"Muslims Most Civilized" book exposes Islamophobia

[Manzareh]

Kind of strange that Pakistan and Afghanistan have the same color on Human development INdex map, I tought it would be atleast developed as India....

The HDI countries show a very high correlation with logarithm of GDP per capita, this gives a unfair conclusion to the measurements on human developments for countries with less GDP.

Also, "The Human Development Index has been criticised on a number of grounds, including failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, not paying much attention to development from a global perspective and based on grounds of measurement error of the underlying statistics and formula changes by the UNDP which can lead to severe misclassifications of countries in the categories of being a 'low', 'medium', 'high' or 'very high' human development country.[22] The index has also been criticized as "redundant" and a "reinvention of the wheel", measuring aspects of development that have already been exhaustively studied.[23][24] The index has further been criticised for having an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking year-to-year comparability, and assessing development differently in different groups of countries.[25"

In other words this HDI is not a true reflection on how much each country is developing.

[Badlun]

The HDI countries show a very high correlation with logarithm of GDP per capita, this gives a unfair conclusion to the measurements on human developments for countries with less GDP.

Also, "The Human Development Index has been criticised on a number of grounds, including failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, not paying much attention to development from a global perspective and based on grounds of measurement error of the underlying statistics and formula changes by the UNDP which can lead to severe misclassifications of countries in the categories of being a 'low', 'medium', 'high' or 'very high' human development country.[22] The index has also been criticized as "redundant" and a "reinvention of the wheel", measuring aspects of development that have already been exhaustively studied.[23][24] The index has further been criticised for having an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking year-to-year comparability, and assessing development differently in different groups of countries.[25"

In other words this HDI is not a true reflection on how much each country is developing.

The HDI countries should show a very high correlation with logarithm of GDP per capita, because GDP per capita is a concrete measurement for GDP as well as development. What else you can have for this correlation better than GDP per capita?

Failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, not paying much attention to development from a global perspective are totally unfair grounds for criticism.

Environmental issues are very important but it is some thing abstract nothing to do directly with human development as such. For example an Island country like Maldives will be ecologically very sound but what matters is the human standard of development not its environmental status.

HDI is for each state, each nation then how come you connect it to global perspective? It is totally absurd criticism.

Error of the underlying statistics and formula changes are just , hypothesis, supposition and imagination nothing concrete .

Do you have another better index for UNDP ? Wwhy HDI is so widely accepted in the world and by UN member states. Criticizing it is a lame excuse to shut your eyes to the reality that your HDI is low. Instead you should focus on improving your index not criticizing it.

If measuring aspects of development that have already been exhaustively studied and HDI is reinventing the wheel then what is bad in it. It means HDI is based on the already studied data

Please prove that the HD index has an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking year-to-year comparability, and assessing development differently in different groups of countries. What I know that HDI is issued on annual basis and the unit is each country not group of countries? Group of countries does not make sense to calculate an index meant for a country only.

If HDI is not a true reflection on how much each country is developing then suggest the alternative.

On what other standard Muslim countries have better performance?

Terrorism, illiteracy, poverty, drugs, monarchies, dictatorships, military rule, huge populations, no science and technology, health issues, unemployment, no industries, no value added exports etc may be the indices where Muslim countries will perform better!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Cousin marriages have some risk. Let us agree on it. For some it is an incest because a cousin is like a brother or sister. I know the subject is controversial but I will prefer to avoid cousin marriage than defend it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Nothing controversial about it - rather its just militant secularists banging pots and pans, encouraging fornication and late age child birth (associated with equal rates of congenital deformities). No need to defend it or attack it per those that serve as prophets for militant secularists (gods if their skin is white):

Study Co-author Professor Neil Small, from the University of Bradford, said it would be wrong to use the findings to dissuade blood relatives from marrying"

The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small.

