Balochistan Terrorism Watch

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

Now consider if you think Nuclear weapons are acceptable in any form or fashion to a believer?
One that not only kills humans but leaves the earth a wasteland for all creatures for decades or centuries.

However, conversely apply the logic against modern weapons - warfare - holding innocents hostage - and weather it means any right or wrong will exist if one side or the other completely abides on the very contextual references you are giving?

After all, as you apply these please immedietly apply to the actions of Hazrat Ali RA and Hazrat Aisha RA as they led their forces during the battle of Jaml.

What you believe Allah will do to them?

I am not suggesting they willingly killed non-combatants but there were innocents among the fighters then as well.

I already thought someone will brought the topic of Jang e Jaml. Now if you read hadees you will know what happend actually and how both of them are exonerated from Rasoolullah saw hadees. I will suggest two books here for anyone to read. khilafat wa malookiyat and al jihad fil islam both by maulana moudoodi Rahima humullah..

For the nuclear weapon that is why Khomeni or iran has fatwa against them. For defence purpose i think one can keep just so that no one try to attack you. its for your defence and not to be used rather too keep other not using them on you. The rest non muslims will do anything collateral but muslims must at all cost avoid them. Go only for those who want to fight with you and try to avoid any innocent lives to be caught in between you.

 

[Oscar]

Demands put forth by KPK govt:-

1. Tribal elders should make the Kharjite Afghans to leave.

2. If they can't, then they should vacate the area for a couple days to let the army do it.

3. If they don't want that either then it is their responsibility to avoid collateral.

Hosting terrorists in their houses for $$ will have consequences. Don't cry collateral damage when army smoke them.

This is the best approach possible.
Now, does this ensure safety of non-combatants if they do not leave or assist terrorists?

No.
If anything I would even see some inspiration from the conditions given by the Prophet to the people of Mecca prior to Muslims conquering the city.

1. Do not take up arms - will be spared
2. Take refuge by the house of Abu Sufyan be spared
And so on.


Now in terms of displaced people - it is likely there will be a lot of resentment which will be amplified as military undertakes heavy handed checks on their convoys to ensure no terrorist is among them - but that is the nature of having soldiers vs LE undertake those needs as well. They probably have none to spare nor the intelligence to think about it but those checks were ideally to be done by softer LE elements from KP police including female officers.

But then that would be expecting too much of the state.

 

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

Now consider if you think Nuclear weapons are acceptable in any form or fashion to a believer?
One that not only kills humans but leaves the earth a wasteland for all creatures for decades or centuries.

However, conversely apply the logic against modern weapons - warfare - holding innocents hostage - and weather it means any right or wrong will exist if one side or the other completely abides on the very contextual references you are giving?

After all, as you apply these please immedietly apply to the actions of Hazrat Ali RA and Hazrat Aisha RA as they led their forces during the battle of Jaml.

What you believe Allah will do to them? Based on some of the references you posted?

I am not suggesting they willingly killed non-combatants but there were innocents among the fighters then as well.

What about the campaigns by Hazrat Abu Bakr against the Kazzab?
Those were in urban areas and there were likely losses of civilians even though warfare was much more personal then.

So killing unarmed non-combatants just for revenge IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED in Islam NO MATTER HOW MUCH HORRORS THEY INFLICT UPON MUSLIM.

But, simply avoiding conflict to ensure that every non-combatant lives at the risk of defeat is not enforced by Islam.

the kazzab and all their followers were the only one fighting against Muslim and they were threat for the muslim in arabia. there was no civilians innocent death. the only case you can provide is of Hazrat Ali wars i.e. jaml, siffin for which i will suggest you to read khilafat wa malookiyat. You can also listen to Maulana Ishaq Madni Rahima hummullah.. Hazrat Ali RA kay peechay Rasoolullah SAW ki ahadees karhee hain.. civilians aur khas kar innocent ka qatle aam ijmaah say saaabit hai kay haram hai.. iss mai kisi b maktaba e fikr ulema ka ikhtelaaf nahi hai. muslims must at all cost avoid innocent people killing. Baaki if you really want to understand this topic i would really suggest you to read Al jihad fil islam by maulana moudoodi..

 

[Oscar]

I already thought someone will brought the topic of Jang e Jaml. Now if you read hadees you will know what happend actually and how both of them are exonerated. I will suggest two books here for anyone to read. khilafat wa malookiyat and al jihad fil islam both by maulana moudoodi Rahima humullah..

