Ever since the afternoon of the faithful day when in between the intense fighting at the Lal Masjid, the Pakistan Army victoriously announced the death of the head militant of Lal Masjid Maulana Ghazi Abdul Rashid. Watching the news reports come through on all news channels I did notice that everyone was refraining to tag his death as a Shahdat. For many non-Muslims reading this article, it might seem to be a trivial issue but to a Muslim it means a world of a difference. A simple naming terminology is of no consequence to the soul in this world but it means a phenomenal difference in life-here-after. Quite simply its a decision to be made by Allah for him on the day of the Judgment.
A shaheed is a title that is given to a Muslim after his death, if he died during the fulfillment of a religious commandment. For a moment lets forget the political issues surrounding the crisis, coming to the root of the issue it was Ghazi Abdul Rashid who was defending the integrity of Islam challenging the ineffectiveness of the government in implementing the sharia law hence allowing a progressive degradation of our society. Without doubt Right or Wrong Maulana Shazi Abdul Rashid was defending his place of worship and was fulfilling his religious duties in this process.
Shaheed is a title for a Muslim when he dies for Islam While on the other hand the aggressors (Pakistan Army) were overwhelmingly attacking the mosque to the extent of destroying a large portion of the property throughout the compound. Hence can easily be labeled as aggressors against Islam, which is probably the highest crime for a Muslim. The jawans may be following order but it must be remembered that if one of the jawans were to loose his life in battle against Islam cannot be labeled as a Shaheed simply because he was a Muslim.
I share with you an interesting email I received by Mr. M Javed Iqbal who portrays a very compelling argument, which actually also got me thinking about this important issue. I quote…
During the attack on Lal Masjid and Madarsah Hafsa a question that was repeatedly raised was ‘ Who is “Shaheed” and who is “Halak”.’
In my opinion the distinction is crystal clear. The mistake and mischief lies with the initiator. Who started knocking down masajid in the capital of Islamic Republic of Pakistan? If I am traveling and somebody open fires on me, I have a right to defend myself and fire back at him. Therefore we must understand that what Ghazi brothers did was in self defence. The pity is Mullahs of the country have been corrupted by Musharraf by offering nice salaries and perks to them, hence they failed to point out that the sanctity of a masjid was to be safeguarded at all costs. No Muslim can dare attack a masjid, because it is Allah house.
Accordingly security forces, army men and rangers who attacked Lal Masjid are jahunumi and the fighters of Lal Masjid are shuhdaa and shall Insha Allah Will be rewarded with Paradise. Each officer or jawan must have refused to obey illegal order of attacking a masjid. They could say: “Look sir ! we joined the army to protect the Masajid and save women and children, not for destroying and killing them”.
Since they gave preference to order of the officer over Order of Allah, they are mahluk and jahanumi.
The brave fight back of Ghazi Abdul Rashid is an eye opener. When most of the Mullas just talked he challenged the illegal and immoral acts of Musharraf regime of knocking down 90 year old masajid of Islamabad and kept fighting for the cause till death. On such noble death Mir has said:
Marge Majnun pe aqal gum hai Mir Most Mullas could not see this fine line and remained indifferent, although they could have raised hue and cry against desecration of masajid. We should not forget that Quran says “Allah is Most Powerful and Revengeful” Every party can see his image in this mirror!
Kiya Diwane ne maut pai hai !
Considering the issue, I feel convinced that the sad demise of Ghazi Abdul Rashid should be labeled as a Shaheed and full respect offered to the body in regards to its proper dignified burial. I would hold the Pakistani Army responsible to the extent of disobeying the Islamic Law to which they all have sworn to uphold.
He died defending the religion of Islam against the evil forces.
Comments
1,044 responses to “Shaheed or Halak ? – Ghazi Abdul Rashid”
[amina: mr haq has objected to bilal musharrafs mc donald]
Liberal extremism when it is pitting itself against moderation, more often that not clouds judgment of the liberal extremists. A fine example is this response to my post.
Anyone with an iota of grey matter can see that I have not “objected” to anything in my post. I clearly mentioned the source of what I was quoting and without giving my opinion about it, mentioned clearly that it made for an interesting read. How this came across as an “objection to this liberal extremist is anyones guess.
I feel very sad after reading your comments. I am concerned that nowadays people are learning Islam from films. I think we should watch movies to learn Islam. We dont need to go to mosque or to Mullahs for Islam. What a Shame…..
A have not trying to justify any shaheed or halak. What I want to say is that in Pakistan there are still many great Mullahs(Alims and Muftis) except those in MMA and Jamat-e-Islami where you can ask about your great religion on just a phone call they are waiting for your phone call.Please dont quote films as guidance for Islam.
You are also quoting fatwa for Ghazi brothers and you have ignored the fatwa for not watching film ‘Khuda kay Lia’. It means that you only use fatwa according to your own likes or dislikes.
You said, ‘hamaray log ki yahi adat buri hay molvi qisi kay qatal ka boldain’….. please specify what you mean by Molvi is that Ghazi or all Molvis or which Molvis.
Aysha, you used the word clerics as you said 50 clerics of Jamat Ahl-e-Sunnat. Are you so much inspired by westerned media that now you are using the same word as BBC and CNN used to use these words for our Saints.Having said that I am justifying You Ghazi brothers as saints or Shaheed.
My question is which people in you opinion are Saints
Shaib Mansoor.
Any other Film Maker.
coz you quoted Jihad from a film.
[amina >>> the govt is also to blame as they mishandeled [sic] the situation]
This post reflects the typical mindset of men and women who in moderate and conservative circle are now being dubbed “Musharrafites“, and “Musharraf Lovers or MLs for short. These are liberal extremists who put blind faith in the dictator and his Messiah Complex, a term coined by Peter Bergen, CNN’s terrorism analyst who says, “Musharraf appears to have something of a Messiah complex, making him loath to relinquish any of his power…. Perhaps it is not surprising that a dictator would convince himself that only he can save his country. What is surprising is that Musharraf has managed to convince others as well.”]
These Musharrafites take on faith his every lie, every deception and very u-turn he takes on everything he has ever said or done, just because he has given them the complete freedom to import and make use of the western bred sexual revolution into Pakistan. They have embraced wholeheartedly the new Deen-e-Musharrafi introduced by the dictator under guise of “enlightened moderation and cannot possibly be detracted from following closely in his footsteps.
That is why only a Musharrafite would let their Messiah totally off the hook by calling his well-planned slaying of 2000+ rasikh-ul-akeeda musalman children, women and men “mishandling of the government. “Mishandling is what your Messiah accepted as having done when he had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court humiliated at the hands of the police and later at the hands of his goons in the MQM when he visited Karachi on 12 May. What he did at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza on 10 July was a massacre, more and more gory details of which are coming out everyday, in interviews of eyewitnesses, in leading newspapers, details your Musharrafite brain will never accept as true.
And what “government is to be blamed for “mishandling the situation. What government are we talking about here???the rubber stamp the dictator uses ONLY when he needs to have his every unconstitutional move ratified in Pakistan? The government whose National Assembly he addressed ONCE in 5 years saying he had no time to address an “uncivilized Parliament?? Oh that government!
i donot understand y all of us want to step into the domain of ALLAH how can we decide who is shaheed jahanami or janati this is shirk political differences of some bloggers are clouding their judgment shahadat of masjid i hamza was a crime and those who did it should be taken to task but so was encroachment by jamia hafsa
adnan> well adnan the word cleric seems to b a non derogatory word unless you want to create a mountain out of a mole hill…..never the less this was a cutting from a news paper n not my own words.moreover the term molvi refers to all the political maulanas includi ghazi bradran responsible for this fiasco.who would hv thought tht a mosque would b desecerated by abducting chinese women by launching tauhmat against mrs shamim( remember there r 4 witnesses required in islam)…
my reason for mentioning the fatwa was to display tht a strong lobby of scholars differ with ghazi brigade…this goes 2 show u the impossiblilty of a mosque imam of imposing sharia PS my sister lives in G 6 …she prays 5 times a day n observes pardah…however she has to drive a car coz of comupulsions…she was attacked by the burqa brigade on the covered market road causing broken wind screen to her mehran n injuries to her face…mayb she also was a so called jahanummi for hifza brigade….as far as saints r concerned this is a purely christian concept i.e saint peter etc..im sure ur not a christian….
yes ur correct wat a shame but for the wrong reasons we do not require to go to so called molvis like ghazi rasheed to learn the religion odf suicide bombings…the quran itself is a glorious guide if something is not understood from the quran then let sunnah b our guide…the prophet never spoke from masjid nabvi for suicide bombings…
as far as learning from movies etc is concerned the prophet said k achi bat jahan sai bhi millay ikhtiar karlo…khuda kay liyay is by far a better representation of islam than that painted by the lal masjid….
I DONT THINK SHOAIB MANSOOR IZ A SAINT BUT BY YOUR STANDARDS TOM CRUISE, DUSTIN HOFFMAN ETC WILL QUALIFY
haq sahib !!!!! there is a difference between your opinions vis a viz ur choice of opposition….u came out very strongly against ghazi brothers being abused but on the other hand u had not objected to the martyred soldiers , others namd as kuffars n jahannumi…they are also dead people n shd be respected irrespective of the fact that you or anybody is against them…
i believe u rather enjoyed these poor soldiers being called kuffar coz of your political illwill against musharraf.
u quoted a hadis which i believe would work bothways in this case for who can dare call a muslim kafir n subscribing jahannum to anybody is definitely shirk.i do believe tht many strong contenders were present inside the lal mosque.
moreover u seem to be an expert at labelling people n effort to degrade them…u can abuse a person with a word liberal extremist n get away with it.u can also slander someone alleging on him a seperate deen musharrafi…im not a supporter by far of an army dictator remaining in power with the help of the mutahida maulvi alliance . BUT I HV STRONG OBJECTIONS ON U SLANDERING PPL WITHOUT PROOF….12TH MAY WAS A SAD DAY…I FULLY BELIEVE THT MQM WAS INVOLVED IN MANY OF THE KILLINGS BUT SO WAS JAMAT I ISLAMI N PEOPLE’S PARTY…ANY STUDENT WORTH HIS SALT KNOWS THE TYRANY WRECKED BY THE GOONS PF PSF AND JAMIAT IN COLLEGES ALL OVER PAK. EVEN MSF IS NOT FAR BEHIND…ITS BASICALLY A HAMAM OF SAINTS IN WHICH ALL R NAKED….
LOG PUNJABI MAI BAAP KI GALI DETAY HAIN AUR APP TOU AIK HATH AUR BHI AGAY HAIN….APP LOGON KA KHUDA HI BADAL DETAY HAIN….BRAVO!!!
try to be more objectiven realistic …a one sided hoopla is not interesting.
[nauman>>> its my observation that political opposition to a generals rule is clowding [sic] our minds from facts presented to us through various sources]
[amina >>> no citizen has the right to take the law in their own hands.]
By “Citizen liberal extremists perhaps now mean “moderates and “conservatives exclusively. So Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaeed was a “citizen because he was “conservative and so he should not have taken the law in his own hands. But the Messiah of liberal extremists in Pakistan, their great General in the office is a liberal extremist himself and so the rule does not apply to him.
It is precisely this selective application of law that is the root cause of the Jamia Hafza and Lal Masjid catastrophe. For which reason political opposition to Musharraf is VERY relevant to this debacle in the broader perspective since the dictator is holding the office of the president unlawfully, doing everything in that position for the last 8 years at the heels of breaking the supreme most law in the land, the Constitution of the Islamic republic of Pakistan. Not once, but many times over.
