The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

@ Rashid wrote:

1- Qadiani-Ahmadis are always busy in efforts to bring Muslims into their version of Islam. They believe like Catholic Christians to “save souls”. Which is only possible for Muslims if they do ba’it of their Qadiani Khalifas and pay multiple types of Chanda (financial contributions). They never let go any such chance. As soon as Muslim gets friendly with them, their next objective is to do ‘tabligh’ …

What’s wrong with that? It is simply Freedom of Speech no matter how much irritating it might be or not protected by the Law of the Land:

The first amendments to the constitutions of United States and India, the European Union Charter of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide that all people have:

* the right to have religious beliefs (or to not have religious beliefs) – (Freedom of Religion);

* the right to form organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as for promoting their cause  – (Freedom of Association); and

* the right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing the others. – (Freedom of Speech).

[wikipedia – Proselytism]

… and report increase in their numbers to their “Hazoor” i.e. Qadiani Khalifa.

If  the above is true, then in my opinion bowing to the human Hazoor or Khalifa is belittling and pigmization of self. If the real-deal Khalifa i.e. Omar Farooq (RA) can be addressed as Ibn-e-Khatab by a woman in a Friday sermon and called to account for a yard of extra cloth, then why cannot these Khalifas be questioned as to why do they enjoy the safety and comfort of London while their parish is slaughtered on the altar of their egos and comforts. Why was Muhammad (PBUH) the last person of his followers to flee to the safety of Medina, yet Khalifa IV-V are amongst the first?

I am sorry to say that by such standards of early Islam the contemporary Khalifas are more of escape artists than Hazoors.

I might be venting and projecting, but I just cannot get rid of the carnage of Lahore from my mind. You can keep questioning, arguing or debating with the Mullahland till the cows come home and still get no apology, but I want this line of questioning to be directed to these Chanda beneficiary Khalifas as well because so much persecution has happened and so much innocent blood has been shed for so long that it will be ignominy not to raise these question. Also one cannot let these beneficiaries hide behind the garb of argument of “Jamaat ka bohat bara imteyhaan” i.e. “Divine Test for the organization.” And if so then such a test is only for the rank and file and not for the Khandan-e-Khilafat. Tell me if I am wrong?

I personally do not have any knowledge of an attack and/or murder of a member of Khandan-e-Khilafat. If it so happened as a targeted violence in the name of someone’s faith, then my condolences.

But, this much I know that the attack on Rabwah train station in 1974 with a crowd of 5000 faithful was also wrong. I have been told that Khandan-e-Khilafat had a significant role in planning and instigation of that event.

At the end of the day, in any religious organization where there is a paid hierarchy and clergy, moral and/or monetary corruption is the name of the game, e.g. Vatican. In such organizations, money inevitably speaks as the people have vested interests to keep their power and pay. Free thought is suppressed and an “inner circle” rules by defining its own moral principles and blind fellowship is expected. Sycophancy is the sole criteria for advancement. How is Rabwa Jamaat different?

In this day and age where there is free flow of information it is clear as daylight that, tragedies like Lahore can be a boon for the Khalifa’s treasury. Haven’t the martyrs’ families paid 10% of their estate to the Khalifa’s account for burial is the heavenly graveyard in Rabwa? Isn’t another breed of Chanda started after the bombing?

In this age of accountability, where are the annual independent audits of the accounts of Rabwa Jamaat? I have been told that such major accounts are only in the name of Khalifa.

Once the book “Man of God” about Khalifa IV was published, without reference to this book, I asked Late Mannan Omar Sahib as to how could one recognize a man of god, irrespective of such person’s religion. He gave a very thoughtful answer. In summary, he said that such a person is from among his people, has a life record of righteousness, and is recognized for his significant achievements before the divine mission is thrust upon him. Usually such a person is of significant means but after start of his divine mission, he is so much dedicated to his divine work that he hardly has time for his personal business. With passage of time, his monetary assets decrease in value where as his moral achievement logarithmically increase in volume. Before his death, his household will be almost on brink of poverty, but he himself would have succeeded in his divine mission. Islamic history is full of such example: Muhammad PBUH, Khulfa-e-Rashideen… Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Nooruddin, Khwaja Kamaluddin, Muhammad Ali, Saddruddin, Saeed Ahmed, to name a few.

Can Khalifas II-V match up?  How is Khilafat different from Vatican or any money generating Evangelical Church?

