Betrayed, Arabized

[VCheng]

The interpretation of God's Law can be easily defined by the Quran and the Prophet's saying.

When there is doubt about a certain issue you should not hold rallies and kill people this is not even the Sharia followed in Saudi Arabia instead you sit and debate about it.

1. It is NOT easy.

2. It is NOT static.

Both these characteristics make any claim of any religion to be divine Law, including Islam, fraught with danger on multiple levels.

Religion is best left to the individual.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't think "Muslim historians" ever said anything about "religious intolerance". Or that this "religious intolerance" had anything to do with what they called Jahiliyah.

I replied to a post about the supposed social ills during Jahiliyah. You converted that to the "persecution of Mohammed and his followers for preaching a 'new faith'". The obvious question that would be raised now is whether a new prophet and his followers will be persecuted more or less in an Islamic society.

I did not suggest that Muslim historians argued 'religious intolerance', I am merely pointing out to you the FACT that the persecution of Mohammed and his followers indicates 'religious intolerance' in pre-Islamic Arabia.

I have already shared my thoughts on this issue and I think empirical evidence supports my position.

I would agree that not every single female child was killed, but that does not mean such a social evil did not exist - it exists even today in many Asian nations, Muslim and non-Muslim.

Also the "religious intolerance" does not necessarily mean that the supposed social evils were present in that society as alleged. Or they were present to a greater degree than afterwards.

No, but intolerance of another faith does suggest the presence of social ills in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Yes, peace that you think suits your "strategic depth" paradigm. The peace of the graveyard. The peace that comes from the women all being behind the four walls and the non-Pushtuns conveniently put in their places if at all they were allowed to live.

Of course this is usual for you to offer verbal homilies for an outcome that you think is in your interests. Those women and Afghans be damned.

What 'peace of the graveyard'? Even Pakistan is willing to negotiate with the Baluch and Taliban insurgents, we even entered into a political agreement with one Taliban faction, and discarded that idea when the Taliban broke the agreement. My argument is simply that some form of power sharing arrangement be arrived at with the Taliban to put an end to the insurgency - why you think that translates to 'given the Taliban power over all of Afghanistan' beats me.

I have shared one instance already. I have seen it coming from you more than once. Its always about Pakistan (you mean West Pakistan) didn't get another chance. That presupposes that you were somehow the prima donna.

Your argument on that point has been debunked, yet again.

No. I differ about the reason of mine as well as your ban. You were almost coming across as a supporter of AQ/OBL and that is what must have prompted the ban. Asim's case was a bit different and I thought that was a bit extreme on their part.

As I pointed out already - you have either been fed lies, are outright concocting this yourself, or are merely ranting without any knowledge of what happened.

So this is one example of civility as per you?

This kind of stuff happens daily here. So does the "drink piss" and "rat worship" act. I don't suppose one has to dig out the numerous posts here.

A fine example of "civility, respect and avoidance of derogatory generalizations against nations, peoples and faiths" indeed, your ishtyle.

No, that is not an example of civility and had I no 'life outside this forum' and the time and ability to read every single thread and post, these kinds of posts would not exist for long.

That this forum needs more moderation is something the administration accepts, but we are limited because we are very picky about the kinds of moderators we want.

An inability to moderate every post that should be moderated due to lack of moderating resources does not translate to an endorsement of the kinds of posts you referred to.

We are not really discussing "theological historians" but facts that can be discussed in the absence of having to take something on faith.

What facts? I pointed out to you that there was no 'sectarian divide' during the time of the first four Caliphs, and the Shia disagreement over the appointment of the first four Caliphs is one that came about much later, because of the love and respect the Shia have for Hazrat Ali, and his relationship with Mohammed. Disagreement over choice of leadership does not translate to governance during the first three Caliphs being horrible.

It has never remained at the "personal level" and it has been about "imposition of personal beliefs on others, especially those that do not share them". But of course I don't want to have that discussion here. Its not really relevant to this thread.

Denigrating an entire culture and people (Arabs) in the manner being done here would in fact be 'Forced Imposition of Beliefs on others'. That it has not remained at the 'personal level' is something Pakistanis need to fix, it is not the Arabs who are responsible nor something the Arabs can fix for us.

It was never about "generalizing and denigrating an entire peoples and culture - Arabs", at least as I understood it. It was not so much about the Arabs but about "Arabization" in the context of Pakistan.

That is just nonsense - what is 'Arabization' if not a generalization referring to the adoption of Arab religious and cultural beliefs by a particular community?

