What's new

Glory, piety and politics by Nadeem F. Paracha

Bhushan

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
Glory, piety and politics
Nadeem F. Paracha
Sunday, 14 Mar, 2010

Many young Pakistanis, who in their reactionary worldview cannot relate to the conventional make-up of the long-bearded and mullah-looking hawkers of intransigent ideas, have found their man in the dashing (Che Guevara-meets-Saladin) shape of Zaid Hamid. But this phenomenon does not begin or end with Mr Hamid.

Back in the early 1990s the army and the intelligence agencies of Pakistan were high on the way they — with the cosy help of US and Saudi money and weapons — assisted Afghan Islamists in defeating the Soviet Union. Consequently, not only were the victorious Islamists sure of turning each and every Muslim country into an Islamic state, this fantasy was also harboured by a host of their comrades in the Pakistani intelligence apparatus

The disastrous economic, political and social fall-outs of Pakistan’s involvement in the so-called Afghan jihad were conveniently blamed (by the agencies and their mouthpieces in certain sections of the media) on the return of civilian politicians. In other words, had Gen Ziaul Haq not been assassinated and democracy not returned to Pakistan, the country truly could have become the strongest bastion of Islam.

This was the message the military-establishment seemed to have been giving in the face of the struggle that Pakistan’s democratic parties such as the PML-N and the PPP were locked in during the 1990s. It was a struggle that was a combination of their own blunders and what was clearly an attempt by certain resourceful remnants of Zia’s Afghan jihad to keep both the parties constantly reaching for one another’s throats to stay in power.

On the social level, when a generation of young Pakistanis who had gallantly fought against the military dictatorship of Ziaul Haq in the 1980s came of age, this generation was replaced by a more inward looking batch of young Pakistanis who were successfully made to feel repulsed by the whole concept of populist democracy. With Pakistan’s two main political parties looking exhausted by being made to play a continuous game of cat and mouse with the establishment, the new generation of young Pakistanis began to look elsewhere.

Instead of finding a tad more rational and progressive avenues of expression and belonging, this generation, already brought up on the glorious myths of jihad and Pakistan’s frontline role as the ‘saviour of Islam’, eventually found itself venturing into spacious drawing-rooms buzzing with a new kind of Islamic preachers. These preachers were largely apolitical, perhaps disgusted by the populist mindsets of the country’s rural and working-classes, and they went straight for the emerging youth of the new middle class.

Their message has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of reformism contemporary Muslim thought is in a dire need of. On the contrary, what these preachers, ranging from the likes of Farhat Hashmi to Zakir Naik, do is to continue upholding traditionalist, frozen tracts of Islamic history and law; they dress them up with modern bourgeois symbolism. In other words, the message remains the same traditionalist, but the way this message is delivered has now changed.

The seeds of neo-religious traditionalism disguised as ‘modern Islam’ were thus sown, and a contemporary identification tool for a number of not-so-clear-minded middle-class youth was discovered. Hijab and beard became ‘cool’; so did the idea of trendy and hip looking folks sounding like 21st century versions of Abul Ala Mauddudi, or worse, yuppie adaptations of Mulla Omar! The tragic 9/11 episode, Bush’s diabolic invasion of Iraq, another military dictatorship in Pakistan, and the rise of the Taliban in the country, all this (and more), eventually began to politicise the otherwise apolitical wave of neo-traditionalist piety, attire and thought that had started sweeping across large sections of Pakistani middle-class.

TV personalities like Zaid Hamid and Aamir Liaquat, and politicians like Imran Khan and Munawar Hussan, are pegs of this new trend, mixing neo-traditionalist trappings of exhibitionistic piety, dress and claims with political discourses that may sound populist and radical, but in fact they are nothing more than the kind of reactionary and myopic mindset that sections of Pakistan’s military establishment started being plagued with during the Afghan jihad under Zia and after. Today society stands clearly polarised.

On the one side are those we call the masses and who play the most direct role in politics of democracy; whereas on the other side are large sections of the middle class whose youth it seems have completely fallen away onto the right, lapping up fanciful myths of glory and power and punchy reactionary oratory that is fed to them by the new set of preachers, private TV channels and fringe politicians. This class, believing in pious and patriotic proclamations expertly wrapped in delusions of grandeur and conspiracy theories, stands completely isolated from the ongoing masses-based democratic process that is underway.

