^ and who appointed you to give this fatwa?
The beauty is that people blame the Islamist left and right if they are the reasons what Pakistan is today. If you all just read a lil Pakistani history you will see that never in 57 years any Islamist has been in power. It has always been a secularist-political-Army leader who have been incharge in Pakistan. As one of our leading scholars has once said its the "Parhay likhay log" who harm Pakistan the most.
Fraudia, I agree with what ever you say but a man who cannot stand out for accountability and provision of justice is just a plain tyrant.
and PCG, fatwa is just an opinion, which you give out pretty frequently as well.
Minime Bhaijan, the Marxist guerillas in Columbia have never been in power either, nor have the Palestinians or the Kashmiris in India. So yes, Mullistic (anti, did I spell it right?) morons and their Mattoos and Pitos are the reason for the sad state of affairs in Pakistan. One doesn’t need to be in power to fk the things up.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
^ and who appointed you to give this fatwa?
[/QUOTE]
When I read in the paper that it's going to be 45 degrees out there, and I tell you that it's going to be 45 degrees out there, it is not a Fatwa...It is merely reporting on what I have read...
Mughal was simply quoting a Hadith...Like most things that Muslims of today don't like to mention lest they should be (god-forbid) perceived as Muslims and be shamed, like Jihad, Shariah, Hijab, Beard e.t.c., you too don't have to believe it...
But it is not a Fatwa, it is a Prophecy of end times...
I dont give them out in the name of religion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by laeeqkhan: *
Busharraf & his British master
[thumb=H]mushi2_6716564.JPG[/thumb]
[/QUOTE]
2 terrorists greeting each other murderers of muslims!
Islamic Republic of Pakistan - ZindaBad
Wanna Operation - ZindaBad _
killing muslims is a good thing in ur opinion shame on you!
Pir Sahib, most of your replies are like "unhon to bhee to kia tha!". My response is as follows:
**- Bringing and encouraging the Lota Politicians
whoa, lota politicians did not exist prior to musharraf?**
They did, but that does not justify Musharraf using them for his own cause... 'Staying in power'
**- Tearing the political parties apart
do u know how many parties and their splinter groups existed prior to musharraf, remember the muslim league- chay group (after hamid nasir chattha took over after junejo)**
I don't mean to praise the politicians... The pre-existence of some other groups does not justify Musharraf's act. Ofcourse, that wasn't the only reason, but he encoueaged the destrucion of two genuine parties who had their roots in people ... they still have.
**- Letting the agencies use MMA for his gains
and our god fearing, committed, sincere MMA people let themselves be used? or did they sell their souls for power :)**
That is not a justification of Musharraf's action. Its like saying why did a hostage let him be taken as one? So you can't blame the hostage-takers? ... Not that MMA is a hostage or anything :)
**- Unreasonably friendly stance with India (he is beginning to realize it himself)
vs. unreasonable hostile stance? yeah that would have done wonders.**
Atleast who could act with reason and meet half-way-through, like he commented himself recently.... not keep the Liberty Market open all night for Indians to shop, during the India-Pakistan cricket series.
**- Signing deals with the Sharif family, if they were culprits why not punish them?
but but but when zia hung bhutto we dinn like that either.**
Bhutto's death penalty decision was and is doubtful...
**- Letting the nudity and vulgarity spread in the media and the society, and not do anything about it!
did anyone do anything about it? i mean things in that respect have been downhill since 1947...so why should he shoulder the blame?**
It wasn't as bad in previous eras as it is now. Zia-ul-Haq had controlled it a lot (I am not praising him), Nawaz Sharif did that, even Benazir didn't make it that bad.
**- Not taking the responsibility of setting up the militant groups (Sippah-e-Sahaba, jaish-e-Muhammad) for Military's own agenda
SSP JEM existed before he had any position of influence in the military, so why should he take responsibility of that.**
I am sure, as a Brig., he would have handeled it directly. The blame goes to military as a whole, not just Musharraf himself. However, since he is Military's boss, he is the one to point the finger at.