If it is not about the 'Arabs and Arab culture', and therefore not about 'denigrating and smearing an entire peoples and culture', then the argument should not be about 'Arabization', but about specific social ills in Pakistan such as 'Blasphemy, rape by Jirga, honor killings, marriages with the Quran, discrimination against Ahmadis' etc.

I am not the 'spin doctor' here, it is Muse, you and others of your ilk, who define the issue as relating to Arab religious beliefs and Arab culture, and then try to argue that you are not denigrating an entire people and their religious and cultural beliefs. And yes, playing with words does not resolve issues, which is why creating bogeymen by concocting things like "Arabization' will led nowhere.

 

[VCheng]

........................ who define the issue as relating to Arab religious beliefs and Arab culture, and then try to argue that you are not denigrating an entire people and their religious and cultural beliefs. ...................

There is no problem with Arab religious beliefs or cultures. It is the process and the inevitable fallout from the attempts to impose such beliefs and culture on another land, with a totally different history and demographic makeup, that is the problem Muse pointed out, I think.

Big difference between the two positions.

 

[T-Faz]

The interpretation of God's Law can be easily defined by the Quran and the Prophet's saying.

Then why do so many different interpretations exist and why have so many different sects spawned up.

There is no universal interpretation as religious text is open for interpretation according to times and situation.

When there is doubt about a certain issue you should not hold rallies and kill people this is not even the Sharia followed in Saudi Arabia instead you sit and debate about it.

When laws by a Saudi scholar were implemented in Pakistan, there were no debates on them. In fact they were implemented as is and anyone who opposed them was killed by Saudi backed groups.

We in Pakistan have been fighting a war over such matters, the Taliban say that they have the absolute correct interpretation and they want to implement it. They also say that if we oppose them, we will be killed and hence the war.

You know there are people here including myself who have lost family members and relatives just because they belonged to a different sect or religion which extremists did not agree with. Saudi's love to fund and support these extremists.

 

[Vinod2070]

Then the moderators lied in public about the reasons for the ban, since the reason given to me was a refusal to not retract my arguments against the 'veracity of certain sources' and supposedly 'answer S2'.

Here is Zraver's actual post regarding that particular issue - you would do well to at least research an issue before making nonsensical claims about it;

Second, we have an actual PM from Zraver to Asim indicating that Pakistani members would be banned for arguing against the legality of the OBL raid and drone strikes, so no, your interpretation of the 'bans' is completely incorrect. You have either been fed a bunch of BS by the admins/mods of that forum or are inventing this yourself.

I never discussed the reasons with anyone. It was my own interpretation. Of course I told them publicly that I consider your ban unfair.

And I still think your posts could be construed as being supportive of AQ/OBL.

Asim's case is different from yours. Let's not mix the two.

We know you don't care, that is why you were banned despite being asked several times to stop making derogatory generalizations about an entire nation and religion.

I don't do that. I can't help if people derive that conclusion mistakenly as you did here again.

I showed you through your own post what I saw as a 'derogatory generalization'. If you will state that none of your arguments apply to Islam as a whole or to most Muslims and/or to most Pakistanis, then I will admit that I interpreted your post incorrectly.

Read the post again and see if you see any 'derogatory generalization'. There is nothing that applies to any group. Not even remotely and I shouldn't even need to explain this.

 

[Vinod2070]

At no point did I suggest or state that Pakistan should have 'another chance' at governing what used to be East Pakistan. What I argued was that nations go through internal upheavals and civil strife, and many other nations, including the US, battled out their issues and resolved them in the long run, over hundreds of years.

When you argue about 'did East Pakistanis want that chance', one could make the same case about the US South in the Civil War - they did not want to be a part of a US moving towards anti-slavery. The US has had a long time to fix its slavery, racism, bigotry and segregationist policies - Pakistan should have had the same opportunity - but when I argue 'should have had that chance', I refer to the past, at no point do I state or imply that Pakistan 'should have a chance at governing Bangladesh again'.

Some Bangladeshis had made good rebuttals to this line of thinking in the original thread. I don't want to reopen the issue here.

When you can end your diatribes against Pakistan, its ideology and its creation and the 'Muslim invaders', I'll agree that you have moved beyond your 'bigotry and hatred'. That does not mean you end your criticism of specific policies or events (ransacking of temples etc.), but your broad derogatory generalizations only lead to one conclusion about your mindset, IMO.

If you disagree with an argument of mine then feel free to try and refute it - currently I am not the one who tried to justify Farhat Taj's outlandish claims by posting links that refer back to Farhat Taj herself. Your anti-Pakistan prejudice is so strong that you have convinced yourself of every unsubstantiated claim she makes, despite a plethora of Western and Pakistani studies and polling data showing the exact opposite of what she claims. Now that is called 'cooking up arguments'.

