Wanted: a strong liberal voice

[M. Sarmad]

. Moreover, If I am wrong.. disprove me.

You made a claim .. You say that Liberals are as bad as Mullahs ..... You must bring evidence to back up your claim ..... And if you can`t , I find no reason to take you seriously

 

[SQ8]

Terrorism, murder, killing cannot be equated with NGO's.

To judge the work of the NGO's and their funding, we need to use Usool of Deen and see whether their work is detrimental to Islamic values in the country or not. This is the concern of muslim circles in Pakistan, so that is how it should be addressed.



What you are talking about is the rhetoric used on the street by the common Pakistani. What other members on these forums are worried about is terrorism, killing, and murder by designed human devils called TTP.

These are two separate, incomparable issues.



This is true. But I believe it has been repeated a gazillion times on PDF before.



He said he is Muslim first. Show the quote in Urdu too.

A Muslim is a Humanitarian by DEFAULT. That is the BASIC Islamic belief, that western liberals and perennialists seem to get loose on.

This is proof of their ignorance of Islam.

all good in utopian ideals. But it is not in practice NGO's are involved in financing terror, financing people who violate the rules laid down by the Prophet at Badr.. right there and then.. the usool are violated.

A Muslim is SUPPOSED to be a humanitarian by default.. but many ARE NOT so.

You made a claim .. You say that Liberals are as bad as Mullahs ..... You must bring evidence to back up your claim ..... And if you can`t , I find no reason to take you seriously

I stick to my claim. I did no go on the reactionary tirade about it.
I still consider many of the "liberal" class as BAD as mullahs.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I still consider many of the "liberal" class as BAD as mullahs.

You may consider Mullahs to be better than Liberals ... It is your personal opinion ... You are free to have your opinions ... I am talking about facts , And the fact remains "In Pakistan , liberals are not using bullets and bombs like Mullahs for killing innocent people "

 

[SQ8]

You may consider Mullahs to be better than Liberals ... It is your personal opinion ... You are free to have your opinions ... I am talking about facts , And the fact remains "In Pakistan , liberals are not using bullets and bombs like Mullahs for killing innocent people "

And I never disagreed with that fact. But as you see, I still have my opinion.. that Liberals have been and are in many instances just as bad as the Mullah in harming this nation.

 

[M. Sarmad]

And I never disagreed with that fact. But as you see, I still have my opinion.. that Liberals have been and are in many instances just as bad as the Mullah in harming this nation.

How can they be "as bad as Mullahs" in harming this nation when they haven`t killed any one ?? Mullahs are responsible for over fifty thousand civilian deaths .. Mullahs are the enemies of the state and they defy the constitution .. They are waging a war against Pakistan ......

What is your criteria of judgement ??

 

[SQ8]

How can they be "as bad as Mullahs" when they haven`t killed any one ?? Mullahs are responsible for over fifty thousand civilian deaths .. Mullahs are the enemies of the state and they defy the constitution .. They are waging a war against Pakistan ......

What is your criteria of judgement ??

My criteria of judgement is based on detrimental effects to social fabric. Both the liberal and Mullah are essentially inciters of hatred and intolerance. One is open about it and resorts to the pamphlets and sermons...the others have their dinners and social platforms.

But lets take a different approach and look at the different categories of liberals..After all, there are those with views that are quasi-secularists, those with more balanced liberalism.. those that are simply "liberal-extremists".. and so lets say we have those that see injustice and intervene for true humanitarian reasons.. I do not equate them to Mullahs.
Take Taseer for e.g. as he is an oft derided "liberal". Many argue that it was his stand on the Christian woman that got him killed.. however, that seems little for the entire case.. perhaps Taseer was off running his mouth on other matters. He was known to be outspoken on issues that he clearly was ill informed about and even I disagreed with him. One idiot picked up a gun(or rather one idiot fired while the other idiots watched quietly as they did not have the nuttiness enough to carry it out) and took out his frustration over the matter. This would sound rather dismal as somehow I mean to suggest that one should not even voice their concerns on injustice. .. but have a look at this thread and my reply before you proceed.
Liberal=Fundamentalist

If you are not aware of matters, if you are not aware of the text or the background of the matter. And instead end up venting your ideas on religion without knowledge or matter in an attempt to push your point. You are not just being offensive to those who believe, you are inciting violence against yourself and others.. others who may not even be related(such as Christian villagers).

