What's new

Why liberalism is actually the biggest threat which Pakistan faces apart from insurgencies

Why liberalism is actually the biggest threat Pakistan faces apart from insurgencies...

(liberals please read and give your opinions down below!)

Many may think that I am an Islamist of sorts, and assume I am writing this thread for fearmongering purposes, but hear me out

To understand why the above statement is true, we must look at the founding ideology of Pakistan, and the basis of its formation:

Two-nation theory is the founding ideology which paved the way for the establishment of Pakistan. In basic terms, it proposed that subcontinent India cannot be considered a single nation but rather two nations – the Muslims and the Hindus. This is due to the polar opposite values, way of life, and ideal societies which both religious groups demanded.

Where Muslims wanted to create a society allowing to prioritise their Islamic values such as modesty, celibacy, condemnation of queer ideology, promotion of the nuclear family structure, etc and were strictly against the idol worshipping of the Hindus. On the other hand, the Hindus wanted to create a polar opposite society which was largely individualistic and open - where they societally normalise premarital companionship, sexual liberation, queer ideology, propagate extreme narratives of feminism as seen today.

India - A copy of western culture with Hindu aesthetic and Indian local cultural touch.

Pakistan - Islamic influenced society with local cultural touch.

The first esssentially encompassing the values of modern day liberalism and standing against everything which the Muslims wanted to be discouraged from society as it goes against their Islamic principles.

This brings me back to my original point – if liberalism continues to spread in mass throughout society till the majority see such concepts of queer ideology, sexual liberation, radical feminism, individuality, anti-celibacy, anti-modesty, anti-nuclear family structure, as acceptable and something that should be normalised, then it negates the very foundation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. It blurs the societal line which divided Pakistan and India, it removes the purpose of divisions when both societies seek to largely be shaped in the same way.

Some may use ethnicity as an argument to say only a minority of Indian Panjabis have a common ethnicity with Pakistan, hence that is valid enough - but you must remember India itself is incredibly diverse of many ethnicties and states, where many share cultural proximity regardless. Hence the line between India and Pakistan then becomes non-existent and serves no real purpose but rather hinders their overall national power.

There is no difference between Indian society and in the clip seen below:


If this is normalised in society - what really is the conflict with India for, what really is the purpose of forming Pakistan when you want the same thing? What's the difference?

Which brings me to the conclusion that widespread liberalism defeats the purpose of Pakistan.

And it actually promotes ethno-nationalism due to state ideology and national identity/conscious becoming weak – whereas the Indians have a centralised national identity based on cultural proximity as well as historical events!

This is something Pakistan has barely touched upon only briefly using M.A Jinnah and Allama Iqbal but hasn’t fostered a strong powerful centralised independent identity.

Which begs the question - what kind of society or civilisation is Pakistan trying to be? Is it just trying to be another India, which defeats it's purpose, or an actual Islamically influenced civilisation as its founder set it out to be?

@Sayfullah @_NOBODY_ @Rusty2 @epebble @Menace2Society @villageidiot

Lets re-frame this argument. Both cultures you have mentioned here are foreign to us. Islam did not originate in Pakistan, nor did Western Culture.
So the question is, which culture should we emulate.
Before we go down this path, NO ONE is saying we emulate everything from that one culture and erase our own.
So, lets look at is objectively. Which culture has provided a net positive to human kind?
Which culture is out there curing diseases, inventing things like the internet, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge?

Is there no value to this? If you say no, then you should get off the internet, never go to a doctor and stop taking advantage of that culture.
The trick here is to do what Japan did. Adapt the parts of western culture that benefit you, Keep parts of your own culture that also benefit you. But more importantly, drop the parts of western culture that will not help you AND drop the parts of your own culture that hurt you. Japan dropped integral parts of their culture that was hold them back in the middle of the 1800 and look at them now, world's third largest economy and only one of like 4 nations to never have been colonized.
 
Lets re-frame this argument. Both cultures you have mentioned here are foreign to us. Islam did not originate in Pakistan, nor did Western Culture.
So the question is, which culture should we emulate.
Islam is not a culture, it's a religion, hence the origin does not matter but belief in it's validity.
Before we go down this path, NO ONE is saying we emulate everything from that one culture and erase our own.
So, lets look at is objectively. Which culture has provided a net positive to human kind?
Which culture is out there curing diseases, inventing things like the internet, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge?