T. Ijaz writes:

“one of the Promised Messiah’s sons (a Khalifa)….. [was] attacked by knife carrying mullahs”

The murderer was a 12-year-old boy.
He was 7th class student.
He was so much confused, that he kept standing after “stabbing” Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
He used a small pocket knife, which in Pakistan is used to peel orange skin.

Well it is a different thing that he developed complications as result of that minor injuryin his neck. And died of that. (Reference: Ahmadiyyat Renaissance of Islam by Sir Zafarullah Khan).

Please honestly tell us: Given the extremely poor law and order condition in Pakistan, where Qadiani Jamaat friends are already spending days their lives under extreme hostility, danger and surrounded by crocodiles; police is not providing protection; police is not loyal to Qadiani friends; Qadiani’s own Khuddam are unarmed etc. Will current Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad, srounded by his 15 bodyguards ever dare to step out of his house to go and lead prayer in Ghari-Shao mosque (remember this mosque is in midst of extremist mullah population of Lahore)?

If the answer is no, then tell us why he consider lives of his qadiani followers much more cheaper and useless than his own or his immediate family members?

Moreover, read what another courageous Qadiani-Jamaat member wrote, while hiding his true identity on ahmedi.org:

Reply
Quote
ahmediyyagazette AHMADIES, BEWARE.
Posts: 20
06/08/10 17:06:42

In Model Town Lahore where Ahmadi Mosque ( Bait-un-Noor) was attacked, more than Fifty families of Ahmadi Nawabs ( Families of Nawab Mubarika Begum, and that of Nawab Amatul Hafeez Begum both daughters of Hazrat Masih Maud ) live there. Surprisingly none of the members of these families became victims of this attack. Mirza Masroor Ahmed is also related to one of the Nawab family. These so-called Royal family never ever go to the Mosques or attend the jamaati functions. They use their poor and innocent followers to stay in the fore front where as they stay at the back. They leave common Ahmadies like me to get butchered but they themselves reap the fruits of our sacrifices.

Now I will tell you names of only two people. One was killed on incitement of Khalifa 2 in 1937, that is Fakhar Ud Din Multani Shaheed (as said by English Judge of Lahore High Court in his decision). And other was Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, whom Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad tried to kill him by putting glass of Sharbat with poison in it (Abdul Mannan Omar sahib personally told me on more than one occasion).

Then there is the episode of murder of Fakhar Ud Din Multani shaheed. Please pay special attention to speeches of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as published in Al-Fazal and judgment of Lahore High Court judge. We can supply these in another post.

In this column, Abbas Athar quotes a letter he has received from the son of Maulana Ghulam Rasul Mehr in which the writer goes on to say that Maulana Abdul Majeed Salik, despite being born in an Ahmadi family, rebelled against Ahmadiyyat and left it and was a Muslim holding correct beliefs (rasikh-ul-`aqidah).

Abdul Majeed Salik lived in Muslim Town, Lahore, and was a neighbour and friend of leading Lahore Ahmadis such as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. (I was born and spent my early childhood in the street where Salik sahib lived, which was later named after him as Salik Street.)

Here is the link to the English translation of the tribute that Salik sahib paid to Maulana Muhammad Ali upon his death, published in Paigham Sulh in December 1951. He wrote in it:

“Maulana Muhammad Ali became a true and staunch Muslim by living in the company of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Not only that, the greatness of the religion of Islam was so impressed upon his mind and heart that he devoted the whole of his life for its propagation.”

So this so-called “rebel” against Ahmadiyyat wrote in 1951 that by living in the company of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Maulana Muhammad Ali became a true and staunch Muslim!

I recommend that our readers read every word of Salik sahib’s full tribute.

But I have more to say! In the same issue of Paigham Sulh containing tributes to Maulana Muhammad Ali, there is one by Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi which ends as follows:

“The Masnawi of Rumi is known as ‘the Quran in the Pahlavi language’. Maulana Abdul Majid Salik, former editor of Inqilab, himself relates that once Maulana Muhammad Ali asked him for a review of his English translation of the Quran and he replied: If the Holy Quran had been revealed in English, it would have been the translation of Muhammad Ali.“

If anyone has any doubt about Salik sahib’s statement as reported by Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, then I can put you in touch with non-Ahmadi Muslims today who will testify that if Maulana Vidyarthi wrote it then it must be true.