The above category of liberals however, those that end up saying what they dont understand is one factor. The liberals I refer to as even worse . These people deliberately speak out against Islam based on their own bigoted views in an effort to be recognized by those circles in foreign powers that are willing to finance such voices to incite hatred or degrade the image of the nation abroad.
I am not referring to those that talk of injustice or otherwise. I am referring specifically to those that refer to the prophet as a false man(astaghfirullah) and call the Quran a work of copy paste. These people are regularly seen at the sidelines of civil society gatherings, at Embassy dinners.. and otherwise. I have mingled in these circles, and I know of them. It is also these very people that help connect foreign agencies to activities such as the Baloch insurgency, the Hazara issues.. and so on. Just for a chance to be recognized abroad. And when at the same time, you also see a bearded Maulana from a political party talking of the very same service.. you realize that this is only the side of the same coin.

Your focus is only on the gun toting TTP vs the twitter brigade. I am asking you to open the picture to actions that go beyond just militants.. I refer to financing, promotion, collusion.. and conspiracy. If both Mullah and Liberal is involved... why should I differentiate the damage caused by them both.

 

[Nadi]

Canadian Pakistanis are not like you

Haahaha! and how do you know? There are many like me and there are many like the satirical picture I posted. This is Canada, you wanna dress up like a mullah, thats OK but the whole 'I'm better than you cuz I have a beard and talk Islam 24/7' crap doesn't work here. I'd be the first one to ship you back to Pakistan.

 

[Multani]

Haahaha! and how do you know? There are many like me and there are many like the satirical picture I posted. This is Canada, you wanna dress up like a mullah, thats OK but the whole 'I'm better than you cuz I have a beard and talk Islam 24/7' crap doesn't work here. I'd be the first one to ship you back to Pakistan.

Then you are definitely NOT a Canadian Pakistani, but a Canadian indian

 

[Nadi]

My criteria of judgement is based on detrimental effects to social fabric. Both the liberal and Mullah are essentially inciters of hatred and intolerance. One is open about it and resorts to the pamphlets and sermons...the others have their dinners and social platforms.

But lets take a different approach and look at the different categories of liberals..After all, there are those with views that are quasi-secularists, those with more balanced liberalism.. those that are simply "liberal-extremists".. and so lets say we have those that see injustice and intervene for true humanitarian reasons.. I do not equate them to Mullahs.
Take Taseer for e.g. as he is an oft derided "liberal". Many argue that it was his stand on the Christian woman that got him killed.. however, that seems little for the entire case.. perhaps Taseer was off running his mouth on other matters. He was known to be outspoken on issues that he clearly was ill informed about and even I disagreed with him. One idiot picked up a gun(or rather one idiot fired while the other idiots watched quietly as they did not have the nuttiness enough to carry it out) and took out his frustration over the matter. This would sound rather dismal as somehow I mean to suggest that one should not even voice their concerns on injustice. .. but have a look at this thread and my reply before you proceed.
Liberal=Fundamentalist

If you are not aware of matters, if you are not aware of the text or the background of the matter. And instead end up venting your ideas on religion without knowledge or matter in an attempt to push your point. You are not just being offensive to those who believe, you are inciting violence against yourself and others.. others who may not even be related(such as Christian villagers).