My argument was far more subtle than that, and I don't mind continuing it. Feel free to copy over my posts and the responses to them onto this forum and we can continue that in detail.


Disagree all you want, but please refrain from derogatory generalizations about Islam, Muslims and/or Pakistanis.

Stop looking for them where they don't exist.

 

[Vinod2070]

I did not suggest that Muslim historians argued 'religious intolerance', I am merely pointing out to you the FACT that the persecution of Mohammed and his followers indicates 'religious intolerance' in pre-Islamic Arabia.

I would agree that not every single female child was killed, but that does not mean such a social evil did not exist - it exists even today in many Asian nations, Muslim and non-Muslim.

No, but intolerance of another faith does suggest the presence of social ills in pre-Islamic Arabia.

You have taken this to a totaly new direction. No one said there were no social ills. I only said that the kinds of claims made about some of those social ills had no independent sources and don't stand to scrutiny in the light of some known facts that I mentioned.

What 'peace of the graveyard'? Even Pakistan is willing to negotiate with the Baluch and Taliban insurgents, we even entered into a political agreement with one Taliban faction, and discarded that idea when the Taliban broke the agreement. My argument is simply that some form of power sharing arrangement be arrived at with the Taliban to put an end to the insurgency - why you think that translates to 'given the Taliban power over all of Afghanistan' beats me.

You always argue that US should not have attacked the Taliban government, presenting it as some sort of legit government that one could negotiate with and that was open to reason. Few people would share that opinion outside of some Taliban fans, most of whom are in Pakistan.

Your argument on that point has been debunked, yet again.

As I pointed out already - you have either been fed lies, are outright concocting this yourself, or are merely ranting without any knowledge of what happened.

No more discussion on these side issues.

No, that is not an example of civility and had I no 'life outside this forum' and the time and ability to read every single thread and post, these kinds of posts would not exist for long.

That this forum needs more moderation is something the administration accepts, but we are limited because we are very picky about the kinds of moderators we want.

An inability to moderate every post that should be moderated due to lack of moderating resources does not translate to an endorsement of the kinds of posts you referred to.

What facts? I pointed out to you that there was no 'sectarian divide' during the time of the first four Caliphs, and the Shia disagreement over the appointment of the first four Caliphs is one that came about much later, because of the love and respect the Shia have for Hazrat Ali, and his relationship with Mohammed. Disagreement over choice of leadership does not translate to governance during the first three Caliphs being horrible.

Denigrating an entire culture and people (Arabs) in the manner being done here would in fact be 'Forced Imposition of Beliefs on others'. That it has not remained at the 'personal level' is something Pakistanis need to fix, it is not the Arabs who are responsible nor something the Arabs can fix for us.


That is just nonsense - what is 'Arabization' if not a generalization referring to the adoption of Arab religious and cultural beliefs by a particular community?[/b]

If it is not about the 'Arabs and Arab culture', and therefore not about 'denigrating and smearing an entire peoples and culture', then the argument should not be about 'Arabization', but about specific social ills in Pakistan such as 'Blasphemy, rape by Jirga, honor killings, marriages with the Quran, discrimination against Ahmadis' etc.

I am not the 'spin doctor' here, it is Muse, you and others of your ilk, who define the issue as relating to Arab religious beliefs and Arab culture, and then try to argue that you are not denigrating an entire people and their religious and cultural beliefs. And yes, playing with words does not resolve issues, which is why creating bogeymen by concocting things like "Arabization' will led nowhere.

I think the OP was always clear what he meant by 'Arabization'. T-Faz put it simpler words on the last page.

You tried to spin it as I already mentioned. Bringing "personal preference", "local social evils", "denigrating Arabs" etc. when none of it was relevant.

It is not a bogeyman, it is a reality and people with open eyes can't fail to see it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no problem with Arab religious beliefs or cultures. It is the process and the inevitable fallout from the attempts to impose such beliefs and culture on another land, with a totally different history and demographic makeup, that is the problem Muse pointed out, I think.

Who is forcing Arab beliefs and culture upon Pakistanis currently? And which of the social ills that I pointed out owe themselves to 'imposition by Arabs/Arab beliefs'?

Big difference between the two positions.

Not really - as you pointed out yourself, no society or culture remains static - external and internal influences/developments will always bring about change - and if external influences will bring about change, then it isn't just 'Arab culture and beliefs' that would be affecting 'another land, with a totally different history and demographic makeup'. One could make the exact same argument, of 'totally different history and demographics' regarding the impact of Western culture as well, and in fact social conservatives do make that argument, which is then ridiculed by liberals making the same argument here against the Arabs.