I alert our blog readers that a false history is being constructed by our opponents to conceal and deny the close connection that many leading Muslims had with the Ahmadiyya Movement and the great approval they expressed about its work.

Generally speaking, it might be that certain people may have been disgusted by the Qadian/Rabwah belief of raising HMGA to prophethood and decalring non-Ahmadis as Muslims and ended up denouncing Ahmadiyat in totality without taking into account the Lahore movement point of view?

Unfortunately the Mullahs of Pakistan rely on constructing false history to garner support for themselves and promote hatred for their opponents.  Growing up in the Zia era, I remember our school text books used to praise the role of the ulema in Pakistan’s creation: later I found out the ulemas were actualy bitterly opposed to Pakistan.  Speaking of text books I just remembered that our Islamic Studies text book (govt. prescribed) had sections which were  almost word by word copies of sections from The Religion of Islam by Maulana Muhammad Ali!

Dear Homo Sapiens, did you not read my contribution above, where I challenged the information quoted by Abbas Athar from some sources? And I showed that a false history was being constructed by concealing that certain famous Muslims were well-disposed towards the Ahmadiyya Movement?

You say: “..and writing emails to him praising him for his truthfulness??”

I have also e-mailed him with the same correction I posted here.

“False history” = opposite of “truthfulness”!

Why are you deviating from the point? You said we were praising him for his truthfulness. I pointed out that I had said (before you ever appeared on this blog) that a false history was being constructed by his sources. And this is equally to the benefit of the Qadiani Jamaat. The famous Muslims I mentioned who were well-disposed towards the Ahmadiyya Movement were also not against Qadianis.

So I accused an anti-Ahmadiyya source (who is in fact writing in opposition of Qadianis) of concealing the truth, and you make the comment that we are concealing the truth.

@ Homo Sapien:
“… saying ‘you got the wrong guy’ ain’t exactly “speaking up”.”

Fact is Lahori-Ahmadis are facing troubles that were already resolved by 1914, in India and later Pakistan, and in the rest of the world since 1974 BECAUSE OF QADIANIS. And you are suggesting we should not even complain and point out the root cause of all these unnecessary problems. Is it a fair demand in your opinion?

@Homo Sapien:
 
Dear, we the LAM members are the WRONGED party. We were unjustly treated first by Qadianis and then by Mullah-Mafia. Allah gives us right to complain and no one can take that right from the victim.

@Rashid
“Allah gives us right to complain and no one can take that right from the victim.”
Just like the Jewish God gave His people the land of Zion/Israel and no human nor any human law can deny them it!
You are perfectly entitled to use this argument, and I am as perfectly entitled to ignore it as a mere subjectivity that I hope and strive will never attain any legal value, ever.
You have been wronged by the state of Pakistan, yes. I would wish for that to be rectified asap, repented and compensated for. But as for your gripe with the Qadianis, I hope and strive that no temporal court shall ever deem such a religious and subjective spat to be any of its business. Therefore, I have no sympathy for the ‘mistaken identity’ argument; because it fails to address the fundamental wrong, of state interfering in matters of religion, and thereby gives it license.

@HS:
“I am sure you will disagree with me, but I am not interested in having a subjective argument about subjectivities. To me, religion is, at its core, in the realm of the subjective.”
 
Dear I’m afraid, we may not share common interests.
 
“Just like the Jewish God gave His people the land of Zion/Israel and no human nor any human law can deny them it!”
 
Yes. Of course, I agree all Jewish people and their descendents should be allowed to live in the land called Canaan (Palestine/ Israel) including their Arab descedents who live in west Bank, Gaza strip, Jordan, Palestinian diasporas, and most of all 40 MILLION PASHTOONS living in NWFP/Afghanistan. Being a pashtoon descendent of Jews, I would like to have an apartment for myself in Down Town Tal Aviv. A Little birdie told me place where my great, great….great grand father as a little Jewish Kid with Yarmulke on his head use to play, has become a very posh area of the town with view to the Mediterranean sea. I would love to have a place of my own in the neighborhood where my ancestors lived.  Can you please help me getting title to my apartment?

@HS

Not sure how you compare right to complain with right to real estate.  

