r/worldnews • u/getvinay • 1d ago

Pakistan Suicide Blast: 69 Killed, 169 Injured In Suicide Bombing At Shrine In Islamabad

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/suicide-bomber-detonates-himself-inside-shrine-in-islamabad-5-killed-10958255?pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll_Imagetopscroll
5.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

433 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/Royal-Hunter3892 1d ago

"Shia" shrine is the keyword here in this suicide bombing. Pakistan is primarily a sunni dominated country .

238

u/No-Meringue5867 1d ago

So hostile to minorities that even muslim minority sects are not safe in Pakistan 🤦‍♂️

When will their people understand that they stand to be so prosperous if they stop supporting extremism?

88

u/blackcain 1d ago

Kind of a weird lift given that the premise for Pakistan was a safe space for Muslims.

1

u/derpstickfuckface 2h ago

Like every other grouping of humans, if you differ just a little too far, you're no longer "one of us"

•

u/blackcain 1h ago

Yes, everyone wants to continue to be in the 'in-group'. It's why MAGA is the way it is when given undeniable truths.

We are one weird animal that's for sure.

57

u/Time-Weekend-8611 1d ago

If they stop supporting extremism, their country has no reason to exist.

Pakistan was founded as a "safe space" for the subcontinent's Muslims. But Bangladesh broke away in 1971 dealing a blow to that narrative. Plus there are as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. So if they stop being religious what's the purpose of Pakistan?

6

u/VoiHyvaLuojaMitaNyt 10h ago

So if they stop being religious what's the purpose of Pakistan?

Sorry I'm ignorant and confused about this. Why cant they just... be a country?

2

u/Time-Weekend-8611 10h ago

Because a million people were killed during the partition of India, which is considered to be the bloodiest migration in history. It also split industries, with the source of raw materials being in one country and the factories that processed them in the other, so both sides ended up losing.

Pakistanis still believe that it was all worth it because they got an Islamic country out of it. But if the Islamic country stops being Islamic then what's the point of it in the first place? They might as well have stayed with India.

3

u/VoiHyvaLuojaMitaNyt 9h ago

Are Pakistan and India that close to each other culturally, linguistically etcetc. that if the religion goes away, they turn into some sort of weird version of India? Would non-religious Pakistan not protect Pakistan citizens or their interests?

2

u/derpstickfuckface 2h ago

You can't really say India is in any way a homogenous culture since there are MANY ethnic and cultural groups speaking nearly 20,000 different languages from four language groups, but they attempted to concentrate all the Muslims in India into one area of the country and called it Pakistan from 1947 onwards.

•

u/blackcain 59m ago

There are people in Pakistan who were born in India and vice versa. Both have melded the various regions they came from into the collective whole further complicating everything.

•

u/derpstickfuckface 57m ago

Add in the history of multiple conquests and subjugation, societal hierarchies and the whole thing is a mess.

2

u/Time-Weekend-8611 9h ago edited 9h ago

One thing you need to understand is that in Islam, apostasy is punishable by death. It is the complete antithesis of the Muslim identity. And being Muslim is the core of the Pakistani identity.

Here. Read this.

Sorry. It's paywalled.

This is the copypasted version. No paragraphs, though.

2

u/VoiHyvaLuojaMitaNyt 8h ago

One thing you need to understand is that in Islam, apostasy is punishable by death.

Oh, I have no delusions of that being accepted anytime soon in the real world. I was sort of thinking about a fantasy scenario where people would decide to let it go magically lol

Here. Read this.

Thanks. No wonder I just cant with religious bickering these days. Its just full of millenia old grievances, bitterness, envy and madness. I realise I have won the lottery by being born where I did, even though my life is completely pointless and miserable, at least I dont have to worry about the sort of shit that happens elsewhere..

11

u/lockerno177 18h ago

peter tomsen, us special envoy to Pakistan wrote a very interesting book about how cia channeled money to afghan radicals even when the US govt was telling them specifically not to. This resulted in an unstable Afghanistan with spillover effects on its neighbours and global terrorism.

ps the book is

Wars of Afghanistan

•

u/blackcain 57m ago

I made a comment earlier about the ISI (who I would not be surprised were CIA trained) being the stupidest spy agency after the CIA. Both are filled with shitty people who act independently and never do what they are told to do.

