The ultra-religious and the ultra-liberal. Where is the middle ground?

[Saqs]

Just recently any debate or discussion about Pakistan and whether it should be secular has two extreme polar opposite views - this is in society as well as in PP.

One that subscribes to a brand of Islam eerily similar to Wahhabism - read the Wahabis.

The other party seems to think if Pakistan doesn't become a land where alcohol is prevalent throughout society then it's making no progress - read Sharabis.

My question is - are these polar opposite views really the only discourse we can have? Where is the middle road here? The middle ground seems to be lost amongst all the loud voices of Wahabis and Sharabis.

 

[Nostalgic]

Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Kebabs can be the middle ground. They always use the phrase "sharaabi kebabi." I'm sure the Wahhabis can appreciate it too.

Organize a grand kebab roast. Later the two can retreat to different parts of the tent for revelry or recitation.

 

[amax]

Kebabs of camel's meat will serve the purpose IMO.

 

[BudMarsh]

Alcohol is already prevalent in this country, my friend. Often rivalling the number of kebabs in many parts of the country.

 

[ElRaja]

Just recently any debate or discussion about Pakistan and whether it should be secular has two extreme polar opposite views - this is in society as well as in PP.

One that subscribes to a brand of Islam eerily similar to Wahhabism - read the Wahabis.

The other party seems to think if Pakistan doesn't become a land where alcohol is prevalent throughout society then it's making no progress - read Sharabis.

My question is - are these polar opposite views really the only discourse we can have? Where is the middle road here? The middle ground seems to be lost amongst all the loud voices of Wahabis and Sharabis.

the problem with the middle ground is that it is intrinsically undefined in a generally accepted sense, and more likely to be manipulated for political expedience as opposed to political ideologies grounded for example upon the basis of theology or liberty, as has happened with experimentation with varying degrees of political middleness since the formation of pakistan.

those who believe their political position is divinely ordained cannot by fact compromise on their beliefs, so granting any constitutional legitimacy to their policy is tacit acceptance of their entire ideology.

 

[amax]

The other party seems to think if Pakistan doesn't become a land where alcohol is prevalent throughout society then it's making no progress

The argument for allowing alcohol is on basis of what you can call "free society" where an adult can exercise his freedom to choose, it is basically a symbol against any such restrictions. It is not like "this party" think that just allowing alcohol will result in technological renaissance. This argument is more against mindset.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Alcohol is already prevalent in this country, my friend. Often rivalling the number of kebabs in many parts of the country.

It's available but in private only, or "under the counter". That's not the same as people being able to drink in a public bar or walk into a shop and buy a bottle of whisky. This is where the conflict is inevitable.

 

[90MPH]

Don't be a Sharabi and Don't be a Wahabi.

There you go, middle ground

 

[Robbie]

Atleast an extreme sharabi wont kill u for being a wahabi.
not sure about vice versa

 

[Nostalgic]

Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

The Nejdi royals are Wahhabis. And Sharabis. There's the middle ground: be both.

Eat kebabs too.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Both of those things are in the minority. The majority of Pakistan are Sufi/Brelvi with a (vocal) minority Wahabi/Deobandi and a similar minority in the 'sharabi' category you describe.

The fact that our establishment is aligned with the Wahabi Saudis and perhaps cultivates terror groups as strategic weapons is why those people seem more prevalent than they are and the state seems to appease them.

Musharafs 'enlightened moderation' although deployed wrongly is quite an interesting concept. We need to move Islam from the madrassas to the universities, where critical thinking and reading skills are developed, their is exposure to unorthodox ideas( no need to accept them but to tolerate them) and logic,philosophy and history are taught.

 

[moumotta]

^

To put it simply

Strategic Assets are Wahabi
Masters are Sharabi
But it is Amreeka that does all the kharabi

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

the problem with the middle ground is that it is intrinsically undefined in a generally accepted sense, and more likely to be manipulated for political expedience as opposed to political ideologies grounded for example upon the basis of theology or liberty, as has happened with experimentation with varying degrees of political middleness since the formation of pakistan.

those who believe their political position is divinely ordained cannot by fact compromise on their beliefs, so granting any constitutional legitimacy to their policy is tacit acceptance of their entire ideology.

Fair point. I wonder how the sane minded people (Kebabis) in the country would get their voices heard then.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Atleast an extreme sharabi wont kill u for being a wahabi.
not sure about vice versa

Yes but an extreme Sharabi might just kill you on your way back home with his car.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Both of those things are in the minority. The majority of Pakistan are Sufi/Brelvi with a (vocal) minority Wahabi/Deobandi and a similar minority in the 'sharabi' category you describe.

The fact that our establishment is aligned with the Wahabi Saudis and perhaps cultivates terror groups as strategic weapons is why those people seem more prevalent than they are and the state seems to appease them.

Musharafs 'enlightened moderation' although deployed wrongly is quite an interesting concept. We need to move Islam from the madrassas to the universities, where critical thinking and reading skills are developed, their is exposure to unorthodox ideas( no need to accept them but to tolerate them) and logic,philosophy and history are taught.

Hmmm what's to ensure moving the discourse to university level would combat the madrassas that are being exploited.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

For the record Nostalgic I would actually like your serious viewpoint on the matter as you tend to be relatively more of a liberal mindset as compared to the Wahabi party mindset.

Enough kebab jokes for one thread no?

Or still having fun with those?

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

The argument for allowing alcohol is on basis of what you can call "free society" where an adult can exercise his freedom to choose, it is basically a symbol against any such restrictions. It is not like "this party" think that just allowing alcohol will result in technological renaissance. This argument is more against mindset.

No well that's my point. I wasn't obviously just talking about alcohol here... But this atleast gave me the catchy title.

I'm just surprised to see alcohol being allowed equated to 'progress' being made. Surely there is a better benchmark to be using even if we are talking about mindset.

Alcohol related violence and issues cost countries with that problem billions of dollars in healthcare costs and in the economy in general.