For the nuclear weapon that is why Khomeni or iran has fatwa against them. For defence purpose i think one can keep just so that no one try to attack you. its for your defence and not to be used. The rest non muslims will do anything collateral but muslims must at all cost avoid them. Go only for those who want to fight with you and try to avoid any innocent lives to be caught in between you.

I read the exact account from multiple sources and I would love to know how after the prophet's passing would anyone have knowledge of what Allah thinks?
Unless there is suggestion Astaghfirullah that Hazrat Mohammad is not the last messenger and other people get wahi as well? Please clarify who exonerated them?

As for collateral, muslims can do what they must to avoid collateral as much as possible no matter what and the practice of it has varied from Muslim commander to commander throughout history.

From a pure jurisprudence perspective Islam provides guidelines but not judgement nor does it provide any strict figures.

 

[Oscar]

the kazzab and all their followers were the only one fighting against Muslim and they were threat for the muslim in arabia. there was no civilians innocent death. the only case you can provide is of Hazrat Ali wars i.e. jaml, siffin for which i will suggest you to read khilafat wa malookiyat. You can also listen to Maulana Ishaq Madni Rahima hummullah.. Hazrat Ali RA kay peechay Rasoolullah SAW ki ahadees karhee hain.. civilians aur khas kar innocent ka qatle aam ijmaah say saaabit hai kay haram hai.. iss mai kisi b maktaba e fikr ulema ka ikhtelaaf nahi hai. muslims must at all cost avoid innocent people killing. Baaki if you really want to understand this topic i would really suggest you to read Al jihad fil islam by maulana moudoodi..

While Hazrat Ali RA is honored and respected as an exemplar of Islamic justice, virtue, and leadership, the idea that he was exempted from accountability or exonerated by an overriding holy decree regarding his conduct in wars or governance is a flawed argument not grounded in mainstream Islamic scholarship or historical evidence. The emphasis is rather on his adherence to high moral standards under extremely difficult circumstances and his focus on minimizing unlawful harm.

The claim of "no civilian deaths" should be understood in the context of Hazrat Ali RA's strict prohibition against deliberately harming innocent non-combatants, rather than an absolute claim that no deaths at all occurred in the entire war context. His leadership reflected efforts to adhere to these principles, minimizing civilian harm as much as possible given the civil war circumstances.

The presented sources do not provide evidence that collateral or unintended innocent deaths never occurred in the history of conflicts involving the Caliphs of Islam or that all conflicts within Islam were free of civilian deaths. Instead, Islamic jurisprudence and principles emphasize the prohibition of intentional killing of innocent civilians in warfare, but historical realities and scholarly discussions show that unintended harm and conflict-related civilian casualties have occurred.

Your argument that Pakistani forces (or any muslim for that matter) should willingly want to kill innocents(muslim or non-muslim) is correct. But to suggest that any conflict should be avoided if there is even the minutest chance of collateral damage is flawed.

 

[mythbuster]

To all those pakistani and especially muslim please read and understand clearly that any innocent civilian be a muslim or non muslim if killed by someone during war or COIN or whatever reason deliberatley is doing the biggest sin after shirk. For your knowledge please study below verses from Quran and ahadees. install islam360 check there and study them.

The Grave Sin of Killing Innocent Civilians in Islam​

In Islam, the sanctity of human life is paramount, and the unlawful killing of any innocent person—Muslim or non-Muslim, including those under protection (dhimmi)—is considered one of the gravest sins, second only to shirk (associating partners with Allah). The Quran and authentic hadiths emphasize that such acts are strictly prohibited, whether in times of war or peace, and carry severe consequences in this life and the hereafter.

Below, we explore key Quranic verses and hadiths that underscore this principle, serving as a reminder for Muslims to uphold justice and mercy.

The Quran explicitly condemns the killing of innocent people and highlights the gravity of such actions:

• Surah An-Nisa, Verse 92: "It is not for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake... And whoever kills a believer by mistake, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave and pay compensation to the deceased’s family unless they remit it freely..." This verse emphasizes that even accidental killing of a believer requires significant atonement, underscoring the sanctity of a believer’s life.
  
  
• Surah An-Nisa, Verse 93: "But whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment." This verse warns of severe divine punishment for intentional murder of a believer, highlighting its gravity.
  
  
• Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 32: "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely..." This verse, applicable to Muslims, equates killing one innocent soul to killing all of humanity, emphasizing the universal sanctity of life, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
  
  
• Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 33: "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land..." This specifies punishments for those who actively wage war and cause corruption, but does not permit killing innocent civilians, even in conflict.

