Betrayed, Arabized

[Sinnerman108]

Let me help you with definitions, hardline means firm and uncompromising, being inflexible.

These laws certainly fit the bill because prior to the introduction of these laws, there was no precursor for this particular onslaught of religious provisions.

Its both.

Yup, adultery and rape have different sets of applicable rules and punishments.

I am over it.

No problem with that but the process was sudden and caused inconsistency and instability in Pakistani laws.

Sure, but these laws were not being applied properly enough to warrant an effective change in Pakistan.

But to this day there has been a lot of changes in what is recommended by the Shariat courts and the council. They even agreed the Blasphemy laws require changing, Sharif too altered it and made it more rigid with the death penalty in the early 90's.

It seems like a testing/error process as nothing really become concrete in the state of Pakistan.

But there laws are hardline, they are firm and uncompromising.

Good.

I went though the ayats regarding Hudood. I was most interested in the last Ayat of all which state " beware these are the limits set by Allah and do not come near them"

I think I am going to stay away from them. You may term it hard line or what ever. But laws which are expressed explicitly and categorically are not up for interpretation and negotiation.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Here it comes, AzAd (R3, too bad, huh?)

Uber Muzloum Salman, has pointed out that Islam since it's advent in Arabia, has killed culture and replaced the content of culture, with itself, what Salman call Islam - -and since Islamization in Pakistan equals arabization, as Pakistan is "islamized", it is "arabized" -- Now I have not problem with this explanation from Salman, as it goes to add weight tot he contention that Pakistan is becoming arabized, even as it is being "islamized", if you will --- You make valid points about Weding ceremonies and such - but of course it is interesting that in arabia itself, in society, the attire of choice for the bride is a western wedding dress - and this confirms my point that culture finds a way to express itself no matter how much repression one employs against it.

Asim Aquil
Khada hafiz the same as Allah Hafiz ?? If it is, then why the need for Allah hafiz, if not for arabization?
? -

Some times I try to find a reason for your cynical behavior.
Anyway what you say is correct with one correction.
I am proposing culture, society values, constitution on the same principles as on the day of the last Surmon by the prophet.
When the people, and God himself were held witness.
Today Arab culture has many many extra additions, I am not preaching those; and I will struggle against those.

 

[Developereo]

And what about the 'monkey-aping' of Bollywood in Pakistan, or the West in India and Pakistan? Why is it just the Arab influences that concern some when it comes to harmless things like these 'tidbits'?

The people bemoaning 'Arabization' will never answer this question because it goes to the heart of the elitist hypocrisy underlying this whole debate.

By their logic,
- wear jeans and t-shirts -- good.
- wear hijab -- bad.

- say 'happy birthday' instead of 'salgirah mubarak' -- posh.
- say 'allah hafiz' instead of 'khuda hafiz' -- closet terrorist sympathizer.

- love alcohol -- progressive
- love humus -- arabicized.

Basically, every foreign influence adopted by the elitists is acceptable, but the unwashed masses need to be berated for their gullibility.

For the record, I do not like the Arabization any more than I like Western influences supplanting Pakistani traditions -- especially in language. It's fine to learn another language in addition to Urdu, but we should be careful not to abuse Urdu.

The debate will be more honest if we shed the elitist hypocrisy and condemn all types of foreign usurpation of Pakistani culture.

 

[Sinnerman108]

The people bemoaning 'Arabization' will never answer this question because it goes to the heart of the elitist hypocrisy underlying this whole debate.

By their logic,
- wear jeans and t-shirts -- good.
- wear hijab -- bad.

- say 'happy birthday' instead of 'salgirah mubarak' -- posh.
- say 'allah hafiz' instead of 'khuda hafiz' -- closet terrorist sympathizer.

- love alcohol -- progressive
- love humus -- arabicized.

Basically, every foreign influence adopted by the elitists is acceptable, but the unwashed masses need to be berated for their gullibility.

For the record, I do not like the Arabization any more than I like Western influences supplanting Pakistani traditions -- especially in language. It's fine to learn another language in addition to Urdu, but we should be careful not to abuse Urdu.

The debate will be more honest if we shed the elitist hypocrisy and condemn all types of foreign usurpation of Pakistani culture.

This is very correct and I will go as far as saying that the Liberals have been waging an agenda of their own.
Every effort possible is made to spread the Liberal ideology, be it fashion, music, arts etc etc etc ....

So, wouldn't it be reasonable to maybe try and understand this Tussle in Pakistan between Liberals and conservatives.
instead of saying only that conservatives are trying to push their way in ?

