After Rehman Malik's efforts, Shia website unblocked

Rehman Malik had directed the FIA to take legal action against those who posted objectionable material on the website.


July 18, 2012

ISLAMABAD: The Shia website which acts as a watch dog on sectarian murders in the country and had been banned last week, was made accessible early Thursday morning after Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Affairs Rehman Malik directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to take legal action against those who posted objectionable material on the website.

Issuing directions, Malik warned all such elements to “remove objectionable material from the web pages immediately.”

He further directed the FIA Director General to submit a report in this regard after taking “necessary cognizance to such offence.”

Later in the evening, Malik tweeted from his verified account that in a communique, it had been "confirmed that my efforts have worked and the said web page(pakshia.com) has been unblocked."

Three hours after that tweet, the website was accessible once again.

The watchdog website Shiakilling.com was banned Saturday, almost a week after the regulatory body had blocked the official website of the Ahmadiyya community, which was unblocked later. The website kept track of murders of Shia community members, motivated by sectarian differences.

Visitors were greeted with a “this webpage is not available” sign as they tried to access the site.

Members of the Shia community had also protested against the ban in Karachi on Tuesday and had tried to make their way towards the office of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).

Episodes of violence against Shia Muslims in Pakistan have been on the rise recently, particularly the target killing of community members in Karachi and Hazaras in Balochistan.

COMMENTS (68)

bigsaf | 9 years ago | Reply @Hasan: History does not favour you, no matter how long you incoherently rant in delusional denialism, remaining trapped in '65. You were criticized for anti-Indian bigotry, no matter how hard you try to justify or deflect. Truth? Such incredible dishonesty and ignorance, making the latter half of your first comment suspicious insincere rhetoric. Not all Pakistani commentators on this relatively liberal news-site condemn anti-minority discrimination and violence, seen in the comments on many articles here, such as the recent Youm-i-Ali procession. The haters and bigots are obvious, so there's not much attention to gain. Your condescending prejudice is not surprising. 'Sectarian agenda', 'pet project'? I'm a Shia Muslim and of course concerned with the obvious evidence of anti-Shia sentiment which affects me, which you now seem to clearly be in denial of, contradicting your initial claims. I'll deal with it just fine.
Hasan | 9 years ago | Reply

@bigsaf:

I didn't 'ponder' you - I just forgot about you. It could well happen again, so deal with it. It's an unfortunate consequence of you diluting what minimal relevance your comments have with some truly juvenile levels of bluster.

You're dedicating more and more of your posts to reaffirming your fragile ego; it's an alarming trend, and frankly one which doesn't really warrant an answer. Like I told you, if conceding how badly you've upset me is what it takes to stop you spitting your dummy out again and again, I'm okay with that. I'm wounded on many levels, dude, I really am. Now let's look at your post.

Asghar Khan isn't an historian, he's the retired chief of the PAF and nothing less than a national hero. But that's neither here nor there, because you're basically just waffling. The '65 war began when Hindustan transgressed the internationally-recognised border with Pakistan and started strafing passenger trains in Lahore; the aim of the invaders, as stated by their own commanders, was 'to be drinking tea in Lahore gymkhana' by 6th September. They failed, we won. Your five-minute Wiki searches on Gibraltar and Grand Slam are meaningless, as they dealt with an offensive strategy in IOK - recognised as disputed territory. I have to dedicate a whole paragraph of my reply just to teach you some history...now THAT upsets me.

As for the context of the '65 war, well it's simple enough to understand - but since you've made a complete hash of understanding virtually anything so far, let me spell it out. While you've been throwing yourself spiritedly to the defence of Hindustan, I've been making it clear to you that this seething mass of 1.2 billion hypocrites has been fuelled by the notion that one day Pakistan, and Jinnah's legacy, will be engulfed by the mythical 'Akhand Bharat'. Hindustan's hatred for Pakistan precedes the birth of the actual country, and that has been adequately manifested since 1947 and even before. You've emerged from whatever pseudo-intellectual plain it is that people like you come from, and tried to force me into some comforting pigeon-hole in which all nationalists are also ultra-religious, puritanical Deobandi/Wahhabi/Salafi zealots, or whatever phrase it is that seems to excite you so much. The sad truth is that history doesn't serve to support your rants - our wars were fought by Pakistanis, regardless of religion or creed. And now you're wondering how else you can get attention, since there is virtually no evidence from me or any other users here of the crippling, devastating, all-consuming, streets-red-with-blood hatred of minorities which you have decided to take up as your pet project.

What's even sadder is that you eliminated the last vestiges of your sincerity by spending so much time and energy bleating on about my riposte to someone else, rather than acknowledging the truth that's staring you in the face - that virtually all the messages from Pakistanis spoke out unequivocally against minority discrimination, mine included. I'm fascinated to see how long you can go on without finally dealing with that; I can imagine it's a bitter pill to swallow, but the healthy ones usually are.

Hasan

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read