This continues to fall inwards; it is a psychological introversion that may well be making a number of educated young men and women hold somewhat xenophobic, chauvinistic and at times completely irrational ideas about glory, piety and politics. And what’s even more worrying is that maybe very few of them are aware of the bundle of spiritual and ideological dichotomies that the emerging trend has turned into.
 
.

Nadeem F. Paracha


Well I think Nadeem F. Paracha is one of the liberals in Pakistan. I dont want to stir up a hornet's nest but according to me the longetivity of any idea, religion,civilization etc is defined by the inherent flexibility in it. The power to include rather than exclude. The property by which an idea or religion is inherently fuzzy , which can mould itself in a way that it takes all other beliefs into its system rather than excluding anything.

In my humble opinion the state of Pakistan and its ideology needs to be more flexible ( if not complete revival). It needs to be more inclusive to arguments which are against the norm. It shouldnt be a forgone conclusion that whosoever speaks against some Muslim rulers or some laws in Islam becomes a Kafir and so on and so forth.

Overall I see some of the Islamic powers rise and shine ( like turkey) because they have been open to reform much more then others of their kind. In the world order that is to be formed sooner or later then will be no authoritarian or absolute rule . People will have the right to think and express their rights in whatever way they want. I think the root cause of terrorism today lies in the poverty , illiteracy ( of the religious kind) and non-flexible nature of some people.

Hope there are many more paracha's that influence people with their liberal ideas .
 
.
He is not liberal, he is a nut and a blasphemer. He is a known basher/hater of Islam.

Besides all his rants end up at bashing Zaid Hamid, Dr Shahid Masood, Hamid Mir, Dr Amir Liaqat Ali, Maria B, Ali Azmat.

every writing of his is like back to square one
 
. .
This guy hits right on the money. Like most people in Pakistan I've grown up viewing the "Pretend Islam" on TV and from politicians.

This pretense is nothing but a way to cover own failures by assigning the best excuse of them all "Everything is going wrong with us because we have given up on Islam". Sometime back on a thread one of our members questioned "How will Pakistan's corruption vanish away by an Islamic governance system?" As if Democracy is a system that favors corrupt people. It was called a system of corruption.

I wonder what they will call the Islamic system when corruption still takes place, since the people will remain the same.

Zaid Hamid does the same. He knows how to instill inspiration amongst the mentally weak and desperate to see some "glory days" back. Too desperate. Willing to hit the short cuts.
 
.
Have space in your heart for everyone, even for one whose thoughts differ from you.

That is exactly what I highlighted in my post. Flexibility is the key to longevity and ultimately peace and prosperity.

This guy is not flexible himself.

He is as much an extermist as anyone else. He is not spreading any flexibility which could lead to peace.


In one of his pieces he said there is no need to offer nimaz(prayer), he also says what is need for azan
 
.
He is not liberal, he is a nut and a blasphemer. He is a known basher/hater of Islam.

Besides all his rants end up at bashing Zaid Hamid, Dr Shahid Masood, Hamid Mir, Dr Amir Liaqat Ali, Maria B, Ali Azmat.

every writing of his is like back to square one
These are the modern day neo-traditionalists he mentions. Zaid Hamid cribs on "Ghatiya Maulvi" all the time, pretending he is not one himself. The big beards alone do not a Mullah make.
 
.
This guy is not flexible himself.

He is as much an extermist as anyone else. He is not spreading any flexibility which could lead to peace.


In one of his pieces he said there is no need to offer nimaz(prayer), he also says what is need for azan

Well he wouldnt have been flexible had he stopped people from offering prayers. Its his view that their is no need for nimaz then so be it. Why do you care. He will follow his religion the way he wants to.

I am a hindu but I hardly go to a temple. The last time I went to a religious shrine it was a guruduwara. No one forces me to go to a temple or offer a prayer. I am just a less religious person who believes in what God said but not in the existence of God as such. Yet I like to sit for yagya and pooja at times because of the mental peace I get. Its my life and I am living the way I want to. I am not stopping anyone from living their life the way they want to. That is what flexibility in a soceity is all about. You dont banish anyone for being different but you recognize the difference and accept them
 
.
This guy is not flexible himself.

He is as much an extermist as anyone else. He is not spreading any flexibility which could lead to peace.


In one of his pieces he said there is no need to offer nimaz(prayer), he also says what is need for azan
Why are you talking about such small things in context of politics? His personal beliefs and way of life do not affect my namaz, do not affect my Azan (also you should post links before making such claims about people). Besides thats not even the topic we are discussing.
 
