What kind of “religiosity” is “creating intolerance and opening up space for a creeping resurgence in militancy”? AP doesn’t say, because of course the answer is that the problem in Pakistan is not “religiosity” in general. Christian religiosity is not leading to intolerance and a “spike in militancy.” Hindu religiosity is not leading to intolerance and a “spike in militancy.” The problem is Islamic religiosity, because the Qur’an and Sunnah contain texts and teachings that call for violence against unbelievers. But AP, like all of the establishment propaganda organs, doesn’t dare say that, and contents itself instead with retailing this nonsense about “religiosity.”
“Pakistan expert: Religiosity aiding spike in militancy,” by Kathy Gannon, Associated Press, February 27, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Militant attacks are on the rise in Pakistan amid a growing religiosity that has brought greater intolerance, prompting one expert to voice concern the country could be overwhelmed by religious extremism.
Pakistani authorities are embracing strengthening religious belief among the population to bring the country closer together. But it’s doing just the opposite, creating intolerance and opening up space for a creeping resurgence in militancy, said Mohammad Amir Rana, executive director of the independent Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies.
“Unfortunately, instead of helping to inculcate better ethics and integrity, this phenomenon is encouraging a tunnel vision” that encourages violence, intolerance and hate, he wrote recently in a local newspaper. “Religiosity has begun to define the Pakistani citizenry.”…
A military spokesman this week said the rising violence is a response to an aggressive military assault on militant hideouts in regions bordering Afghanistan and the reunification of splintered and deeply violent anti-Pakistan terrorist groups, led by the Tehreek-e-Taliban. The group is driven by a radical religious ideology that espouses violence to enforce its extreme views….
“The problem is religiosity has very negative expression in Pakistan,” he said in an interview late Friday. “It hasn’t been utilized to promote the positive, inclusive tolerant religion.”
Instead, successive Pakistani governments as well as its security establishments have exploited extreme religious ideologies to garner votes, appease political religious groups, or target enemies, he said.
The 2018 general elections that brought cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan to power was mired in allegations of support from the powerful military for hard-line religious groups.
Those groups include the Tehreek-e-Labbaik party, whose single-point agenda is maintaining and propagating the country’s deeply controversial blasphemy law. That law calls for the death penalty for anyone insulting Islam and is most often used to settle disputes. It often targets minorities, mostly Shiite Muslims, who makeup up about 15% of mostly Sunni Pakistan’s 220 million people….
Joeyn says
I wonder if the main victims of this so-called ‘religiosity’ are the Shiite Muslims as the AP article claims, or rather the non-Muslims.
mortimer says
The sort of ‘RELIGIOSITY’ in question is the most IMPORTANT PILLAR of Islam … which is to conduct jihad ‘in the cause of Allah’. Conducting jihad is thus both RELIGIOUSITY and SUPREMACIST POLITICS at the same time.
Jihad is more important to Muslims than prayer.
The most thorough proof of this definition (conducting jihad) is from Saudi Arabia:
The following is an ‘official definition’ of jihad according to Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment:
“Jihad is HOLY FIGHTING in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the UTMOST IMPORTANCE in Islam and is one of its PILLARS. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an OBLIGATORY DUTY in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” – footnotes on p.39, ‘The Noble Koran’, published by King Fahd Complex for Publication of the Quran, Madinah, KSA.
Al Azhar University in Egypt endorses the following ‘official, legal definitions’ of Jihad from the ‘Reliance of the Traveller’:
– “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. [Reliance of the Traveller, Book O9.1]
Jihad is something Muslims must do against non-Muslims every year.
– RoT – O9.0: Jihad : (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
– RoT – O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad : The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…
– RoT – O9.9 : The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book …
-The caliph (RoT – o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians
The Koran generalizes the obligation of jihad without any time limits:
◦Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given (Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians) such as believe not in Allah. (K.9:29)
BlackSabbath says
Certain “Religiosity” is creating “Spikiosity” in “Jihadiosity” in many “Countryosities”. This might lead to complete “Banosity” on “Islamosity” after a “Spikosity” in “Patientiosity” of common law abiding people.
Viktor Smith says
Why are almost all *religious* problems associated with a PARTICULAR religion?
Infidel says
Okay, AP, we’re getting there – to the truth, however reluctant they may be to put the ‘islamic’ label on this ‘religiosity’. Since most people automatically associate Pakistan w/ islam before anything else
James says
No, these AP communists are lumping Christianity in with jihadi Islam.
Infidel says
Not quite: when they discuss Pakistan, there’s no escaping the fact that the religion in question is islam. Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism are mere asterisks in Pakistan’s religious landscape
nicholas tesdorf says
“religiosity” is a small step toward realising that it is Islam causing the problems as usual.
James says
The communists at AP are just trying to place the blame on all religions, as if all religions are the same. It is a boldface lie.
James Lincoln says
I’m sure that the Associated Press realizes that Pakistan is 96.5% muslim – and that is the “religiosity”.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/muslim-population-by-country
gravenimage says
AP blames ‘religiosity’ for the ‘spike in militancy’ in Pakistan
………………..
Hmmmm–“religiosity” in Hindus, Christians, or Sikhs? Maybe not…
OTTER says
Pakistan is a country born in hate because they could not live with the most tolerant and intrusive community in the world: Hindus.
it is shocking that some intellectuals in Pakistan should even consider that the religion, (which they do not do not mention) has anything Inclusive or peaceful in it.
Islam is distilled EVIL. The Sindhi Muslims are a bit more peaceful largely because of Hindu influence and they have an independently movement. Baluchistan is restive. Not long before it goes off the map.
In India democracy is successful because of Hindus just like it is successful in the western world because of Christians.
But Muslims? Forget about them as they have failed at everything. Sorry, they excel in hate.
Infidel says
If one hears the terms ‘North Korea’, ‘East Germany’, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Communism. But for Communism, these 2 countries would never have existed
Similarly, when one hears the term ‘Pakistan’, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Islam. That’s the only reason Pakistan exists. Otherwise, there’s no reason that Sind or Panjab couldn’t have been a part of India
I do disagree w/ you that Sindi muslims are any better: all these stories that we normally read here and elsewhere of Hindu or Christian or Sikh underaged girls being abducted and ‘married’ by muslims – the bulk of them happens in Sind. Karachi may have been a Sindi city before 1947, but after that, muslims of all stripes landed up there and morphed it into what it is today
I also don’t think India should back separatist movements in Pakistan: they’d be as hostile to Hindus as Bangladesh is today (and that’s another mistake India made in 1971). A full blown civil war in Pakistan is as useful as the ones that have happened in Iraq and Syria: it’s forced internecine muslim-on-musliim wars, rather than jihad wars. Only thing – India should maintain an airtight border and not allow any such refugees into India – except for the ones that qualify under the CAA