ضرار

just another Muslim who lives in Pakistan. Old account @Ismael_m128

[غريب @Unknownakh_01]

Ibn al-Jawzi رحمه الله said:

“My son, do not let your past carelessness make you lose hope of achieving good, for many people have come back to wakefulness after long sleep."

[Awakening From the Sleep of Heedlessness pg. 58]

[TADBEER Institute @tadbeer_effect]

The Betrayal: From Own Brethren

In late 2003, eager to strike a deal with the West to lift crippling sanctions and secure regime survival, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya secretly agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program. The public unspooling of this deal was sparked by an interview with Gaddafi’s son and heir-apparent, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who publicly confirmed in Asharq Al-Awsat and Western media that Tripoli was surrendering its nuclear hardware in exchange for US security guarantees and normalized diplomatic relations. As part of this deal, Libya handed over 55,000 pounds of centrifuges, engineering documents, and bomb designs directly to the IAEA and US authorities.

Combined with earlier disclosures made by Iran to the UN nuclear watchdog, both nations accused Dr. A.Q. Khan.

By throwing Islamabad under the bus to save themselves from Western wrath, Tripoli and Tehran redirected intense global scrutiny, diplomatic pressure, and narrative warfare squarely onto Pakistan, allowing Western powers and media outlets to turn a shared regional black-market scandal into a targeted pressure campaign against Pakistan's sovereign nuclear shield.

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@BroHajji The burden of proof rests on the claimant
You don’t just make random accusations and tell the accused to prove otherwise

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@realZalmayMK old, cliched, outdated ideas now rehashed and pieced together in a documentary with bad music. Lazy research, poor investigation, and oblivious to reality.

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@Rabs_AA excellent rebuttal, professor.
Actually bookmarked this to use as case to teach students how to respond

[Rabia Akhtar @Rabs_AA]

If you wanted attention, DW, all you had to do was ask!

In this pathetic documentary, the conclusion came first. Pakistan was then edited to fit it. The method is embarrassingly transparent:
1. Show a radical cleric.
2. Cut to a nuclear facility.
3. Add ominous music.
4. Mention instability.
5. Let insinuation replace evidence.

Pakistan is described as having “illegally developed” nuclear weapons. Illegally under which law? Pakistan was never a party to the NPT and therefore did not violate an NPT obligation by acquiring nuclear weapons. DW may disapprove of the program, but moral disapproval is not a legal argument, Folks.

Notice the asymmetry in language! India developed nuclear weapons. Pakistan “deceived the world.” India’s programme is treated as a strategic fact. Pakistan’s is narrated as criminal cunning. Mashallah!

The documentary briefly mentions 1971, India’s conventional advantage and Pakistan’s loss of faith in external guarantees but refuses to let any of that seriously explain Pakistan’s nuclear choices. Context is included only so it can be ignored.

Then comes the old “Islamists might seize the bomb” trope. No evidence of penetration of nuclear command structures is presented. No demonstrated breach is identified. No serious institutional assessment is offered.

Just militants somewhere in Pakistan and therefore loose nukes.

Even DW’s own interviewees acknowledge centralized command and control, multiple security layers and specialized forces protecting nuclear assets. But every reassuring fact is treated as an inconvenient interruption before the awful soundtrack returns to impending catastrophe.

DW uses AQ Khan's case as a permanent substitute for analysing Pakistan’s present nuclear-security architecture. History becomes guilt without expiry, who knew!

But that's not all! of course, there comes Kashmir, which is handled with similar intellectual laziness. Instead of seriously examining disputed sovereignty, war, repression, failed diplomacy and competing legal claims, Pakistan’s position is reduced to a psychological obsession arising from its Muslim identity.

A retired brigadier making expansive comments about nuclear use is presented as a window into Pakistan’s doctrine.

He is not the National Command Authority.
He is not the Strategic Plans Division.
He is not an official doctrinal document.
But guess what! nuance would spoil the drama.

