By Ehsan
ISIS is not simply another terrorist organization. It is a blood-drenched, takfiri enterprise that defines itself through violence against Islam and whose primary victims have always been Muslims themselves. Wherever ISIS has established a foothold, mosques, schools, and marketplaces have been transformed into scenes of mass killing and terror. The central question, then, is unavoidable: how has a group this lethal been able to build bases on Pakistani soil, operate openly, organize its ranks, and construct an active operational network?
News that eleven ISIS members were killed in Pakistan’s Khyber Agency once again brought a harsh reality into focus: Pakistan is not merely a transit corridor for this organization, but a place where it has found residence and operational shelter. This conclusion does not rest on emotional rhetoric. It emerges from political realities, on-the-ground investigations, and a steady accumulation of security reporting.
If Pakistan’s government truly stands in opposition to ISIS, several questions remain glaringly unanswered. How does the group maintain hideouts deep inside the country? How do its foreign operatives move with apparent ease from Balochistan to Khyber Agency? And why has no decisive, transparent, and comprehensive campaign been launched to uproot the network entirely?
The reality is that Pakistan’s approach toward takfiri groups such as ISIS has, for years, appeared contradictory and instrumental. On one side come public declarations against extremism; on the other, tolerance, quiet engagement, or prolonged silence toward certain blood-soaked factions. That ambiguity has proven dangerous. It has given ISIS room to breathe, reorganize, and grow bolder.
ISIS does not survive in a vacuum. No militant organization endures without sanctuary, protection, logistical networks, and security institutions willing to look away. If ISIS continues to operate inside Pakistan today, the explanation points in only two directions: either the state lacks the capacity to dismantle it, or the group has been treated as a tool. Both possibilities carry grave consequences for the region.
ISIS functions as an engine of violence against Muslims. Its bombings strike mosques, schools, and markets with grim consistency. If Pakistan has provided space for the group to operate, then in practical terms it has enabled the killing of Muslim civilians. That is not merely a strategic miscalculation. It constitutes indirect complicity in atrocity.
Political analysts have long accused Pakistan’s intelligence services of playing a dangerous game, one often described as a perpetual contest of manipulation in which ISIS stands as a stark illustration. History offers a sobering warning here: states that attempt to harness terror for strategic ends eventually find themselves consumed by the very forces they sought to control.
If Pakistan genuinely regards itself as blameless, three steps are unavoidable.
First, it must openly acknowledge ISIS’s presence on its territory. Second, it must dismantle every base and network tied to the organization in a decisive and comprehensive fashion. Third, it must permanently abandon every form of double-dealing or covert maneuvering involving takfiri groups.
Until those measures are taken, skepticism will remain unavoidable, and assurances of hostility toward ISIS will continue to ring hollow.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries have already paid a devastating price for ISIS’s campaign of terror. If Pakistan permits the group to entrench itself today, tomorrow it risks becoming a battlefield of explosions itself. Terror and takfir are not loyal guests; wherever they are given shelter, they scorch their hosts.
In the end, the matter is stark. ISIS is an enemy of Islam, and any government that grants it refuge places itself in opposition to security and to humanity itself. Pakistan must either confront ISIS in earnest or accept responsibility for the consequences of allowing the organization to operate from its soil. On a question this grave, there is no room for half measures and no middle ground.