The above category of liberals however, those that end up saying what they dont understand is one factor. The liberals I refer to as even worse . These people deliberately speak out against Islam based on their own bigoted views in an effort to be recognized by those circles in foreign powers that are willing to finance such voices to incite hatred or degrade the image of the nation abroad.
I am not referring to those that talk of injustice or otherwise. I am referring specifically to those that refer to the prophet as a false man(astaghfirullah) and call the Quran a work of copy paste. These people are regularly seen at the sidelines of civil society gatherings, at Embassy dinners.. and otherwise. I have mingled in these circles, and I know of them. It is also these very people that help connect foreign agencies to activities such as the Baloch insurgency, the Hazara issues.. and so on. Just for a chance to be recognized abroad. And when at the same time, you also see a bearded Maulana from a political party talking of the very same service.. you realize that this is only the side of the same coin.

Your focus is only on the gun toting TTP vs the twitter brigade. I am asking you to open the picture to actions that go beyond just militants.. I refer to financing, promotion, collusion.. and conspiracy. If both Mullah and Liberal is involved... why should I differentiate the damage caused by them both.

WOW! Thats a whole lot of nonsense to be honest. When the West characterizes Muslims as 'moderate Muslims', 'fundamentalists', 'extremists' because of the brand of Islam these different folks are following (do 'moderate Islam', 'fundamentalist Islam' terms ring a bell?) - we tell the West, there is only ONE Islam n what not. Now you are applying the same thing to Liberals such as 'quasi-liberal', 'liberal-extremist', etc. This is all semantics & a moot exercise.

Liberals are Liberals. Period.

The fact that you actually find Salman Taseer's views on certain issues as 'his fault' for 'speaking on issues he didn't know about' is quite the glaring problem of Pakistani society today. If he expressed his views over something he wasn't a 100% sure about, SO WHAT? A liberal society guarantees his right to free speech, he can say whatever he wants and not get shot for it - heck! he shouldn't even have to worry about any sort of reprisal.

His words are just that, his words.

And the people you are referring to as simply 'liberals' - those who talk about the Prophet in a bad way, etc are called 'Atheists'. Sure, some of them will sensationalize some issues and themselves to get recognized internationally but why are we, as a society, providing them with fodder to kindle in the first place? Overall, atheists have a right to say what they want. If we can have Difah-e-Pakistan Council full of bigotted mullahs holding massive rallies in the heart of the capital and what not; we can surely tolerate a few atheists who sensationalize stuff to get foreign backing.

That is just part and parcel of a democratic society.

Your entire comment reeks of that Pakistani mentality of 'saaaazish'... This 'conspiracy theory' mindset will doom Pakistan one day if things don't change.

Then you are definitely NOT a Canadian Pakistani, but a Canadian indian

Haahaha! Spoken like a true bigotted Pakistani.. 'oh I dont agree with you so you must be an Indian or Amreeekan agent'.. good joke!

Unfortunately for you, there's another type of Pakistani that you probably don't mingle with and they probably don't mingle with you for good reasons.

 

[M. Sarmad]

My criteria of judgement is based on detrimental effects to social fabric. Both the liberal and Mullah are essentially inciters of hatred and intolerance. One is open about it and resorts to the pamphlets and sermons...the others have their dinners and social platforms.

But lets take a different approach and look at the different categories of liberals..After all, there are those with views that are quasi-secularists, those with more balanced liberalism.. those that are simply "liberal-extremists".. and so lets say we have those that see injustice and intervene for true humanitarian reasons.. I do not equate them to Mullahs.
Take Taseer for e.g. as he is an oft derided "liberal". Many argue that it was his stand on the Christian woman that got him killed.. however, that seems little for the entire case.. perhaps Taseer was off running his mouth on other matters. He was known to be outspoken on issues that he clearly was ill informed about and even I disagreed with him. One idiot picked up a gun(or rather one idiot fired while the other idiots watched quietly as they did not have the nuttiness enough to carry it out) and took out his frustration over the matter. This would sound rather dismal as somehow I mean to suggest that one should not even voice their concerns on injustice. .. but have a look at this thread and my reply before you proceed.
Liberal=Fundamentalist

If you are not aware of matters, if you are not aware of the text or the background of the matter. And instead end up venting your ideas on religion without knowledge or matter in an attempt to push your point. You are not just being offensive to those who believe, you are inciting violence against yourself and others.. others who may not even be related(such as Christian villagers).