Not sure why that has to be the barometer for making progress.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Hmmm what's to ensure moving the discourse to university level would combat the madrassas that are being exploited.

It would be a slow transition but the state has to take responsibility for some of the poison being produced in the madrassah system instead of being content that it takes the responsibility away from the government to feed and educate those kids.

Then you could set some sort of criteria for who is able to teach.

Idealistic I know but we pretty much churn out 'ulema' who are taught nothing of the wider world but have the Quran beaten into them everyday for 10 years. Something drastic will need to happen.

These people when entering wider society are going to cause problems.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

It would be a slow transition but the state has to take responsibility for some of the poison being produced in the madrassah system instead of being content that it takes the responsibility away from the government to feed and educate those kids.

Then you could set some sort of criteria for who is able to teach.

Idealistic I know but we pretty much churn out 'ulema' who are taught nothing of the wider world but have the Quran beaten into them everyday for 10 years. Something drastic will need to happen.

These people when entering wider society are going to cause problems.

Yes I agree but my point is shouldn't we be addressing the problem before it becomes a problem ie at the grass root madrassa level?

I completely agree with you through. There needs to be a more advanced discourse that takes into account a more pragmatic and current world view. There are certain schools or at least certain teachers in Pak that encourage this. But they are in the minority.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

As an example of the thread topic, one only needs to go through certain Facebook pages.

There is a video that compares all the sacrifices that were made for independence and overlays this with modern day Pakistanis drinking and partying.

Now the Wahabi side of the coin sees this as the bane of all evil in the world, that our women are models and our men are drinking.

The Sharabi side of the coin sees this as progress of some sort.

This is my issue. Where is the voice of sanity that says that it's neither pure evil nor progress.

Apologies if the labels seem demeaning. Just thought they were catchy so I will continue using them.

 

[Nostalgic]

Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Just recently any debate or discussion about Pakistan and whether it should be secular has two extreme polar opposite views - this is in society as well as in PP.

One that subscribes to a brand of Islam eerily similar to Wahhabism - read the Wahabis.

The other party seems to think if Pakistan doesn't become a land where alcohol is prevalent throughout society then it's making no progress - read Sharabis.

My question is - are these polar opposite views really the only discourse we can have? Where is the middle road here? The middle ground seems to be lost amongst all the loud voices of Wahabis and Sharabis.

As promised Saqs, my serious thoughts, admittedly colored by my liberal bias:

I too have come across the argument on social media that the liberals and the far right represent extremes, with the subscript, whether stated outright or insinuated, that they are both equally bad.

My first objection to this hypothesis would be that this is a canard if one is a liberal. To suggest that the liberals are as harmful as the far right is unsupported by facts. Their side has the blood of thousands on their hands, they have been mollycoddled for decades, armed to the teeth and left to roam free unchecked, and lately have found a voice in the media and support in the public. In contrast, our side is a beleaguered minority with no real public support, and no real voice that hasn't already been silenced or been hounded incessantly. Last but not least, we don't have any bands of thugs responsible for the slaughter of thousands.

Secondly, arguments against the liberals are based on straw men. This association with alcohol is one. I would think that democracy and rule of law are what our side is calling for, not nightclubs and bars. Some may indulge in it, but they're hardly asking for it to be shoved down people's throats, unlike the other side which is doing exactly that with their ideology.

It can be argued that my criticisms of the far right are also straw men, because not all right wingers are murderers. Perhaps, but their deafening silence at sectarian killings, their mealy mouthed attitude towards the TTP, their romanticization of the Afghan Taliban, their veneration of the Saudis screams complicity and approval, at least to me.

As for middle ground, I would be of the belief that we could look for one if both sides were really equally at fault, or equally reasonable. That isn't the case. Liberal beliefs would let the majority of the populace live their lives as they please. Far right beliefs simply won't.

Just my two cents, as the saying goes.

 

[ElRaja]

As an example of the thread topic, one only needs to go through certain Facebook pages.

There is a video that compares all the sacrifices that were made for independence and overlays this with modern day Pakistanis drinking and partying.

Now the Wahabi side of the coin sees this as the bane of all evil in the world, that our women are models and our men are drinking.

The Sharabi side of the coin sees this as progress of some sort.

This is my issue. Where is the voice of sanity that says that it's neither pure evil nor progress.

so i guess extending you drinking partying metaphor to liberalism with regards to personal choice in general, clearly you see it is as neither evil nor a mark of great achievement, rather simply the expression of another facet of the human condition.

ill leave it up to you to decide whether the wahabi or sharabi lot would place greater emphasis on insisting that your view was indeed wrong, and that would tie in to the first point i made about tacit acceptance of an entire ideology as opposed to agreement upon a foundation of personal freedom upon which individual human rights are based.

sorry if i sound rambly, im just trying to tie in your point to what was discussed earlier

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

so i guess extending you drinking partying metaphor to liberalism with regards to personal choice in general, clearly you see it is as neither evil nor a mark of great achievement, rather simply the expression of another facet of the human condition.

ill leave it up to you to decide whether the wahabi or sharabi lot would place greater emphasis on insisting that your view was indeed wrong, and that would tie in to the first point i made about tacit acceptance of an entire ideology as opposed to agreement upon a foundation of personal freedom upon which individual human rights are based.

sorry if i sound rambly, im just trying to tie in your point to what was discussed earlier

And a good tie in it is.

I see what you're saying. But even the liberals are quite adamant that the conservatives are in the wrong. It is not as if they enjoy conservatives to have the same freedoms they want for themselves because they feel the conservatives are bringing society down as a whole and as such their freedom transgresses personal freedom and affects society as a whole.

I guess whichever way we look at it, both extreme (exaggerated for point of discussion) views are equally as intolerant of each other.

There is an argument to say only one of them resorts to violence to prove a point. But then argument can be countered by citing state based violence by countries like the US to propagate their world view in countries they feel are too conservative.

?

