Why Islam took a violent and intolerant turn in Pakistan

[ragingbull]

Islam as seen in Pakistan is absolute. It cant be changed. Any action in favour of Islam becomes holy and pious by the sheer virtue of being in favour of Islam.

The killing of Salman Taseer can be seen as an example. There were rallies in support of his killer who was hailed as a hero of islam. No one dared to speak up against a murderer who had killed in the name of Islam.

At the other end we have the blasphemy laws. Laws reminiscent of the control the church had in Europe in the 16th century when Galileo was declared a heretic for saying the earth revolved around the Sun and thus going against the teachings of the church. Same as the church then, the people of pakistan today are unwilling to allow anyone to speak against the Quran or Islam.

This absolute power enshrined in Islam is corrupting it. Islam can be invoked to justify any action or supress reason. The belief that the quran is the final word and can never be wrong never allows people to question decisions made in the name of Islam.
When we combine such absolute power of Islam in pakistan with misinterpretations and human malice, we have a recipe for disaster.

In spite of what we may say, the taliban are also muslims. they claim to defend islam and therefore gain public support. the same technique is used by other terrorist organisations.

As long as this great power is enshrined in the easily manipulated islam, we will have problems. Anyone can be declared a heretic and violence against the individual/community/state will follow.

This is a killer post, cheers.

 

[T-Faz]

T faz my same question to you.
Do u believe all religions are true and equal.?

All religions teach the same core values. Thus all the religions are equal but in terms of being true, you cannot deem any religion to be true. This is because the word 'true' itself means consistent with fact or reality; not false. All religions are in actuality a belief, which is any cognitive content (in this case religion) being held as true. So your question is flawed because relgion is a belief and it is held as being true by its believers. How can one call all religion true when their own faith is based on idea of one religion, their own religion, being true.

 

[LaBong]

There was once a time when Pakistan was written about in the most admirable manner by the western media at large. This was of course the time where our nation was hailed as the leader for other developing nations to follow in terms of economic and social development. This was only a few decades ago and along the way things went in a different direction to what was originally intended and assumed. To this day, it remains mind boggling for many historians and others who fail to pin point the source of all this destruction that occurred from within.

To answer this question posed by this article, you simply have to look at the religious ideologies that were present within British India and the ones that have been ultimately successful in this period to become the mainstream ideologies. The Deobandi's, whose majority members opposed Pakistan and its leaders cursed it to no end were a powerful group that was able to permeate the ideology of Pakistan due to their heavy backing from the US and the Arab nations. They realized Islam was a good political tool that will not be met with much opposition post Jinnah and they took advantage of this situation. Groups like JI and Majlis-e-Ahrar knew the usefulness of religion for political gains and when all these groups who opposed Pakistan moved to the same nation. They were successfully able to use their old tactics and launch themselves into the political arena of Pakistan through the use of Islam. This rubbed off on others who realized the benefits of using Islam and since then it has been used for political, military and personal gains.

The answer lies in the unhindered use of Islam as a tool for political, military and personal gains in this nation.

This went on for so long that the religion which was supposed to be promoted through this nation, ended up becoming a violent ideology through which power can be amassed.

Aligarh educated Muslims thought they can ride the tiger and get away with it. The very same tool which made the very existence of Pakistan volatile, was once used to gather support en masse.

I'm so glad that it was INC which played the main part in India's independence struggle, not Hindu Mahasabha.

 

[VCheng]

All religions teach the same core values. Thus all the religions are equal but in terms of being true, you cannot deem any religion to be true because the word 'true' itself means consistent with fact or reality; not false. All religions are in actuality a belief which is any cognitive content (in this case religion) held as true. So your question is flawed because relgion is a belief and it is held as being true by its believers. How can one call all religion true when their own faith is based on idea of one religion, their own religion, being true.

Excellent post T-Faz, thanks!

 

[T-Faz]

Aligarh educated Muslims thought they can ride the tiger and get away with it. The very same tool which made the very existence of Pakistan volatile, was once used to gather support en masse.

Same tool, different ideologies.

There is a big difference between then and now. The mass movement by the Muslims of British India was bitterly opposed by the hardline Islamists. The same Islamists who were later succesful in hijacking the nation becuase the role of religion was not restricted in this nation/state.

Had Jinnah lived, there would be no objectives resolution, but once religion became a part of it, there was always a chance for harldiners to hijack the nation, which they eventually did.

What you call a tool was then a requirement but is now a utility for power and control.

 

[justanobserver]

Same tool, different ideologies.

There is a big difference between then and now. The mass movement by the Muslims of British India was bitterly opposed by the hardline Islamists. The same Islamists who were later succesful in hijacking the nation becuase the role of religion was not restricted in this nation/state.

Had Jinnah lived, there would be no objectives resolution, but once religion became a part of it, there was always a chance for harldiners to hijack the nation, which they eventually did.

What you call a tool was then a requirement but is now a utility for power and control.