 

[Awesome]

Asim Aquil
Khada hafiz the same as Allah Hafiz ?? If it is, then why the need for Allah hafiz, if not for arabization?
? -

It sounds cool?

No matter what, my first instinct is to say Ramadan not Ramzan and its now creeping into Pakistan for reasons other than religiosity. Arabs did a better job of marketing their terms. Makes sense they had a lot more money. Come Ramadan time and there are like a million adverts blasting ""Ramadan Kareem special Iftar/Suhoor offer".

Of course we Pakistanis live an amalgamated life even here. For example our Roza starts at the fajar Adaan (or Azaan ), Arabs have this concept of Imsak where they start 10-15 minutes before the Azaan.

Islam comes in a variety of flavors and is evolving like everything else. No no I don't mean the religion is changing, but think about it, what is Islam? Its whatever our current interpretation of all the religious texts is. If that keeps changing so does Islam.

Yeh akhri baat shayad logon ko pasand nahi aye kyunke we are lakeer ke fakeer, but that won't change it from being true.

 

[Developereo]

Here is the issue - Arabization is a cultural proposition - islam is a relgious proposition - Should Islam in Pakistan be a Arab cultural proposition?

Other have argued that yes, since Islam itself began as a Arab proposition and was rooted in the culture of Arabia, therefore, Islam not just in pakistan but everywhere, is essentially a arab cultural proposition (note the arguments about Quran in Arabic and such)

So the question arises, if indeed, we accept that islam is itself a arab cultural and religious proposition, rooted in arab, culture, then of course, Pakistan's cultural identity is mute, it's history irrelevant, because with the acceptance of Islam, the greater meaning is the acceptance of arab culture - is this not so ??

Muse,

While I agree with you partially on this matter -- regarding our unfortunate denial of pre-Islamic identity in Pakistan -- I wish you had chosen an opening article with a less confrontational style.

Regardless, in response to this particular post, your logic is correct except the last sentence. Accepting Islam -- and it's concomitant Arabic culture -- does not have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Just because we accept some parts of Arabic culture which are closely tied to Islam does not mean we have to accept other, irrelevant parts also.

Secondly, and more importantly, why do people think that we cannot accept and blend multiple cultures? Many Pakistani customs already incoporate multiple influences. At our home, we celebrate a person's birthday by rotating a thali containing a coconut, flower garlands, etc. over their head while reciting Qur'ani ayats. We are perfectly well aware that the thali routine is a Hindu tradition, but it doesn't make us less Muslim or Pakistani to follow that tradition.

 

[Safriz]

so much bickering on upholding our own culture but aren't these the same people who will call me paindoo if i wear shalwar qameez and to them wearing jeans wont be americanization.......but they will be knit picking on everything related to islam.
kuda hafiz vs Allah hafiz.......over 50 comments on this non issue.wow
who needs enemies among non muslims when we got our own muslims like them.
extremism of another kind.

 

[Developereo]

This is very correct and I will go as far as saying that the Liberals have been waging an agenda of their own.
Every effort possible is made to spread the Liberal ideology, be it fashion, music, arts etc etc etc ....

So, wouldn't it be reasonable to maybe try and understand this Tussle in Pakistan between Liberals and conservatives.
instead of saying only that conservatives are trying to push their way in ?

The problem in Pakistan is that everybody has a agenda and we tend to debate around the core issues and focus on incidentals.

If people have an issue with the blasphemy law or hudood laws or certain ideologies being promoted in Pakistan -- and we all have opinions on the matter -- let's debate the actual issues instead of talking about vague generalizations like 'Arabization'.

 

[Jango]

well,that is the world we live in safriz!. If a woman wears jeans and sleeveless shirt, she is being liberal and no problem with that, it is her choice, but if we say Allah Hafiz or pray in Arabic, that is Arabization aur phir humaray culture ki wat lag jati hai.!!

 

[Omar1984]

read about pre-Islamic Arabia, when widows were being buried alive; women were being raped, women were prostituting themselves (oldest profession known to man).....people were chopping eachothers heads off more than they do now

jahhaleyya

And pre-Islamic South Asia.

Sati a religious funeral practice among hindu communities in which a recently widowed woman either voluntarily or by use of force and coercion would have immolated herself on her husband’s funeral body. Islam teaches us a woman can even marry another man after her husband's death.

Killing of female babies which was practiced a lot in Middle East and South Asia, still practiced in South Asia (female infanticide). Islam teaches us not to murder female babies.

Burrying women alive when they chose their marriage partners that happened in Balochistan 3 years ago. And some Baloch would defend this old tradition saying Baloch did this for thousands of years ago. Islam teaches us that a woman can chose the man she wants to marry.