A short glimpse of the past for those who have a short lease on memory highlighting the four decisive instances when Musharraf broke the Writ of the State, to get his way and to get where he is today:
1. May 1999: As Chief Of the Army Staff, Musharraf went into Kargil, to take over Indian occupied Kashmir, without the knowledge and express permission of the then Prime Minister Main Nawaz Sharif. Previously, with Benazir Bhutto in power, he had tried to convince her to allow him to undertake a similar adventure and take over Srinagar, but she refused to comply. Then he was not the COAS so he relented. [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C04%5C09%5Cstory_9-4-2007_pg7_22] Nawaz Sharif ordered an enquiry into the affair, as claimed by PML(n) quarters which exposed Musharrafs incompetence that could get have gotten him court-martialed. [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2066712.cms].
2. October 1999: The Kargil disaster prompted the premier to remove Musharraf from his position against which he retaliated and toppled the democratically elected government, grabbing power in a coup d’état and dissolving the assemblies to assume the self-invented title of the Chief Executive. He thus totally undermined the position of the elected Parliament, undermining also the Constitution of Pakistan by suspending it. The very words he uttered breezily to proclaim his takeover is by the text of the Constitution treason to be punished by death. To avoid the possibility of that happening Musharraf declared a state of emergency in the country. By banning all political activities and rallies in the country, Musharraf undermined the political process and political parties.
3. January 2000: When petitions were filed in court challenging Musharrafs unconstitutional assumption of power, Musharraf got The Oath of Judges Order 2000 issued, that required judges to swear allegiance to military rule at the expense of Pakistans constitution and to swear that that they will make no decisions against militarys rule, thus undermining the position of the countrys supreme judicial body, the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
4. August 2002: Musharraf revived the constitution but not before he put forth the infamous Legal Framework Order (LFO), making 29 amendments to the constitution of Pakistan to give him power to dissolve the National Assembly whenever he wanted and to set up a supra-parliamentary body the National Security Council to ensure the permanent role of Pak Army in power. An amendment to the constitution is a prerogative of the countrys Parliament. Musharraf sidelined the Parliament and decreed the changes, yet another unconstitutional move on his part.
4. April 2002: The Supreme Court of the General’s pleasing, ordered him to hold general elections by October 2002. To legitimize his presidency and assure its continuance Musharraf held a referendum to extend his term to five years. The referendum was rigged and large-scale irregularities were widely reported by the international media Musharraf admitted the irregularities saying he did not order them. [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020517/world.htm#3] By rigging the consent of people Musharraf thus undermined the people of Pakistan.
According to Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, senior lawyer and former judge, Pakistans Constitution has no provision for that referendum which gave Musharraf five more years in power, leaving his continued rule with no legitimacy. “People were being made fools of, Ibrahim said of the referendum, adding that the vote’s lack of legal authority leaves Musharraf “not competent. Ibrahim has called for an end to military rule, saying Musharraf had received a stamp of approval from a subservient Parliament.
It is custodians of the law – judges and lawyers who have called Musharrafs last five years in the office not competent, unconstitutional and “illegitimate. This makes every decision that he has made while holding that office not competent, unconstitutional and “illegitimate. Musharraf was an unconstitutional, not competent; ruler the day Ghazi Abdul Rasheed challenged his writ. Musharraf was an unconstitutional, not competent, ruler the day he sabotaged the negotiations between Ghazi sahib and his “subservient Parliament parliament. Musharraf was an unconstitutional, not competent, ruler the day he ordered the massacre of 2000+ people in a Masjid and a madrassah.
Liberal extremists in Pakistan, who today accept, endorse, sanction, approve and support wholeheartedly Musharrafs illegitimate rule over the country, attempt forevermore to enforce their will on those who do not subscribe to their paradigm of bowing to dictatorship. And while they go hoarse screaming over the “breaking of the governments writ at the hands of moderates, conservatives and fundamentalists, they conveniently look the other way when it comes to Musharrafs continuing abuse of the law and the constitution of the country. Because he is a liberal extremist who they happily give the right to circumvent, bend, break or change every rule that was ever made. To them he is not just a citizen. That label is set aside or the likes of Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaheed.
And so these extremists from the liberal ranks give a standing ovation to the annihilation sanctioned by an illegitimate ruler. Annihilation of those to whom breaking writ of a government, whose foundations its leader lay on the constitution he raped, was not breaking the law…it was a struggle to break the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker. For which they willingly lay down their lives. In his last message to the people of Pakistan Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaeed said, “They [the government and Musharraf] tried to force me into giving in to their tyranny. Their behavior is that of tyrants. They are the agents of tyranny. They are the agents of America. But I will rather die than give in to tyrants.
[Haq wrote on Aug 4, 2007: Up until 10 July, 2007 I stood in league of citizens of Pakistan who have supported Musharraf over the last 8 years thinking that his unconstitutional occupancy of the country came to be vital to our survival after 9/11. But people like me also saw that while the dictator used one hand for getting Pakistan out of troubled waters, he underhandedly put into motion a series of events aimed at rooting out Islam as deen from the country. Operation Silence/Sunrise was one such event he expertly masterminded.]
It means that if there were no Lal Masjid incident, your support to Musharraf would have been continued despite “series of events aimed at rooting out Islam as deen from the country”.
By picking out only that portion in a post, which is of interest and changing topic just for the sake of arguments instead of discussing and coming up with the answers to difficult questions from those who has different opinion on this matter is an interesting tactic. Criticizing others but at the same time abusing by calling others liberal extremists, branding those who like Musharraf as Musharraf Lovers and alleging that they have embraced the new Deen-e-Musharrafi could be taken as double standards.
[Haq wrote on July 17, 2007: Justice will be served the day when Musharrafs mother is shot in front of his eyes and he sits there with her grey haired head in his lap, feeling her frail body struggle for breath, feeling the cold of death slide gradually on the woman who had given him life. And when she breaths her last, a grenade is fired on him, its shrapnel slicing through his throat leaving him barely alive to feel every bullet that slices through the body of his beloved daughter Ayla, whose burning corpse he sees turn into ash before death pierce through his uniformed body. That day the shaheed of Lal Masjid and Jamai Hafza would have been avenged. And people like me would have at last found peace.]
I can understand how people incite violence and from where suicide bombers get their motivation. Rather than posting such comments, one should tell others the lesson of forget and forgive, which is very difficult but at the same time highly appreciated act in Islam.
By the way, what is your opinion: Are any of these suicide bombers Shaheed and can we say that they are carrying out their religious duty towards any noble cause?
[Haq wrote on Aug 8,2007: Annihilation of those to whom breaking writ of a government, whose foundations its leader lay on the constitution he raped, was not breaking the lawit was a struggle to break the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker. For which they willingly lay down their lives. In his last message to the people of Pakistan Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaeed said, “They [the government and Musharraf] tried to force me into giving in to their tyranny. Their behavior is that of tyrants. They are the agents of tyranny. They are the agents of America. But I will rather die than give in to tyrants.]
[Haq wrote on Aug 4, 2007: Changed for ever by what I witnessed on 10 July, I will never be able to forgive myself for not having been there by Ghazi sahibs side to help him in a cause that goes beyond individual interests, beyond national interests and beyond what is so popularly being called the “writ of the governmentthe enforcing of Allahs writ in a land whose constitution guarantees the implementation of that writ.]
No one argues that that Pakistan was acquired in the name of Islam and Islam should be the basis of all the laws in Pakistan as guaranteed in the constitution of Pakistan.
However, it is still not clear from these posts whether Ghazi Sahib was fighting for the implementation of Islamic Shariah or to remove Musharraf from presidency and army chief post in order to break the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker. In his negotiations, Ghazi Sahib was using the same tactic and changing his stance every time and in the last, Ghazi Sahib agreed to surrender everything including his demand for Islamic system in return for a safe passage and honorable exit from the mosque
If you so wholeheartedly support all of the Ghazi Sahibs actions and his noble cause, then why you are not doing the same by “breaking the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker and willingly lay down your life”.
Wrong is wrong and it does not become right because intentions were good. Wrong acts of anybody should not be justified only because these acts were carried out as a retaliation of something or they were towards a noble cause.
Just imagine about the situation if every person starts acting the same way: take up arms and fight against the government. If they were right and there was nothing wrong with their actions, then it should be the duty of every mufti, every aalim and every Muslim to do the same. But this is not the case.
No one will agree that the following acts were for “a struggle to break the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker” or “for the implementation of Shariah laws:
Illegal encroachment on a government land,
Illegal occupation of a childrens library,
Kidnapping and illegal confinement of women,
attack on businesses and forcing them to shut down,
Kidnapping of policemen,
Setting up parallel courts within a state against the laws of that state,
Kidnapping and illegal confinement of foreigners,
Snatching arms and equipments from security personnel,
Firing and killing security personnel,
damaging and burning, public and private property,
Keeping arms and ammunition in a mosque for no apparent reason,
not laying arms on the request of authorities and firing at security personnel during the leniency period of 5 full days,
keeping some of the people in Mosque without their consent and endangering their lives (also many of them got killed during the operation).
[Haq wrote on Aug 4, 2007: Please allow me to clarify my intentions for posting on this or any other blog on this particular subject. My objectives for doing so are far removed from engaging anyone in a discussion or a debate. I am totally not interested in letting myself be drawn into endless arguments with people with whom I share no common point of reference because I cannot be convinced against my conviction that thousands of rasikh-ul-aqeeda musalman men, women and children were unjustifiably MASSACRED in Operation Silence/Sunrise by the orders of a tyrant. Neither do I wish to convince any liberal extremist to the contrary.]
If you dont want to discuss with people with whom you dont share common point of reference because you cannot be convinced against your conviction about this particular matter, then what is the point in posting all these messages when you are not ready to listen to others point of view.
First of all, there is no solid evidence that thousands of people died. If so many people have died and everything is so obvious with so many indications, then why is anyone not going to court? Secondly, when it was repeatedly announced for continuously five days that people inside should come out, and they will not be harmed, then what is the justification of anyone still hiding inside OR they were being kept there against their own will.
haq) i agree with ordinar pakistani coz u r a master of avoiding the actual issue n confusing it with lessons in history…lets call a spade a spade…if musharraf is wrong on many issues he is wrong….he is not wrong coz he doesnt hv a beard or live in a mosque…he is wrong coz of legal n constitutional issues if proven in COURT OF LAW
however ghazi sahib was wrong coz he admitted on a number of times to crimes comitted…robbing a bank for jihad would not validate robbery similarly killing muslims in the name of jihad abducting women in the name of jihad cannot validate these crimes….he n his bro shd be punished according to the law of the land….lets not confuse the issue …a criminal using a mosque n a madrissa remains a criminal weather he wears a burqa has a beard is besides the point….
moreover ur political antipathy to musharraf is not understood fully….coz u hv not highlighted whom do u stand with…if ur a follower of the suicide bombers who kill without care destroying innocent lives then Allah have mercy on your soul…if ur a supporter of the mma then plz justify the 17th ammendement n the govt’s in quetta n peshawar…if somebody else then plz tell us who tht angel iz coz ur current leader ghazi rasheed appears to hv had a very cunning n criminal mentality….
moreover ur comment about the judiciary appears a misnomer as the cj has been restored by the same judiciary…other cases shd n wud be decided on merrit like steel mills , pso etc….
i would quote two incidents for those who r trying to enforce sharia…my entire family prays 5 times a day as other muslims,,,,women observe the hijab but many women amongst us have to drive coz of family reasons…my sis was attacked by burqa clad women infront of jamia hifza while she was bringing back her kids from school…as a result her car was wrecked n she recived minor injuries…thanks God she did not stop otherwise she might have been killed or kidnapped…..in my village in fsd lal mosque is reputed to b a haven for terrorist for the only shaheed’s body we received from lal mosque was a mafroor qatil wanted for 5 murders…..
haq sahib shd clarify if the purpose of keeping weapons in a mosque even if only 15 rifles …y did the students hv gas masks n who gave it to them…as a citizen of islamabad i can point out numerous areas of immoral activities …nobody knew f8 …pir vidhai was more famous…y only chinse were targeted? clearly a us ploy here…moreover y did ghazi sahib leave the brother of an mma mna caught from f8 if something illegal was being done…in his blogs haq sahib convienently forgets the issues facing pakitan n follows a srictly anti musharraf campaign….
