I think it should be made clear that those in this thread who are supporting the Taliban have no idea what they have done to people under their control. The people of Swat were literally cheering when the army liberated them from Fazlullah's men. Also it should be made clear that the Taliban are hypocrites. If a woman is dieing, they still don't allow them to see a male doctor for treatment, whereas they allow their own men to shave their beards & run when the army is getting close to them. Hypocrites to the core, they do not represent Islam, only a particularly harsh type of Islam. If you don't understand then you need reeducation.
How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?
- Thread starter Conscientious objector
- Start date
Stop misinterpreting the Qur'an. That might make you feel better.
You have no mind, do you? All you can do is dismiss valid points made by people by claiming they watch "FOX NEWS or PTV". You have no idea how to argue or how to formulate an argument, all you can do is dismiss those with better formulated thoughts. Stop being a pest and give a proper response to posts or bugger off.
waraich66
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
You dont have any answer ? Now taking help of Sher o Sharie
I will not attack on your personality ,you need help because you are spritually sick
It is crystal clear and no muslim can deny it.
There is no better way of implementation of Shariah which was adopted by Muhammad PBUH.
In Quran also, Allah SWT mentioned that most important thing in islam is Dawah , which is the only tool for implementation of islam all over the world .
Kital or Herb is allowed only in the battle field only or when enemy attack on muslim country ,Killing of innocient people in the name of Jehad with suiciodel bombs is totally haram and againt teaching of islam..
Last edited by a moderator:
what sort of English is that? Why don't you learn your masters' language before parroting their propaganda?
Agreed. But u don't understand that methodology. That is why I am asking you for the umpteenth time to bring ONE classical scholar to back ur understanding. Too much to ask? Did you even read this:
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1222
did i claim otherwise. if u were not so thick, i made the same point a few posts back. A serious question: are u a teenager?
might i remind u, u never present any argument, but mere propoganda and unverified facts.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Many are conflicted, they seem not to know where they stand when it comes to freedom of expression :
Reining in the Fourth Estate
.In the national interest
Monday, June 29, 2009
Kamal Siddiqi
The writer is editor reporting, The News
In any democracy, the media serves as the fourth estate. Historically, the first three estates refer to a meeting of the Estates General summoned in May 1789 by Louis XVI to Versailles. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners.
Today these have been replaced by the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. But the fourth estate remains. The term fourth estate comes from political theorist and commentator Edmund Burke.
Looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, some years after the French Revolution, he said, Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.
There are many who claim that the media in Pakistan is free. Barring some restrictions, this may well be true. But in todays Pakistan we are not concerned about the freedom of the press. We are worried that possibly the media has become too powerful.
Pakistans national obsession is the electronic media. In a country where the literacy rate is below 30 percent, this comes as no surprise. We cannot have enough of our talk shows and news programmes. People have planned their daily schedules around some of these programmes. We are bombarded with information. It may be a Goebbels-like strategy to flood people with so much information that they cannot make sense of it. By last count, the strategy seems to be working.
What bothered most Pakistanis when President Musharraf imposed the emergency was the fact that the media channels went of air. There was an element of disbelief and also a sense of frustration. Rumours flew all over the place. In fact, people were scared because there was nothing to see. The media anchors have become the new messiahs.
The breaking-news syndrome is a direct consequence of the plethora of licences issued for TV news channels by the government. In the name of media freedom and a marketplace of ideas and information, we have a mess and a monster.
This has to be put in some context too. The question is not only whether we want so much information. Another question is whether we need so many news channels too. What is surprising is that just like the government promoted the aviation industry at the expense of the railways, television in the country has been promoted at the expense of radio.
Television is an expensive media that needs money to run. And the money can come if we give the people what they want to see. That is why the media runs more towards scandal and overplaying of stories.
In all fairness, responsible journalism cannot come from rules and regulations. It comes from ethics and a sense of fair play. However, given that some of our journalists are regarded by many as blackmailers and opportunists, the possibility of enjoying a fair along with free media is not very bright. But the bad eggs are few and far between.
Coming back to the role of journalists, part of the problem lies with the government. In the past, as is the case in almost all governments in Pakistan, favourites have been promoted and non-conformists have been shunted to the side. This has created a new set of uber-journalists, many of whom are today the stars of the electronic media. Their credentials remain questionable, however.
At the same time, the industry has done little to set standards and introduce media training. There are few journalism schools in the country, most of them under-funded and poorly staffed. Given this, most journalists in the field are untrained raw hands who have learnt on the job. As a consequence, there is a surprising lack of professional knowledge, let alone sense of fair play and ethics.
Of course, to both these are many exceptions. In the past we have had many upright and professional journalists who have fought against dictatorships and also against extremism and corruption. That is why, possibly, the number of journalists killed on duty in Pakistan is painfully high.