Is there no value to this? If you say no, then you should get off the internet, never go to a doctor and stop taking advantage of that culture.
The trick here is to do what Japan did. Adapt the parts of western culture that benefit you, Keep parts of your own culture that also benefit you. But more importantly, drop the parts of western culture that will not help you AND drop the parts of your own culture that hurt you. Japan dropped integral parts of their culture that was hold them back in the middle of the 1800 and look at them now, world's third largest economy and only one of like 4 nations to never have been colonized.
I'm not against adopting beneficial practices that allow us to advance as a nation and serve our greater interests.

So there's no opposition from me here. We already adopted many things without people speaking up - liberalism refers to a specific part of western ideals not their culture as a whole.

It was largely conservative for the former part of history during it's development phase anyway.

But I do remember last time during this conversation you had no problem with a man breastfeeding a child and children being given hormone therapy - so I ask how exactly is that beneficial?
 
Liberalism may have damaged Pakistan earlier, but you'd be lucky to find a "liberal" of thought in Pakistan now. What has unsettled Pakistan is extremism of thought on both ends of the spectrum.

Stick to the middle of the road - miyanarawi....never goes too wrong.
 
Pakistan must allow everything west asks them to in order to keep haram money coming....this is what our bahadur Establishment has given Pakistan.
 
Liberalism may have damaged Pakistan earlier, but you'd be lucky to find a "liberal" of thought in Pakistan now. What has unsettled Pakistan is extremism of thought on both ends of the spectrum.

Stick to the middle of the road - miyanarawi....never goes too wrong.
I disagree, liberalism is very strong in certain pockets of society even today or perhaps we focus too much on the loud minority (of elites) and ignore the silent majority
 
Your culture needs to be stronger to stop your people from mimicking Indians.

The rest of the world sees them as dothead street shit*ters so why would anyone want to emulate them?

It's not just conservative and liberal. There are varying degrees. I would not call myself liberal or conservative.

What this girl is doing is not as bad as a person being set on fire in broad daylight in Sialkot. She does not compare to TTP :lol:
Don't try to trivialize vulgarity please, those who set fire to that person were captured and death row.
 
Which also begs the question that, with your own vote being clear, flying two union jacks, as to why don't you let the Pakistanis decide that question, instead of preaching to them from such a liberal country yourself? Or you could try and move back, so as to influence the society in whichever way you would prefer it go.
The site is called "Pakistan Defence Forum" and is open to people of all nationalities for a reason.

None of what I say is absolute or definitive, so it doesn't matter.

Also I'd say overseas Pakistanis arguably do more for the country than even the locals so their opinion should definitely be heard.

 
those who set fire to that person were captured and death row.
Yes, that is good (assuming it was after a fair trial and sanctioned by law). The more important and difficult question is, there are lot of people like those in the place they came from. They can't all be tried and sentenced.
 
Islam is not a culture, it's a religion, hence the origin does not matter but belief in it's validity.

I'm not against adopting beneficial practices that allow us to advance as a nation and serve our greater interests.

So there's no opposition from me here. We already adopted many things without people speaking up - liberalism refers to a specific part of western ideals not their culture as a whole.

It was largely conservative for the former part of history during it's development phase anyway.

But I do remember last time during this conversation you had no problem with a man breastfeeding a child and children being given hormone therapy - so I ask how exactly is that beneficial?
Belief is a culture.
I agree with your second statement, problem is that will you allow people freedom of speech and freedom of thought? We can't have an advanced society without those. Even China is hitting a wall without those things.
Liberalism just means let people live their lives as they want. Let them be as religious or irreligious as they want. It is non of anyone else's briskness. Do you disagree with this? If you do what is the alternative? Force people to be pious? Isn't that an oxymoron?
I have no problem doing things that don't affect or hurt others. Just like I don't have a problem with a guy "breastfeeding" I don't don't have a problem spending all day and night in the mosque praying. The only thing I have a problem with is people forcing others to stop either of those two things. Leave people alone!! Spend your time doing useful things that advances humanity instead.
 
Belief is a culture.
Religion and culture aren't the same lol

Liberalism just means let people live their lives as they want. Let them be as religious or irreligious as they want. It is non of anyone else's briskness. Do you disagree with this? If you do what is the alternative? Force people to be pious? Isn't that an oxymoron?
I have no problem doing things that don't affect or hurt others. Just like I don't have a problem with a guy "breastfeeding" I don't don't have a problem spending all day and night in the mosque praying. The only thing I have a problem with is people forcing others to stop either of those two things. Leave people alone!! Spend your time doing useful things that advances humanity instead.
I don't want to force anything in society

But I have a problem with men breastfeeding because that is child abuse, same with giving children body altering hormones/surgeries, or telling children they can be "any gender" and then preaching that this is normal and okay

Illnesses should be labelled as illnesses and anything harmful against children must be criminalised
 
Why liberalism is actually the biggest threat Pakistan faces apart from insurgencies...