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

As promised Saqs, my serious thoughts, admittedly colored by my liberal bias:

I too have come across the argument on social media that the liberals and the far right represent extremes, with the subscript, whether stated outright or insinuated, that they are both equally bad.

My first objection to this hypothesis would be that this is a canard if one is a liberal. To suggest that the liberals are as harmful as the far right is unsupported by facts. Their side has the blood of thousands on their hands, they have been mollycoddled for decades, armed to the teeth and left to roam free unchecked, and lately have found a voice in the media and support in the public. In contrast, our side is a beleaguered minority with no real public support, and no real voice that hasn't already been silenced or been hounded incessantly. Last but not least, we don't have any bands of thugs responsible for the slaughter of thousands.

Secondly, arguments against the liberals are based on straw men. This association with alcohol is one. I would think that democracy and rule of law are what our side is calling for, not nightclubs and bars. Some may indulge in it, but they're hardly asking for it to be shoved down people's throats, unlike the other side which is doing exactly that with their ideology.

It can be argued that my criticisms of the far right are also straw men, because not all right wingers are murderers. Perhaps, but their deafening silence at sectarian killings, their mealy mouthed attitude towards the TTP, their romanticization of the Afghan Taliban, their veneration of the Saudis screams complicity and approval, at least to me.

As for middle ground, I would be of the belief that we could look for one if both sides were really equally at fault, or equally reasonable. That isn't the case. Liberal beliefs would let the majority of the populace live their lives as they please. Far right beliefs simply won't.

Just my two cents, as the saying goes.

Cheers for the post.

I realise it's straw men. On both sides to be honest. But i am exaggerating the polar opposites to make a point.

These opposites actually exist. You just need to read some YouTube or Facebook comments and have some discussions with people in Pak.

This is the unfortunate truth. People d equivocate drinking and partying to progress. People do it on PP. People do it in real life.

As far as liberals just wanting democracy, these are not the people this thread is talking about tbh.

And liberals are equally as intolerant of conservatives as conservatives are of liberals. Because they feel that conservatives are suppressing personal freedoms of others.

There may be more reported violence from the conservative side. But one can also argue that to propagate their own world view, more liberal states like US partake in open state based wars against more conservative nations.

So my point atleast in my opinion stands. That both are equally wrong and intolerant of each other. Where then is the middle ground (Kebabis) between this war of Wahabis and Sharabis.?

 

[RickyG]

Not sure if serious.

I have yet to hear about any Shias, Christians or Ahmadis being killed by Sharaabis. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how exactly the two are polar opposites.

I suppose to a good Muslim (which I believe the OP must be) being a Sharaabi is quite possibly worse than being a murderer, liar and cheat.

I also am not aware of any secular country in the world that CONDONES alcoholism. I think most countries agree that alcoholism gets in the way of progress so your point about alcoholism being perceived as progress would only hold true for first-year college students.

Anyway, call me an infidel but I would rather be a sharabi than a Wahhabi if I had to choose one (although I would rather be neither). This is simply because I have less of an interest in killing other people in an attempt to impose my beliefs on them. Similarly, I would be much happier living in a sharabi society than a Wahhabi, frankly, because the odd drunk driving incident is better than half the nation having their heads sliced off by lunatics for no apparent reason.

 

[RickyG]

Also, I think the fact that any man wanting a secular nation with equal rights, education and security for all regardless of race, religion or gender is referred to as a sharabi is odd.

 

[Nostalgic]

Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Cheers for the post.

I realise it's straw men. On both sides to be honest. But i am exaggerating the polar opposites to make a point.

These opposites actually exist. You just need to read some YouTube or Facebook comments and have some discussions with people in Pak.

This is the unfortunate truth. People d equivocate drinking and partying to progress. People do it on PP. People do it in real life.

As far as liberals just wanting democracy, these are not the people this thread is talking about tbh.

And liberals are equally as intolerant of conservatives as conservatives are of liberals. Because they feel that conservatives are suppressing personal freedoms of others.

There may be more reported violence from the conservative side. But one can also argue that to propagate their own world view, more liberal states like US partake in open state based wars against more conservative nations.

So my point atleast in my opinion stands. That both are equally wrong and intolerant of each other. Where then is the middle ground (Kebabis) between this war of Wahabis and Sharabis.?

I see now that you were speaking not of liberals, but of a section of liberals who advocate alcohol consumption and equate that to progress. Correct me if I am wrong.

If you are, then we are talking about a minority within a beleaguered minority. They may be expressing "intolerant" opinions, but the sheer paucity of numbers in their ranks is such that they hardly warrant being mentioned in the same breath as the Wahhabis, a much more numerous, and physically active group.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we say that, on some hypothetical scale of measuring intolerance, the Sharabis are as intolerant as the Wahhabis, what do they do besides venting some steam online? The other group goes far beyond that.

The US being used as an example of Sharabi violence is to me a specious argument. We could then bring any number of violent Wahhabi groups into the discussion, led by their lords and masters, Saudi Arabia.

I for one am a proudly intolerant liberal when it comes to the Wahhabis. Am I as intolerant towards them as they are towards me? In the absence of a way to actually measure our respective intolerances, I can't answer one way or the other. But I've never killed a Wahhabi. There are plenty of them who would kill me and not bat an eyelid. Which, to me, either renders the discussion of who is more intolerant irrelevant, or proves that the liberals' intolerance, even the liberal Sharabi's intolerance, as several notches below the Wahhabis'.

 

[Nostalgic]

Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Anyway, call me an infidel but I would rather be a sharabi than a Wahhabi if I had to choose one (although I would rather be neither). This is simply because I have less of an interest in killing other people in an attempt to impose my beliefs on them. Similarly, I would be much happier living in a sharabi society than a Wahhabi, frankly, because the odd drunk driving incident is better than half the nation having their heads sliced off by lunatics for no apparent reason.

Spot on.

I don't drink, but given the choice between drinking and shedding innocent blood, I would happily do the former.

