Talk:Lal Masjid, Islamabad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

early discussion[edit]

What exactly are the "radical and fundamentalist" teachings that are espoused? There's no discussion whatsoever of that >> The Muslims will say that the teachings are about Islam (The Religion of Peace...hahaha). What it's really all about is OIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we regular wiki editors have the authority to neutralize the language here? I'm more than willing, but wanted to make sure it was proper wiki protocol. I'm OK w/ editing facts and grammar, but not sure about the policies of depoliticizing someone else's language. I'm not finding any objections in the npov section. J.A.McCoy 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. Be Bold. The Jade Knight 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Wikipedia work both exacting as regards scholarship and costly in hours--one does not work "off the top of the head" for this environment. One or two notes here regarding the English adjectives "radical" and "fundamentalist". Behavior in clerical Islam traces back to observation and discussion of four source: Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah, Tasfir. The intellectual and literary environment may be such at where a western mind might imagine a progressive "radical" or "fundamentalist" extension of thought from a philosophicle base, the reality may be more one of selective parsing of the clerical literature extant in such a way as to support or not support a military agenda in the control and spread of the religion. How that works out of the literature takes either a mind steeped in it or willing to investigate that motivating language.

The charge of Pakistani Army intervention being about oil is one I would dismiss out of hand. In fact, the students, after engaging in vigilante acts in Islamabad, certainly drawing the government's attention, were the first to offer Kalashnikov fire to police, an act of bravado that brought the rest of the state's reponse, including numerous days of negotiations with Musharraf's government, and, I recall, Musharraf himself.

Rather than "depoliticizing someone else's language", the work here may be to bring more media coverage and data to light and frame that with some balance.

Certainly, holding cells had been constructed in the mosque and the mosque had been abundantly armed prior to the challenge of the government. Just as certainly afterward, some of the the parents of students have also been unreconstructed in their attitudes toward Musharraf's government and perhaps participatory government in general.

Again, working through each point takes work.

Were I Muslim and living in Islamabad, I would believe I or anyone else tackling this subject would still have to approach it in a scholarly manner, which may not be as convenient or easy as it may sometimes look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commart (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque attacked[edit]

I believe the mosque was attacked by law enforcement, with some damage. This should be noted. Badagnani 07:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This LAL MOSQUE topic needs proper history, for example - when it is constructed, important events of mosque the history witnessed,the list of Imamms of that mosque, when the madrasa is started, how it is expanded, students capacity, what are the subjects were taught.How the situation is worsened, What was the governments role in in madrasa since it is in the capital city of Pakistan & near ISS Office, what may be the moto behind this operation of Pak Pres. Musharraf, was their some other ways to tackle this situation in beter way? how this situation is arrived? Is due to a chain of wrong decisions made by Pakistani government ? Was their a foreign hand behind Presidents such policies, Are theses decisions will make a long lasting impact on the future of Pakistan, Is it not the Pakistan media is fully operating biased way? This all is required with this topic, kindly collect information from all the sources and angles.Then it will be justified , more accurate/perfect.

Maybe someone should write about the architecture of Mosque, school buildings inside the Mosque compound, student capacity, number of floors, location etc also. IMHO, the focus of the article should be the Mosque itself, not the current attack. Simynazareth 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one small detail: Concerning the start of military operation on July 10th approx. 04:00h : This would be 23:00h GMT on July 9th and not 00:00h as stated in the article. Pakistan runs on GMT +5h

84.144.65.146 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I definitely think that this article on English wikipedia should use the English name "Red Mosque". The starting line should be < The Red Mosque (Urdu: لال مسجد Lāl Masjid) ... > instead of < The Lal Masjid (Urdu: لال مسجد; translated: Red Mosque) ... >. Tuncrypt 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


REPLY
Kk loach 08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)But i dont think so because Lal Masjid is a name and when we translate any thing we can't change the name of any thing.[kk_loach][11-7-2007][reply]

Lal Masjid is not a unique name. It's two regular words that can and should be translated. Most newsmedia I've seen use "Red Mosque". Tuncrypt 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to keep the existing name of the article. Its use is specific enough to warrant retaining a title in another language. Cypher z 23:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Tuncrypt (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LETS PLEDGE WE DONT FIGHT , NOT FOR GOD, NOT IN THE NAME OF RELIGION, NEVER EVER
Kk loach 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)well i m not here for fight and we are not fighting.It is just a word.Kk loach 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Use an English translation of an Arabic title whenever such translation is the most common name that is unambiguous." "Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead." Following these guidelines I think that "Red Mosque" is more appropriate for this title. Especially since some persons may translate the title using different spelling.
--Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

many coffins contained multiple decapitated limbs[edit]

For some bizarre reason, I find this reference to casualties of the raid amusing.

I think the siege section needs either a total re-write or deleted/moved to the Lal Masjid siege page. Sue Wallace 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Wikipedia article ever?[edit]

Sorry not to have that Wikipedia spirit, but ... you couldn't pay me enough to fix the travesty of the English language that this article comprises. It's so bad, it IS funny. Wbroun 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because this article and other Wikipedia articles have been infiltrated by total lunatics. Just take a look at the links that show up at the bottom of the article ... For example, http://www.lalmasjid.com/ is described here as the "Official Lal Masjid website." I encourage you to visit these websites ... they display bloody pictures of militants killed in action and mostly consist of chat forums that are fomenting with jihadist mania. The Lal Masjid is property of the state of Pakistan, so (a) there is no way that the state is officially running a website like this that encourages terrorism and glorifies the Lal Masjid crazies, and (b) an official Government of Pakistan website would not have a .com domain name. -- anonymous (genuinely scared of Koranimals).
A google search reveals no official Lal Masjid or Red Mosque Website. I think that these external links should be deleted. Especially in light of the previous argument. -- Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

does any one know the date of the brothel incident if so plz add(akhwandk (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lal Masjid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lal Masjid, Islamabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lal_Masjid,_Islamabad&oldid=1203470996"