(liberals please read and give your opinions down below!)

Many may think that I am an Islamist of sorts, and assume I am writing this thread for fearmongering purposes, but hear me out

To understand why the above statement is true, we must look at the founding ideology of Pakistan, and the basis of its formation:

Two-nation theory is the founding ideology which paved the way for the establishment of Pakistan. In basic terms, it proposed that subcontinent India cannot be considered a single nation but rather two nations – the Muslims and the Hindus. This is due to the polar opposite values, way of life, and ideal societies which both religious groups demanded.

Where Muslims wanted to create a society allowing to prioritise their Islamic values such as modesty, celibacy, condemnation of queer ideology, promotion of the nuclear family structure, etc and were strictly against the idol worshipping of the Hindus. On the other hand, the Hindus wanted to create a polar opposite society which was largely individualistic and open - where they societally normalise premarital companionship, sexual liberation, queer ideology, propagate extreme narratives of feminism as seen today.

India - A copy of western culture with Hindu aesthetic and Indian local cultural touch.

Pakistan - Islamic influenced society with local cultural touch.

The first esssentially encompassing the values of modern day liberalism and standing against everything which the Muslims wanted to be discouraged from society as it goes against their Islamic principles.

This brings me back to my original point – if liberalism continues to spread in mass throughout society till the majority see such concepts of queer ideology, sexual liberation, radical feminism, individuality, anti-celibacy, anti-modesty, anti-nuclear family structure, as acceptable and something that should be normalised, then it negates the very foundation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. It blurs the societal line which divided Pakistan and India, it removes the purpose of divisions when both societies seek to largely be shaped in the same way.

Some may use ethnicity as an argument to say only a minority of Indian Panjabis have a common ethnicity with Pakistan, hence that is valid enough - but you must remember India itself is incredibly diverse of many ethnicties and states, where many share cultural proximity regardless. Hence the line between India and Pakistan then becomes non-existent and serves no real purpose but rather hinders their overall national power.

There is no difference between Indian society and in the clip seen below:


If this is normalised in society - what really is the conflict with India for, what really is the purpose of forming Pakistan when you want the same thing? What's the difference?

Which brings me to the conclusion that widespread liberalism defeats the purpose of Pakistan.

And it actually promotes ethno-nationalism due to state ideology and national identity/conscious becoming weak – whereas the Indians have a centralised national identity based on cultural proximity as well as historical events!

This is something Pakistan has barely touched upon only briefly using M.A Jinnah and Allama Iqbal but hasn’t fostered a strong powerful centralised independent identity.

Which begs the question - what kind of society or civilisation is Pakistan trying to be? Is it just trying to be another India, which defeats it's purpose, or an actual Islamically influenced civilisation as its founder set it out to be?

@Sayfullah @_NOBODY_ @Rusty2 @epebble @Menace2Society @villageidiot
The biggest threats are corruption and lawlessness
 
these same "liberals" beat up a girl in scarsdale, lahore, for refusing to drink alcohol, and for comlpaining about it. the video went viral on the internet. these people are not liberals, they are anti-religion, adn are extremists of the worst sort. the so called liberals here on this forum have repeatedly expressed their desire to destroy masajid madaris adn kill anyone with a beard. oscar (nowadays SQ8) wanted to destroy the ship on which ulema were offering prayers. this is their real face. they are full of hate.
 
Religion and culture aren't the same lol


I don't want to force anything in society

But I have a problem with men breastfeeding because that is child abuse, same with giving children body altering hormones/surgeries, or telling children they can be "any gender" and then preaching that this is normal and okay

Illnesses should be labelled as illnesses and anything harmful against children must be criminalised
They are closely related.

If you don't want to force anything in society then by definition you are a liberal. Liberals simply want the government to leave people alone in their personal lives.

Are you a doctor? You seem to know a lot about hormones and surgeries. If not then you want to force your ideals onto others, which negates your previous claim.

Some people consider religion to be a mental illness, Would you agree with that? What qualifications do you have to declare anything an illness? Again, are you a doctor or PhD in a related field? If you can willy nilly declare illnesses, then so can others.
 
These kind if threads can be informative but in all earnest descend into name calling, judgmental and kafir vs muslim shots.
 
Back
Top Bottom