The problem with Pakistani liberals

[muse]

His other views notwithstanding, the biggest issue with Professor Hoodbhoy's views is his insistence that nuclear weapons are not the correct choice for Pakistan, failing to realize that it is precisely these weapons that have ensured the survival and integrity of Pakistan for last several decades.

Permit me to come back to that issue but lets first get a handle on this moral equation of Pakistanis liberals of some extreme, and the religiously inspired extremists -- please do this issue some thought - What our forum member Nationalist is suggesting is very important, he is suggesting a moral equivalence between these Extreme Liberal Pakistanis who articulate "distorted Western agenda" and seek to persuade their readers of their position, with people who strap bombs on themselves, who use takfiri ideology and label other Muslims as kafirs and Wajib ul Qatl -- I am intrigued by and pity society where in any conception of morality that sees these as equivalent, has currency

 

[muse]

Ill make an attempt..

Distorted

Undistorted

So, it's fair to say that you are from the picture ..thousand words school - now lets see, if I have understood you correctly, The Drone is distorted Western agenda and Pakistani liberals of the extreme variety are associated with drones -- and presumably the expressed desire of the Pakistan army to have such drones, suggests that they are liberals of some extreme sort????

See, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but a clearly articulated idea is worth even more, and clarity of thought is worth even much more than that.

Argus

Dr. Hoodbuoy maintain that nuclear weapons are immoral - would you agree that defending against such weapons is immoral?

 

[Roybot]

what are extreme liberals? Extremely liberal? I can just cannot understand the Pakistani tendency of creating moral equations where they simply do not exist

Extreme liberals are those who says things which Pakistanis don't like to hear. Like Hoodbhoy in Pakistan And Arundhati Roy in India.

 

[Redbull]

Mullahs are the problem, not liberals.

Once you allow a Mullah, Pundit or Priest to completely dictate your life for you, your mindset is already ready to accept "benevolent dictatorship". This blind following also lead to hero worship of names such as "bhutto", "Nawaz Shareef", "Imran Khan".

"Extreme Liberals" are merely a reaction to Mullahs, and yet, Liberals - no matter how extreme - don't go around killing people.

 

[Soumitra]

I think what you are saying as extreme liberal is extreme left wing. I agree that in any society extreme left wing is as bad as extreme right wing. But it is equally true that to cut extreme right wingers you need extreme left wingers.

 

[Alpha1]

This article is about people like you who thinks every problem in this country is created by mullahs

LIBERAL FASCISTS ARE THE REASON WE ARE STILL NOT A PROPER ISLAMIC REPUBLIC

 

[Karachiite]

what are extreme liberals? Extremely liberal? I can just cannot understand the Pakistani tendency of creating moral equations where they simply do not exist

Don't forget liberal fascism An oxymoron itself.

 

[Solomon2]

This is a canard - Army's job is to kill the enemies of the nation and state -

I agree. It's up to the political leadership to steer the course of improved governance. The Pakistani military's conundrum is that at the highest strategic level military initiative must follow political objectives yet by insisting on remaining the ultimate authority in the land the politicians aren't going to bother to risk developing such objectives or taking responsibility for them. Why take responsibility for starting a military project if, when something starts going wrong, you can't restrain or remove military commanders, not even for criminal misdeeds? Better to keep the Army in the barracks and hope terrorists don't blow too much up, yes?

and we should consider seriously whether those with seemingly unlimited funds, and who promote "Hold and build", whether they do so, based on positive experience.

Yes. The all-too-common example are schools built with Western foreign aid (because Pakistan's military diverts so much of the national budget to itself) which upon completion are taken over by terrorists or local chiefs for their own use.

It would be better to concentrate on improving police forensics (so the powerful can be convicted on the basis of evidence in spite of phony eyewitnesses providing alibis), witness protection programs (since assassination is so prevalent) to spending money on building bombs, adding artillery, or adding new divisions to the Army.

Note again, the confusion -- Blasphemy laws have not been repealed because it's bad politics in the atmosphere where the enemy has not been defeated by the Army

You have to make a start somewhere. We Americans developed a pretty good habit when people started assassinating our own leaders: we implement the attacked leader's agenda. That's what we did after Kennedy and Reagan were shot. Seeing that killing presidents made no difference or was counterproductive decreased the motivations for such deeds sharply.

How could "liberals" start to fix things? No more empty slogans like "bread, land, and shelter" but a presentation of values along with detailed proposals to implement them and educate the voter might be a good start.