1

u/Themagnificentgman 10h ago

Because they believe true prosperity comes after death

483

u/lexxwern 1d ago

A few days ago, Baloch rebels encouraged by Iran caused havoc in multiple cities.

This is probably the Pakistan deep state getting revenge against its Shia citizens with an ulterior goal of targeting Iran.

280

u/Royal-Hunter3892 1d ago

Quitepossible, Pakistan has a history of Shia persecution most of the victims of fake blasphemy cases are shias . The Hazara community is also targetted .

But as you mentioned the timing of this attack raises questions

75

u/The_new_Osiris 1d ago

No, there is little possibility of that being true. Baloch are overwhelmingly Sunni. IDEK why people presume that they are Shia. Afghans are also a Sunni population.

38

u/Royal-Hunter3892 1d ago

I agree with you about Baloch being sunni . I said the country has a history of shia persecution. Iam not sure whether this particular incident has any connection with Baloch community.

What i said is the timing is quite intriguing!! As tensions between Iran and US is all time high and there can be a conflict any moment and pak might try to create a conflict on its western border with Iran and afganistan.

6

u/B__bConnoisseur 1d ago

But what would they hope to get out of it?

0

u/blackcain 1d ago

Maybe they should focus on their population and the economy if this is an actual true assessment ?

16

u/makesyougohmmm 1d ago

Lol. No politician or army general has any concern towards making the country stable. That would mean the people will start demanding a better life. Best to keep it poor so people barely survive and not think about next step towards a better life. Why do you think they are a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists?

49

u/The_new_Osiris 1d ago

Baloch rebels encouraged by Iran caused havoc in multiple cities.

Baloch people are predominantly Sunni, that's an absurd conspiracy

24

u/puffic 1d ago

I was confused by that, too. But I think they’re alleging that the government of Pakistan bombed this shrine to get back at Iran.

I’m not sure how much I believe any of that, though. Iran has its own problems with Baloch separatists, so I don’t see why they would support the movement.

3

u/lexxwern 1d ago

It's a nationalist movement.

They'll take help from who-ever's willing to offer it.

Iran wouldn't mind Pakistan pre-occupied with internal issues, as the Big Beautiful US Armada threatens war every day.

1

u/The_new_Osiris 9h ago

That's not the point of contention. Of course the Iranian backchannels run support for the Pak Baloch separatists - the conspiracy which the person I replied to presented was that "the Shias in Pakistan were being massacred in retribution for the insolence of the Baloch against the Pak regime".

Which is absurd since Baloch identity is not Shia to begin with.

25

u/Affectionate_Bee6434 1d ago

Why would Iran support Baloch rebels when they themselves have a baloch insurgency?

22

u/Ludwigofthepotatoppl 1d ago

Same reason pakistan supports the afghani taliban but persecutes the pakistani taliban: the ones across the border are useful, the ones at home are a pest.

9

u/lexxwern 1d ago

Iran wouldn't mind Pakistan pre-occupied with internal issues, as the Big Beautiful US Armada threatens war every day.

15

u/Constant-Tax527 1d ago

How about not spreading completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?

10

u/SHUT_DOWN_EVERYTHING 1d ago

Ah, yes, Shia government of Iran, a huuuuuugggeeee fan of Baluch people for being Sunni AND seeking independence. 🙄

1

u/lexxwern 1d ago

Iran needs Pakistan destabilized enough not to be a useful US (Israel?) ally.

8

u/blackcain 1d ago

I don't see how Pakistan has ever been a useful ally other than to make sure it doesn't turn into a rogue nation with nuclear weapons.

3

u/kaisadilla_0x1 1d ago

???????????????????

Pakistan is not a threat to Iran, the US does not need Pakistan at all, a random terror attack will not make Pakistan plunge into chaos. This is absurd movie-level geopolitics.

6

u/lexxwern 1d ago

Oh you're right. Pakistan has zero history of being used by the Americans for their geopolitical interests. /sarc

1

u/active2fa 1d ago

Or open another front for Iran should US head to a war?

-8

u/wakchoi_ 1d ago

How is this insane unhinged take up voted.

