I never said you argued the above mentioned social ills were due to 'Arabization', what I was trying to do is make a point, that many of Pakistan's social ills and intolerance are indigenous, and owe nothing to the 'Arabs forcing their barbaric beliefs on us poor Pakistanis'.
We had our own social ills which were exaggerated with the arrival of unnecessary Arabization during Bhutto's rule that was later formalized by Zia. We could have done without sectarian issues, we could have done without faux Islamic laws like Blasphemy, Zina etc and we surely want to run our own affairs but it all changed in those years.
The Saudi's say they are directly involved as participants in running the state of Pakistan
"We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants."
WikiLeaks Reveals Saudi Arabia's Role in Pakistani Affairs - TIME
So if they claim to be participants, then they also have a role in our pathetic state.
And you are correct about the distortion of religion and amalgamation of indigenous social ills and religion - but what do the Arabs have to do with this, and if they don't have anything to do with it (in terms of creating these ills) then surely the majority of Pakistan's social problems cannot be laid at the doorstep of the Arabs.
I am not blaming the Arabs for all our ills, what I do blame them for is their involvment in the state of Pakistan which was furthered excavated our problems.
The Sauds even sent a scholar to implement laws in Pakistan which has caused nothing but problems for Pakistan.
So you mean to say that the Arabs were unsuccessful in forcing their opinion on the Pakistani leadership of that time? So you will then accept that in this case at least there is no evidence of the Arabs/Saudis successfully forcing a particular interpretation of Islam upon Pakistani society through constitutional changes brought about through pressure upon the Pakistani political leadership?
They were unsuccessful indeed but it would take a lot to prove Zafarullah wrong over such matters. Remember that these were the early days and Zafarullah Khan was appointed as one of the writers of UN's Human Charter. The Saudi call for death penalty over change of religion resulted in a lot of negative press for Islam. Zafarullah Khan stepped in to salvage the situation and went to argue with the Saudi representatives over this matter through a long debate with references to Islamic text which proved the Saudi's wrong. He then went to a popular American radio show to talk about Islam and clear any misconceptions that exist. Here is a video which covers his American radio broadcast:
However as time went by, the Saudi's were successful in forcing a particular interpretation of Islam upon Pakistani society through constitutional changes. Allama Iqbal's son came on TV recently and gave a complete detail of what occured in the 80's.
He (Javid Iqbal) even named Dualibi as the Arab scholar who was sent to Pakistan by Saudi Arabia to impose the laws that Pakistan was averse to enforcing. The fact is that the 1980 Zakat & Ushr Ordinance, imposed by General Zia on Sunnis and Shias, was framed by Dualibi in Arabic. Javid Iqbal clearly said that moderate and liberal elements were silent because they feared harm at the hands of extremist forces. He equally despaired of politicians.
Was Jinnah secular? – The Express Tribune
I agree, that was unforgivable intervention on the part of the Arabs in having convicted felons released, but it isn't just religious extremists that Pakistan releases under international pressure - Nawaz Sharif sent to exile in Saudi Arabia and Raymond Davis released because of US pressure.
But that said, how does intervening for the release of Madudi translate to 'forcing Arab culture upon Pakistani society'?
This was the first instance where foreign pressure caused Pakistani's to alter something that damaged the effectiveness of law in this country.
As for Maududi, he was the only one who was of the same thought process as the Saudi's and he became their man in Pakistan leading the way for its eventual Islamization.
The Saudis would appear to be no less tolerant than our own 'indigenous Muslims', according to the article you posted:
The campaign against them is a decade ago. Before the partition, Anti-Ahmadiyya agitation instigated by Majlis-i-Ahrar, a lower middle class party.
In 1934, Ahrar arranged a big gathering against Ahmadis called Tahafuz-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat Conference, held at Qadian. Ahrar was angry with Ahmadiyya community to support Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah for the demand of Pakistan.
... According to Waqar Gilani, in 1973, the then president of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Abdul Qayyum declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. In the same year, Rabta-e-Alam-e-Islami Conference in Saudi Arabia also gave its stamp of approval to oust Ahmadis from the circle of Islam. The unfortunate beating of the students of Nishtar Medical College, Multan, on May 29, 1974, proved to be a major incident that infuriated this anti-Ahmadi movement. The students, going on train, started shouting against Ahmadis while reaching Rabwah, the headquarter city of Ahmadis in Pakistan, resulting in a strong reaction of Ahmadis to this gathering. The incident geared up the Khatm-e-Nabuwat movement that started a violent protest.
There is always opposition to all religious groups but Majlis-e-Ahrar/Khatme-Nabuwat was a breakaway group created and funded by the Congress. Their intention was political and their purpose to stop the demand for Pakistan becoming stronger amongst the people of British India.
The Short And Sordid History Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam | Pak Tea House
These people have every right to voice their opinion against Ahmadi's but when they spread hatred and instigate violence, then it become a state problem. Unfortunately they were able to get their demands to become a part of the constitution in this state. This all happened only after the Saudi's gave their stamp of approval and the pressure on Bhutto made him do the necessary.
Did the Saudi's fund or instigate those riots? If not, then would those riots, in conjunction with the anti-Ahmadi movement going back to pre-Independence, and Qayuum's comments, not support the argument that there was a viciously anti-Ahmadi segment of the population indigenous to Pakistan.
Like I said, the anti-Ahmadi movement existed since the 30's but they were only able to gain the kind of power that they did when the Saudis started to support them. In their view, Ahmadi's had been the worst thing to walk on this planet but it was just their view, however it become a part of the constitution through Saudi pressure and later a Saudi scholar.
And finally, what exactly is the responsibility of Pakistanis in all this? Isn't this the liberal argument generally, 'stop blaming the Yanks, Jews and Hindus and focus on the intolerance, ills and weaknesses present domestically?
Pakisan's responsibility is to be factual in their standing, they should find their own faults which allowed this to occur and who are the "participants" in all this. The "participants" should be paid in kind, that is all.
This should not be a 'Arab vs non-Arab' argument - this should be an argument over ALL distorted and intolerant interpretations of Islam. If Pakistanis want to reform Pakistani society then they need to reform themselves, not denigrate the Arabs and make bogeymen out of the 'corrupting influences of Western and/or Arab culture'.
Arabization is the forced implementation of a distorted and intolerant interpretation of Islam.
Are we all just a bunch of mindless zombies that we just run to do whatever an Arab says we do? How utterly absurd!
We don't but our leaders do, especially over matters of religion.