**- Defaming and scape goating A.Q.Khan and demoralizing the Pakistani public in the issue
maybe u had a better solution in mind? **
Better solution - Not scape goat A.Q.Khan? Military had an equal share in black marketing the nuclear tech (if there was any), why blame Khan only? I am not sure what the other possibilities could have been to solve this, but atleast the govt shouldn't have defamed A.Q.Khan like that... asking him to apologize to the public!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
according to hadith, when qiyamat is near, the worst ppl from the nation will come up as their leaders....
well, musharraf is a sign of qiyamat drawing closer....
[/QUOTE]
I did get the similar sense when MMA was elected in NWFP :)
Originally posted by ramyssysIX: *
**Pir Sahib, most of your replies are like "unhon to bhee to kia tha!". My response is as follows: *
Not true, my responses are meant to clearly indicate that the problems that some seem to solely show Musharraf as responsible for, are problems that have existed for decades. problems that take decades to fester, dont usually get cleaned up in a few years.
he has to work with what he has, and work with the system and not completely kill the system, otherwise putting all politicians, bureaucrats etc on a ship and sinking it could have been a good start.
**
They did, but that does not justify Musharraf using them for his own cause... 'Staying in power' **
what do you suggest he used to stay in power then :) or who would have been able to provide the leadership needed.
I don't mean to praise the politicians... The pre-existence of some other groups does not justify Musharraf's act. Ofcourse, that wasn't the only reason, but he encoueaged the destrucion of two genuine parties who had their roots in people ... they still have.
which parties, and what did these parties do for the people that they supposedly have roots in.
parties splinter because of the greed of their own leaders, because they are power hungry and cant compromise with ppl within their parties, because as much as they talk about unity, they cant unite in their own little political party, and because they would rather be the big fish in a small nala rather than a small fish in a big lake.
That is not a justification of Musharraf's action. Its like saying why did a hostage let him be taken as one? So you can't blame the hostage-takers? ... Not that MMA is a hostage or anything :)
okay so if MMA is not a hostage, why do they supposedly work to appease him? is it because power is very important to them, and thus they are hostage to their decades old hunger for power.
Atleast who could act with reason and meet half-way-through, like he commented himself recently.... not keep the Liberty Market open all night for Indians to shop, during the India-Pakistan cricket series.
moving from a a one extreme to the mid point may seem like a lot, but it is still a halfway meet. different perspectives exist, some may think he is not working enough, some would say that he is doing too much, either way its better than the stalemate that is not affecting you or me, but the ppl in kashmir
It wasn't as bad in previous eras as it is now. Zia-ul-Haq had controlled it a lot (I am not praising him), Nawaz Sharif did that, even Benazir didn't make it that bad.
in their era, things went from point a to b abd b to c, and in his era if things go from c to d, lets not blame him for having things go from a to d.
BI am sure, as a Brig., he would have handeled it directly. The blame goes to military as a whole, not just Musharraf himself. However, since he is Military's boss, he is the one to point the finger at.**
why? why should he take responsibility for creating something that he did not.
*Better solution - Not scape goat A.Q.Khan? Military had an equal share in black marketing the nuclear tech (if there was any), why blame Khan only? I am not sure what the other possibilities could have been to solve this *
Your last sentence answers your own question. maybe a more practical/feasible way was not there, you may not always have an optimal solution, but a feasible solution which you have to work with.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
well, musharraf is a sign of qiyamat drawing closer....
