I saw this article on the murder of Shi’ah in Karachi a couple of weeks ago. I didn’t want to do another article on Muslim-on-Muslim violence; they weren’t anything new. Last night, I had a conversation with a friend and something occurred to me: Pakistan is a Muslim country, at least 99% of the population is Muslim. There are some Christians, and the Ahmadis (different post) were declared non-Muslim, otherwise the assumption is that everyone in Pakistan is a Muslim. The Ahmadiyya situation indicates that the Sunni majority could work to legally have the Shi’ah declared non-Muslim, like in Saudi Arabia. What sense does the violence make? Then it dawned on me, that the people who are killing other Muslims are insecure in their own Islam, and the easiest way to become secure in that identity is to destroy all differences. The question is do the perpetrators of these acts see others as being more secure/comfortable in their Islam? What is the difference that is so challenging? Or is difference enough to instigate this level of violence? This rhetoric is that of Wahabbism, the Taliban and Osama. There is only one version of Islam, and it is each of their’s and they need to destroy all other understandings of Islam, including each other’s.
Related Posts
Torture Bad, Maybe
In case you didn’t hear, President Bush bans torture. Maybe. Yes, maybe. It’s kind of sad that we need to have an explicit ban against torture (again. Hi Geneva Conventions). It’s worse that we’re not sure if it is a ban. Just in case you think the administration might start believing in the rule of law and right, have no fear, unfettered power is still on their agenda. I thought it was scare mongering, then I followed the links. As a Muslim I can be Gitmo’d. As a born American I can have my entire life taken away without any…
Disturbing and Sad
A film that might prove objectionable to some is not being released. Now I understand that this is not a universal rejection, just in the South, and there are commercial interests involved. However, from commercial interests to implicit censorship is not a far stone’s throw. We saw it with Buster the Rabbit. How far will this go? At what point to stop being creative for fear of offending? At what point do we stop being thought provoking? At what point do we become soylent green?
A Time To Rant
Okay, so Yassin is dead. Another so-called religious leader espousing humanist values of tolerance, peace, and the brotherhood of man is gone. I, for one, will not grieve for him. He chose violence as a solution and he died by the very actions of the words he preached. What I will grieve for is the end of any hope for stability and peace in Palestine and Israel. Lets call this what it is, the assassination of one terrorist by another. Israel is complicity in the formation of Hamas to further its own aims by creating instability and a power struggle…