The above category of liberals however, those that end up saying what they dont understand is one factor. The liberals I refer to as even worse . These people deliberately speak out against Islam based on their own bigoted views in an effort to be recognized by those circles in foreign powers that are willing to finance such voices to incite hatred or degrade the image of the nation abroad.
I am not referring to those that talk of injustice or otherwise. I am referring specifically to those that refer to the prophet as a false man(astaghfirullah) and call the Quran a work of copy paste. These people are regularly seen at the sidelines of civil society gatherings, at Embassy dinners.. and otherwise. I have mingled in these circles, and I know of them. It is also these very people that help connect foreign agencies to activities such as the Baloch insurgency, the Hazara issues.. and so on. Just for a chance to be recognized abroad. And when at the same time, you also see a bearded Maulana from a political party talking of the very same service.. you realize that this is only the side of the same coin.

Your focus is only on the gun toting TTP vs the twitter brigade. I am asking you to open the picture to actions that go beyond just militants.. I refer to financing, promotion, collusion.. and conspiracy. If both Mullah and Liberal is involved... why should I differentiate the damage caused by them both.

Well at least semantically a phrase like liberal extremism or liberal fascism can only be termed as an oxymoron. From a philosophical point of view you can not be a liberal and a fascist at the same time. However, since in everyday political terminology the word liberal corresponds to certain positions, therefore at least theoretically it is possible for someone to be a “hard core ” liberal. Even from that angle, you can only be called an “extremist” if you are ready to resort to violence or take extremely inflexible and fringe positions.

It is important to know as to what liberal values espouse. Well liberalism is not a strictly defined doctrine and has meant different things at different times and places. However, broadly speaking we can say that ideas with liberal underpinning are: individual liberty; women liberation, religious tolerance; preference of self introspection over irrational patriotism; separation of state and religion, increased role of state for leveling income inequalities, less ambitious external policy; and a passive yet alert military with no expansionist aspirations built around romantic nationalism .

And your definition and understanding of "damage" is quite immature . You have mingled with a few liberals who mock religion behind closed doors and you have come to the conclusion that they are as bad as Mullahs . You clearly have no idea about the situation on ground . Most probably you have not lost a loved one in this WoT . You haven`t seen Bomb blasts , you have never been to a combat zone . You only listen about terrorist attacks on the news , you have never felt the heat . That pretty much explains your indifference . !!

 

[Zarvan]

How dare you. you little piece of shit. I'm a 100 times better Muslim than you are. I never "deny" any hadith.

O Great Scholar enlighten us. Who exactly are Kharjis ???

Mr than stop defending Azlan Haider he is the one who denies Hadees Kharjis had many features one who ever committed a sin weather major or small they used to say he has gone out of Islam than they used to act extremely in many case for example once two kharjis were going through some ones date garden one of them took a date and eat it other person reminded him that its stealing so the Kharji who ate it instead of looking for owner and ask to forgive him for eating date without permission directly cut of his hand right their this and another major feature of Kharjis was that they were the first ones to come up with the slogan that Quran is enough for us we don't need hadees it was Kharjis who came up with this slogan and Sahabas successfully busted them

WOW! Thats a whole lot of nonsense to be honest. When the West characterizes Muslims as 'moderate Muslims', 'fundamentalists', 'extremists' because of the brand of Islam these different folks are following (do 'moderate Islam', 'fundamentalist Islam' terms ring a bell?) - we tell the West, there is only ONE Islam n what not. Now you are applying the same thing to Liberals such as 'quasi-liberal', 'liberal-extremist', etc. This is all semantics & a moot exercise.

Liberals are Liberals. Period.

The fact that you actually find Salman Taseer's views on certain issues as 'his fault' for 'speaking on issues he didn't know about' is quite the glaring problem of Pakistani society today. If he expressed his views over something he wasn't a 100% sure about, SO WHAT? A liberal society guarantees his right to free speech, he can say whatever he wants and not get shot for it - heck! he shouldn't even have to worry about any sort of reprisal.