Most states in America have either outlawed or restricted the practice, as has China, Taiwan and both North and South Korea. Professor Spencer, an evolutionary zoologist, said these laws should be repealed, especially in America, where he said they were drafted in a way that discriminated against the rural poor and immigrants: "Neither the scientific nor social assumptions behind such legislation stand up to close scrutiny. Such legislation reflects outmoded prejudices about immigrants and the rural poor and relies on over-simplified views of heredity. There is no scientific grounding for it.""
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...y-1210072.html


So once again, the only controversy remaining is that you have a bias, pertend to understand the science, expunge and hide quotations from the very authors of the studies you claimed supported you - and have been forced into a corner intellectually to admit that this has nothing to do with science or reason but rather everything to do with a baseless assumption that Islam is the root problem and therefore any smell or hint of Islam should and will be stamped out.
---------------------------------------------------------
Following link presents a good discussion on the subject

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/82...y-your-cousin/

To this date, many are blissfully unaware of the complications that a couple can face when marrying within the family. There can be a myriad of genetic aberrations and chromosomal mutations that could result in sometimes fatal congenital anomalies. Children, for example, can be born with a hypoplastic heart, a condition where one side of the heart is severly underdeveloped, agenesis of a kidney, where one or both kidneys fail to develop and many more.


These mutations occur primarily because first cousin couples possess a higher than normal consanguinity; they have, on average an increased chance of sharing genes for recessive traits. A positive association between in-breeding and a very wide range of common adulthood disorders, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, uni/bipolar depression, asthma, gout, peptic ulcer, and osteoporosis has been reported. Therefore it is very important to make known the risks inter-family marriages pose and provide appropriate counselling to people in this relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try, but its a crappy source and its a medical student blog who cites no scientific studies, randomized control trials, retrospective studies, cohort studies etc for her assessment. Read the commentary below her comment where doctors tell her the science behind her assessments is lacking and devoid of citations and not based on the most recent studies.

I far more trust Professor Emeritus of Medicine at University of Washington and Genetics and lead author on a robust study:

Dr. Motulsky said that medical geneticists had known for a long time that there was little or no harm in cousins' marrying and having children."Somehow, this hasn't become general knowledge," Dr. Motulsky said. "Among the public and physicians there's a feeling it's real bad and brings a lot of disease, and there's a lot of social and legal disapproval."

================================================== =

Though I initially chose to concentrate on inheritance of hearing impairment problems, I gradually saw that the number of genetically inherited diseases was the maximum in Muslim population. Due to illiteracy and poverty, these Muslims never went to doctors and kept on producing more kids in the hope of “one” normal kid. There was this one family I met who had 7 kids – 5 with hearing impairment, slurring of speech, and with mild mental retardation and 2 with Down’s Syndrome. It took a lot of effort by social workers to pull this family for counselling and to convince them not to have any more babies. But they still did and produced 2 more kids – both being deaf and dumb.

My sample size was 250 families and an alarming 78% of my sample size were Muslims and most did not go to doctors or practised family planning. It was a real heart breaking scene to see so many of these helpless kids who were born such way and that too for no fault of theirs. My study included their 3 previous generations too, and the risk of genetic diseases increased with every successive generation of consanguineous marriage (cousin marriage). The risk was higher with first cousins but those who married 2nd cousins or distant relatives too were not spared.
Abt 18% of my sample size was Hindus and though they did have some genetic diseases, it wasnt as high as Muslims. And majority of these 18% were south indians. The remaining 4% of my sample size were Christians and Jews.
Just as a note: Hindus are not allowed to marry within their own “Gothra” as people of one Gothra are considered to be blood relatives.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Very poor form here Badlun Saheb. You scooped past all the other comments and selected the one that you think supported your cause. There is no reference given to any study by this author for us to actually read. This is in contrast to your excellent reference to the Lancet study. Once cannot take this comment seriously though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And what ir wrong with Cohort study as a cohort study or panel study is a form of longitudinal study (a type of observational study) used in medicine, social science, actuarial science, business analytics, and ecology. It is an analysis of risk factors and follows a group of people who do not have the disease, and uses correlations to determine the absolute risk of subject contraction. It is one type of clinical study design and should be compared with a cross-sectional study. Cohort studies are largely about the life histories of segments of populations, and the individual people who constitute these segments.

