"agar log unhay galay lagan shuru kar dain, then what are we fighting"
"How can you de-radacalise a person and send him to radacalise society."
You quoted good sections from his talk. And the below quote of his that you posted is to the point :
Gen Tariq rightly said that next WOT will be fought in cities
Till now in Pakistan the fight against these wrong interpreters of Islam, these actually anti-Islam militants was in remote places whereas, if I am not wrong, other than TTP all the other such groups found their establishment or existence in the cities right from Zia's time and even before. Syria has had this situation in the from the mid 1970s to the 1980s where the Western-government-sponsored Muslim Brotherhood criminals based themselves especially in Hama city and the Syrian forces defeated them. Watch
this wonderful speech of President Hafiz al Assad from 1982 where he rails against the MB criminals. The current war in Syria - the 10-year-old war- is a new version of this.
In my opinion Pakistan should put Musharraf and Gen. Tariq together in appropriate roles to guide the security forces and remove the cancers once and for all. Pakistanis have progressive people like the young Arooj Aurangzeb ( the Leather jacket girl ). She draws inspiration from Faiz and others. Put such people in leadership.
A daunting question that has never been asked. "How can you de radicalize a person and send him in a radicalized society". If only we had some one like him during dictatorship era maybe he could have steered us from this mess. We won the battle but not the war. The old sunken red mosque molvi still threatens the state s police on camera yet no action was ever taken. Makes u wonder if this circus will ever end.
"Dictatorship" is an inappropriate word. The correct one would be "Guide". Please see above and below as to my opinion of whom can be taken as inspiration and whom should Pakistan employ to start the change.
Do you know Saudia has agreed to deposit $3B in state bank of Pak with 4% of interest rate. This 4% is too high when sovereign country gives loans to another sovereign country. They also put the condition that Pak will return the loan in 72 hours if Pak goes bankrupt. IMF has agreed to give $1B billion loan only and that too on a very strict condition.
Pak cannot run (or survive) like this anymore.
Didn't know that a country - Saudia - which prides itself on having the two holy mosques works on Capitalism ( interest-based economics and all ). Then again I didn't expect anything much better from Saudia where political refugees from Syria are present. These Syrians instead of assisting the forces of the progressive Assad's government and its international allies have been acting against it.
Hindutva violence and cow vigilante, these are reactionary. Since 1947, Hindus have been persecuted by muslims everywhere in the subcontinent. Even in India hindus faced discrimination. After independence, there were many muslim education ministers and they undermined hindu history and uplifted muslim history. They potrayed Mughals as heroes in textbooks. Moreover, hindus could not build their own schools but muslims could build madrassas. These are just some examples of discrimination faced by hindus even in their own land.
Hindus now vote for BJP and Hindutva because hindus have been persecuted by muslims since 1947 in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Even in India hindus are being discriminated. This created resentment amongst hindus. Hindutva is rising in order to counter and tackle Islamic fundamentalism.
Hindutva has existed for 3000 years, ask the Dalits, the Shudras, the women and the other oppressed people. And you claim to be a Buddhist and your community has been genocided by the Hindutvadis yet you sing in praise of Hindutvadis here and complain against Muslims ? Please stop being a hypocrite.
And why do the Hindutvadis not stop being Hindutvadis and become evolved beings ? What stops them from doing that ?
They were lynched because of their sect being deobandi, which overwhelming majority of Pakistanis consider heretics...
Actually Deobandi thought which originated in India is the cause of all regressive thought among Muslims. Deobandis are as regressive, if not more, than the Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact Syed Qutb, the leader of MB, was also inspired by Deobandism. Deobandi thought is the Hindutvization of Islam.
As I see it, muslims can only live peacefully in a secular democracy, they go crazy and overboard in an Islamic country.
Sensible Muslims have lived well in "secular" Muslim-majority countries like Nasser's Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Sukarno's Indonesia, for a time in Somalia etc. Read
this thread of mine from 2016 whose OP is an article by Pakistani journalist Nadeem Paracha and is about Socialist and Communist activism among Muslims since the early 1900s. The aforementioned countries were conspired against by NATO because NATO is primarily a modern Crusader movement and wants the destruction of any progress among Muslims.
What about Hindutvadis who live in Hindu-majority India ? Why are they being crazy and overboard ?
I have deduced that religion without reform is the most dangerous thing in the world.
Look at how Christianity changed from quartering disbelievers/ blasphemers, burning women accused of witchcraft, supporting slavery, forceful conversion to Christianity otherwise death and genociding fellow Christians whom they considered heretics (protestents) to a modern secular pluralistic society which practices non of the above.
It might take 200 to 300 years or more for Islam to change like how Christianity changed.
1. Islam
was the reform. Among all the older religions it is Islam that comes closest to modern Communism. I quote from my above linked thread :
During the same period (1920s-30s), another (though lesser known) Islamic scholar in undivided India got smitten by the 1917 Russian revolution and Marxism.