Like Sahir Ludhianvi wrote, "Mein ne pi sharaab. Tum nay kya piya? Aadmi Ka khoon?"

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Well you guys are now comparing your own views to that of am extreme section of the Wahabis. Lol you are equating them all to killers.

You're probably right though. The intolerance probably isn't as balanced as I was saying tbh.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Not sure if serious.

I have yet to hear about any Shias, Christians or Ahmadis being killed by Sharaabis. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how exactly the two are polar opposites.

I suppose to a good Muslim (which I believe the OP must be) being a Sharaabi is quite possibly worse than being a murderer, liar and cheat.

I also am not aware of any secular country in the world that CONDONES alcoholism. I think most countries agree that alcoholism gets in the way of progress so your point about alcoholism being perceived as progress would only hold true for first-year college students.

Anyway, call me an infidel but I would rather be a sharabi than a Wahhabi if I had to choose one (although I would rather be neither). This is simply because I have less of an interest in killing other people in an attempt to impose my beliefs on them. Similarly, I would be much happier living in a sharabi society than a Wahhabi, frankly, because the odd drunk driving incident is better than half the nation having their heads sliced off by lunatics for no apparent reason.

You've missed the point of the thread. Who is even arguing who is more dangerous or not.

What I am saying is the discourse seems to be dominated by these two opposites.

You have taken things way too literally here.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

Also, I think the fact that any man wanting a secular nation with equal rights, education and security for all regardless of race, religion or gender is referred to as a sharabi is odd.

No. That's not the 'any man' I am referring to.

 

[Saqs]

Re: Wahabis and Sharabis. Where is the middle ground?

In hindsight thread was probably created cuz of the title more than anything. Would make a good movie title no?

 

[RickyG]

You've missed the point of the thread. Who is even arguing who is more dangerous or not.

What I am saying is the discourse seems to be dominated by these two opposites.

You have taken things way too literally here.

I understand that it was not the point of the thread but the term "sharabi" was cringe-worthy. As for the original question, then no there are other discourses where a person can advocate for a secular state without being an extremist about it. There is also more ambiguity among the liberals. For example, not all of them want democracy, some would like Mush to come back and be a dictator all over again as long as the country is largely secular or liberal. Then, there are those that want a secular state but with a large emphasis on religious identity and less on cultural in a bid to differentiate themselves from India. With Wahabis, it is a more single-minded approach I believe where they want a Caliphate state and a society that is guided by religion and largely monitored. Obviously, from there they could ask for a state that persecutes minorities, discriminates against them or tries to convert them depending on their personal beliefs.

In hindsight thread was probably created cuz of the title more than anything. Would make a good movie title no?

It would but it would not get played at any Pakistani theaters because it has the term Sharabi in there. "Wahhabi aur Kaafir" on the other hand would be a blockbuster.

 

[Ims1]

there cannot & will not be a middle ground,evidence being overseas resident PK"s venting hate on the Mars mission thread .

 

[RickyG]

there cannot & will not be a middle ground,evidence being overseas resident PK"s venting hate on the Mars mission thread .

You need to stop generalizing. I congratulated India in that thread and saw other people do so as well. And we are overseas Pakistanis. Such a poor and bitter post.

 

[amax]

there cannot & will not be a middle ground,evidence being overseas resident PK"s venting hate on the Mars mission thread .

very ignorant post suggesting zero understanding of both scenarios, for your information part of liberal/left wing in U.S was the most vocal critic of Apollo moon mission .

"The moon program was opposed from the far left as a waste of public resources.
The argument went that money spent on the moon landings, which The Atlantic points out peaked at $16 billion in 2008 dollars in 1965, would have been better spent on programs to alleviate poverty and other social ills. The impression was given by liberal critics of Apollo that children were being allowed to starve while money that could have fed them was being spent building moon rockets."

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...tten-opposition-to-the-apollo-program/262254/

As I have said before;discourse on ethical aspects of space programs is quite common in all countries with tangible programs even in countries with massive resources like USA, your personal attacks on people disagreeing suggest that you dwell in an intellectually dormant society/environment.

 

[JaDed]

Middle ground occurs when Wahabis become sharabis,peace for everyone.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Typically Wahhabis are 'reformed' sharabis and charsis hence their lunacy.

 

[JaDed]

Typically Wahhabis are 'reformed' sharabis and charsis hence their lunacy.

feel that's true for most conservative preachers but some sharabis are funny and "poetic"

 

[DW44]

Some brilliant posts by Nostalgic, especially that "serious response". Can't believe I missed this thread when it was posted. We need to get rid of this utterly ludicrous myth that "both extremes are equally bad", that's such a load of horse manure. Hell, we need to get rid of the myth that there even are two extremes. The religious right's claims of there being such a thing as liberal and/or secular extremism, in a place like Pakistan no less, has gone unchallenged for too long, mostly because, as Nostalgic said, the extreme right(by international standards - it's pretty mainstream in Pakistan) outnumbers the liberal element so heavily it's not even funny and any liberal who dares speak finds his voice drowned out by sheer numbers. In a population of 200 million, there are two to three hundred thousand liberals at best.

 

[Musakhel]

They both deserve each other, such fringe elements always exist in society.

 

[Nostalgic]

Some brilliant posts by Nostalgic, especially that "serious response". Can't believe I missed this thread when it was posted. We need to get rid of this utterly ludicrous myth that "both extremes are equally bad", that's such a load of horse manure. Hell, we need to get rid of the myth that there even are two extremes. The religious right's claims of there being such a thing as liberal and/or secular extremism, in a place like Pakistan no less, has gone unchallenged for too long, mostly because, as Nostalgic said, the extreme right(by international standards - it's pretty mainstream in Pakistan) outnumbers the liberal element so heavily it's not even funny and any liberal who dares speak finds his voice drowned out by sheer numbers. In a population of 200 million, there are two to three hundred thousand liberals at best.