I WUD call ghazi sahib a bigger tyrant than all coz who else wud put to risk the lives of innocent children to justify his crimes….also whoelse wud provide an escape route to his entire family aside from one or two n endanger the lives of women children n security personnal.ghazi in my opinion was not willing to face the law.
U HAVE TRIED TO TARGET MUSHARRAF’S MOTHER N DESCRIBED UR WISH ON HOW SHE SHD DIE…THAT DESCRIBES A VERY VERY SICK MENTALITY…I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT UR BREEDING COZ THT IS TOO BELOW THE BELT..HAVE SOME SHAME.
[>>> ayesha: my sister lives in G 6 she prays 5 times a day n observes pardahhowever she has to drive a car coz of comupulsionsshe was attacked by the burqa brigade on the covered market road causing broken wind screen to her mehran n injuries to her facemayb she also was a so called jahanummi for hifza brigade]
This is either a completely fabricated story or an unrelated incident placed strategically in this post to bolstering a spin. Liberal extremist trolls use the tactic of making up an incident involving the loss of a loved one that never took place and introduce it into the argument to gain sympathy for them and subsequently soften reader opinion for their case. Inversely, to serve the same purpose. they quote an incident that might actually have taken place but in different circumstances and in unrelated sequence of events.
The spin of this liberal extremist troll is that the rasikh-ul-aqeeda musalman women of the Jamia Hafza were baton bearing madwomen who beat around women drivers indiscriminately on the roads because driving in their belief system was haram. This is farthest from the truth and perpetuation of the propaganda of the liberal extremist NGOs and their sympathizers who built a whole case against students of the Jamia Hafza based on the blatant lie that they threatened unveiled women and women drivers with vitriolage [acid throwing].
Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaheed repeatedly implored members of the civil society in his interviews to the press and TV, and in his sermons in the mosque to not heed to this Musharrafite propaganda and strategic relay of disinformation. He beseeched everyone exposed to such disinformation to contact him directly to confirm first hand authenticity of lies attributed to the student of Jamia Hafza.
The fact of the matter is that students of Jamia Hafza never tried to forcibly impose purdah on any unveiled woman. I would personally be against such an enforcing because neither my mother nor my sisters observe/don the Islamic hijab. But I know it for a fact that this is little more than a barrage of disinformation still being spread by liberal extremists as part of the continuing exercise aimed at tarnishing image of the [Shaheed/ghazi] students of Jamia Hafza and subsequently everything that they stood for. That this particular troll hasnt done her homework before maligning the dead is obvious from the fact that Ghazi Abdul Rasheeds wife herself drove a car. If what this troll is suggesting were true, by that token, the students of Jamia Hafza would have smashed her car and her face before anyone elses.
Since 10 July, 2007 the day the massacre occurred at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza, leading newspapers including daily Ummat have been printing stories, personal accounts and interviews of survivors and those living in the vicinity of the mosque. Not one account printed validates the violent behavior of the students of Jamia Hafza that this troll and the likes of her are suggesting.
In my opinion liberal extremist trolls are using shrewd tactics to malign the Jamia Hafza and Lal Masjid uprising to serve the purposes of their leader Musharraf. If this troll, or any other liberal extremist wishes to recount a “harrowing tale describing the violence they suffered at the hands of the students of Jamia Hafza, with validation of proof, please let me know. I will interview them personally and objectively and have their account printed in the paper. Also, it would help the cause of their liberal extremism if their account were to become part of the document being prepared currently, comprising information being chronicled regarding the massacre conducted during Operation Silence/Sunset ad the events led up to it.
This is the same old tactic of picking up a portion in a post to justify Ghazi sahib’s actions and avoid giving answers of difficult questions from those who have different opinion on this matter. How are you so sur that Ayesha was lying. Everyone saw students of Jamia Hafsa with batons and also some with guns, damaging the public and private property. They also put on fire a few government buildings in the process. Please put some light: was it for the implementation of Islamic Shariah or to to break the country free of shackles of a Musharraf.
[Haq wrote on Aug 6,2007: I may have serious disagreements with a person but i would never call them such names. But then agian, self-restraint is the culmination of a lifetime of good breeding.]
What would you say if someone abuses others by calling them liberal extremists, liberal extremist troll, miscreants, Musharrafs minions, Musharraf Lovers, Musharrafites and alleging that they have embraced the new Deen-e-Musharrafi. [Haq wrote on Aug 7, 2007: Its all about good breeding.]
haq> app haq sai kafi door hain…i hv read most of your posts n hv concluded tht u r mentally sick n weirdo….on one side u talk about rasikh ul aqeeda muslims n shariat etc n on the other hand u slander females with gusto…deen pai chalna waqai app jaisay logon k liyay mushkil hai…app prophet ki unn sunnat par amal nahi kartay jo apko suit nahi karti ..app misak e madina aur fatah makkah ki spirits sai nawaqif hain….jihad is not ur issue neither is its islam…u only want to kill ppl due to ur own mental frustration/sickness…
students of jamia hifza never forcebly tried to enforce sharia hahaha…who abducted mrs shamim? n chinese n policemen? aliens or cia .
ur own agenda is not sharia or ghazi…ur just an anti musharraf person…plz tell us who is ur leader….
the word troll is slang for a woman with lose character…you being a sharia loving man r projecting ur brand of sharia as tht of a women slanderer…mayb you also like the traditions of wanni n sawara n maybe mariage to quran as well a sick frustrated person like u shd not even be permitted near women what to talk abt interviewing them….your approach iz tht I AM THE BEST N IM RIGHT.everyone else is wrong…..deen musharfi ka tou pata nahi but “DEEN HAQI” aur uski shariat mujhay manzoor nahi…for your kind info ghazi sahib n his students in many interviews have confessed to numerous reactions n their counter actions…ghazi tou masjid k mimbar sai bhi suicide bombing ki tableegh kartay thay shaid apkay nazdeeq jihad n islam yehi hai……qabar sai khusbu ana to bidat mai sai hai lekin sheshay meri aur ayesha ki sis k bhi tootay …Allah hum sab ko aisay logon sai apni aman mai rakhay n i dont care u believe this incidence or not coz every body else is uncivilzed , illeterate stupid except you whereas its just the opposite
yet another typical tactic of trolls to gang up against anyone rocking the boat of their trolling. a chat room tradition imported to blogs…’ganging up’ with other trolls is aimed at disorienting the opponent with mulitple posts. Of little consequence to anyone who understands the tactic.
mr haq you r sick n u argue on irrelevant issues ……. u can blame president for his wrong actions….could u plz justify ghazi n his actions in the light of Quran…..y u compare ghazi n musharraf in first place…they hv no comparison….neither u can justify ghazi by pinpointing musharraf blunders..he was an imam of a masjid n paid employee…the mosque was not his personal property…..
u say musharraf is an american agent…MIGHT B …BUT SO WAS GHAZI…..everybody saw on tv wat they used to don u call it fake…..amazing
i agree with ordinary pakistani n nauman n im sorry to say ur choice of words is very bad…apka apna religion konsa hai????????? musharraf ka to app nai bata dia…..apka phir “deen e ghazi’ ho ga….liberal extremist hona tou shaid itna burra nahi jitna islam ki dhijian bakhairna…..ghazi sahib bhi donations sai weapons khareed kar jihad kartay thay wah ji wah…..woh islam k thaikadar hain k decide karain who is mushrik n who is muslim……suicide bomber bhi apkay ghazi sahib ki tarh shaheed honay ko prefer karta hai….meray nazdeek ghazi sahib shihadat ki maut nahi albata khudkushi sai iss dunya sai rukhsat huway hain…..dosron ko shihadat aur jihad ki advice denay sai pehlay unko apni bhabhi aur bhai ko bhi jihad ka sabak dai detay…..chalo ghazee shaheed tha apki nazar mai …jo bhi hua acha hua “khas kam jahan pak”
haq> khuch parh likh lou phir bat karna…waisay tumhari language boht gandee hai…shaid apka deen apko yehi sikhata hai…..agar apko koi support nahi kar raha tou apko samjh lena chahye…aqalmand k liyay ishara kafi hota hai…..lekin aqal apkay passs………iM NOT SURE :))))))))))
[nauman>>> students of jamia hifza never forcebly tried to enforce sharia hahahawho abducted mrs shamim? n chinese n policemen? aliens or cia]
Another example of misconstruing one of posts by a liberal troll. I never EVER said that students of Jamia Hafza “never forcibly tried to enforce Shariah. What I wrote was, and I quote: “The fact of the matter is that students of Jamia Hafza never tried to forcibly impose purdah on any unveiled woman.
Aysha> I feel sorry for what happened to your sister by the female students of Lal Masjid. damaging your sister’s car and hurting her is not justified and unacceptable whether or not she pray 5 times,or observes parda.
God knows better who is jahunami and who is not.
There are many Saints(Buzurgs,Alims,Mufti’s) in Pakistan where anyone can learn religion.
You said that Holy prophet said to learn goods things from wherever you can get those.so you find a cinema to learn good things.very good indeed.you forgot what Islam tells u about films,music,etc. Now you may say where it is written in Quran that you cannot watch films?
Political Moulvi’s are the most corrupt people in politics. these are the people who are damaging the image of Moulvi’s. But please remember Majority of Moulvis in Pakistan are not like them.(I am not a Molvi but I am trying to become a molvi and I will Insahallah).
Suicide Bombing> I condemn suicide bombing but I dont understand whenever there is a bomb blast not only in Pakistan anywhere in the world..we always hear suicide attack or suicide bomb blast.How do the press knows even before the police that it was a suicide bomber and the a muslim suicider. having said that I dont mean that their are no suicide bomb blast so far.Suicide bombing is conspiracy against muslims.
It is a habit Pakistanis to mourn and criticize our own people. Why dont we criticize Hindus,Israel,America or Europe. We never critize them. we try to follow them and do everything to look like them, think like them,speak like them,etc. How many of us try to look like Muslim Men and Women?
West is trying to making it difficult as they are trying kill the image of Moulvis,Muslims,Burqa,Namazi,Mujahid,Mosque,and everything which specifies a muslim. West is ok with moderate or modern muslims(half muslims and half christian or half whatever)
CONDEMN WRONG DOINGS BY SAYING THAT PERSON IS WRONG DONT SAY MOLVIS ARE WRONG.
SHOAIB MANSOOR CANNOT BE YOUR SAINT.
[What would you say if someone abuses others by calling them liberal extremists, liberal extremist troll, miscreants, Musharrafs minions, Musharraf Lovers, Musharrafites and alleging that they have embraced the new Deen-e-Musharrafi]
The troll has used the clever tactic of “lumping in which various sentences taken from various posts, and thus out of context, are bracketed together to make them look like they have been said in a flow, adding thus a whole new dimension to their meaning which serves better their own agenda of making those who dont share their views sound less effective in their argument.