Hafiz Rahman Sihwarwl saw Islam and Marxism sharing five elements in common: (1) prohibition of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the privileged classes (2) organisation of the economic structure of the state to ensure social welfare (3) equality of opportunity for all human beings (4) priority of collective social interest over individual privilege and (5) prevention of the permanentising of class structure through social revolution.
The motivations for many of these themes he drew from the Qur’an, which he understood as seeking to create an economic order in which the rich pay excessive, though voluntary taxes (Zakat) to minimise differences in living standards.
In the areas that Sihwarwl saw Islam and communism diverge were Islam’s sanction of private ownership within certain limits, and in its refusal to recognise an absolutely classless basis of society.
He suggested that Islam, with its prohibition of the accumulation of wealth, is able to control the class structure through equality of opportunity.
Basically, both Sindhi and Sihwarwl had stumbled upon an Islamic concept of the social democratic welfare state.
Building upon the initial thoughts of Sindhi and Sihwarwl were perhaps South Asia’s two most ardent and articulate supporters and theoreticians of Islamic Socilaism: Ghulam Ahmed Parvez and Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim.
Parvez was a prominent ‘Quranist’, or an Islamic scholar who insisted that for the Muslims to make progress in the modern world, Islamic thought and laws should be entirely based on the modern interpretations of the Qu’ran and on the complete rejection of the hadith (sayings of the Prophet and his companions based on hearsay and compiled over a 100 years after the Prophet’s demise).
After studying traditional Muslim texts, as well as Sufism, Parvez claimed that almost all hadiths were fabrications by those who wanted Islam to seem like an intolerant faith and by ancient Muslim kings who used these hadiths to give divine legitimacy to their tyrannical rules.
Parvez also insisted that Muslims should spend more time studying the modern sciences instead of wasting their energies on fighting out ancient sectarian conflicts or ignoring the true egalitarian and enlightening spirit of the Qu’ran by indulging in multiple rituals handed down to them by ancient ulema, clerics and compilers of the hadith.
Understandably, Parvez was right away attacked by conservative Islamic scholars and political outfits.
But this didn’t stop famous Muslim philosopher and poet, Muhammad Iqbal, to befriend the young scholar and then introduce him to the future founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Jinnah appointed Parvez to edit a magazine, Talu-e-Islam. It was set-up to propagate the creation of a separate Muslim country and to also answer the attacks that Jinnah’s All India Muslim League had begun to face from conservative Islamic parties and ulema who accused the League of being a pseudo-Muslim organisation and Jinnah for being too westernised and ‘lacking correct Islamic behavior.’
Apart from continuing to author books and commentaries on the Qu’ran, Parvez wrote a series of articles in Talu-e-Islam that propagated a more socialistic view of the holy book.
In a series of essays for the magazine he used verses from the Qu’ran, incidents from the faith’s history and insights from the writings of Muhammad Iqbal to claim:
The clergy and conservative ulema have hijacked Islam.
They are agents of the rich people and promoters of uncontrolled Capitalism.
Socialism best enforces Qur’anic dictums on property, justice and distribution of wealth.
Islam’s main mission was the eradication of all injustices and cruelties from society. It was a socio-economic movement, and the Prophet was a leader seeking to put an end to the capitalist exploitation of the Quraysh merchants and the corrupt bureaucracy of Byzantium and Persia.
According to the Qur’an, Muslims have three main responsibilities: seeing, hearing and sensing through the agency of the mind. Consequently, real knowledge is based on empirically verifiable observation, or through the role of science.
Poverty is the punishment of God and deserved by those who ignore science.
In Muslim/Islamic societies, science, as well as agrarian reform should play leading roles in developing an industrialised economy.
A socialist path is a correction of the medieval distortion of Islam through Shari’a.
So Muslims have the leave this Hindutvization of Islam and go back to the original Socialist and Communist spirit of their faith.
2. But you know what needs reform ? Who were the people in India who violently objected to Alia Bhatt's ad for Manyavar suitings some months ago just because the ad had Alia saying at her wedding that Hindus now should be doing "Kanyamaan" ( a respectful married life for the bride at her new husband's house ) instead of "Kanyadaan" ( the traditional abandonment of the bride by her parents into the untrustworthy hands of the husband and his family ) ? I will quote a section from
my thread from 2015 whose OP is an article by an Indian Christian woman who married an Indian Muslim under Islamic law because it better secured her socio-economic situation in case of divorce :
One wonders why a reference to the Islamic law was not made either by the minister or other experts. Married Muslim women, we find, are often on a higher and more secure footing than their counterparts from other religions. In fact, as a Christian marrying a Muslim, I chose to marry under the Muslim personal law, even over the seemingly modern Special Marriage Act, 1954, to better secure my economic rights. My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights. My husband’s family members were witness to this document, which is registered and enforceable by law.