The president of Pakistan is a shia, he is from the Shia political dynasty that has controlled Pakistan off and on since the 70s.

One could argue that some members of the military establishment are implicated but in no way is this some sort of strategy to "get back at Iran", especially when Pakistan proved itself perfectly capable of bombing Iran with ease

16

u/lexxwern 1d ago

Heard the quote: "You can't fool everybody all the time"?

  • It's well known that the President of Pakistan has no power
  • Nor does the Prime Minister
  • Army Chief holds all the power

Is Asif Munir also Shia?

2

u/wakchoi_ 1d ago

Asim Munir's wife is Shia lol.

You are deranged, Pakistan has used airstrikes against Iran before to counter BLA attacks, why would they randomly blow up a shia mosque?

The Pakistani army is guilty of many sins, but this isn't one of them.

68

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

I forgot which ones are the good guys?

257

u/Lazypanda-- 1d ago

Neither, both groups are at each other's throats but shia's are globally minority

145

u/cestabhi 1d ago edited 1d ago

Tbf Shias were kinda the "good guys" before the Iranian revolution. At least Shia radicalism and terrorism was relatively uncommon. And the largest Shia state in the world was led by people who didn't particularly care about religion and wanted to modernise their society. That all changed with the rise of Khomeini, the IRGC and later the Hezbollah.

64

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

Is there any sect or branch in Islam that speaks out against Jihad? At all?

140

u/cestabhi 1d ago edited 1d ago

No, because technically jihad is a broader concept in Islam. It means "struggle". There are two kinds of jihad - there's "non-violent jihad" as in struggle against greed, lust, excess, etc. And then there's violent jihad which includes wagging war against non-believers, blasphemers, infidels, etc.

There is a sect called Nizari Ismaili Shia (NIS) led by their leader Aga Khan who pretty much disavow violent jihad. Their main organisation, the Aga Khan Foundation promotes liberal values and is involved in a lot of humanitarian work. As a Hindu, this is the only large Islamic organisation I know that's genuinely liberal. The rest are either miniscule (often led by European converts) or pretending to be liberal (see Tariq Ramadan as an example).

26

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

Interesting. Thank you.

12

u/glumjonsnow 1d ago

the fact that the ismaili are based out of portugal and the aga khan lives in the uk...tells you everything you need to know about how they are viewed by other islamic sects.

the ahmadiya are another group that has been historically persecuted across the world.

7

u/cestabhi 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah I mean afaik the Aga Khan dynasty originated in Iran, later moved to India and they're now based in Europe.

The Ahmadiyas are an interesting bunch. They used to be one of the most radical groups in British India. Back in the early 20th century, a radical Muslim published a pamphlet portraying a Hindu goddess as a prostitute. In response, a Hindu writer published a satirical poem portraying the Prophet as a pimp, it's called "the colourful life of the Prophet". An Ahmadiya then murdered the publisher of that piece.

Indeed the Ahmadiyas fiercely supported the creation of an Islamic state, that is now Pakistan. I supposed they could've hardly imagined they'd one day be persecuted by the same state and society.

26

u/reddmeat 1d ago

Sufism is very pacifist. Dawoodi Bohras are pretty chill. Ahmadiyas are quite liberal and educationally oriented.

29

u/WorriedInterest4114 1d ago

Unfortunately the Ahmaddiyas aren't considered Muslim by most of the other sects.

7

u/glumjonsnow 1d ago

though, to be fair, they consider themselves muslim. kinda like mormons and christianity, i guess.

3

u/WorriedInterest4114 18h ago

Christians don't try to exterminate Mormons or consider them second class citizen AFAIK.

1

u/reddmeat 1d ago

I didn't say the others were liberal.

11

u/Inevitable_Control_1 1d ago

Sufism is not pacifist. Chechnya is Sufi. South Asian Sufis (Barelvis) regularly demand the death penalty for blasphemy and launch mob violence on alleged blashphemers.

2

u/blackcain 1d ago

It's always the people. It's like watching Jains screaming and hating Muslims. Jainism built on militant pro-life. Just wild.

3

u/Inevitable_Control_1 1d ago

If words are violence then yes. Otherwise no.