RCT may be better but it is important to note that RCTs may not be suitable in all cases and other methodologies could be much more suitable to investigate the study's objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing is wrong with Cohort studies, rather, its how YOU applied the cohort studies findings. The purpose of Dr. Sheridan and Dr. Small's study was to eliminate the contribution of confounders in the Born in Braford study. They basically did an elegant study that eliminated the contribution of deprivation to these, once again, low rates (per the authors words themselves) of births. I.e. Dr. Sheridan and Dr. Small themselves noted that they demonstrated a high probability of causality (which is the most that a cohort study can do). There is also selection bias in Bradford versus the general population - which is why they chose this group in the first place.

Finally, there is applicability: As noted, in the American context, apart from a Pakistani cohort, the retrospective work done by University of Washington that set the standards and took samples across decades showed slightly lower rates.

At the end of the day, both studies undo your argument, as per the commentary of Drs Sheridan and Small (lead authors on the cohort study) and Dr. Multosky (the Emeritus professor who led the American study).

Once again wrorraka, I change my mind, please continue posting because it provides an excellent case study on militant secularist thought processes.

[Badlun]

Read your own words in red above you the extremist fundamentalist , religious militant, a buffoon, a thick skull that cousin marriage has some risks

The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small.


Just to show your self a hero you even do not declare cousin marriage to be controversial. I have once again lost the whatever respect I had for you because of your stubbornness that just to let me down you are denying well known facts that cousin marriage has some risk and this subject is controversial.

You think by the jugglery of your words you will prove true false and false true. When I give some reference then you reject or that it is cohort or the author is a student or bla bla. The whole world knows that cousin marriages are not good. They have problems that is why except Muslims and few minorities like Mennonites(I have seen many Mennonites in USA, Mexico and Belize) how deformed they are!) no body practice it.

Apart from its risks, a cousin is just like your sister or brother, how come one will have sexual relations with such close relatives. If medical studies prove that there is no harm or less harm in brother to sister or mother to son marriage then will you go for it?

You are not proponent of cousin marriages but for the sake of your suffocated ego you will play with words and will miserably try to prove the other wrong. If tomorrow I will say that there is God and give some references you because of your ill nature and spiteful behavior you will try to prove me wrong by copying pasting 100 references that I am in the wrong and you are the only truth bearer in this world.

Please come down to earth and because of your militant religiosity may not deny at least this small fact that cousin marriages have SOME risk and the subject is controversial. Admit it. Defeat your arrogance and haughtiness. Come one. This will not let you to be a lesser Barakzai or a lesser Abdali!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Read your own words in red above you the extremist fundamentalist , religious militant, a buffoon, a thick skull that cousin marriage has some risks

The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small.


Just to show your self a hero you even do not declare cousin marriage to be controversial. I have once again lost the whatever respect I had for you because of your stubbornness that just to let me down you are denying well known facts that cousin marriage has some risk and this subject is controversial.

You think by the jugglery of your words you will prove true false and false true. When I give some reference then you reject or that it is cohort or the author is a student or bla bla. The whole world knows that cousin marriages are not good. They have problems that is why except Muslims and few minorities like Mennonites(I have seen many Mennonites in USA, Mexico and Belize) how deformed they are!) no body practice it.

Apart from its risks, a cousin is just like your sister or brother, how come one will have sexual relations with such close relatives. If medical studies prove that there is no harm or less harm in brother to sister or mother to son marriage then will you go for it?

You are not proponent of cousin marriages but for the sake of your suffocated ego you will play with words and will miserably try to prove the other wrong. If tomorrow I will say that there is God and give some references you because of your ill nature and spiteful behavior you will try to prove me wrong by copying pasting 100 references that I am in the wrong and you are the only truth bearer in this world.