His words are just that, his words.

And the people you are referring to as simply 'liberals' - those who talk about the Prophet in a bad way, etc are called 'Atheists'. Sure, some of them will sensationalize some issues and themselves to get recognized internationally but why are we, as a society, providing them with fodder to kindle in the first place? Overall, atheists have a right to say what they want. If we can have Difah-e-Pakistan Council full of bigotted mullahs holding massive rallies in the heart of the capital and what not; we can surely tolerate a few atheists who sensationalize stuff to get foreign backing.

That is just part and parcel of a democratic society.

Your entire comment reeks of that Pakistani mentality of 'saaaazish'... This 'conspiracy theory' mindset will doom Pakistan one day if things don't change.




Haahaha! Spoken like a true bigotted Pakistani.. 'oh I dont agree with you so you must be an Indian or Amreeekan agent'.. good joke!

Unfortunately for you, there's another type of Pakistani that you probably don't mingle with and they probably don't mingle with you for good reasons.

Athiests can to some other country to say their crap and as far as secular are concerned and those NGO guys most are being funded by west a known fact and agencies know it well and agencies are tolerating it for long but now they are pissed off and soon you will see they would start eradication of western paid liberals

 

[Zarvan]

And Now Madrassah bred morons will tell us what is Islam ..... !!!

Yes because they learn Quran and Sunanh and Fiqh the learn the deen brought sent by ALLAH through HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW not secular traitors who like their USA follow kufr
Imams Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and al-Hakim all collected a hadeeth using an authentic chain of narration from al-Miqdam bin Ma`di Karib, that the Messenger of Allah r said, “I have been given the Qur’an and its Equal with it. A time will come when a man will be reclining, having a full stomach, and saying, ‘Follow this Qur’an; whatever you find halal (allowed)in it, then declare it as halal, and whatever you find haram (disallowed) in it, then declare it as haram.”

 

[Zarvan]

Following are their Traits.


1.Young in age

2.Foolish minds

3 Speak with best speech

4.Emaan does'nt pass through throats.

5.They come out of religion as arrow comes out[ex-they reject these capital punishments, for-adultery=100 lashes & stoning,fornication=100 lashes & exile

for one year,Murder=death[but they dont have problem if its compensation],Rape=death,cutting of hand from wrist for stealing,etc.]

6.Weakenees in understanding.[ex-they reject sunnah,by claiming that they follow only Quran]

7.Excessive in performing acts of worship,and u'll look down upon you'r worship.

8.Worst of creatures.

9.They permit oppression against the prophet.[ex:he was astray]

10.Kill muslims and leave kuffar.

11.Deeply absorb in religion and leave it.

12.They disparage their rulers & claim them misguided.

13.They call people to Quran but have nothing to do with it.

14.They do not believe people with knowledge[scholars/mullahs] hold postition,like they rejected the knowledge of Ali r.a

15.They go to extremes in worship

16.They take Quranic verses which were revealed concerning kuffar and apply them to muslims.

17.Fight with best people.

18.Their sect leader accused prophet so this was revealed.9:58 And among them are men who slander thee in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms. If they are given part thereof they are pleased but if not behold! they are indignant!

19.Their prayer does not pass through their throats.

20.There is reward in killing them[under law]

21.They shed unlawful blood.

22.They will speak the truth with their tonuges,but it will not go through their throat.[ex-they say they learned salat method from station of Ibrahim

alai salaam and not from hadith][also zakat,hajj are from learned by ancestors and not from hadith where as hadith is the source of verification.]

23.They are the first ones to split

24.They beautify their speech but produce vile actions.

25.Every time a new generation springs up ,they cut off from jamah.

26.Dajjal will emit from amist them.

27.They are those in whose hearts is deviation.

28.They declare muslims to be disbelievers due to every sin.

29.They say Muslims who comit major sins will go to hell forever.