These verses collectively affirm that taking an innocent life—Muslim or non-Muslim—is a heinous sin with dire consequences, permissible only in strictly defined cases of justice.

Now below are some authentic ahadees of Rasoolullah (peace be upon him) reinforcing above Quranic ayats:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6864 and Sahih Muslim 4381: "Narrated `Abdullah: The Prophet said, The first cases to be decided among the people (on the Day of Resurrection) will be those of blood-shed. '"

Sahih al-Bukhari 3166: "Narrated `Abdullah bin `Amr: The Prophet said, Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6896: Ibn 'Umar said: A boy was assassinated. 'Umar said, If all the people of San'a took part in the assassination I would kill them all. Al-Mughira bin Hakim said that his father said, Four persons killed a boy, and 'Umar said (as above). Abu Bakr, Ibn Az-Zubair, 'Ali and Suwaid bin Muqarrin gave the judgement of Al-Qisas (equality in punishment) in cases of slapping. And 'Umar carried out Al-Qisas for a strike with a stick. And 'Ali carried out Al-Qisas for three lashes with a whip. And Shuraih carried out for one last and for scratching.

Sahih Muslim 277: It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah ( ‌صلی ‌اللہ ‌علیہ ‌وسلم ‌ ) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said:
There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle ( ‌صلی ‌اللہ ‌علیہ ‌وسلم ‌ ). The Messenger of Allah ( ‌صلی ‌اللہ ‌علیہ ‌وسلم ‌ ) said: Did he profess There is no god but Allah, and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa'd said: By Allah, I would never kill any Muslim so long as a person with a heavy belly, i. e., Usama, would not kill. Upon this a person remarked: Did Allah not say this: And fight them until there is no more mischief and religion is wholly for Allah? Sa'd said: We fought so that there should be no mischief, but you and your companions wish to fight so that there should be mischief.

This hadith recounts the incident of Usama ibn Zaid RA, who killed a man in battle after the man pronounced the Shahada (testimony of faith). Usama RA thought the man said it out of fear of death. The Prophet (PBUH) rebuked him, saying, "Did you tear open his heart to see what was in it?" This hadith emphasizes that even in war, a person’s declaration of faith or surrender must be respected, and killing them is unlawful unless they continue hostilities.


Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1395 and Sunan Ibn e Majah 2619: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: The world ceases to exist is less significant to Allah than killing a Muslim man.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3029: Narrated 'Amr bin Dinar: from Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: On the Day of Judgement, the murdered will come with the murderer's scalp and his head in his hand, and his jugular vein flowing blood saying: 'O Lord! This one killed me!' Until he comes close to the Throne. So they mentioned repentance to Ibn 'Abbas, and he recited this Ayah: And whoever kills a believer intentionally then his recompense is Hell (4:93 surah nisa ayat 93). He said: This Ayah was not abrogated nor (its ruling) replaced so from where is his repentance?

Sunan Ibn Majah 2621: It was narrated that Salim bin Abu Jad said:
“Ibn Abbas was asked about one who kills a believer deliberately, then repents, believes, does righteous deeds and follows true guidance. He said: 'Woe to him can there be any guidance for him? I heard your Prophet (ﷺ) say: “The killer and his victim will be brought on the day of Resurrection, with slain holding onto the head of his killer, saying: 'O Lord, ask this one, why did he kill me?” By Allah (SWT), Allah (SWT) the Mighty and Sublime revealed it to your Prophet (ﷺ) then He did not abrogate it after He revealed it.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 3932: It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr said:
“I saw the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) circumambulating the Ka’bah and saying: ‘How good you are and how good your fragrance; how great you are and how great your sanctity. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, the sanctity of the believer is greater before Allah than your sanctity, his blood and his wealth, and to think anything but good of him.’”

I have attached references please go check and verify them. if any muslim really fear hell he/she must carefuly read all above.

@Rationalist @Distant_Observer @mythbuster please read all above ayat and hadees.

It's intellectual dishonesty to brandish divine injunctions of bygone era in present day warfare.... today's wars are not fought with swords and bows and arrows , and leave little room for discretion.... theocratic and theoretic discussions sound good in drawing rooms and for one up ship in social media.....they have no place in the battleground whare lapse of a second can take your life .....I am not impressed with your knowledge of islamic verses neither I am interested in them.