Please come down to earth and because of your militant religiosity may not deny at least this small fact that cousin marriages have SOME risk and the subject is controversial. Admit it. Defeat your arrogance and haughtiness. Come one. This will not let you to be a lesser Barakzai or a lesser Abdali!

Tssk, tssk Badlun wrorra, this is what led to Najib the Bull getting ahead of himself. He also, like you, was non evidence based in his proclamations and approaches - look where he ended up - hanging from a lamp post by his own people with dollar bills in his orifices.

You are still intellectually unable to grasp what the good professors are saying, I thought that the wahee from your Caucasian gods would have been enough, but it appears that even amongst secularist militants there are sunnis and Shiites.

Look above at what you bolded, in your stubbornness, you ignored the key words.

That's what I am trying to tell you, but you are acting like an intolerant militant secularist buffoon.

My simple comment to you never revolved around whether it increases the rate or not. I gave you three simple quotations where professors who, unlike you, led the very studies you claim you understand (but appear not to) gave their interpretations of their own studies and how this ought to affect law systems.

I also provided you clear and cogent American Medical Guidelines over how doctors, internists, geneticists, and Ob/Gyns deal with the issue based on the evidence from said studies.

This then sent you into a wild rage because your belief system wherein your primary goal remains expunging the Quran ayahs you disagree with and advocating fornication like dogs was challenged - whats more it was not Barakzai Abdali that challenged it, it was your Caucasian gods.

So lets reproduce your ayaahs that you need to re-read:

Ayaah 1:
Most states in America have either outlawed or restricted the practice, as has China, Taiwan and both North and South Korea. Professor Spencer, an evolutionary zoologist, said these laws should be repealed, especially in America, where he said they were drafted in a way that discriminated against the rural poor and immigrants: "Neither the scientific nor social assumptions behind such legislation stand up to close scrutiny. Such legislation reflects outmoded prejudices about immigrants and the rural poor and relies on over-simplified views of heredity. There is no scientific grounding for it.""
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...y-1210072.html

Ayaah 2:
The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small

Ayaah 3:
Co-author Dr. Small writes:
"Study Co-author Professor Neil Small, from the University of Bradford, said it would be wrong to use the findings to dissuade blood relatives from marrying"

Ayaah 4:
Dr. Motulsky said the American laws against cousin marriage should be abolished, because they are based in part on the mistaken belief that the children of such parents will suffer from terrible physical and mental illnesses. "They are ancient laws in terms of thinking it's really bad," he said. "The data show it isn't that bad. There shouldn't be a law that you can't marry your cousin."

So Badlun Saheb, you have the problem here, not me - I asked you a very simple quest, email your emirs, these imams of science and ask them, not me why they oppose your view of how to approach this issue.

**Dr. Moltusky and Dr. Spencer are CRYSTAL CLEAR That law codes that attempt to address this issue are non evidence based. Dr. Moltusky goes on to go further and provided the evidence bases that additional screening beyond that which is done for the general populace not be done unnecessarily by doctors, and Dr. Small and Dr. Sheridan go further and note that there no evidence to even dissuade the majority from NOT doing this.

let me repeat Dr. Small's ayah for you so you can see the key phrase:
"it would be wrong to use the findings to dissuade blood relatives from marrying"

You are having a crisis of faith because it is NOT me that is saying these things, its your own overlords. Scimitar got it immediately that I was not advocating for or against cousin marriage because the evidence doesn't support advocacy positions in the overwhelming majority of the situations. You on the other hand are asking me to make a Non scientific proclamation to stroke your ego.

Whats worse is you were even so deceptive that you hid a part of Dr. Spencer's quote! You blatantly lied to promote your ideology.

