3

This was shared on my Facebook feed claiming that Christians were trapped in the church.

Pakistan: Muslims burned Church While Christians were trapped inside - Hundreds of Muslims celebrate the attack outside the ruined church - Free Speech Time

The video does show a burning church, but I see no indication whatsoever that people were trapped inside:

Pakistani Muslims burn a church

Were there people trapped inside as the title of the article claims?

Ken Graham
  • 424
  • 1
  • 5
  • 13
Tschallacka
  • 141
  • 4
  • I hate to be that guy. But I am going to say a blogspot site is not a noteworthy site, or even a place to even pretend news should come from. Can you find another source? – RomaH Mar 06 '18 at 20:59
  • @RomaH: The notability requirement on this site isn't that the site is veracious, but that it is widely read and believed. If the metric that it has been shared on Facebook 2.6k times is true, that makes it notable. (Is that true though?) – Oddthinking Mar 07 '18 at 15:06
  • if I use https://www.sharedcount.com/ I get 32.1k for facebook. which is also confirmed by facebook graph https://graph.facebook.com/?id=https%3A%2F%2Ffreespeechtime.blogspot.com%2F2017%2F12%2Fpakistan-muslims-burned-church-while.html%3Fm%3D1 – Tschallacka Mar 07 '18 at 15:37

1 Answers1

8

The events of the video are of an angry mob setting fire to the Sarhadi Lutheran Church in Mardan, Pakistan from 2012. No one was killed.

A subtitle from the linked video reads

"Mob are Ready to Attack on Mardan Church, Pakistan" (sic)

This was a real event that took place on 21 September 2012, as seen from DAWN, Anglican Ink, The Express Tribune, and CBN.com.

From the blogpost you included with your question

Christians were trapped inside

No evidence that A) anyone was trapped inside or B) that anyone was killed

The Islamic persecution of the Christian minority in Pakistan has become genocide.

Again, no evidence that anyone was killed in the attack. Even the most critical of sources provided at the top (CBN) only claims that

The extremists tried to set the pastor's son afire.

without any citation.

The Western world is silent when Islamists attack Christians but scream when Christians defend themselves.

The Express Tribune directly correlates this attack with the release of a movie entitled The Innocence of Muslims, described by Wikipedia as

(...) an anti-Islamic short film that was written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

(...)

What was perceived as denigration of the Islamic prophet Muhammad resulted in demonstrations and violent protests against the video to break out on September 11 in Egypt and spread to other Arab and Muslim nations.

One only needs to read that Wikipedia has a page entitled Reactions to Innocence of Muslims to realize that this was not a targeted terrorist attack, but a large scale protest around the world against a video described by Vanity Fair as

Exceptionally amateurish, with disjointed dialogue, jumpy editing, and performances that would have looked melodramatic even in a silent movie, the clip is clearly designed to offend Muslims, portraying Mohammed as a bloodthirsty murderer and Lothario and pedophile with omnidirectional sexual appetites. “Is the messenger of God gay?” one character asks rhetorically. “Is the master dominant or submissive?”

Community
  • 1
DenisS
  • 22,355
  • 8
  • 95
  • 95
  • 12
    *" a religion being offended for the release of a hate-filled movie"*. A religion is not a person. Persons choose to claim they have been offended. How they then choose to deal with and act on their perceived offence and their supposed hurt feelings — say, for instance, by committing arson and desecration by burning down a house of worship — can then be scrutinised, and judged. –  Mar 07 '18 at 07:35
  • @MichaelK Yeah, but religion gives those people an excuse to behave in such an uncivilized manner. As Weinburg said, "_With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion._" – JasonR Mar 07 '18 at 12:44
  • 5
    @JasonR No, religion — again — does not act. Religion is not an [agent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)). Religion is the organised affirmation of faith, performed by persons. Only persons are agents. Persons may point to their religion in order to try to justify their actions, but in the end it is they that decide to act, and onlookers that decide how to judge their actions. This may seem like a petty quibble but it should be made clear that it is persons that act, and persons that judge their actions. Religion cannot act in the matter, nor grant acceptance/condemnation. –  Mar 07 '18 at 12:49
  • 5
    @JasonR Just to be clear: I am **completely** on the side of [Steven Weinberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg) here (and Christopher Hitchens, from whom I first heard Weinberg's line quoted). The point is to chain the responsibility for people's actions firmly to those people, and not give anyone the chance to dissociate themselves from their actions by arguing in terms of "religion justifies/condemns" or "religion makes it right/wrong to do such things". People decide for themselves. Their religion is not an agent or a person. Religion cannot grant anything, nor be offended. –  Mar 07 '18 at 13:05
  • 1
    Could you please post a link to the definition of "terrorist attack" you are using? Google suggests "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Is that not an apt description of the action? – Oddthinking Mar 07 '18 at 15:10
  • Please keep the other comments on track. We don't care about your optinions and beliefs about religion but we do care about improving the answer, which is unclear in the last sentence. – Oddthinking Mar 07 '18 at 15:12
  • @Oddthinking I would also like to see a pertinent definition become available, because that "Google" definition could include any sort of politically motivated mob-based violence such as the Rodney King Riots. But the lack of a non-vague and universally agreed upon definition is one of the issues some exploit to claim any violent act by a group they don't like is terrorism. – Jeff Lambert Mar 07 '18 at 22:12
  • 1
    @JeffLambert: I agree - that definition could be used that way, and that doesn't bother me (unless governments the fear of terrorism to pass legislation that limits human righs). But this answer is making the same mistake in the other direction: exploiting the vagueness of the term to *deny* it was a terrorist attack (even though that wasn't part of the question). I think the answer should either define the terms, or (better still) avoid making opinion-based pronouncements. – Oddthinking Mar 08 '18 at 00:04
  • 1
    @Oddthinking Very well then: I think that in order to improve the answer the last sentence should be removed entirely since it is a subjective assessment leaning heavily towards being apologetic towards a mob attack on a house of worship. Also note that the question never mentioned the word "terrorism". –  Mar 08 '18 at 07:03
  • 1
    - 1 for this: "this was not a terrorist attack, but a religion being offended for the release of a hate-filled movie." Terrorist attacks are often committed in the name of offended religions. And I'd also suggest calling burning down a third party's house of worship "a religion being offended for the release of a hate-filled movie" a bit newspeak. –  Mar 08 '18 at 12:41
  • So as someone living in the path of the most recent winter storm I haven't been able to see these notes as I lost power. I am reading all of your comments and will adjust the answer accordingly. – DenisS Mar 08 '18 at 15:29
  • 1
    @MichaelK I probably should have phrased that differently as you are correct, a religion is not a person, and thus cannot be offended. Maybe I should have written it more along the lines of "people of a specific religion", but as seen in other answers on this site, calling something a terrorist attack or not is very subjective. – DenisS Mar 08 '18 at 15:33
  • 2
    @Orangesandlemons it may be a little newspeak, but that doesn't make it false. I linked in the question to other protests that went on around the world in response to a movie that was designed to rile up Muslims, and stated that this was one of many protests. It does not forgive the actions of the arsonists, but it does explain them. – DenisS Mar 08 '18 at 15:35
  • I agree with the answer except for that sentence ; will now upvote :) –  Mar 08 '18 at 17:29