 

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

I read the exact account from multiple sources and I would love to know how after the prophet's passing would anyone have knowledge of what Allah thinks?
Unless there is suggestion Astaghfirullah that Hazrat Mohammad is not the last messenger and other people get wahi as well? Please clarify who exonerated them?

As for collateral, muslims can do what they must to avoid collateral as much as possible no matter what and the practice of it has varied from Muslim commander to commander throughout history.

From a pure jurisprudence perspective Islam provides guidelines but not judgement nor does it provide any strict figures.

Apology for my bad English. I think I chose the wrong word, "exonerated." And yes, the guidance from Allah has stopped after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), except if someone is shown something in a dream. What I was saying was that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the side of truth in all three battles. The Prophet (peace be upon him) had mentioned hadiths before his passing in favor of Hazrat Ali RA. As for the common Muslims who were killed on both sides in the Battles of Jamal and Siffin, they are all martyrs. Now, these are too sensitive issue in muslim hence i am avoiding discussing it here? But I will again suggest you read the books "Khilafat wa Malookiyat" and "Al-Jihad fil Islam". You will understand early Islamic history and Islamic rulings on war and its affair. especially uf you want to understand islamic right concepts of war between two muslim armies you should read Hazrat Ali RA wars and that too only from saheeh ahadees. Engineer Ali Mirza has his own website where you can read his research paper 5-B. Download and read it; it contains over 200 hadiths, and you will understand all the battles of the caliphs From abu baker RA to all the way to karbala. You will also understand islamic rulings incase two muslim army are fighting. and for overall islamic principles and rules read "Al-Jihad fil Islam". why i am refering this book again and again is i think this is Maulana Moudoodi best book and there was no such book in the entire history of muslim on such topic. If i had authority i would have made these book must to be taught for all armed forces during their training

 

[airhead]

Who knows who they killed

 

[Sparten]

They do nothing to fiber optic ones

And those are restricted by the length of the spool, which also acts as an arrow back ti where the operators are hiding.

 

[Sparten]

will you cover every square mile with a jammer?

You don't need to. Just cover the likely targets and or the avenues of approach to them.

 

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

This is my last message here. After this, I know i am probably be banned anyway.

While Hazrat Ali RA is honored and respected as an exemplar of Islamic justice, virtue, and leadership, the idea that he was exempted from accountability or exonerated by an overriding holy decree regarding his conduct in wars or governance is a flawed argument not grounded in mainstream Islamic scholarship or historical evidence. The emphasis is rather on his adherence to high moral standards under extremely difficult circumstances and his focus on minimizing unlawful harm.

That’s why I’m telling you to read authentic hadiths from the six major books (Kutub-e-Sittah) or (read engineer muhammad ali mirza research paper 5-b); you’ll understand the whole game. For example, there is a hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that among you, there is a person who will fight to enforce Quran on muslims. At that moment, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) said, “Is it me, O Messenger of Allah?” But the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “No, rather it is the one who is mending my sandal.” And it was Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who was mending the sandal at that time. In short, the Banu Umayya, except for Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), remained enemies of Islam their entire lives until they accepted Islam at the conquest of Mecca, and even then, they were given two options: either accept Islam or leave the land of Hijaz. There, the Banu Umayya accepted Islam, and they were behind all of Hazrat Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) battles because they wanted to seize power. They had not attained the companionship of the Prophet (peace be upon him) since they became Muslims only after the conquest of Mecca, so they were Muslims in name only. It was the Banu Umayya who wrecked Islam, and it remains wrecked to this day. There is no authoritarianism, dictatorship, or kingship in Islam; this tradition was introduced into Islam by the Banu Umayya, and it continues to this day. After the first five caliphs of Islam—namely, Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA), Ali (RA), and Hasan (RA) for six months—anyone who became a king in Islam was not subject to any law, was not accountable to anyone, and did whatever they wanted, which was not the case with these five caliphs. They worked through consultation and were accountable. Now, the battles you’re talking about that happened during Hazrat Ali’s (RA) time were all due to these Banu Umayya, including Marwan ibn Hakam, whose father and family were cursed by the Messenger of Allah, and they had been expelled from Hijaz. Hazrat Uthman (RA) allowed them to return to Medina, and gave them high posts and then these weak, newly-converted Muslims from Banu Umayya ruined the entire system with corruption. Through that same corruption, they later bought people and seized power.

The claim of "no civilian deaths" should be understood in the context of Hazrat Ali RA's strict prohibition against deliberately harming innocent non-combatants, rather than an absolute claim that no deaths at all occurred in the entire war context. His leadership reflected efforts to adhere to these principles, minimizing civilian harm as much as possible given the civil war circumstances.

