Hahaha, that's what you dream of, he has the habit of spouting non-sense which is totally non-related to his field. His main job is to spout none-sense on subjects that doesn't concern him. On one day he will be talking about Qadiyani's, the next day he would be talking on Islam, later he would be talking about how US is so great that we should always lick it's boots. He just has that habit, doubt me? just read his articles.
Well I got sucked into a debate against my common sense so I will share a quote from my favorite psychotherapist Dr. Hurd...
____________________________________________________________________________
The inability to tolerate dissension is a confession that one’s viewpoint was formed emotionally, not rationally or objectively. If a viewpoint was formed rationally, there is no threat posed by an opposing opinion or question. The inner reaction to such an opposing opinion will be something like: “He’s mistaken. I can prove why, if it’s worth my time and if he’s interested. No threat, though.”
But if a viewpoint is emotionally held, it’s another story. The inner reaction to dissension goes something like this: “I won’t be proven wrong. I can’t be proven wrong. I will not be questioned!”
Holding firm to a point-of-view is not proof that you cannot tolerate dissension. Holding firm simply means you’re convinced you’re right, you know why, and you see no reason to revisit old points of persuasion just because somebody is serving them up to you.
There are many ways someone can show they will not tolerate dissension. One is to cry. Another is to shout. Another is to calmly and coolly intimidate by getting personal. Another is to change the subject. Still another is to advocate shutting down freedom of speech in some context.
There are many contexts, degrees and methods for displaying intolerance of dissent. They all spring from the same source: Emotional insecurity. The emotional insecurity, in turn, arises from a sense that one is probably wrong, and cannot accept it; or that one feels right, but cannot say why.
The least reasonable people are the ones who cannot tolerate dissent or disagreement.
https://drhurd.com/2008/11/10/people-who-cant-tolerate-disagreement/
____________________________________________________________________________
I believe the reason why some people hate Dr. Hoodbhoy in Pakistan (an educated person by any measure in any country) is because he is challenging the status quo that exists there (feudal rule by some exploitative elite with help from the Army) and who is running Pakistan into the ground by chori and misrule (these are as obvious as the noses on everyone's faces). Sooner or later, as the poor get poorer, these things will come to a head.
If Dr. Hoodbhoy - as a responsible Pakistani citizen, says something and you or any Pakistani diss him or start a propaganda against him as a Jewish agent (because of his opinions) then you all are the unreasonable ones and not him. You can disagree with him and debate him, but not discredit his opinion. He has a perfect right to his opinion, last time I checked.
What I got from his article was that he is sad to see a once great country devolve into the abyss of third-world-ship only by dint of mismanagement of fiscal and economic affairs. If he WAS a Jewish agent he'd have no reason to say this. Some people are a bit thick and a bit too paranoid.
At the end of the day (and this is me as a non-Pakistani speaking) we want a strong, happy, educated, economically prosperous Pakistan, and not a Talibanized hellhole that is worse than Afghanistan. No offense to Afghanis.
The attempt to discredit his credibility and opinions is coming from Pakistani quarters whose very existence are threatened by him (Feudal families and their friends in the armed forces in Pakistan). If you don't belong to any of these groups, then that would be an irony, because you are speaking against yourself.
