Dr Afia Siddiqui's Case

Tahmed and Cheema sahibs,

So what is your recommendation wrt NWFP/FATA? That they revert to "civilised" ways. But what if they don't? What is your reco then? That they should go?

Regards

Tahmed and Cheema sahibs,

So what is your recommendation wrt NWFP/FATA? That they revert to "civilised" ways. But what if they don't? What is your reco then? That they should go?

Regards

Mr. Mike Please do not try to spoil best relationship between Pakistan and China. All Pakistanis are against terror activities carried in China it does not matter religion. In this aspects anti terrorist attitude of both "peoples- china and pakistanis" is above even religion as Terrorism is antiislamic and also antisocialist..

cheema sahib #24 thanks for the apology. now we can talk. :-)

I think I already explained why I found the comparison of my mother-in-law setting rules (and in the process giving good advice to a servant who had produced almost as many kids as Palin in just 4 years!) to massacres committed by a dictator to be absurd. Please think about this a minute, and you will I am sure also understand why I found this comparison to be insulting.

PS: I must admit clicking back to chowk to look for your response when i should have been doing some work before going to bed.

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?"

Rodney Glen King .. On May 1, 1992, the third day of the L.A riots

Re: # 22; tahmed

you openly cited that example here on chowk sir and I am not sure why you are so distressed .... but if I caused some offence unwittingly, I apologise unreservedly .... it was not my intention and the example was quoted in all sincerity

#20 i hope you meant this argument for decapitating your patients (which is what it is under all the medical lingo) in an attempt to be funny, and are not really insane.

cheema sahib #21 i see you are not man enough to apologize for your insane comparison of my relation's perfectly reasonable behavior with that of a murderous dictator!

instead, you chose to stick with your absurd comparison. so let me ask you this: where did you read me as saying or even implying that anyone breaking the rules of society should not be brought to court? in fact i have been arguing the opposite in my posts below!!

(i was going to end this useless exchange with you per my post below, but thought i should clarify this before i switch to doing something useful).

Re: # 19; tahmed
[[my mother-in-law was fully within her rights in laying down the rules for anyone seeking to live under the roof of her house]]

same applies to these morons sir ..... they live under some "roofs" too!

.... and when the "migraine" is a result of "sepsis" from a mangled and devascularised limb, amputation is a perfectly legitimate and widely accepted treatment .... to preserve the vital organs, not to mention save the "organism"'s life!!

cheema sahib: that is an absurd post, with no bearing on what i wrote. since you have chosen unfortunately to make this personal by dragging in my mother-in-law without knowing what you are talking about, let me just say this: my mother-in-law was fully within her rights in laying down the rules for anyone seeking to live under the roof of her house. And in no way does this good advice to the servant (who in fact treats this gentle lady with the same respect and affection as I do) in way a comparison to the murders of thousands of innocent people committed by Asad.

Last post to you on this subject. Have a good night, sir.

Re: # 17; tahmed sahib,

we could keep talking "till the cows come home", but please also read my responses to you elsewhere on FP; it all forms a part of a continuum, so don't "get ahead of yourself" or "get the proverbial knickers in the twist"!

this "problem" is getting out of control through "our" self-inflicted "senstivities" acquired by our geographical residence in the affluent west .... back home, it is a different story and you know it sir! .... same as your example of your mother-in-law "threatening" her servant out of the residential quarters should they not consider the virtues of "family planning"! now you wouldn't think of something like THAT where you live now, would you?? ...... different psychology I am afraid.

.... desparate times, desparate measures and all that ..

Khuda Hafiz

#16 cheema sahib: you can get omelette by breaking eggs, but you kill the baby if you toss him out with the bathwater (to mix metaphors).

The baby being people's basic rights (e.g. the right to not be "disappeared" along with her kids, as in case of Afia Siddiqui, or the right not to be massacred by one's own government as in case of Syria) and the bathwater being "political islam" (e.g. al qaeda criminals).

To mix metaphors some more - as a doctor, you dont behead your patients in order to cure their migrane headache. Similarly, you dont take away basic rights in society in order to deal with criminals.

Re: # 15; tahmed sahib

"political Islam" as we know it, and "Ikhwaan-ul-muslimoon" in particular have been completely impotent and basically all but dead in Syria since the 1980s .... big achievement I reckon!

Unfortunately, One can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs!

Take care for now sir

Cheema sahib #13 Greetings. I think we are in agreement on this important point (and my post #14 below) describes more fully where I am coming from on this very relevant quote from the prophet muhammed himself.

The only place I disagree with your post is on Hafiz Asad - the fact that he killed thousands of Syrians should be a red flag that he was doing something wrong, not that he was doing something right. Despite their superficial differences, the fact is that religious terrorists and "secular" dictators are both driven by the same goal - namely, to gain political control for themselves.

Mike #11 I tried using that link, but it seems to have a problem. So thanks for summarizing it.

No doubt that religion (any religion) is not subject to curbs in China that are in sharp contrast to the freedom to practice religion within the limit of the law in the US and UK. However, it does not necessarily follow that this suppression will create real terrorist threats as you think (e.g. case of Turkey's banning of hijab in government jobs), just as the reverse is not true either (e.g. abuse of religious freedoms in UK by clerics resulting in terrorist acts by their "students").

The fact is that God does not need mosques or churches - priests do, since this is their "office". God does not need prayer (since he needs neither flattery nor advice on how to do his job), priests and mullahs do do. God does not have a need to divide people into different religious groups (and this respect for all religions, and appeals to mankind to not get into arguments over religious matters, is mentioned on several occassions in the Quran), but priests and mullahs do.

So - per the quote from the prophet muhammed below, keep an eye on what the Chinese are doing when they curb forms of religious expression that are driven less by peity than by priestly ambitions. They may be on to something.

Thanks for the good wishes on ramzan. And may peace be upon you as well.