A blast from the past if ever there was one. I think I had just started posting regularly when this thread first appeared, and now over three years have gone by. Time flies when you're having fun, or so they say.

The liberal-"extremists"-are-just-as-bad canard gets thrown around so much, it is sickening. Invariably the person insinuating it is someone with barely-concealed rightwing tendencies who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of some bloodthirsty rampage at the behest of their ilk, can only reluctantly be drawn into a mealymouthed condemnation of said act, but feel that they must temper it with a "yes, but, but, but the other side is bad too!"

 

[yasir]

Both of those things are in the minority. The majority of Pakistan are Sufi/Brelvi with a (vocal) minority Wahabi/Deobandi and a similar minority in the 'sharabi' category you describe.

Brelvis are extremist too, they back most of the Sunni extremist movements... Blasphemy laws, Shai Kafir, slamming Quyadians etc are their top priority as well... We saw that during the janayaza of Qadari

The fact that our establishment is aligned with the Wahabi Saudis and perhaps cultivates terror groups as strategic weapons is why those people seem more prevalent than they are and the state seems to appease them.

In last Century the rise of muslim extremism has everything to do with Saudis, they started the arm race of religious extremism, they had the money (free oil money), Iran followed their suite, now Pakistan is helping them raise the holy army, they are too lazy to do it themselves, they need slaves, Pakistanis and other Desi muslims as usual are ready to serve them

Musharafs 'enlightened moderation' although deployed wrongly is quite an interesting concept. We need to move Islam from the madrassas to the universities, where critical thinking and reading skills are developed, their is exposure to unorthodox ideas( no need to accept them but to tolerate them) and logic,philosophy and history are taught.

Critical thinking is poison for religion, rise of Science and Atheism in west is not a good example for extremist muslims... They know if they open up their society, they will loose big time like Christian institutions lost in last 200 years, Trump or no Trump, west is not going to go back to being religious and racist, those guys are going to loose again, America cannot afford to be racist again, that America still exist, the Bible Belt, it just cannot drive US for long, every time they come up with a leader worse then before, first Bush and now Trump

What people don't except that you cannot have both dominating at the same time, its going to be liberal or extremist...BTW: I don't buy the OP's Sharabis comment, there are no liberals in Pakistan, their population is zero, that is the biggest problem, without significant liberal population, no country or society can make progress, liberals are agent of change, by definition, conservatives want to conserve the status co

 

[shaz619]

Alcohol consumption can be regulated and it is fine so long one does not abuse it, how do we cure a brain washed mind? Wahabism must be banned all around the world but it can be difficult to iron it out.

 

[shaz619]

Brelvis are extremist too, they back most of the Sunni extremist movements... Blasphemy laws, Shai Kafir, slamming Quyadians etc are their top priority as well... We saw that during the janayaza of Qadari




In last Century the rise of muslim extremism has everything to do with Saudis, they started the arm race of religious extremism, they had the money (free oil money), Iran followed their suite, now Pakistan is helping them raise the holy army, they are too lazy to do it themselves, they need slaves, Pakistanis and other Desi muslims as usual are ready to serve them



Critical thinking is poison for religion, rise of Science and Atheism in west is not a good example for extremist muslims... They know if they open up their society, they will loose big time like Christian institutions lost in last 200 years, Trump or no Trump, west is not going to go back to being religious and racist, those guys are going to loose again, America cannot afford to be racist again, that America still exist, the Bible Belt, it just cannot drive US for long, every time they come up with a leader worse then before, first Bush and now Trump

What people don't except that you cannot have both dominating at the same time, its going to be liberal or extremist...BTW: I don't buy the OP's Sharabis comment, there are no liberals in Pakistan, their population is zero, that is the biggest problem, without significant liberal population, no country or society can make progress, liberals are agent of change, by definition, conservatives want to conserve the status co

Wahabis are on another level to Brelvis, the support for Qadri was nonsensical but extremism in general is driven by Wahabism.

 

[Black Zero]

A blast from the past if ever there was one. I think I had just started posting regularly when this thread first appeared, and now over three years have gone by. Time flies when you're having fun, or so they say.

The liberal-"extremists"-are-just-as-bad canard gets thrown around so much, it is sickening. Invariably the person insinuating it is someone with barely-concealed rightwing tendencies who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of some bloodthirsty rampage at the behest of their ilk, can only reluctantly be drawn into a mealymouthed condemnation of said act, but feel that they must temper it with a "yes, but, but, but the other side is bad too!"

Would you mind expanding on liberal-"extremists"
I am just curious and wondering if this category applies to me as I am very passionate about the adaptation of liberal values.

 

[Nostalgic]

Would you mind expanding on liberal-"extremists"
I am just curious and wondering if this category applies to me as I am very passionate about the adaptation of liberal values.

It applies to you, and me, and DW44 and a few others here. We're just as bad as, say, SSP or ASWJ or TTP, because... well because we just are. Just accept it.

 

[Black Zero]

It applies to you, and me, and DW44 and a few others here. We're just as bad as, say, SSP or ASWJ or TTP, because... well because we just are. Just accept it.

Hard to accept objectively as I have not harmed anyone (except myself) and has no intention to do so.
When my principles and actions are different then I deserve a different verdict.

 

[Pakistanian]

Alcholics are less annoying and less of a threat to security than wahhabis.

 

[babareazam1]

The sad part is that we had this society in in the subcontinent. Good pious Muslims who prayed 5 times a day and lived a life of extreme honesty and kindness towards all.In old Indian movies if you notice the Muslim character was always a kindly Rahim chacha. That was the general opinion about muslims before the current lot of terrorists.If all the Moulvies left us alone and allowed us to get on with life i think wewould be fine.

 

[PakLFC]

We all need to find our own salvation and ways to please Allah. One thing I know is that sharaab will not get you there. I won't even judge an alcoholic but say that more then anything else it will effect their health.