[/QUOTE]
hahaha... man armughal. i was gonna say something but never mind. lets hope you improve on your own.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ramyssysIX: *
- Bringing and encouraging the Lota Politicians Agreed
Tearing the political parties apart*Dont Agree*
Letting the agencies use MMA for his gains*Dont Agree*
Unreasonably friendly stance with India (he is beginning to realize it himself)** Dont Agree**
Signing deals with the Sharif family, if they were culprits why not punish them?Agreed
Letting the nudity and vulgarity spread in the media and the society, and not do anything about it!Totally Dont Agree
Confusing the realities through his Enlightened Moderation philosophy*Agreed 100%*
Not taking the responsibility of setting up the militant groups (Sippah-e-Sahaba, jaish-e-Muhammad) for Military's own agenda*Dont Agree*
Defaming and scape goating A.Q.Khan and demoralizing the Pakistani public in the issue*Agreed 100%*
and the list goes on and on ... I will think more about this tonight :)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
*Originally posted by ramyssysIX: *
**Pir Sahib, most of your replies are like "unhon to bhee to kia tha!". My response is as follows: *
Not true, my responses are meant to clearly indicate that the problems that some seem to solely show Musharraf as responsible for, are problems that have existed for decades. problems that take decades to fester, dont usually get cleaned up in a few years.
he has to work with what he has, and work with the system and not completely kill the system, otherwise putting all politicians, bureaucrats etc on a ship and sinking it could have been a good start.
[/QUOTE]
Its not about clearing up decades of mistakes, its about repeating the same mistakes again and again.
[QUOTE]
**
They did, but that does not justify Musharraf using them for his own cause... 'Staying in power' **
what do you suggest he used to stay in power then :) or who would have been able to provide the leadership needed.
[/QUOTE]
Its lotaship, not leadership :)!. Do you think you can call Jamali, Shujaat or Shaukat Aziz leaders? The latter is more like a Project Manager (I actually like this guy personally). The reality is that no leader can emerge under the umbrella of military rule. Thats the biggest dilemma in such circumstances.
[QUOTE]
I don't mean to praise the politicians... The pre-existence of some other groups does not justify Musharraf's act. Ofcourse, that wasn't the only reason, but he encoueaged the destrucion of two genuine parties who had their roots in people ... they still have.
which parties, and what did these parties do for the people that they supposedly have roots in.
parties splinter because of the greed of their own leaders, because they are power hungry and cant compromise with ppl within their parties, because as much as they talk about unity, they cant unite in their own little political party, and because they would rather be the big fish in a small nala rather than a small fish in a big lake.
[/QUOTE]
Musharraf threw the bait, didn't he? Couldn't he encourage the genuine people from the political class? Unfortunately, that wasn't possible because most of them are against him. He had to do this because he need lotacraecy to survive, every military ruler does that.
[QUOTE]
That is not a justification of Musharraf's action. Its like saying why did a hostage let him be taken as one? So you can't blame the hostage-takers? ... Not that MMA is a hostage or anything :)
okay so if MMA is not a hostage, why do they supposedly work to appease him? is it because power is very important to them, and thus they are hostage to their decades old hunger for power.
[/QUOTE]
That seems to be the case. MMA's has assisted Musharraf all along, uptil now. Some people say that PPP is going to acquire that role from MMA.
[QUOTE]
Atleast who could act with reason and meet half-way-through, like he commented himself recently.... not keep the Liberty Market open all night for Indians to shop, during the India-Pakistan cricket series.
moving from a a one extreme to the mid point may seem like a lot, but it is still a halfway meet. different perspectives exist, some may think he is not working enough, some would say that he is doing too much, either way its better than the stalemate that is not affecting you or me, but the ppl in kashmir
[/QUOTE]
ok, I can give that to Musharraf.
[QUOTE]
It wasn't as bad in previous eras as it is now. Zia-ul-Haq had controlled it a lot (I am not praising him), Nawaz Sharif did that, even Benazir didn't make it that bad.
in their era, things went from point a to b abd b to c, and in his era if things go from c to d, lets not blame him for having things go from a to d.
[/QUOTE]
He is actually taking things to z. I am not saying that Musharraf asks the media to indulge in nudity. However, he certainly doesn't have the problem with it if someone does that, and takes a silent approach to it. If someone thinks there is no nudity on Pak channels these days, then probably they don't consider women's sleevless dresses, cleavages and half naked clothes (in Fashion Shows) as nudity. It wasn't even that bad during Bhutto's 70s era.