 

[muse]

How could "liberals" start to fix things? No more empty slogans like "bread, land, and shelter" but a presentation of values along with detailed proposals to implement them and educate the voter might be a good start.

Sol, I really think that the civilians (liberals) cannot fix this problem, until the Army kills off the enemy - I think we may even have a constitutional problem, because the army has refused to do what the govt wants it to do, and the army continues to harbors political ambitions, or at least finds it convenient to remind the civilians that they are watching (circle of trust)

Once Army does kill off the enemy, which like asking a mother to kill her own children, this signal will itself be TRANSFORMATIVE (I refer you to the army motto)

 

[SQ8]

So, it's fair to say that you are from the picture ..thousand words school - now lets see, if I have understood you correctly, The Drone is distorted Western agenda and Pakistani liberals of the extreme variety are associated with drones -- and presumably the expressed desire of the Pakistan army to have such drones, suggests that they are liberals of some extreme sort????

See, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but a clearly articulated idea is worth even more, and clarity of thought is worth even much more than that.

Argus

Dr. Hoodbuoy maintain that nuclear weapons are immoral - would you agree that defending against such weapons is immoral?

Those thousand words depend upon the intellect of the one interpreting the picture..
I meant it quite the opposite..liberals were not even part of the picture..

So.. the distorted agenda becomes.. USAID..
while the undistorted ones is represented by the drone attacks and other attempts..


Liberals.. or whatever definition suits this breed.. are the ones left defending drone attacks through highlighting USAID.
Ive already had this discussion before on "liberals".. since the term is too vague to describe a singular group.

A Muslim who follows Tasawwuf(sufism) and attends Samaa(Qawwali) may be considered liberal by someone of ibn abd al wahabs religion( i expect some to be irked at this as many do not yet understand the difference between faith and religion)..

Yet a man who drinks and eschews faith.. and regards Islam as a mistake in Pakistan is also to be considered liberal..

So there is little opinion on that..


As to the topic of Nuclear weapons.. which in my view are not just inhumane.. but UnIslamic(the irony that it is touted as an Islamic bomb).. since a nuke does not differentiate between the combatant and the non combatant.. the women,children and elderly .. to which no harm should come as laid out in the foundations of the rules of warfare given to Muslims by the Prophet.

 

[Sugarcane]

Pakistani liberals are also extremists like Mullahs - albeit on opposite side. We need moderates not liberal fascist nor religious extremists.

 

[Huda]

LIBERAL FASCISTS ARE THE REASON WE ARE STILL NOT A PROPER ISLAMIC REPUBLIC

My father always says Islam is only liberal religion in world

want ur comment @Zarvan

 

[SQ8]

My father always says Islam is only liberal religion in world

want ur comment @Zarvan

There is no singular religion in Islam.. there is faith..
There is the religion of Imam-e-Azam Abu Hanifa.. , Religion of Imam Hanmbli, Imam Shafi.. etc

The difference between Deen and Madhab..

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Permit me to come back to that issue but lets first get a handle on this moral equation of Pakistanis liberals of some extreme, and the religiously inspired extremists -- please do this issue some thought - What our forum member Nationalist is suggesting is very important, he is suggesting a moral equivalence between these Extreme Liberal Pakistanis who articulate "distorted Western agenda" and seek to persuade their readers of their position, with people who strap bombs on themselves, who use takfiri ideology and label other Muslims as kafirs and Wajib ul Qatl -- I am intrigued by and pity society where in any conception of morality that sees these as equivalent, has currency

We can come back to the nuclear issue later, but for now, what I understand from his/her post is that it is not the moral equivalence, but equal rejection of the views and methods of both sides that is important. For lack of a better word, perhaps what is being suggested is centrism.

................
Argus

Dr. Hoodbuoy maintain that nuclear weapons are immoral - would you agree that defending against such weapons is immoral?

Weapons, like money, do not have any morality per se. It is up to the end user to determine the need and use if the conditions reach such a state. It also follows that defense, against all forms of attack, is an obligation that knows no morality either.

...................

As to the topic of Nuclear weapons.. which in my view are not just inhumane.. but UnIslamic(the irony that it is touted as an Islamic bomb).. since a nuke does not differentiate between the combatant and the non combatant.. the women,children and elderly .. to which no harm should come as laid out in the foundations of the rules of warfare given to Muslims by the Prophet.

It would be wrong to assign morality or inhumanity to only nuclear weapons, and not other forms of equally terrible weaponry.

 

[muse]

Equal rejection and centrism -- Presumably the good and the right, and the ethical and the moral have a center?? Why this semantic gymnastics and philosophical confusion?