 

[ExpressPacer]

You don't need a middle ground. Rather have a nation full of Sharabi's than a couple of thousand Wahabis in a nation of angels. The thing with Wahabis is that it is a part of their fundamental beliefs to influence the opinion of others and spread their message - negativity; a poor image of Islam.

A good example would be that of a Dracula that turns other people into vampires. These vampires don't even know they're wrong. They follow what they're doing religiously with their minds in a state of trance. And that is exactly what these Wahabis are doing. Not only in Pakistan. My friends in India and the UK will be very well aware of how quickly Wahabis are transforming other pious Muslims into this new cult like sect.

To be frank, I'm very much impressed with the way they operate. It's like a hypnosis. They start off really nicely, you know, telling people they should pray, worry about the end and the general good Islamic teachings. This leads to the people thinking these "Aalim's" are in fact teaching them nice things and them being notorious is all lies. However, they soon begin infiltrating their minds with diabolical statements and make terrorist sympathizers. Its like slow poisoning.

The future is a very scary time..

 

[CricketCartoons]

Is there a reason liberal people are being associated with alcohol?

 

[Madplayer]

Is there a reason liberal people are being associated with alcohol?

Maybe because they consume more alcohol? :

 

[CricketCartoons]

Maybe because they consume more alcohol? :

That may be the case, but I think this is a ploy to discredit the liberal muslim.

 

[Madplayer]

You don't need a middle ground. Rather have a nation full of Sharabi's than a couple of thousand Wahabis in a nation of angels. The thing with Wahabis is that it is a part of their fundamental beliefs to influence the opinion of others and spread their message - negativity; a poor image of Islam.

A good example would be that of a Dracula that turns other people into vampires. These vampires don't even know they're wrong. They follow what they're doing religiously with their minds in a state of trance. And that is exactly what these Wahabis are doing. Not only in Pakistan. My friends in India and the UK will be very well aware of how quickly Wahabis are transforming other pious Muslims into this new cult like sect.

To be frank, I'm very much impressed with the way they operate. It's like a hypnosis. They start off really nicely, you know, telling people they should pray, worry about the end and the general good Islamic teachings. This leads to the people thinking these "Aalim's" are in fact teaching them nice things and them being notorious is all lies. However, they soon begin infiltrating their minds with diabolical statements and make terrorist sympathizers. Its like slow poisoning.

The future is a very scary time..

In today's world its hard to trust anyone, any scholar, any philosopher, any leader, any source of information. Sometimes the brainwashing is so subtle that not even a direct reference is made towards an extremist idea. The words are chosen so selectively its hard to make out that you are being brainwashed. This is the intellectual breed of brainwashers, gift of the modern world. They are not limited to any one category of people.

Unfortunately Even the good ones are doubted because of the bad ones.

 

[JaDed]

Maybe because they consume more alcohol? :

More than Wahabis defn but if that's the benchmark then even a priest from a church does,the benchmark should be the general "sharabis" alcoholics that are addicted don't think the Liberals are anywhere near that.

 

[Madplayer]

That may be the case, but I think this is a ploy to discredit the liberal muslim.

That maybe the case. To look down upon such people.

 

[JaDed]

In today's world its hard to trust anyone, any scholar, any philosopher, any leader, any source of information. Sometimes the brainwashing is so subtle that not even a direct reference is made towards an extremist idea. The words are chosen so selectively its hard to make out that you are being brainwashed. This is the intellectual breed of brainwashers, gift of the modern world. They are not limited to any one category of people.

Unfortunately Even the good ones are doubted because of the bad ones.

Isn't that's how religion spread peacefully when force didn't work, nothing with modern world unless you mean the last 4000 years.

 

[Madplayer]

Isn't that's how religion spread peacefully when force didn't work, nothing with modern world unless you mean the last 4000 years.

Perhaps it was brainwashing. Perhaps it wasn't. Just like today. But We got to acknowledge that at that time one man would have found it difficult to brainwash many others in a short period of time. More often than not the spark would have extinguished before causing a fire.

In the post above i was talking about more modern times where people to people contact has increased tremendously through various means. One person/leader can reach out to millions and influence them in a good or bad way using the unsuspecting methods.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

It applies to you, and me, and DW44 and a few others here. We're just as bad as, say, SSP or ASWJ or TTP, because... well because we just are. Just accept it.

I'm really confused here regarding the word "liberal". What is your definition of liberal?? Is it relevant to non-practicing Muslim or just people who want freedom of speech etc etc.

There is a middle ground surely. Many here are talking as if 90% of Pakistan is Wahabi which is absolutely wrong. I think most people in Pakistan will probably recognize themselves as "kebabis" who listen to music, lie and/or cheat sometimes, pray and give zakat.

 

[ExpressPacer]

In today's world its hard to trust anyone, any scholar, any philosopher, any leader, any source of information. Sometimes the brainwashing is so subtle that not even a direct reference is made towards an extremist idea. The words are chosen so selectively its hard to make out that you are being brainwashed. This is the intellectual breed of brainwashers, gift of the modern world. They are not limited to any one category of people.

Unfortunately Even the good ones are doubted because of the bad ones.

Exactly. And the fact that they are intellectuals is the scary bit. These people are influential individuals in the community because of their command over education and religion. When you first meet them, they may come off as liberal people with no hate towards anyone.

This is the biggest threat ISIS poses. Unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS is able to get sympathies of more educated people and more people important positions because of such intellectuals operating. Everything is so planned with ISIS as compared to other extremist groups. All Islamist extremist groups have been influenced by Wahabbism throughout history. But it is for the first time that everything is so organised for them. It's a huge game and people don't even realise they're playing.

 

[IMMY69]

Is it better to be a Sharabi who has become a wahabi or vice versa.

On a different note, may I suggest not being in a state of Sharabism before coming onto Pakpassion . It could lead to a posting ban

 

[shaykh]

Someone brought up a study once which tried to suggest that second generation Muslims are more conservative...quite a flawed study...i kinda agree with the notion that the second generation are of extremes...they both rebel against tradition but in different ways...

