Betrayed, Arabized

[Jango]

As the author, in my opinion, effectively demonstrates, there is a malicious, vile idea at work - Islam=Arab -- this idea has been so enthusiastically embraced in Pakistan that it is embarrassing -- and arbis don't realize that Pakistanis are die hards, when they come to the realization that they have been had, arbi won't have any place to hide.

This is an old idea in the subcontinet - Shah Valiollah Dehlvi has been foremost in arguing to the Muslims of the subcontinent to not confuse islam with the culture of a specific tribe, town in time and geography....this confusion is the primary cause that religiosity of Muslims in the subcontinent is utilitarian, unreasoned, inherited, unconscious and restricted to outward appearances, whereas, experiential religiosity is cherished but cannot be openly embraced.

Come on muse, at least spell the name right. Shah Waliullah .

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

Is this idea being embraced by a few Pakistanis, or the state of Pakistan? Because the last time I remembered, Pakistan is not following the path of authoritarian Saudi Arabia, which is why women can drive & vote here. Some people might think Islam=Arab, but most of the people don't think like that. Which is why shrines are revered here, we have qawaalis, Eid Milad un Nabvi; all shirk/haram according to Saudi Arabia's Salafi Takfiri ideology are practiced here by the majority of the people.

You have no idea. We have women wearing jeans and other clothes and all. There are some bars and clubs as well. Some high class societies do late night parties. How is this arabization?

 

[muse]

Secondly, what does Arabization mean to you? Because just by looking at this thread, Arabization means different things to different people. To some, it is Takfiri Salafization. For others, it is lingual: Khuda Hafiz becomes Allah Hafiz, or people speaking Arabic. For others, it is dress. Etc. So I'm not sure what you specifically are referring to as Arabization. Can you explain it to me? Which one is wrong in your opinion? I'm not sure what your argument exactly is. Can you tell me succinctly, which aspect of Arabization is bothering you (lingual, dress, religious aspect)? All three of them?

Bhai mera - --- The AUTHOR OF THE LEAD ARTICLE has pointed to what "arabization is. Yes, it may mean different things to different people - but the important thing is to first be aware that such a phenomenon is at work --- and I find that the author makes a very persuasive case, I reject the whole wahabi/takfiri idea, the idea that Islam equals arab, and I also reject that the culture of arabia has anything we may find worthy.

Pure is the word and Arabization is the synonym. Pure of what? Pure of specter of the pre-partition Indian identity that was congenital inheritance of Indian Muslims bestowed on by the indigenous society that had evolved over hundreds of years by the commingling of various cultures and civilizations. Plagued by quandary, the Pakistani state, after the partition, was quick to embrace the Pan-Islamic identity embellished with salient features of Arabian Peninsula whilst cunningly blending it with religion in order to render it more acceptable for the local populace. The identity engineers considered it the last resort to homogenize the diverse local cultures and vernacular languages by binding them in a construct emanated from religion based identity.

Eminent historian Dr. Mubarak Ali explains the predicament in the words:

“Since its inception Pakistan has faced the monumental task of formulating its national identity separate from India. Partitioned from the ancient civilization of India, Pakistan has struggled to construct its own culture; a culture not just different and unique from India, but one appreciable by the rest of the world. ..The tragedy of 1971 [when Bangladesh separated] brought a shock to the people and also a heavy blow to the ideology of Pakistan… More or less convinced of their Islamic heritage and identity, Pakistan’s government and intelligentsia consciously attempted to Islamize the country.[

/I]”

then the author points to how history itself has been used to further this project:

History itself has been the cardinal victim since antiquity in the hands of plunderers who deem it their foremost target for their ulterior motives. That’s what happened here. History, taught in public schools, starts from the arrival of Muslim Arabs and ends at carving a Muslim state out of Hindu India. Everything else has been rendered smokescreen. The past, prior to Muhammad Bin Qasim, is direct threat to the engineered Arab identity as it was obviously Hindu-Buddhist –so omitted out of purpose. The puritans, Aurangzeb Alamgir and Ahmad Sirhindi, get all the praise since they are more in line with the unyielding version of Arab Islam whilst heretic Akbar is accused of inaugurating a new religion purposefully disdaining the fact that people were far better off in Akbar’s era. There’s not even a single mentioning of inter-faith harmony Dara Shikow had been preaching given that there’s no space whatsoever for trans-religious approach in a society aimed for adherents of single creed. Plunderer Mehmud Ghaznavi has been denominated as ‘Idol-Breaker’ merely to glorify the unified Islamic triumphalism over the misbeliever India. This systematic maligning of young minds is not confined to only government educational institutes but by an act of parliament, passed in 1976, all private schools are also required to follow this curriculum. Rubina Saigol, an expert on education says
Our state system is the biggest madrasa. We keep blaming madrasas for everything and, of course, they are doing a lot of things I would disagree with. But the state ideologies of hate and a violent, negative nationalism are getting out there where madrasas cannot hope to reach.”