Hypocrisy, no?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I never discussed the reasons with anyone. It was my own interpretation. Of course I told them publicly that I consider your ban unfair.

And I still think your posts could be construed as being supportive of AQ/OBL.

Asim's case is different from yours. Let's not mix the two.

This is again, despite throwing facts and evidence in your face, an example of denial and 'spin doctoring'. You have Zraver's post regarding my ban, you have his posts after my ban explaining the ban with the same reasoning, and yet you continue to cling to a concocted argument of 'posts supportive of AQ/OBL'.

And Asim's case is not different since the Zraver PM threatening Pakistani members with bans for not accepting the legality of US drone strikes and the Abbottabad case came about in a PM exchange between Zraver and Asim regarding my ban, immediately after. Again, don't spout off uninformed nonsense when you have no clue about what happened. The posts and PM's exchanged make clear the intolerance for different opinions on geo-political issues, especially when against the American position. The same posts and PM's were also shared with S-2 and Chogy, so you can verify the content from them, since I am not posting the PM's on the open forum.

I don't do that. I can't help if people derive that conclusion mistakenly as you did here again.

Read the post again and see if you see any 'derogatory generalization'. There is nothing that applies to any group. Not even remotely and I shouldn't even need to explain this.

So let me repeat:

"If you will state that none of your arguments apply to Islam as a whole or to most Muslims and/or to most Pakistanis, then I will admit that I interpreted your post incorrectly."

If you clarify your stance categorically, along the lines above, I have no problems retracting my comments regarding your views about Islam, Muslims and Pakistanis.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You know there are people here including myself who have lost family members and relatives just because they belonged to a different sect or religion which extremists did not agree with. Saudi's love to fund and support these extremists.

That is not an 'Arab cultural and religious issue', that is an issue regarding support by a foreign entity, the Saudi government, for groups that are promoting intolerance and violence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You have taken this to a totaly new direction. No one said there were no social ills. I only said that the kinds of claims made about some of those social ills had no independent sources and don't stand to scrutiny in the light of some known facts that I mentioned.

And my point, through raising the issue of religious intolerance, is that the claims of social ills do have support given the persecution of Mohammed and his followers.

You always argue that US should not have attacked the Taliban government,

I do, and as I said, you can reproduce my arguments on the issue, and the responses to them, on another thread and we can continue there.

So you don't like the fact that I condemn the kinds of posts you pointed out? Or do you not like the fact that we are short on moderator resources?

I think the OP was always clear what he meant by 'Arabization'. T-Faz put it simpler words on the last page.

You tried to spin it as I already mentioned. Bringing "personal preference", "local social evils", "denigrating Arabs" etc. when none of it was relevant.

It is not a bogeyman, it is a reality and people with open eyes can't fail to see it.

I am sorry, but T-Faz and Muse's definitions don't really make a distinction between denigrating Arab culture and Arab religious beliefs, and whatever 'Arabization' is.

 

[VCheng]

Who is forcing Arab beliefs and culture upon Pakistanis currently? And which of the social ills that I pointed out owe themselves to 'imposition by Arabs/Arab beliefs'?

Not really - as you pointed out yourself, no society or culture remains static - external and internal influences/developments will always bring about change - and if external influences will bring about change, then it isn't just 'Arab culture and beliefs' that would be affecting 'another land, with a totally different history and demographic makeup'. One could make the exact same argument, of 'totally different history and demographics' regarding the impact of Western culture as well, and in fact social conservatives do make that argument, which is then ridiculed by liberals making the same argument here against the Arabs.

Hypocrisy, no?

Interesting post.

To me , it does not really matter how a culture or people absorb foreign influences, whether they be Arab or Western, or any other culture, as long as they return benefits of progress in society. Thus, I do not have any hypocrisy since I do not differentiate between the two in this case. I will explicitly state that the process of Westernization, if forced by the ultra liberals, will have adverse effects too, just of a different nature.

My point is the the process of Arabization, as presently being forced onto Pakistani society, by mean of direct Saudi funding of several entities within Pakistan, are resulting in adverse changes. Please note that these adverse changes are in addition to the social ills that you have pointed out, and not their cause per se.

 

[53fd]

Who is forcing Arab beliefs and culture upon Pakistanis currently? And which of the social ills that I pointed out owe themselves to 'imposition by Arabs/Arab beliefs'?

Not really - as you pointed out yourself, no society or culture remains static - external and internal influences/developments will always bring about change - and if external influences will bring about change, then it isn't just 'Arab culture and beliefs' that would be affecting 'another land, with a totally different history and demographic makeup'. One could make the exact same argument, of 'totally different history and demographics' regarding the impact of Western culture as well, and in fact social conservatives do make that argument, which is then ridiculed by liberals making the same argument here against the Arabs.