30.Its obligatory duty to rebel if a rules oppress sunnah[priority should be given for reformation & not rebellian]

31.They are worst in deriving rules from analogy.[ex:they reject

32.If a leader comits disbelief,they think all his people are kuffar.whether present or absent.

33.Whoever disagrees with their views r kuffar for them,they think killing them is lawful ,be it women and children.

34.Among them is he who disparages the companions and rejects their statements.

35.Fight alone with ruler whom they disagree with,fight with the one who supports him.dont fight with one who dont support them.

36.Every sin done by a person makes him disbeliever,since he is ignorant of Allah

37.They will be with dajjal.

38.They do not respect sancity of places or times.

39.They do not hold an oppresive ruler has a right to rule.[priority should

be given for reformation & not rebellian]

40.They cling to the apparant meaning of Quranic texts.They understanmd that which the text do not

indicate.They say prophet comited major and minor sins.

41.They reject sunnah if there is not some explicit text in Quran in the Quran that supports it.they do not take anything form sunnah except for that

which can be interpreted in general sense,not including those texts that contradict which is apparently stated in the Quran acording

to them. so They do not believe in stoning the adulteror.nor do they believe there is minimum [stolen] amount,which constitutes stealing.[They reject punishmnet

in grave]

42.They lie in wait on roads for the purpose of attacking passers by and spilling their blood without any justification from Allah subhanawatala.

43.Not one from among the companions of messenger of Allah could be found amongst them[supporting them]

44.There are many among them that differ with one another.they are divided into many sects.

45.They are dogs of inhabitants of hell.

46.They outwardly manifest the attributes of calling to good and forbidding evil.redirecting the religious concerning that towards disputing with rulers

,rebelling against them and fighting with those who oppose them.

47.They speak using the speech and the words of the people of knowledge.Tirelessly fight against muslims.

48.They kill themselves in sucide operations basing that on false arguments.

49.They use as evidence verses form Quran that deal with wa'eed[Allah's threat of punishment] while abandoning the verses concerning the

wa'ad[Allah's promise for forgiveness]

50.They are hastly in applying rulings.

51.They make rulings and accusations against the hearts . This includes rulings on one's decisions and notions.

52.They have doubts concerning well established historical events.

53.They call to illiteracy and make war against education,claiming that it is not possible to combine between the religious sciences and the practical secular sciences.

54.They call to splitting away from the muslim community.so they boycott the schools ,institutions,universities,government positions and residing with muslims.

55.They believe that a person who holds that the concesus[ijmaa] of the scholars is proof is a disbeliever.[shirk etc]

56.They oppose those scholars taht make blind following permissible for the common person and the beginner student ,claiming that bling following

[taqleed] is a cause for disbelief and the destruction of the nation of Islaam.

57 Bad manners towards scholars,defaming them,belittling them,kindling the with hatred for them,and having the audaicity to disparage and criticize

them. many of them resort to using caution and carefulness in secretiveness,since their beliefs and ideologies conflict with what the people of knowledge and

the rest of the muslims are upon.

58 shave their heads[tasbeet-removing the short hairs]

 

[punit]

that seems ok, unless someone accuses me of being a terrorist, if i have a beard


wait, you support the taliban?

u have beard! going by ur DP .. its impossible !

 

[SQ8]

WOW! Thats a whole lot of nonsense to be honest. When the West characterizes Muslims as 'moderate Muslims', 'fundamentalists', 'extremists' because of the brand of Islam these different folks are following (do 'moderate Islam', 'fundamentalist Islam' terms ring a bell?) - we tell the West, there is only ONE Islam n what not. Now you are applying the same thing to Liberals such as 'quasi-liberal', 'liberal-extremist', etc. This is all semantics & a moot exercise.

Liberals are Liberals. Period.

The fact that you actually find Salman Taseer's views on certain issues as 'his fault' for 'speaking on issues he didn't know about' is quite the glaring problem of Pakistani society today. If he expressed his views over something he wasn't a 100% sure about, SO WHAT? A liberal society guarantees his right to free speech, he can say whatever he wants and not get shot for it - heck! he shouldn't even have to worry about any sort of reprisal.