Clearly siding with those who have used the most derogatory terms for a dead man by totally avoiding condemning the use of such language, these trolls in the best tradition of Internet trolling are spending energies on putting a spin on whatever I say to defend the good name of Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaeed and his students.
Put in their right context, NONE of the terms I have used that have been to look like they were used as insults are derogatory.
[>>> Posted by Haq on Aug 6, 2007: What these liberal extremists are saying in other words is that Islamic Shariah cannot be implemented for this reason [or that] and should hence be abandoned in favor of the more liberal, secular and western laws. So effectively, being vigorously demonized by the west, the Islamic Shariah is being misrepresented by their friends, the liberal extremists in the Muslim world. To answer these miscreants, we need to first understand what Shariah actually means.]
1. LIBERAL EXTREMIST: The term “Liberal Extremist is neither derogatory nor insulting. And does not qualify in the least to be a slander. Far from it, it is a legitimate label that identifies a certain group of people who subscribe to certain socio-political ideologies on the politico-social spectrum. In the changing global realities where the west has launched a crusade on Islam their media in collaboration with their crusading leaders has universally and permanently tagged rasikh-ul-aqeeda Muslims as “fundamentalist and “extremists, labeling mujahideen as “terrorists. With the war of civilizations having come home at last, and our complete bowing to the “with us or against us doctrine, the nation today is clearly divided into people who subscribe to that doctrine and those who oppose it. The degree of that opposition at its extreme is producing the likes of Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaheed and the degree of its support at its extreme is birthing those who annihilated him and his compatriots.
It thus becomes imperative in this ideologically fragmented society that we speak on issues by declaring our paradigm. That declaration forms the basis of marking labels on the socio-political spectrum from the extreme Right to the extreme Left labels like Ultraconservative/Ultraorthodox, Conservative, Fundamentalist, Moderate, Liberal, and Liberal Extremist [also used interchangeably with the term Secularist] On a related spectrum terms used for identifying ideological inclination include, democrats, neoconservatives, socialists, communists and so and so forth.
Interestingly enough, the first time the term “liberal extremists was used on a public forum in Pakistan was by Musharraf himself when he expressed disdain about them while addressing the nation on TV in the wake of the passing of the Women Protection Bill.
2. MISCREANT: One of the definitions of the word “Miscreant offered by the free internet dictionary is “one who disbelieves [a derivative of Old French ‘mescreant’, present participle of ‘mescroire’, to disbelieve], the meaning in the context of which I had used that word. And whereas the word has not been used as an insult by a long shot, I strongly believe that “people who say that Islamic Shariah cannot be implemented for this reason [or that] and should hence be abandoned in favor of the more liberal, secular and western lawsare miscreants. indeed.
[By Haq on Jul 31, 2007 Only Musharrafs minions could rationalize for flame throwers, white phosphorus and heavy artillery shelling to have been used for neutralizing 250 odd men their leader claim to have killed during the attack]
3. MINIONS: The free internet dictionary offers three definitions of the term “minions (1) An obsequious follower or dependent (2) A subordinate official (3) One who is highly esteemed or favored; a darling. The term is a derivative of the French word “mignon, meaning “darling, from Old French mignot, mignon. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minions] How any of these meanings constitute an insult can only make sense to the mind of a tfroll.
[>>> Posted by haq on Aug 8, 2007: They have embraced wholeheartedly the new Deen-e-Musharrafi introduced by the dictator under guise of “enlightened moderation and cannot possibly be detracted from following closely in his footsteps.]
4. DEEN-E-MUSHARRAFI: There is a thing called metaphor. A metaphor is a “figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison. And it was in that context that I used the term Deen-e-Musharrafi. My use of this metaphor indicated the strong bond liberal extremists have formed with certain policies of the Musharraf regime regarding enlightened moderation. Its common knowledge that Musharraf has not initiated a religious cult. Nor has he organized a religion. So to construe from my metaphor that I am calling anyone an infidel by associating them with Musharraf through this metaphor is irresponsible and absurd.
[>>>Posted by haq on Aug 8, 2007: This post reflects the typical mindset of men and women who in moderate and conservative circle are now being dubbed “Musharrafites“, and “Musharraf Lovers or MLs for short.]
5: MUSHARRAFITE: Just as people who live in Karachi are termed Karachittes, people who subscribe to the tyranny of Musharraf are called Musharrafite or Musharraf Lovers. I seriously fail to see the derogation these terms cause. They are descriptive terms that have come to be popular in certain circles which is where I have picked them from.
Sherry Rehman, a most wonderful LIBERAL politician and parliamentarian of the Pakistan Peoples Party said to me during an interview once that taking things out of context when questioning credibility of a bias runs the risk of making the question prejudiced. And I concur!
[>>>Ordinary Pakistani How are you so sur that Ayesha was lying.]
One tactic used by trolls is to substitute [what they feel they can troll over] with a word of their own choosing while questioning the credibility of a post.
I NEVER said that the person posting under the handle Ayesha was lying. What I had actually said was, and I quote: “This is either a completely fabricated story or an unrelated incident placed strategically in this post to bolster a spin. Whereas a fabrication MAY be used for deceiving [or may not be used for that purpose] a “lie is inevitably ALWAYS intended to deceive. I had speculated that either the story told was a fabrication or that THERE WAS A POSSIBILTY THAT THE INCIDENT CITED DID TAKE PLACE INSDEED but perhaps in different circumstances and was being quoted to strategically authenticate the point made. None of the newspapers since the start of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza saga this year have reported a violent attack of students from Jamia Hafza of the nature ayesha has described.
And the same token by which this troll questions me as to how I know for sure that “Ayesha was lying, he has no way of knowing if ayesha was indeed telling the truth. But since her citing of the incident validates his own ideology, he feels he can take ayeshas word on faith but is quick to poke a trolling lance in my post because my word negates his viewpoint.
The following posts are a clear indication how trolls from the ranks of liberal extremists are audaciously convoluting the perspective of moderates and conservative regarding the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza Massacre by making personal attacks at the latter. These trolls deliberately draw up incorrect conclusions from a post, present the drawn conclusion as a lack of competence of those whose views they do not share, diminishing their stature in the process so as to render their viewpoint ineffective.
[nauman >>> on one side u talk about rasikh ul aqeeda muslims n shariat etc n on the other hand u slander females with gusto]
I have not once slandered any female or male “with gusto or without it in any of my posts on any of the blogs I post on.
To begin with, it is impossible to “slander someone who posts a comment on a blog under an identity expressed through a handle/nick that does not guarantee for readers to know their actual identity, including gender and age.
The dictionary defines “slander as words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another or an abusive attack on a person's character or good name. “Reputation is defined as “the general opinion of the public towards a person, a group of people, or an organization.
Sitting in front of the computer screen, punching words on a keyboard in response to a post made with a handle whose name, identity, place in society or reputation they have in public I dont even know, it would be next to impossible for me to attack their “good name. All I can do is comment on their viewpoint and not their person.
[nauman >>>the word troll is slang for a woman with lose characteryou being a sharia loving man r projecting ur brand of sharia as tht of a women slanderer]
The free dictionary on the internet gives seven definitions of the word troll. None matches the one posted as “a woman with a loose character. [<a href="http://http://www.thefreedictionary.com/troll%5D“target=”_blank”>http://<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/…” target=”_blank”>www.thefreedictionary.com/troll]
When using the word troll the very first time, I had very clearly mentioned what I meant by it. [Posted By Haq on Aug 4, 2007 >>> trolling [deliberately posting false information in order to bait naive users, who believe in an ideology passionately but are not eloquent enough to word their argument, into responding so that they can tear apart their ineloquence with their cold logic making it sound that they have won the argument]
In the context I have used the word troll throughout my posts is defined by wikipedia as “ An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll%5D
[Rahim: haq> khuch parh likh lou phir bat karnawaisay tumhari language boht gandee haishaid apka deen apko yehi sikhata hai]
Another liberal extremist troll posting accusations without having any clue what he is talking about. Across the board he accuses me of using “bohat gundee language without bothering to cite an example or talk about issues at hand.
[>>>adnan: Political Moulvis are the most corrupt people in politics. these are the people who are damaging the image of Moulvis. But please remember Majority of Moulvis in Pakistan are not like them]
Well said. I totally agree to that although i think it is a very small minority of Moulvis who are worth their salt in Pakistan.
[rahim>>> u say musharraf is an american agent]
Another instance of misquoting. I never in any of my posts called Musharraf “an american agent”.
What I did say was, and I quote: In his last message to the people of Pakistan Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaeed said, “They [the government and Musharraf] tried to force me into giving in to their tyranny. Their behavior is that of tyrants. They are the agents of tyranny. They are the agents of America. But I will rather die than give in to tyrants.
I was quoting Ghazi Abdul Rasheed [translated] verbatim.
for your kind information haq sahib things come in news papers if they are reported to them…..my sis is not a vip tht a reporter follws her whereever she is going n if something happens to her its reported on media…
my cousin had an accident in bhara kahu n he died last yr….i even did not read abt tht accident in any newspaper…though many accidents r reported on news channels n papers…..
everybody has seen wat jamia hifzians used to do n if u think im lying etc it does not matter….rest of the things they hv done have been reported n admitted by them…..
basicaly their stance to every crime be it kidnapping, destruction is….” woh tou hamara falani falani bat ka rad i amal tha””…..
u said ordinary pakistani doesnt know im speaking the truth but he believes me coz our ideology is same……same is true for you…..u hv no objection for ppl who call soldiers/policemen/rangers as kafir etc but wen it comes to jamia hifza it pinches u like anything….
[Rahim: haq> khuch parh likh lou phir bat karnawaisay tumhari language boht gandee haishaid apka deen apko yehi sikhata hai]
Another liberal extremist troll posting accusations without having any clue what he is talking about. Across the board he accuses me of using “bohat gundee language without bothering to cite an example or talk about issues at hand.
I think i asked u to comment on one issue …u also like to pick points from posts n manipulate or try to change the concentration n direction of the topic.
well you have stated president’s actions in detail with references…..
Please justify /throw light on ghazi n students actions of kidnapping/destruction n everything they are alleged n which they have comitted in the light of holy quran….as u call him shaheed it means u support his actions /intentions whatever….
How can u say that i have not read quran….molvis r not the only sources of learning quran…i wont comment about order in quran sunnat on movies/music etc……y do u watch tv not movies but even news…..if its nots allowed y u hv cable in your house( dont say u dont hv),,y molvis etc come on tv to give lectures…y they have made their seperate channels like qtv or peace tv…..
i said tht movie is true projection of what is going on in Pakistan…can u deny it???? Aren’t these molvis misguiding the ppl in the name of jihad……
u can learn good things form any body..u do not hv to carry a tag of a molvi to learn about islam…i did not learn anything from tht movie…i just supported it by saying thts whats going on in pak.
mr ghazi sahib himself called for suicide bombing n i do not know its in media or not but one of the student did blast himself in lal masjid.