We also have a rising stream of professionally qualified journalists that are slowly emerging to take up from where others have left off. The quality and quantity of entrants is improving by and large. But possibly the number is still much lower than what the industry demands.
What has become more worrisome, however, is the role of the media, not of journalists, in recent years. From those sitting on the fence, we have become stakeholders in the issues. In some instances it is deliberate. In others, it is not. And this is where the media needs to look at what it is doing and where it is going.
Our broadcast and print media has to discuss how and what it should cover. After all, we are the gatekeepers of information and also the agenda setters. We decide what the most important news is and what is not. This power comes with responsibility.
There are many who say that the media is wanting in direction. Media persons do not see the bigger picture. Take, for example, the interview of army men held hostage by the Taliban. Or the live coverage of the action taken against the militants occupying Lal Masjid in 2007. No government would have permitted this kind of media coverage at a time when a military operation was being launched. And yet this was done.
The media cannot also be used for cheap attempts at propaganda. We cannot understand whose bright idea it was to interview the Maulvi of the Lal Masjid who was trying to escape in a burqa. It was in poor taste to bring him on air on PTV wearing a burqa.
More worrisome has been the glorification of the Taliban and the militants by the media. Those sympathetic to these forces have time and again used the media to justify their actions and also spread their message. Here, too, the government has remained silent in the past.
We have seen how issues have been twisted. The media has glorified suicide attacks and suicide bombers. If news and current affairs is not enough, we also have the televangelists who create more confusion by trying to pretend to solve problems religious and otherwise.
We are told that the government looks all set to prepare a code of conduct for the electronic media. Is this a move to challenge the freedom of the press or is it a more innocuous attempt at trying to ensure that the media gets its bearings right.
Federal information minister Qamar Zaman Kaira is by and large well meaning. After the sudden departure of Sherry Rehman, he had big shoes to fill. So far he has got along with the media as a facilitator and not as a controller. The question now is what President Zardari expects of him.
The hot potato is the code of conduct framed by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. The government says that this is not being followed. The television channels say that they are following it.
In all this comes the question that most journalists ask. Who will frame the code of ethics? Will it be the government or the journalists themselves, or the media owners? The information minister says he does not want any confrontation with the media. But we all realise there is a problem. The question is, who will bell the cat.
The larger picture remains the role the media has to play to fight for Pakistan. Are we giving the right messages to the people about the fight for the countrys survival? Also, by going for an enforcement of the code of conduct, are we actually controlling the media or facilitating it?
Email: kamal.siddiqi@thenews.com.pk
Reining in the Fourth Estate
.In the national interest
Monday, June 29, 2009
Kamal Siddiqi
The writer is editor reporting, The News
In any democracy, the media serves as the fourth estate. Historically, the first three estates refer to a meeting of the Estates General summoned in May 1789 by Louis XVI to Versailles. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners.
Today these have been replaced by the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. But the fourth estate remains. The term fourth estate comes from political theorist and commentator Edmund Burke.
Looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, some years after the French Revolution, he said, Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.
There are many who claim that the media in Pakistan is free. Barring some restrictions, this may well be true. But in todays Pakistan we are not concerned about the freedom of the press. We are worried that possibly the media has become too powerful.
Pakistans national obsession is the electronic media. In a country where the literacy rate is below 30 percent, this comes as no surprise. We cannot have enough of our talk shows and news programmes. People have planned their daily schedules around some of these programmes. We are bombarded with information. It may be a Goebbels-like strategy to flood people with so much information that they cannot make sense of it. By last count, the strategy seems to be working.
What bothered most Pakistanis when President Musharraf imposed the emergency was the fact that the media channels went of air. There was an element of disbelief and also a sense of frustration. Rumours flew all over the place. In fact, people were scared because there was nothing to see. The media anchors have become the new messiahs.
The breaking-news syndrome is a direct consequence of the plethora of licences issued for TV news channels by the government. In the name of media freedom and a marketplace of ideas and information, we have a mess and a monster.
This has to be put in some context too. The question is not only whether we want so much information. Another question is whether we need so many news channels too. What is surprising is that just like the government promoted the aviation industry at the expense of the railways, television in the country has been promoted at the expense of radio.
Television is an expensive media that needs money to run. And the money can come if we give the people what they want to see. That is why the media runs more towards scandal and overplaying of stories.
In all fairness, responsible journalism cannot come from rules and regulations. It comes from ethics and a sense of fair play. However, given that some of our journalists are regarded by many as blackmailers and opportunists, the possibility of enjoying a fair along with free media is not very bright. But the bad eggs are few and far between.
Coming back to the role of journalists, part of the problem lies with the government. In the past, as is the case in almost all governments in Pakistan, favourites have been promoted and non-conformists have been shunted to the side. This has created a new set of uber-journalists, many of whom are today the stars of the electronic media. Their credentials remain questionable, however.