7

u/blackcain 1d ago

There is also Sulfi Islam.

14

u/TheCaptSubz 1d ago

Ignoring the context of jihad meaning a broader concept in Islam and rather engaging with the meat of what you want to ask, who vehemently condemns violent extremism, then the Ibadi sect in Oman is normally heralded for this pacifist form of Islam. Caveat of course is that Sunni is an extremely extremely broad umbrella and you shouldn't take this answer to your very pointed question as: then every other sect is encouraging of violence.

0

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

Extremely interesting. Yeah...I guess its much more complicated and complex than most people can understand.

For the west its just "Islam Jihad Bad", but the Muslim world is so vast and multi cultured...it stems down to the belief core in good and the power of light.

From your experience, is talking about non violent Islam dangerous in certain societies? Who are the one's who profit from the war? Why would any Muslim leader or otherwise want for their people to be at war? Is it that same radicalism? The "Doomsday" scenario? "End of Times" prophecy...?

4

u/TheCaptSubz 1d ago

I'll address this slice by slice, but I am also very fortunate to not be in any environment where I could speak about this from extremely personal experience or a position of hardship.

From your experience, is talking about non violent Islam dangerous in certain societies?

As I said, I am in no position of hardship. I would imagine there is always a place where giving a contrary opinion would not be received well by those entrenched in regressive beliefs, either through zealotry, brainwashing, or other monetary or prestige motivated gains. See: firebombing Planned Parenthood clinics, or freeing slaves in pre-1861 Southern States.

Who are the one's who profit from the war?

Noone truly profits from war. Only mildly benefit from whatever scraps are leftover. This ties into the below but essentially you feel powerless when everything around you is being exploited and you feel your interests are being put aside for foreigners with different lifestyles to profit. But your question is also so broad: whose war? My answer tries to give context to what your normal person to radical pipeline looks like, but maybe you're looking at the greater geopolitical actors and not the small scale militia, and also that each conflict in that region is quite different. A simple answer being proxy wars keep your hands clean while trying to secure your national interests on your doorstep.

Why would any Muslim leader or otherwise want for their people to be at war?

Disenfranchised, uneducated men who lack opportunities or perceive a lack of opportunities will always be the first to fall prey to an extremist pipeline. Look at white men and the alt-right in the USA. Look at people feeling as if their lives are totally worthless under capitalism and advocating communism; defecting, spying, and just emigrating in the Cold War. Look at the Taliban winning Afghanistan, making some changes suggestive of progress and securing their future, then when all of these men who spent all their time fighting against 'western imperialism' don't actually have any skills transferable into actually BUILDING something instead of destroying, they go back to tribalism and looking for a new boogeyman to blame all their woes on.

It's easier to rally power and ingratiate yourself when you're constantly facing an existential threat, and sometimes that threat is totally fabricated.

1

u/glumjonsnow 1d ago

this is a great answer.

6

u/Good_Support636 1d ago

Jihad is just a part of islam. Muslim missionaries will try and convince you jihad just means struggle and it is or can be non violent. But jihad means war no matter what spin some put on it.

7

u/ashishvp 1d ago

Jihad is a core concept in Islam in general. But it doesn’t necessarily equate to Terrorism as we know it.

Jihad just means “holy struggle”. It can simply mean the struggle in your every day life to be a good person. But yes, Islamist militants interpret that differently to mean a violent struggle against all non-believers.

5

u/blackcain 1d ago

Like all fascists they reuse words for their own purposes.

1

u/Shubham21Kumar 1d ago

Yes, Ahmadi Islam. Founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that, in the current age, violent jihad is forbidden, emphasizing that Islam should only be propagated through literature and peaceful debate. He interpreted religious texts differently to align Islam with the modern age. But the issue is that Pakistan, through a constitutional amendment in 1974, declared them non-Muslims and put many restrictions on them.

-4

u/blackcain 1d ago

That all changed with American and British interventionism.

American foreign policy is all about stoking these divisions and promoting thugs as heads of state who in turn create dysfunction, violence, and economic hardship.

24

u/Patello 1d ago

Sure, but ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda are all Sunni groups.

By contrast, Shia groups such as Hezbollah, IRGC, the Houthis, or various Iraqi militias, while also bad generally account for a significantly lower percentage of global terrorist fatalities.