The first generation are generally conservative in many ways but overall they are more work inclined...they are more tolerant of bad treatment and bad conditions...and in many cases they have seen their standard of living rise...the second generation have none of that...

 

[enkidu_]

Someone brought up a study once which tried to suggest that second generation Muslims are more conservative...quite a flawed study...i kinda agree with the notion that the second generation are of extremes...they both rebel against tradition but in different ways...

The first generation are generally conservative in many ways but overall they are more work inclined...they are more tolerant of bad treatment and bad conditions...and in many cases they have seen their standard of living rise...the second generation have none of that...

You're right. The first generation is conservative, but the second generation is neo-liberal : even when it's "Islamist", it remains liberal (halal capitalism : halal fashion, halal obesity, halal diabetes, ... it's modernity - with all its consumerism and loss of identity - under a burqa, and a transparent one at that).

One of the French fathers of sociology, de Tocqueville, already pointed out more than a century ago, in his books on Amerika, that it's the disease of the "middle class" (children of rural proletarian Mirpuris in the UK for instance become "lower middle class" as fast as in a single generation - without the complex "process" industrial Europeans went through, with all the cultural capital and so on -, so the transition from "conservative" to "liberal" goes through the pseudo "Islamist" case, which is superficially "conservative" but organically liberal.)

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Exactly. And the fact that they are intellectuals is the scary bit. These people are influential individuals in the community because of their command over education and religion. When you first meet them, they may come off as liberal people with no hate towards anyone.

This is the biggest threat ISIS poses. Unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS is able to get sympathies of more educated people and more people important positions because of such intellectuals operating. Everything is so planned with ISIS as compared to other extremist groups. All Islamist extremist groups have been influenced by Wahabbism throughout history. But it is for the first time that everything is so organised for them. It's a huge game and people don't even realise they're playing.

If everything is so well planned with ISIS how come they turn up to a gun fight with a knife? I would have thought Iran pose a far more insidious threat to the world and they are directly opposed to the Wahabbi school of thought.

Donald Trump's team are realigning America with the Wahabi states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and going directly up against Iran. Very difficult to work out what is really going on beneath all the propaganda being spouted on all sides.

As I said in the other thread, liberals are on the run all over the globe. The difference is that it looks a lot uglier in the developing world than it will in the western world which is a century ahead of the process.

 

[ExpressPacer]

If everything is so well planned with ISIS how come they turn up to a gun fight with a knife? I would have thought Iran pose a far more insidious threat to the world and they are directly opposed to the Wahabbi school of thought.

Donald Trump's team are realigning America with the Wahabi states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and going directly up against Iran. Very difficult to work out what is really going on beneath all the propaganda being spouted on all sides.

As I said in the other thread, liberals are on the run all over the globe. The difference is that it looks a lot uglier in the developing world than it will in the western world which is a century ahead of the process.

I disagree. The Wahabbi school of thought is operated by intellectual people, like I have already mentioned. These attacks you speak of are ISIS "inspired" attacks. And that's where the real danger lies. When people start getting influenced by these voices.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I disagree. The Wahabbi school of thought is operated by intellectual people, like I have already mentioned. These attacks you speak of are ISIS "inspired" attacks. And that's where the real danger lies. When people start getting influenced by these voices.

What is intellectual about inspiring someone to attack random people with a machete? Not exactly Bourne Supremacy stuff is it?

 

[Madplayer]

What is intellectual about inspiring someone to attack random people with a machete? Not exactly Bourne Supremacy stuff is it?

Its not about what weapons are being used. If that was the case, any savage with an Ak47 would have been considered an intellectual.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its not about what weapons are being used. If that was the case, any savage with an Ak47 would have been considered an intellectual.

No they wouldn't, they'd be considered a savage with an AK47.

 

[Thivagar]

I'm a liberal, but I hate those "feminists" that flash their breast in public to create "awareness" as much as a far-right wing supporters. True liberal will respect everyone regardless of how religious someone is.

 

[yasir]

You don't need a middle ground. Rather have a nation full of Sharabi's than a couple of thousand Wahabis in a nation of angels. The thing with Wahabis is that it is a part of their fundamental beliefs to influence the opinion of others and spread their message - negativity; a poor image of Islam.

A good example would be that of a Dracula that turns other people into vampires. These vampires don't even know they're wrong. They follow what they're doing religiously with their minds in a state of trance. And that is exactly what these Wahabis are doing. Not only in Pakistan. My friends in India and the UK will be very well aware of how quickly Wahabis are transforming other pious Muslims into this new cult like sect.

To be frank, I'm very much impressed with the way they operate. It's like a hypnosis. They start off really nicely, you know, telling people they should pray, worry about the end and the general good Islamic teachings. This leads to the people thinking these "Aalim's" are in fact teaching them nice things and them being notorious is all lies. However, they soon begin infiltrating their minds with diabolical statements and make terrorist sympathizers. Its like slow poisoning.

The future is a very scary time..

You have to attack the religion like any other political ideology at its core, dancing around the issue will result in what we have right now... This notion that "message is good", but "messenger is bad", means religion is good but people following it are bad, is a none sense BS...Lot of fundamental ideas of religion are bad altogether like ideas of racism, patriotism or any identity base ideology...

If you don't allow liberals to educate masses on real world, all you will get is junk ideology that is 1400 years old, you are not going to get good calories from junk food, no matter how much hygienic you are about it...

West has being able to (some what) have fair competition between liberals and conservatives in last 2/3 centuries, before that conservatives were all over the place and had their favorite toys(fear, force) to influence, in a more open and free market, they have less chance to succeed...1.7B muslims are not going to protect themselves forever, you have to win the intellectual battle, sooner or later you have to face the music, they are delaying it, which is making matter worse because lack of development is not helping, as soon as Oil dry out, that free money will go away too

 

[ExpressPacer]

You have to attack the religion like any other political ideology at its core, dancing around the issue will result in what we have right now... This notion that "message is good", but "messenger is bad", means religion is good but people following it are bad, is a none sense BS...Lot of fundamental ideas of religion are bad altogether like ideas of racism, patriotism or any identity base ideology...