The author then outlines societal demeanor, customs, etiquette and language:

Over the last three decades Pakistan has seen some drastic changes in societal demeanor and etiquettes ranging from language to customs. Dissemination of construct based on the Arab identity is bearing fruit. ‘Abaya’ that was an unknown word in Urdu language has now become the benchmark of the fictitious morality that is the ultimate result of deliberate assimilation of arid Arab culture. Even the moderate ones are obliged to wear Abaya to meet the newly contrived moral standards of society. ‘Chaadar aur Char Dewaari’ (veiled behind high brick walls) policy of dictator Zia-ul-Haq is turning out to be the worst kind of oppression of women, along with the laws like Hudood ordinance enacted during his regime.

Even the language has not been spared amidst this whole drivel of purification. Article 31/2 (a) of constitution of Pakistan states:

“The State shall endeavor, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language..”.
What’s that, a pathetic attempt to make Arabic lingua franca for Pakistan where less than 1% population can understand Arabic? What about the divergent local languages or even the so-called national language? Most common but glaring example that may be put forward to underline the predicament is gradual replacement of the Indo-Persian ‘Khuda-Hafiz’ with Arabic ‘Allah-Hafiz’ implying that Arabic Allah is the only proper word for God. Khuda is an Indo-Persian term to say “God”. It is built on the same building blocks that other Indo-European languages use. English say God, Germans say Gott or Gutt, Persians say Khuda. The G is a variation of Kh and the utt or od is a variation of “uda”. They’re very similar. On the other hand, Arabic is Afro-Asiatic language. By taking a look to other Semitic languages such as Hebrew, they are very near to Arabic flavor. As for instance Jews say Elohim that sounds very familiar while reciting the word ‘Allah’. Where do the attributes of God come into the matter from? Some of the 99 names of God have their origins in classical Hebrew instead of Arabic. So in the view of this logic should those be abandoned too? Renowned scholar Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy sheds the light on issue:

“Persian, the language of Mughal India, had once been taught as a second or third language in many Pakistani schools. But, because of its association with Shiite Iran, it too was dropped and replaced with Arabic. The morphing of the traditional “Khuda hafiz” (Persian for “God be with you&#8221 into “Allah hafiz” (Arabic for “God be with you&#8221 took two decades to complete. The Arab import sounded odd and contrived, but ultimately the Arabic God won and the Persian God los

t



The author then outlines the ideological argument:

The most considerate aspect of this whole panorama is the puritanical version of Islam i.e. Salafism / Wahabism that is predominately a phenomenon traces its roots to Arabian Peninsula and has been instrumented by the identity surgeons to homogenize the cultures that have not even an infinitesimal thing in common –consequences are horrible. This unyielding interpretation of Islam puts great emphasis on rituals and codes of conducts than on substance quite contrary to the Indian version of Islam that is marked with local customs evolved over the centuries through intermingling of diverse doctrines. All religions have two aspects that are theological beliefs related to one’s relationship with divine reality and sociological beliefs comprising of social behaviors dealing with human society. Former remain more or less absolute in their very nature while the later do change with the passage of time when religions go trans-regional. Problem, predominately, starts erupting when the sociological beliefs are subjugated by state to implement and propagate hidden agendas. These sociological beliefs then lay the bases of hatred, bigotry and misogyny. This is what has been done in land of the pure in the name of purifying religion by escalating a particular expression of religion to the stature of only-viable-interpretation-of-Islam. God has been portrayed as some Arabic speaking deity who is restricted to ethno-linguistic boundary which is clearly in contradiction of message of religion.

The Author then injects:

Kamal Azfar, a Pakistani writer, states the dilemma in words:

“There are two concepts of Pakistan: the first empirical and the second utopian. The empirical concept is based on solid foundations of history and geography while the utopian concept is based on shifting sands. Utopia is not an oasis but a mirage… Samarqand and Bukhara and the splendors of the Arab world are closely related to us but we do not possess them. Our possessions are Moenjodaro and Sehwan Sharif, Taxila and Lahore, Multan and the Khyber. We should own up to all that is present here in the Indus Valley and cease to long for realities not our own for that is false-consciousn

ess.”


