. Have to see who died. Its hard for me to imagine - that small a kid as not innocent.
However, even if I ponder on indoctrination don't you think these kids are completely exposed and vulnerable to such things because of their environment and more importantly the age which hasn't bestowed complete maturity and discretion on them yet?
Until proven otherwise, they are innocent to me and hence I'd pay my respects without scratching any further on their injured souls.

Regards,
Virendra