The presented sources do not provide evidence that collateral or unintended innocent deaths never occurred in the history of conflicts involving the Caliphs of Islam or that all conflicts within Islam were free of civilian deaths. Instead, Islamic jurisprudence and principles emphasize the prohibition of intentional killing of innocent civilians in warfare, but historical realities and scholarly discussions show that unintended harm and conflict-related civilian casualties have occurred.

Your argument that Pakistani forces (or any muslim for that matter) should willingly want to kill innocents(muslim or non-muslim) is correct. But to suggest that any conflict should be avoided if there is even the minutest chance of collateral damage is flawed.

I never said that. If Muslims are also causing mischief, then the government of the time should first give them the option to abandon the mischief. And if they do not agree, then wage jihad against them. In the meantime, if there are innocent people among them, include them in the initial negotiations by saying that if they have any legitimate demands, we will accept them, but if their demands are illegitimate, we will neither accept them nor allow them to cause mischief. Ultimately, we will start an operation against them. If you take the local innocent civilians into confidence in this way, they will also turn against them and stand with you. After this, carry out the operation and, by involving the locals, avoid their casualties. That is the way for Muslim commanders.

It's intellectual dishonesty to brandish divine injunctions of bygone era in present day warfare.... today's wars are not fought with swords and bows and arrows , and leave little room for discretion.... theocratic and theoretic discussions sound good in drawing rooms and for one up ship in social media.....they have no place in the battleground whare lapse of a second can take your life .....I am not impressed with your knowledge of islamic verses neither I am interested in them.

So, do you mean that Surah An-Nisa and Surah Al-Ma’idah, meaning the Quran, were for a bygone era? Or that the hadiths of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari do not apply today? Then, should a new Quran come for today’s era ya new shariat le aaen apkay liye aaj kay dour main?

My request to all people here is that, for God’s sake, whether it’s a beloved leader like Imran Khan, Asim Munir, or a fan of the establishment, do not ruin your hereafter for their sake. None of them is a prophet, nor is any of them infallible, so why do you feel the need to defend every single one of their actions here? Worry about your hereafter. Apart from the prophets, Muslims should not defend every single thing any person says or does, because all other humans are fallible and prone to mistakes. This is personality worship in Islam aur wo b koyi ghair e nabi? it is a kind of shirk.

One last thing for all the military fans sitting here who know nothing about KPK or Balochistan: it’s been 78 years since this August 14, and from the beginning, the establishment has directly or indirectly ruled this country. Even now, more than 70% of your institutions are directly run by retired or serving military personnel, and indirectly, the entire country is under their control. Their actual job was to bring peace, end terrorism, and fight wars. Just do one thing: try appointing a civilian to the post of Army Chief for once and see what happens, because the military has/had already occupied civilian institutions several times. Who knows, maybe peace will come to this country, terrorism will end, and Pakistan will progress in defense as well? or, Make me the COAS for one month, and if I fail to bring peace to KPK and Balochistan, then hang me.

 

[Sparten]

why?
View attachment 139668

its not particulary complex or impossible to get. heck, even quite cheap. The suicide drones being pitched by GIDS (buster series) are available on aliexpress.

same stuff is available to TTP. For warhead use mortar or rpg. Can use the same fusing or rig a custom fuse with a nokia or whatever, or a custom warhead.

And someone will notice mutiple thousands of drones being bought.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

If Turkey could defeat the PKK, the poster-scum most favorite apple-of-the-eye terrorists of the Imperialists, can be defeated so can be the Hindutva slaves....

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

BREAKING: Pakistani military confirms additional kills, and it has successfully eliminated a total of FOURTY SEVEN (47) Fitna al-Khawarij/TTP Indian sponsored terrorists in a single operation in Zhob, Balochistan running over 24 hours now.


47 killed!

 

[RajaBaja]

BREAKING: Pakistani military confirms additional kills, and it has successfully eliminated a total of FOURTY SEVEN (47) Fitna al-Khawarij/TTP Indian sponsored terrorists in a single operation in Zhob, Balochistan running over 24 hours now.


47 killed!

I was about to post it, you beat me! I am HAPPY. There are only a few thousands of these crazy heads. A few of these large attacks and take down, you'll break their backs VERY quickly. PA!!

What's important is, as we dispatch these Indian trained terrorists to hell, we need to also keep intelligence in areas where they are trained and brainwashed. So there is running tally of what is being produced and what's being eliminated.