The documentary also bundles together military businesses, hospitals, gated housing, blasphemy laws, Imran Khan, Afghan refugees, illegal weapons markets and attacks on Christians.

These are serious issues. BUT they are not evidence that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is insecure.

Here's the central fraud: collapsing four separate questions into one.

-Pakistan’s democratic governance.
-Its civil-military imbalance.
-Its internal security challenges.
-Its nuclear command and control.
DW treats them as interchangeable because differentiation would require actual analysis.

The final product is the standard Western Pakistan story:
-Too poor to govern itself.
-Too religious to be trusted.
-Too militarized to be democratic.
-Too unstable to possess nuclear weapons.

Pakistan has serious problems. None of them should be denied or romanticized. But a credible documentary would distinguish between nuclear safety, nuclear security, political stability and democratic governance. It would examine institutions, procedures, doctrine and evidence. It would compare Pakistan with other nuclear powers. It would ask whether the risks it highlights are demonstrated, plausible or merely imagined.

Strip away the ominous soundtrack and all that remains is a tired collection of stereotypes. The only real danger in this documentary is losing sixty minutes you will never get back.

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@BBhuttoZardari @NawazSharifMNS Urdu behtar ho rai hai bro ki

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@moeedahmed Visit a few of its cities and the UK would look a shit hole in comparison

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@moeedahmed China isn’t communist btw

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@theRealYLH Yes resort to guilt by association, since you don’t have anything of substance to say otherwise

[إبن محمد الحنبلي @shezislam]

This statement from ʾIbn al Qayyim really stuck with me, and I want to share it so others may benefit from it too, In Shāʿ Allāh.

al-ʿImām Ibn al-Qayyim (رحمه الله) said :

“When the servant falls into a sin, that harshness and hardness depart from his heart, as does that wrathful mannerism which he used to have towards the one who committed a sin. So much so that, if he had power over him, he would destroy him. He might even supplicate to Allāh against him, asking that He destroy him and seize him, out of anger for Allāh and out of zeal that disobedience shouldn’t be committed.

Thus, he finds no mercy in his heart for the sinful wrongdoers, and he sees them only through the eye of contempt and disdain. He mentions them only with a tongue of disparagement against them, fault-finding, and condemnation.

But when the decrees come upon him, and he is left alone with his own soul, he cries out to Allāh for help and seeks refuge in Him. He writhes before Him with the writhing of one who has been stricken, and he calls upon Him with the supplication of one in dire necessity.

Then that harshness [he had] toward the sinners is transformed into tenderness, and that hardness toward the wrongdoers into mercy and gentleness, while still upholding the limits of Allāh.

His supplication against them is transformed into supplication for them, and he assigns them a portion of his lifetime, asking Allāh to forgive them.

How beneficial this sight is for him! And how tremendous is its benefit and usefulness to him. And Allāh knows best”.

مدارج السالكين (1/425,426)

https://t.co/AuXsT43lWE

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@Marchisiol96205 @Trequarizzta @TaymiFawaid Alright let’s see the Arabic text from the original source

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@Marchisiol96205 @Trequarizzta @TaymiFawaid I accept the authenticity of individual narrations within these books that have gone through rigorous Jarh wa tadeel scrutiny

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@Marchisiol96205 @Trequarizzta @TaymiFawaid Accompany that with the evaluation and criticism of that evidence

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@Marchisiol96205 @Trequarizzta @TaymiFawaid Present your evidence

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@Marchisiol96205 @Trequarizzta @TaymiFawaid It “can” mean =/= definitely means.

the individual in question just swore by the latter

[Борз 🐺 @borzalmm]

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:

“Contemplating the Qur'an while reciting it can be a powerful deterrent against committing sins.”

[Majmū’ ul-Fatāwa, 20/123]

[ضرار @dirar_GPT]

@LindseyGrahamSC Rest in Gehinnom (Jahannum)