[QUOTE]
[BI am sure, as a Brig., he would have handeled it directly. The blame goes to military as a whole, not just Musharraf himself. However, since he is Military's boss, he is the one to point the finger at.**
why? why should he take responsibility for creating something that he did not.
[/QUOTE]
Because he represents military, and military is responsible for it.
[QUOTE]
*Better solution - Not scape goat A.Q.Khan? Military had an equal share in black marketing the nuclear tech (if there was any), why blame Khan only? I am not sure what the other possibilities could have been to solve this *
Your last sentence answers your own question. maybe a more practical/feasible way was not there, you may not always have an optimal solution, but a feasible solution which you have to work with.
[/QUOTE]
no comment.
*Originally posted by ramyssysIX: *
*Its not about clearing up decades of mistakes, its about repeating the same mistakes again and again. *
Unfortunately one has to work with what they have, and what he hd was crap, that is what he is working with.
Its lotaship, not leadership :)!. Do you think you can call Jamali, Shujaat or Shaukat Aziz leaders? The latter is more like a Project Manager (I actually like this guy personally). The reality is that no leader can emerge under the umbrella of military rule. Thats the biggest dilemma in such circumstances.
I agree with you, but then no real leaders emerged under the "democratic" rule either did they. All were mammay chahay kay baitay baityan of the same ppl palejo, khar, pagara, chaudhry this, bhutto that etc.
Musharraf threw the bait, didn't he? Couldn't he encourage the genuine people from the political class? Unfortunately, that wasn't possible because most of them are against him. He had to do this because he need lotacraecy to survive, every military ruler does that.
But the "genuine" people of the political class want what, why were they silent when other regimes robbed the country? why are they against him. everyone wants a 100% solution to their liking for everything, and that is simply not possible.
Could Musharraf do a lot more than he has done, sure. That is what people focus on, but forget to give credit for what he has done.
That seems to be the case. MMA's has assisted Musharraf all along, uptil now. Some people say that PPP is going to acquire that role from MMA.
good to see that u agree that MMA is just as self centered power hungry as an entity as other political parties.
**
It wasn't even that bad during Bhutto's 70s era.**
the world surrounding us in 70's was different too. dont look at absolute change here, look at it in comparison to what is going on around us and see that on a comparative scale pakistan is more conservative now than it was in the 70s.
Because he represents military, and military is responsible for it.
lets all take responsibility because military is a part of pakistan and we are all pakistanis.
*no comment. *
yep, cuz you know its right
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ThandyMazaq: *
i disagree with his u turn on taliban
i disagree with his plan to make the non muslims equal in voting rights to muslims
i disagree with his plan to capture people who have fought oppressive governments in their countries and are taking a rafure in pakistan. for example islamic movement of uzbekistan never bombed or killed any one in pakistan but their leader was hunted in Wana just because he is wanted by the blood thristy regime in his country. chechen mujahids never bombed any one in pakistan until pakistanis started killing them.
i disagree with his policy of calling freedom fighters in kashmir terrorists.
i disagree with his policy of having ata turk as his ideal, the same guy who eliminated khilafah, made the country so secular that woemen in scarves are not even allowed INSIDE the parliment.
these r the main grieviences i have with him...
[/QUOTE]
Well is you have a problem with human rights and civilazed people every where why dont you go live someplace else?
lol, i thought it would be a picture of Musharraf and Tikka Khan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PaKpatriot1: *
Well is you have a problem with human rights and civilazed people every where why dont you go live someplace else?
[/QUOTE]
i had taliban run afghanistan to look forward too, but you guys took that away too....have the entire damn world secular, give us ONE islamic country and we will leave you alone.
ask nicely and we may consider it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by nikhil25: *
lol, i thought it would be a picture of Musharraf and Tikka Khan.
[/QUOTE]
you thought?
lol