His words are just that, his words.

And the people you are referring to as simply 'liberals' - those who talk about the Prophet in a bad way, etc are called 'Atheists'. Sure, some of them will sensationalize some issues and themselves to get recognized internationally but why are we, as a society, providing them with fodder to kindle in the first place? Overall, atheists have a right to say what they want. If we can have Difah-e-Pakistan Council full of bigotted mullahs holding massive rallies in the heart of the capital and what not; we can surely tolerate a few atheists who sensationalize stuff to get foreign backing.

That is just part and parcel of a democratic society.

Your entire comment reeks of that Pakistani mentality of 'saaaazish'... This 'conspiracy theory' mindset will doom Pakistan one day if things don't change.




Haahaha! Spoken like a true bigotted Pakistani.. 'oh I dont agree with you so you must be an Indian or Amreeekan agent'.. good joke!

Unfortunately for you, there's another type of Pakistani that you probably don't mingle with and they probably don't mingle with you for good reasons.

Who tells it to the west? you ? that there is one brand of Islam out there and what not? If there was one brand of Islam out there, how do you differentiate it? Or are you suggesting that only what you consider Islam is Islam and the rest are all false? Seems to sound much like a Mullah.
Like I said before, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.Pakistani Liberals are no singular branch that follows a code or manual.
As for the aversion to conspiracy.. I suppose we can then also dismiss that there was no conspiracy to boot Haqqani out because he took the Fauj head on. It just happened one day.

Well at least semantically a phrase like liberal extremism or liberal fascism can only be termed as an oxymoron. From a philosophical point of view you can not be a liberal and a fascist at the same time. However, since in everyday political terminology the word liberal corresponds to certain positions, therefore at least theoretically it is possible for someone to be a “hard core ” liberal. Even from that angle, you can only be called an “extremist” if you are ready to resort to violence or take extremely inflexible and fringe positions.

It is important to know as to what liberal values espouse. Well liberalism is not a strictly defined doctrine and has meant different things at different times and places. However, broadly speaking we can say that ideas with liberal underpinning are: individual liberty; women liberation, religious tolerance; preference of self introspection over irrational patriotism; separation of state and religion, increased role of state for leveling income inequalities, less ambitious external policy; and a passive yet alert military with no expansionist aspirations built around romantic nationalism .

And your definition and understanding of "damage" is quite immature . You have mingled with a few liberals who mock religion behind closed doors and you have come to the conclusion that they are as bad as Mullahs . You clearly have no idea about the situation on ground . Most probably you have not lost a loved one in this WoT . You haven`t seen Bomb blasts , you have never been to a combat zone . You only listen about terrorist attacks on the news , you have never felt the heat . That pretty much explains your indifference . !!

You are indulging more into the debate of what defines a liberal and its romanticism. I am least interested in that repeated lecture. Here the discussion is the group of people in Pakistan who define or identify themselves as liberals. This section of society that has its spectrum of members who(if mirrored with Mullahs) have caused similar damage to the interests of the nation.
The rest of your paragraph about not losing a loved one or not witnessing this or that is pure speculation, you have no idea who I am or what my history is. We've already had a whole session on assumptions.. and clearly this is just a last resort tactic to resort to character assassination to somehow get your point across that liberals need not be compared with the devil incarnate Mullahs. Apparently, you are not above that to realize that the question was never about liberal views or atheism, its about the class that identifies themselves as liberals in Pakistan and their contribution in causing damage to state interests.

Now if you cannot for whatever reasons, be it personal or otherwise debate with a cool head. Lets agree to disagree and move on.
If I am wrong in my assumption that the Liberal class in Pakistan has elements that have been as bad as Mullahs.. then Ill come to that conclusion somehow and move on. I am not one to stick to an opinion out of pride. Take a leaf out of Emerson's essay

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.