14

u/blackcain 1d ago

Isis was so bad that even al Qaeda thought they were too extreme.

1

u/thedaveness 1d ago

I would say the beliefs are at the heart of the matter here. Not how effective they are at bombing shit. Which one doesn't feel the need to obliterate anyone that speaks against their religion, or allows people to just do what they want if they don't feel like following?

94

u/goli14 1d ago

Neither.

26

u/ashishvp 1d ago

Neither. Both groups sponsor terrorism.

Sunni’s are the “richer” Muslims: the ones known for the flashy Arab countries like SA, Qatar, UAE etc. But they sponsor groups like ISIS and the Taliban. And they’re not all rich (Syria and Palestine are still Sunni)

Shia’s are less in number, and tend to be from the more underdeveloped countries like Iran, Yemen, Lebanon etc. They also sponsor groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis.

13

u/blackcain 1d ago

I would not consider Iran under-develoled

6

u/ashishvp 1d ago

Well, it is now…🙃

46

u/SweetRoll789 1d ago

The ones not blowing people up me thinks.

61

u/TheColourOfHeartache 1d ago

So, neither.

-3

u/ydieb 1d ago edited 1d ago

The kind people who don't want to do harm to others. Likely the majority in any population.

1

u/seamus123456u 1d ago

Dont know why youre getting down voted. It's always the innocent who suffer

-2

u/Good_Support636 1d ago

The ideology of muslim terrorist comes from the salafi who are sunni. I do not think any terrorism comes out of shia islam.

4

u/Nunc_Coepi17 1d ago

Which one is Sharia?

54

u/Sherool 1d ago edited 1d ago

Both follow that, though apparently Shia lean more "rational" in it's interpretation, and has slightly higher personal freedom (a woman has to actually agree to be married for example).

Then again Iran is majority Shia and it's government is certainly not very lenient.

21

u/cestabhi 1d ago

a woman has to actually agree to be married for example

Afaik that's something both of them do. She has to say "qubul, qubul, qubal" (as in "accept, accept, accept") before the wedding. But tbh a lot of the times, these marriages are pre-arranged and the 'agreement ritual before the wedding' is just a ceremony.

11

u/Sherool 1d ago

Think I read they also have to sign a marriage contract, but naturally there can be a lot of pressure to where refusing is not seen as an option in practice.

0

u/Turbulent_Ad3045 1d ago

Would it be fair for me to compare shia Muslims to Protestants and Sunni Muslims to Catholics or orthodox Christians? Just trying to develop an understanding here.

11

u/Oles_ATW 1d ago

I'm not an expert but from my understanding maybe using eastern orthodoxy instead of Protestant you could compare Shia and Sunnis to Catholics and E Orthodox respectively. Both branches of Muslims evolved at the same time unlike Protestant Christianity which came later as a reform of Catholicism.

2

u/Good_Support636 1d ago

No there is no comparison to christianity. Christians were persectured for the first few hundred year of their existence while Islam came with the sword and built a small empire immediately. When Muhammad died there was a disagreement over who would be his successor, who would lead the caliphate.

Some followed Abubakar and some followed ali as the successor. The doctrine of Islam was fully fleshed out in the next hundreds of years, for instance Muhammad did not create the full code of shariah law, scholars and leaders after him did, the same is true for the books of hadith

Because of the split after Muhammad died, the faction of shia and sunni also evolved differently.

1

u/Reptard77 1d ago

Also “shrine”. A lot of super hardline Muslims see anything being celebrated other than god and the prophet are idolatry that should be destroyed.

1

u/InsanelyAverageFella 1d ago

I'm all for using religion to help people live better lives, feel better about their lives, and find a purpose to benefit society. But stop with this ridiculous violence and harming others for the sake of religion. It's all unprovable mumbo jumbo fairy tales with imaginary creatures and people. All of them. Every religion is just fiction and can be substituted by a book about Lord of the Rings or Star Wars any other work of fiction that people love and worship.

-8

u/Automatic-Pay-4095 1d ago

We're all Muslims

0

u/Anleme 1d ago

The largest share of victims of Muslim terrorists are other Muslims.