But Jinnah did use Islam to charge up emotions

He joined the Congress Party and for a while worked for Hindu-Moslem unity. In 1921, he abandoned the Congress to build the Moslem League and to work for a separate government for Indian . The walls of his meeting halls blazed with such slogans as: "Make the blood of slaves boil with the force of faith!" and "Make the small sparrow fight the big hawk!" He would stalk into meetings wearing his "political uniform"—native dress with a black astrakhan cap—and whip the Muslims into a frenzy. Sometimes, in his fury, his monocle would pop out of its socket. After meetings, he would go home, change to Western clothes and be again the suave Western lawyer.

Enemies among the Muslims whispered against him: "Jinnah does not wear a beard; Jinnah does not go to the mosque; Jinnah drinks whiskey.

PAKISTAN: That Man - TIME

 

[T-Faz]

But Jinnah did use Islam to charge up emotions

Two things about that article which need to be mentioned, firstly Jinnah refused to endorse its cover, deeming it to be offensive to Hindus.

The famous magazine cover read, 'The Muslim tigers want to eat the Hindu cow' and it infuriated Jinnah who said that it was offensive to the Hindu's. This brought Jinnah the ire of the editors at Time Magazine and hence the article that was written about him, ended up being very negative about Jinnah.

Similarly much of it is speculation and does not have any refrences to back up the claims, for e.g. the quote "Make the blood of slaves boil with the force of faith" can only be attributed to this Time Magazine article, you cannot find another source for this quote anywhere else..

The negative tone of this article is very visible throughout its entire write up. However if you want to believe it, please do so, but you might also want to believe what is written about Gandhi.

 

[justanobserver]

Two things about that article which need to be mentioned, firstly Jinnah refused to endorse its cover, deeming it to be offensive to Hindus.

The famous magazine cover read, 'The Muslim tigers want to eat the Hindu cow' and it infuriated Jinnah who said that it was offensive to the Hindu's. This brought Jinnah the ire of the editors at Time Magazine and hence the article that was written about him, ended up being very negative about Jinnah.

That particular cover was from 1946, the article I pasted is from 1948.

PAKISTAN: That Man
Monday, Sept. 20, 1948

 

[T-Faz]

That particular cover was from 1946, the article I pasted is from 1948.

I should have worded my post correctly, ever since Jinnah refused to endorse that cover, Time Magazine became very negative in their articles about Jinnah.

 

[BJP*]

Buddy do u agree all religions are equal ?
Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism are all equal.. do u agree with this ?

how can you expect follower of particular religion to say that he believes and trreats all religion equally...

first comes his/her own religion than respect comes for other religion.....
me as an hindu would first bother most for my religion though I respect all the other religion

 

[American Eagle]

Instead of a blasphemy law, which is about as backward in ideology as one can be, what about an amendment to the Pakistan Constitution declaring the nation to be sectarian and all religions to be protected and allowed to co-equally exist without interference as long as such religons are peaceful?

Those abusing Islam with violence daily would be put in their place or either jailed or defeated militarily once and for all.

 

[ovarel]

islam didnt took violence but violence took islam...remove islam and violence would still be there..people would seek for another motivation and eventually find it.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Islam as seen in Pakistan is absolute. It cant be changed. Any action in favour of Islam becomes holy and pious by the sheer virtue of being in favour of Islam

Teachings of religion should be absolute. Why they should change with time. I mean scriputer of religion is not notebooks where anyone can change anything she/he like to suit his/her personal needs. Followers of particular religion need to change themselves according to their religon and they should should not try to change the religion according to their personal like or dislike otherwise you will have million version of islam

The killing of Salman Taseer can be seen as an example. There were rallies in support of his killer who was hailed as a hero of islam. No one dared to speak up against a murderer who had killed in the name of Islam

You are wrong as there are majority who said that killing salman taseer was wrong no matter how loud mouthed he was in expressing his personal views about blasphemy laws interpreted from islam.

Same as the church then, the people of pakistan today are unwilling to allow anyone to speak against the Quran or Islam.

Again i think speaking against religion or against validity of its teaching with reasoning or debate is one thing while insulting and mocking the religion and its personalities another. one spread knowledge while other spread hate.

. The belief that the quran is the final word and can never be wrong never allows people to question decisions made in the name of Islam.

Again its not just islam but follower of all religion who claim their scripture is true and cannot be wrong..again you are confusing two different things here. Quran is final word of GOD and cannot be wrong but those who interept the words of god could make error in their interpretations ..two different things so dont blame Quran or islam if some follower misinterept its teachings

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

All religions teach the same core values. Thus all the religions are equal but in terms of being true, you cannot deem any religion to be true. This is because the word 'true' itself means consistent with fact or reality; not false. All religions are in actuality a belief, which is any cognitive content (in this case religion) being held as true. So your question is flawed because relgion is a belief and it is held as being true by its believers. How can one call all religion true when their own faith is based on idea of one religion, their own religion, being true.

I agree with your point but i dont think that core principles or beliefs of all religions are equal..their concepts of GOD, Prophets, views of life and death, life after death, heaven, hell or how they should spend life etc are very different to each other and if all religions are considered equal then i would ask DIVYA to follow islam instead of hinduism lol because obviously if all religion are equal and true then it dont matter which religion you follow as they are all true

 

[Vinod2070]

islam didnt took violence but violence took islam...remove islam and violence would still be there..people would seek for another motivation and eventually find it.

And it allowed it to happen? There were no safeguards whatsoever!