Featured Original Articles

From Charlie Hebdo in Paris to Shia mosque in Rawalpindi: Deobandi and Wahhabi terrorists continue to massacre innocent people


Facade of blasphemy: Wahhabi terrorists massacre journalists in Paris, Deobandi terrorists massacre Sunni Sufis and Shias in Rawalpindi

In Paris, Wahhabi Salafi terrorists massacred 12 journalist beause they allegedly insulted Prophet Muhammad. In Rawalpindi, Deobandi terrorists (allies of Wahhabi terrorists) massacred 8 Shias and Sunni Sufis on 9 January 2015 because they were praising Prophet Muhammad on his birthday (Milad). On 10 January 2015, Deobandi ASWJ terrorists massacred another 6 Shia Muslims including three doctors in Karachi and Peshawar. Their only crime? Shia faith.

This proves a number of things.

First, the massacre in Paris cannot be attributed to generic Muslim approach to violence because the same people who massacre Christians and Jews in the name of blasphemy also massacre Sunni Sufis, Barelvis and Shias due to differences of sect. In Pakistan alone, 80,000 innocent people of all faiths and sects have been massacred by Deobandi terrorists. There’s no precedence of similar violence by Sunni Sufis/Barelvis, Shias, Ahmadis, Christians etc.

Second, from Libya to Bahrain, Syria to Pakistan, Iraq to Europe and Nigeria to North America, it is the transnational Wahhabi/Salafi and Deobandi terrorists who are massacing innocent Christians, Jews, Muslims (Sunni Sufi and Shia) along with other persecuted groups. (On 31 Dec 2014, at least 33 Shia and Sunni Sufi Muslims celebrating the Milad were massacred in Yemen by Wahhabi Deobandi terrorists.)

Third, it is none else than the West itself which has enabled the transnational Wahhabi Salafi and Deobandi terrorism by investing in their Jihadist operations in Syria, Afghanistan and Libya for short-term strategic purposes.

On 9 January 2015, Deobandi terrorist group Sipah-e-Sahaba (aka ASWJ-LeJ) attacked a Shia mosque in Rawalpindi where hundred of Shias and Sunni Sufis were celebrating the birthday (Mila or Maulid) of Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). At least eight Shia and Sunni Sufi Muslims were killed in the Deobandi suicide attack.

It was a suicide attack on the Imambargah Aun Mohammad Rizvi in Chatian Hatian area of Rawalpindi. The Shia Muslim congregants were commemorating Eid Miladun Nabi (the Holy Prophet’s birthday) when they were targeted in this terrorist act. Some Sunni Sufis too were present as they too pay equal reverence to Milad.

Only a few days before the Milad massacre in Rawalpindi, a bomb targeting Shias at a volleyball match in the Lower Orakzai Agency killed at least five people and injured 10 Shia Muslims. The incident happened at the Hussaini ground, owned by the local Shia community in the Kalaya neighbourhood of the Orakzai tribal district.

Deobandi Pashtuns including those who claim to be liberal, secular or leftist (eg Bushra Gohar and others of ANP) remain tight lipped on Shia genocide and take extra care to remove or hide the Deobandi ASWJ identity of terrorists.

Scores of Shia doctors, traders, businessmen and shopkeepers have already been killed since the start of 2015 in various targeted attacks by the Deobandi militants of ASWJ-LeJ. Just 3 days ago, several Shia youth were killed in Hangu when their volleyball match was targeted by the Deobandi terrorist group, the Taliban!

Will Raza Rabbani cry for the victims of Shia Genocide? Will Asma Jahangir finally criticise her client, PM Nawaz Sharif and her Judiciary for continuously releasing convicted Deobandi terrorists of ASWJ-LeJ.

Will Pakistan’s Civil Society and elitist liberals take a rally to protest this act?

None of these things are likely to happen. Civil Society will continue to obfuscate this situation using various underhand tactics such as blaming the Shia victims and placing them in the same category as ISIS-affiliated terrorist group ASWJ-LeJ.

About the author


1 Comment

Click here to post a comment
  • I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
    JAN. 8, 2015

    David Brooks

    The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

    Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

    Continue reading the main story

    Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

    Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

    Continue reading the main story

    Charlie Hebdo Suspects Dead in Raid; Hostage Taker in Paris Is Also KilledJAN. 9, 2015
    So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.

    The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

    We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

    But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

    Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.

    Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.

    Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
    In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

    Do you think being humorless qualifies you to sit at the adult table? And do you think being humorless somehow indicates your grasp of…

    Judeb 23 hours ago
    Mr. Brooks seems to overlook the fact that if the terrorists had not attacked Charlie Hebdo, they would have attacked another target. As…

    If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.

    Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.

    In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

    Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

    The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.