Caste system. Where hindus believe one caste is born superior to other castes. the untouchables can not even be touched, if they touch a piece of cloth you can not touch it. Islam teaches us all human beings are born equal.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is just so convenient to paint a barbaric picture of pre-Islam Arab. Are there any neutral sources for this picture? No!

What we know for a fact is this: Women used to run businesses (Mohammed's wife is an example) and employ men. People used to adapt children and treat them as their own, women were free to go out of their homes with a "namehraan" if they chose to and not worry about being beaten or stoned by a bunch of morality keeper thugs.

The tales of women being buried alive could well be an exaggeration in the absence of independent sources. To make "them women" feel grateful for being called "deficient in intellect and religion", "naqisul aqal", walled in behind the four walls and still be grateful.

All this because at least she is not buried at birth, something that supposedly used to happen earlier. Even though supposedly men used to have unlimited wives and that would suggest a healthy gender ratio.

A physiological master stroke, no doubt. Whether it is convincing enough for those who can think rationally is another matter.

What you write about Taxila etc. is absolutely true. The lands which were the keepers of ancient Indian wisdom never could recover after the destruction wrought on them by those invaders. The presence of their ruins doesn't change the fact that they have subsequently been known only for their bandits and lawlessness.

The fact that Mohammed and his followers were persecuted and hunted for propagating a new religion would appear to indicate a 'intolerant and barbaric society'. Of course it is rather sad that many Islamic societies today have reverted to that kind of intolerance themselves, perverting and distorting the religion.

 

[Vinod2070]

The fact that Mohammed and his followers were persecuted and hunted for propagating a new religion would appear to indicate a 'intolerant and barbaric society'. Of course it is rather sad that many Islamic societies today have reverted to that kind of intolerance themselves, perverting and distorting the religion.

You have yourself answered it.

Only this time it is just "rather sad" while earlier it was Jahiliyah!

In fact, a "self proclaimed imposter prophet" (which he must have seemed to those who opposed him, as someone making similar claims would seem to many now) and his followers would be "persecuted and hunted for propagating a new religion" more now than then.

So what is the difference again?

PS: In fact one could argue that this intolerance is more institutionalized now than it ever was, ever could be pre Jahiliyah.

 

[Jango]

You have yourself answered it.

Only this time it is just "rather sad" while earlier it was Jahiliyah!

In fact, a "self proclaimed imposter prophet" (which he must have seemed to those who opposed him, as someone making similar claims would seem to many now) and his followers would be "persecuted and hunted for propagating a new religion" more now than then.

So what is the difference again?

PS: In fact one could argue that this intolerance is more institutionalized now than it ever was, ever could be pre Jahiliyah.

Well, it is still Jahiliya, but it is sad because it is the muslims doing it, at a time when revelations and guidelines have been given to us, but in Pre-Islam era, it was not sad in those times, because there were no Revelation, no Quran to guide those people from right or wrong.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

You have yourself answered it.

Only this time it is just "rather sad" while earlier it was Jahiliyah!

In fact, a "self proclaimed imposter prophet" (which he must have seemed to those who opposed him, as someone making similar claims would seem to many now) and his followers would be "persecuted and hunted for propagating a new religion" more now than then.

So what is the difference again?

PS: In fact one could argue that this intolerance is more institutionalized now than it ever was, ever could be pre Jahiliyah.

Well, it is still Jahiliya, but it is sad because it is the muslims doing it, at a time when revelations and guidelines have been given to us, but in Pre-Islam era, it was not sad in those times, because there were no Revelation, no Quran to guide those people from right or wrong.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, it is still Jahiliya, but it is sad because it is the muslims doing it, at a time when revelations and guidelines have been given to us, but in Pre-Islam era, it was not sad in those times, because there were no Revelation, no Quran to guide those people from right or wrong.

As someone who wants to look at it rationally (rather than in terms of faith), what is the difference?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You have yourself answered it.

Only this time it is just "rather sad" while earlier it was Jahiliyah!

In fact, a "self proclaimed imposter prophet" (which he must have seemed to those who opposed him, as someone making similar claims would seem to many now) and his followers would be "persecuted and hunted for propagating a new religion" more now than then.

So what is the difference again?

PS: In fact one could argue that this intolerance is more institutionalized now than it ever was, ever could be pre Jahiliyah.

In fact in Pakistan many of these 'Jahilliyah' practices are a result of a male dominated society and regressive cultural norms distorting religion to justify 'regressive practices', rather than religion distorting cultural norms.

But the point, in response to your earlier post, was that the customs/culture of pre-Islam Arabia were in fact reflective of 'intolerance and barbarism', which you sought to deny.