Suicide bombing…
its not a conspiracy against muslims….they are involved not everywhere but muslims religious extremist r into this.
press is not informed before the police tht it was a suicide bomb…in pak its police n army releases it in their press conferences…..lekin baat tou wohi hai army jhoot bolti hai
well i condemn all bad actions anywhere in the world…n i think many ppl do……im responsible n answerable for my actions…alhamdulliah i do not copy the west.
bhai ghazi is a molvi tou yehi kahain gai molvi wrong hai….after the operation jab media nai maulna kehna chor dia tha he objected….ssimilarly agar gen musharraf wrong hai tou uss say poori army tou ghalat nahi ho jati….
wen did i say shoab mansoor is my saint??/
Dear Haq……If one is to accept your explanation as correct, then you shouldn’t mind someone writing like this:
[The troll, posting under the handle ‘haq’, may be an extermist Ghazi minion who has embraced wholeheartedly the new Deen-e-Ghazi introduced by some miscreants. Such people may also be called Ghazite or Ghazi lovers. In one of the posting, Mr. Nauman wrote: “a criminal using a mosque n a madrissa remains a criminal weather he wears a burqa or has a beard is besides the point.”]
You have used the same old tactic of picking up a portion in a post and keep playing with the words and at the same time avoid giving answers of difficult questions.
What happened to other portion of my post: was the damage to public and private property including firing, for the implementation of Islamic Shariah or to break the country free of shackles of Musharraf.
Since you look so knowledgeable, kindly enlighten us why Ghazi Sahib agreed to surrender everything including his demand for Islamic system in return for a safe passage and honorable exit from the mosque
If you so wholeheartedly support all of the Ghazi Sahibs actions and his noble cause, then why you are not doing the same by “breaking the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker and willingly lay down your life.
Were the following acts for “a struggle to break the country free of shackles of a lawbreaker or “for the implementation of Shariah laws:
Illegal encroachment on a government land,
Illegal occupation of a childrens library,
Kidnapping and illegal confinement of women,
attack on businesses and forcing them to shut down,
Kidnapping of policemen,
Setting up parallel courts within a state against the laws of that state,
Kidnapping and illegal confinement of foreigners,
Snatching arms and equipments from security personnel,
Firing and killing security personnel,
damaging and burning, public and private property,
Keeping arms and ammunition in a mosque for no apparent reason,
not laying arms on the request of authorities and firing at security personnel during the leniency period of 5 full days,
keeping some of the people in Mosque without their consent and endangering their lives (also many of them got killed during the operation).
If so many people have died and everything is so obvious with so many indications, then why is anyone not going to court? Secondly, when it was repeatedly announced for continuously five days that people inside should come out, and they will not be harmed, then what is the justification of anyone still hiding inside OR they were being kept there against their own will.
I have not been able to find answers to these questions despite requesting the same in various posts to Ghazi Minion (i personally dont like such words but as per your previous post, you have no problem).
When you say: [This is either a completely fabricated story or an unrelated incident placed strategically in this post to bolstering a spin],
then you quesion the integrity of the other and cast a significant doubt on the intention of the other person, though you may not have the entire truth or any solid evidence. You should have interview Ayesha ‘objectively’ and then give your opinion accordingly.
There is a possibility that this particular incident may not have been reported specifically in any newspaper.
[>>> Ordinary Pakistani: This is the same old tactic of picking up a portion in a post to justify Ghazi sahibs actions and avoid giving answers of difficult questions from those who have different opinion on this matter.]
Clandestinely and skillfully, this troll has started to mimic my methodology of analyzing posts, expressing himself/herself by using the same phrases that I use for syntax. In this particular, case coupling this mimic with a misleading reference made to the contents of my posts [I have so far not once in any of my posts written anything that can be interpreted as justifying Ghazi sahibs acts], the troll turns this into a cleverly construed tactic to confuse the moderate mindset by overlapping the language footprint so that at a subliminal level the reader begins to experience overlap of ideology shelled in overlapped idiom.
That I am “avoiding giving answers of difficult questions from those who have different opinion on this matter is hardly a tactic on my part. Its the simple truth that I made amply clear at the very outset in one of my earlier most posts. [Posted by Haq on Aug 4: My postings are intended to]
I overtly made known my intentions for posting on the topic of the Massacre that took place at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza on July 10, on this blog and others. I said I was posting to pick out, expose and set the record straight:
(1) on disinformation about Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza posted by liberal extremists of the pro-Musharraf camp.
(2) misconceptions of mislead liberals [who may or may not subscribe to the policies of the military regime] based on disinformation provided by the former.
(3) trolling of liberal extremists [deliberately posting false information in order to bait naive users, who believe in an ideology passionately but are not eloquent enough to word their argument, into responding so that they can tear apart their ineloquence with their cold logic making it sound that they have won the argument].
(4) and strategically conceived rhetoric and analogies aimed at confusing moderate elements of the society.
Nowhere in my 4 point outline do I mention that I was going to give “answers of difficult questions from those who have different opinion on this matter. Thats because we have ALL ALREADY formed our OPINIONS about this incident based on the stance we take in accordance to our position on the politico social spectrum. No matter what anyone says at this point from within their paradigm will they convince another who looks at things from the perspective of their own paradigm. There will be a lot of hot debate with everyone trying to prove their own point.
But “not giving answers to what is being referred to as “difficult questions does not mean that I am avoiding them. There are perfectly good answers to them. But the issue of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza Massacre is not black and white; neither can it be looked at in a vacuum. The issue encompasses a greater period than the months it played out in. And it played out with more actors than the eyes saw in more acts than the incidents being vigorously quoted. It is only by understanding the broader perspective than many gray areas can be covered and since answers to question can only be given with reference to this paradigm or that, those gray areas need to be addressed before question can be answered. That is how I am proceeding with my posts.
There is a noteworthy saying attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962, an American political leader), and to Admiral Hyman Rickover (1900-1986, the Father of the US Nuclear Nav). “Small mind discusses people, Average mind discusses events, Great mind discusses ideas.
And what is being discussed only and more passionately regarding the issue of the July 10 Massacre, the events that led to it and those that followed are the people involved and the events. It is important to understand that posting “truths as this person sees it or that accounts only for a catharsis. Facts, the building blocks of truth speak for themselves, facts that are not biased and havent been fed by one side only. But in this particular case, the source of ALL facts being cited is the same the Musharraf regime, bolstered by anecdotes cited by anonymous people here that does not account for all the facts involved. Anyone can get up and put up a statement [it happened to meor my friendor a friend of a friend] as a fact. Unless a reliable source is quoted that can be verified by independent sources these facts account for nothing at all. How can one be the prosecutor, the judge and the witness and serve justice too. There is a whole different set of facts being offered from the other side. But like I said we have all already made up our minds as to which facts shore up our own argument and these are the only ones laying the foundation of truth for us.
We need to remember that blogs are read by more people than those who comment on them. There is a great majority of people within my own social circle who read what is being posted here. The points that I am trying to make in analyzing trolls are for their benefit, which is why I mostly address my post in the third person [“This troll is attempting]. Convincing anyone here is not my agenda as I keep reiterating and neither am I here to convince anyone with regards to the issue at hand.
[>>> nauman: u r mentally sick n weirdo… sick frustrated person like u shd not even be permitted near women…coz every body else is uncivilzed , illeterate stupid except you whereas its just the opposite]
This one post contains 8 derogatory expressions lunged at me besides one insulting reference made as an insult. Ive been called sick and weirdo apparently on conclusion drawn on subjective perception of which no validation has been offered. The insults sink and frustrated person were made on the basis of the derogation implied through a self-invented meaning of a term [troll] that I had not used in the context attributed to me. Ive been called uncivilized, illiterate and stupid on the basis that I have used these terms to refer to others posting on the topic, which I have not either directly or in implication throughout any of my posts.
Clever example of trolling: First attribute derogation by falsifying the meaning of phrases and words used by the person against whose viewpoint trolling is intended and then lambaste them to high heaven. The reader would automatically be fixated on the lambaste without realizing that the issue forming bases of the lambasting has been rigged by the troll.
[>>> nauman: the word paki is used as a racial abuse in the western worldsikhs used to call muslims mussla by ur definition these wud be just words not abuses just labels..the word troll is deregatory in nature n however u use it its meaning is negative as intended by u.]
It is worth nothing the change in tactic of this particular troll. Having initially trolled by falsely attributing a very derogatory meaning to a term used by me, and his troll having been exposed by my explanation, he has now taken a completely different approach to ascertain continuance of his trolling on the same plane. This time he is deliberately putting up incorrect analogy by bracketing “racial slurs intended to abuse with “labeling intended to identify a certain group of people on the sociopolitical spectrum.
In terms of social nomenclature, labels are given to identify people and group them for social identification on the basis of their race [Caucasian. Mongoloid, Dravidian, Asian etc] ethnicity [pushtoon, baloch etc], religion [Muslim, Christian. Jew etc], country [Pakistani, Indian etc], sociopolitical orientation [Liberal, conservative etc]. None of these is an insult. They are markers that classify us for identification.
The above nomenclature can be misused by a certain group when they wish to abuse another. To bracket misuse of a genuine social label with its misuse is what this troll has done to perpetuate his initial troll.
The term troll is interestingly never a title that can be assumed by its propagator. He or she is so tagged on the basis of their “intent. Using some extremely derogatory terms [mentally sickweirdo…sickfrustratedu shd not even be permitted near women…uncivilzedilleterate stupid] to describe me unjustifiably, without knowing me in person and so aimed only at inciting me, is an intent that classifies this person inevitably as a “troll.
Clandestinely and skillfully, this troll has started to mimic my methodology of analyzing posts, expressing himself/herself by using the same phrases that I use for syntax. In this particular, case coupling this mimic with a misleading reference made to the contents of haq writes “my posts [I have so far not once in any of my posts written anything that can be interpreted as justifying Ghazi sahibs acts], the troll turns this into a cleverly construed tactic to confuse the moderate mindset by overlapping the language footprint so that at a subliminal level the reader begins to experience overlap of ideology shelled in overlapped idiom.”
1. u think too much of your self….if someone uses the same phrases used by you y ur objecting …one shd talk in a manner one understands….u justify ur phrases then if somebody else uses it y ur objecting
secondly u said u do not justify ghazi”read ur post of july 17th…tht emotional post is fully justifying ghazi’s death/actions…if anybody call him a shaheed he justify him
july 11th past haq wrote> “That his method was questionable is a debate that should be laid to rest for he paid with his life for that adopting that method.”
lolzzzz many criminals die during encounters or in jails …so their death cannot justify their actions/intentions…..
haram k paisay sai zakat bhi jaiz nahi….if his methods were wrong which were wrong whatever he was trying to do is meaningless…..jaiz kam jaiz tareqay sai hi hilal hota hai.
y u explained to us the meaning of different words used by you…nobody asked you.. but then y u say “Nowhere in my 4 point outline do I mention that I was going to give “answers of difficult questions from those who have different opinion on this matter….. well i can give haq’s answer to Adnan ” he cannot justify ghazi’s actions coz he does not hv answers rather he himself believes he did wrong but since he is anti army iss liyay ghazi sahib k tamam gunnah maaf…..he is dead so he is a legend”
the way mr haq is TROLLING about deen e ghazi is amazing…he avoids the point , changes the topic and kills musharraf’s mother in one go….his justification for supporting a criminal/crime iz always unique..i.e he TROLLS about land grabbing(july 17 post) by the army to justify deen i ghazi…he convienently forgets tht in some of the cases govt depts incl the army hv already been dragged in court e.g, dha muree etc….it is the same as justyfying the occupation of palestine with the occupation of kashmir. yeh kashmir bhi tou qabzay mai hai palestine ho gia tou kia hua
but i must admire this MINION of ghazi who admits in his posts tht jamia hafza was illegal n tht its students were MISCREANTS.
my posts r not designed to incite u…as u hv no answers to our questions u get hyper.
