Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
^ nationalism is a big disease among the muslims and not from islam once this disease is rejected i am sure the journey to unity which many many muslims talk about and wish for will be a step closer.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Most if not all the countries that make up this muslim world have significant human right violation problems of their own, including absence of democracy; second class status of religious minorities and women; repression, at times violent, of voices of dissent and ethnic minorities; and oppression of Shias in many countries, including Pak. Of course it goes without saying that the prevalent depravity in none of those counties at the moment rival that in Syria and it is about time the appalling violence there stopped.
Imagine the outrage in those countries if the ruling regime had killed thousands in a country like Burma. All the ghairat-brigade would be out and about, foaming at their mouths. And one would think that surely if trigger-happy masses of people can riot and go berserk over an otherwise harmless cartoon or a video they can take to the streets to peacefully protest over the killing of thousands by Assad government but that clearly doesn't seem to be the case.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
They have killed many people in burma so it is not a matter of jokes.
Oh right you are an indian.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Picture of future president of amreeka with moral equivalent of amreekas founding fathers of Syria…
Does this picture reminds you of big bad nasty little Taliban of A-stan?
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Most if not all the countries that make up this muslim world have significant human right violation problems of their own, including absence of democracy; second class status of religious minorities and women; repression, at times violent, of voices of dissent and ethnic minorities; and oppression of Shias in many countries, including Pak. Of course it goes without saying that the prevalent depravity in none of those counties at the moment rival that in Syria and it is about time the appalling violence there stopped.
Imagine the outrage in those countries if the ruling regime had killed thousands in a country like Burma. All the ghairat-brigade would be out and about, foaming at their mouths. And one would think that surely if trigger-happy masses of people can riot and go berserk over an otherwise harmless cartoon or a video they can take to the streets to peacefully protest over the killing of thousands by Assad government but that clearly doesn't seem to be the case.
which of the muslim countries has islamic laws? none
they all secular so instead of blaming muslims and islam you should question the ruling system in these countries which is cause of the problems you mentioned.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Most of the Muslim-majority countries are not secular by any stretch of imagination. But I am not "blaming" any religion. Some other countries like Congo-Kinshasa have faced similar problems too.
[quote="X2, post:7, topic:282717"]
Actually JI protests have not been solely Pakistan focused. They do however focus on events where someone external can be blamed.
As far as HT goes, it's a messed up organization with very twisted views and unless HT Pakistan was HT in name only, it is good that they are banned.
twisted views like what exactly ?
[/QUOTE]
For starters, the view that local laws don't apply because the laws of 'dar-ul-harb' have no value.
I have observed HT for 2 decades, their ghunda gardee in UK universities and even in front of masajid in UK is a well known fact. They add no value and have zero practical applicability. Over the last decade they have gone a little low key partially because a lot of their suburban revolutionaries got married, grew up and got a life, many others were big talk and when more attention was paid to these groups they bailed, and the more rabid types who were brainwashed more thoroughly found other groups who were more extreme.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
For starters, the view that local laws don't apply because the laws of 'dar-ul-harb' have no value.
I have observed HT for 2 decades, their ghunda gardee in UK universities and even in front of masajid in UK is a well known fact. They add no value and have zero practical applicability. Over the last decade they have gone a little low key partially because a lot of their suburban revolutionaries got married, grew up and got a life, many others were big talk and when more attention was paid to these groups they bailed, and the more rabid types who were brainwashed more thoroughly found other groups who were more extreme.
so from 2 decades of observation you have given me:
Dar ul harb have no value?
I think you will find any muslim who wants islamic state will obviously view islamic laws as better than secualr laws.
If that is your defintion of twisted view, then you need to come out with something a lot better than that.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Most of the Muslim-majority countries are not secular by any stretch of imagination. But I am not "blaming" any religion. Some other countries like Congo-Kinshasa have faced similar problems too.
If muslim countries are not secular than what are they? by the way there are about 100 discussions found by searching forum, already exposing the constitutions of the muslim nations proving they are secular.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Essentially the first and foremost problem is that they are not democratic. Dictatorships are not good, irrespective of the country or the ethnic or religious makeup of its people. They are not good, for example, in Cambodia or Congo-Kinshasa just as they are not good in countries like Libya. What are needed are genuine democracies and genuine elections every 4 or 5 years so that people can elect their representatives to the Parliament and then are free to show them the door by voting them out in the subsequent election should the elected representatives and leaders of the people do not fulfill expectations of the people of the country.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
so from 2 decades of observation you have given me:
Dar ul harb have no value?
I think you will find any muslim who wants islamic state will obviously view islamic laws as better than secualr laws.
If that is your defintion of twisted view, then you need to come out with something a lot better than that.
Lets me try to simplify..., HT claims that while you are living in UK for example, the local laws do not apply to you...any laws. Actually by that token Pakistan's laws dont apply either because it is also not khilafah. That is enough of a twisted view that I dont have to write volumes about this cult. That should be enough for most people. But since you are a fan, I can understand if its not an issue for you.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Essentially the first and foremost problem is that they are not democratic. Dictatorships are not good, irrespective of the country or the ethnic or religious makeup of its people. They are not good, for example, in Cambodia or Congo-Kinshasa just as they are not good in countries like Libya. What are needed are genuine democracies and genuine elections every 4 or 5 years so that people can elect their representatives to the Parliament and then are free to show them the door by voting them out in the subsequent election should the elected representatives and leaders of the people do not fulfill expectations of the people of the country.
If you take pakistan as the prime example how much more democracy do you need to show its not working?
The political system is a shambles much like the country we do not need more of this poison we need none of it at all.
Re: Why is the Muslim world silent about the atrocities in Syria
Sadly, Pakistan is hardly a 'prime example' of democracy. The county has been under military dictatorships for half its existence. And generals continue to pull the strings from behind. Only one elected government has managed to complete its term in office. Large swathes of country are under the thumb of landlords or vote, if at all, on the basis their baradari affiliations. When elections take place, results are said to be tinkered, if not outright engineered, in certain turbulent parts of the country like Balochistan by the military-establishment. And rigging, as happened recently in the May elections, is something that is not very heartening either. That said, even a flawed democracy is better than none at all, and I am hopeful that with time Pak will attain a stronger, more robust democracy.