Op updated with added text from link. Please open link for full article.
Quote:
The tragic Peshawar attack carried out by TTP on 16th December 2014 triggered a highly angry response from all corners of Pakistani society. It drew condemnation from, religious and political leaders both national and international. As a result Pakistan saw massive protests against the TTP and the murders.
One group led by a pakistani lawyer Jibran Nasir directed their protests towards the Red Mosque, which they claimed supports the TTP and that the Mosque’s leader Maulana Abdul Aziz did not condemn TTP’s massacre and refused to call the students who died there as martyrs [1]. The ‘vigil moevement’ launched via social media has so far succeeded in producing an unbailable arrest warrant for Maulana Abdul Aziz [5] but, as of the time of writing of this article, he has not been arrested.
It has been claimed by those who side with Lal Masjid’s stance that the ‘Vigil Movement’ led by Jibran Nasir is part of a wider movement to secularize Pakistan and it’s Mosques, using the martyrs of Peshawar tragedy as a propaganda tool. This article will study claims of both sides and present the reader with evidence and a conclusion with which they are free to disagree with.
One group led by a pakistani lawyer Jibran Nasir directed their protests towards the Red Mosque, which they claimed supports the TTP and that the Mosque’s leader Maulana Abdul Aziz did not condemn TTP’s massacre and refused to call the students who died there as martyrs [1]. The ‘vigil moevement’ launched via social media has so far succeeded in producing an unbailable arrest warrant for Maulana Abdul Aziz [5] but, as of the time of writing of this article, he has not been arrested.
It has been claimed by those who side with Lal Masjid’s stance that the ‘Vigil Movement’ led by Jibran Nasir is part of a wider movement to secularize Pakistan and it’s Mosques, using the martyrs of Peshawar tragedy as a propaganda tool. This article will study claims of both sides and present the reader with evidence and a conclusion with which they are free to disagree with.