Personally I think that it is factually wrong to think that the Lahori Ahamdis were guilt only by association.  The Muslim declaration in Pakistani forms is quite specific in especially including Lahori Ahmadis and Lahori Ahmadi beliefs in the “Kafir” category.  However most people do not realise that, and hence we like to point it out to make our beliefs distinct from the Qadiani beliefs.  There is nothing wrong with that, and it is not the same as condoning the 1974 actions of the Pakistani state.  As a principle the Lahori Ahamdis are possibly the only Muslims that do not exclude other Muslims with idealogical differances from the fold of Islam.  The Qadianis and most Muslim organisation unfortunately do this; and the 1974 action was an extension of this practice already present in the Pakistani Muslims, including the Qadianis.  This is not saying that the 1974 action was justified, but just mentioning the background that led to it. An important part of that background being the Qadiani and general Muslim practice of calling other Muslims Kafirs.  The fact that the state resorted to this was decidedly wrong, but then the state is ultimately a product of the society that it governs. 

@HS:
“I’m afraid you have forfeited your right to claim a share in the Jewish God’s promise. You would have to re-enter the fold. I am told it is a 5-year process and includes a 12-month residency with a Rabbi.”
 
But earlier you only mentioned: “Just like the Jewish God gave His people the land of Zion/Israel and no human nor any human law can deny them it!”
 
If some one among my ancestors changed his religion, because he got sick of not being permitted to switch on/ off electricity bulb on Sabbath that does not mean I lose the bloodline. If Jews with Yarmulke, on his head, has right to return to promised land than why not his brother who does not wear the skullcap?
 
“To me, the only right to live in the land is determined by birth and/or long residence there, or the same of your parents.”
 
Is it not true that all those European, Turkish, South American, North American, Persian, African, Indian and Arab Jews (outside Palestine) who migrated to Palestine/ Israel in 20th century were not even born there and their ancestors left the Promised Land by their own volition centuries ago?
 
Anyways, I guess, you cannot help me in securing an apartment for myself in down town Tel Aviv based on my ancestors domicile.
 
“The right to legislate shall forever belong to the majority in any land.”
 
If what you are saying is universally accepted just principle then why organization like Amnesty International even exist?

I guess by your statement you endorse 2nd amendment to 1973 constitution.  I wonder what will be your reaction if, God forbid, Danish parliament bans Holy Quran or its few chapters in its country?

Errata:
1. I am not my brother’s keeper, I am not my father’s <i>keeper</i> either. 😉
2. We are not taking of real estate here = talking
3. that the legislature <i>is</i>but only one pillar of the state.
4. But in the new state I might help achieve, I would still stand for the non-negotiable right of the majority to <s>negotiate</s><i>legislate</i>

Mr. Usman Khan (HS) writes:

– “The majority might be wrong at times. May be even criminally wrong, or heinously criminally wrong. That does not change the principle that the right to legislate only belongs to the majority and anything else is tyranny.”

How can the majority be criminally wrong because it is they who define what crime is by their laws to begin with. Who then decides the criminality of the majority? If your principle is to be taken at its face value then the 2nd amendment is legally correct because it was legislated by the majority yet trampled the religious freedom of a minority point of view. And by your logic the British, the minority that ruled India were tyrannical for protecting the rights of any other including the same minority. Now the same Pakistanis yearn for the British rule from whom they fought for independence. And in another twist it is also true that rule by Saddam Hussein was factually tyrannical where a sunni minority ruled and oppressed the majority shias. Same could also be said for the apartheid rule of South Africa. I am not sure, if any of the above is acceptable except the British. Mr. Usman Khan, seems you have been carried away by your own arguments, which are teetering on absurdity.

– “I might disagree with the majority, and depending on the enormity of the disagreement might choose the level and mode of my opposition to the majority’s heinous crime. But I will never oppose its right to legislate” …

…Because you cannot. In case of Ahmadis (Qadianis + Lahoris) it is sheer lack of their numerical strength that gives them no choice but to helplessly disagree with the majority. But numerical weakness does not mean moral and intellectual weakness. Successful example of Muhammad is for the whole (secular) world to see, which by your standards was based on theology alone, because he used Quran as his manual. Similarly the moral and intellectual arguments of Ahmadis that you ridicule as theological are fundamentally weakened by the Qadianis calling everyone else as Kafirs. It is this termite like role of Qadianis that Lahoris are inflamed about when they say:

Dil kay pha-pholay jull uth-aye seenay kay dagh say
Blisters of the soul inflamed afresh by the doubts in the chest

Es ghar koh aag lug ghaey ghar kay chiragh say
Ah! This house burnt down by its own lamp