If you don't allow liberals to educate masses on real world, all you will get is junk ideology that is 1400 years old, you are not going to get good calories from junk food, no matter how much hygienic you are about it...

West has being able to (some what) have fair competition between liberals and conservatives in last 2/3 centuries, before that conservatives were all over the place and had their favorite toys(fear, force) to influence, in a more open and free market, they have less chance to succeed...1.7B muslims are not going to protect themselves forever, you have to win the intellectual battle, sooner or later you have to face the music, they are delaying it, which is making matter worse because lack of development is not helping, as soon as Oil dry out, that free money will go away too

You see, the problem isn't the fact that we're biased towards religion and ignore the fundamental ideas of religion which are "bad". The problem is much greater, the "messengers" for any mainstream religion of the world are very much like the Clergy in France pre Revolution era. They say what they want to and do what they want and get away with it because people literally worship them. This is very much the case with Islam. Personally, I do not believe or think highly of any religious scholar or religious party who claim to portray Islam because Islam is a religion that puts a lot of weight on niyat. I don't someone else to teach me what I already know is good or bad.

As for the economic problems "Muslims" might face, let me just make it clear to you, I don't personally believe any of these people actually even fit the criteria for being a Muslim from these Arab states because they sponsor terrorism on every single level. So, they can burn to ashes or die of starvation for all I care.

African and South Asian Muslims never really had a lot of resources to depend on in the first place. They are self sufficient people and worst case scenario will be an isolation from the rest of the world... But how long can that possibly last?

 

[Saeed]

I don't personally believe any of these people actually even fit the criteria for being a Muslim from these Arab states because they sponsor terrorism on every single level. So, they can burn to ashes or die of starvation for all I care.

What do you mean by any of these people? So all arabs sponser terrorism?Should you even be accusing others of terrorism with that kind of attitude? Its amazing how you threw a whole group under the bus to prove a point.

 

[ExpressPacer]

What do you mean by any of these people? So all arabs sponser terrorism?Should you even be accusing others of terrorism with that kind of attitude? Its amazing how you threw a whole group under the bus to prove a point.

I know I'm stereotyping an entire race. Not what I wanted to say but.. Anyway, the point is, I was talking about the leaders and people in influential positions. I don't like the hypocrisy they present.

 

[Black Zero]

[MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION]

What do you think about average simple minded people who deny those historical data and still feel comfort that eventually justice would prevail or they would meet their loved one in afterlife?

 

[yasir]

[MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION]

What do you think about average simple minded people who deny those historical data and still feel comfort that eventually justice would prevail or they would meet their loved one in afterlife?

We have seen very recently that there are facts and then the "alternate facts", people are trying to come up with new names for lies... Religious guys have being doing this for long time...Like "Evolution by natural selection" is just a theory...This "Alternate reality" is solid to poor and helpless as religion to control them.

One think I don't like about religion is that it targets the weakest and helpless. Science has hard time fighting it, because Science targets are opposite, it demands lot more work on there part...There are lot of Mcdonalds than whole food chain, Science education is not cheap unfortunately, but religion is made for poor, it has been used as most effective tools to make slaves, well racism, patriotism are other two, they all have same DNA...

In conservative circles(all over the world) there is a new trend, lets taught kids both Science based on evidence and Religion as Science, to make sure religion can survive for an other day, Mcdonald don't want to give up on selling junk, it is so profitable...Muslim cultures have not come to even that level yet, they straight away ban by laws any discussion that challenges foundation of religion... Net result is that society is far more conservative and close minded not to mention poor, that's religion's priority customers...

Purpose of education is not to validate the ignorance but to overcome it, you cannot teach both religion and science as equivalent, to me clash between religion and science is first and far most matter of education... Religion is as much true as any other superstition, we look down upon many of them now...Religion should be viewed by society as another superstition, once they have sufficient proof, I am ok to give them status of facts aka evidence base Science, till then I have no respect for it and I want to fight it like any other ignorant ideology.

Only difference between religion and outdated superstition is the muscle power of institution and masses behind it, otherwise it is as ridiculous as any old myth or superstition...If we don't fight, it will never go away, they are not going to die by themselves...

 

[Black Zero]

[MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION]

Most believers are not interested in facts.
Do you think Ram, Krishan are historical personalities?
Even the historcity of Jesus is not established.


If majority of muslims now believe in alternate facts than to be confronted by brutal facts, then it's good development.

What would we get by making them faithless.. not everyone got courage to be faithless.

 

[yasir]

@<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=5869" target="_blank">yasir</a>

Most believers are not interested in facts.
Do you think Ram, Krishan are historical personalities?
Even the historcity of Jesus is not established.


If majority of muslims now believe in alternate facts than to be confronted by brutal facts, then it's good development.

What would we get by making them faithless.. not everyone got courage to be faithless.

You sounds like as if that is some sort of immoral thing, we are taking away something valuable, I would argue the contrary, indoctrinating kids with religion is child abuse...Does Atheist, Scientist, Engineers force their 5/7 years old kid to memorize theory of evolution or General Theory of relativity or Bill of Rights or Deceleration of independence or UN Charter?? - Why God is so obsessed with forcing people to have Faith(belief without evidence and understanding) and that too at very young age, not to mention with lot of fear behind it?? - Its wicked and immoral to brain wash little kids...

Hitchens puts it nicely, I don't even wish there to be a God... If there ever be a God, I don't understand why we have to worship him or slave of him?? - I don't get why people get comfort from faith, well people do get comfort from drugs too, but atleast most of them know they are on drugs




<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TuI4Nzc07Io" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Nostalgic]

Religion is the opium of the masses, the masses are the opium of religion, opium is the religion of the masses, religion is the mass of opium...

Come to think of it, ignore that last one.