“Small mind discusses people, Average mind discusses events, Great mind discusses ideas.
then put urself in small minded group of ppl….coz u discuss president…for every illegal action of ghazi will justify him by pinpointing president’s actions…
ghazi on the day of judgement wont be left out just coz musharraf has done some thing in his tenure as well…
n mind you i openly confess musharraf’s wrong actions/blunders…neither im his follower but with ghazi issue i support him.
[>>> Posted by ayesha on Aug 8: my sister lives in G 6 she prays 5 times a day n observes pardahhowever she has to drive a car coz of comupulsionsshe was attacked by the burqa brigade on the covered market road causing broken wind screen to her mehran n injuries to her face.]
Analysis of the troll: There are three components to the incident cited:
(1)To whom it happened, including their gender and character. (2) How it happened. (3) Who caused the incident. (4) Outcome of the incident.
These components have been tactically aligned to conjure up a certain image in the mind of the reader. The person in focus is a woman who according to the narrative suffers a trauma the classic dame in distress. Immediately the reader softens towards the narration, because women are considered physically weak and vulnerable. Any untoward incident happening to them immediately causes sympathies to gravitate towards them irrespective of the nature of the incident. Then comes the descriptor that associates a certain kind of character to the woman in distress. She is described as someone who says ALL her obligatory prayers and observes the obligatory purdah. So here we have a woman, who is religious for all intents and purposes and is thus completely on par with those claiming the higher moral ground [students of Jamia Hafza] who are the source of her distress. The descriptor of her character fails also not to mention that she drives but ONLY because she HAS TO, putting her even higher on the pedestal of propriety from the perspective of the villains causing her distress. The circumstances in which this “incident is cited to have happened makes it appear that it happened in isolation that baton bearing students of Jamia Hafza, waiting specifically for that purpose ambushed her. The outcome of the incident is cited as being devastating for her both financially and bodily.
And so based on this citing, what the reader essentially reads in and between the lines is that a God-fearing, purdah-clad woman who is driving a car because of obligatory “compulsions becomes victim of a preplanned attacked by fanatic baton-bearing students of a religious institute the ferocity of whose violence is intense enough to incur her severe financial loss besides making her suffer injuries to her face which in case of a woman is even more devastating.
Run that script in your mind at a real-life pace and suddenly you feel great sympathy for the woman and very angry at her aggressors. This serves well the purpose of this draft.
If for arguments sake one is to assume that this post is not a troll, there are too many things cited that just dont add up:
An attack of this nature comes under the category of a “homicidal attack, aimed at causing deliberate damage to property and life. It is a criminal offense that is punishable by law. Injuries caused by such an attack are generally not treated unless under supervision of a Medico-legal Officer (MLO) at the emergency room of a hospital. And the moment an MLO steps in to supervise, a series of events gets set into motion highlighted by the MLOs reporting of the incident to a law enforcing agency, and crime reporters (who have hospitals and police stations assigned to them by their publication or TV channel as “beats or areas of news coverage) finding out about the incident.
So if this incident was as violent as it has been cited, an FIR should have been registered against those who caused it and it should have appeared by default on TV and/or in the papers without the need for having it brought to their attention. Remember this was not an ordinary street crime that happened on an ordinary day and in ordinary circumstances. We are talking about a violent crime having been committed during a time when womens rights activists, electronic and print media and the police were extraordinarily attuned to every little move of the students of Jamia Hafza whose every little move was being reported as transgression. And here we have a woman suffering at their hands so badly and no one finds out about it.
In related posts something even more remarkable comes up. In her Aug 9 post, “ayesha puts forward a tongue-in-cheek reason for the incident having not been reported anywhere in the media because there were no reporters or journalists around. [>>> Posted by ayesha on Aug 9: for your kind information haq sahib things come in news papers if they are reported to them..my sis is not a vip tht a reporter follws her whereever she is going n if something happens to her its reported on media]
Interestingly enough in her Aug 6 post “ayesha had claimed that her sister was a journalist. [>>> Posted by ayesha on Aug 6: my sister is a journalist n i went with her to mr ghazis graven have visited jamia hafza many times after the operation]
Okay so her sister is a journalist. Mind boggling! I am not entirely sure if this journalist sister is the same who suffered the violent crime according to the script or if she is the “third sister in the spin. Whats even more important is that her sister is a journalist of such high a caliber that she has been granted access to Jamia Hafza after the operation, not once but “many times. This is the same Jamia Hafza where some of the top journalists from Pakistan and abroad were given a short guided tour ONLY ONCE after which the Jamia was completely sealed for civilian access, having been opened briefly for Jumma prayers ONCE and then shut down again indefinitely. I am sure Talat Hussain at Aaj TV would be very envious to read this.
But then again being such important a journalist, “ayeshas sister did not report the violent crime she suffered to any of the newspapers or TV channels. But then again “Ayesha claims in her post that her “sis is not a vip tht a reporter follws her whereever she is going. But isnt she described in the script as a very influential journalist herself? Or are we talking about a fourth sister in the script? Like I said mind boggling!
Now here is a most influential journalist who suffered a violent crime at the hands of fanatic students of a religious institute. Or perhaps the sister of a most influential journalist who suffered that crime. Not only that either of the two did not seek professional medical attention for a violent attack against their person, they also did not report the incident to the police. But what they DID DO was to drive all the way from Islamabad to Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Shaheeds grave at the Madrassah Abdullah in the dust-bowl village of Basti Abdullah near Rojhan Mazari in District Rajanpur near the inter-provincial borders of Balochistan, Sindh and Punjabto smell Ghazi Abdul Rasheeds grave for ascertaining if it indeed smelled sweet as claimed by his surviving compatriots.
I rest my case!
haq thanks 4 ur admission tht the jamia hifza miscreants did try 2 impose their BRAND of sharia forcebly.now by ur lucid explaination on different words n their meanings i hv learnt tht ghazi rasheed can be labelled as MISCREANT , RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST,MINION 2 FOREIGN POWERS WITH DEVIOUS DESIGNS AND OFCOURSE A CRIMINAL.
his brand of sharia by ur definition can be defined as " deen i ghazi" his followers including you r "ghazites" or minions…u label him as a shaheed 4 the following services rendered to islam
Illegal encroachment on a government land,
Illegal occupation of a childrens library,
Kidnapping and illegal confinement of women,
attack on businesses and forcing them to shut down,
Kidnapping of policemen,
Setting up parallel courts within a state against the laws of that state,
Kidnapping and illegal confinement of foreigners,
Snatching arms and equipments from security personnel,
Firing and killing security personnel,
damaging and burning, public and private property,
Keeping arms and ammunition in a mosque for no apparent reason,
not laying arms on the request of authorities and firing at security personnel during the leniency period of 5 full days,
keeping some of the people in Mosque without their consent and endangering their lives (also many of them got killed during the operation).
by this definition almost all the prisoners in various jails shd qualify for shihadat…rather anyone committing any crime in the name of islam i.e killing, robbing harrassing etc shd now b declared national heroes as their intentions were good….mayb
so lets c u praising the pesh imam from mandi bahuddin recently caught sexually harrassing his student or the hafiz sahib who was brought on alim on line …mayb u would also praise the killers of hazrat usman n hazrat umar next coz they were also performing religious duties.morality law n ethics do not bother u at all.
the word paki is used as a racial abuse in the western world…sikhs used to call muslims mussla …by ur definition these wud be just words not abuses just labels…..the word troll is deregatory in nature n however u use it its meaning is negative as intended by u.
[>>> nauman: y u explained to us the meaning of different words used by younobody asked you…]
Trolls rarely bother themselves with the contents of posts since their aim is not to contribute to the issue under discussion but to inflame and incite those discussing. They skim and scan posts and target the most coherent post they can find with their provoking statements laden with phoneticons [lolzzz] to psyche out the opponent by mocking and ridiculing his ideology.
The above post is a case in point. In a previous post I had already mentioned in detail my reasons for analyzing posts by trolls on this blog in depth. I quote “We need to remember that blogs are read by more people than those who comment on them. There is a great majority of people within my own social circle who read what is being posted here. The points that I am trying to make in analyzing trolls are for their benefit, which is why I mostly address my post in the third person [“This troll is attempting]. Convincing anyone here is not my agenda as I keep reiterating and neither am I here to convince anyone with regards to the issue at hand.
But since the troll didnt bother reading the post, he put up a question that had already been answered.
[>>> nauman: the way mr haq is TROLLING about deen e ghazi is amazinghe avoids the point , changes the topic and kills musharrafs mother in one go.his justification for supporting a criminal/crime iz always unique..i.e he TROLLS about land grabbing(july 17 post) by the army to justify deen i ghazihe convienently forgets tht in some of the cases govt depts incl the army hv already been dragged in court e.g, dha muree etc.it is the same as justyfying the occupation of palestine with the occupation of kashmir. yeh kashmir bhi tou qabzay mai hai palestine ho gia tou kia hua]
The troll in this post is simultaneously using 3 tactics I have already listed above… (1) “Mimicking in which a troll copycats the opponent [he has acquired my lexicon he wasnt using before] to overlap the opponents idiom in order to perplex readers about the latters ideology and (2) “lumping in which trolls “extract or “pull out from posts of the opponent randomly and bracket the extracts together to make him sound confused.
That he/she has nothing original to contribute towards the issue of a board is the trademark of a troll who “mimics and “lumps, his aim being only to incite and flare up controversy. To sound insightful he latches on to another troll, picks up from posts to agree with him, [>>> nauman: well i can give haqs answer to Adnan he cannot justify ghazis actions] sides with him/her and using the assumed advantage of “camaraderie continues with the trolling.
Once a troll has been identified, and thoroughly exposed, particularly one who laces his language with profanity the best way to deal with him is to ignore him.
well mr haq if my sister or me observes pardah it shdnt surprise you …many females do in pak….i never said she or me r the only ones…..i do not understand tht aside frm the criminals in jamia u seem 2 believe no one……n female attack is not once…aunty shamin, chinese girls they all were females…..n i never mentioned in my post tht my sister head was covered @ the time of incident…..i said tht she prays 5 times n observe parda ( just to tell she is a muslim as well)……as far as my sis is concerned i will not lie she does not regularly covers her head …she may or may not b covering her head at tht time….possibility is she might be……….n … well when she got the injuries they were scratches n minor injuries which does not require hospitalization…..
my sis did not go alone to his village…her colleagues also went with her n yes i wanted to go so she took me along
n i said i hv been to jamia hiza many times after the op…i never said tht i went inside the mosque/or jamia hifza….tht place is blocked but its nearabouts r open
my point was if there was fragrance it can be smell on the roads etc …but i never got tht smell….n secondly y dint u quuestion ppl tht wen tht mosque is closed how did they smell???
i still go to tht side n i still cant smell anything….i never said she was badly hurt…yes the car screen was smashed …..it does not matter she was badly hurt or not…the question uis y she was attacked
n as far ur question tht my sister being the journalist y wasnt it reported…..yes ur rite the journalist wasnt attacked….we r 6 sisters….the one attacked is the eldest n journalist is my 3rd sis frm top…..’my sis wanted to put it in her paper but my father dint permit her to do…coz in tht case the editor would like to hv complete interview n then several ppl frm media could hv approached us…..my father might b wrong but he said they r dangerous ppl n i do not want this matter in public so tht they might not hurt us as my sis happens to b resident of g6…..at tht time they were in full swing…kidnapping policemen chinese …n my father thought by reporting it might get worse”….yes the journalist sis was very angry n argued with my father but he did not agree…..my father says our private matters shd not b in papers just coz our sis is a journalist…in a same way wen my elder two sis got married she again wanted to send the wedding pics to her paper n again my father dint agree…..