Be it a secular argument or theological, Qadianis and their Khalifas need to self-reflect, introspect and ponder for bringing the house down (as being discussed to death on a separate thread)

@Ikram
I’m afraid I have no remedy for the art of selective reading. My post of June 18th, 2010 at 9:38 pm : “As for the right of the majority to legislate, you forget – for a start – that the legislature but only one pillar of the state. Be that as it may, we still need voices of conscience like Amnesty International, because just like human individuals are less than perfect, so are human majorities.” Kindly, read (or re-read) the whole of this third paragraph of that post to see that your view of my position is artificial and absurd without an acknowledgement and explaining away of this third paragraph (at least, even ignoring my other posts).
South Africa was a minority ruled ‘democracy’ by the way. I always opposed Musharraf’s lack of legitimacy. He was a usurper – in breach of article 6. But that did not mean that I did not support his saner and positive acts, always reserving my right to oppose his illegitimacy and retaining my stance on that score.
British rule too was not a democracy – (technically) a tyranny, indeed – but a ‘rule of law’ system of governance. To me, that earned it the right not to be opposed through extra-constitutional means, since the British had given us (increasing) political space within their rule of law system of governance, if not actual democratic space. Secondly, there was more than enough real, empirical evidence that progress and reform was possible and had been taking place through constitutional methods… till a certain Mr Gandhi returned from South Africa. I am no Gandhian. Your reference can only apply to Gandhian Pakistanis, e.g the Ahrar, JUI, Khudai Khidmatgars (who usurped the name NAP), or even JI whose annual meeting Gandhi attended even in 1946/7. Kindly note, I am a Jinnah-ist.
Many south Africans emigrated/escaped. Even white South Africans who wanted to right what was horribly wrong about their country but lacked the numerical strength. They agitated and carried out the campaign from outside. They believed in their country and had not written off the majority whites, despite despising their heinous crime against country and humanity. Their efforts paid off. It was only a matter of time that they would. Evil can win a battle but not the war.
I do not support anyone’s right to legislate except the majority’s because I do not believe in taking unscientific risks, for no good reason. I cannot condone ‘might is right’ in any circumstance. On the day of the coup, it is impossible to tell whether the coup maker would turn out to be a Saddam, Zia, or Mustafa Kemal. Hence, I oppose all coup makers (and, therefore) would not allow myself to make one either, no matter how good my intentions and how well I know my own intentions). I’ve already given the example of Musharraf. Had I been a Turk, about a hundred years ago, I would have consistently opposed Kemal’s lack of legitimacy but supported each and every one of his right-minded steps and reforms.
I really should not have to repeat myself, but I have already mentioned about the 2nd Amendment that there is a definite gap of (democratic) legitimacy, though none of (procedural) legality; and I have explained why. Morally it is repugnant to all sense of fairness, civility and humanity. Law is just procedure, no more, no less. In S.Africa’s apartheid regime’s case, the democratic gap was a canyon virtually the size of the country herself. It was a democracy for white S.Africans only. That is no democracy, no majority.
In the end, each one of us tries her best to be as honest as possible to herself. Some fare better than others, at different times. There is legality and then there is legitimacy.. and there most definitely is a more universal morality too. But with para 3 of my post of June 18th, 2010 at 9:38 pm, my post in response to Usman’s and now the above, should reiterate and further clarify my position which I am quite relieved did no worse than teetering on the verge of absurdity despite being subjected to some inexplicably savage selective reading.
“Similarly the moral and intellectual arguments of Ahmadis that you ridicule as theological are fundamentally weakened by the Qadianis calling everyone else as Kafirs.”
Since you have made an accusations, kindly now also produce some evidence. What do you mean by “ridicule”? I suspect – I can sense that I do not have to worry about you failing to correct me if I am wrong – that some people think objective=right and subjective=wrong. Or objective=true and subjective=false. Kindly, do not forget and overlook where I am talking purely of law; and I have done little else on this forum, in terms of my focus. To use an example, there is a relatively recent concept of common law partners in English law, as you know, which puts unmarried couples practically at par with married ones, in terms of their rights in law. The law looks at a variety of objective tests to establish status, but love – the most important factor to most couples – is something the law does not concern itself with at all. The law has no intention of denying, belittling or ridiculing love. Just that such is the nature of law – at least, good law. It is my view that Islam recognises this special nature of law and agrees with and enjoins this differentiation of objective vs subjective when it comes to law.