Finally, you were cowering in a corner when your own hypocrisy was exposed. It was you that was advocating for advancing the marriage age and saying fornication was a fine resort in the mean time. Yet when Mullah Small provided this tid bit from the Lancet study contradicting your approach you started to shake in your rage - because this makes it so that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot scientifically outlaw cousin marriages or do unnecessary costly testing and at the same time advocate your position point regarding later feminine marriage age.:

Ayaah 5:
"Co-researcher Neil Small said that in absolute terms, the risk from consanguineous marriage was still small. The study noted, in fact, that the risk was about the same as for older white British mothers – an age deemed to be 34 years and above."

So Badlun Saheb, you are just frustrated because you got caught trying to be deceptive when truncating Dr. Spencer's quote and not addressing Dr. Small's point, but that is what militant secularism does to people.

At the end of the day, the 5 ayaahs above are your guidance, how you choose to try and deny them or reconcile them with your militant secularist ideology is your own decision to make.

I will not defy American practice guidelines by pursuing unnecessary testing or going against the data as you would have me do.

[Badlun]

consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%,
Why your ignorance and arrogance do not let you to digest also this part of the sentence. I do agree with you that the damage is not absolute and not that all children born with cousin marriages will definitely have defects.

And that one professor saying that the laws should be repealed , the laws are there. 90% marriages in the world are not consanguineous. Let us accept this reality too that cousins are like brothers and sisters. In Pashtun society a cousin is called brother or sister.

Also please be honest and accept that not all doctors, scientists and geneticists say that cousin marriages are absolutely fine. Some say yes some say no, thus the subject is controversial.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%,
Why your ignorance and arrogance do not let you to digest also this part of the sentence. I do agree with you that the damage is not absolute and not that all children born with cousin marriages will definitely have defects.

And that one professor saying that the laws should be repealed , the laws are there. 90% marriages in the world are not consanguineous. Let us accept this reality too that cousins are like brothers and sisters. In Pashtun society a cousin is called brother or sister.

Also please be honest and accept that not all doctors, scientists and geneticists say that cousin marriages are absolutely fine. Some say yes some say no, thus the subject is controversial.

ISSUE 1:
There you go again Badlun Saheb, practicing tried and true secular militant deception lol. You keep providing and spewing more and more evidence that you are letting your bias be the tail that you are chasing in circles.

Lets produce the rest of the quote: Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%,the absolute risk is still small.

You appear to not grasp the basic concept of absolute risk versus relative risk which is why this is making you frustrated. What Dr. Sheridan, the author of your own cited study is saying is: The absolute rate is tremendously small already but consanguinity raises that already small risk, yet, confirming the American medical practice, that consanguinity attributable risk is diminutive against the backdrop of all consanguineous marriages.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you are fighting the statistics, but so be it, its your waste of time not mine. lol.

Perhaps its because you want to emphasize how it supports your secular militant agenda but are at a loss to deal with how there are similar rates for women who marry and potentially bear children later - your cross to bear not mine.

ISSUE 2:
Its not about arrogance but rather your ignorance. Read my discussion with Scimitar above. His response was far more nuanced and far more reasonable and read what I said to him, then talk. His question, an astute one, centered on PROPHYLACTIC measures in the Muslim world. His point was that those with birth defects in the initial who marry and remarry generationally are not likely to pursue genetic testing in the first place. My response to him was about the relative rate and how this relative rate was equitable to white british females married at age 34 - yet there is no law that mandates they not marry.

In the context of the Near East and Central Asia as well as Africa and some middle eastern nations, this practice has been going on for a very long time and to simply outlaw it is with the Badlun approach of: "The Quran makes no sense, you all are simpletons, Najib and his moustachio are the real Prophet and Khodaay, now obey Caucasians etc etc" is about as dumb as the communist land reforms approach.

Therefore, a doctor in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or India would be hard pressed to back a political official in banning a wide practice simply to satisfy your social engineering pet project.

You can try it, but then watch what happens.