Hypocrisy, no?

I agree with your post to an extent, but I slightly disagree with the part in bold.

There is nothing wrong with Pakistanis embracing 'Arabic culture' over time (although I'm not a fan of it), as all societies evolve.

However, when you step outside the bounds of Arabic culture, into 'Arabic beliefs', Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islamic history & civilization, it is where the holiest places of Islamic worship are, it is where the House of God is. Although Saudi Arabia cannot be entirely blamed for the ills happening in the Muslim world, it is the biggest source of it. It is the breeding ground for state instituted Salafi Takfiri ideology, the breeding ground for extremist thoughts. It is the example followed by every Muslim country today (except Iran), so it should act as a responsible one. But it does the opposite. The Takfiri ideology creates religious/social disharmony by exploiting (& rejecting) differences in religious interpretation, making the religion very static/absolute & devoid of its spirituality. In fact, this ideology has been used as a tool by Western imperialists to tarnish the image of Islam & Muslims worldwide, for strengthening their geostrategic influences by exploiting the easily influenced Muslims. This is the example followed by Muslim nations today, which is why Muslim countries are in the state they are today.

I have no loyalties towards anything but Pakistan, not to Iran, not anywhere else. But I feel Saudi Arabia has played a very negative role in not just Pakistan, but also in many other Muslim countries.

 

[Rafi]

I agree with your post to an extent, but I slightly disagree with the part in bold.

There is nothing wrong with Pakistanis embracing 'Arabic culture' over time (although I'm not a fan of it), as all societies evolve.

However, when you step outside the bounds of Arabic culture, into 'Arabic beliefs', Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islamic history & civilization, it is where the holiest places of Islamic worship are, it is where the House of God is. Although Saudi Arabia cannot be entirely blamed for the ills happening in the Muslim world, it is the biggest source of it. It is the breeding ground for state instituted Takfiri ideology, the breeding ground for extremist thoughts. It is the example followed by every Muslim country today (except Iran), so it should act as a responsible one. But it does the opposite. The Takfiri ideology creates religious/social disharmony by exploiting differences in religious interpretation, making the religion very static/absolute & devoid of its spirituality. In fact, this ideology has been used as a tool by Western imperialists to tarnish the image of Islam worldwide, for strengthening their geostrategic influences by exploiting the easily influenced Muslims. This is the example followed by Muslim nations today, which is why Muslim countries are in the state they are today.

I have no loyalties towards anything but Pakistan, not to Iran, not anywhere else. But I feel Saudi Arabia has played a very negative role in not just Pakistan, but also in many other Muslim countries.

I agree, there are certain sections of Saudi society - which are very backward and nefarious - but the Arab world is a lot more than the moody Saudi's - when we refer to Arabization - the Arab world is 300 million strong with many sub-cultures like in the Maghreb that are as different from Saudi as can be.

The majority of Pakistani's are Hanafi and of the Barelvi tradition, together with the Shia, they are the vast majority of Pakistani. Saudi influence is therefore not as widespread, it's just that they make the most noise, and the takfiri tend to come from that school of thought.

I honestly can't see the majority giving up their Sufi Shrines - and the belief in mysticism. It is too ingrained into our national psyche.

This is a religious song, that a Saudi of the extreme view would have a fit if he saw it, but the vast majority of Pakistanis would consider it part of their religious landscape.

 

[Developereo]

That is not an 'Arab cultural and religious issue', that is an issue regarding support by a foreign entity, the Saudi government, for groups that are promoting intolerance and violence.

Thanks for highlighting this.

To me, 'Arab culture' means a whole lot more than 'Saudi wahhabism'. The Arabs of Morocco, Lebanon, and Palestine are so very different from the stereotypical 'Royal Saudi wahhabi Arab' that it is ridiculous to lump them all together. It is very offensive to these Arabs that their culture should be stereotyped by the wahhabis.

It is precisely this kind of careless generalization which makes it hard to fight extermism and intolerance within Pakistan. It gives the extremist mullahs precisely the kind of ammunition they need to portray any opposition as an attack on Islam and "the Prophet's culture". We need to make it crystal clear that we are fighting the extremist, intolerant scourge of wahhabism -- not 'Arab culture' per se.

We are all opposed to extremist indoctrination and suppression of Pakistani culture. Proponents on both sides of the debate have been very vocal -- in this very forum -- about our support for Pakistan's identity and cultural traditions, but the debate has been hijacked by talk of 'Arabization' instead of focussing on specific ideologies.