Mr. Usman Khan (HS)
 
Lets not get distracted by something you might call as subjective and others might perceive as contextual. If the posts are long and fragmented on a given thread and across threads, the contextual may be interpreted as subjective. Also please re-read your writings on this blog and its threads, you will smell “ridicule” in it.

To get back to the topic at hand, unless proven otherwise – the causative role of Qadiani Khalifas for instigating the divide in the society, consolidating their personal power and wealth and then making sure the Khilafat is protected at what ever the cost.

@HS:
“2. Although I have read bits and pieces of Qadiani literature, I have based my substantive view of their relevant stance on their then khalifa’s testimony to J. Munir’s commission. Their khalifa basically said that he considered non-Ahmadi Muslims to be still Muslims but outside the circle of Islam. Personally, I have no issues with that as long as these kind of views form no part of my country’s laws (for the same reason as 1 above).”
 
And you are willing to swallow, if some one says, “lady is half-pregnant”. A physician will never accept it. A lady can be pregnant or not pregnant. And there is no such thing as half-pregnant!
Accepting Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 2 statement in Munir’s commission is tantamount to accepting “half-pregnant lady”.
 
“I don’t know LAM’s view on apostasy either.”
 
LAM view: There is no death penalty for apostasy in Islam. Leave it to Allah to decide. As per Holy Quran decision will be made after this earthly life.
BTW: This issue did come into discussion when LAM representative was testifying in National Assembly in 1974. It was accepted by National Assembly that in Islam there is no such death penalty for apostasy. On request of LAM representative, Speaker Farooq Ali placed it on the record of the assembly. Now only if that record can be made public, it will be of a great help in reforming Pakistani society.
 
Earlier you wondered why people on this forum thought you are some representative of Qadianis, or a Qadiani sympathizer.
 
You may be aware that when Jews attack Islam in some discussion they pretend to a very secular and atheist. They never identify themselves as Jewish. This gives them cover to look impartial. People on this forum had experience of Qadianis who very well know in detail differences between Qadiani Jamaat and LAM. And then they act as “impartial” and make efforts to hide their identity. Based on experience it’s understandable if you have been thought as one of those ‘Qadianis wearing cloak’. 
 

@Rashid
re. half pregnant: to me, being muslim and outside the pale of islam is like being a home sapien but beneath humanity at the same time. it’s BS. But BS that I don’t give a damn about as long as such BS does not become my country’s law. The law can only take care of such BS and not let it create problems by rising totally and completely above such BS.
re. cloak and dagger stories: Had I known that the presumption of innocence rule stands on its head here, I would have walked in on my hands – less chance of being mistaken for a waddle. 🙂

I don’t know if I will be allowed to post after Homo Sapien gets ‘the last word’. So I will comment now on HS odyssey: Much ado about nothing!

@ZA

“sum up”?? repeat an umpteenth time more like J
“He seems to continue saying that we have used inappropriate, hurtful words about the Qadiani Jamaat.”
You ‘forgot’ about the “timing”. Are “we” the author of the last paragraph of the specific article I commented on? Or is one or more of “we” amongst the few members that I came across elsewhere on the internet?
“Yet he also says that hurtful words are of no consequence and he doesn’t “give a damn” about them if they are not enshrined in law. But somehow our words, perceived as hurtful by him, are of great consequence to him!”
“consequence” or concern? Lets move on from that, if we may, to re-peeling the same skin of the same onion then. I don’t give a damn about corrupt politicians, most countries have them, but what gets me really worried and concerned about my country is generals thinking nothing of running roughshod over the Constitution. Any body can be a politician. But generals supposed to have gone through a system that I must be able to rely on for professionalism, almost blindly.
Or, I don’t care as much about crooks and thieves in society. But what I am really concerned about is institutional corruption in the police, or the judiciary.
Or, I am not surprised that we have madmen and cranks in our society. But what spells doom for me is the law losing its mind – the law going insane.
Do I need to quote more examples? These are cases of lesser of two evils kind of relativity. The context is strictly comparative.

It’s nothing other than do’s and don’ts of safe internet use. None of us want to leave out any chances of even more spam arriving in our already inundated inbox. It has to do more with your ISP/Host and how responsible they are with their data than anything thing to do with you. If Rashid asks for it, I can provide it to him.