Lets just say, I would not be the one to care to try and stop you. You can pursue this issue with money, politics, etc and I would be fine with it.
On a social level based on my upbringing I do not find marrying a first cousin a palatable thing, but if asked I could not be wiley and a liar and try to back that approach with science except to say that I have decreased the relative risk of my own progency against he backdrop of a diminutive absolute risk. Then on the other hand, if my wife was 34 when I married her, because I wanted to wait for her to finish trauma surgery fellowship, I would have to admit that my risk was about equitable to two "kissing cousins."

God man, I do not get why you are going so crazy over trying to get me to state a scientific inaccuracy.

PS. Your reference, the Lancet study was EXCELLENT and appreciated, you keep missing that aspect of what I am saying. I am merely saying your application of the science and politicizing it to suit your goals is the problem.

ISSUE 3:
Who said that all doctors or geneticists say the same thing? That was exactly what the leader of the National Genetics Council that investigated the concept in America was discussing. His quote was:

"Dr. Motulsky said that medical geneticists had known for a long time that there was little or no harm in cousins' marrying and having children.'Somehow, this hasn't become general knowledge,' Dr. Motulsky said. 'Among the public and physicians there's a feeling it's real bad and brings a lot of disease, and there's a lot of social and legal disapproval.'"

That's why he did his study in the initial - was to disprove dogma.

For instance, many doctors also draw daily blood labs in American hospitals and put patients on telemetry and its still a wide practice yet recent evidence shows this is NOT an evidence based approach to care.

That is Dr. Motulsky's point: the evidence medical legally and scientifically for this is lacking but it remains dogma.

Thankfully, his work is utilized now in preconception and prenatal workups.

ISSUE 4:
"one professor saying that the laws should be repealed "

Its not one my friend, its Dr. Spencer and Dr. Multosky from a leading medical university in the US. Dr. Small, from the British Lancet study adds to the discussion by saying his study should not be referred to as the basis for dissuading cousins from marrying and finally Dr. Sheridan adds to Dr Small's fatwa with his own reasoning and support.

So what we can say is that expert medical opinion in the US and Britain does not call for the wholesale ban that you are calling for, rather there is actually a call to remove these laws.

Once again, that's your fight to take to these guys, not mine since it wont affect my life.

If you are engaged with your cousin and are angry about this issue, please do not take it out on me, Dr. Multosky, Dr. Spencer, Dr. Sheridan, or Dr. Small.

ISSUE 5:
"Some say yes some say no, thus the subject is controversial."

Controversial to YOU and controversial to the Western populace, but apparently NOT controversial to the authors of the two leading studies in both America and Britain. Certainly NOT controversial enough to mandate additional testing beyond the base population medically.

Also, NOT controversial to those regions of the globe that you want to spread a militant secularist insurgency into.

ISSUE 6
I keep telling you that if you want me say:
A) The Quran is wrong and predisposes people to Genetic abnormalities because it doesn't ban cousin marriages - then I cannot do that because its a stupid request to begin with. The Quran also doesn't ban me marrying a 34 year old female or even a 40 year female. In fact the Quran doesn't ban Zardari marrying Sarah Palin if their spouses pass away. Sarah Palin had a Downs Syndrome child as well probably associated with chromosomal anomalies with later child bearing age. If they decide to marry, they are aware of the risks and the Quran neither pushes them to the aisle or removes their risk.

B) Cousins should not get married medically and hopefully legally. I keep telling you the medical approach based on the evidences does not comment on this and actually provides the basis for repeal of these laws since they were drafted with the incorrect assumptions of a much higher absolute risk.

C) The Muslim world is backwards because cousins get married and that this is an independent marker of societal misdevelopment. Once again, that's a stupid and non evidence based comment that I cannot in good faith to science make.

The only thing this marks is a sort of feudalistic approach to society that is independent of religion and if that trend goes away, it wont be due to Najib or other militant secularists banning the practice but rather changes in the practice of ancestoral land distribution, changes how families live, etc.

That is the problem with militant secularism, you guys simplify everything into: What can we use to try and attack Islam with and it ends up backfiring because it was a nonsensical pursuit in the first place.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Badlun, take a rest. You have been beaten up pretty badly in the last you days.