The author is not making any statement about any pristine Pakistan. The author of the lead article is not blaming any arab for anything, after all, it's pakistanis who are buying into this being more arbi than arbi.

 

[muse]

Come on muse, at least spell the name right. Shah Waliullah .

Sure, yes, collect rent on that too - lets have the arabian Walliullah not the persian Valiollah - and all of it in English

 

[Jango]

Sure, yes, collect rent on that too - lets have the arabian Walliullah not the persian Valiollah - and all of it in English

Oh, so now Waliullah is also Arabic? Then if Valiollah is Persian as you say, are we not being Persianised?

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

This whole canard of "ban" was brought by you. To me it was never an issue.

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.

I refuse to bow to the dictat. My post stands on its own merit (or demerit) and I have no clarifications to add.

 

[53fd]

The author is not making any statement about any pristine Pakistan. The author of the lead article is not blaming any arab for anything, after all, it's pakistanis who are buying into this being more arbi than arbi.

I suggest you read the article carefully. I am quoting you what the author is saying:

Pure is the word and Arabization is the synonym. Pure of what? Pure of specter of the pre-partition Indian identity that was congenital inheritance of Indian Muslims bestowed on by the indigenous society that had evolved over hundreds of years by the commingling of various cultures and civilizations.

The author is saying that post-1947 Pakistan wants to purify itself of its Indian identity which evolved over hundreds of years. But the author forgets, that this identity was enforced by the invaders when they first came to this land, or when Hinduism evolved, displacing what was there in the ancient land of Pakistan before it. The author says Pakistan is confused about its identity, but it seems to me that the author is confused as to what Pakistan's identity really is.

I'm repeating myself again, please try to understand what I am saying. The author used a word 'acculturation' here. In my opinion, when a new culture is enforced upon an old one, acculturation happens, but then this new culture is allowed to evolve over time. This is a common phenomena you see all over the world in all countries at some point in history.

I reject Takfiri ideology as well, but as I argued, the Khuda Hafiz to Allah Hafiz is not as a result of "Arab culture" dominating the local one, but because of the Takfiri ideology. If you go to any Arab country, no one says Allah Hafiz: that alone shows you that it does not pertain to Arab culture.

Partitioned from the ancient civilization of India, Pakistan has struggled to construct its own culture; a culture not just different and unique from India, but one appreciable by the rest of the world

Actually, Pakistan is part of the ancient civilization, so this is just false.

The Abaya/Niqab, Hudood Ordinance, Khuda Hafiz to Allah Hafiz, Blasphemy Law; is not because of "Arab culture" dominating the "local one", it is because of the Salafi Takfiri ideology creeping into Pakistan. There is not even such a thing as "Arab culture", as culture varies in different Arabic countries.

You're mixing up a lot of things here, I suggest you read my last few posts carefully again, I've answered all your questions.

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

I think you are mixing issues and I am not going to repeat the points already made. I was talking of specific social ills mentioned in the post I replied to.

The "religious tolerance" issues that you brought up don't necesarily equate to or prove that.

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.

I will do that if I see the need. The purpose here was to show that people's opinions can be seen differently by others.

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 didn't like the tangent you are going to.

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.

That is your opinion. Not mine.

 

[53fd]

You have no idea. We have women wearing jeans and other clothes and all. There are some bars and clubs as well. Some high class societies do late night parties. How is this arabization?

I suggest you read Post #868.

 

[muse]

Oh, so now Waliullah is also Arabic? Then if Valiollah is Persian as you say, are we not being Persianised?

You are so much more cleaver than I had given you credit for.

You're mixing up a lot of things here,

Ok

 

[Jango]

You are so much more cleaver than I had given you credit for.

I will....take that as a compliment...

I will....take that as a compliment...

 

[Elmo]

off topic but lol @ muse's "bhai meray"

 

[VCheng]

off topic but lol @ muse's "bhai meray"

Jee Behan Ji, aap ney theek farmaaya!

 

[Jango]

aint Elmo a lady?, no offence, just asking. Please dont ban me Elmo!!

 

[Elmo]

aint Elmo a lady?, no offence, just asking. Please dont ban me Elmo!!

Elmo is a "she". But somehow some people on this forum insisted and still insist on calling me "mister" -

 

[VCheng]

Elmo kee Bari Aapa Eleanor Roosevelt nay farmaaya:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."

Can we get back to the topic please?