we never told abt this before the operation….even to our friends n in college…ab kabhi lal masjid ka zikr kisi family gathering mai ho tou bata detay hain k my sis was a victim 2 coz now its over….
well haq u can still disagree with me but thats how my father is…it was his decision right or wrong wat ever the case…….
n every crime do u think in pak is on media???????????????
the thing which is not reported according to u does not exist…….
mr haq i never knew tht ur a phd in trollism n watever u think it means ur post indicates ur ideology fully i.e deen e ghazi n u being a minion of tht miscreant r fully supportive of all the crimes he stood for….
thanks for defining some terminologies of ur trade …i will keep on using as they fit u perfectly…ur a master of avoiding the basic subject n wen u dont hv a supportive arguement u start personal attacks…i know its almost impossible to argue with an ignorant minion of a criminal msque imam
i fail to understand y u post comments if u dont want to convince anybody…if ur aim iz just to spread nifaq amongst muslim n incite ppl to violance/criminal activities then i believe the sharia u bel in cannot b islam.
as far as as ur continual attacks on trollism haha…u make me sound like cia/isi/alqaida etc rolled into one.
im n ordinary citizen of isb …mind u this concept of trollism is a find for me…thanks for the introduction…however as others of ur kind u seem to b in a superiority complex….ur posts r not analytical …they r just spins of the most negative kind on issues at hand
u hv still not answered or if u hv answered paste me again i might hv missed it the plausibilty n legality of ghazi’s crimes…plz do not confuse it with musharraf’s or any other person follies….coz political huha is not my agenda…i wud like to understand ur ideology i.e y u support criminal acts…n secondly u said [>>> nauman: well i can give haqs answer to Adnan he cannot justify ghazis actions] sides with him/her and using the assumed advantage of “camaraderie continues with the trolling. …..then y ur constantly poking ur nose with ayesha’s posts….wen she mentioned abt her sis she wasnt answering it to u it was to some other fellow who invited her at ghazi’s grave but wat can u say ur approach is im the best…..
nobody copies u lekin its said” insaan ko uski apni hi zaban mai samjh ata hai jo woh bolta hai”
the way u described the metaphorical murder of ayla musharraf was down right vicious n mean….u mentioned once tht dead ppl shd b respected…i expect tht u respect those living as well…dont make us believe tht it is all hate n animosity in ur mind
“Trolls rarely bother themselves with the contents of posts since their aim is not to contribute to the issue under discussion but to inflame and incite those discussing. They skim and scan posts and target the most coherent post they can find with their provoking statements laden with phoneticons [lolzzz] to psyche out the opponent by mocking and ridiculing his ideology. ”
i believe ur telling us ur tactics of reacting to any decent post…..
i m sure ur doctorate in trollgy wud not let anybody escape as its ur fav way to start any post…..i.e the “the troll strikes back”
I dont whether my comment are gona read after the so many comments but i will write upon few lines written in the article
“Army personnels ka koi bhi deen mazhab nahin hota un k liyae sirf orders hotae hayen jo unko poorae karnae hotae hayen agar kisi ka koi deen mazhab hota hai tow woh Islamic(religious) force kehlati hai Pakistan Army nahin kehlati, is liyae Pak Army k jawan ko Jahanumi kehna bohat he galat hoga”
Rights of the Left
Reading posts of liberals and liberal extremists on this and other such blogs, I cannot help but notice how vehemently they all defend their right to live their lives according to the dictates of the liberal value system they follow. Even out there in the real world, their representatives go hoarse defending a way of life not even a moderate can advocate let alone a conservative. But then, to live life the way the liberals and liberal extremists want is their God-given right, in my opinion, one that no one has the right to take away from them though the freedom of a liberal to swing his arms ends where the nose of a moderate or conservative begins. However, I also notice to what extent they are willing to go to protect their right…advocating wholeheartedly massacre of thousands who posed [or pose still] a threat to their liberal values. But when the conservative extremists [the militants of Lal Masjid] raised batons and arms to protect their what they though was their right, liberals and the extremists in their ranks labeled them terrorists. A paradox indeed.
[>>>nauman but i must admire this MINION of ghazi who admits in his posts tht jamia hafza was illegal n tht its students were MISCREANTS.]
Troll Analysis: The troll continues to makes use of “mimicking [using my lexicon: Minion and Miscreant] and “false association [I none of my posts so far have I commented on the legality of any of the physical structures in the way mention] this troll continues to create a verbal pandemonium on this board to muddle issues.
[>>> HASSAN: “Army personnels ka koi bhi deen mazhab nahin hota un k liyae sirf orders hotae hayen jo unko poorae karnae hotae hayen agar kisi ka koi deen mazhab hota hai tow woh Islamic(religious) force kehlati hai Pakistan Army nahin kehlati…]
Valid argument.
[>>> Posted by haq on Aug 8: The fact of the matter is that students of Jamia Hafza never tried to forcibly impose purdah on any unveiled woman.]
[>>> Posted by nauman on Aug 8:students of jamia hifza never forcebly tried to enforce sharia hahahawho abducted mrs shamim? n chinese n policemen? aliens or cia.]
[>>> Posted by haq on Aug 9: (nauman>>> students of jamia hifza never forcebly tried to enforce sharia hahahawho abducted mrs shamim? n chinese n policemen? aliens or cia)
Another example of misconstruing one of posts by a liberal troll. I never EVER said that students of Jamia Hafza “never forcibly tried to enforce Shariah. What I wrote was, and I quote: “The fact of the matter is that students of Jamia Hafza never tried to forcibly impose purdah on any unveiled woman.]
[>>> Posted by Nauman on Aug 9: haq thanks 4 ur admission tht the jamia hifza miscreants did try 2 impose their BRAND of sharia forcebly.]
Troll Analysis: That trolls aim only to incite is evident from the above sequence of posts.
On 8 August I posted that “students of Jamia Hafza never tried to forcibly impose purdah on any unveiled woman. On the same day in trolling to my post this troll queried the credibility of my post utilizing the “false association method attributing falsely to me his own version of the statement, “…students of jamia hifza never forcebly tried to enforce sharia hahaha On 9 august I pointed out the troll making it clear that I had never used the words attributed to me. But continuing his troll, he thanked me for my supposed “admiison that jamia hifza miscreants did try 2 impose their BRAND of sharia forcebly.
This is a typical pattern of trolling hallmarked by “false association followed by “denial dissent followed closely by “defiance dissent.
[>>> Posted by nauman on Aug 8: u r mentally sick n weirdo.on one side u talk about rasikh ul aqeeda muslims n shariat etc n on the other hand u slander females with gustothe word troll is slang for a woman with lose characteryou being a sharia loving man r projecting ur brand of sharia as tht of a women slanderer.]
[>>> Posted by haq on Aug 8: In the context I have used the word troll throughout my posts is defined by wikipedia as “ An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll]
[>>> Posted by Nauman on Aug 9: y u explained to us the meaning of different words used by younobody asked you.]
Troll Analysis: Textbook example of trolling following the pattern of “false association followed by “denial dissent.
Troll Aim: To make me sound like a person who insults women, thus diminishing the value of my posts. The troll was successful in his attempt since a subsequent post by another writer rejected my posts, blaming me for using “vulgar language. The reader automatically got fixated on the abuse without realizing that the issue forming bases of the lambasting had been rigged by the troll.
Troll Method:
(1) What the troll did in this case was to falsely attribute a derogatory meaning to one of the words I had used in my posts. The word “troll as I had used throughout, and had explained right at the start why I was using it, had an entirely different connotation than the one attributed to me. Using that false association as base, the troll abused me, calling me sick, weirdo and a frustrated person, one “who should not be allowed near women.
(2) When subsequently I explained the meaning of the term as I had used it, the troll fell back into the typical “denial dissent, in which he lambasted me for explaining the meaning of terms that no one in his opinion had asked me to do.
The pattern of troll is thus this:
Troll: You are a bad person because you used bad language -> Genuine Post: I am not a bad person because the word I used means something else -> Troll: Why are u defining the meaning of the words no one asked you to define.
So with a troll its always a loose-loose situation. It should be remembered that its impossible to convince a troll on any subject since his aim is only to incite and everything you say he will convolute no matter how you explain yourself. The best way to deal with a troll is to just expose his trolling method but not get involved in a confrontation with him because trolls are inclined to use foul and filthy language.
[>>> ayesha:my sis wanted to put it in her paper but my father dint permit her to docoz in tht case the editor would like to hv complete interview n then several ppl frm media could hv approached us..my father might b wrong but he said they r dangerous ppl n i do not want this matter in public so tht they might not hurt us.]
Troll Analysis: First it was said that one of the members of the family was a journalist. Then it was described how another member of the family suffered a violent crime. As to why the crime did not come to the medias attention it was said the member of the family wasnt a VIP whod be trailed by reporters at all hours. When it was pointed out that another member of eh family was part of the press cadre, it was said that the father did not permit the journalist member of the family to report the incident to the media.
The protective father is a new element introduced into the picture. If one is to accept as valid argument of him being a protective patriarch who did not permit his daughters to report a crime to the authorities because “the dangerous people involved might “hurt them, how does one explain his protective guard coming down to the point where soon after the untoward incident of the violent attack on one of his daughters, he permits them to undertake a very long and totally unnecessary journey to the far-flung tribal area comprising a dust-bowl village in the outskirts of Rojhan Mazari, right into the heartland of those “dangerous people?
Common sense dictates that when a person has been victim of a violent crime, the “post traumatic shock numbs the mind to the point where being exposed to any element similar to those comprising the crime can trigger an emotional response similar to the one experienced during the crime. That is why a victim of mugging on the street fears and avoids walking down the street for a considerable period subsequent to the mugging. Similarly a victim of burglary suffers sleepless nights in the period subsequent to the burglary, many such victims opting to move house if finances permit. But in the case cited against what is called the “burqa brigade, the victim and/or her sibling/s who had been initially portrayed as having suffered severe emotional trauma opted to venture deep into the heartland of those to whom the crime had been attributed. It just doesn’t add up.
[>>> HASSAN: “Army personnels ka koi bhi deen mazhab nahin hota un k liyae sirf orders hotae hayen jo unko poorae karnae hotae hayen agar kisi ka koi deen mazhab hota hai tow woh Islamic(religious) force kehlati hai Pakistan Army nahin kehlati]
Valid argument.
Now mr haq is not at all offended on this statement rather he is convinced….
N in every organization one has to listen to his boss…its nothing unusual…..i never in my post ever mentioned tht ghazi was not a muslim…..but this so called religious scholar. Anaylist( mr haq) hv a licence to question about anyone’s religion……i hv many times indicated in my post tht mr haq’s only prob is tht he is anti musharraf thtsy he is against the whole army….shame on you!!!!!!!!
“Using that false association as base, the troll abused me, calling me sick, weirdo and a frustrated person, one “who should not be allowed near women.
Wen u can imagine president’s musharraf MOTHER’S death it makes u sick,weirdo n everything tht can b named to a ppl with sick mentality like u….
Forget everything rahim n i asked you about ur ideology or legality of ghazi’s actions…..no body asked u presidents mistakes but u did tell us so wen several time ppl asking u y u dont answer this question…..