At the same time, the industry has done little to set standards and introduce media training. There are few journalism schools in the country, most of them under-funded and poorly staffed. Given this, most journalists in the field are untrained raw hands who have learnt on the job. As a consequence, there is a surprising lack of professional knowledge, let alone sense of fair play and ethics.
Of course, to both these are many exceptions. In the past we have had many upright and professional journalists who have fought against dictatorships and also against extremism and corruption. That is why, possibly, the number of journalists killed on duty in Pakistan is painfully high.
We also have a rising stream of professionally qualified journalists that are slowly emerging to take up from where others have left off. The quality and quantity of entrants is improving by and large. But possibly the number is still much lower than what the industry demands.
What has become more worrisome, however, is the role of the media, not of journalists, in recent years. From those sitting on the fence, we have become stakeholders in the issues. In some instances it is deliberate. In others, it is not. And this is where the media needs to look at what it is doing and where it is going.
Our broadcast and print media has to discuss how and what it should cover. After all, we are the gatekeepers of information and also the agenda setters. We decide what the most important news is and what is not. This power comes with responsibility.
There are many who say that the media is wanting in direction. Media persons do not see the bigger picture. Take, for example, the interview of army men held hostage by the Taliban. Or the live coverage of the action taken against the militants occupying Lal Masjid in 2007. No government would have permitted this kind of media coverage at a time when a military operation was being launched. And yet this was done.
The media cannot also be used for cheap attempts at propaganda. We cannot understand whose bright idea it was to interview the Maulvi of the Lal Masjid who was trying to escape in a burqa. It was in poor taste to bring him on air on PTV wearing a burqa.
More worrisome has been the glorification of the Taliban and the militants by the media. Those sympathetic to these forces have time and again used the media to justify their actions and also spread their message. Here, too, the government has remained silent in the past.
We have seen how issues have been twisted. The media has glorified suicide attacks and suicide bombers. If news and current affairs is not enough, we also have the televangelists who create more confusion by trying to pretend to solve problems religious and otherwise.
We are told that the government looks all set to prepare a code of conduct for the electronic media. Is this a move to challenge the freedom of the press or is it a more innocuous attempt at trying to ensure that the media gets its bearings right.
Federal information minister Qamar Zaman Kaira is by and large well meaning. After the sudden departure of Sherry Rehman, he had big shoes to fill. So far he has got along with the media as a facilitator and not as a controller. The question now is what President Zardari expects of him.
The hot potato is the code of conduct framed by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. The government says that this is not being followed. The television channels say that they are following it.
In all this comes the question that most journalists ask. Who will frame the code of ethics? Will it be the government or the journalists themselves, or the media owners? The information minister says he does not want any confrontation with the media. But we all realise there is a problem. The question is, who will bell the cat.
The larger picture remains the role the media has to play to fight for Pakistan. Are we giving the right messages to the people about the fight for the countrys survival? Also, by going for an enforcement of the code of conduct, are we actually controlling the media or facilitating it?
Email: kamal.siddiqi@thenews.com.pk
Half your posts so far just say "stop watching FOX & PTV". How's that an argument? All you do is dismiss other people due to your superiority complex. You fail to see that others can have a mind and opinion too.
actually i have been threatened with a ban for expressing mine. Adios!
Doesn't mean you have to go around dismissing others opinions before actually giving them some thought.
i dont have problems with discussing ur opinions. U can discuss it more freely without any ban threats on the forum in my signature. But, again all u provided was governmental propoganda. If u look at my posts, i raised a number of points (10 to be exact) but none were addressed
waraich66
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Now i can understand by reading your link, your mind set, which is close to wahabism and ghair mukaladeen supporting talaban and Al Qaida activities and raising funds for them.
My brother their methodology is totally wrong ,better keep yourself away from them.What is net result of Al Aqeada Jehad , 1 million dead in iraq ,.7 million in Afghanistan 50 Million displaced and still war is continue ----Stupid war strategy making muslim countries battle ground.
Why dont they go to Palestine , as per their claim they are doing jehad againt zoinists.
Frequent attacks on your elders seniors personality ,show your real face , you should learn to behave or otherwise i can teach you very well.
Your misbehave also show your sick mental status.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kasrkin
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,471
- Reaction score
- 0
We have rules, rules that apply to you and to everyone else. Its not AM you're insulting by legitimizing the terrorists, its your whole nation and creed. We would not tolerate an Indian equating whole institutions of Pakistan with terrorists, anymore than we would you doing so. Follow the rules and make credible arguments, and no one will ban you.
Firstly, i am a muqallid, so eat your words. Secondly, how can u make out that i am a wahhabi/ghair muqallid blah blah when the article has nothing to do with the notion?
i have not supported terrorism as i understand it. I believe PA soldiers by america in their bunkers was terrorism, so is indiscriminate predator bombing. Do u agree?
Similar threads