When we examine marriage laws in their historic context, it is interesting to note that the universally accepted notion that marriages are contractual rather than sacramental originates in Muslim law, which was accepted by the French law only in the 1800s and incorporated into the English law in the 1850s and became part of codified Hindu law as late as 1955. Today it appears to be the most practical way of dealing with the institution of marriage. Treating marriage as a sacrament which binds the parties for life has resulted in some of the most discriminatory practices against women such as sati and denial of right to divorce and remarriage, even in the most adverse conditions.
The cornerstone of a Muslim marriage is consent, ejab-o-qubul (proposal and acceptance) and requires the bride to accept the marriage proposal on her own free will. This freedom to consent (or refuse), which was given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago, is still not available under Hindu law since sacramental rituals such as saptapadi and kanya dan (seven steps round the nuptial fire and gifting of the bride to the groom) still form essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. Even after the codification of Hindu law, the notion of consent is not built into the marriage ceremonies.
The contract of marriage (nikahnama) allows for negotiated terms and conditions, it can also include the right to a delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez) where the woman is delegated the right to divorce her husband if any of the negotiated terms and conditions are violated.
Mehr is another unique concept of Muslim law meant to safeguard the financial future of the wife. It is an obligation, not a choice, and can be in the form of cash, valuables or securities. While there is no ceiling, a minimum amount to provide her security after marriage must be stipulated. This is a more beneficial concept than streedhan which is given by choice and usually by the natal family. In addition to Mehr, at the time of divorce, a Muslim woman has the right to fair and reasonable settlement, and this is statutorily recognised under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as per the 2001 ruling of the Supreme Court in the Daniel Latifi case.
It is also important to address polygamy and triple talaq, two aspects of Muslim law which are generally used to discredit the community and argue in favour of a uniform civil code. While sharia law permits a man to have four wives (before 1956 Hindu law permitted unrestrained polygamy), it mandates equal treatment of all wives. If a man is not able to meet these conditions, he is not permitted to marry more than one woman. (Quran 4:3; Yusuf Ali’s translation)
On the other hand, though codification introduced monogamy for Hindus, the ground reality has not changed and Hindu men continue to be bigamous or polygamous. The most disturbing aspect is that while men in bigamous/adulterous relationships are allowed to go scot-free, it is the women who are made to pay the price. Women in invalid relationships with Hindu men are denied maintenance and protection and are referred to as “mistresses” and “concubines”, concepts specific to the uncodified Hindu law. Any attempt to codify Muslim law to bring in legal monogamy should not end up subjecting Muslim women to a plight similar to that of a Hindu second wife. This is an important concern which needs to be taken into account while reforming the Muslim law.
And lastly, the much maligned triple talaq or talaq-ul-biddat, which the Prophet himself considered as the most inappropriate form of divorce. Fortunately, in 2002, in Shamim Ara vs State of Uttar Pradesh & others, the Supreme Court laid down strict Quranic injunctions which must be followed at the time of pronouncing talaq, hence now fraudulent practices adopted by errant husbands (including email and SMS talaq) can no longer constitute valid talaq. Yet, after a decade and a half, very few know challenge the validity of such divorces in court as they are unaware about this ruling.
Though Muslim law stipulates many different ways to end a marriage, including a woman’s right to dissolve her marriage (khula), divorce by mutual consent (mubarra), delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez), judicial divorce (fasq) and dissolution under Muslim Marriage Act
So what needs reform ?
What's wrong with Pakistanis.
What is wrong with Indians ?
You are talking as if India is an evolved society like a USSR, a Libyan Jamahiriya, a North Korea, a Syria, a Nasser's Egypt, an Algeria etc where the irrationals, anti-progressives people, the religious fools have been acted against with seriousness.
Why is it that almost all of these scumhags live in western Kafir lands?
@Hussain93 why are you not moving to sharia heaven Afghanistan?
Exactly. Pontificating from a Western land about such heavens. Such types have made their Western host lands also poisonous places. Take that idiot Dawah Man for example.
On this forum there is that WhiteFalcon fellow from USA and there is of course
@FOOLS_NIGHTMARE who lives in Britain and spams the forum with glorification threads about the Afghan Taliban.
Governor Salman Taseer was one true martyr of Pakistan. He was rich, highly educated, urbane, poetic, and very intelligent. And to be killed by a DUNG BEETLE like Mumtaz Qadri...
And just three days ago
@El Sidd chacha was glorifying Qadri.
Why everyone is using the name of TLP when they themselves condemned the incident and demanded investigations from the govt? Is it a new fashion to hate TLP just because they want to teach macron a lesson due to his govt level blasphemy?
Every sensible Pakistani should use this latest incident as an excuse and blame TLP, Taliban, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jamaat-e-Islami and Tablighi Jamaat. Other progressive Muslim-majority societies have acted against such types and so should Pakistan is an even serious way. The mentioned groups are parasites and should not be allowed to exist. Be a Gaddafi, an Assad, a Nasser.
---
Lastly, why are
@Zarvan and
@Areesh never to be found in such threads.