Wen u question ayesha abt her sis incident ……. N u call my or ordinary pakistani post as inciting u,,,, or lacking objectivity but watever ur any supporter like hassan says thts a valid arguement in ur opinion…….it is just like if i say ghazi aur uskay manay walon ka koi deen nahi……….very constructiver, useful n valid arguement…………..
1. Anything ppl will say in favour of jamia hifza or against army,,,mr haq wud be very convincing….
2. He had an objection how miss ayesha went to jamia after op wen it wasnt allowed but on the other hand he never raised a question to ppl who were talkin abt the fragrance in tht compound…how did they smell?
3.mr haq thinks too much of self n hv some kind of superiority complex read this ….Mimicking in which a troll copycats the opponent
4. Always ignores the real questions put to him
“also notice to what extent they are willing to go to protect their rightAdvocating wholeheartedly massacre of thousands who posed [or pose still] a threat to their liberal values.”
Masscare of these ppl is ghazi’s fault……wen mr aziz n his wifecan come out who stopped the remaining inside…..n army wasnt protecting their libral values…they were evacuating the mosque which was illegally used for criminal activities…..ghazi aim n purpose wasnt implementation of sharia….y mr ghazi n his fellows kidnapped the chinese frm f 8…y the two ppl frm mma were left …..i hv said earlier in my post JAIZ KAM JAIZ TAREEQAY SAI HI JAIZ HOTA HAI…..HARAM K PAISAY KI ZAKAT BHI JAIZ NAHI……..intentions ghazi sahib ki allah janta hai…we hv his actions in front of us jo k islamic nahi hain…….
Mr haq would always in his post pinpoint the issues which r irrelevant….so far , despite of repeated request he is unable to tell us the legality of ghazi’s actions…he cannot but since against him was army mr haq would make him a shaheed…..
July 11th past haq wrote> “That his method was questionable is a debate that should be laid to rest for he paid with his life for that adopting that method…lolzzzzzzzzzzzzz he himself is convinced abt his method
My aug 9th post “so lets c u praising the pesh imam from mandi bahuddin recently caught sexually harrassing his student or the hafiz sahib who was brought on alim on line Mayb u would also praise the killers of hazrat usman n hazrat umar next coz they were also performing religious duties.morality law n ethics do not bother u at all.”
MY AUG 9TH POST”by this definition almost all the prisoners in various jails shd qualify for shihadatRather anyone committing any crime in the name of islam i.e killing, robbing harrassing etc shd now b declared national heroes as their intentions were good.mayb
MY 9TH JULY POST” hv still not answered or if u hv answered paste me again i might hv missed it the plausibilty n legality of ghazis crimesPlz do not confuse it with musharrafs or any other person follies.coz political huha is not my agenda”
He hasnt responded to ny part of the postings above…..he has no aim to convince anybody…he is just here to analyize the post as he thinks he is the best judge….
Now look again his recent post of july 10th for ayesha
Haq wrote on aug 9th”, [>>> nauman: well i can give haqs answer to Adnan he cannot justify ghazis actions] Sides with him/her and using the assumed advantage of “camaraderie continues with the trolling”
Now wat u r doing with ayesha…about her sis incident she did not inform u or replied ur post…..y u constantly bragging abt her sister….
Aug 9th haq wrote”Trolls rarely bother themselves with the contents of posts since their aim is not to contribute to the issue under discussion but to inflame and incite those discussing”
Watch out urself wat ur doing!!!!!!!!
AUG 8TH HAQ POST “trolling [deliberately posting false information in order to bait naive users, who believe in an ideology passionately but are not eloquent enough to word their argument, into responding so that they can tear apart their ineloquence with their cold logic making it sound that they have won the argument] ”
Every body addresses u by calling haq or haq sahib n u use the word troll …by ur def the meaning of troll is written above…..
HAQ ON AUG 9TH SAID “Nowhere in my 4 point outline do I mention that I was going to give answers of difficult questions from those who have different opinion on this matter.
Now y ur constantly pulling ayesha’s leg…she has given u the answers to ur question n if u believe she is lying or its a fabricated story leave it …..as she never directly replied to ur mail……..
u think ur a genious….ur constantly throwing questions on her…u first tell abt ghazi sahib’s actions ….as ur 17th july emotional mail carries lots of respect towards his actions……
b realistic n to the point this time!!!!!
haq) yes wen me n my sis went to cover his funeral in his village it was my sis “official duty”…she wasnt going alone……her crew was along…..
my sis who was attacked never went thru tht way again after the incidenrt…..
i even told u yesterday before the operation we did not inform anybody abt tht coz my father dint want our any family member to b highlighted in media.
we went there after the operation …mind it…..n it wasnt our private trip to tht village…..the soldiers who die during op were loved by their families…they also knew it was dangerous but they were performing their official duties n so was my sister…..
IM NOT TELLING YOU TO BELIEVE MY WORDS….IM JUST ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS N NOTHING ELSE…IF UR NOT CONVINCED I DONT CARE….YOU BETTER PAY YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PPL WHO R ASKING U SOMETHING LIKE NAUMAN SAHIB N ORDINARY PAKI
[>>> nauman: jihad is not ur issue neither is its islamu only want to kill ppl due to ur own mental frustration/sickness
Roll Analysis: This is another example of “false Association. In none of my posts have I advocated what is being attributed to me in words or in connotation.
By haq on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
[>>> nauman: jihad is not ur issue neither is its islamu only want to kill ppl due to ur own mental frustration/sickness
Roll Analysis: This is another example of “false Association. In none of my posts have I advocated what is being attributed to me in words or in connotation.
LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
READ YOUR POST OF 17TH JULY N U WILL GET UR ANSWER..FOR UR EASE I WILL PASTE CUTTINGS FROM THT POST N SOME OTHER POSTS
“t was clear even to a casual observer that he truly believed in what he said and that his charisma made his belief in his struggle very infectious.”(17h july)
“I have for the longest time not been a practicing Musalman in any sense of the word practicing. In particular its been almost a decade that I havent said my prayers. So on the eventful morning of July 10, when at 4:00 am death started to loom large over the ill-fated mosque and madrisah, and I spread the prayer mat and cried buckets in the sajda, I knew Ghazi sahib had passed on his infection to me through the airwaves. I know deep inside that I believed in what he believed. (17th july)
The blood thirsty army dictator wanted to rid himself of Islamaists who were a threat to the soft image of his Pakistan and to his enlightened moderation. The government functionaries, the rubber stamps of the dictator, ran like messenger boys between the mosque and the GHQ trying to negotiate a deal no one really wanted to go through. The ulema fought over the custody of the ruins of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza. Ejaz ul Haq broke into sweat when invited to go into the madrasha he today weeps over. Sherpao, the PPP secular liberalist fought hard to sanction the bloody operation for which he had full support of the MQM. Here, on this forum I see all these people represented. The people have spoken. Operation Silence is long since over. The silence of the shaheed is no less than deafening( 17th july)
And justice will have to be served one day. Justice will be served the day when Musharrafs mother is shot in front of his eyes and he sits there with her grey haired head in his lap, feeling her frail body struggle for breath, feeling the cold of death slide gradually on the woman who had given him life. And when she breaths her last, a grenade is fired on him, its shrapnel slicing through his throat leaving him barely alive to feel every bullet that slices through the body of his beloved daughter Ayla, whose burning corpse he sees turn into ash before death pierce through his uniformed body. That day the shaheed of Lal Masjid and Jamai Hafza would have been avenged. And people like me would have at last found peace. (17th july)
where prostitutes are allowed to run their business under government protection [Aunty Shamim et al] ( 17th july)
MR HAQ U UR GHAZI BROTHERS N THE FOLLOWERS WHO CALL AUNTY SHAMIM A PROSTITUTE OR IN BUSINESS FOR THEM THERE IS AYAT IN QURAN WHICH SAYS U HAVE TO BRING 4 WITNESSES N IF HE CANNOT BRING 4 WITNESSES THEN ITS A TOHMAT AUR TAUHMAT KI SAZA 80 KORAY HAI……….
(AUG 4) I cannot be convinced against my conviction that thousands of rasikh-ul-aqeeda musalman men, women and children were unjustifiably MASSACRED in Operation Silence/Sunrise by the orders of a tyrant
also notice to what extent they are willing to go to protect their rightadvocating wholeheartedly massacre of thousands who posed [or pose still] a threat to their liberal values.(9TH JULY POST)
[>>> ayesha: yes wen me n my sis went to cover his funeral in his village it was my sis “official dutyshe wasnt going alone]
What are the odds of a female Pakistani journalist being sent to cover the funeral of someone labeled a terrorist “killed in one of the biggest Military operations conducted in the country, in a very remote tribal region of Pakistan during a most violently turbulent period in the countrys history? What are the odds?
Female journalists who work as reporters for newspapers in Pakistan are generally, though not as a rule, not given crime “beats so as not to compromise their personal safety. Female journalists themselves do not opt to cover stories that may bring them in line of danger. According to the SDPI Research and News Bulletin, (vol. 11 No. 6 Nov Dec, 2004) “the findings suggest they [female reporters] still avoid reporting on general crime and politics.
There are six English language newspapers published from Islamabad: Daily Mail, The Nation, Pakistan Observer, Pakistan Times, The News and The Statesman. All these papers have a cadre of seasoned male journalists on their payroll. It makes no sense for them to take the totally unnecessary risk of sending a female reporter to cover a story in a remote tribal region where thousands were chanting “Al-jihad, Al-Jihad and the word of retaliatory strikes was making the rounds. It makes lesser sense for the “protective father cited to be the “journalists patriarch to send his daughter marching off to report on the same danger he had earlier prevented her from reporting to ascertain safety of her sibling.
Why I chose for such detailed analysis the post made by the handle ayesha was because it fell within the parameters I had set for myself [and which I had cited in one of my most earliest posts] to seek out and neutralize the propaganda of liberal extremists against the rasikh-ul-aqeeda Musalman men and women 2000+ of whom were butchered by a tyrant.
This particular post offhandedly cited an incident of violence that ALLEGEDLY took place against the person and property of a Pakistani female-driver in Islamabad by what has generally been called the “Burqa Brigade, [the students of Jamia Hafza], by the liberal left wing English press of Pakistan.
It goes without saying that had such a REPREHENSIBLE and CRIMINAL act actually occurred it would have DEFINITELY been reported somewhere in the media for reasons I have cited in an earlier post. The flaws inherent to this citation I have already detailed in an earlier post. The theatrical twists and turns introduced into the story by ayesha in her subsequent posts, have led me to be convinced that the incidence cited is a completely fabricated story aimed at bolstering the smear campaign initiated and propagated by liberal extremists against the rasikh-ul-aqeeda musalman women of Jamia Hafza.
MQM, the organization declared “terrorist by the Canadian Courts, and an ally of the Pervez Musharraf whose rule has been declared “illegitimate by the majority of lawyer fraternity in Pakistan submitted to the Indian news media a fabricated report aimed at maligning the students of Jamia Hafza. “Students of Jamia Hafza had been ordered that if they saw a woman or a female student without a burqa the report said, “they must beat her up with sticks and force her in a confession cell at Jamia Hafza to seek forgiveness, the report said. No proof was offered to validate this fabrication just as nothing concrete has been put forward by “ayesha to validate her accusation.
The goons of MOM on Indian TV and liberal extremists on internet communities in Pakistan are both engaged in the smear campaign against people whom they both see as a threat to their ways of life. Under guise of “moderate enlightenment they are clandestinely carving a more secular and sexually liberal shape for Pakistan for which they malign or annihilate anyone who comes in their way. That is a Sign of the Times.