.
Well he wouldnt have been flexible had he stopped people from offering prayers. Its his view that their is no need for nimaz then so be it. Why do you care. He will follow his religion the way he wants to.

I am a hindu but I hardly go to a temple. The last time I went to a religious shrine it was a guruduwara. No one forces me to go to a temple or offer a prayer. I am just a less religious person who believes in what God said but not in the existence of God as such. Yet I like to sit for yagya and pooja at times because of the mental peace I get. Its my life and I am living the way I want to. I am not stopping anyone from living their life the way they want to. That is what flexibility in a soceity is all about. You dont banish anyone for being different but you recognize the difference and accept them

My point is that if he has the right to reject any prayer or azan or anything related to religion, that is his right BUT at the same time he should give the same right to others if they want to pray.


I have no problem with his thoughts for himself as long as he doesnt not call all those who differe with his thinking as terrorists.
 
.
Why are you talking about such small things in context of politics? His personal beliefs and way of life do not affect my namaz, do not affect my Azan (also you should post links before making such claims about people). Besides thats not even the topic we are discussing.

Yar i am not saying that his beliefs are affecting me if i am a strong believer of my faith.

The issue is that he thinks all others who have different views are wront.

We here are discussing his writing :) Indians think he is most liberal man who is right because he oppose Islamic thoughts.


As far as few things in his this write up, then Asim all of us know what happend in Zia era, most of the laws he had formulated have been denounced by many of us including me.


I am talking about his monotonous writing that always end at bashing Islam, and the persons i mentioned in earlier post.
 
. .
Yar i am not saying that his beliefs are affecting me if i am a strong believer of my faith.

The issue is that he thinks all others who have different views are wront.

We here are discussing his writing :) Indians think he is most liberal man who is right because he oppose Islamic thoughts.


As far as few things in his this write up, then Asim all of us know what happend in Zia era, most of the laws he had formulated have been denounced by many of us including me.


I am talking about his monotonous writing that always end at bashing Islam, and the persons i mentioned in earlier post.

i dont think he bashes Islam......................he just too funny and He dont like Zaid hamid:smitten::smitten:
 
.
Yar i am not saying that his beliefs are affecting me if i am a strong believer of my faith.

The issue is that he thinks all others who have different views are wront.

We here are discussing his writing :) Indians think he is most liberal man who is right because he oppose Islamic thoughts.


As far as few things in his this write up, then Asim all of us know what happend in Zia era, most of the laws he had formulated have been denounced by many of us including me.


I am talking about his monotonous writing that always end at bashing Islam, and the persons i mentioned in earlier post.
From what he wrote here is no Islam bashing. He is talking about these neo-Mullahs who pretend to be against the Mullahs but are basically selling the same product.

All these are the same and they are fundamentally against Pakistan as we are today. They praise Quaid, but talk against his ideology of a secular and free Pakistan. They quote Iqbal but fail to empathize as he did even with the likes of Nietzsche. If you listen to these people, they quote Iqbal to make him sound like a Mullah, where as he was totally the opposite.

In cricketing terms this would either be a googly or a doosra.

What I don't understand is that why don't their supporters step back and see things on how they have always evolved. First there is talk about "Modern Islam", then old ideas are repackaged as new, and then charges of blasphemy are levied whenever something doesn't match with their narrow world view and pretty soon we have terrorists and suicide bombers. It is a full chain of consequences that leads to this type of behavior.

At the point where you say, we will force this system upon you, at that time you become a Mullah, an enemy of freedom, an enemy of Pakistan.
 
.
In one of his pieces he said there is no need to offer nimaz(prayer), he also says what is need for azan
The article you're referring to was one where he was saying that during the early days of this country, nobody was forced to go the mosques and Zia's Islamization started the forceful religious indoctrination.

Somehow the people of subcontinent before Independence were flexible, liberal and tolerant. Then the islamic religious forces rose and gained power (and money). I've always wondered how the flag bearers of religion today view the people of the subcontinent of the '30s and '40s? Maybe as non-muslims? He didn't say that one should not go for prayers. Stop taking this out of context and stop complaining about NFP. He has gone on a long streak of boring and monotonous articles but he has the right to say whatever he wants. There's a sea of conservative, extremist opinion writers in the newspapers already to fulfill your hunger.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom